Media gun control darling Hogg embarasses himself by being uninformed

I despair for the US as academia and now public schools seem to be the main carriers of Leftist ideology. The more urbanized we become the more our young people will not have real experience with guns aside from gun crimes in the city. Our traditional ties are being lost and replaced with pipe dream utopian nonsense straight from the UN.

I'm glad he graduated in 2015, otherwise I'd worry about all this time away from school affecting his grades.

I wonder when this kid will wake to the fact that he's being used?

My money is on him being a perfectly willing participant, aware of exactly how he is being used.

Indeed, I believe he even sought it out, and used daddy's connections to do it.

originally posted by: Gazrok

I wonder when this kid will wake to the fact that he's being used?

My money is on him being a perfectly willing participant, aware of exactly how he is being used.

Indeed, I believe he even sought it out, and used daddy's connections to do it.

I'm more inclined to believe he's a willing participant as well. He seems honestly heavily in favor of gun control, and well aware that the media types that keep giving him a platform agree with him, and he's more than happy to contribute. He probably thinks he's doing the right thing, ends justify the means kind of thinking.

a reply to: face23785

I don't think it's even that innocent. This kid has dreamed of a career in front of the camera, so he's going to milk this for all it is worth.

originally posted by: Gazrok
a reply to: face23785

I don't think it's even that innocent. This kid has dreamed of a career in front of the camera, so he's going to milk this for all it is worth.

What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive. I'd agree he loves the camera. He was doing interviews with students during the #ing shooting, putting people in danger by possibly giving away their position with the noise if the shooter was nearby, like a true modern journalist. He fits right in with them.

a reply to: face23785

Tried looking up this site on Wikispooks but no luck - I've heard from more than one source that David Hogg is cousins with this other "spokesperson", Emma Gonsales: stateofthenation2012.com...

Don't forget David's father (Kevin Hogg) is former FBI and has been in the news before: www.dailybreeze.com...

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: face23785

Tried looking up this site on Wikispooks but no luck - I've heard from more than one source that David Hogg is cousins with this other "spokesperson", Emma Gonsales: stateofthenation2012.com...

Don't forget David's father (Kevin Hogg) is former FBI and has been in the news before: www.dailybreeze.com...

Do we know for sure that's the same Kevin Hogg? Honest question. Simply having the same name doesn't convince me.

I don't buy the whole psy-op angle. I definitely don't like the way the kid looks though.

I am not a particular fan of Crowder. But I know folks who are, and I found this shared out yesterday:

www.louderwithcrowder.com...

If you can wade through his sometimes funny use of ad homs, he makes a few good points. Essentially: Hogg has run his mouth on a platform that, to date, is mostly uncontested. And that is about to change.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I find this part particularly refreshing no matter who wrote it:

NOTE for David and anyone outraged we’d criticize him: David does not have the right to have his ass kissed. He does not have the right to go without people objecting to him, insulting him, simply because he was on campus during a tragic school shooting. If he didn’t want to be mocked, criticized, or otherwise called into question, he shouldn’t have entered the public arena of politics. David cannot hide behind his “victim status” and lob attacks at the Second Amendment, the NRA, or legal gun owners. Got it? But now that he has, it’s a fair ball.

That applies to the pro-gun students that have spoken out as well. Once you enter the public arena with your opinions, expect criticism.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: face23785 I believe that a REALLY big thing to consider is if the students do not get gun control they WILL determine the next POTUS. I don’t have kids but I do know that if I did the best thing would be to teach and not place blame.

Yes, you clearly don't have kids. Little children like you're talking about have short attention spans and expect instant gratification. This anti 2nd amendment hissy fit is fleeting and will be long forgotten before Spring Break 2018, let alone America decides 2020.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not the kids' attention span I'm worried about....it's their parents. THEY are going to be the ones who eventually cry out and DEMAND their 2nd Amendment rights be stripped away. As these incidents get triggered monthly, it's simply going to eventually reach a point of no return, and no amount of logic, reason, or even NRA campaign money, is going to be able to stop it. I really want to be wrong though.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sadly, I know what it's like to be shot and shot at. I served two tours in Vietnam with the first being a heavy weapons platoon leader and two years later as a helicopter pilot. So I think I have a good grip on the gun aspect. I also speak with some authority about school children as I worked for a large metropolitan school district in southern Ohio for many years until my retirement.

I am sure that in grade 12, you were not as in tune to events around you as you are today! The 15-18 year old high schooler is not fully developed mentally as you are later in life. That is just fact! There are a few exceptions but these kids are not those. What you are seeing was organized and planned by more mature thought processes. No high schoolers could arrange for busses for trips to Tallahassee and Washington without adult assistance. This walkout was directed by school administrators, teachers and activists with political intent. Children in Kindergarten also participated...this is nothing but indoctrination at it's worst.

As someone that's been shot at, would you agree that the mere fact that you've been shot at doesn't give you any magical understanding of guns, gun policy and gun laws? I don't see how it would. I mean, if you've never driven before and know nothing about cars and you get hit by a car, you don't all of a sudden become an auto expert. I do acknowledge your training makes you more knowledgeable than most. Your experience may make you more knowledgeable about how a gunfight unfolds, but none of these kids were in a gunfight. No one was there to shoot back at this guy.

Have you ever wondered how the FBI and law enforcement miss so many opportunities to stop these events? How do they get only the treats aimed at the government? Are they lazy or overworked? Are they unconcerned to only attacks that go after the government?

One thing I've heard a number of former agents talk about who have been interviewed is that these type of tips used to come into the local field office. Now they come into a centralized tip line, where some agents who are swamped with more work than they can handle and are understandably detached from the whole thing because they're in DC and this is in FL have to prioritize everything. This was changed decades ago to save money by not having as many or as large field offices.

I'd say it's time to go back to the way they used to do it. The agents at the field office are much closer to the situation, and perhaps if multiple tips were coming in about the same individual they would piece that together. People up in DC who are dealing with tips from all over the country are less likely to remember 6 months later hey didn't we get a tip about this guy before? when a new one comes in about the same individual. It would also be much easier for these field offices to work with local law enforcement than it is for a centralized office in DC to do it.

ETA: I'm usually a small/less government guy, but this is an area where I think a bit of expansion wouldn't be a bad thing.

My position on this is, why everything is so centralized when it comes to the government?

A few years ago, a student here in Cincinnati was radicalized and made plans to attack the US capital. He was apprehended in the parking lot of a gun store after his purchase of two AR-15s that he was going to use. The FBI, ATF, Hamilton County Sheriff and local police were all present at the takedown.

This young man had just graduated from high school where he studied art. This wouldn't be a point of concern until my granddaughter attending the same school took an art class taught by the same teacher who taught this young terrorist. One of her first assignments was to draw pictures that supported a picture the art teacher handed out. The picture was a child holding an "assault rifle" to the head of a US soldier's head with his hands raised. The picture was disturbing to me and several members of my family who were military veteran. We all felt that this picture was too extreme for freshmen students or any high school student for that matter. AND too extreme for anyone so close to the arrest of one of her students for terrorism.

My family was concerned as to the motives of teacher for using this shocking picture. It was certainly disturb for me and I'm 70 years old. What effect would this be for an immature mind of a 15 year old student? Did this type of instruction move the young terrorist to act?

I contacted the school board and they replied that the teacher was acting correctly. Either they support her motives and viewpoint or the are lost in the woods.

The Parkland shooting sounds too eerily similarly to the "Oak Hills" incident with no dirty hands. The only thing different was the FBI was unusually proactive because the target was Washington.

a reply to: buddah6

As for why everything is getting centralized, I covered that. They do it to save money. That's fine if you can do that efficiently. But clearly in the case of the FBI it has come at the cost of effectiveness. That's not a good trade off. They should go back to handling these things out of the local field offices, even if it costs more.

a reply to: Gazrok

That seemed obvious from the get-go.

But, he's entered into the political arena now, and he's due for a rude awakening.

He's not going to get to hide behind his "victimhood" much longer, and attack gun owners who've done nothing wrong without fear of being called on it.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gazrok

That seemed obvious from the get-go.

But, he's entered into the political arena now, and he's due for a rude awakening.

He's not going to get to hide behind his "victimhood" much longer, and attack gun owners who've done nothing wrong without fear of being called on it.

They seem to have dropped off the face of the Earth with regards to the school resource officer ending the threat at the school in Maryland. Guess that didnt fit into their narrative that armed officials on campus wont do any god.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gazrok

That seemed obvious from the get-go.

But, he's entered into the political arena now, and he's due for a rude awakening.

He's not going to get to hide behind his "victimhood" much longer, and attack gun owners who've done nothing wrong without fear of being called on it.

They seem to have dropped on the face of the Earth with regards to the school resource officer ending the threat at the school in Maryland. Guess that didnt fit into their narrative that armed officials on campus wont do any god.

It took them a bit, but they've developed their talking points for that one. The narrative is they're trying to pretend if the Maryland shooter had an AR that he would've been invincible and the SRO wouldn't have been able to stop him.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've noticed that too. Since an armed officer did, indeed, stop the attacker.

But they've, the usual suspects, have as face said, come up with the talking point to cover that... Not well, mind you, but an E for effort, I suppose.

a reply to: seagull

For those (not directed at you) who try to sugar coat the end, and ultimate, goal of the Democrats position on firearms I direct you to Charlie Rangel - D position on the matter.

Rangel: No Guns For Law-Abiding Constituents But I ‘Deserve–Need’ Police Protection [AUDIO]

WASHINGTON — New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel says members of Congress “deserve” and “need” people with firearms protecting them in the U.S. Capitol building, but he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.

Rangel made this distinction when he spoke to The Daily Caller Tuesday night about New York Police Department’s gun permitting bribery scandal...........

His response

What about Rangel’s own constituents in his Harlem district? Should law-abiding residents who live there have concealed carry permits too?

“I wouldn’t want them to have it. I know what you’re trying to say. Corruption is corruption, and it’s bad,” Rangel said.

“Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a Capitol Police officer, who stood at his post by the House Speaker’s Lobby.

TheDC noted to Rangel he and other members of Congress are protected by armed members of the U.S. Capitol Police.

“Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.” Rangel laughingly insisted.

So no guns for anyone except members of Congress.

For those who are lost read the book Animal Farm. What Rangel just said can best be translated to "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".

I will not give up my firearms nor will I follow any order to confiscate them in violation of the Constitution of the US and several Supreme Court rulings.

While Feinstein and other Democrats like to bloviate about the Heller decision (2008) they ignore the ruling in McDonald Vs. Chicago (2010).

Finally I dopnt think Democrats even know about the SCOTUS ruling in 2016 -

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms:

The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

Per the bolded part just above by me about items not in existence at the founding of our nation -


That ruling means "military weapons" or, as Democrats who fear monger say - "weapons of war".

The 2nd amendment is designed to protect the people from a tyrannical government. One who says law abiding citizens dont need guns but members of Congress are entitled to them.


Countries with strict gun control laws still see gun crime. Even China and Russia, who have extreme restrictions on guns, and yet you still have people in those countries obtain them and commit crimes with them.

2 countries whose due process rights are a lot less dainty than ours.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The way I read that ruling, the States that have AWBs are gonna have to change them.