David Hogg tweet:

[applegrove]

Link to tweet

?s=20

[MontanaMama]

1. I support that list 100%.

How anyone could object to this is beyond me. But then again, much of what is happening today is beyond me.

[sandensea]

27. We know why the GOPee objects:

[calimary]

30. I'm standing right there with you, MontanaMama.

All five points sound great to me!

[niyad]

32. "civil terrorists" --according to that disgraced pos oliver north (yes, THAT north) anybody who

supports those ideas is a civil terrorist, attacking an incredible civil rights organization--yes, he means the nra!!).

[DownriverDem]

38. Why repubs won't support it

Because they subscribe to the if we let them do this, they will then move to take all our guns mantra. It's all or nothing with these gun nuts.

[LiberalLovinLug]

59. Maybe he should add a 6th point

"After these 5 points are enacted, we libruls promise that we will not go further. That we will never take your guns away. That we will drop any and all opposition to the NRA and its right to exist."

[CatMor]

2. I support all 5 points 100%

[spanone]

3. 👍🏼

[Lucinda]

4. knr

[ProfessorGAC]

5. 2, 3, and 4 Are Slam Dunks To Me

I'm not sure what #1 means. What kind of research and to what end? If i knew what the end game was, i'd be likely to support that too.

#5 is a political hot potato that i would support, but would prioritize it last. I think the others are fights that can be won without as much blowback.

[ladym55]

8. The CDC is not permitted to gather data on gun violence as a public health issue

Congress has blocked the agency from doing that, so the CDC can't gather the costs of treatment for gunshot wounds, numbers of accidental deaths, etc. I think if we as a nation actually KNEW the public health impact of our national gun fetish it would blow our minds. But then again, we are not rational about guns, so maybe not.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Yes, I Know

I'm not against the idea, but before i'd say if was something worth fighting for, i'd prefer to know what the goal of the research is. There are things i'm certain i would say "hell yeah" to, but it depends upon the overall agenda.

[LanternWaste]

17. The same type of research the CDC does as it applies to national health and safety...

"What kind of research and to what end?"

The same type of research the CDC does as it applies to many other areas of national health and safety... retrieving, collating, and application of health-related data from car wrecks, office fires, and swimming pool drownings to suicides, tobacco use, etc.; and from that data, promote and educate safe(r) means of use.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. An Answer Apropos Of Nothing

Doesn't come close to answering anything i posited. Not surprised, though.

[MyOwnPeace]

45. About the "research"

The NRA pushed the congress to suspend and ban any such research.

WHAT THE F^^K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, we have government leaders that believe that such research would be bad for our society?

O-M-G!!!!!!!!!!!

We are SO screwed!!!!

[ProfessorGAC]

48. I'm With You

I'm all for research. I spent the first 24 years of my career in research. And i'd support this, as long as their were clearly enunciated intentions as to what is being pursued. It's too convenient, IMO, to just say let CDC do research. Research to learn what, would be my reply.

That said, the fact that the NRA got the federal government to ban research in this field by the CDC is preposterous.

[charliea]

58. Don't understand the reticence

NRA got the Congress to prohibit our CDC from investigating gun ownership as a public health crisis. Since we know nothing about that, by design, we should have the CDC begin research on all aspects of the public health implications of gun ownership. Basic research is for basic knowledge and once we know anything we can determine what else we need to know.

And one thing that Mr. Hogg's 5 points don't address, I'd like to see the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act rescinded.

[lunatica]

60. Research for statistical analysis, just like everything else they do

The CDC does research on public health issues and comes up with guidelines on how to deal with them. They are not enforcers in any real capacity, but they are quite thorough in studying the impact on the public. Their guidelines encompass all aspects of health issues which include thorough studies of diseases, etc, which is what most people think of when the CDC is mentioned. Their data is statistical and like the census can be used by anybody for their research, legislation and dissemination, and their own statistical studies.

We already have an idea of how many homicides there are, and how many children are killed because of a gun in the home, but we have no idea how families and communities are affected or what the types of wounds each kind of weapon causes. It makes sense that the wounds from a semi automatic weapon are mostly non survivable due the effects on the body.

Public health is not just about disease or inoculation. It encompasses everything that affects our lives.

[TheSmarterDog]

65. You're insinuating there's something political about basic research.

And that's just it: basic research isn't political.

What is political is the desire to keep the public ignorant & uninformed about something that threatens their lives, just so weapons dealers & their minions can turn a profit.

[smirkymonkey]

6. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Anyone who wouldn't support those 5 points should probably not be allowed to own a gun.

[Marengo]

26. You think it reasonable to restrict a constitutional right based on a person's thoughts or beliefs?

[Demit]

28. Which one of the five points would do that?

[Marengo]

57. I was addressing Smirkymonkey's comment, not the subject of the OP.

[smirkymonkey]

54. I don't think it's a constitutional right to purchase

high-capacity magazines or assault weapons. The only point of these weapons is to kill as many people as you can as quickly as you can. I'm sick of hearing about the rights of gun-humpers. The rest of us have rights as well.

[Marengo]

55. You said they probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Here is the text that the OP omitted

David Hogg
‏Verified account @davidhogg111

Comment why you do or don’t support our 5 point platform below I want to try responding to as many people as I can.

1. CDC funding for research into gun violance
2. Universal Background checks
3. Digitization of ATF records
4. High-Capacity magazine ban
5. Assault weapons ban

1,979 replies 2,543 retweets 8,923 likes

[Blue_Adept]

9. Not everyone can easily cut and paste from a tweet, especially on phone/tablet

Doing a link copy is easy.

Keep that in mind.

[applegrove]

11. Yes. I am on my cell.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Ok, thanks.

[LanternWaste]

18. Knowing it had more than 8900 likes places this in a much easier-to-understand context...

Knowing it had more than 8900 likes places this in a much easier-to-understand context...

[applegrove]

51. Some people cannot have the tweet rendered fully. If they are not hooked in to Twitter.

Last edited Fri May 11, 2018, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

So you post a link to the tweet and cut and paste the whole tweet too. I often forget as I am on my cell phone. This will cue me.

[lunamagica]

10. I love him, but I don't understand why he keeps insisting this is not

about Democrats and Republicans. If he has done his research (which I'm sure he has) he must know by now that there isn't a Republican who supports his views. He has been mercilessly attacked by Republicans. I think it is time he realized this is indeed a partisan issue.

[Blue_Adept]

12. And what is the gain by making it a partisan issue?

[lostnfound]

14. Republican politicians don't, but republican base is divided

We need the portion of the republican base that supports commonsense gun laws to raise their voices to the GOP politicians to get the votes in Congress.

[ooky]

37. That part of the base doesn't have a voice on this issue.

The voice of the NRA is the only voice that matters on this issue inside the Republican party. They call all the shots, with their campaign money. The only way is to vote those NRA bought and sold politicians out; unfortunately the part of the Republican base that say they want common sense gun reform is still voting for those same political NRA shills. So this is in fact a partisan issue, and the only way to fix it is to vote in enough Democrats to gain a voting majority over Republicans.

[Nitram]

15. There are many Republicans, and even NRA members, who support universal background checks.

let's make it about policy, not partisan politics.

[askyagerz]

19. I know some republicans who would agree with this list

And some democrats who wouldn't. It really isn't a partisan issue. Its just that most of the crazies belong to one party.

[NewJeffCT]

20. Because a few Democrats don't agree with all of the list

Like Joe Manchin...

and, if it's 5-10 Democrats and 300 Republicans, it's a "bi-partisan problem."

[gratuitous]

31. Some Republicans might change their ways

But if it's a partisan attack, Republicans would rather die than change. By keeping the conversation outside politics, Hogg offers some Republican elected officials a chance to make a different choice. It's possible Republican officials might hear these very same points at a town hall in a friendly venue; what do they say then to their loyal constituents? Your life and your family take second place to the lovely campaign donations I get from NRA supporters? Force them to make an affirmative case against our framing, instead of hiding behind the same tired NRA rhetoric about gun grabbing.

[AZ8theist]

34. The only way Repukes would change their position...

is if an "anti-gun group" started contributing MORE to their campaigns than the NRA.

The absolute ONLY way. Unfortunately, since the NRA is getting millions from Russia, I don't believe any opposing group (or groups) could compete.

[ooky]

41. I agree with this.

Sooner or later David Hogg will realize he must don the blue to win this fight.

But until then we'll support him anyway.

[lunamagica]

42. Oh, I support him, don't get me wrong, i do.

This young man is extraordinary in his maturity, strength and bravery. I really admire him. He will go far

[ooky]

61. I can tell you do.

[lunamagica]

66. ...

[JI7]

72. i think it's his way of trying to get Republicans to support gun control .

[Nitram]

13. Support 100%

[Corgigal]

16. Great start

Maybe he could add, anyone arrested for domestic violence loses access to all guns. I think it was Canada that found out this really works well on bring down gun violence.

[NewJeffCT]

22. good idea

I'd support that as well.

[appalachiablue]

53. Domestic violence must be added to his list which I support, good catch.

[James48]

23. 1, 2, 3, Yes. I cannot support 4 and 5.

The first three, no problem.

But there are already millions of mags, and again, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Trying to ban all 5.56mm firing black weapons because they are not pretty is simply foolish. All centerfire rifles have significant damage potential. But an “Assault weapons ban” for all isn’t the solution.

My 2 cents.

[Demit]

29. What does "because they are not pretty" mean, and who cites that as a reason for a ban?

[zipplewrath]

50. #4 is the core solution

Getting rid of high capacity weapons (which is basically the magazine/clip/whatever) is the core solution. Pulse, Vegas, Columbine, etc. are all significantly less deadly if that is what is commonly available. Will it take time to reduce the volume? Sure. There will be buy backs and confiscation, etc. But by undermining the market, you'll undermine the manufacture. People can circumvent it by various means, but so can they to make automatic weapons. None the less the Vegas shooter decided to use a bump stock instead. These people aren't Lex Luther and they'll gravitate towards the common, easy, available hardware.

Once we make it vastly less deadly, we make it vastly less attractive to these particular people. You can make a mortar launcher out of commonly available materials. Anyone used one lately for a mass attack?

[TheSmarterDog]

67. So, you believe the NRA propaganda.

[trickyguy]

24. Total support

even though there are some things that need further discussion.

[gademocrat7]

25. Support all 5 points wholeheartedly.

[BobTheSubgenius]

33. Those 5 things are too reasonable and thus doomed to failure, at least right now.

A crucial as this issue is, my belief is that smaller bites might have a better chance. And once one or two of them become law, the rest will be easier.

I could, of course, be wrong. We are talking ammosexuals, after all.

[sarisataka]

35. I don't understand #3

What is meant by Digitization of ATF records

Is the ATF only allowed to keep paper records?

[Tarc]

69. It means exactly that

To perform a search, ATF investigators must find the specific index number of a former dealer, then search records chronologically for records of the exact gun they seek. They may review thousands of images in a search before they find the weapon they are looking for. That’s because dealer records are required to be “non-searchable” under federal law. Keyword searches, or sorting by date or any other field, are strictly prohibited.

- https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

Boggles the mind...

[pazzyanne]

36. K & R

[GeorgeGist]

39. Oliver North is shitting his pants ...

... in public.

[Javaman]

43. he's hoping for well reasoned responses...

you know the mouth-breathers that support the nra are incapable of that.

[Duppers]

44. I support all 5 points.

[wonkwest]

49. The CDC thing continues to floor me to this day

If plain data are a threat to your cause, maybe your cause isn't so good.

[flotsam]

52. I could support all 5, however I would rather

replace 5 with a ban on semiautomatic long guns.

[wallyworld2]

56. This needs to be added to the list

Austin police will no longer sell used guns to the public

Despite the change, such sales are actually common among police departments nationwide.

https://thinkprogress.org/austin-police-no-longer-selling-guns-to-public-1ed7470bfe17/

[workinclasszero]

62. I support all 5 points

100%

[Honeycombe8]

63. I support that list. nt

[PatrickforO]

64. I support it. Good plan.

Nothing there that is going to strip gun nuts of their guns. It will just prevent new nuts from getting guns.

[rickyhall]

68. I totally agree

Mueller can go after the Nazi Rifle Association, too.

[AlexSFCA]

70. support 100%

[wendyb-NC]

71. I support the 5 point platform 100%

[Old Crank]

73. I would also add

Mandatory training, use, cleaning, and operation for each fire arms purchase.

Fits into the 2nd amendment.

[lark]

74. Smart, sensible, workable plan that will totally reduce gun deaths.

Of course the NRA and gun humpers will hate it all they want are more sales, not more lives saved.

[ck4829]

75. Kick

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

76. Add #6 - VOTE ONLY FOR CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT POINTS 1-5

Electing common-sense citizens is the only way to effect change.

Keep up the good fight, David.

[fleabiscuit]

77. Close...

1. - 3. OK

4. Integral magazine only
5. No semi-automatics

[J_William_Ryan]

78. 4 and 5 are the same.

Or, if magazines are limited to 10 rounds, all long guns will be so restricted, whether an assault weapon or not.

[fleabiscuit]

80. No, they are not the same. Eliminating the assault rifles would have no effect on the rest.

[Rene]

79. Perfectly stated David....and Young people at Stoneman High

So proud of you all.