After the Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, FL that killed 17 and wounded many more, students rallied to turn their pain into action, saying “How dare you,” calling “BS” and begging for their lives “not to be used as collateral.”
Andover, MA high school students heard them. Did Newton?
How can we make this a movement rather than a moment?
Will it take an “event” in a Newton High School to get our kids on the street?
I certainly hope not.
I am encouraging my children to join in with the local actions. If either of my children would like to road trip to my hometown of DC that would work too. Organizers are looking for local,students to get involved.
Is there a lack of outrage, response and action among Newton students?
NSHS students are planning to walk out of school for 17 minutes walkout on March 14th at 10am.
There’s going to be a march on the Boston Common on March 24, 2018 as part of the day of “March for Our Lives” events.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1607397545975790/
Thanks Meredith for the link to the Facebook page and the information on the March in Boston. FYI for anyone who doesn’t know, that’s the day of the Washington March for Our Lives that I’m guessing Alicia is talking about.
Thanks Rose for the info on the NNHS walk out. FYI for anyone who doesn’t know, that’s the day the Parkland students have called for a nation wide walk out.
Alicia could you share who the organizers are, what they’re organizing, how they’re reaching people and what they are planning?
Teachers in many areas are planning their own protest. Does anyone know if any Newton teachers are involved in anything other than the NSHS student walkout?
Is NNHS doing any kind of walk-out?
Back to my question. Any suggestions on how we turn this moment into a movement?
Wednesday, February 21, 2018:
“From Arizona to Washington, students walked out of schools in support of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students a week after their classmates were silenced by gunfire.
And in Tallahassee, Stoneman Douglas students who survived the Parkland shooting massacre chanted louder than ever: “Vote them out!”
Are we in Newton watching? Are we taking part in this national call to regulate guns?
“How we turn this moment into a movement?”
“We” don’t. What has been happening as a result of last week’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has been organic. Either Newtonians (especially the students) are moved or we aren’t.
Just an FYI – The students aren’t in school. This is February vacation.
“Just an FYI – The students aren’t in school. This is February vacation.”
Oh well if they are off vacationing in that caribbean then I guess we can start the movement when they get back.
Seriously??
I so wish the dislike button was available now, for Claire’s comments. Do you have any students at North or South? The mood was somber on Thursday of last week. Not only are students distraught, the faculty is too. It’s a scary time. High school students here aren’t posting on V14, but they are speaking out on facebook, and their types of social media. We are home this week talking about a lot of sensitive topics, and reacting with disgust to the NRA, and the legislators “prayers”….Not every kid in Newton is “vacationing in the caribbean”.
Claire – I echo Jo-Louise’s comment. NNHS and NSHS students have shown their commitment to social justice issues on a daily basis over decades dating back to the 60’s. Middle school and elementary school students have as well.
You repeat a stereotype of people you don’t even know – that students are away on fancy vacations. No one here has any idea what actions Newton students are taking because during a vacation week there are no mechanisms for community-wide communication. I have complete faith that Newton students are right now – and will in the future be – active on this issue.
One thing the students won’t be doing is posting on V14 with a bag over their heads. When you’re about to make an accusation with nothing to back it up under an anonymous name, you need to think twice before pressing the Submit button.
I don’t want the thumbs down back. It was over used to down vote people rather than just comments.
Other than that I agree with Jo-Louise and Jane too. It took a lot of nerve, Claire, to not only accuse Newton’s students of not being active in social justice but also stereotype them as entitled brats spending all of their vacations frolicking out of the country. I was tempted to remove Claire’s comment but knowing V14 has savy readers, I wanted to see what others would comment in reply. My second guessing paid off. The best way to down vote a comment is to address it in your own. Thanks.
Claire, of course we as adults have to help this become a movement. If you’ve listened to the Parkland students as well as the other students who have joined them you would know they are calling on the “grown-ups” to do something!
Of course we as adults are needed to support them and join them in their fight to save their lives.
Of course we as adults have to join in the cry to “Vote Them Out.” A lot of the Parkland students leading the charge will be able to vote in the mid-term elections but they can’t do it alone.
I posted the above not because I thought nothing was being done but to find out what was going on behind the scenes. I also wanted to charge Newtonians to keep this momentum going.
I am curious to see how the students react (once they return from sunning themselves on the beaches of Marsh-Vegas!)- I know they will.
And I don’t think there is any rule preventing students from posting here, should they be so moved to enter the conversation.
I have two daughters at Newton South. A junior and a senior. Besides a quick trip to New York to look at colleges for my junior, we have spent much of our vacation talking about the Parkland shooting and everything it means to them and their generation. When the alarm went off at Newton South the day after, my daughters have never been so scared in their lives. This has hit every high school student in Newton to their core and I believe it is this jolting life altering moment for America’s youth that will eventually bring the kind of change required to make our schools more safe. My children will be on the common on March 24 and they will do whatever it takes to affect change by being a part of a movement that cannot be ignored. Anyone who wishes to generalize as to how “Newton’s youth” are reacting to the school shootings is unfair, misguided and…well, i’ll leave it at that….
March for Our Lives.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Students-Across-Massachusetts-Planning-Walkout-and-March-to-Protest-Gun-Violence-474784483.html
@Marti – thank for the link.
I am glad to see this about the March 14 walk-out for 17 minutes: “Graciela says the walkout has been endorsed by the Massachusetts Teachers Association.”
Since there are places where students have been threatened with disciplinary action if they participate in the walk-out, I was also glad to see that MIT and UMass have promised that having those on student records will not affect admissions. I hope more schools follow suit.
I do apologize as to how my comment may havecame off. It was not my intent to judge the students and I don’t judge the student. I can’t imagine ANY student isn’t forever change by this and I actually have been INCREDIBLY impressed with all of the students who I have seen interviewed have spoken so eloquently and I am very optimistic that this may be the tragedy that brings the change.
My response was more to Marti Bowen asking a couple of times if Newton was paying attention and asking twice if we were going to “turn this moment into a movement” I read that as if she was questioning it the students were taking action. But if that wasn’t the intent, my error. But Marti when you write “It took a lot of nerve, Claire, to not only accuse Newton’s students of not being active in social justice but also stereotype them as entitled brats spending all of their vacations frolicking out of the country.” That is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. I made not mention of frolicking out of the country. Or accused Newton students of not being active is social justice!
How about turning your ire to Doug who wrote “I am curious to see how the students react (once they return from sunning themselves on the beaches of Marsh-Vegas!)- I know they will.” That’s a lot close to what you are accusing me of saying.
But I’m use to personal attacks from Marti and just consider the source. I’ll be on the common on the 24th and look forward to seeing a sea of young people many of whom will be voters in 2018
Claire, good try. I let your comment stand and it wasn’t me who first called you out on saying the kids are “in the Caribbean. Seriously?” It was the first two commenters after yours.
Others can read your comments and judge for themselves. They were uninformed and rude. When I asked at the end of my post, how do we help turn this moment into a movement your answer was “we don’t.” I wouldn’t have asked that particular question if I didnt think Newton would answer their call.
You hear from me when you make unsubstantiated accusations, misrepresent Newton’s students and jump to incorrect conclusions. If that’s what you consider “attacks,” so be it.
Actually, Claire, if you reread the thread, you’ll see that the offending comment about the students being on vacation in the Carribean was in response to my post that it was school vacation week – quote included.
On one point you are correct – Doug Haslam’s comment was equally offensive, but it came after my response to you.
Jane, I did just go back and read my post and yes, I agree it was out of line and I apologize for that.
I still stand by my assertion that I did not say that Newton students are not concerned about social justice and are entitled brats. Total misrepresentation by Marti of what I wrote. That is not what I wrote and that was not what I meant
I did not intend my wordplay off Claire’s comment to offend, but obviously it did to at least some of you, so I apologize as well.
The rest of my comment, which is more to the point of this post, stands. I fully expect Newton students will make themselves heard on this issue and I look forward to it.
Just watched an interview with Samantha Fuentes who survive her injuries. SO impressive! To a student, every student interviewed has been inspiring. There are such mixed emotions. So sad with the deaths and yet so inspired by this Generation Z
According to a report on the PBS News Hour some of these kids are referring to themselves as the “School Shootings Generation.”
Heartbreaking and true.
Greg, I think they will be the generation to make the change. The conventional wisdom has been that we can’t fight the NRA money, but the true problem has been the NRA voters. I think we are about to tilt that balance thanks to these young people
Continuing to support the NRA as I find my rights under attack yet again in the wake of a tragedy.
Claire, you can’t “defeat” the NRA because you never come to the table wanting to talk about measures we can all agree on (reforming background checks), but you go for gold trying to ban guns millions of us use lawfully. Not going to happen. I’d rather not “compromise” than compromise by your definition and give you everything you want. When we watch the Dana Loesch being called a murderer on TV, we realize how partisan this is. NRA voters aren’t going anywhere. Everytime our rights come under wholesale attack after a tragedy like this, the NRA gains more membership. The lack of compromise on the gun-control side contributes to the stalemate.
Reporting shows the upcoming generation is no more anti-gun than the previous one. It as been my experience as one involved in pro-2A movements that the younger generation is less compromising than those we follow.
I’d love to see a reformed and even expanded background check system, but not at the expense of due process and/or the rights of those of us who are good law abiding people to own the firearms we defend ourselves, our families, and our way of life with.
I know of two unrelated walkouts on different dates being planned at Brown.
@Mike – You’re right. And when we watch Dana Loesch say that the mainstream media loves mass shootings because “crying white mothers are ratings gold” you know we’ve hit a new low.
… and when you hear the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre say about the Democratic party “And you should be anxious, and you should be frightened. If they seize power, if these so-called ‘European socialists’ take over the House and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our Americans freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever.” – yes, that’s a totally new level of hyper-partisanship.
For the first time in my lifetime, and I’m an old guy, I’m feeling a bit hopeful that we may finally as a country begin to, start to, address the insanity of guns in this country. Thanks to those poor shell shocked but passionate and outraged kids in Florida I think we may start to deal with the national tragedy and embarrassment that is “guns in America”. Not a minute too soon.
When I see today that corporate America is beginning to wake up to what a destructive force the NRA is in stirring up fear and animosity and how it fights tooth and nail against the most common sense, widely supported changes to our gun laws, I’m heartened.
When I see that when the NRA answer to the massacre in Florida is to “arm the teachers with guns” I’m encouraged that they are revealing the craven bankruptcy of any credible ideas to genuinely try to address this horrific national issue.
Those high school kids in Florida are finally moving the needle on guns in America, and that’s a good thing.
We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives and we don’t need to throw out the Second Amendment either. Though I don’t believe that our Founding Father’s had the mass slaughter of innocents in mind when they codified the “right of the people to bear and keep arms” in the Bill of Rights.
Most Americans want common sense gun laws. This includes background checks, waiting periods, raising the minimum purchase age to 21 years and limits on high capacity magazines. But the NRA does not want sensible restrictions. Wayne LaPierre , their million dollar lobbyist made it clear he was in no mood for compromise with a screeching conspiracy laden speech at last week’s CPAC in Washington.
At the same conference, Dana Loesch, another NRA spokeswoman made remarks about the press sensationalizing the news claiming they know that “crying white mothers are ratings gold” An absolutely repulsive and tactless remark.
But the mood is different now. I thought after the wholesale slaughter of first and second graders in 2012 that Congress would have been shaken to the core and finally be shamed into taking some action on guns. And though Connecticut strengthened their laws, the rest of the country continued the blood-soaked status quo. But this time the attack was on a high school and not an elementary school and the survivors are old enough to understand they have a voice and can be a part of effective action to stem the senseless tide of gun violence taking the lives of their peers.
I’ll be marching along with my high schooler.
Continuing to support the students as I find my right to enter my workplace (a school) feeling safe under attack, yet again, in the wake of a tragedy… Mike – To the extent that NRA members defend the likes of Dana Loesch, they lose the support of the broader constituency of voters.
We need to move past the NRA and go directly to the Congressmen and Senators who accept money from this organization. If they continue to accept fund from the NRA, we need to make sure they have a strong opponent in their next election with the same financial support the NRA provides to these cowards who refuse to pass common sense laws (background checks and outlawing weapons of war would be a good start).
Mike says, “The lack of compromise on the gun-control side contributes to the stalemate.” and “I’d love to see a reformed and even.” Really? No one is coming for your guns. The common sense restrictions on gun purchases, as Alison comments, (I would banning bump stocks) are a compromise. (I would love to see a ban include manufacturing civilian assault style rifles, hand guns and their ammunition.)
This is promising: I’m Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.
https://nyti.ms/2F2GbVp
From the Newton Police Department:
Just a reminder, if you have any firearms or ammunition (handguns, rifles, shotguns) that you no longer wish to possess, you can relinquish these items to us. You can contact the Department via the non-emergency line and an officer will respond to your residence for collection.
You can also relinquish these items at any licensed firearm dealership.
I loved a post from a friend who is a music teacher. She posted a picture of a glockenspiel saying that was the only glock she wanted in her classroom.
Common sense, nobody wants your guns — we just want “common sense” like telling adults they can’t purchase guns. Oh, and we (who know nothing about guns are shooting) are just going to use some “common sense” to tell you you can’t have “assault weapons,” however we choose to define them, and you can’t have “high capacity” magazines. Tons of common sense right there…
You guys also don’t realize why the NRA is powerful — well Claire got it. It’s not the NRA money, the NRA has pennies compared to virtually any other lobbying organization. They also get most of their money from small individual donations, not, gasp, evil corporations, like the ones I made as soon as my rights came under attack yet again. The NRA’s power is their voters who care as much about our rights to own the guns we want as law abiding Americans as you care about our rights to free speech or to be free from having our home searched. It is that fundamental to us. We see gun-control groups as the equivalent to those who chant that “I have nothing to hide, the government can monitor my phone calls and search my home if they need to.”
If you want progress, you’ll drop your pleas for an outright “assault weapons ban” and magazine bans and focus on fixing the background check system, mental health system, etc. As long as you go after our rights as law abiding gun owners, we’ll be digging in. There’s nothing common sense about telling me as a lawful gun owner I can only have 10 rounds in a pistol designed for 18, or I can’t have my AR15 because it looks scary.
I don’t agree with the NRA’s sales tactics and I think Lapierre is an unfortunate figurehead, but they are fighting fire with fire. The mainstream gun-control movement isn’t measured at all. I’ve had the displeasure of speaking with Jon Rosenthal, I’ve met few people as unpleasant. Maura Healey bypassed the legislature to screw us over. Game on. I’m proud to stand behind the NRA.
There is an important truth in what Dana Loesch says. Kids are killed in the inner city orders of magnitude more than those in these high profile shootings in the suburbs. The nation gets energized over one but not the other.
Mike, kids being killed in the inner city is an entirely different problem – altnough that statistic is going down. Kids are being killed in schools and at concerts with a civilian clone of an assault rifle. OWe can address assault style gun restrictions and regulations without being able to address every problem with guns.
I do know something about guns. I grew up with my dad owning guns and learned how to handle them properly. I am an experienced gun user and a crack shot with both hand guns and rifles. We had the guns under lock and key but when my kids grew older not only did they not show any interest in real guns but we got rid of them to avoid curiosity getting them hurt. My life was not negatively changed as a result.
I don’t see any reason a person needs to own an assault style weapon, (yes a better definition is needed) large magazines or bump stocks that turn rifles into more efficient killing machines. Why specifically would anyone need to use those?
And yes, no one is coming for your guns. You in your hyperbole act as if the government will be knocking on your door requiring you to render your weapons. An expanded background check and a ban on sales will not prohibit you from owning the guns you have. These statements spread widespread fear, makes people feel even more unsafe and feeds the hysteria that leads to more gun sales after a massacre.
Statistics show most NRA members – rather than their lobbying group – would like most of these common sense regulations.
I’ve said this on many forums and I’ll say it again here. Lets make sure we’re all working from the same set of facts.
The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT protect your right to own military style assault weapons like an AR-15.
Congress can ban assault weapons and did from 1994 to 2004. States can ban assault weapons. In Massachusetts, we have an assault weapons ban which was recently updated by the Attorney General to ban copycat weapons.
Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban with a proviso allowing the Attorney General to update the list to include copycat weapons, as we have here in Massachusetts. It works. And it will work even better if you can’t just hop the border to New Hampshire to get them.
Mike – No one is coming for your guns. A ban on weapons of war in a civilian context simply isn’t a hardship.
@Mike
.
Another good point Mike. That’s another good reason for shunning the NRA. It has been the NRA that has undermined the somewhat feeble existing background check system and has fought tooth and nail every previous effort to “fix the background check system”. They’ve fought every effort to close the gun show loophole. They’ve fought every effort to require states to report to the system.
They’ve inserted language in bills that explicitly prevent the background check system from being computerized – paper and pen only. They’ve inserted language in bills that prevent the CDC from doing any research on any gun related issue. They most recently supported president Trump”s repealing the regulation that required folks on mental health disability be entered into that system.
That last one’s a double header. It was the NRA once again undermining that background check system AND undermine dealing with keeping guns out of the hands of people with serious mental health issues.
I say it’s a hardship. I think law abiding Americans should be own AR15s. Period. Full stop. I think there should be no prohibition on ownership of any semi-automatic firearm, and that there should be no sliding scale based off how some politician decides they look. I know my guns are safe. As much as many of you may want, nobodies taking them. That’s not the issue. The issue is going forward law abiding Americans should be able to continue to purchase and own any semi-automatic firearm they want.
Bryan, it’s unclear whether or not the Supreme Court will hold that the Second Amendment protects AR15s. I personally think they were too soft in the Heller ruling to get Kennedy’s vote. It is pretty clear that semi-automatic firearms are protected, however. Furthermore, what our AG did is BS and likely outside of her authority — but she’s a political animal who doesn’t care about the institutions we have in this state, like, oh say the legislature.
Qualifying your backing of a prohibition on guns with the fact that you once owned them, and no longer do means nothing. Just because you didn’t really care for them, doesn’t millions 100s of millions of other Americans don’t.
Again with the “nobody is taking your guns,” just some of them. It’s hilarious, and why you guys will get nowhere. You speak out of both sides of your mouth right to our faces.
@Mike, just curious, why do you need a magazine bigger than 10 rounds?
(The 10 round limit is currently the law in Massachusetts and at least 8 other States have limits on magazine capacity).
It’s common sense. If I’m carrying a gun with 1 magazine in it, and it fits an 17 round magazine, why on earth would I handicap myself and carry a magazine half full of a chunk of plastic? And in Massachusetts you can still buy magazines that were lawfully possessed prior to the federal assault weapons ban, so I had to pay a premium for a good in limited supply but I’m still able to carry a normal capacity magazine. Meanwhile criminals just ignore the law and carry them illegally, and then get the charges dropped as part of a plea deal.
But to anti-gun people, “common sense” is telling law abiding people they can’t possess normal capacity magazines that the media has deemed “high capacity” cause criminals use them, even though very often these people have zero meaningful experience with firearms, shooting, and marksmanship.
@Mike – The NRA has done a good job of somehow convincing many people that the 2nd amendment doesn’t allow most forms of regulations on guns. It does no such thing.
According to Scalia’s decision the government IS allowed to regulate the kind of guns that citizens are allowed to possess and IS allowed to determine who should/should not be allowed to have guns – just as the government regulates automobiles, alcohol, explosives, narcotics and other things that can be potentially dangerous.
So you think “all law abiding citizens should be allowed to own AR15”. Good for you. I respectfully disagree. Neither of us get to decide though. That sort of decision is something we decide as a policy matter through the political system. Thanks to those kids in FLA they’ve suddenly opened that political conversation up.
There’s nothing in the 2nd amendment that prevents us from banning a specific type or types of weapon if we so choose, just as we long ago banned machine guns without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.
So let’s as a nation have that conversation. Are there any classes of guns and gun related equipment that we believe have too little utility in day to day use vs their potential for misuse?
Let’s start with something easy “bump stocks” – a goofy contraption for effectively turning a semi-automatic weapon into an already banned fully automatic weapons. Is there any compelling reason that I or you need to be able to buy or own one? I don;t think so. So let’s go ahead and ban them. See that wasn’t hard.
Now lets move on to the harder cases – AR 15s (at al). Semi-automatic rifles have been dis-proportionally involved in the most deadly mass shootings. Is there a compelling legal need for them? Will it destroy hunting as a sport if hunters are not allowed to use semi-automatic rifles? I don’t think so, but go ahead make that case. Are semi-automatic rifles essential for citizen self-protection? I don’t think so. The states that have ( a very imperfect) ban in place show no evidence of that … but go ahead and make that case.
This is a political issue not a constitutional issue so lets engage the citizenry, have that discussion and see if its time to make some substantial changes to our gun regulations.
1. There still is an unsettled constitutional question. 2. Gun ownership (and 2a for that matter) is not about hunting. 3. I’ve stated multiple times Im for a revamped background check system. 4. Correlation is not causation. Keep ignoring the Virginia tech shooter killed twice as many with a pistol. 5. I guess it ultimately doesn’t matter as 10s of millions of AR15s are legally owned and the cats out of the bag with future rapid prototyping tech.
I more or less agree on bump stocks being a stupid novelty. That said, I’d relegate them to the existing framework in which we regulate machineguns rather than ban them outright.
Because I’m a frequent commenter on Village-14, I want to make sure that people realize the other “Mike” is not Mike Striar, and I don’t share his views on guns.
Got it! Not errone can love freedom.
One’s freedom stops as soon as it infringes on other person’s rights. I have a right to be safe.
I come from a family of hunters and have no problem with the ownership of a rifle. My father taught my mother how to use a pistol when the Germans invaded France (like many other officers).
For me, to be safe is to trust that no assault weapons are in civilian hands and that rifles and pistols have been acquired after a thorough background check (not at a show nor by mail).
I will be demonstrating March 24 and am proud of those vocal students.
Thank you Mike for sharing your thoughts, even though I disagree with them.
I’m going to challenge that thought process — by that reasoning people don’t have the right to exclude random police searches from their homes if it could lead to the authorities recovering missing children.
You have no such right to infringe on the liberties of other Americans so that you can feel safe. We can agree in a robust background check system, but why, if someone passes that check should they be barred from owning an AR15 when a less menacing looking firearm can be used to the same ends in a slaughter? A pistol was used in the deadliest school shooting in the US where almost twice as many students were killed as in FL, yet you all have this hatred for the AR15.
Mike, you didn’t answer my question. There is nothing “common sense” about having a large capacity magazine unless you are in active firefight in Afghanistan. Are you worried you are not going to hit your target with the first 10 rounds? If you are at the gun range target shooting I agree it is more convenient to have 18 rounds rather than 10 so you don’t have to reload so often. But a little inconvenience is a small price to pay if it saves lives. The Newtown shooter brought ten thirty round magazines. But 11 kids escaped when he stopped to reload. How many kids could have escaped if he had to reload multiple times?
Mike wrote: “the NRA has pennies compared to virtually any other lobbying organization.”
WRONG. “The organization has an annual operating budget of some quarter of a billion dollars, and between 2000 and 2010 it spent fifteen times as much on campaign contributions as gun-control advocates did.”
Mike wrote: “They also get most of their money from small individual donations, not, gasp, evil corporations”
WRONG. “…today less than half of the NRA’s revenues come from program fees and membership dues. The bulk of the group’s money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.”
There is plenty of common sense in carrying as many rounds as you can fit into a gun on your person. I carry 18 rounds in my carry gun. Why would I carry 10 rounds in the same gun. That is literally the opposite of common sense, which is why no person who ever might need a gun would carry less ammunition than the capacity of the gun. It’s actually not at all inconvenient to change magazines and with 20 minutes of practice can be done in seconds. But seconds count in a gun fight, and carrying additional magazines is inconvenient.
You wouldn’t have an AR15 in a firefight in Afghanistan.
This country does not operate on a strictly utilitarian principle of “save just one life.” If you think it should, I’d expect you to be out on the streets calling for the prohibition of alcohol which leads to 10,000 highway fatalities (including 100s of children), and 80,000+ other health related fatalities every year. Because you don’t care for, understand, or respect the rights of people to own firearms for self defense doesn’t mean we need to give them up because it might just save one life (and it might not).
No, the NRA is not anywhere near the top budgeted lobbying groups in this country. They give pennies to politicians compared to any of the big lobbing groups. Try Pharma, Telecom, Defense contractors, oil, etc etc etc. But it’s fun to pretend. Soros, Bloomberg, etal etc also throw in tons more money than the NRA… but again, it’s fun to pretend the NRA is the evil gun companies.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
The NRA is not powerful due to money. Here is a very anti-gun article by an author that comes to similar conclusion: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-nra-rubio-guns-douglas-0223-20180222-story.html. It only takes a little googling to find many more like it.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now, but its 30/year or so for a membership, over 5M members is 150M, plus many of us donate additional money every year, and of course companies donate as well — mainly because we consumers expect them to. Membership dues alone do not fund the NRA, but “small” donations by individuals still make up the bulk of their funds.
@Mike you can pity poor penniless NRA if you want, the evidence shows otherwise. They stoke the fears of gun owners in order to enrich gun manufacturers. Just as cigarette companies promoted the health benefits of cigarettes and quashed evidence showing otherwise. But their time came, as will the NRA’s. Did everyone get their cigarettes ripped away from them? No. But a lot fewer people smoke now, especially young people, which is when the habit starts. Will common sense gun laws rip guns away from people? No. But it will make it harder to get them, and we’ll all be safer as a result.
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money
That’s what this is about. Not the 2nd amendment, not “freedom”, not “rights”. MONEY.
Greg, can any of your party mates respond to Mike?
Um, guns don’t cause cancer. It is a very definite, inanimate object that can kill people. There’s no mystery to that. Comparing the NRA to big tobacco is hilarious, especially given the NRA represents the rights of citizens, not the interests of manufacturers (though the two are often very much aligned), however much you may want the latter to be true. The NRA has upwards of 5 MILLION members — that is individual people — who support the NRA because we know (despite it’s faults) the NRA is instrumental in holding the line for us in DC. Outrage with the NRA shows us it’s working.
As far as the NRA stoking fears among gun owners, that is another thing you may like to think is true but it is simply not. Wayne Lapierre is a bit of a joke among us. I personally think the rhetoric could be toned down and more laser focused on guns, but it’s not the NRA making us gun owners dig in. It’s funny how you can say that, while in this same thread, even to some degree in your same post no less, many are calling for a ban on the guns and magazines millions of us own, saying adults shouldn’t be able to buy guns (and instead must wait until they are 21), etc. How you say that in one breath, and then say it’s the NRA making us uncompromising is hilarious. How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
It’s also funny how you say it’s all money — I’ve donated a good amount of my time to 2nd Amendment organizations, let alone the hundreds of students I have gotten (safely) into exercising their second amendment rights, and the hours and hours I’ve spent on activism. I wish you could tell me where I could get some of this magic money.
You are living in that self-reinforcing bubble everyone talks about. You think because you live in Newton and are in the company of like minded friends that the whole country thinks the way you do — that the only explanation for the lack of what YOU view as “common sense” gun control measures is industry money. All you have to do is go to any shooting range in Massachusetts and see generally liberal minded doctors, lawyers, accountants, and tradesman shooting their ARs who aren’t going to give them up. Now travel a little further and you become the minority.
People who have spent their entire life following every law and regulation, spending their hard earned money on firearms they have a right to own, often jumping through BS red-tape put in place by those who don’t care about their rights, are done taking crap. If anything this upcoming generation of gun owners is much more aware of how their rights are under constant attack.
You can say it’s not about rights, its all paranoid people being driven by the NRA, but as your “side” does so all you do is shoot yourself in the foot so to speak. It isn’t collaborative, it’s us and them, and that is what stalls the truly common sense measures like fixing the background check system. But I’d rather have a crappy background check system then arbitrarily give up my rights to make someone who’s never even touched a gun feel better.
@Mike, I didn’t specify what type of weapon you would have in a firefight in Afghanistan – the standard issue is a M4 carbine (However, a version of the AR-15 did eventually became the M16). My point is that being in actual combat would be a situation where having a large capacity magazine would be very important.
The opposite of common sense is to allow civilians, many of which have had little or no training, to purchase high powered, high capacity military style weapons. These weapons are designed solely to kill as many enemy combatants as possible and with some modifications have been used to murder en masse our citizens, including our children in our schools. Other countries have had mass murders (Australia Port Arthur 1996 for example) but they took effective actions to minimize the likelihood of a future occurrence. Our country has done very little at the Federal level.
Please don’t make the statement that people advocating for reasonable restrictions on guns means that we don’t “don’t care for, understand, or respect the rights of people to own firearms for self-defense”. I hold individual rights and the Constitution in high regard. But I also care about public safety. My father, a Lt. Colonel in the Marines was quick to teach me the responsibilities that come with handling any potentially lethal weapon.
I am not advocating for an outright prohibition on firearms, or alcohol for that matter. I am advocating for sensible regulations that reduce risks and save lives. The sale and purchase of alcohol is highly regulated. We limit the number of alcohol licenses and we have significant penalties for violations. The same for drinking and driving. We also have made motor vehicles much safer with seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, stronger steel and more recently, accident avoidance technology. The number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven has fallen from 1.73 in 1994 to 1.08 in 2014. We can do the same to reduce gun deaths.
I am grateful to live In Massachusetts where you need a Firearms ID Card, at the very lowest level, to purchase or carry a gun. In addition, the FID Card and a permit to carry, must be authorized by the local police chief, who has complete discretion in issuing it. The Chief can also add additional restrictions. (e.g., hunting, carry to/from a range, firearms dealer, or gunsmith). Applicants must also pass background checks and complete gun safety training. I have much more confidence that our schools are already much safer than most other schools in this country because we have common sense gun laws that work. My 2 children are off to school tomorrow (high school and middle school) and I feel confident that they are safe.
I saw an interesting re-post in Daily Kos today of a video by Bill Maher
referencing this topic. Highly recommended.
As I’ve stated a million times, I’m all for strengthening the background check system. I think if the gun-control side stuck to this, rather than came for our rifles and magazines, more discussion could be had. People trusted with pistols should be able to be trusted with any other semi-automatic firearm. They function the same. I fully concede that AR15s have been used in most of the latest mass shootings — correlation is not causation though. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 30+ people with pistols. I’m confident had he been in a much more packed area (like a night club) he would have killed at least as many as the Orlando shooter did. I’d bet the next high profile mass shooting also involves an AR15. They are copycats, and copy they will. Plus, they are probably the most popular rifle in America now.
Furthermore, the AR15s fully automatic capable military variant is what is used in a war zone. It’s nothing more than the individual infantryman’s rifle. An infantryman who is backed up with grenade launchers, rockets, missiles, light, medium, and heavy machineguns, and air support, armor, and artillery. The military also has a standard 9mm pistol, this doesn’t make every 9mm pistol a weapon of war designed for killing as many people as possible. Nowhere in battle are personal weapons utilized to kill as many people as possible. The military variant of the AR15 is popular for the same reason the civilian AR15 is. It’s lightweight, it’s adaptable for shooters of varying sizes and statures, it’s modular, and it’s reliable. It’s actually significantly less powerful than the rifles it replaced.
I think training is always a good idea, but training doesn’t prevent murder. An AR15 is no more complicated to operate than a pistol, anyway. In fact, it’s much easier to hurt yourself, or for a child to hurt someone, with a pistol than a rifle.
As far as the MA licensing scheme, police chiefs should absolutely not have absolute discretion. Most are good with it, but some police chiefs abuse it. It should be a uniform system that all goes through the State Police where local chiefs can submit an affidavit if they think someone is unfit, and it should promptly go before a magistrate in that case. The system right now is designed to be abused along racial and ethnic boundaries, and is the subject of litigation.
I may be “crazy.” But I’m not crazy enough to think that weapons of war have any place in a civilized society. Nuff said!
@Mike (not Striar) “Scheme”? Are you British? Can you prove you’re not a troll?
Wow, can Greg or Marti comment here? This “Mike (not that crazy Striar guy! 😉 )” is over the top. This is not the forum to call any poster “crazy”
Mike (the sane one) is spot on. The AR15 rifle is not the same as the Military M16, which the later is prohibited to be owned by most civilians by the National Firearms Act enacted in 1934–try to keep up people!
People like to pretend one semi-auto rifle or handgun is somehow better or worse than another but that is BS. AR15’s are in the news because they’re the most popular rifle–there are more of them. Honda Accord is the most stolen car–why?–they’re the most common car. If you banned Honda Accords would you expect less cars to be stolen? No, that’s silly.
People like to think the inanimate object, the firearm, is somehow to blame or defective because that’s more palatable than blaming people, or worse, classifying people as untrustworthy.
The hard question is what information should the government have when issuing licenses and for background checks? For example, if you sought help for depression, alcoholism, or opiate addiction should you be able to own a firearm? Should we be doing the same checks if you want to be a police officer, fly a plane, drive a car, drive for uber, or be a school teacher–they’re all positions of trust.
It’s called being facetious — cause Mike Striar is very adamant that any other Mike properly provide their papers. Prove I’m not a British troll? Johnnies was the best restaurant in Newton until it came under new ownership. Proof enough?
AR15s are not weapons of war. They are not used in war. The military M4, while a soldier’s weapon, is not a weapon of war in the sense that all the other equipment our armed forces have at their disposal is. Like automatic grenade launchers. Shoulder fired guided missiles. I can go on. No weapons should be left on the street, they all deserve good homes.
I’d love to have a drink with Mike Striar, even if he thinks I’m crazier than him. I bet he and I agree on 90% of things in life. I can share his frustration in regulatory BS crushing the ability of Americans to get access to pot. I don’t smoke weed myself, but I think free Americans should be able to do as they please… to include own AR15s.
The challenge with background checks, which I support 100% for all sales commercial and private, is that they will always have holes in them. What I don’t hear discussed enough is a requirement to register all guns including upon resale and transfer. And if a gun is lost or stolen and ultimately used in a crime, the registered owned should be held accountable.
While I would like to see a ban on high capacity assault rifles, that is unfortunately an uphill battle on the federal level. But if we could at least get a registry, the there would be line of sight if someone starts stockpiling weapons. And if someone is suspected of mental illness, but doesn’t show up on a background check, or this issue crop up long after a background check, then it could be known if they do indeed have weapons and there could be preemptive intervention.
@Mike wrote: “You are living in that self-reinforcing bubble everyone talks about. You think because you live in Newton and are in the company of like minded friends that the whole country thinks the way you do”
Percentage of Americans who support:
– Spending more money on mental health screening: 87%
– Strengthening background checks on gun buyers: 75%
– Banning Bump Stocks: 56%
– Nationwide Ban on AR-15: 53%
Must be a real big bubble.
I think RE background checks thats probably right.
“Assault weapons ban…” no way. Even among non gun owners in MA most liberty minded ones oppose that. Any poll should be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Even at 53%… so half the country agrees with you at the most polarizing time. That is likely the half that doesn’t realize AR15s function the same as a pistol. Half. Hardly enough to make the jump to the other half is uniformed and fueled by the NRA, a fringe organization.
As to a gun registry… nah, I don’t think the government has to know who owns what. I also don’t see the need to identify people who buy a lot of guns.
We do need a much improved mental health system, both as it relates to health and firearms access. I’ll reaffirm my support for that yet again.
@Mike (Not Striar) “As to a gun registry… nah, I don’t think the government has to know who owns what. I also don’t see the need to identify people who buy a lot of guns.”
Well I disagree.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
Exactly why its a bad idea… we don’t need to be “disinfected” thank you very much.
@Mike (not Striar) finding answers to these questions would be so much easier if our public health researchers and the CDC were allowed to study gun violence and gun safety. But they are not thanks to Congress under pressure from the NRA.
Not exactly how the law is written — but I fully agree with you there. There should be CDC funding to support research. I’m not inherently unreasonable, but I’m willing to act unreasonable as long as the other side also is acting unreasonable.
Other Mike, Mike Striar did not call for your “papers.” He commented to let readers know you are a different Mike which is a reasonable thing to do.
You continue to misrepresent others’ perspectives in order to make them align with your criticism of their comments. If you continue, I will have to end the discussion. I don’t want to because I think conversations are the best way to find out others opinions. Saying things that denigrate commenters will no longer be allowed – only comments that address the controversy of how to approach gun ownership.
The thing is other Mike, a large percentage of the public, both gun owners and non-gun owners,disagrees with you and does support a copy-cat assault style weapon ban.
Comment on WHY people need to own civilian copies of assault weapons, including bump stocks and large magazines. You’ve told us that you wan5 them and they are effective. But what is the need? Why do you want them? Just because you want them is not a proper answer.
Better governmental mental health treatment, studies carried out by the CDC and NIH and expanded background checks are genuinely necessary.
This administration has cut the funding to the first one, tied the hands of any studies and weakened the third.
Trying to tie mental health issues to background checks is complicated because of confidentiality and many mental health or neurological impairments have nothing to do with agreessive behaviors. Registries are too because not everyone will register their gun and holding private citizens responsible for a crime perpetrated by an anonymous user is a violation of due process.
Banning purchase of copy-cat assault weapons and anything that turns one into an actual assault weapon is a reasonable step. It doesn’t infringe on reasonable personal rights or violate due process. There’s no slippery slope there.
With corporations, banks and high school and college students getting involved, there is more hope now that a ban will be possible. This movement may bring out more younger voters in the mid-term elections.
First of all — I was joking, I’ve talked with Mike Striar via email before. I think he knew that I was kidding around. I find his concern over any other “Mike” being mistaken for him silly, so I was poking fun. Try to lighten up a bit.
With that out of the way, I’ll address your questions with the understanding I won’t change your mind.
1A. Comment on WHY people need to own civilian copies of assault weapons
Answer: They aren’t “civilian copies” of assault weapons because they don’t function the same. A semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. Depending which ban or proposed ban you want to talk about they are legally defined based off features like pistol grips or adjustable butt-stocks. Nobody is seriously proposing banning all semi-automatic rifles, so banning things based on how they look, on a sliding scale, is by definition a slippery slope.
As to why people need them, there are many uses for these firearms, from sporting, to hunting, to self and common defense. I think a population as a whole benefits from having access to rifles as part of their balance against the government. We have drawn a bright line at machineguns. I won’t support a moving of this bright-line to wherever the anti-gun people feel an appropriate line is. Which ALWAYS encroaches further and further upon our rights.
1B. including bump stocks and
Answer: I think its logically consistent with this country’s tradition of harshly regulating machineguns to regulate bump-stocks. I also see bump stocks as a novelty, and therefore it’s not offensive to the 2nd Amendment to restrict them. I don’t think its meaningful to do so, but I’m not concerned about their restriction. That said, I always oppose outright bans on anything, and think they should be regulated as machineguns are.
1C. large magazines. You’ve told us that you want them and they are effective. But what is the need? Why do you want them? Just because you want them is not a proper answer.
Answer: I’ve answered this one. If I am defending myself, the opposite of common sense is to handicap myself against someone who may be shooting back. Drawing arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacity is not something I’m ok with. I chose the handgun I carry in large part because it holds 17+1 rounds of ammunition. Again, it’s common sense to give yourself an advantage against an adversary.
As you stated: Trying to tie mental health issues to background checks is complicated because of confidentiality and many mental health or neurological impairments have nothing to do with agreessive behaviors. Registries are too because not everyone will register their gun and holding private citizens responsible for a crime perpetrated by an anonymous user is a violation of due process. — I agree 100%. We already have a process for adjudicating people mentally defective such that it prevents them from purchasing firearms. It doesn’t strike me as impossible to design a system where this kid in Florida, for example, could have been flagged, the evidence brought before a magistrate, and a hold was placed on his purchasing of firearms. Of course I’d only be ok with this if a very clear and expedient procedure for appealing one of these decisions was available.
You then conclude: Banning purchase of copy-cat assault weapons and anything that turns one into an actual assault weapon is a reasonable step. It doesn’t infringe on reasonable personal rights or violate due process. There’s no slippery slope there. — If by turning one into an actual assault weapon, and by that I assume you mean a fully-automatic rifle and therefore bump stocks, I think that probably can be done. As to banning “copycat” assault weapons, and by that I assume you mean semi-automatic rifles, not only does that infringe on reasonable personal rights as 10s of millions of AR15s, and many times that number of other semi-automatic rifles are legally owned by Americans and will never be used in crimes, but it is demonstrably a slippery slope. Every new assault weapons ban is more and more broad, definitions change at the whims of politicians. We have a bright line between full-auto and semi-auto firearms. That is where the bright line should remain.
The effectiveness of this is also questionable. Yes, the AR15 has become the weapon of choice for shooters for various reasons. Number by number for homicides, they are still used orders of magnitudes less than even hands and feet to kill people. I don’t know why you guys cling to this position, as it’s one of the most polarizing in the debate and also of the least (and possibly no) consequence. Again, the fact that the Virginia tech shooter killed 30+ people with a pistol is ignored. I’ve mentioned that in this thread, but it’s not convenient to the we need to ban AR15s argument so it’s as if it isn’t a fact.
There won’t be a federal “assault weapons” ban anytime soon. Even if there is, I’m thrilled companies that allow for rapid prototyping of firearms are growing in popularity as a direct result of the calls for bans. While it may make millions of Americans criminals, it helps to immunize this country against disarmament from well meaning people who are less concerned with individual liberties.
I’m glad we at least agree on some things. We can hopefully begin to work on those.
I agree — but as stated, my “side” is willing to torch anything to prevent an arbitrary ban on those of us who are law abiding owning certain rifles or magazines. Not trying to be argumentative, just stating my observations on the pro-gun position. We take it very personally and seriously.
Those of us with children in schools, or who like to go to movie theaters, or concerts, or any public events really, or have loved ones facing domestic violence or depression … we take it very personally and seriously as well.
I’m sure you do. Again, you assume that those who value their rights to own firearms don’t care about any of that… you somehow believe that we and the NRA stand for carnage. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s not the case.
@Mike: I make no assumptions about you at all, I don’t even know who you are. I just rely on the evidence, which is that fewer available guns in a society makes for a safer society. The proof is demonstrated by countries around the world with more stringent gun laws and nowhere near the gun deaths suffered by Americans.
Other Mike, I’m willing to start with the changes we agree on and if those get done, then see what happens from there. But not all those who don’t want a ban on semi-automatic weapons agree with even expanded background checks. Even with President Trump’s and the NRA’s backing, an expanded background check is stuck in Congress.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate
As I said, it’s because we don’t want incrementalism. I’d say there are a small minority in the gun-owning community that think that people not in prison should have unfettered access to weapons. The theory being that those not locked up, or who have served their punishment, should have a full restoration of rights, and with 2A, that ends at “shall not be infringed.” Moving on from that position you have people who are very skeptical of NICS because currently a lot of people get caught up in the drag net and it becomes a huge pain for them to get firearms. I have many friends who end up having to wait some period of time every time they go to buy a gun because verification issues within the NICS system.
Also, I think by saying you are willing to “start” at place X is the issue. We know the end game. Again, many people fear incrementalism, which is a 100% valid concern as evidenced by state and federal legislation, so they’ve decided they won’t give anything. Period. That is where a compromise needs to come in — combine a rebuilt NICS system with the HSA and both sides will be getting things they want. The extremists in your party are just as damaging as those in mine, in fact maybe moreso as they just introduced a broad-sweeping semi-automatic firearm ban in congress. That doesn’t help the compromise game. At least 25% of the democrats realize that’s a non-starter, but the others are just being counter-productive to actual progress in order to further their own careers. Good on them. If they keep it up, they may get crushed in the midterms.
You don’t have to believe me that the ban is just made up an arbitrary, you can read it for yourself. They exempt the same model guns they restrict with the difference being they don’t have folding stocks or pistol grips… still take the same magazines and are functionally the same gun, just with a different stock. (ruger Mini-14, for example. One model is exempt, one is included). Again, just more pomp and circumstance.
A parable:
All over the world people looked at America and were stunned at the carnage on the US’s roads every year. Despite astronomical numbers of deaths and injuries, the US has steadfastly refused to enact the most common sense kind of driving regulations.
Here in the US, The National Car Association, funded by the US car industry has fought tooth and nail over even the most modest regulation. Over the years they have convinced large numbers of the voters that even the most modest regulation is somehow a constitutional issue due to their extremely narrow and peculiar reading of the 9th Amendment. Since cars didn’t exist in 1776, the 9th amendement’s protection of “rights not enumerated” in the constitution should protect the citizens from car regulation they argue.
The lack of US car regulation is breathtaking. No licenses, no speed limits, no drunk driving prohibition, no safety standards, no safety inspections of vehicles. The results are predictable: an unending stream of horrific accidents one worse than the last. After each particularly gruesome accident the same arguments always play out between the public and the NCA.
After an 11 year girl crashed a car into a playground killing six toddlers, the public called for a license requirement with a minimum age. The car lobby immediately and correctly responded “that wouldn’t have had any effect in last month’s massacre on Rt 95. That was a 40 year old drunk driver.
After that accident the public’s call to ban drinking and driving was met with “the driver in the nightmare crash in Connecticut was stone cold sober” when he came off the road at 130 MPH.
When the public called for speed limits the NCA launched a massive campaign saying that “the government wants to take away your cars. It starts with speed limits then they come next for your cars”.
Out of desperation, the public asked if we cant do ANYTHING to reduce the number of crashes can we at least add a bit of safety equipment like seat belts so that every serious accident doesn’t end in death, the NCA explains that that’s hopeless to because anybody with a simple wrench can easily circumvent mandatory seat belts.
Meanwhile, day after day, month after month, year after year the body count and heartache on America’s highways continues to mount.
To make my own position clear: We need to get all AR-15s, AK-47s, etc., off the shelves and out of the shows now. No sales of these weapons to any private parties whatsoever, nationwide. Then get them out of the hands, homes, cars, etc. of all except those who have legal, professional need of, authorization and training for and official oversight of their possession of such weapons.
Out of the homes? LOL. They are used in 300/more than 10K homicides a year.
If you want a civil war, that’s a great idea. That is THE way to get a civil war.
Dick’s Sporting Goods is no longer selling assault style weapons and large magazines. They will also only sell guns to those 21 and over.
Edward Stack, the 63-year-old chief executive said,
“When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” Mr. Stack said in an interview Tuesday evening. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.”
He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html
They haven’t ever really. Fortunately, there are still thousands if not tens of thousands who won’t capitulate.
Dicks made a business decision plain and simple. Good for them.