Gun Control

United Airlines, Delta cut ties with the NRA

Quote :

United Airlines and Delta are cutting ties with the National Rifle Association, the latest in major companies to do so following the deadly shooting at a Florida high school earlier this month.

Both Delta and Chicago-based United said Saturday they will no longer offer discounted fares to NRA members to attend their annual meetings, and both have asked the gun rights group to remove any references to their companies from the NRA website.

Advocate for the Murder of Police Officers 60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Advocate for the Murder of Police Officers 60438 wrote:

United Airlines, Delta cut ties with the NRA

Quote :

United Airlines and Delta are cutting ties with the National Rifle Association, the latest in major companies to do so following the deadly shooting at a Florida high school earlier this month.

Both Delta and Chicago-based United said Saturday they will no longer offer discounted fares to NRA members to attend their annual meetings, and both have asked the gun rights group to remove any references to their companies from the NRA website.

She who believes that talking points kill people wrote:

   ..... the NRA's talking points helps kill innocent Americans.

If enough companies participate in these boycotts, perhaps the NRA will no longer be able to stockpile so many of those "assault" talking points and use them to kill people.
You never did explain, however, exactly how they use these talking points to slaughter innocent people.
I mean, these talking points, are they, like, real sharp points, and the NRA stabs and pokes people with them until they are dead?
How does this work?

Simple. They brainwash gullible lazy cranks like yourself who sit and watch Fox News all day with their rhetoric into believing that every gun nut like yourself should be allowed to purchase and stockpile weapons of mass destruction like military style assault weapons.

Artie 60438 Always Speaks the Truth wrote: ..... the NRA's talking points helps kill innocent Americans.



You still haven't explained how talking points kill people.
Do these sharpened talking points jump out of a TV screen that is showing Fox News and kill innocent Americans by poking them to death?
Are you in favor of banning talking points altogether, or do you think there should just be limitations?
Perhaps a background check and a 10-day waiting period before Fox News is allowed to broadcast the NRA's dangerously sharp talking points?
And can you name a few people who were killed by these talking points? I sometimes just skim the news for the major stories, so it's possible that I missed some of those articles.
Some clarification would be helpful.

Trump Worshiping Advocate for the Murder of School Children wrote:

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

Trump Worshiping Advocate for the Murder of School Children wrote:

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

United Airlines, Delta cut ties with the NRA

Quote :

United Airlines and Delta are cutting ties with the National Rifle Association, the latest in major companies to do so following the deadly shooting at a Florida high school earlier this month.

Both Delta and Chicago-based United said Saturday they will no longer offer discounted fares to NRA members to attend their annual meetings, and both have asked the gun rights group to remove any references to their companies from the NRA website.

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

   ..... the NRA's talking points helps kill innocent Americans.

If enough companies participate in these boycotts, perhaps the NRA will no longer be able to stockpile so many of those "assault" talking points and use them to kill people.
You never did explain, however, exactly how they use these talking points to slaughter innocent people.
I mean, these talking points, are they, like, real sharp points, and the NRA stabs and pokes people with them until they are dead?
How does this work?

Simple. They brainwash gullible lazy cranks like yourself who sit and watch Fox News all day with their rhetoric into believing that every gun nut like yourself should be allowed to purchase and stockpile weapons of mass destruction like military style assault weapons.

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote: ..... the NRA's talking points helps kill innocent Americans.



You still haven't explained how talking points kill people.
Do these sharpened talking points jump out of a TV screen that is showing Fox News and kill innocent Americans by poking them to death?
Are you in favor of banning talking points altogether, or do you think there should just be limitations?
Perhaps a background check and a 10-day waiting period before Fox News is allowed to broadcast the NRA's dangerously sharp talking points?
And can you name a few people who were killed by these talking points? I sometimes just skim the news for the major stories, so it's possible that I missed some of those articles.
Some clarification would be helpful.

I already answered it,Brain stem.

It still hasn't dawned on you that no one here is interested in going down your rabbit holes anymore,has it?

Dick's Sporting Goods Ends Sale Of Assault-Style Rifles, Citing Florida Shooting

If you can't defeat them with logic and reason, then they must be silenced.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-controllers-banning-speech-nra-tv-gun-culture-war/

PC Culture
Banning Speech: Next Front in the Gun Culture Wars
By Jonathan S. Tobin

March 1, 2018 3:11 PM

Leftists aim to ban NRA TV from streaming platforms. And guns aren’t the only things they want to control.


In the weeks since the Parkland, Fla., massacre, gun-control advocates have changed their tactics. After each past mass shooting, leftists merely denounced the NRA for, as they saw it, obstructing laws that might sensibly restrict the sale and ownership of firearms. But this time, gun-control activists not only blamed the NRA. They directed the passion of the high-school student survivors and those who grieved with them toward the amorphous and largely pointless legislative proposals presented as a response to the latest atrocity.
In short order, the attacks on the NRA led to a movement to boycott the 5-million-member organization. Activists also pressured businesses such as banks, car-rental agencies, and airlines to end any relationship with the NRA — relations that largely revolve around discounts for NRA members. But as bitter as the battles over these efforts have been, a far more troubling aspect of the effort to isolate the NRA is getting less attention.

Gun-control advocates are now pressuring Amazon, Google, AT&T, Roku, and other streaming platforms to ban NRA TV — the organization’s private channel of gun-rights advocacy and other weapons-related programming. This takes the fight against the group to a different and dangerous level. It is one thing to condemn the NRA and even to ask businesses not to work with a group that offends some people. It is quite another to silence the point of view of an organization that represents millions of Americans. If successful, the ban on NRA TV will mark a turning point not so much in the battle over gun control as in the debate over political speech and what is permissible within the public square.
Part of the NRA’s problems stem from its own ham-fisted approach to the post-Parkland political environment. Faced with a vituperative campaign against it in which the group was blamed for mass shootings, the NRA circled the wagons. In his first full public response after Parkland, in a speech at CPAC, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre attributed the current anti-NRA mood to a “socialist” plot to destroy the Constitution and the rights of individual citizens.
LaPierre is correct that the ultimate goal of many of the NRA’s most fervent opponents — such as former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has personally funded the Everytown for Gun Safety group — would be to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. But by casting the argument as a conspiracy in which a plutocrat like Bloomberg is a “socialist” plotter, LaPierre persuaded few outside of the NRA.


The NRA is under siege, for sure, but the more its opponents demonize the group, the more likely it is that it will emerge from this crisis with its support intact or even stronger. The companies considering banning NRA TV should consider that. They should also understand that the effort to silence the group goes above and beyond the political struggle over guns.
Enlisting streaming platforms in the anti-NRA crusade is a mistake. In the era of social media, corporations are easily bullied into backing away from controversy. But no matter how unpopular the NRA might be in some quarters, treating the views of its supporters as beyond the pale is still bad for business — as some of those companies that have joined the NRA boycott are starting to learn.
The boycott, predictably, has only strengthened the pro-gun-rights stance of firearm owners and conservatives. They see the boycott as yet another front in the culture war waged by urban and coastal liberal elites, who view guns as horrible and distasteful, against Americans who live in regions where gun ownership is part of everyday life.
Its foes think of the NRA as a Washington lobby whose financial and political clout is based on contributions from gun manufacturers. They forget that it is a mass-membership organization. Its influence on lawmakers does not come from its roster of high-flying campaign donors — Bloomberg’s outfit has outspent the NRA in some key elections in which gun control became an issue.


The NRA’s power comes from its ability to motivate people to vote. NRA members and the many others who sympathize with the group tend to be single-issue voters dedicated to the Second Amendment; gun critics tend not to be single-issue voters. NRA backers see the boycott as an attack on them, not on LaPierre and his staff. And so the NRA’s hold on Red State America will remain secure.
That’s why Amazon, Google, and AT&T should be wary of taking action that, in effect, would place them at odds with about half of the country. But over and above the reluctance they should feel about signing up for a culture war, these companies should also understand that if they ban NRA TV, they’ll be headed down a very slippery slope. Soon, pro-gun opinions would not be the only ones to be censored.
There may be no constitutional right to a spot on a streaming spectrum. But it’s absurd to think that the NRA’s views are so dangerous that they can’t be heard. The celebrities who support such censorship are notable for their hypocrisy. What would be the reaction of  Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski if cable providers took MSNBC off the air because of its obvious left-wing tilt? They would be outraged and rightly so, since it would be censorship. The same applies to actors such as Alyssa Milano and others in the entertainment industry who are cheerleading for the ban. They’d be outraged if their work were censored. In effect, they are trying to turn neutral platforms such as Amazon into thought police on an issue about which Americans have conflicting opinions.
By seeking to silence the NRA rather than defeat its arguments, its liberal critics are overstepping.


Scarborough and Brzezinski have every right to treat the NRA as a piñata on their program. But when they aim to prevent the group from reaching its supporters via streaming platforms, they reveal their bias: Free speech is fine for them but not for their opponents. Like the boycotts, this is bound to boomerang on gun-control advocates. With talk of a “socialism’ plot, LaPierre may’ve alienated the public, but intolerant liberal elites now make the NRA look like a sympathetic martyr.
After the Parkland shooting, public sentiment may have tilted against the NRA, but even the grief Americans feel about the massacre hasn’t delegitimized the notion of gun rights. As long as there are two sides in this debate, each is entitled to a hearing. In culture wars, opponents wish to silence each other rather than agree to disagree. But controlling the flow of ideas in this manner is contrary to the spirit of democracy. By seeking to silence the NRA rather than defeat its arguments, its liberal critics are overstepping. In their overreach, they will not shake the NRA’s hold on the many Second Amendment–supporting Americans who vote.

Hats off to Emma Gonzalez @Emma4Change who has amassed more followers than the @NRA.

A kid calling for sensible gun reform has outnumbered the entire NRA--in just 10 days. She has almost twice as many followers 1.17 million as the NRA and there is no sign that it's slowing down.

Should make for some interesting GOP town halls

Trump Worshiping Advocate for the Murder of School Children wrote:

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

Trump Worshiping Advocate for the Murder of School Children wrote:

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

United Airlines, Delta cut ties with the NRA

Quote :

United Airlines and Delta are cutting ties with the National Rifle Association, the latest in major companies to do so following the deadly shooting at a Florida high school earlier this month.

Both Delta and Chicago-based United said Saturday they will no longer offer discounted fares to NRA members to attend their annual meetings, and both have asked the gun rights group to remove any references to their companies from the NRA website.

Artie Always Speaks the Truth wrote:

   ..... the NRA's talking points helps kill innocent Americans.

If enough companies participate in these boycotts, perhaps the NRA will no longer be able to stockpile so many of those "assault" talking points and use them to kill people.
You never did explain, however, exactly how they use these talking points to slaughter innocent people.
I mean, these talking points, are they, like, real sharp points, and the NRA stabs and pokes people with them until they are dead?
How does this work?

Simple. They brainwash gullible lazy cranks like yourself who sit and watch Fox News all day with their rhetoric into believing that every gun nut like yourself should be allowed to purchase and stockpile weapons of mass destruction like military style assault weapons.

As a responsible gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I have:
Am statistically among the most law-abiding citizens in this country

That is until you snap like the guy in Las Vegas who shot up a music concert with an AR-15 penis extender or the kid who killed 17b at a school 2 weeks ago.

Pee-wee wrote:

As a responsible gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I have:

a much smaller than average penis according to scientific studies.

The 2nd Amendment applies equally to men and women.
Please shut up until you are able to actually figure out what it is you are ranting about.



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/constitution-gun-rights-women-rights_us_5a9ef7e0e4b002df2c5e7080

The Constitution Gives Gun Owners Greater Rights Than Women

For decades, women have been fighting for an equal rights amendment. Gun owners, mostly men, have had the Second Amendment for centuries.

By Emily Peck

Gun rights are enshrined in the Second Amendment, but women are still fighting for an equal rights amendment

Here’s a disturbing fact to consider in 2018, the year women supposedly began to topple the patriarchy: Gun owners in the United States, a majority of whom are men, have better constitutional rights than women.  
Gun owners have the Second Amendment, in place since the 18th century. The U.S. is one of only three countries that offer constitutional protection to gun owners.
Women, meanwhile, have been fighting for an equal rights amendment for decades. That’s because the Constitution does not actually grant women equal rights under the law, setting the country apart from 131 other nations that explicitly guarantee gender equality in their constitutions.
This failing means that when it comes to a raft of issues ― including equal pay, sexual harassment and domestic violence ― women lose.
“On the moral plane, there’s a sense in which the Constitution sets forth our human rights and to not have the human rights of women in there is a gross omission,” said Jessica Neuwirth, president of the ERA Coalition, a group founded in 2014 that’s dedicated to amending the Constitution. “It just makes no sense.”
This injustice burns all the more now, in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, shooting, in which a 19-year-old man used an AR-15 to murder 17 people, including 14 high school students. The shooter had a legal right to his guns. He apparently had an arsenal. And because he had no criminal record, the FBI and police did not have any legal standing to take them away. In 2014, police were similarly hamstrung in the case of a 22-year-old man who went on to kill six and injure 13 in a rampage in Isla Vista, California.
On the moral plane, there’s a sense in which the Constitution sets forth our human rights and to not have the human rights of women in there is a gross omission.
Contrast those cases with what happened to Jessica Gonzales, a Colorado mother whose three children, just 7, 9 and 10, were abducted and shot to death by her husband. Those children should still be alive today: Gonzales had obtained a protective order against her husband, who had been violent before. The police refused to enforce it, declining to get involved in a “private” matter between a man and his wife.
Gonzales sued the police, arguing she had a right to protection. Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court. But she lost in 2005. The court ruled that Gonzales, now known as Jessica Lenahan, had no constitutional right to help from law enforcement.
An equal rights amendment, which would force police to take the rights of women as seriously as they apparently take the rights of potential mass murderers, could have theoretically changed the outcome of that case.
Indeed, Gonzales has brought her case to an international court, which has charged the U.S. government with violating her human rights.  
Of course, the Second Amendment applies to all Americans. But is there really any doubt that guns are unabashedly, toxically masculine? Recent efforts by the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers to market weapons to women haven’t done much to change this. Thirty-nine percent of men said they own a gun, in a recent Pew survey, compared with 22 percent of women. Of course,  Second Amendment rights have traditionally been a liberty fully enjoyed mostly by white men ― and the stats reflect this: 48 percent of those guys own a gun.
If a boy grows up in a house with guns, he’s far more likely to participate in gun-related activities, according to Pew. After all, from the time boys are able to walk, they are lured into loving guns ― they get Army men to play with, fashion pistols out of sticks, watch “cool men” shoot people in video games and on the big screen. Gun companies run advertisements, like this one from Bushmaster, that equate gun ownership with masculinity.
To grown men, guns are marketed as the ultimate safety device, allowing them to protect themselves and, this is crucial, their families ― wives and children ― from danger.
But we know the truth: Women are in greater danger when their partner has a gun. The risk of a woman being murdered in a domestic violence situation increases 500 percent when there’s a gun in the house, according to one study.
Women would be better protected with the help of the law, not a device meant to kill.
There was a big and fairly popular attempt to pass a measure appropriately called the Equal Rights Amendment for women back in the 1970s. The gist of the ERA is simple: “Equality under the law should not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state because of sex.” But in 1982, the amendment reached the deadline imposed on it by Congress. It fell just three states short of the 38 needed to ratify it to amend the Constitution.
While the ERA was initially popular, opponents of the amendment gained traction over the years its ratification was in play. They used arguments that now seem antiquated, such as that the ERA would mean women would go into combat (now they do), that it would make gay marriage legal (check) or that somehow women wouldn’t get a good deal out of marriage anymore (because of alimony).  
Others tried to argue we don’t need explicit equal rights under the Constitution because the law already provides women with equality. Tell that to Jessica Gonzales. Or to the female workers at Walmart who famously lost their fight for equal pay at the Supreme Court in 2011.
In Walmart v. Dukes, the high court ruled that the women did not have standing to sue because they didn’t have enough in common. The opinion was written by now-deceased Justice Antonin Scalia who had said earlier that year in an interview that women aren’t guaranteed protection from sex discrimination by the Constitution.
Indeed, even as so many more women are now speaking up in the Me Too era about sexual harassment and discrimination, the sad truth is Scalia wasn’t wrong: The path to justice in the court system for victims of harassment and discrimination is far from guaranteed.
This amendment is the only legal initiative expansive enough to support what the Me Too revelations have shown is needed.
Catharine MacKinnon, of the ERA Coalition advisory council
The legal framework that allows women to go after harassers in court is a patchwork. The federal anti-discrimination law, born of the civil rights era in the 1960s, does offer protection for women ― but there are loopholes.  If harassment takes place outside of work or school, there’s no avenue to pursue justice. And even if it happens at work or school, there are snags: Small businesses can’t be sued under the law; private schools aren’t covered.
Sure, there are states that do better, with stronger protections for women in place, just as some put more curbs on gun rights. But that’s no substitute for the force of federal law.
The ERA would arguably close those loopholes. (The ERA, if it passed, would be the first amendment since the 27th passed in 1992, setting stricter rules around pay for legislators.)
Women haven’t given up fighting for that protection: The ERA has been introduced in the House every year since 1982, most recently by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).
Last year the Nevada Legislature ― 35 years too late ― endorsed the ERA.  
Giving women equal rights is a popular and not even highly partisan concept. According to the ERA’s own polling, 80 percent of Americans think women already have equal rights under the Constitution. And 94 percent support the ERA.
“This amendment is the only legal initiative expansive enough to support what the Me Too revelations have shown is needed,” said Catharine MacKinnon, the legal scholar who first conceptualized the notion of sexual harassment in the courts and who sits on the advisory council of the current ERA Coalition.
“It’s the only thing big enough to capture what’s happening in this moment.”

At least something that has a chance to work.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/nra-gun-violence-restraining-order-support-good-move/

The NRA Makes a Wise, Principled Decision to Support Gun-Violence Restraining Orders

By DAVID FRENCH
March 16, 2018 1:59 PM

By endorsing GVROs, the NRA supports a measure that can save lives and protect the Second Amendment.
On Wednesday, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action — the NRA’s lobbying arm — took to NRATV with a critical announcement. The NRA-ILA called on Congress to provide funding for states to adopt so-called “risk protection orders,” another term for the gun-violence restraining order that I discussed in this piece shortly after the Parkland school massacre. You can see the announcement below:

A gun-violence restraining order (GVRO) is a remarkably simple and precisely targeted remedy for two forms of gun violence — mass shootings and suicides. As Chris Cox explains, it allows a defined group of people (usually family members, school principals, employers) to petition a local court for an order temporarily removing guns from a person who’s made statements or exhibited behavior indicating they’re a threat to themselves or others.

To be constitutional, a GVRO should require that the petitioners (those seeking the order) come forward with admissible evidence, it should grant the gun owner a prompt hearing, and it should provide a right of appeal. The best GVRO statutes will be drafted with the help and cooperation of the NRA, which will ensure that the statutes aren’t overbroad and will minimize the chances of abuse.

The NRA is shifting its position on GVROs, and I’m seeing some grumbling on gun-rights websites and message boards. These complaints are misplaced. The NRA has made a wise, principled decision that will save lives while protecting individual liberty.

To understand why the shift was necessary, it’s important to remember three critical realities. First, while overall gun violence is down, mass shootings are on the rise. Second, time and again state and federal law-enforcement bureaucracies have failed to protect the public. And third, mass shooters (and suicidal individuals) typically exhibit troubling and dangerous behavior before they fire a single fatal shot.

Responding to the mass-shooting epidemic by demanding that the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency “do better” is necessary but demonstrably inadequate. Conservatives and libertarians should understand that seeking the solution to a national problem through better-performing bureaucracies is a fool’s errand. Those bureaucracies can improve, certainly, but dangerous people will always fall through the cracks.

Moreover, we also know that the preferred progressive responses — an assault-weapons ban, for example — would serve mainly to unconstitutionally restrict the self-defense options of millions of law-abiding citizens while putting only the smallest speed bump in the path of a determined mass killer. Such a ban would also do nothing to address gun suicides — the leading cause of gun death, by far.

The GVRO, by contrast, is evidence-based, individually targeted (mass seizures would be impossible), appealable, and empowering. Rather than calling a federal tip line or leaving matters in the hands of the often-overworked, sometimes-incompetent local police, a family can bring evidence to a courthouse and have guaranteed access to a local judge. That judge can have the power to force the police to act. But that power isn’t unchecked. The gun owner can contest the claims against him, and he should be able to appeal any adverse ruling.

In other words, the GVRO — properly drafted — is the essence of constitutional conservatism. It empowers families, it provides a precise, constitutional process, and it diminishes dependence on a vast, centralized federal authority.

Yesterday, while reading a series of outraged responses to the NRA’s shift, I came across a brilliant response from an anonymous commenter. It’s too long to paste here, but the essence was simple. If you’re concerned about confiscatory gun control, the real threat to the Second Amendment isn’t a measure like the GVRO, it’s the increase in mass shootings. Each shooting exacts a terrible toll in human life. Each shooting is a shock to our political system. It’s a shock that unites a nation in grief but also divides it in rage.

I don’t pretend that the GVRO will end mass shootings, but it will stop some. And if it can stop enough to slow or reverse the spread of this horrific contagion, then it will save lives and transform the gun debate. If there is one thing we know about gun violence, it comes from “predictable people.” It’s time to give those closest to these predictable people a powerful tool to protect themselves from terrible risk.

Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people while preserving the right to bear arms for the law-abiding is the essence of constitutional gun policy. In endorsing risk-protection orders, the NRA is serving its members, supporters, and the public well indeed.

The history of the Twentieth Century is clear: Marxists will forever simultaneously attack both Free Speech and the private ownership of firearms. As these weak murderous failures must seize control of both so as to implement their bloody utopian vision, where everyone is equally poor, disarmed, genderless free range tax cows.

Fortunately, the debate is over as thanks to genius millennial, Cody Wilson one can now mill an entire arsenal from the comfort of their own home via the Ghost Gunner II


Moreover, the continual incompetence of government again illustrated via the tragic events leading up to the Parkland, Florida shooting, no infringement upon the Natural Right to Self-Defense via firearms shall be tolerated.

Thousands Expected To Demand Gun Control At March For Our Lives Rally

Quote :

WASHINGTON (AP) — Washington is preparing for a massive rally in support of gun control, one that organizers hope will prove that the country has reached an emotional tipping point on gun violence, with teenagers seizing the initiative and leading the demand for change.

The nation’s capital is generally nonchalant about protests, but Saturday’s gathering has prompted more attention and speculation than usual.

Estimates on crowd size are notoriously unreliable but organizers are hoping to draw 500,000 protesters; that would match last year’s women’s march and make this one of the largest Washington protests since the Vietnam era. It would also bolster claims that the nation is ready to enact sweeping changes to its gun control laws. More than 800 other concurrent marches are planned in cities across America and dozens of locations overseas.

“I look at the younger kids and the future generations and I never want them to go through what we went through or see what we saw,” said 15-year old Kayla Renert, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed on Feb. 14.

Renert, who sheltered in a classroom during the attack and had a friend wounded in the leg, was on a bus bringing her to Washington from the airport after flying up from Florida Friday morning. She pointed out that the Parkland shooting wasn’t even the most recent school shooting in the United States. One student was wounded and another later died from her wounds after being shot Tuesday in southern Maryland; the 17-year old gunman was also killed.

“We keep saying, ‘Oh this is going to be the last time.’ But there’s already been another time,” Renert said.

Many of the protesters spoke pointedly about how their parents and others of their generation had failed to bring about the changes they are demanding. They present the youth-led nature of the current movement as proof that they will succeed where their predecessors had failed.

“I’m here because previous generations couldn’t do what we’re doing right now,” said Charlie Shebes, 16, another student from the high school, on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale. “I want to see safer schools. I want to see changes in gun laws.”

The students have tapped into a powerful current of pro-gun control sentiment that has been building for years. They have also partnered with well-funded liberal groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control advocacy group founded by former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Polls indicate that public opinion nationwide may indeed be shifting on an issue that has simmered for generations, and through dozens of mass shootings. A new poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that 69 percent of Americans think gun laws in the United States should be tightened. That’s up from 61 percent who said the same in October of 2016 and 55 percent when the AP first asked the question in October of 2013. Overall, 90 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of gun owners now favor stricter gun control laws.

“To me, it feels like this is THE moment when it’s all going to change,” said Anne Tumlinson, who will be hosting about a half dozen high school demonstrators from Jacksonville in her Washington home. A grassroots campaign among Washington residents resulted in more than 1,500 Washingtonians offering their homes to underage out-of-town demonstrators.

But even with claims of historic social momentum on the issue of gun control, the AP poll also found that nearly half of Americans do not expect elected officials to take action. One of the questions facing march organizers and participants will be how to translate this one-day event, regardless of turnout, into meaningful legislative change.

One way is by channeling the current energy into mid-term congressional elections this fall. Students in Florida have focused on youth voter registration and there will be a registration booth at the Saturday rally.

“We’re pushing the message of now is the time for action but also November is going to be the time for action. It’s the time to make our voice heard when we’re voting,” said Alex Wind, a 17-year-old student from MSD. “We are the age of people that don’t vote normally. We’re going to change that.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-march-lives-start-revolution/story?id=53981583

March for Our Lives will 'start a revolution,' Parkland school-shooting survivor says


By Mark Osborne
Mar 24, 2018, 7:31 AM ET

A student survivor of the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who is helping to lead the March for Our Lives for gun control said today's protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country "are going to start a revolution."
"We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country" by politicians who are "owned by the NRA," David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, said on "Good Morning America" this morning. "Today we are going to start a revolution."



Revolution?
What you are going to do is walk around in circles, carry poorly-crafted homemade signs, spout inane chants and useless platitudes, possibly wear pussy hats, return to your homes feeling smug and self-satisfied (all the while under the illusion that you have actually solved a problem), and leave a huge amount of litter and detritus in your wake, to be cleaned up by those who actually work for a living.

Trump Worshiping Gun Nutso wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-march-lives-start-revolution/story?id=53981583

March for Our Lives will 'start a revolution,' Parkland school-shooting survivor says


By Mark Osborne
Mar 24, 2018, 7:31 AM ET

A student survivor of the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who is helping to lead the March for Our Lives for gun control said today's protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country "are going to start a revolution."
"We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country" by politicians who are "owned by the NRA," David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, said on "Good Morning America" this morning. "Today we are going to start a revolution."



Revolution?
What you are going to do is walk around in circles, carry poorly-crafted homemade signs, spout inane chants and useless platitudes, possibly wear pussy hats, return to your homes feeling smug and self-satisfied (all the while under the illusion that you have actually solved a problem), and leave a huge amount of litter and detritus in your wake, to be cleaned up by those who actually work for a living.

Be scared and afraid,Jacqueline

Trump Worshiper who helps facilitate Mass Murder wrote:

Artchel 60438 wrote:

Trump Worshiper who helps facilitate Mass Murder wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-march-lives-start-revolution/story?id=53981583

March for Our Lives will 'start a revolution,' Parkland school-shooting survivor says


By Mark Osborne
Mar 24, 2018, 7:31 AM ET

A student survivor of the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who is helping to lead the March for Our Lives for gun control said today's protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country "are going to start a revolution."
"We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country" by politicians who are "owned by the NRA," David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, said on "Good Morning America" this morning. "Today we are going to start a revolution."

Revolution?
What you are going to do is walk around in circles, carry poorly-crafted homemade signs, spout inane chants and useless platitudes, possibly wear pussy hats, return to your homes feeling smug and self-satisfied (all the while under the illusion that you have actually solved a problem), and leave a huge amount of litter and detritus in your wake, to be cleaned up by those who actually work for a living.

Be scared and afraid,Jacqueline

I don't find any reason to be even mildly concerned, much less "scared and afraid", over something that is not going to change a damned thing.

Considering your track record of being wrong 100% of the time tells me things will change.  Oh,and btw dummy they already have.

Your orange skinned hero Trump only wishes he could have had a crowd this big.

March Madness: Right-Wing Media Will Take Aim at Youth Opposed to Gun Violence

Quote :

They can’t help themselves.

If you’ve ever doubted the fundamental foolishness and ghoulishness of the American right, just watch—if you can bear it—the right’s reaction to today’s March for Our Lives. If you think the rhetorical assaults on anti-gun-violence American youth in the days leading up to this march were bad, as Bachman-Turner Overdrive famously put it, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The sight of young people standing up against the NRA angers right-wingers almost as much as the sight of a black man in the White House. Just as the loathsome Laura Ingraham wanted LeBron James to shut up and dribble, so too do her right-wing media colleagues want these young adults to shut up and play video games. They couldn’t stand young people standing up against the Vietnam War fifty years ago. They couldn’t stand young people standing up against the Iraq War fifteen years ago. They can’t stand this march now.

Right-wingers brought this problem upon their own heads. They had a choice after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan 37 years ago this month. They could have taken steps to ensure that firearms could be kept away from the mentally unbalanced. They could have recognized that their own political heroes were at risk due to easy access to firearms in this country. They chose to bow in subservience to the NRA, just as they chose to bow in subservience to Donald Trump.

Think about the fundamental stupidity of the right-wing’s scorn of these young Americans. These future leaders are trying to save lives—including the lives of right-wingers. The young people who will march today are, in the most accurate sense of the phrase, pro-life activists—yet it’s the right that seeks to abort their movement and silence their voices.

The right has been vile to young activists before. Back in 2007, then-MSNBC host Keith Olbermann described the right’s declaration of war against a 12-year-old advocate for health care protections:

In December 2004, Bonnie Frost‘s car, carrying three of her four kids, hit a patch of black ice, and then it hit a tree. Her son Graeme and her daughter Gemma spent months in the hospital. Because the Frosts earned less than $55,000 a year, the federal S-CHIP program helped with their bills. Graeme and Gemma got the care they needed.

Last month, Graeme asked President Bush to extend S-CHIP to other low-income and middle-class kids. The right wing responded by calling for Graeme to die…

S-CHIP currently covers six million children too poor for insurance but not poor enough for Medicaid. But a growing number of Americans, two out of five, are not covered by employer insurance; 47 million don‘t have any health insurance. That number is also up. The number of uninsured children increasing by 600,000 last year alone.

So Democrats want to expand S-CHIP to cover four million more kids. The cost: $7 billion a year. Enough Republicans agree that the Senate approved the expansion with a veto-proof majority. The House vote was about 20 short of veto-proof, so the president vetoed it. The House will try again on Thursday.

In the meantime, the right has targeted Graeme and his family. Rush Limbaugh and others spreading extraordinary, easily disproved lies that have been posted online anonymously about them, portraying them as rich and dishonest parasites. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell‘s office is reportedly collecting those lies and disseminating them to the media. And a Bush staffer named Nicholas D. Thompson of the Office of Strategic Initiatives choosing a blog called RedState to post a defense of the president two days after the Baltimore Sun had revealed on its front page that another poster at the same blog had called for the public hanging of Graeme and his family.

By now, you’re probably familiar with the Maine Republican who called Emma Gonzalez, one of the courageous survivors of the perversity in Parkland, a “skinhead lesbian.” That fellow was motivated by the same hatred that motivated the right-wingers who attacked the Frost family. The American right knows nothing but hate, and knows nothing of love. So many of these right-wingers claim to be Christian, but there’s no doubt that if Jesus Christ proclaimed his solidarity with the young people marching today, right-wing media figures would tell him to go to hell.

Trump Worshiper who helps facilitate Mass Murder wrote:

Artie Wins Again wrote:

Trump Worshiper who helps facilitate Mass Murder wrote:

Artie Wins Again wrote:

happy jack wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-school-shooting-survivor-march-lives-start-revolution/story?id=53981583

March for Our Lives will 'start a revolution,' Parkland school-shooting survivor says


By Mark Osborne
Mar 24, 2018, 7:31 AM ET

A student survivor of the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who is helping to lead the March for Our Lives for gun control said today's protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country "are going to start a revolution."
"We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country" by politicians who are "owned by the NRA," David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, said on "Good Morning America" this morning. "Today we are going to start a revolution."

Revolution?
What you are going to do is walk around in circles, carry poorly-crafted homemade signs, spout inane chants and useless platitudes, possibly wear pussy hats, return to your homes feeling smug and self-satisfied (all the while under the illusion that you have actually solved a problem), and leave a huge amount of litter and detritus in your wake, to be cleaned up by those who actually work for a living.

Be scared and afraid,Jacqueline

I don't find any reason to be even mildly concerned, much less "scared and afraid", over something that is not going to change a damned thing.

Considering your track record of being wrong 100% of the time tells me things will change.  Oh,and btw dummy they already have.

Your orange skinned hero Trump only wishes he could have had a crowd this big.

I think I'm going to stick with what I wrote just a few hours ago:

We can always count on you to stick with stupid,that's for sure.
'Vote them out!' - Thousands register to vote at U.S. gun-control marches

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voter registration activists fanned out among young Americans who marched for tighter gun laws on Saturday, signing up thousands of first-time voters who vowed to eject lawmakers who oppose gun controls.
Shooting survivors Tyra Hemans (center, L) and Emma Gonzalez (center, R), from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, hug as Hemans addresses the conclusion of the "March for Our Lives" event demanding gun control after recent school shootings at a rally in Washington, U.S., March 24, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

With mid-term Congressional elections eight months away, the activists flocked to some 800 marches across the country to enroll young voters likely to back Democratic and independent candidates who tend to favour tougher firearms laws.

In Washington, volunteers for the HeadCount voter-registration effort raised their fists and chanted “demonstration without registration leads to frustration” before heading out with clipboards to sign up some of the nation’s newest voters.

“Parkland’s Emma Gonzalez called for more Americans to vote and that is why Headcount is here today,” volunteer Aaron Ghitelman, 26, said of the student who along with classmates forged a national, youth gun control movement following the Feb. 14 massacre at her high school in Parkland, Florida.

Hugh Williams from Ypsilanti, Michigan, was among many 18-year-olds who answered her call.

“The more I see people marching and standing up for a cause I believe in, I want my voice to matter, too,” he said at the Washington march, adding that gun violence was a menace in his community.

A student survivor of the Parkland massacre had a simple message for lawmakers.

“If there is no assault weapons ban passed, then we will vote them out,” Delaney Tarr, a senior at the school, told marchers in Washington.

Organizers of the registration drive hoped to sign up at least 25,000 people on Saturday, a potential boost for Democrats who back stronger controls on assault-style weapons, bump stocks that let semiautomatic rifles fire like automatic weapons, and tighter access to guns for young people and the mentally ill.

By 8:30 p.m. ET (0030 GMT) they had signed up 4,000 nationwide, with the number climbing as groups across the country reported.

At a rally in Chicago, 17-year-old Kara Sharp from Island Lake, Illinois, carried a sign reading “Protect students not guns - 2020 Voter” after travelling to the event with her father, a 53-year-old machinist.

Volunteers from a local chapter of lobbying group Indivisible435, which backs progressive political candidates, told her how to register to vote once she got home, as she did not have her driver’s licence with her.

“It’s time to disarm hate. I’ll be looking at NRA ratings of politicians and also how they treat LGBQ issues,” said Sharp, a junior at Wauconda High School, referring to the grade the National Rife Association gives members of the U.S. Congress for their voting record on gun rights.
‘TOOLS TO MAKE A CHANGE’

Participation in U.S. elections by young voters is often low. Registration activists are targeting the four million Americans turning 18 this year, as well as many 19- to 21-year-olds who have never voted.

In Parkland, Florida, Sari Kaufman was among students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School — where the mass shooting took place — who urged peers to get involved in politics, register to vote and turf out lawmakers who did not protect them.

“With this movement, we will ensure record-breaking turnout not just in the next presidential election, not in the next midterm election, but in all elections,” Kaufman told a crowd of thousands at a rally in Parkland.

“We’re here today to give you the tools to make a change.”