ShareThis Page
World

Parkland survivor David Hogg: 'I'm not against the Second Amendment'

Ben Schmitt
| Sunday, March 25, 2018, 8:42 a.m.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg addresses the March for Our Lives rally on March 24, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
Getty Images
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg addresses the March for Our Lives rally on March 24, 2018, in Washington, D.C.

Outspoken Parkland, Fla., mass shooting survivor David Hogg is not against the Second Amendment.

He wants to make that point clear.

"What a lot of 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 during a broadcast at the March for Our Lives rally Saturday in Washington, D.C. "My father is a retired FBI agent. I have guns in my house. I'm not against the Second Amendment."

Hogg maintained he is seeking "commonsense" changes.

"I'm trying to push for commonsense 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. "I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. We simply want to save lives and democracy. Please, stand with us," Hogg said.

More than 800 rallies were scheduled to take place in cities around the world Saturday, including in Pittsburgh, to support the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, where 17 people died in a school shooting Feb. 14.

Hogg is a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

Thousands turned out in Downtown Pittsburgh in a call end to gun violence and improve student safety.

Ben Schmitt is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7991, bschmitt@tribweb.com or via Twitter @Bencschmitt.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me