Demeanor of March for Our Lives ‘Student Leaders’ Could be Movement’s Achilles’ Heel

#MarxForOurLives ? Not all “student survivors” are on board with the totalitarian impulses of those getting the lion's share of media attention, as this tweet from Marjory Stoneman Douglas student Kyle Kashuv makes clear.

USA – -( The well-funded and manipulative “March for Our Lives” agenda may seem unnerving, especially after Saturday’s coordinated events were given priority coverage by an activist media slavering every bit as much for citizen disarmament as the moist rabid participants. Many are spooked, as evidenced by the capitulation of President Trump and many “A-rated” Republicans on several “gun control” giveaways. Many of those have been given the green light by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Rifle Association, both of which are backers of the so-called “bump stock” ban, “Fix NICS “ expansion, and prior restraint disabilities, from so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” to mental health blanket dragnets.

Gun owners who pay attention to such things will note any movement toward national reciprocity or hearing protection advancement is dead in the water and unlikely to gain traction prior to the midterms, if ever. They’ll also note that the budget “deal” did not rescind Chuck Schumer’s appropriations ban on rights restoration, and that March for Our Lives sponsor Planned Parenthood will still get half a billion dollars whether citizens want their tax dollars going to it or not.

It does raise an eyebrow when accusations of “blood on the hands” are leveled.

While hundreds of thousands attended (in many cases bussed in) “rallies” nationwide (and in Europe!), hundreds of millions did not. Aside from Democrat-dominated urban areas, most of “Red State” America went about its business Saturday. To the displeasure of some noting it, a lot of those went shooting.

As conservative writer David Horowitz has noted,”Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”

That ruling elites find disarmed people easier to “manage” ought to be a self-evident truth, but curiously, those who rail against “the One Percent” and police abuses are among the loudest voices demanding a monopoly of violence. You’d think they’d understand that there is no more truly egalitarian power-sharing arrangement than having an armed populace. Those exploiting useful idiots understand that perfectly.

They also understand that fever-pitch emotion is the “best remedy” against inconvenient truths taking root – like schools being “gun free zones,” authorities ignoring clear warning signs and “first responders” making sure they stayed out of harm’s way until it was too late. Get such an ignorant mob stirred up and they’ll never let little things like due process or presumption of innocence get in the way of a satisfying hanging, especially if the “guilty party” can be portrayed as a hateful monster like a “blood on his hands” gun owner. The thing is, those portrayed that way – and those who know them – know such accusations are lies, which opens the door to questioning the character and the motives of those spreading them.

In this case, the “student leaders” being feted and exalted are neither believable — nor even sympathetic or likeable — to any but a deluded following. They actually come off as unlikable, hell, as detestable to many.

There’s something about a rude child presuming that he knows what he’s talking about that adults who know better find inexcusably intolerable. Obnoxious, foul-mouthed fascist-in-the-making David Hogg is enjoying his new “rock star” status while he presumes to disparage and dictate to adults he is wholly unqualified to judge. The malevolent child mistakes himself for a person of importance and unique insight, rather than a tool, and that’s especially grating on those who see him for what he is, as the armbands and the raised fist salute make evident.

Via Matt Bracken

The same goes for Emma Gonzales, the daughter of a refugee from Castro’s Cuba. Her father fled a citizen disarmament-imposing tyranny. Now she’s intent on imposing the “¿Armas para que?” arrogance of a ruthless ruling elite and subverting the freedoms of a country that took him in. That should be seen by many as contemptible ingratitude – provided those who know inform those who don’t.

It’s pretty obvious that the gun-grabbing feeding frenzy we see going on is as much based on a cult of personalities as it is on anything else, and that these immature personalities intent on controlling the rest of us have little interest in controlling themselves when they start to believe the adulation. And while an ad hominem argument generally represents a logical fallacy when it comes to issues, it becomes valid to use when people revered by fools make the focus about themselves.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 102 thoughts on “Demeanor of March for Our Lives ‘Student Leaders’ Could be Movement’s Achilles’ Heel

    1. Here are some articles related to this subject; enjoy the read. Nothing but the Facts.
      Gun Control Dictator Style – Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering the People
      BRADLEE DEAN — JANUARY 8, 2013

      “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
      – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938
      How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns, so they can have the control.
      It is of interest to the American people to take note of those who they entrust to serve them. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, yet time and time again in this country we have leaders in government who put on the guise of “patriot” and then turn out to be the criminal in garb.
      We learned in the past about the criminal acts of anti-gun mayors. ( We found that anti-gun mayors are criminals themselves, guilty as charged within their own ranks of such crimes as tax evasion, extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting, perjury, and one demigod mayor was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.
      The crimes that these anti-gunner mayors are convicted of suggest they are public enemy’s rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.
      These politicians know all the well that where the citizenry operates in the rights given to them without government interference, namely the right to bear arms, crime diminishes. And with mud on their face, they know when they interfere with the right to bear arms, crime skyrockets.
      What we see is that some of today’s politicians are magnifying the crimes they are placed in office to prevent.
      They allow crime to be promoted through entertainment and when the crime is committed, they are there in hopes to grab the guns away.
      This is exactly how criminals in government operate. They demonize the gun, not the criminal.
      Friends, this mentality is like blaming spoons for people being overweight, as if to say the act is apart from the actor.
      Since criminal politicians refuse to look at history, which can be at the present our greatest teacher, it is very clear that gun banners know exactly what they are attempting to do -– put the Second Amendment in the crosshairs.
      Looking back, who has committed murder in the largest degree? Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.
      Time and time again it has been a corrupt government who is responsible for the mass murder of their own people under the deceptive guise of “gun control,” all of which the said dictators implemented.
      Keep in mind these people promised their citizens protection and freedom upon the forfeiture of their guns.
      How many times, I ask, does history need to repeat itself?
      Paralleling History
      Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control.
      Mass murderer Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:
      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So, let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
      Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
      Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
      “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
      In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:
      “War can only be abolished through war, and to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
      China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:
      “I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”
      Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.
      Our forefathers did not arm the American people for hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all the other rights given unto us by our Creator.
      The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law. The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The civil government that desires such a monopoly of force (i.e. they are the only ones with guns) is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”
      George Washington, our first president, said:
      “From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

      Author: Rhodney Freeman
      In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
      China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
      Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
      You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
      Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
      Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
      The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
      With guns, we are “citizens”. Without them, we are “subjects”.
      During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
      If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun-control message to all your friends.

      Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America
      John G. Malcolm / @Malcolm john / Amy Swearer / @Amy Swearer /
      March 14, 2018 / comments

      Global statistics show that higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
      John G. [email protected]_john
      John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research.
      Amy [email protected]
      Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
      In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.
      As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.
      Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.

      Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:
      Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out how you can support the efforts of The Daily Signal >>
      1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
      2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
      3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
      4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
      5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
      6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
      7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
      8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
      Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.
      1. America is relatively safe, and the trend is toward becoming safer.
      • According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, violent crime has been declining steadily since the early 1990s.
      • The 2011 homicide rate was almost half of the rate in 1991, and according to the Pew Research Center, the 2013 gun-related death rate was half of the rate in 1993.
      • The number of nonfatal firearm crimes committed in 2011 was one-sixth the number committed in 1993.
      • In the past few years, there have been minor increases in certain types of violent crimes, mainly in large metropolitan areas. However, these increases are nowhere near those seen in the 1990s and are largely related to gang activity.
      • It should be remembered that it takes at least three to five years of data to show true trend lines. It appears that the collective homicide toll for America’s 50 largest cities decreased modestly in 2017 after two consecutive years of increases.
      2. The principal public safety concerns are suicides and illegally owned handguns.
      • According to the Pew Research Center, almost two-thirds of America’s annual gun deaths are suicides. Since 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began
      • publishing data, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. In 2010 alone, 19,392 Americans used guns to kill themselves.
      • Most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms—as much as 80 percent according to some estimates.
      • The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports prove that the overwhelming majority of gun-related homicides are perpetrated with handguns, with rifles of any kind accounting for less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides. In 2013, 5,782 murders were committed by killers who used a handgun, compared to 285 committed by killers who used a rifle. The same holds true for 2012 (6,404 to 298); 2011 (6,251 to 332); 2010 (6,115 to 367); and 2009 (6,501 to 351).
      • More people are stabbed to death every year than are murdered with rifles.
      • A person is more likely to be bludgeoned to death with a blunt object or beaten to death with hands and feet than to be murdered with a rifle.

      3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
      • Where do you live? Murders in the United States are very concentrated. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.
      • Who is your partner? According to a recent scholarly article in the Hastings Law Journal, people recently or currently involved in an abusive intimate relationship are much more likely to be victims of gun-related homicide than is the rest of the population, especially if the abuser possesses firearms.
      • Are you in a gang? According to the Department of Justice’s National Gang Center, particularly in urban areas, significant percentages of gun-related homicides (15 percent to 33 percent) are linked with gang and drug activity. Gang-related homicides are more likely to involve firearms than non-gang-related homicides are.
      • Are you a male between 15 and 34? The majority of standard gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Although black men make up roughly 7 percent of the population, they account for almost two-thirds of gun murder victims every year.
      • Women and children are more likely to be the victims of mass shootings and homicide-suicide shootings than they are to be the victims of a “typical” gun-related homicide.

      4. The perpetration of gun-related murders is often carried out by predictable people.
      • According to studies, almost all mass public shooters have extensive histories of mental health issues (whether delusional/psychiatric or depression/anger), disturbing behaviors, or interpersonal violence.
      • Intimate partner conflict and domestic violence history are major risk factors for homicide-suicides, even for those not involving intimate partners.
      • Especially in urban areas, offenders are typically responsible for the majority of gun violence.

      5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
      • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws.

      • While some will argue that the guns carried by Swiss and Israeli citizens are technically “owned” by the government in most cases, this does little to negate the fact that many citizens in those countries have ready access to firearms.
      • Canada is ranked 12th in the world for the number of civilian-owned guns per capita and reports one of the world’s lower homicide rates—but even then, some provinces have higher homicide rates than U.S. states with less restrictive laws and higher rates of gun ownership have.
      • Although many gun control advocates have noted that “right to carry” states tend to experience slight increases in violent crime, other studies have noted the opposite effect.
      • Higher rates of concealed carry permit holders are even more strongly associated with reduction in violent crime than are right-to-carry states. The probable reason for this is that right-to-carry studies often include “open carry” states, which have not been shown to correlate with more people carrying or even owning firearms. Rates of concealed carry permit holders are better indicators of the number of people who possess and carry firearms within a given population.
      • Further, as with most correlations, there are many other factors that can account for increases in concealed carry permits—including the fact that people who live in already dangerous neighborhoods seek out means of self-defense. The Huffington Post noted that the rate of concealed carry permit requests in Chicago has soared in recent years after the city loosened restrictions, in large part, according to the Chicago Tribune, because law-abiding residents are increasingly worried about rising rates of violent crime in the city.
      • The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
      • Similarly, the rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but urban areas experience higher murder rates.

      6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
      • The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
      • The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
      • Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, even though most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
      • Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972-gun confiscation legislation.
      • Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
      • According to research compiled by Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
      • Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
      • It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

      7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
      • In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess existing research on gun violence. The report, compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, found (among other things) that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
      • According to the CDC, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Recent CDC reports acknowledge that studies directly assessing the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
      • Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are commonly used as self-defense weapons in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they are easier to control than handguns, are more versatile than handguns, and offer the advantage of up to 30 rounds of protection. Even Vox has published stories defending the use of the AR-15.
      • AR-15s have been used to save lives on many occasions, including:
      • Oswego, Illinois (2018)—A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack and cited the larger weapon’s “intimidation factor” as a reason why the attacker dropped the knife.
      • Catawba County, North Carolina (2018)—A 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his AR-15.
      • Houston, Texas (2017)—A homeowner survived a drive-by shooting by defending himself with his AR-15.
      • Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017)—A homeowner’s son killed three would-be burglars with an AR-15 (the man was later deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defense).
      • Ferguson, Missouri (2014)—African-American men protected a white man’s store from rioters by standing outside armed with AR-15s.
      • Texas (2013)—A 15-year-old boy used an AR-15 during a home invasion to save both his life and that of his 12-year-old sister.
      • Rochester, New York (2013)—Home intruders fled after facing an AR-15.

      8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
      • Lott found that, as a group, concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people in the United States. The rate at which they commit crimes generally and firearm crimes specifically is between one-sixth and one-tenth of that recorded for police officers, who are themselves committing crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general population.
      • Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent.
      • Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop-in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate.
      • Concealed carry permit holders are often “the good guy with a gun,” even though they rarely receive the attention of the national media. Concealed carry permit holders were credited with saving multiple lives in:

      • Rockledge, Florida (2017);
      • Antioch, Tennessee (2017);
      • Arlington, Texas (2017);
      • Lyman, South Carolina (2016);
      • Winton Hills, Ohio (2015);
      • Conyers, Georgia (2015);
      • New Holland, South Carolina (2015);
      • Chicago, Illinois (2015);
      • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2015);
      • Darby, Pennsylvania (2015);
      • Chicago, Illinois (2014);
      • Portland, Oregon (2014);
      • Spartanburg, South Carolina (2012).

      Does The Second Amendment Still Apply To Modern Weaponry?
      By Ngnadmin On Mar 5, 2018
      If you’re going to argue that the Second Amendment should only apply to weaponry that was available at the time the Constitution was written, you must be logically consistent and apply the same argument to other Constitutional rights. If you do this, though, you end up with some major problems.
      Using the logic of gun control advocates who say the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern weaponry, the First Amendment would not apply to modern forms of communication. In other words, in a world where the Constitution only applied to the technology of the time it was written, the government could legally arrest you for something you posted on the internet or said on television.
      The problems don’t end there, though. Since vehicles weren’t invented when the Constitution was written, the Fourth Amendment – which protects against warrantless searches – would not apply to warrantless searches of your vehicle. And since electricity wasn’t invented when the Constitution was written, you can’t classify electrocution as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
      Of course, none of this is at all the logical reality of the Constitution. The truth is that the founding fathers knew that times would change even if they could not foresee how and always intended the Constitution to apply to past, present, and future realities in America.
      Weaponry of the Past
      Gun control advocates who say that the founding fathers would not have written the Second Amendment the way they did if they could have foreseen the destructive capabilities of modern firearms do not fully understand the reality of the weapons that were available at the time.
      In 1791 – the date the Second Amendment was written – there was much more available than just muskets. This is a point that NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch brought up when presented with the “Second Amendment should only apply to muskets” argument on CNN’s recent town hall. In addition to muskets, weaponry at the time included primitive hand grenades, cannons capable of launching explosive rounds as well as grapeshot which could easily kill an entire crowd of people, mortars, and more.
      Many of these weapons are illegal today but were not illegal at the time the Second Amendment was written. Suffice it to say that the founding fathers were aware of the destructive capabilities of weaponry and chose to include the Second Amendment in the Constitution regardless.
      The True Purpose of the Second Amendment
      Those who argue that modern weaponry should not be covered under the Second Amendment do not understand the Second Amendment’s true purpose. The founding fathers were not all that concerned about an individual’s ability to hunt for food, or even an individual’s ability to defend themselves from an intruder. What they were very concerned about, though, is the ability of the American people to revolt against a tyrannical government.
      Having just defeated a tyrannical government in the Revolutionary War, the founding fathers were terrified that the country they were founding would eventually devolve into a tyrannical country like the one they had rebelled against. The Second Amendment was intended to be a safeguard against this.
      With this being the case, it is essential that the militia – defined as the whole of the American population – be armed with weaponry that gives them a fighting chance against a tyrannical government. If anything, the founding fathers would likely be concerned that the weaponry available to the American people today is not powerful enough in comparison to the weaponry available to the American government rather than being concerned that modern firearms have become too powerful for citizens to own.
      The argument that the Second Amendment should only apply to muskets is one that holds little water, however, it persists among the highest ranks of the gun control crowd. Hopefully, the next time you hear this faulty reasoning you will be armed with the information necessary to dismiss it.
      ~ National Gun Network

      1. Incredible! Thanks for the post. I was wondering if there was a good source with some historical perspective that can be used as a weapon against the anti-gun morons!


      2. you forgot to mention freedom of the press, they only had news papers to read, they didnt have radio and television, so using their logic, freedom of the press only protects news papers

    2. March for me!!!!!!!
      For I am your Furor
      Follow me!!!!
      Follow my great grandpa and me!!!!!!
      The youth are in charge as we will spy on you adults
      It is we who will control you
      You will follow us or you will be EXTERMINATED LIKE THOSE BEFORE YOU

      1. Clenched fist is communist. Open palm is NAZI. All are unAmerican when done as such.
        The American gesture is index finger raised to say “We’re #1.” With middle finger raised raised it says something more personal.

    3. Over 1300 teen have died this years in auto accidents where they were texting at time of the accident. This does not include others killed in those crashes.Think they would be willing to take on Apple and give march to give up their phones? Of course not, there are not enough therapist in the world to treat them.

    4. What a good little Communist David Hogg is. He’s on his way to being on the cover of Time Magazine with Chia Chavarria, Fidel Castro, and Schmuck Schumer.

    5. I just saw this. Instagram has deleted it of course but I got it elsewhere: ” Eagles of Death Metal’s Jesse Hughes Slams March for Our Lives Protests
      Rolling Stone Rolling Stone 8 hours ago
      Eagles of Death Metal’s Jesse Hughes, a survivor of a mass-shooting incident, called the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School “disgusting vile abusers of the dead” for participating in the March for Our Lives protest.

      Hughes penned his tirade in the caption of an Instagram post that mocked gun control and the efforts for stricter gun laws. “Obviously … The best thing to do to combat chronic abusers and disregarders of the law (like the law against Murder) is to … pass another Law,” Hughes wrote. “But before we pass this law we’re going to denigrate the memory and curse ourselves by exploiting the death of 16 of our fellow students for a few Facebook likes and some media attention.”

      “Look how well civil rights abuses as it concerns firearms helped to protect me and my friends in Paris,” Hughes added. Eagles of Death Metal were onstage at Paris’ Bataclan on the night of November 13th, 2015, when armed terrorists stormed the venue and killed 89 people, including the band’s merchandise manager.

      “As the survivor of a mass shooting I can tell you from first-hand experience that all of you protesting and taking days off from school insult the memory of those who were killed and abuse and insult me and every other lover of liberty by your every action,” Hughes wrote.

      Nearly two years after the terror attack, Hughes made controversial statements suggesting that the Bataclan shooting was an inside job perpetrated by the venue’s security. Hughes also criticized the French government for imposing stricter gun laws. Although Hughes later apologized for his “baseless” comments, Eagles of Death Metal were still dropped from the lineup of numerous French music festivals.

      On Sunday, Hughes chastised the Parkland, Florida survivors for demanding legislature on gun control. “The Whitney Houston song about letting the children lead the way wasn’t actually had operating paradigm for life … And when the truth don’t line up with your bullshit narrative just hold your breath and stamp your feet and refused to except it … then take multiple days off of school playing hooky at the expense of 16 of your classmates blood … it might be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and disgusting,” Hughes added. ” Again it’s deleted from Instagram

    Leave a Comment 102 Comments