What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*****David Hogg Thread***** (1 Viewer)

squistion

squistion

Footballguy
People said things would change after Sandy Hook, Pulse Nightclub and Las Vegas but they dropped off the news after a couple weeks and things were forgotten until the next mass shooting.

This movement started by the Parkland HS students seems to be different. A month after the shooting there were huge rallies today in every major city with over 800.000 attending the March For Our Lives event in Washington DC. 

Will this ultimately result in gun control legislation or will this call for action fizzle as the ones before it did?  

For those who missed it, here is Emma Gonzalez powerful speech, which observed 6 minutes and 20 seconds of silence to remember the Parkland shooting. That's exactly how long the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School lasted.

https://twitter.com/IronStache/status/977651562163052545

Please feel free to comment and also add any other memorable moments from today's rallies. They were covered in the other thread but got lost amid the discussion of other issues and some trolling there. You can also find this in the #MarchForOurLives hashtag: https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarchForOurLives?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A977557540199456775

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
If there is a mod, this will get merged.
Click to expand...
I think it deserves it own thread as it raises different issues as far whether this is just another flash in the pan or whether long term change will be achieved.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Trump already said he was going to ban bump stocks and was open to raising the age buy a gun to 21.  That alone is more major gun legislation than any democrat currently in office.  So no I don’t think anything further will happen by having a bunch of mostly liberals in liberal populated cities walking around on a Saturday afternoon.  

Also the Supreme Court will be conservative leaning for the foreseeable future so good luck getting much past them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dschuler said:
Trump already said he was going to ban bump stocks and was open to raising the age buy a gun to 21.  That alone is more major gun legislation than any democrat currently in office.  So no I don’t think anything further will happen by having a bunch of mostly liberals in liberal populated cities walking around on a Saturday afternoon.  

Also the Supreme Court will be conservative leaning for the foreseeable future so good luck getting much past them.
Click to expand...
So if bump stocks are banned, everyone calling for gun reform laws, says OK, let's go home now, we achieved our goals? I don't think so, the objection has been to assault style weapons in general with bump stocks being grouped with that, but not being the only agenda item.

More on bump stocks:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17033526/trump-guns-mass-shootings-parkland-las-vegas

But the Justice Department said in December that it can’t ban bump stocks on its own, and an attempt to ban them in the Senate has gone nowhere. And even if such a rule were enacted, it’s unclear how effective it would be in preventing mass shootings — there’s no evidence so far that the Parkland shooter used a bump stock.

The gun used in the shooting was a Smith & Wesson M&P15 .223, a gas-powered semiautomatic weapon — “semiautomatic” meaning that one pull of the trigger discharged one round of ammunition. So any effort to ban or regulate the sale of bump stocks would not have changed the shooter’s ability to access the weapon he used or how he used it.

 
squistion said:
So if bump stocks are banned, everyone calling for gun reform laws, says OK, let's go home now, we achieved our goals? I don't think so, the objection has been to assault style weapons in general with bump stocks being grouped with that, but not being the only agenda item.

More on bump stocks:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17033526/trump-guns-mass-shootings-parkland-las-vegas

But the Justice Department said in December that it can’t ban bump stocks on its own, and an attempt to ban them in the Senate has gone nowhere. And even if such a rule were enacted, it’s unclear how effective it would be in preventing mass shootings — there’s no evidence so far that the Parkland shooter used a bump stock.

The gun used in the shooting was a Smith & Wesson M&P15 .223, a gas-powered semiautomatic weapon — “semiautomatic” meaning that one pull of the trigger discharged one round of ammunition. So any effort to ban or regulate the sale of bump stocks would not have changed the shooter’s ability to access the weapon he used or how he used it.
Click to expand...
I could care less about gun control debates, I’m not debating if a trigger will shoot a hundred bullets and fire a missile or whatever. The question you posed was will anything change as a result of a protest.

 I resoundingly say no, independent on how I feel about someone having the ability to own a tank or AK-5738. 

- Republicans currently control everything 

- Supreme Court conservative

- Hundreds of years of pro gun history

So again, I don’t see how a bunch of liberals walking outside in liberal cities will change those bullets.  It is what it is. 

 
The two main goals I heard over and over again today were: 

1. Universal background checks

2. Ban the AR-15

I’ll dispute dschuler only to the extent that neither of these are constitutional issues, so the courts shouldn’t play a role. As to the rest? I simply don’t know. I will say that these kids are the most powerful gun control movement in my lifetime, and that this is how pluralism starts. 

If I had to guess, we’ll get the universal background checks, but not the ban. 

 
dschuler said:
a bunch of liberals walking outside in liberal cities 
Click to expand...
This part is pretty dismissive. I don’t think you get how widespread this thing is or how many people support it. 97% of Americans want universal background checks. That’s not only a bunch of liberals. 

 
It depends on the percentages. If say 70/30 of new voters turning 18 want to change things while it’s the reverse for those dying then eventually a change ought to happen. 

 
timschochet said:
This part is pretty dismissive. I don’t think you get how widespread this thing is or how many people support it. 97% of Americans want universal background checks. That’s not only a bunch of liberals. 
Click to expand...
I don’t think so at all.  Most of the marches are farmers in Kansas? 

 “97% of people agree with background checks.” I agree, you agree, everyone agrees.  Why wasn’t it done ten years ago?  Common sense and necessary, YES.  Would that be MAJOR gun control?  I don’t think so.   

The AR-15 would be major gun control, but this protest doesn’t have a prayer in banning it.  0% Supreme Court doesn’t immediately squash it. What would prevent someone from creating an AR-16, then the AR-17 and so on.

Therefore, Dems need to win in 2018, 2020, flip a couple justices.  If Anthony Kennedy dips out soon, it will be at least 10-12 years before this is even a remote possibility.  A march does not solve reality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dschuler said:
I don’t think so at all.  Most of the marches are farmers in Kansas? 

 “97% of people agree with background checks.” I agree, you agree, everyone agrees.  Why wasn’t it done ten years ago?  Common sense and necessary, YES.  Would that be MAJOR gun control?  I don’t think so.   

The AR-15 would be major gun control, but this protest doesn’t have a prayer in banning it.  0% Supreme Court doesn’t immediately squash it. What would prevent someone from creating an AR-16, then the AR-17 and so on.

Therefore, Dems need to win in 2018, 2020, flip a couple justices.  If Anthony Kennedy dips out soon, it will be at least 10-12 years before this is even a remote possibility.  A march does not solve reality.
Click to expand...
Why would the Supreme Court squash it? Based on what? We’ve already had an assault weapons ban, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. Heller actually upheld that certain weapons could be banned. The SC wouldn’t touch it. 

 
I think all schools will be armed soon, some teachers too. I think mental health is going to be targeted, I think a lot of kids will be psych evaluated and forced to do it. I think 18 will be moved to 21 to buy guns, maybe to vote too and other things that only adults can do and that under 21 simply isn't mature enough to handle.

I think threats will be taken way more seriously now

I think those things will come - they should already have been here and Cruz in Florida is the example of failures on many levels.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: RBM
timschochet said:
Why would the Supreme Court squash it? Based on what? We’ve already had an assault weapons ban, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. Heller actually upheld that certain weapons could be banned. The SC wouldn’t touch it. 
Click to expand...
Because they would rule the AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle, that simple.  You don’t like it, you need to find a couple more Supreme Court justices.  I’m not trying to be a jerk, just being a realist.  

Democrats need more Conor Lambs and less Pelosi and Maxine Waters and fast or there will be a conservative leaning Supreme Court for the next several decades as Ginsburg and Breyer are getting very old.  Even as someone who is mostly conservative, I don’t want that, I want balance.  We can talk in circles all day, but it won’t change reality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dschuler said:
Because they would rule the AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle, that simple.  You don’t like it, you need to find a couple more Supreme Court justices.  I’m not trying to be a jerk, just being a realist.  

Democrats need more Conor Lambs and less Pelosi and Maxine Waters and fast or there will be a conservative leaning Supreme Court for the next several decades as Ginsburg and Breyer are getting very old.  Even as someone who is mostly conservative, I don’t want that, I want balance.  We can talk in circles all day, but it’s that simple. 
Click to expand...
Dude the AR-15 was banned before. The SC did nothing. The NRA tried to challenge it and the SC refused to take the case. Were you aware of this? 

 
timschochet said:
Dude the AR-15 was banned before. The SC did nothing. The NRA tried to challenge it and the SC refused to take the case. Were you aware of this? 
Click to expand...
You are mostly wrong, are you not aware of that?  It’s looks good on paper but doesn’t do anything. Hence that’s why I said the AR-16, 17, 15.1, rev 15.3 or whatever you want to call it.  You increase the barrel size by a fraction of an inch and it’s legal again, is that okay?  

 
Underachievers said:
Yes....but it won't stop shootings.   

Why would it?   Thugs don't care.
Click to expand...


The vast majority of school shooters (and mass shooters in general) aren't whatever you would label "thugs". Disturbed, usually middle class white kids don't generally have access to black market weapons or illegal weapons dealers. Or knowledge of how to find such things on the web. Especially since the point is to specifically make obtaining weapons that can easily and with no training whatsoever put dozens of people in the ground, I'd say you're incorrect. Who cares if normal, legal gun owners have to jump through some hoops. Every bump in the road that makes it more difficult, that makes it take longer and require more research for a shooter to obtain one of these weapons, is another point along the way where they can be discovered and stopped. 

 
dschuler said:
You are mostly wrong, are you not aware of that?  It’s looks good on paper but doesn’t do anything. Hence that’s why I said the AR-16, 17, 15.1, rev 15.3 or whatever you want to call it.  You increase the barrel size by a fraction of an inch and it’s legal again, is that okay?  
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with what I wrote, or with your very wrong comments about the Supreme Court. 

 
dschuler said:
“97% of people agree with background checks.” I agree, you agree, everyone agrees.  Why wasn’t it done ten years ago?  Common sense and necessary, YES.  Would that be MAJOR gun control?  I don’t think so.
Click to expand...


Now for those who don't get why the NRA is being targeted, despite none of the shooters being registered NRA members, here's a good example. It's about their lobbying and the money they spend to keep easily agreed upon things like the above from moving forward. They aren't against just "MAJOR gun control". They are against any reform whatsoever and convince their members, through fear tactics and propaganda, that any small step is the beginning of a slippery slope that ends in all guns being banned. It's sickening.

dschuler said:
So again, I don’t see how a bunch of liberals walking outside in liberal cities will change those bullets.  It is what it is. 
Click to expand...
You must be stuck in a very small bubble if you think this is what happened today. Unless you think any major population center (aka where most Americans live and work) is a "liberal city". 

 
dschuler said:
Democrats need more Conor Lambs and less Pelosi and Maxine Waters and fast or there will be a conservative leaning Supreme Court for the next several decades 
Click to expand...
As an aside this comment is also very much out of touch, because it is the Republican Party, and not the Democrats, who have gone extreme. The Dems have internal problems but right now they are unified in opposition to Donald Trump and as a result of Trump, this gun issue, and the metoo movement, the Republicans are going to be destroyed this November. It’s going to be an ugly beating. 

 
timschochet said:
Dude the AR-15 was banned before. The SC did nothing. The NRA tried to challenge it and the SC refused to take the case. Were you aware of this? 
Click to expand...
The AR-15 was never actually “banned”.  Did I dumb that down enough for you yet?  Assault rifles were sold the next day after this “ban” you speak of, do you understand?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
As an aside this comment is also very much out of touch, because it is the Republican Party, and not the Democrats, who have gone extreme. The Dems have internal problems but right now they are unified in opposition to Donald Trump and as a result of Trump, this gun issue, and the metoo movement, the Republicans are going to be destroyed this November. It’s going to be an ugly beating. 
Click to expand...
Look at all of that red you are so right. 

http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/

 
dschuler said:
The AR-15 was never actually “banned”.  Did I dumb that down enough for you yet?  Assault rifles were sold the next day after this “ban” you speak of, do you understand?
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. You claimed that the Supreme Court will shut such a ban down. They won’t. 

As for your argument, sure there will be exceptions, but as a general rule these types of guns will be harder to obtain. Gun afficiandos will no doubt find ways to skirt the rules and buy the guns they want. The general public will have a more difficult time. And that’s the goal. 

 
timschochet said:
That’s not the point. You claimed that the Supreme Court will shut such a ban down. They won’t. 

As for your argument, sure there will be exceptions, but as a general rule these types of guns will be harder to obtain. Gun afficiandos will no doubt find ways to skirt the rules and buy the guns they want. The general public will have a more difficult time. And that’s the goal. 
Click to expand...
Yes the current Supreme Court absolutely would crush it in a heartbeat.

Assault rifles have never been banned and never will be.  The assault rifle ban was not an assault rifle ban because the Supreme Court would throw it out.  

 
dschuler said:
Yes the current Supreme Court absolutely would crush it in a heartbeat.

Assault rifles have never been banned and never will be.  The assault rifle ban was not an assault rifle ban because the Supreme Court would throw it out.  
Click to expand...
This is simply false. 

Even without the 90s law, there have been several state laws that banned such weapons. The ones in California and Maryland were specifically called “Assault Weapons Bans”. All of them have been upheld by the courts. None of them have made it to the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia, who was more conservative than any current Supreme Court Justice, wrote in Heller that the government has the right to make these weapons illegal, and that ruling has been quoted over and over in upholding these laws. 

I’m sorry you’re so uninformed on this. 

 
If it helps eventually change gun culture in this country and the NRA away from the (IMO) "WOLVERINEESSSS" mentality that seems to be gripping influential portions of the gun lobby....than yes....it will. 

 
timschochet said:
This is simply false. 

Even without the 90s law, there have been several state laws that banned such weapons. The ones in California and Maryland were specifically called “Assault Weapons Bans”. All of them have been upheld by the courts. None of them have made it to the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia, who was more conservative than any current Supreme Court Justice, wrote in Heller that the government has the right to make these weapons illegal, and that ruling has been quoted over and over in upholding these laws. 

I’m sorry you’re so uninformed on this. 
Click to expand...
Fact.  There has never been one day where it was illegal to buy an assault rifle across the country, so you still have no idea what you are talking about.  I am trying to explain it you logically, and you can’t understand it for some reason.  If you ban the AR-15 again or “Assault rifles”, then the gun company will change one or two things that still make it exactly like an Assault rifle just now on paper it’s no longer an “Assault rifle”.  And as long as there is a conservative leaning Supreme Court, it will never change. 

 
ConnSKINS26 said:
Why are gun nuts and the NRA so opposed to such bans, if they will 100% no doubt not change a single thing even if implemented, then? Huh, interesting
Click to expand...
Why are gun grabbers worried about pro gun people if all the 18 year olds are going to make the change? Equally interesting. 

 
squistion said:
I think it deserves it own thread as it raises different issues as far whether this is just another flash in the pan or whether long term change will be achieved.
Click to expand...
Looks like your garden variety #### show, Senor Spectrum.

 
dschuler said:
Fact.  There has never been one day where it was illegal to buy an assault rifle across the country, so you still have no idea what you are talking about.  I am trying to explain it you logically, and you can’t understand it for some reason.  If you ban the AR-15 again or “Assault rifles”, then the gun company will change one or two things that still make it exactly like an Assault rifle just now on paper it’s no longer an “Assault rifle”.  And as long as there is a conservative leaning Supreme Court, it will never change. 
Click to expand...
I’m gonna regret joining in but you do know that the talk about banning ‘assault rifles’ and ‘AR-15’ are just for discussion purposes. If it ever got to the point of writing legislation it would never be based on a broad term like ‘assault rifle’ or a specific weapon like ‘AR-15’. Legislation would spell out specifics about the guns that would be banned such as being semi-automatic, ability to be easily modified to semi-automatic/automatic, clip size, etc. Sure gun manufacturers could modify their guns to get around these restrictions but isn’t that the whole point?

Your basis of the Supreme Court striking down any law like this is based off of nothing. Just because the court is now a conservative majority doesn’t mean that they will automatically back something just because it is based on conservative beliefs. There needs to be legal basis behind them striking it down, what is the legal basis?

 
If I was a gun manufacturer I would recognize the coming storm and embrace it. Rather than attempt to subvert a ban like dschuler is talking about, I’d publicly announce that we’re not making any more of these types of weapons for the public, period: only hunting rifles, some shotguns and handguns for self defense from now on. 

That way I’d have a chance to survive...

 
Biff84 said:
I’m gonna regret joining in but you do know that the talk about banning ‘assault rifles’ and ‘AR-15’ are just for discussion purposes. If it ever got to the point of writing legislation it would never be based on a broad term like ‘assault rifle’ or a specific weapon like ‘AR-15’. Legislation would spell out specifics about the guns that would be banned such as being semi-automatic, ability to be easily modified to semi-automatic/automatic, clip size, etc. Sure gun manufacturers could modify their guns to get around these restrictions but isn’t that the whole point?

Your basis of the Supreme Court striking down any law like this is based off of nothing. Just because the court is now a conservative majority doesn’t mean that they will automatically back something just because it is based on conservative beliefs. There needs to be legal basis behind them striking it down, what is the legal basis?
Click to expand...
Apparently we’re not able to improve on the language in the legislation that banned assault weapons from 1994-2004, and if we do it will always be stricken down by the SC, regardless of whether the law is constitutional.  This is the NRA’s “you can’t fix it, so don’t try” argument coupled with the “there’s no such thing as an assault rifle” argument.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If I was a gun manufacturer I would recognize the coming storm and embrace it. Rather than attempt to subvert a ban like dschuler is talking about, I’d publicly announce that we’re not making any more of these types of weapons for the public, period: only hunting rifles, some shotguns and handguns for self defense from now on. 

That way I’d have a chance to survive...
Click to expand...
You realize every time the NRA creates a scare that guns are going to be banned, gun and ammo sales go up, right?  Who do you think is funding the scare tactics?  It’s not annual memberships.

 
timschochet said:
If I was a gun manufacturer I would recognize the coming storm and embrace it. Rather than attempt to subvert a ban like dschuler is talking about, I’d publicly announce that we’re not making any more of these types of weapons for the public, period: only hunting rifles, some shotguns and handguns for self defense from now on. 

That way I’d have a chance to survive...
Click to expand...
Why? So they can win favor with the people that are not currently buying guns. (and probably never will?)

 
the rover said:
You realize every time the NRA creates a scare that guns are going to be banned, gun and ammo sales go up, right?  Who do you think is funding the scare tactics?  It’s not annual memberships.
Click to expand...
Every time this comes up, it's a goldmine for both manufacturers and the NRA.  I'll believe there will be substantive change when we see it.  Our politicians never compromise anymore and both sides default to the extreme positions resulting in the status quo being the almost inevitable outcome.

 
Shula-holic said:
Every time this comes up, it's a goldmine for both manufacturers and the NRA.  I'll believe there will be substantive change when we see it.  Our politicians never compromise anymore and both sides default to the extreme positions resulting in the status quo being the almost inevitable outcome.
Click to expand...
Status quo ...good bye.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squistion
Teen eggs Australian senator blaming Muslims for Christchurch attack
2 3
Replies
134
Views
3K
Tom Skerritt
T
randall146
USA Shootings
453 454 455
Replies
23K
Views
346K
Snorkelson
Snorkelson
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top