Now I know the usual folks are gonna come in and attack the source because they're unable to refute anything I'm about to say, and that's fine. That
just shows the weakness of their position.
For those unfamiliar with David Hogg, he's the teenager from Parkland the media has latched on to because of his emotional gun control message. This
article basically accuses him of using the Parkland shooting tragedy to gain fame, and I don't endorse that view. I think he really holds these gun
control views, and the media have just been taking advantage of that the same way pro-gun media takes advantage of students who are pro-gun. Hogg has
emerged as the go-to though, essentially becoming one of the new poster boys for the gun control lobby.
Apparently he released a video
in advance of the 24 March gun
control event being planned. The problem? The way it's edited together, it makes him look uninformed and stupid, unintentionally satirizing the gun
control movement. At around 14 seconds, he say "What if we all voted and said this is not okay?", followed by clips of Conon Lamb victorious in the
PA-18 special election last week, as if this is some sort of evidence of voters being fed up and voting a pro-gun-control candidate, even in a
district which heavily favored Trump. Except Lamb didn't run as a gun control candidate. In fact, he ran as a pro-gun candidate.
In fact, Lamb ran on a “Blue Dog Democrat” platform of supporting the Second Amendment, and opposes anti-gun programs like “high
capacity” magazine bans.
“New gun laws aren’t the answer to preventing more mass shootings like the one at a Florida high school,” the newly elected congressman declared
shortly after the Parkland tragedy.
At this point, I'm sure some of our resident gun control advocates will try to say that wasn't how it was meant to be received. Except that's exactly
how the rest of the video is put together. In the beginning he talks about politicians being "the bitches of the NRA", followed by a clip of Trump
accusing congressmen of being afraid of the NRA. Later he talks about the 24 March event, follow by clips of previous events like the walk out.
Statement, followed by example. Statement, followed by example. There's no reason to believe that wasn't the intent of the section featuring Conor
Were they unaware that Lamb ran as a pro-gun candidate? It certainly appears so. It made no sense to highlight him in that part of the video where
they're talking about people being fed up and voting in pro-gun-control candidates. It probably wasn't even his gaffe. Whoever helped him put together
the video probably did that, and was poorly informed. As I said, I find it disappointingly satirical of the gun control movement, being uninformed
about one of their key points. They certainly picked the right person to be one of their new faces.
This is a silly mistake, and honestly not that
big of a deal. It's just kind of funny. And sad. As I've told numerous posters here, the
absolute refusal to get informed on this issue by some gun control advocates is actually a barrier to progress. An honest conversation about guns and
gun policy can't be held with people who don't know anything about guns, gun laws, gun policy, etc and refuse to listen to those who do. We will never
reach a real, workable solution as long as that's the case. For those of us who actually do want to find ways to cut down on these mass shootings,
it's more sad than funny.
ETA: I realize the OP comes off confrontational, but as I noted later in the thread I'm perfectly willing to have a civil conversation on the subject.
A few members have found this out already. I decided to add this to take some of the edge off. If anyone has a serious question or issue that isn't
going to be qualified with a pre-emptive attack accusing me or the NRA (also me) of being terrorists and loving dead kids - because those aren't
things that people who want to have a civil conversation say - please feel free to message me. If you legit don't understand something about guns, gun
culture etc, I am willing to help out if you're willing to listen without the child-killer accusations and whatnot.
edit on 18 3 18 by
face23785 because: (no reason given)