David Hogg corrects Fox: 'I'm not against the Second Amendment'

[DonViejo]

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 03/24/18 05:56 PM EDT

Link to tweet

Parkland Fla. shooting survivor David Hogg criticized Fox News by name on Saturday for misrepresenting his views on gun control, accusing the right-leaning news network of portraying him as against the second amendment.

In remarks to a Fox News reporter, Hogg said the network had "messed up" his views and those of his fellow Parkland students, 200 of which attended the March For Our Lives in Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

"What a lot the media, and especially Fox News, has messed up with me is they’ve made it seem like I’m trying to take away people’s guns – that I’m against the Second Amendment,” Hogg said. “My father is a retired FBI agent. I have guns in my house. I’m not against the Second Amendment.”

Hogg went on to say that he supports "common sense" reforms to both gun laws and America's mental health system, though he didn't name any specific provisions in the interview. "I’m trying to push for common sense gun reform and mental illness reform so we can make sure that these individuals that have a criminal background that are mentally unstable and have a history of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380135-parkland-student-corrects-fox-im-not-against-the-second

[Oneironaut]

1. Fox News: David Hogg - Im (...) against the second amendment!

[aikoaiko]

2. Sorry, David. Its a little late to walk that one back.

Once you start advocating for banning [currently legal to own via form 4473 semi-auto] rifles, shotguns, and handguns in certain configuration. It hard to see how you’re for the second amendamnt.

Sure, you’re allowed to say what ever you want, but consistency matters.

Edited to include the []

[Shipwack]

3. The second amendment uses the words well regulated...

Desiring better regulation of firearms is not inconsistent with being pro 2nd Amendment.

[aikoaiko]

4. Yes the 2nd uses the words well regulates to modify militia

Not the people.

But yes I agree that regulations can happen, but gun bans are an extreme and in my view unconstitutional form or regulation.

[NastyRiffraff]

8. I very much doubt if the Founding Fathers pictured

Military-style assault rifles in the hands of civilians. But you can frame it like you want, obviously.

[aikoaiko]

22. Maybe, but I dont think they expected the people to show show for militia duty

With arms that wouldn’t be useful for military action

[NastyRiffraff]

23. But we're not talking about militia duty, are we?

Nobody is saying that assault rifles should be banned for the military, as you know.

[aikoaiko]

24. The is, arguably, the standard as define in Miller v USA.

In Heller is just arms that are popular.

[OliverQ]

29. This is has nothing to do with military duty.

The 2nd Amendment was written for State militias, because there was no standing federal military. That situation no longer applies. Your guns will do absolutely noting to stop the US military.

[Bettie]

44. One could argue at this point that

the function of the State Militia is served by the National Guard. We're not in a situation anymore where every male citizen of a certain age is expected to show up for militia service.

But, people are so afraid that "the gub'mint is gonna take mah gunz" that they see a bunch of dead kids as acceptable and a good outcome if they can snuggle up at night with an AR15 or similar.

[renegade000]

6. Gonna have to disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment...

Speaking as a gun-owner myself, I think it's ludicrous to say that "any configuration" of firearm should be protected. And it's not the current interpretation of the 2nd either, seeing as how there are a variety of "configurations" heavily regulated by the ATF....

[aikoaiko]

13. I should have been more specific that I was talking about

Currently legal to own via form 4473 semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

[XRubicon]

7. It would be great to take them all from you

But, I am ok with you keeping and bearing non repeating arms- that is your only right.

[aikoaiko]

12. I know a lot folks, such as yourself, prefer confiscation

Thank you for your transparency.

[XRubicon]

14. Yeah, thats too bad i can't take your "man card"

See, i don't need a card or a gun to be a man.

Thank you for self identifying as part of the problem.

[aikoaiko]

18. Really. You want a card.

Who said anything about being man based on a card or gun.

That’s awfully presumptuous - or worse.

[XRubicon]

19. LOL

[Angry Dragon]

28. you are way off base

[Squinch]

9. Oh, FFS. Now say, "It's not a clip, its a magazine." We're all waiting.

[XRubicon]

16. opps I thought this was for me...

Edited...

[Squinch]

17. I do that a lot.

[aikoaiko]

26. To his credit, Hogg doesnt make that mistake.

You’ll have to wait longer.

[shraby]

11. The right to life is the top right.

[aikoaiko]

20. It is. Merely keeping and bearing them does nothing to take a life.

At least we partially agree.

[TubbersUK]

21. Aren't some configurations already banned/very heavily regulated?

I think that's what I recently read anyway.

[world wide wally]

5. If you need an AR-15 for "protection"

You need to look in the mirror because you have far too many enemies.

[Nevernose]

38. Either youre overestimating the threat

If you need an AR15 for protection, you’re either vastly overestimating the threat — in which case an AR15 won’t help you — or you’re vastly underestimating the threat, in which case no number of AR15s you own is ever going to make a difference.

Why don’t these people ever stop to think about all the shit they’re scared of?

[kentuck]

10. I think we may be looking at a future President?

It's difficult to see him as a high school student. He seems to have the wisdom of a much older person.

[rainin]

15. I hope I live long enough to see us finally put to rest this notion that the 2nd amendment

means "without any regulation, restrictions, or laws". What an absurd and self-serving (for gun sellers/manufacturers) interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

We need to elect representatives who can govern in the best interest of human lives.

[aikoaiko]

25. I do t know anyone, including Wayne LaPierre, who thinks that...

... the 2nd Amendment means no regulations, restrictions, or laws concerning firearms.

[TubbersUK]

27. This seems to imply something along those lines:

Link to tweet

NRA
✔
@NRA
I'll control my own guns, thank you. #2A #NRA

3:31 PM - Mar 14, 2018

[rainin]

41. +1000 n/t

[OliverQ]

30. The NRA has absolutely opposed any form of restriction on guns.

They don't even want stronger background checks.

[OliverQ]

35. Lip service, nothing more.

The NRA specifically pays off Republicans to block any form of gun restriction and they've mentioned many times they oppose gun regulation.

The NRA is a sponsor of domestic terrorism. Hopefully soon the entire organization will be destroyed either by the rising anti-gun movement, or their FBI investigation linking them to Russian funding.

[aikoaiko]

39. I doubt the NRA will be destroyed. I suspect membership and donations will increase

...after this weekend.

[OliverQ]

40. They only have 5 million members, and it's now a detriment for politicians to support them.

A Florida GOP candidate came out last week as pro-NRA. Then he dropped in the polls.

And the NRA is currently under FBI investigation as they're being funded by Russians.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. They lobby against any politician who so much as sneezes in the direction of regulation...

even extremely popular ones like universal background checks, or restrictions on those with non-felony domestic violence convictions.

It's getting tiresome, and frankly indefensible. Maintaining what amounts to a hobby should not override the safety and rights of others, and it does, far too often.

[aikoaiko]

36. Toomey and Manchin still have A- ratings even though they championed universal background checks

Its just not true that they "lobby against any politician who so much as sneezes in the direction of regulation"

[Phoenix61]

42. Manchin got that rating in 2012

Way before the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

[rainin]

43. Any regulation is just a slippery slope -- says the other side of the argument.

I'm ready to ride that slope all the way to regulating guns strictly, so strictly that it is difficult to get them and ownership comes with obligations such as licensing and training.

[X_Digger]

31. That's a lovely straw man. Did you stuff it yourself? n/t

[Gothmog]

33. Assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment

Hogg is correct. Read the Heller opinion

[Humanist_Activist]

37. I'm hoping these kids will help lead to a dialog where the 2A isn't viewed as sacrosanct...

no other developed nation has the firearms violence we do, and firearms are hundreds of times more effective at killing than damn near any other device individuals can possess.

[X_Digger]

45. "in common use, for lawful purposes" -- from Heller, via Miller.

Careful, I don't think Heller means what you think it does.

That phrase is about what the second amendment protects.

As one of, if not the best selling rifle in the US at the moment, I'd say it certainly qualifies.