- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Young Robespierre

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [4]

That is the horrifying moment that the anti-gun movement lost the chance of ever winning me over. David Hogg is emerging as a skinny young Robespierre, so filled with righteousness and certainty, and stone-cold purity. I have no problem at all with him criticizing Marco Rubio or any other lawmaker, and criticizing them strongly. But what that kid said goes way beyond that. And he’s being cheered on by adults who know better, but who find him useful. What a disgusting little creep David Hogg is — but not as disgusting as the grown-ups who are using him for their own cause.

More of the inspiring oratory of Young Master Hogg here. [5]

UPDATE:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [4]

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [4]

UPDATE.2: Today I was talking with a conservative friend, and we were both shaking our heads over Trump and his crackpot ways. My friend said, with a sigh, “The thing is, we can’t let the left get back in there in 2020.” He laid out his view that as bad as Trump is — and my friend is much more liberal on economics than most conservatives — to allow the left to take power in this country would be a disaster for social conservatives.

This anti-gun rally and the rhetoric around the anti-gun movement is exactly why. Read the comments on this thread. The left has made these children from that high school untouchable. You cannot question them, or doubt them, or in any way criticize them and their cause. This is how it always is with the left and its Sacred Victims. The left — and I’m generalizing here; I know this doesn’t apply to all liberals — is so militant about policing speech that in some places where it holds political power, it punishes people who use the wrong pronouns for transgender people. And yet, when a high schooler stands in front of a mass rally in Washington and says this of a US Senator:

“I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here as a reminder for you guys to know how much Marco Rubio took for every student’s life in Florida.”

… this is considered brave, heroic, praiseworthy.

Imagine if someone who escaped the Twin Towers on 9/11 stood before a pro-war rally in 2002 and accused a US Senator who had, I dunno, received campaign contributions from Islamic interests, of taking money for every person killed by the terrorists on that day. Would that not have shocked and appalled you? It ought to have done.

Marco Rubio is a politician, and is fair game for harsh criticism. But that kind of talk from that fatmouthing kid — and the fact that it is cheered by the media and the left (but I repeat myself) — sends a signal to every member of the NRA, and to every law-abiding gun owner in America, that these people consider them to have blood on their hands. To be child-killers — this, even though we know that law enforcement and school bureaucrats also bear the burden of blame for what happened at that school.

It’s waving a bloody flag. There will be consequences to that kind of rhetoric. You watch.

And please, don’t say, “But Trump!” He has been grotesquely irresponsible in his own political rhetoric. I don’t defend that for one second.

UPDATE.3: Jones, making sense as usual:

“No. Just no. These kids have a different reality and you or I (I’m 58). We didn’t have “lockdown drills” because we might get shot.”

The actual number of students killed in school shootings in America since 2000: 250. That’s over 18 years, in a nation of 300,000,000 people.

So lockdown drills are a bit of hysterical security theater.

As a Muslim, and an immigrant, I’ve already seen the demagogic use of exceptional, sensational acts of violence for political mass manipulation (see, e.g., Muslim ban). All of the arguments that were invalid in that context, are invalid in this one. Liberals seem downright overjoyed that they get to play this game now too. But demagoguery for thee is also demagoguery for me.

Claiming that privileged American teenagers in upper middle class high schools should literally be running around in fear of their lives is to express profound contempt for the enormous number of people, both in this country and around the world, who do actually have reason to fear for their lives. The hysterically named “March for Our Lives” made a decent pass at appropriating the suffering of inner-city black youth, but that’s clearly not what is driving all of this. No one was “Marching for Our Lives” when people were dying in Chiraq, like they still are. And that’s mostly young black men involved in some form of crime. Not photogenic enough to play “victims” for the mass media.

Meanwhile John Bolton is about to try to start World War III, but this actual threat to our (and many, many other people’s) lives is not the kind of thing worth marching for, apparently.

UPDATE.4: One more thing about all this. As longtime readers know, I lived in New York on 9/11. Stood on the Brooklyn Bridge and watched the first tower fall. Smelled the sweetness in the smoke for days, and learned from a friend who had lived through the war in Beirut that it was burning human flesh. I went to firefighters’ funerals that fall, and grieved like everybody else grieved. I burned with white-hot anger at the terrorists, and believed that if I didn’t give in to that anger, I was in some sense breaking faith with the victims.

I cringe to think about some of the things that surely must have come out of my mouth in the year that followed. David Hogg-like stuff, no doubt. The hate felt good. It really did. It also felt good to hate those who cautioned me and others about our rhetoric. Fools and cowards, they were, as far as I was concerned.

I allowed that righteous anger to justify my cheerleading for the catastrophic Iraq War. I was the fool, and I was the coward, because I was afraid to interrogate my own rage. I regret bitterly being so eager to hate, and thinking of myself as someone who got a free pass on that, because hey, I lived a mile or two from Ground Zero, so who are you to tell me that my feelings are wrong, huh?!

That’s what’s happening here too.

UPDATE.5.: Writer for Commentary magazine:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [4]

UPDATE.6: To clarify (because this isn’t clear to many commenters): I support tightening gun laws. I supported this before Parkland. I support it in spite of this media-glorified movement. I do not support this movement. I was indifferent to mildly positive about the movement, but I now believe that its intentions are to smear anybody who disagrees as an accessory to mass murder. Same as the LGBT movement smeared those who disagreed, especially when it comes to LGBT programs in schools, as causing suicides.

286 Comments (Open | Close)

286 Comments To "Young Robespierre"

#1 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 26, 2018 @ 1:39 pm

Just what we need: more and more nests of bureacratic laws so that consulting a lawyer becomes necessary to navigate life through increasing red tape.

“There Oughta Be A Law” the answer to everything.

It’s getting to the point that the only way the onerous complexity can be simplified is to make a rule that, everything is forbidden that is not explicitly permitted in law.

Much simpler, as in other nations gone authoritarian in ruling their subjects. And it also means that anyone can be charged if necessary, at any time, so that that fear of coming to the authorities’ attention will keep them in line.

#2 Comment By bayesian On March 26, 2018 @ 1:50 pm

Thanks very much for update 6 clarification. The distinction between policy goal you support (more restrictive gun laws) and a/the media/activist/etc. movement pushing for that policy goal (often as part of a bundle of other goals) is an important one to keep clear, and was not at all clear to me in your initial post or in your responses to the first 200 or so posts.

While I still find your reaction to Hogg rather overwrought, I completely get the idea of being revolted by being associated with the most visible face associated with a policy goal, and not wanting to empower that movement/face.

e.g., I am and have been for decades in favor of changing the immigration system from family reunification to some sort of Canadian/Australian style point system (where family gets you some points but not all that many). But now that it’s associated, at least on alternate Tuesdays, with Trump, I have basically zero hope of anything useful being passed and will expend energy elsewhere.

#3 Comment By bmidde On March 26, 2018 @ 2:15 pm

I don’t disagree that the language and the tactics are repulsive.

Gun rights enthusiasts still have a major problem. Americans generally find the mass murder of children repulsive. As long the Republican response to these shootings continues to be nothing, the NRA is fighting a rear guard action that will ultimately end in total defeat. Does anyone honestly think that someone who suffered through Newtown, Columbine, Parkland or any of the other mass shootings is going to get back on the gun rights wagon? The language is only going to get more strident, more demagogic and more virulent until we come to a solution. If the right does not participate in the solution, then you are going to end up with a solution that is likely going to be much worse for gun owners. (see generally, Obamacare)

#4 Comment By James Kabala On March 26, 2018 @ 2:20 pm

“It was passed in the aftermath of the Whisky Rebellion”

This is chronologically inaccurate.

“Among the March for Our Lives protesters, I saw a kid wearing a Serrano “Piss Christ” hoodie and many others with various obscenity buttons: ‘F– this’ and ‘F— that.’

This is kind of dumb. One obscure person invalidates the whole march? The second half is more valid, since it refers to “many” (albeit still undefined). Our culture of casual profanity is worthy of note (and seems more common on the left than on the right – Hogg himself swears quite a bit). But “I dug up one guy in an offensive outfit” is still pretty dumb.

#5 Comment By Mattl On March 26, 2018 @ 2:44 pm

Just did our annual active shooter drills at work last week. Basically each year we prepare for when some lunatic with easy access to guns will come in and blast a few of our colleagues.

#6 Comment By Joey D. On March 26, 2018 @ 2:56 pm

In regards to your Update 6 –

It’s all one movement. There’s only one leftist movement. And it encompasses gun control and transgender pronoun fascists and punitive taxation and wealth redistribution and some men have uteruses and unlimited abortion on demand…etc, etc.

Hogg’s rhetoric is proof of that. It doesn’t matter that Rubio is probably one of the few Republicans who could be convinced to support gun control and who the left should thus view as a potential ally. He’s in the other tribe, and he’s not with the left so he’s against them.

Hogg and others like him are stoking something extremely dangerous in this country. I fear what will happen when the Flight 93 election people have decreased in number or influence enough that they can no longer win elections like they unexpectedly did in 2016. Because we know the left would squash them like a bug if it could. When it thinks it can…how will the right react? Could it come to violence? To appropriate from a famous statesman, as a country we must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.

#7 Comment By One Guy On March 26, 2018 @ 2:59 pm

For 40 years I’ve been hearing and reading about how if the other side wins, it will mean the end of America.

#8 Comment By The Sicilian Woman On March 26, 2018 @ 3:00 pm

Hang in there, Rod. (That salute of his was something, wasn’t it?)

Meanwhile in Mexico, where gun ownership as a constitutional right has been heavily legislated – much more than it has been here in the U.S. – to make gun purchases difficult, criminals and the state (often, one and the same) have guns, and the gun violence is much higher than it is here.

But guess what? The gun control laws being loosened to give back law-abiding citizens easier access is NOT being discussed. Rights lost (usually on emotion, tunnel-vision and stupidity) are usually gone for good. Coming soon here, but not with my support.

[9]

#9 Comment By Shea808 On March 26, 2018 @ 3:31 pm

“Meanwhile John Bolton is about to try to start World War III, but this actual threat to our (and many, many other people’s) lives is not the kind of thing worth marching for, apparently.”

I agree with this statement and yet the specter of John Bolton and what he might do is not enough to convince Rod or his friend to vote against Donald Trump in 2020. It blows my mind how deranged some on the right have become about the Left. Trump is the greatest threat America has faced in my 53 years because he has infected OUR standards. But vote for him because you fear the Thought Police. My God.

#10 Comment By Jefferson Smith On March 26, 2018 @ 4:26 pm

@CMPT:

The more likely trend is that gun owners will be made into the new cigarette smokers. They’ll retain the right to own guns, but the societal costs associated with them will be borne more directly by the gun owners themselves.

Very good analogy. I think it’s correct, and I would add that I don’t think the gun enthusiasts are alert to this danger yet. The image in their heads of an anti-gun crackdown is jackbooted federal thugs coming to seize their guns, presumably on the orders of a Democratic president in league with the UN or something. Simply becoming a social pariah, subject to steep liability and increased taxation but with nobody trying to take away the guns themselves, is a scenario that probably very few of them have imagined.

Worse for them, there’s no real defense against it. Even if you have a constitutional right to your guns, you have no constitutional right to stop other people from thinking you’re a weird, antisocial idiot. And while you might imagine shooting the jackbooted thugs, you can’t shoot public opinion. All you can really do is whine about how unfair it is, and I expect we’ll be hearing a lot of that kind of whining in coming years.

#11 Comment By Jonah R. On March 26, 2018 @ 4:39 pm

Hound of Ulster wrote: “What social conservatives have never understood is this…the same culture that thinks killing babies in the womb is okay, is a culture that thinks dead children in classrooms is an acceptable risk to take in exchange for an unregulated market in deadly weapons.”

I’m not in the NRA. I’m probably around where Rod is on supporting some new gun regulations. But how can you possibly say with a straight face that guns are sold on an “unregulated market”? We regulate the shizz out of guns.

Try going to the District of Columbia with no gun but just empty bullet casings. Try driving with a gun through New Jersey. Try discharging a firearm too close to a house or road even in the most gun-friendly jurisdictions. Try selling a gun from a stand at a farmer’s market.

Gun-control partisans might win over more people if they didn’t try to make it seem like the gun market in the U.S. is the equivalent of a weapons bazaar in the Sudan. Whether or not those laws work or achieve the right outcomes is very much open for debate, but many of us turn off when we hear these fictional assertions that we somehow live in some libertarian dream world without hundreds or even thousands of pages of gun regulations at the local, state, county, and federal levels.

#12 Comment By Thomas Aquinas On March 26, 2018 @ 4:53 pm

Hound writes: What social conservatives have never understood is this…the same culture that thinks killing babies in the womb is okay, is a culture that thinks dead children in classrooms is an acceptable risk to take in exchange for an unregulated market in deadly weapons. They are both part of the same selfish culture of death and exploitation of the weak by the strong.

If you really wanted to protect children, you’d support mandatory home schooling, which would mean no children dying in car accidents on their way to school.

There are far too many traffic accidents that would be virtually all eliminated if the interstate speed limit were 30 mph. Oh you say in reply that that would mean that this would pretty much shut down the economy. I guess then you like money more than people.

Monster.

#13 Comment By Beowulf On March 26, 2018 @ 5:14 pm

This outcry over school shootings is pure opportunism. Liberals LOVE school shootings because it gives them an opportunity to grind their ax. This has absolutely nothing to do with school safety and everything to do with the culture wars. The data simply does not support any crisis.

Take it from the well-known NRA propaganda rag NPR:

“First, while multiple-victim shootings in general are on the rise, that’s not the case in schools. There’s an average of about one a year — in a country with more than 100,000 schools.

“There were more back in the ’90s than in recent years,” says Fox. “For example, in one school year — 1997-98 — there were four multiple-victim shootings in schools.”

Second, the overall number of gunshot victims at schools is also down. According to Fox’s numbers, back in the 1992-93 school year, about 0.55 students per million were shot and killed; in 2014-15, that rate was closer to 0.15 per million.”

[10]

So annually, school shootings claim .15 life per million in this country.

For comparison, consider that your odds of being struck and killed by lightning are 1/1,000,000
[11]

Maybe they should start teaching math in school again

#14 Comment By Craig in OH On March 26, 2018 @ 6:23 pm

I’m surprised that you find this surprising. This is how politics is done these days – hyperbolic rhetoric, mixed with misleading spins, fake news, and unfounded conspiracy theories. Both sides do it. No one has the high moral ground. Rational debate is largely gone.

You ask what if similar tactics were used against liberals on immigration or abortion. Well, those aren’t really hypotheticals. Politicians and activists favoring open borders are sometimes accused of having “blood on their hands” after islamic immigrants commit terrorist attacks or crimes. And supporters of Planned Parenthood are sometimes accused of being complicit in the murder of babies. I was going to provide some links, but I decided not to bother. A few minutes with Google will turn up examples.

As for emotional driven policy, consider this: If you include the 9/11 attacks, there have been somewhat less than 4,000 Americans killed on US soil by terrorist attacks since 2001. In that same time period, there were approximately 150,000 homicides involving the use of guns. In that same time period, there were approximately 720,000 deaths due to automobile accidents.

Note the difference in responses to these threats:

Most of us are not terrified to get into a car nearly every day to travel somewhere. We did (reluctantly) support the use of legislation to reduce the carnage: seat belts, design changes in vehicles to improve the survivability of crashes, restrictions of drunk driving, imposition of speed limits etc., to reduce the rate of accidental death. These have had some effect on the frequency of death by automobile, but the total numbers remain pretty high.

At the other extreme, our response to the deaths by terrorism was to start 2 wars, and invade 2 countries, at a cost of several trillion dollars. We have sacrificed the lives of almost 7,000 US troops in waging those largely unproductive military campaigns; ten’s of thousands more have suffered life altering injuries. Those wars also cost the lives of over 200,000 civilians. And those terrorist acts have caused many to call for a complete moratorium on immigration by Muslims. Some would even like, I suppose, to deport all Muslims. Given the numbers, it seems like an over-sized reaction.

As for guns: we wring our hands a lot, and the rhetoric continues to heat up: one side levels charges of murders taking blood money from the NRA, the other cites wackado gun nuts accumulating arsenals so that they can overthrow the US government if necessary (but please don’t diss the flag by kneeling during the national anthem). But relatively little has been done.

The NRA has succeeded in creating an entrenched position: there are now so many weapons in the hands of so many people that almost any measure that might put a dent in the numbers can justifiably be said to be inadequate – so why do anything at all. But the reality is this: the US is nearly unique in terms of the number of guns in circulation. And a proper statistical analysis shows that we pay a uniquely high price for this, in terms of death by gun violence, and even in terms of the frequency of mass shootings. (Yes, I know you can gin up a ratio which identifies Norway as the most dangerous country on the planet. But that, as far as I can tell, is an obvously improper use of statistics.)

The real issue is the possibility that these kids just might represent the leading edge of a generational wave in which public attitudes about guns start to change, in favor of greater restriction and control. Ultimately, the law will follow where public opinion goes, which is the long-term nightmare for gun rights activists. Unfortunately, as long as these slaughters continue, it will become increasingly hard to just say no to more restrictions.

#15 Comment By Brendan from OZ On March 26, 2018 @ 6:23 pm

“All of the rhetoric is about gun control is needed, but nothing, not one thing, is said about how any of this keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, the criminally insane, or someone hell-bent on terrorism.”

Most of the rest of the world does not share American notions of gun rights, and not all are hotbeds of criminality. Japan? Singapore?

My own Australia, which always gets trotted-out by the media? Keeping weapons out of the hands of the criminally insane is easier if there aren’t tonnes of them around readily available. And if the crims can’t buy them legally, its a greater risk and longer gaol time if caught.

Having said that, we are currently trying to repeal our famous gun-laws on a state-by-state basis. We have not eliminated gun crime, but it did make a difference.

But cannot be applied to America. Too many guns already.

#16 Comment By Ain’t Ben On March 26, 2018 @ 6:49 pm

“You cannot question them, or doubt them, or in any way criticize them and their cause. “

And yet here you are, making a decent living doing exactly that. Either I’m witnessing a miracle (yet again) or that statement is just a load of self-pitying manure.

Being unpopular isn’t the same thing as being oppressed, you know.

[NFR: Surely you don’t need this point explained to you, do you? In idiomatic, spoken English, I’m saying that liberals treat any serious criticism of these kids as illegitimate. — RD]

#17 Comment By Allan Shore On March 26, 2018 @ 7:36 pm

Trump is the greatest threat America has faced in my 53 years because he has infected OUR standards. But vote for him because you fear the Thought Police. My God.

Greater than nuclear annihilation at the hands of the USSR? Greater than the Left’s support for the kind of cultural rot pervading our society at this time? Really? Just exactly who is more deranged, the people who oppose the Left or the person whom I just quoted?

#18 Comment By sara On March 26, 2018 @ 8:09 pm

@Beowulf says: March 26, 2018 at 5:14 pm
“Liberals LOVE school shootings because it gives them an opportunity to grind their ax.”

That is absolutely nasty.

“In idiomatic, spoken English, I’m saying that liberals treat any serious criticism of these kids as illegitimate. — RD”

Nope. You said what you said and it opened the door wide for statements like that from Beowulf. Those kinds of statements, idiomatic or not, contribute to the extreme partisanship in our country and don’t help either side. It is not necessary to go to such extremes to make your points.

#19 Comment By VikingLS On March 26, 2018 @ 8:40 pm

“Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but this doesn’t make you ‘responsible’ because you were victimized by the enormous nose-stretchers and outright lies of those who were charged with the sacred democratic duty of telling the truth about matters of war and peace. How would you (or I) know – we might guess – but how could we know?”

I knew.

Sorry but this dog just won’t hunt. There were just too many people, myself amongst them, who understood what Iraq was rationally, for it to simply be “we were lied to!”.

Rod IS absolutely responsible for the fact that he gave in to his anger and refused to listen to the people not out for blood.

Anger is bad.

[NFR: Yeah, I’m not going to blame Bush or Blair or anybody else. — RD]

#20 Comment By VikingLS On March 26, 2018 @ 8:47 pm

“But how can you possibly say with a straight face that guns are sold on an “unregulated market”? We regulate the shizz out of guns.”

Probably because it is REALLY hard for Hound of Ulster to control himself and not resort to hyperbole and hysterical rhetoric. From what he’s told us pretty much all of his family are progressives to hard leftist and that’s just how, as a culture, they communicate.

[NFR: Hound of Ulster has also said that he is on the autism spectrum. He sees things in two vivid colors: black and white. — RD]

#21 Comment By Eric On March 26, 2018 @ 9:06 pm

If you support the movement’s goals maybe you can look past the fact that what is finally working after decades of inaction sometimes hurts your feelings.

#22 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 26, 2018 @ 9:27 pm

“It was passed in the aftermath of the Whisky Rebellion”

This is chronologically inaccurate.

It is. But Shays’s Rebellion in western Massachusetts was much on the mind of those who sought a stronger federal government, and also on the mind of those who sought a Bill of Rights to limit the powers of that government, including the Second Amendment.

#23 Comment By VikingLS On March 26, 2018 @ 10:31 pm

[NFR: Hound of Ulster has also said that he is on the autism spectrum. He sees things in two vivid colors: black and white. — RD]

Well on the one hand I will be more patient with him in the future. I have an autistic child.

On the other, if he knows that, he has a responsibility to be more careful in his rhetoric.

#24 Comment By Ray Woodcock On March 26, 2018 @ 10:39 pm

I read the post. I didn’t really get it. I was going to skip it. Decided to look at the comments. Noticed Rod’s snide reply to comments. Reviewed the post. Concluded Rod’s not listening.

#25 Comment By MikeCA On March 26, 2018 @ 11:39 pm

Mea culpa on my hurried missive this morning;to your credit you have voiced support for limited restrictions on gun ownership. But the NRA isn’t prepared to budge one iota and I think that’s a position they will regret. Outside of military use I’ve not heard any compelling reason why AR 15 & the like are necessary for civilian use. Yes, someone said they’re useful for hunting feral hogs(a very specialised use!) and that they’re fun to fire. The harm they can do far outweighs any positives in my humble opinion.
It’s more than just guns though that needs addressing. On this at least I think most of us can agree.

#26 Comment By John Spragge On March 27, 2018 @ 6:50 am

Excuse me, but Hound of Ulster’s comment accurately reflects common language and perception when he refers to the American market in guns as “unregulated”. In the context of other dangerous technologies (bullets can an have killed at ranges of five kilometers or better), in the context of the manner in which other countries regulate firearms, the United States, and in particular several individual states, have relatively unregulated firearms markets. Unlike most nations, for example, you don’t affirmatively qualify buyers. Unlike the vast majority of nations, you don’t require background checks of any kind for sales outside gun shows.

On these facts, it seems to me pretty clear: if you parse the comment by Hound of Ulster for its colloquial meaning, it accurately expresses an underlying and, in this context, important fact: the US has a limited system for regulating guns, heavily biased towards allowing anyone who wants a gun to acquire one. In some areas, such as private sales, not effective enforcement exists at all.

#27 Comment By Barry On March 27, 2018 @ 7:09 am

I lost the reference, Rod, but you made a list of bad reactions a liberal blogger compiled. He was seriously impressed by your shocked horror at somebody attacking a politician for taking money.
He was also impressed by your pretense of only now not being willing to vote Democratic.

[NFR: Well, that’s a stupid reaction. I’m not shocked that somebody would attack a politician for taking money. I was shocked that Hogg would accuse Rubio of being so callous as to take money in exchange for the lives of children killed by a mass murderer. And I have voted for Democrats in the past — the current Louisiana governor, for one, and also for state offices — and as a registered Independent who has no use for the Republican Party, would like to have an alternative. At the state level, in my state, I feel confident that I can. But nationally? — RD]

#28 Comment By GSW On March 27, 2018 @ 10:16 am

I knew. @VikingLS

Vainglorious codswallop.

NFR: Yeah, I’m not going to blame Bush or Blair or anybody else. — RD

Bush/Blair and their enablers cannot be held individually responsible for their war crimes, put in the dock, because those like you who supported the war from a distance should have known better than to believe their lies?? Nuremburg established that collective guilt is not a defense for individual decision-making state office holders who are responsible for war crimes.

[NFR: Look, there’s no point in continuing this exchange. I’m not absolving Bush, Blair, or anybody. But I’m also not going to offload my own willful complicity onto them. It’s important that I examine my own conscience here, and repent. — RD]

#29 Comment By Cecil On March 27, 2018 @ 10:25 am

Noticed this satire today on the Bee:
[12]

And I connected it to Mr Hogg. The value of a baby is under one dollar!
See [13].

#30 Comment By Countme-a-Demon On March 27, 2018 @ 11:54 am

Robespierre?

Here is the MFOL platform for action on gun control:

[14]

No mention of guillotines. Not a cackle or a dropped stitch from Madame Defarge.

Hogg is pissed off.

Why shouldn’t he be? He was shot at and witnessed mass murder up close in close quarters with blood splatter, unlike anyone, except perhaps combat veterans among the commentariat here might have at some point, except Hogg didn’t sign up for the front line.

Senator Rubio is all over the map on every issue.

Hogg’s rhetoric toward Rubio barely matches the threatening rhetoric of his paymaster, the NRA toward great swathes of the American population, who question their legitimacy.

Hogg is no Robespierre. Please. Get a grip on something other than a military-grade weapon.

If I had been in a school building or church during one of these shooting and survived (I was close enough living a mile and a half from Columbine High School in 1999 and attending the memorial across the street), I would be the Robespierre of your snowflake imaginations .. and still might.

By the way, I’m for taking military-grade weaponry away from civilian government at all levels as well.

#31 Comment By paradoctor On March 27, 2018 @ 1:00 pm

Gun control? Time is not on the NRA’s side.

It’s like what the workman said to the homeowner: pay me now or pay me more later.

#32 Comment By paradoctor On March 27, 2018 @ 1:09 pm

Since “DC vs Heller”, the 2nd Amendment has been half-repealed, with “right to bear arms” fetishized, and “well-regulated militias” ignored. This half-repeal has had malign effects now self-evident.

Half an amendment will not long stand; therefore I propose that we repair the 2nd Amendment by fully reinstating well-regulation. The following sentence, if passed by Congress, might suffice:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.”

That plus some relevant regulation (such as, say, no weapons to the underaged) might help.

#33 Comment By Joe On March 27, 2018 @ 3:13 pm

I am all for some changes in gun laws that will be meaningful, produce results and not drafted by the knee-jerk communist left. I’m not going to listen to these extreme hateful clueless idiots that don’t have the least bit of knowledge regarding responsible gun owner ship. I am all for having to be 21 years old to purchase a firearm. Instead of having armed teachers why not marshals similar to the air marshals that are currently in existence today on our aircraft. You hire people disguise them as maintenance and janitors who’s one and only purpose is responding to active shooters. Nobody will ever know who they are until an active shooter situation begins to unfold. I don’t really quite understand how you can expand on a background check. They are what they are. What are you gonna do background check a 21-year-old who wants to buy a firearm and instead of going all the way back to when he was in the first grade go back to the day he was born? It’s absolutely ludicrous. Background checks that are already in place would work perfectly fine if I government entities like the FBI and local law-enforcement would not fail to act on clear and present danger’s that they were warned about multiple times in the past. Secure the schools with magnetic locks and nobody gets in without an appointment or other official reason. If you want to talk real solutions I am all ears. But if I have to listen to the vitriol and utter clueless jiberish that occurred at the nations capital last Saturday I am Going to pick up my marbles do an about-face and quietly go home. I turned it on for five minutes on Saturday while I was driving down the highway and if I didn’t know any better I would’ve sworn I was listening to somebody rake their nails across a chalkboard. If you want to talk let’s talk but I am not going to talk to people who have absolutely no clue what the Constitution is all about what the Second Amendment is all about or what responsible gun owner ship is all about. “Like we just gotta ban all guns in the world cuz like it would be cool and like um we would all be happy and safe enjoying all the sunshine and lollipops and like if you are an NRA member you like support killing kids and you know that’s like um like really mean and stuff”. I have no room in my busy life for the mental flotsam on display at the Capital on Saturday.

#34 Comment By Countme-a-Demon On March 27, 2018 @ 3:56 pm

Snappy music to go with this thread.

#35 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 27, 2018 @ 4:29 pm

I am all for some changes in gun laws that will be meaningful, produce results and not drafted by the knee-jerk communist left.

How many times do I have to remind you that the communist left have always been firm supporters of the Second Amendment? Its hard to fight a revolution if the government has all the guns. I’ve known communists who were life-time members of the NRA.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.”

There are reasons the original wording was put together the way it was. The militia a lot of men who owned their own weapons, kept them at home, used them for a variety of purposes, and brought them when called for military duty. People didn’t bear arms because there was a militia, a militia was possible because people kept and bore arms.

The proposed rewrite of the amendment would shut down the National Guard and require all states to return to the original militia model.

#36 Comment By David J. White On March 29, 2018 @ 11:14 am

Hi Mapache,

I never, ever thought I’d say this, but I’m thinking of sending the NRA a donation too. Unless of course young Mr. Hogg and his buddies will guarantee me the same protection I pay to provide to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Otherwise I’m keeping the pistol and shotgun for the same reason I keep the fire extinguisher.

Seriously. I’ve been considering joining the NRA over this. I don’t own any guns and don’t have any plans to buy any, but making the NRA the sole whipping boy over this is ridiculous. I ran the idea by my wife and she didn’t object.