A pro-gun Democrat could win in Trump country. Where does that leave gun control activism?
Recent polls show Democrat Conor Lamb running neck and neck with his Republican opponent Rick Saccone. Democrats are looking at an improbable prospect: Lamb could win a deeply red district that Democrats were never even supposed to be competitive in. And part of the reason he might be doing so well is his pro-gun messaging.
Lamb’s first campaign ad featured footage of him shooting an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle at a gun range, with the narrator voiceover saying the candidate “still loves to shoot.”
Republicans have been trying furiously to attack Lamb on the gun issue, painting him as someone who will pursue aggressive gun control policies if elected to Congress. But he’s not giving them a lot of ammunition to work with. A US Marine Corps veteran, Lamb is on the record as not supporting additional gun control measures.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17061712/gun-control-democrat-trump-activism-midterms-2018
= new reply since forum marked as read
that's all. 18-25-year-olds are more pro-gun. The only "take to the streets" people I see are far leftists trying to shut down free speech.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210361545
Nearly 1 million students took part in walkout protests Wednesday
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210361544
It's really really nice sometimes to be wrong, when this is the result.
You cannot move onto another subject in debate. You can address the question with a rebuttal, but not another diversionary question.
Welcome to D.U. 
Address my proposition in #9, please.
And welcome to D.U.
I cannot control D.U. post numbers if they change. It was post #9 previously.
I disputed my own post #1 finding (asserted that 600,000 students would walk out) in post #11, where I clearly say I was wrong. I give references to sources that, in fact, it was closer to a million. What do you want from me? I made an estimate. The estimate as proved inaccurate. I corrected myself by posting a more accurate number of one million, which I didn't come up with, the sources did.
By all accounts, if I remember correctly, from what I'd seen from coverage there were churches, parents, teachers, administrators, mayors, other civil servants, and average workers across the country (myself and other co-workers included) that had planned to walkout or otherwise support the student walkout in the lead-up to the March 14th event. So clearly students weren't the only ones walking out on the 14th AND the number of participants to the walkout would be greater than 1 million. So unless you have something that states otherwise, I think, yeah, there were probably several million people across the nation and the world that walked out -- post #1.
Let me put it to you this way. I don't think there's a line drawn in the sand that when it comes to quantifying the exact number of worldwide participants on anything, an accurate count will be determined, do you? I certainly wouldn't be challenging such assertions without evidence to the contrary. If I did, then it would be logical to conclude that I was simply trying to pick a fight and had no evidence of my own to refute the original assertion. Therefore, I think it's safe to say the estimates match what we saw in media coverage of the March 14th walkout.
Furthermore, your straw man conclusion (setting up and shooting down something I didn't say) incorrectly represents my post #13 proposition: "If you are so certain that I am wrong, what is your source listing a quantifiable count to refute my original estimate?" That clearly states I am looking for evidence from Marengo or someone knowledgeable like yourself, who can show numbers from sources that refute my estimates: media sources, news, etc.
So my rebutting conclusion will be this. I invite you to join Marengo and provide sources listing a quantifiable count to refute my original estimate. Absent of that, I'll stick with my assertions.
Welcome to D.U.
My apologies for inferring that your question (#1 above) was a question of the respondent's source for doubt rather than a demand to prove your assertions incorrect. However, stepping back from the exchange you must certainly see that such a conclusion would be a logical one. I will highlight here that I infer that your respondent simply does not see a sufficiently supported count in the sources you provided.
You did here also incorrectly infer that I made a straw man argument about your part of the exchange. In fact, I was pointing to a possible motivation behind the line of questioning you repeated several times. My applause for your pursuing facts and information an activity which I notice becomes more rare every month among the general population. A small percentage of the population believe things simply because they want to. They think things like somehow government actors took remote control of aircraft on 11 September 2001. More to the point here and as an example, some folks believe and support the use of "control" in the term "gun-control". I do not. I don't offer proof of that.
You say that millions joined the protest or, in various ways, supported the protest. I drew a conclusion from your exchange. It was a logical conclusion not a straw man. It is entirely fine to answer those who question your assertions by explaining those assertions as beliefs. It is also entirely fine to point to a source and make it clear that you accept (or don't accept) that source's reasoning, analysis or other basic data.
People make claims and post their ideas all time here. That's why we're here. Sharing ideas, issues and solutions for problems is why we are here. It's a First Amendment exercise. Bravo.
My interest here was to possibly move this discussion beyond a "did not/did so" series of statements. I didn't supply that information in my reply to you and you assumed that my conclusion was meant as a straw man (see #3).
To the source of this thread, many pro-RKBA Democrats, myself included, often share that in the current political climate a ban on a certain gun or guns in general isn't likely and that it is a better use of political momentum to engage in support of the possible. I worked for over a year (including the 2016 election season) in a rural area of Western PA. I often discussed ideas of politics with people there. I believe it will be more fruitful in future elections to support basic and unarguable regulations that everyone on both sides of this issue can embrace.
Demanding that AR-15s be banned only creates more enemies for Democrats.
...M O U S E...
Start a revolution; make a difference. It doesn't have to be a violent revolution. The designated driver campaign was a revolution. Empowering people is the key.
Have a nice day.
