These are his observations:
1) A Left-Wing Movement
As Julie Gunlock at The Federalist noted, some parents were led to believe that the March 14 National School Walkout would be about memorializing victims of the Parkland shooting. It wasn’t.
This goal was even more obvious at the March for Our Lives.
The author noted that there were many pink hats from the 2017 Women’s March and many anti-Trump or anti-Republican signs. One wonders what the Republicans had to do with the shooting at Parkland since it was the policies of the Obama administration that allowed the shooter to buy a gun (see article here about The Promise Program).
2) Well-Organized and Well-Funded
As BuzzFeed reported, a litany of leftist organizations and politicos got involved, including the George Soros-backed MoveOn.org, Women’s March LA, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and, curiously, Planned Parenthood.
There were certainly many children present, but there’s no way they could have put this all together on their own. Outside help and organization was apparent.
It is ironic that Planned Parenthood, a group that is directly responsible for the murder of nearly one million unborn babies a year, provided part of the funding for the March for Our Lives.
3) Prayer Is Out
Taking away guns from ordinary Americans and denigrating prayer are two things that would have horrified our Founding Fathers.
4) Those Who Disagree Viewed as Complicit in Murder
So much for constructive debate.
5) Second Amendment Seen as Problematic and Outdated
This is probably a reflection on the failure of our education system to teach American history. The protesters seem to lack understanding of why the Second Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights.
6) Fuzzy Facts
For instance, in an interview with The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood, one marcher repeated the thoroughly debunked claim that there had been 18 school shootings this year prior to Parkland.
This shocking number, repeated by Obama and some major media outlets, was a bogus stat cooked up by a pro-gun control group.
Almost none of the incidents used in that statistic can be described as anything like a school shooting—several were suicides or random shootings that simply took place near a school campus.
The Washington Post even called the statistic “flat wrong.”
There were other examples of misinformation as well, including one sign that called for a ban on “automatic weapons,” which have actually been banned since 1934.
Unfortunately, Americans have received a huge amount of disinformation about guns and gun control, much of it perpetuated by the media.
7) Not a Gun-Free Zone
The March for Our Lives crowd may have wanted to disarm Americans, but the event hardly took place in a gun-free zone.
Armed police covered the streets to ensure the safety of those gathering in the nation’s capital. In fact, there were even armored military vehicles embedded within groups of protesters.
Some signs essentially called for only the government to have firearms.
Of course, the idea that only the government and the military should have access to firearms would not have sat well with the Founders. They feared a government powerful enough to disarm the citizenry and a standing army. That’s why we have the Second Amendment.
Sir Winston Churchill said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I suggest those students asking for the repeal of the Second Amendment do a study of the history of countries where only the government has seized firearms from ordinary citizens. That scenario generally does not end well.
On February 6, 2010, I posted an article about the changes being made to the bar glasses in Britain.
This is the article:
The bar glasses had recently been reinvented. According to the Houston Press, a new shatterproof pint glass is being introduced in the British Pubs.
The article states:
“According to British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, there are about 87,000 of these (glass) attacks every year, some very serious. We even read a story about a bloodbath in a London bar in which 50 pint glasses were smashed in a minute and one person’s eye popped out. Sounds more like a horror movie than a night out at the pub.”
I must admit I live in a very sheltered world–I wasn’t even aware of the problem. I am glad they have come up with a solution to ‘glass attacks’ at the pub, but it occurs to me that you could still knock a person out with a well-placed hit on the head even if the glass didn’t break. I’m not sure what the solution to that would be.
The article also points out that the new glass will keep the beer (or ale) cold longer. Since the British drink their beer at room temperature, I suspect that would be more of an American selling point. Oh well, I’m glad that some inventor has solved one of life’s problems. Let me know when someone comes up with an idea of how to prevent the fights in the first place.
Guns are generally illegal in Britain, so people in bars were fighting with broken bar glasses. Maybe the problem isn’t the weapon.