It seems that the “spokes mouth” for infringing on the Constitutional Rights of others has his panties in a wad over his Constitutional rights be infringed. The little fellow wants his rights protected. He seems to think that the requirement imposed to carry only clear back-packs(book bags)violates his First Amendment Rights as well as his right to privacy. I thought the “march for our lives” was about making a safer environment for students. Does he not understand that the requirement to have see-thru bags increases his safety, thus increasing his security. By making just that one little sacrifice of his rights to better his chances of security would be worth it, would it not. I mean if it saves only one life, it would be worth it. After all I am sure that no further restrictions will be placed on them, the students I mean and their possessions. The ones who made the decision to increase safety by requiring clear back-packs(book bags)would never make further intrusions like creating a maximum size limits or conducting random searches. They will most likely be satisfied with just the clear bag requirement, they wont do anything else and wont want anything else. Good grief what a hypocrite.
But then again the leftists excel at hypocrisy. The students should take a closer look at those adults who have offered all of this support to their effort, misguided as it is.
The politicians for instance, they come out after every tragedy and shout that more must be done to save the lives of the children, are in fact the same ones who support abortion. That’s right, they are for killing children as long as it is in the womb, by the millions. Would more gun control have saved the first life that was cut short by abortion. But even the pro-choice supporters, who are not supportive of choice they are instead supporters of abortion, are hypocrites of the worst type. Each is the product of a mother that choose life, life for them. It is the pro-life supporters that are attempting to save those millions of lives. I say attempting because their attempts are thwarted by the pro-abortion activists and judicial system.
The Hollywood(Hollyweird)types for instance they, the vast majority of them, have made their millions producing, directing or acting in movies that promote violence and most of them kill more people in the course of one movie that die in the mass-shootings they claim to be opposed too. If they really were in support of your march they would swear off making violent movies. But if they did they would not have made their millions and been able to give you just a pittance. And by the way just how many of them have an armed security detail, for their safety and protection. But just who is it that they need protection from. You their fans or just in case of one deranged fan, or is it both? Do they care about your safety or your money. By the way why do you go to see those violence filled movies anyway? Oh, and the music industry types. Kind of think they too just might have an armed security detail, you know for security and protection.
Your big money supporters they, the vast majority of them, have armed security details. They are not against guns at all they just want to control who has guns. Who is it that they need protection from? By the way most of them give considerable political campaign contributions to the pro-abortion candidates. If they really cared about the safety and security of children they would with hold those contributions.
You bitch and moan about the NRA and politicians who accept money and support from the NRA, while you remain silent about the politicians who accept money and support from the pro-abortion providers and supporters. You say the NRA and those supported by the NRA have blood on their hands, while ignoring the ones whose hands are truly bloody. The NRA itself has not taken the first life, pro-abortion has taken lives by the millions. Seems a bit hypocritical.
Your march(rally)and the associated protests were, in my opinion, a bit more than disingenuous. What you held was a gun control event. There have been proposals made that would enhance safety and security for schools, but you don’t like these proposals. You and you supporters proposed only gun-control. But let me point this out. None of you are against guns, you only want to have guns in the hands of a select few. Ask yourselves this, if your money people had to forfeit their armed security would they continue this rhetoric? I submit they would not. They do not personally provide for their security and protection, they outsource.
You have no idea of what spews forth from you mouth. You claim to be the school shooting generation, the generation that must endure active shooter drills. You want your school day to be free of distractions, hazards and interruptions. And to this you say “No more”, well good for you. However you are not the only generation that has had to endure distractions, hazards and interruptions during your school day.
Personal story segment. When I was in school right here in sunny Florida we never had to endure active shooter drills or worry about someone shooting up our school and killing classmates. We did however have to endure Civil Defense drills and all else that came with the Cold-War. We had to know what to do if the Soviets were to launch an ICBM. You should have been here during the times of the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that, the Soviets were placing nuclear missile in Cuba, extremely short flight time. We were taught to dive under our desks if we were in class and the drill occurred. If on the playground we had to dive in low spots. Remember to close your eyes, don’t look directly at the flash. If you did see the flash count off the seconds to judge the distance. Remember that there would be a back-blast. Fall-out shelters were everywhere in town. Some more affluent families had their own constructed. When ever you were out you would look around for the symbol that identified the shelter, and know where every shelter was that you could get to, just in case. That was a lot for a kid to have to endure and still get an education, we managed.
You did learn about the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold-War in your American history classes didn’t you? Did you learn about Civil Defense? You know of “safe spaces”, but do you know of fall-out shelters?
I am going to interpret your way of thinking for just a moment. You obviously think that the whole ordeal of Civil Defense drills could have been avoided if America would have just destroyed all of its nuclear weapons. That would leave the Soviets with no one to launch nuclear weapons against because no one could launch one at them. There would be peace and security with no threat of a nuclear war.
Another personal story segment. I wrote a post recently concerning the fact that most of the boys in school carried a pocket knife. There was no way of knowing who had one and who did not, hell some of the girls probably had one as well. Yet we managed not to cut or stab each other. Mostly because we had no desire to cause that sort of harm to one another, that and we exercised self-control. We fought after school, a good old-fashioned fist fight and on the less dramatic occasions it was settled with a good old-fashioned arm wrestling contest, but never with knives. In hindsight there could have been another reason or two we never pulled a knife on each other. (1)The other guy might have one and(2)it might be bigger. Just those facts may have prevented some stupid acts. One acts stupid the other responds in kind, an understanding even if unspoken.
Back to the Soviets and nuclear weapons. First there was something called MAD(mutually assured destruction)if one nation were to launch nuclear weapons the other would respond in kind and possibly launch even more. You shoot we shoot back. Both would be destroyed. It was an understanding. Each knew the other would retaliate and keep doing so until all was destroyed. There have been talks to limit the size of the nuclear arsenal. Neither the US or Russia is willing to totally disarm, limit the number but never disarm. Why? If one or the other were to disarm the other would have total control and could do as it wished, the other would be powerless to stop aggression. MAD has prevented all out nuclear war and that idea still works today. Think about it, would you like to live in a world where only one person or country had the ultimate power to do as they wished? If the one with nuclear weapons decided to use them, with what could you deter them? More importantly how could or would you respond?
The turd that decided to come into your school had the advantage. First, having attended that school he “knew the lay of the land”. He knew when and how he could get in. He did not have to wonder if he could get in, he knew he could and he knew when. He knew the classroom layout. He, from what I understand, knew the SRO. He knew the schedule. Second, he knew there was no counter to his threat. He knew there would be no such thing as MAD. There is a reason that mass shootings never happen in “cop-shops”.
So I ask is the problem guns or the absence of guns?
There sure was a lot of security(guns)at your rally. Did you feel safe or unsafe? None of you looked the least bit uncomfortable. You did clean up behind yourselves didn’t you?
There have been other options brought forward to counter the school shootings. More armed security, more law enforcement, training and arming teachers and other school employees. But none of you have expressed any interest in those options. Why? It goes against your agenda of gun control. Which is the agenda to disarm the law-abiding public and leave firearms in the hands of a select few, the police and the military. Right? Wrong. There will be exceptions, there will always be an exception to the rule. Like I before E except after C.
Back to the first paragraph. You demand that your rights not be violated while demanding the rights of others be infringed. You cupcake are a hypocrite.
You claim that you should be able to carry a backpack(book bag)in the color of your choice, free speech. What would be your reaction is a student were to come to class sporting an NRA book bag or t-shirt? You support the First Amendment(free speech)when the person has the same view that you have. I could swear I heard someone at the town hall you all had where someone yelled “Burn her” when a spokeswoman for the NRA was speaking. You support the Second Amendment but only if the police or military are armed.
You might want to check your history about what happens when only the police and military have the guns, all of the guns.
As I recall, when I did stop by to check on your rally a couple of students made mention of being in a Holocaust history class when the shooting began. So I have to ask, were the victims armed or had they been disarmed?