Organizers hope to draw half a million to March for Our Lives Rally

WilliamSchulz

Hey,

After the Parkland shooting, I have noticed that there is a need to have stricter gun control laws, and while I think that there will be 500,000 people, I think they need a unified cause. Politically speaking, the rally is alerting lawmakers to the fact that America needs stricter gun laws to keep its citizens and children safe. That's fine, but your poll already agrees with the majority. If anything, while the rally can point to an issue, it is up to organizations and individuals to lay out key features for changes in gun control laws. People headed into a rally may have completely different ideas about how best to address the gun law issue, whereas several leaders and key players can outline their plans to make the laws stricter and safer. Overall, the march may showcase how many people care about the issue, but it won't showcase the plan for dealing with the issue other than simply making laws stricter. 

with_all_humility

WilliamSchulz said:

Hey,

After the Parkland shooting, I have noticed that there is a need to have stricter gun control laws, and while I think that there will be 500,000 people, I think they need a unified cause. Politically speaking, the rally is alerting lawmakers to the fact that America needs stricter gun laws to keep its citizens and children safe. That's fine, but your poll already agrees with the majority. If anything, while the rally can point to an issue, it is up to organizations and individuals to lay out key features for changes in gun control laws. People headed into a rally may have completely different ideas about how best to address the gun law issue, whereas several leaders and key players can outline their plans to make the laws stricter and safer. Overall, the march may showcase how many people care about the issue, but it won't showcase the plan for dealing with the issue other than simply making laws stricter. 

I agree there are somethings that could possibly done to help curb the mass shootings our country has been experiencing. I also agree that this "Never Again" movement (I think that what they are calling it) needs some guidance in getting a unified cause, but probably more importantly realistic expectations and solutions to this horrific trend we've been experiencing.  What they should be advocating for is funding to strengthen mental health education, access and care.  I believe it to be obvious that sane individuals do not perform these kind of acts. They should be advocating for funding to have experts in various fields to be part of a Congressional research team to determine the root cause, and contributing factors that make people do such acts of violence.  I also believe that what they are advocating for currently is not a realist goal, nor is it going to make any significant impact. 

Right know you have David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez are alway advocating for a weapons ban. When you peel the onion back I just don't see it as  a realistic goal, nor do I see it having much of an impact. Isolating gun control as the primary means of dealing with an issue that stems from some a form of mental illness and lack of enforcement of current laws already passed within the federal and state governments.

What a lot of pro-ban activist don't understand is the 2nd Amendment is a negative right, meaning it is not something that the government affords us. We might say that is a "God give right" to bear arms in order to protect self/home and property. It should be on same level of importance and legal scrutiny as any of the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Negativity/Positive rights, these are terms used by philosophers to distinguish the difference between a right that are inherent verse provided to you. An example of positive right would be a jury of peers, or legal representation, no illegal search and procedures. While negative rights are assumed to already exist and has noting to do with a governing body needing to afford these kind of rights to you. Like freedom of speech or the right to own property.

One should also have an understanding how the framers constructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We all mostly agree that its unethical to want to infringe upon any individuals right; just because a few bad actors have abused their right, does not mean we infringe upon everyone’s right. Like a white suprematist use hate speech in antagonizing minorities and causing riots, so the government passes a law forbidding all forms of public speech. For fear of the possibility of “hate” speech being uttered again.  Now is that something 500,000 people would march to DC for?

When the terrorist drove over eight people, killing them with a rental vehicle in New York. No one on the left side of the isle submitted a bill to regulate or try and take away truck or vans. Which by the way have been used to perpetrate the biggest mass killing in history due to their capacity to carry large qualities of explosives?

A lot of people on the side of gun reform are also calling for licensing and registration of all guns comparing it the licensing and registering of a vehicle. Again, this is an infringement upon a legal law abiding person’s negative right. Ownership and operation of a vehicle is not a protected right, thus the ability of the government to require the licensing and registering of them. Automobiles are also operated on government own roadways, not within the confines of an owners home. Such rhetoric is complete illogical and a failure to want to educate oneself on what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

We don’t want the government to come into our home and start monitoring the opinions we express, let alone sequester one’s right to speak publicly concerning issue that we are passionate about. The 2nd Amendment is on the same equal footing as the 1st Amendment. The very right that gives the left the right to speak out about gun violence; is equally protected for the gun owner to possess and own a firearm especially within the confines of his/her home. Using or caring (concealed) a firearm in public is totally different issue and is not protected 

There is an agenda from some elites, and it has been there for a long time. However, several studies have shown that the taking away of guns does not stop violence, people just use different tools. In fact, if we were to base our decision solely on the lethality of a weapon, fist and feet are nearly twice as deadly as rifles according to FBI data. That includes all rifles, the AR-15 is a subset with in the category rifles.

After this last horrific act, not to many other suggestion have been put forth by the left to prevent future mass shootings. The right put for several alternative, but to left only the banning of guns will be acceptable control. When in fact, it appears the unfortunate events at Parkland, FL was due to a failure of law enforcement agencies to act upon the precursory events. Which is probably was the biggest contributing factor the shooting? At least it appears to be, based upon media reports. The young man was reaching out in his way (by his actions) to let people know he was struggling with life issues and for the most part law enforcement, school administrators and others fail to recognize the signs or blew them off. The saddest part is a neighbor identified the signs and reported it law enforcement, and law enforcement fail to act upon her pleas.

I just hope that this movement, this activism is used to bring about effective solutions to the epidemic that we appear to be facing. While I am an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, I also, don't want to turn on my TV  and see news reports of another tragedy of serval lives being lost, especially young lives.