you'll have your answer. The #NeverAgain movement is for real. A generation of liberal and progressive minded voters and activists.

Most of them think it is a moment of silence. Liberal only in the classical sense. Generation Z is far less progressive and more conservative than my generation.

These teens are activists, anti-gun activists, register to vote to-vote-out-NRA-congresscritter activists, free speech activists, take to the streets activists. If anything, they appear to be the most liberal of any generation since the 1960s. They may have been less progressive prior to February 14th, 2018, but all indications are they are more progressive/liberal now.

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.

What answer do we have?

Gun-Violence Protests Drew an Estimated 1 Million Students
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.

For the tally of nearly a million claimed. So, yeah, you’re still wrong.

If you are so certain that I am wrong, what is your source listing a quantifiable count to refute my original estimate?

And while you are at it, why not give me credit where due in post #9?

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.

You are the one who asserted that 600,000 students would walk out.
You are the one who asserted that millions of others would join those students.

It is up to those making assertions to offer some verification when questioned. I work in a formal regulated environment where verification is taken seriously. The means of verification are practically limited to analysis here.

Further, in #13 you imply that Marengo needs to prove that what you asserted didn't happen. You must realize that proving a negative is impossible.

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.

A. I don't care what your background is. It has no relevance to this discussion.
B. I don't care what your stance is on AR-15s, nor your opinion on what it does or doesn't do for democrats. It too has no relevance to my discussion with Marengo or you.
C. Yes, yes, & yes. to #1, #2, & #3. You can dig your heals in and double down that you didn't present a straw man, but it's okay to accept that you did. It may have been by accident, but it shows character when you accept it.

I said to Marengo. "If you are so certain that I am wrong, what is your source listing a quantifiable count to refute my original estimate?"

You rebutted with the straw man: Further, in #13 you imply that Marengo needs to prove that what 1)you asserted didn't happen. 2) You must realize that proving a negative is impossible.

In 1 you set up the straw man, implying something I didn't say or mean and in 2 you shoot down your straw man. I'll let you figure it out. A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent,

No where in my proposition do I assert that he must prove something didn't happen. I'm more than well aware that you cannot prove a negative. That is why I worded my question the way I did.

Like I said, I'm asking him to provide basis for his rebuttal. I'm happy to admit where I may be wrong in over estimating or using fluffy language or if I was just talking out of my ass. But absent of evidence to the contrary, I'll stick by what I said.

...M O U S E...

"Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face."

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.

Would walk out in support. Otherwise you wouldn’t continue to hide behind the assertion of some kind of ridiculous debate rule you’ve manufactured, obviously specific for that purpose.

My question #13 to you stands.

Please answer the question.

Millions would walk out in support.

Face it-- this is a country where a lot of people were brought up with guns as essential parts of the home. Demanding they give up their guns is like asking suburbanites to give up Costco membership or turn in their iPhones. And as far as "protection" goes, dealing with coyotes and rabid raccoons is more on their minds than rapists or robbers.

Very few of them are nutcases joining extremist groups or shooting up schools and churches. Most that I know hate the nutcases as much as we do, and have no more problem with reasonable regulation than they do with car inspections. This 2nd Amendment bullshit just stirs up the crazies.

So, it took us a long time to get to where we are now, and it will take at least as long to get to gun sanity. Let's just make sure we don't take any steps backward as we go on.

If Democrats (or any other party) want to win, especially Gen Z, be
pro-gun, pro-pot, don't go to either extreme on abortion, and reject identity politics.

And that is not a compliment.

One, I read polls and I don't live in an echo chamber. There is a difference between making an observation and advocating.
Two, I have always made it clear that I am a liberal and not a progressive. I also said that I supported Jim Webb in the primary. I'm sure if you search, you will find it. I have always made it clear that I supported moderate Democrats like Ryan Greene and Brian Schweitzer.

I am not attacking from the right or left, I am defending liberal values from both the right and extreme left. I have always been clear about my disdain for the postmodernist/neo-Marxist left and free speech hating anarcho-communists. I have always made it clear that they are cancer just as the religious right and the alt-right. I also made it clear in the past that identity politics divisive and denies individuals agency.

If you have a problem with that, I don't care.

And that, too, is not a compliment...

Hopefully our party will elect more pro gun Democrats.

besides, Lamb and other "pro-gun" democrats never say they will not support reasonable gun laws..Democrats can not morph into "anti-gun" but into "reasonable gun controls"...a whole slew of measures that majority of americans will support and thats the side we must be on. Not some "total anti-gun fringe".

Which reads "they're taking away our guns!!!" to the NRA crowd. I have no problem with Lamb's position.