Constitutional Scholar KrisAnne Hall’s Open Letter to #Walkout Kids

Dear #NationalSchoolWalkout Students,

I weep with you. I am also proud to see you standing for what you believe in. However, what you ask for will not bring the results you desire.

These problems in society have never been a result of too much Liberty, and eliminating the natural rights of all people will never bring the proper solutions. If we want to make you feel safe at school and everywhere in public we must be honest as a society and deal with the real problems.

  1. Schools and government are failing you. They have little to no security and practically no real policy to keep your schools secure.
  2. We have to endure more security at a public museum than we do at our public schools. I ask our governors and administrators which of these treasures is more valuable?
  3. We need to not just make promises to keep you safe, we need policies and actions. We need secure entrances and exits into the schools. We need real policies limiting “visitors” on campus. Nearly every school shooter would have never even been on campus with proper security and policies.
  4. Adults have failed to see your cries for help and have failed to act upon them, putting everyone at risk. We need more adults who are concerned with your mental, physical, and emotional health rather than political correctness, job security or hurt feelings.
  5. We need to train your teachers better. They know CPR; they know how to help a choking child; they need to know how to stop someone from hurting you.

The real solutions that will bring the safety and security we all desire do not require a new federal law or regulation; they do not require a constitutional amendment; they do not require depriving anyone of any rights. The real solutions are much simpler than that.

The real solutions to keeping you safe require only a people who love their children enough to create and enforce local policies and proper training dedicated to the preservation of life, liberty, and property.

The history of the entire world dictates that taking the rights of people to defend themselves will not keep them safe, but will only serve to enslave our future to those more powerful. We must learn that without liberty, security is nothing more than a vapor. Unfortunately, those who do not recognize their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

By not addressing the real problems and and not employing the real solutions, we end up destroying what we set out to preserve. We will make you and your future less safe and we will pass on to all our children a future of greater oppression.

I am telling you this not because I am judging you. I am telling you this because, as a mom, I love you.

We can keep you safe and keep your rights and liberties secure at the same time. It is time to take back the narrative. It is time to get to work and secure Liberty for all. That is not just our duty to you and to all our children, it is who we are as Americans.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall
www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

On Monday afternoon, Tennessee law enforcement officers captured a 29-year-old Illinois man suspected of opening fire on diners at a Nashville Waffle House, despite the man having had his firearms seized on multiple occasions in the last two years.

Four people died and several others were wounded by the shooter—who wore nothing but a green jacket—before a  customer, also 29, heroically wrestled the firearm away and threw it over a counter. The attacker fled the scene naked and evaded police for over 24 hours before the suspect was apprehended.

As often happens in the aftermath of highly publicized shooting incidents, blame has already been placed on the lack of “common-sense gun control.” But, once again, this blame is misplaced—had already-existing laws been properly followed and enforced, this individual would not have had access to a firearm.

What We Know About the Suspect

The Waffle House suspect has a long history of mental health issues, including recent run-ins with law enforcement and an observational stay in a psychiatric unit. The timeline of concerning events, as most recently reported by major media outlets, is outlined below:

  • May 2016: The Tazewell County (Illinois) Sheriff’s Office responded to a call at a CVS parking lot, where the suspect was suicidal and believed his parents were helping music star Taylor Swift harass him. The suspect’s relatives talked him out of harming himself and he was detained at a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. It doesn’t appear that he was involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise adjudicated to be a danger to himself or others.
  • June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

  • July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.
  • August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son.  Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

  • Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.
  • April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

There are other possibilities for criminal charges in Tennessee, such as for reckless or criminally negligent homicide, but the availability of those charges may depend on how Tennessee interprets those laws.

Stricter Gun Laws Wouldn’t Have Prevented This

Like the vast majority of mass public shooters with mental health problems, the man in custody  appears to have inexplicably managed to avoid a criminal or mental health history that would have disqualified him from possessing a firearm under federal law.

This incident certainly raises concerns about records-sharing between states. Illinois revoked the suspect’s state firearms license, meaning he was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the state of Illinois.

This doesn’t, however, mean that other states like Tennessee had access to any information indicating that the suspect presented a heightened risk of danger such that he needed to remain disarmed.

Moreover, millions of relevant disqualifying histories are likely missing from the FBI’s background check system because states can’t be compelled to submit them, and too often fail to do so.

But realistically, even perfect records-sharing would only have prevented the Waffle House suspect from purchasing new firearms—which requires a background check—or from receiving firearms from a private citizen who follows the law and doesn’t transfer firearms to dangerous or disqualified individuals. It would not have prevented the accused man’s father from recklessly, and perhaps illegally, giving the guns back to his son without informing police.

Nor would prohibitions on “assault weapons”—a made up term that has no bearing on a gun’s lethality—have stopped this incident. California has long banned so-called “assault weapons,” but according to the Mother Jones mass public shooting database, California has experienced far more mass public shootings since 2000 than any other state. Last month’s shooting at a veteran’s home in Yountville was the state’s 10th mass public shooting event in the last 18 years, compared to just four in Texas and two in Tennessee.

Meanwhile, Monday afternoon in Toronto, nine people were killed and another 16 were wounded in a deliberate mass public attack. The deadly weapon was not an AR-15, or a handgun with a “high-capacity magazine.” That attacker needed only a van to cause double the carnage seen in Nashville.

Laws have the power to disarm law-abiding citizens who would obey those laws. They have no power to prevent an irresponsible parent from re-arming his son with the very guns he agreed to keep inaccessible, and from failing to inform law enforcement that an individual proven to be a danger to himself or others now has firearms.

Once again, we were not failed by a lack of adequate gun laws. We were failed by human error that neglected to fully enforce those laws.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Amy Swearer

Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Nick Freitas: After Waffle House, Focus Shouldn’t Be on Guns

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Jim Brown/Image of Sport/Newscom.

Parkland Student Plans Conservative Livestream on Columbine Anniversary [April 20, 2018]

Conservative Parkland student Kyle Kashuv is organizing a pro-Second Amendment Facebook Live show on the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting.

Kashuv, 16, tweeted that the goal is to “discuss ways to save lives without infringing on [the Second Amendment] and the importance of mental health and not bullying.”

Confirmed speakers for the livestream so far include Sebastian Gorka, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump; Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA; Anthony Scaramucci, former White House communications director; and Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Originally, Kashuv planned to bring Kirk to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Friday for a discussion of the Second Amendment.

However, the school blocked Kirk from coming on the grounds that “non-school sponsored, student-initiated guest speaker assemblies/meetings are not permitted to take place on campus,” according to a spokeswoman with Broward school district, reported the Sun Sentinel.

Kirk spoke to “Fox & Friends” Sunday about his intended message, had he been allowed to speak in Florida.

“My mission would not have been to offend. I did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but instead … here’s what really troubles me. Ever since that horrific shooting, the national conversation predominantly from students from that school has been about gun confiscation, about taking people’s guns away,” he said.

Kirk went on to say that conversations about the law enforcement failures at state and local levels are important to address, even though the left wants to stay focused on gun control.

Another Parkland student, David Hogg, is promoting a walkout Friday.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Ginny. Twitter: @GinnyMontalbano.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Better Treatment of the Mentally Ill Could Reduce Mass Shootings

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Kyle Kashuv and Patrick Petty, both Parkland survivors, hugging outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on March 13. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch /UPI/Newscom). The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

PODCAST: The UK Has Gun Control, but Isn’t Safe

The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer joins us to look at what the facts show about safety and gun control in the United Kingdom, which is now exploring “knife control.” Suffice it to say, it’s not the safe—or even comparatively safer—place gun control advocates would have you believe a nation with its policies would be. Plus: One college professor is giving out extra credit to students who go on a date, in an attempt to push back against the hookup culture.

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Caro/Rupert Oberhäuser /Newscom

VIDEO: The most compelling argument yet for gun control

Comrades! This brief instructional video will put you on the cutting edge in the gun debate. No more will you need to fear facts and logic because now they’re on your side! Master the basics of this video, and even lifetime members of the NRA will be silly putty in your hands.

Also, please help a comrade by posting your informed user comments explaining how…

  • this video is amazingly factually accurate and logically irrefutable
  • that you’re a gun owner whose mind was changed by this video
  • that guns are extremely dangerous to our democracy

And without further ado…

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Komissar al-Blogunov originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

VIDEO: The World vs American Freedom

Bungling Judicial Precedent, Federal Court Upholds AR-15 Ban

Last week, a federal judge for the District Court for Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state’s prohibition of so-called “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

Judge William Young held that the AR-15 and similar weapons aren’t protected by the Second Amendment, because they were originally designed for military service and because democracy means policymakers—not courts—are best suited to regulate weapons.

In doing so, he authored an opinion taking such extreme liberties with history, judicial precedent, and logic that one can’t help but wonder if he relied exclusively on a SparkNotes summary guide of Second Amendment jurisprudence when drafting his opinion.

Young begins his analysis by stating that “[f]or most of our history, mainstream scholarship considered the Second Amendment as nothing more than a guarantee that the several states can maintain ‘well-regulated’ militias.”

This statement is objectively untrue, unless one considers such brilliant legal minds as James Madison, Samuel Adams, George Tucker, and Joseph Story to be outside the mainstream of constitutional scholarship.

Young supports this highly questionable premise by citing early works by liberal scholar Laurence Tribe, apparently oblivious to the fact that Tribe, while still in favor of stricter gun control measures, recanted his former collectivist-right position, and now concludes that “having studied the text and history closely … the Second Amendment protects more than the collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and National Guard units.”

Young cites seminal Second Amendment cases stating that firearms commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected, but then inexplicably asserts that the AR-15’s “present-day popularity is not constitutionally material.”

But these gaffes pale in comparison to the two biggest problems with the opinion: Young completely ignores Supreme Court precedent on the proper standard for determining whether a particular firearm is protected by the Second Amendment, and he fails to recognize that—even under the standard he concocts, seemingly out of thin air—the AR-15 would still be protected.

It’s Irrelevant Whether a Firearm Is ‘Military-Style’

Young formulates a novel standard to determine whether a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment: Is the firearm similar to a “military weapon”?

He supports the use of this standard by quoting from Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the late justice appeared to validate a federal prohibition on fully automatic firearms: “It may be argued that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached [from the clause concerning ‘a well-regulated militia’].”

But Young’s use of this single sentence ignores context at the expense of fundamentally misinterpreting the main premises of Heller. His interpretation also makes no sense as a Second Amendment standard from a purely rational standpoint.

First, it’s painfully obvious that Young has missed the point of Scalia’s remark.

Scalia wasn’t suggesting that the M-16 can be prohibited for civilians because it’s useful in military service. Rather, it can be prohibited because fully automatic weapons aren’t in common usage and can be fairly categorized as “dangerous and unusual” among the civilian population, even though it is most useful in military service.

This is clear from the surrounding paragraphs, which explain that certain restrictions—like the prohibition on firearms possession by felons—are presumptively lawful, as are “sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society,” but generally used by the military (such as tanks and bombers).

But even if this plain reading were questionable, the court in Caetano v. Massachusetts made this point explicit by stating that the “pertinent Second Amendment inquiry [for whether a weapon is protected] is whether [it] is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”

Further, regarding whether a weapon is “dangerous and unusual,” the court held that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”

In other words, whether a firearm is a “military weapon” has absolutely no bearing on whether it is protected by the Second Amendment.

In fact, by simply filling in the language of “AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles” for Caetano’s original language of “stun guns,” the answer to whether the Second Amendment protects the weapons now banned by Massachusetts is unequivocal:

[T]he pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether [the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic firearms] are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.

… [More Americans may possess handguns than possess semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15], but it is beside the point. … The more relevant statistic is that ‘[millions of AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles] have been sold to private citizens,’ who it appears may lawfully possess them in [most] states.

… While less popular than handguns, [AR-15s] are widely owned and accepted as legitimate means of self-defense, [hunting, and target shooting] across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

… [It is true that law-abiding citizens could use alternative firearms to defend themselves,] “[b]ut the right to bear other weapons is ‘no answer’ to a ban on the possession of protected arms.

Second, even if the Supreme Court hadn’t already articulated a standard in Heller and Caetano, the standard created by Young is logically preposterous. Almost all lawfully owned firearms throughout all of American history have been “based on designs of weapons that were first manufactured for military purposes.”

From the “Brown Bess” smoothbore musket of the American Revolution, to the Colt single-action revolvers of the Civil War, to the Lee Enfield bolt-action rifles of World War I, right up to present-day SIG Sauer P320 standard-issue sidearm, the majority of firearms chosen by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes were originally designed for military use.

It’s illogical to suppose that, even if the Founders intended the Second Amendment to protect only a collective right to arms for service in the militia, the right wouldn’t protect the very arms most suitable for militia service—those designed as “military weapons,” but nonetheless commonly possessed by civilians.

The AR-15 Is Protected Even Under Young’s New Standard

The most incomprehensible part of Young’s opinion is, perhaps, his attempt to exclude the AR-15 from Second Amendment protections under his novel standard.

According to Young, military-style weapons are those “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat, rather than sporting applications.” They include the following characteristics:

(1) The “ability to accept a large, detachable magazine.”
(2) “Folding/telescoping stocks.”
(3) Pistol grips.
(4) Flash suppressors.
(5) Bipods.
(6) Grenade launchers.
(7) Night sights.
(8) The ability for selective fire.

Under these criteria, the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are not “military-style” firearms.

First, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights are not standard components of civilian-owned AR-15s any more than armored plates and a gunner’s hatch are standard components of civilian-owned Hummers—which themselves are the civilian equivalent of the military Humvee “assault car.”

Second, semi-automatic rifles sold to civilians lack a capability of selective fire—that is, the capability of being adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, or fully automatic firing mode—except for those firearms already heavily regulated under federal law and subject to extensive licensing and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives oversight.

Third, pistol grips, detachable magazines capable of holding 30 rounds, flash suppressors, and telescoping stocks are beneficial for military use for the same reasons they’re beneficial for lawful civilian use—better control under less-than-ideal circumstances, greater accuracy, and a lessened need for reloading.

These characteristics don’t make the AR-15 exceptionally suited for military use rather than sporting applications, but exceptionally suited for both military and lawful civilian applications—just like the Hummer’s off-road handling, cargo space, and relative water-proofing make it suitable for both military personnel and civilians to engage in a wide array of lawful activities.

A Disservice to Gun Control Advocates

To be sure, there are many respectable judges who think that the Supreme Court has seriously misunderstood the Second Amendment and scholars who have sincerely held doubts about the legitimacy of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Young’s opinion is a disservice to these scholars and makes a mockery of more logical—if still erroneous—lower court judges who have upheld similar prohibitions in recent years.

It’s one thing to disagree about the scope of the Second Amendment. It is quite another to so completely disregard context, history, and precedent.

This opinion should be challenged and overturned on appeal.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Amy Swearer

Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by AlexStar/Getty Images

VIDEOS: Chappaquiddick – Guns Don’t Kill People. But Ted Kennedy Did.

There is a new film titled “Chappaquiddick” in theatres. It is about the events surrounding the tragic death of  28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. The film reveals how Ted Kennedy was responsible for Mary Jo’s death.

Here is a commentary on the movie “Chappaquiddick” by Grant Stinchfield:

Sarah Pruitt from History.com says this about Edward “Ted” Kennedy:

Late on the night of July 18, 1969, a black Oldsmobile driven by U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy plunged off the Dike Bridge on the tiny island of Chappaquiddick, off Martha’s Vineyard, landing upside down in the tidal Poucha Pond. The 37-year-old Kennedy survived the crash, but the young woman riding with him in the car didn’t. Though newspaper headlines at the time identified her simply as a “blonde,” she was 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, a respected political operative who had worked on the presidential campaign of Senator Kennedy’s brother, Robert Kennedy.

Kennedy later claimed he dove repeatedly “into the strong and murky current” to try and find Kopechne before making his way back to the cottage. He then drove back to the scene with his cousin, Joseph Gargan, and aide Paul Markham, who both tried in vain to reach Kopechne. But rather than report the accident to the police at that time, Kennedy returned to his hotel in Edgartown. As a result, Mary Jo Kopechne remained underwater for some nine hours until her body was recovered the next morning.

Pruitt notes and then asks four key questions:

The incident at Chappaquiddick ended Kopechne’s young life and derailed Ted Kennedy’s presidential ambitions for good, but nearly half a century later, the details of what happened that fateful night remain murky. Conspiracy theories and questions endure. How did Kennedy end up driving off the bridge? Was he drunk? What were he and Kopechne doing together that night? Was there a third person in the car? Why did he wait so long to report the accident?

imkane2012 posted the following in the comments section of the official trailer [below] for “Chappaquiddick”:

Moses had a temper, but he never left a girl at the bottom of the Red Sea. And “The Lion of the Senate” won reelection in 1970 with 62.2% of the vote. It’s good to be a consequence-free Democrat, especially when you live in Massachusetts.

Stinchfield asks:

“Tell me, Dianne Feinstein: What human right did Mary Jo Kopechne have when Ted Kennedy left her to drown while he sobered up to hide his crime. How is Ted Kennedy deserving of your praise while law-abiding Americans get your scorn and your relentless desire to limit their Second Amendment freedoms. I don’t remember you trying to ban cars when your friend Teddy Kennedy drunkenly drove that car off a bridge.”

Here is the official trailer for “Chappaquiddick”:

We will be going to see this movie and will publish a review soon. Stay tuned!

Ted Kennedy wore a neck brace to the funeral of Mary Jo Kopechne. It was a lie.

UPDATE: I went to see “Chappaquiddick.” The film is a no holds barred truth telling tale of how a powerful family can distort, manipulate and eventually destroy the legal system to protect its dynasty and personal agenda. It is how the killer becomes the victim. It is about a travesty of justice. Chappaquiddick is a must see.

As New York Times bestselling author Howie Carr puts it:

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., died of brain cancer in 2009, at the age of 77. In his later years, it was considered bad form to even mention Chappaquiddick in polite company. Teddy himself seemed oblivious to the scandal—he named his last dog Splash.

The film shows it always was about protecting Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy dynasty. Like with the Clintons, Obama, the Democrat Party is always about protecting it’s “legacy.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Right Side of History: The Truth About Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick

The Shadow: a Review of “Chappaquiddick”

How an Obscure Author Made Chappaquiddick a National Story

Texas Moms Demand Action President Charged for Accosting Teen Girls

Not content to let the gun control and hardcore anti-Donald Trump communities’ hateful rhetoric be relegated to the internetprint mediatelevision, and protests, prominent Texas Moms Demand Action President Kellye Burke decided she would take direct action against her political adversaries – by allegedly berating some teenage girls in a bakery. Burke is also a city council member in West University Park Place, Texas.

Kelly Burke

According to a report from Houston’s KPRC, a group of teenage girls were waiting in line at Tiny’s Milk and Cookies to buy some baked goods for their church when Burke happened upon them. Apparently disturbed that one of the teens had decided to exercise her First Amendment right by wearing a “Trump: Make America Great Again” shirt, Burke allegedly began to shout an expletive for a part of the female anatomy at the young girls.

The father of one of the girls told KPRC that the group initially ignored Burke’s aberrant conduct. However, Burke allegedly continued to harass the girls, reportedly shaking her fist and mockingly shouting “MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!”

Demonstrating a level of maturity not present in the council member, the girls reportedly left the bakery without engaging Burke. According to the father, “They were absolutely scared. My little girl essentially wanted to know if this woman was going to hurt her.”

The bizarre encounter was captured on video, which allowed Burke to be identified.

Due to Burke’s position as a city council member, the case is being handled by the Harris County Constable’s Office, who, according to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, cited Burke for disorderly conduct on Thursday.

Following the citation, Burke released a sarcastic apology through her attorney, Texas super-lawyer Rusty Hardin.

The mother of one of Burke’s alleged victims didn’t appreciate Burke’s sardonic response, stating, “Clearly her ‘apology’ was an attempt to placate very angry parents as opposed to a genuine apology.” Offering Burke some friendly advice, the mother went on to note, “if a t-shirt triggers such strong emotions, one should seek therapy.”

Burke first came to the attention of the gun rights community when she offered false testimony to the Texas Senate’s Committee on State Affairs during a February 12, 2015 hearing on campus Right-to-Carry legislation. Representing Moms Demand Action, Burke told the committee,

We do not know about how, quote responsible [concealed handgun license] holders are because that dataset is not available and is completely locked down. Any statements about how quote responsible and law-abiding CHL’s are is completely anecdotal and therefore conjecture.

In fact, the Texas Department of Public Safety makes detailed statistics concerning conviction rates among CHL holders available to the public, as well as a variety of demographic data that includes CHL revocations.

Burke’s erroneous testimony failed to sway the committee. The State Affairs Committee approved the legislation by a vote of 7 to 2 and campus Right-to-Carry became law on June 13, 2015.

According to an interview with the radical left-wing publication Mother Jones, Burke was driven to support gun control by what she called the “sickness and the callousness” of NRA. Most Americans, and probably an even larger portion of Texans, do not share Burke’s view. A March 2018 Reuter/Ipsos poll found that a majority of Americans hold a favorable view of NRA. The same cannot be said for Moms Demand Action’s preferred presidential candidate.

Look for the top-down Michael Bloomberg gun control machine to distance itself from Burke following her alleged attempt to dictate the attire and political beliefs of those around her. Then again, why should they? Controlling the legitimate behavior of others is what gun control is all about.

RELATED VIDEO: “If you are a #MAGA, I don’t care if you live or die” – One America News:

An open letter to David Hogg about why school shootings occur

Dear David –

It must be quite an experience to be on nationwide TV at your age. While I fully support your right to protest things you believe are wrong, I respectfully disagree that school carnage will end if semiautomatic rifles are banned, and hope you’ll take a few minutes to let me share my thinking on the issue.

When I was in high school in the early 1960s, there were no school shootings. The only times I remember seeing a police officer at school was once a year to give a talk about obeying the law. Only occasionally were policemen summoned to schools to deal with threatening students. Today, after the profound cultural changes our society has undergone since the 1960s, threatening behavior by students is commonplace—as I’m sure you know, Nikolas Cruz was threatening other students long before he did the unthinkable.

The dramatic increase in delinquent behavior by students is why most schools in America have at least one full-time police officer. Some schools have more. Like its counterparts in other large cities, the public schools system in Detroit has its own police department, which employees hundreds of investigators, campus police officers, security personnel and a K-9 unit. Why is it necessary for school districts to have their own police department? The answer is a national tragedy—schools in our largest cities and counties have become places where lawless behavior by students is so prevalent that police must be close at hand. Prior to the anything goes ‘sex, drugs and rock & roll’ cultural revolution that began in 1968, school systems that had their own police department were non-existent.

If, as I believe, banning semiautomatic rifles will not put a dent in school shootings, what will? Here’s my answer. Most school shootings are carried out by severely disturbed young white males whose thought processes went haywire due to acute mental illness or a dysfunctional childhood (or both, as was the case with Nikolas Cruz). Another reason for school shootings can be laid squarely at the feet of the corrosive cultural decline of the society in which these deranged mass murderers developed their upside down sense of right and wrong.

The anything goes progressive culture that permeates virtually every facet our society teaches these young madmen the politically correct concept of moral relativism, the idea that moral judgments are values that vary, depending on the viewpoints of differing cultural norms. In other words, there is no clear-cut right and wrong. If you believe it’s okay to throw homosexuals from roof tops—an approved practice in some Muslim countries—who’s to say that’s wrong? It’s what your native culture believes. In contemporary society, troubled young minds receive mixed messages about what’s permissible and, far more importantly, what’s totally off limits.

When I was your age, David, kids had ready access to guns, but not to violent imagery. Young people of today are bombarded with gratuitously violent movies and video games that make the act of pumping bullets into human beings seem almost hip. Some studies show little connection between such viewing and mass shootings. But, how can a constant stream of bloody visual carnage not have a profoundly negative impact on troubled young minds? All of the simulated violence that blurs the distinction between fantasy and reality is knowingly mainlined into the consciousness of today’s youth by the entertainment industry and its anything goes progressive values.

Progressive curricula in our schools and colleges teach future white male mass murderers to be ashamed not only of their country, but their skin color, as well. Their already confused minds are methodically indoctrinated with white privilege, a political narrative that leads some to racial self-loathing. Militant feminism further erodes their self-worth by stereotyping them with the invented male flaw known as toxic masculinity. Message: They’re not only white and male, God forbid, they’re also—by definition—wildly cruel to women. The constant assault on their gender and skin color leaves many of them as broken young men who withdraw into isolation and anger.

Our society’s anything goes culture teaches mentally troubled young white males to loathe themselves, that right and wrong are malleable concepts, and that viewing simulated images of gory violence is a cool way to have a good time. No wonder some of them turn into mass murderers. Through its relentless indoctrination in political correctness, multiculturalism, racial politics and ‘social justice,’ our culture is further screwing up the already screwed-up minds of future school shooters. The dramatic cultural upheaval since I was in school also coincides almost perfectly with the sharp increase in self-inflicted deaths by young people—the CDC reports that the suicide rate among the age group 15 to 19 reached its highest point in 40 years in 2015, the most recent year those statistics were available.

Finally, David, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2016, four times more people were stabbed to death than were killed by rifles, including semi-automatics. Those deaths are just as tragic as the ones taken by Nikolas Cruz, yet no sane person would call for banning knives. Left at rest, a loaded gun is incapable of spontaneously discharging. The only way it can kill is if a human picks it up and fires it. Making guns the scapegoat for school shootings is no different than blaming DUI homicides on cars and trucks. I have never been arrested and have no history of mental illness. Other than home invaders, my AR-15 poses a threat to no one, and taking such weapons away from responsible people like me wouldn’t stop a single school shooting, not one.

The battle we face is not against inanimate objects that are used by sick people to kill. The battle is against the mental illnesses, addictions and cultural depravity that cause people to do bad things.

Respectfully,

John Eidson
Atlanta, GA

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of David Hogg, a student at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, his fist in the air as he speaks during the “March for Our Lives” event demanding gun control after recent school shootings at a rally in Washington, U.S., March 24, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

YouTube shooter is Iranian vegan activist named Nasim Aghdam

Nasim Aghdam may have been Bahai, or at least admired some aspects of the Bahai faith (although she seems to have missed its nonviolent teachings); at the bottom of this page she has a photo of herself over which are superimposed quotes from Bahai sources. That page also makes her animus against YouTube clear, as you can see from the screenshot of that page below the video. YouTube was apparently deleting and demonetizing some of her videos, and she was angry. Her response to YouTube’s action was one she imbibed from a culture that glorifies hatred and violence — and persecutes Bahais.

So this is not a jihad attack, but it appears to be a result of growing up in an environment that celebrates violence as a response to perceived injustice. YouTube censorship is a reality. Conservatives complain about it, but don’t kill anyone over it.

Here is a photo [right] she uploaded to her now-deleted Instagram page, albeit apparently with satirical intent (thanks to Mark):

Nasim Aghdam (Instagram)

“Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online,” by Michael Bott, Kevin Nious, Bethney Bonilla and Liz Wagner, NBC News, April 3, 2018 :

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit has confirmed the identity of the shooter who opened fire on YouTube’s campus in San Bruno Tuesday. Her name is Nasim Aghdam, and she lives in Southern California.

Aghdam has a robust presence on YouTube. In a video posted in January 2017, she says YouTube “discriminated and filtered” her content. In the video Aghdam says her channel used to get lots of views but that after being filtered by the company, it received fewer views. In a Facebook post from February 2017, Aghdam blasted YouTube saying, “There is not equal growth opportunity on YouTube.”

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit has also learned the license plate on a car towed from YouTube’s campus Tuesday is registered to Aghdam. In 2014, she posted a video on YouTube of what appears to be the same car, stating that it was vandalized by “anti-vegans” because the car had a sign saying “meat is murder.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Active shooter at YouTube headquarters in California is woman wearing headscarf

Nasim Aghdam named YouTube shooter, railed against the company

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Scammed by a Black, a Woman and Now a 17-Year Old

The ID (Investigation Discovery) channel reenacts real-life crime stories. I watched two stories in which single woman homeowners heard men breaking into their homes. In both incidents, the best the unarmed women could do was grab their phone, hide in their closet like scared rabbits and dial 911. My heart went out to the terrified defenseless women. If they had had a gun, the playing field would have been much more level.

Tragically, both women were found by their home invaders. While she screamed, cried, and begged for her life, the burglar pressed his pistol against one woman’s head and pulled the trigger, killing her instantly. In the second home-invasion, the burglar shot the woman over 10 times. She survived and praises God for her miraculous survival.

In both cases, these women would have had a fighting chance had they been armed with guns. I asked myself, why on earth does the American left so passionately want such women disarmed; defenseless, at the mercy of evil criminals. With leftists claiming to be extreme advocates for women, desiring to disarm women does not make logical sense. And yet, disarming every law abiding citizen in America is exactly what Leftists are trying to do, campaigning to demonize the NRA and gun-owners.

My fellow Americans, leftists only view you as pawns. Your lives are mere tools to use to further their anti-God, anti-freedom and anti-America agendas. Leftists are willing to sacrifice your well-being, best interest and lives to further leftists’ extreme causes and ideas. This is why leftists use everything that happens in life; every accident, tragic event and even the weather to move the ball toward their goals.

Exploiting the Florida school shooting, wacko leftist retired justice John Paul Stevens and other leftist nuts have called for the repeal of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. 

Leftists also flood the media with deception and lies. Parroting fake news media, my relative ranted that you don’t need an assault weapon for hunting and home protection. She thinks current gun law allows nutcases to purchase a machine gun (assault weapon). Civilians cannot casually purchase machine guns. The AR-15 which is hated by leftists requires the trigger to be pulled for each round fired. The AR15 is not a machine gun and has saved numerous homeowners lives.

Women defend themselves with guns against sexual abuse 200,000 times per year. Guns are used 80 times more often to save a life than to take a life. Of the 2,581,268 gun related incidents each year, 2,549,596 are self-defense. Only 31,000 are assaults. Eighty million American gun-owners kill 1500 criminals each year. Police kill 600 criminals annually

The term “assault weapon” is a made-up political term by gun haters to deceive people into thinking bad guys are legally buying machine guns. Everything leftists try to sell us is always rooted in misdirected hate, irrational emotion, deception and lies.

While claiming he had no desire to take our guns, Obama deceptively tried to repeal our 2nd amendment right via the backdoor. Obama tried to ban traditional ammo

Like the Terminator robot in the movie, leftists never grow weary trying to overtake our country with their wacko ideas. They simply keep coming at us using different approaches and front-persons.

Insidiously, leftists lie saying, “You’re nuts, we’re not trying to take your guns. We only want another ‘commonsense’ gun law.” The tactic is called incremental-ism. Incrementally, we went from smoking sections to even tobacco-less vapor cigarettes being banned practically everywhere. I heard a new movie promoted on the radio. The announcer warned that the movie contained “historic smoking” as though seeing people smoking in buildings could be traumatic for viewers.

Incrementally, we went from leftists claiming homosexuals only wanted tolerance to preachers being jailed, Christians forced out of business and public schools teaching kids to try homosexuality. Parents are not allowed to opt out their children from LGBT indoctrination

Leftists believe the masses are as shallow as they are — placing surface appearance above character. This is why leftists select front-persons based on race, gender and etc to be the face of leftists’ attacks on mainstream Americans. Leftists used Obama, a black. Then, leftists tried to use Hillary, a woman. Now, leftists are using David Hogg, a “yute”, to scam and bully the American people.

For example: Leftists used Obama as front-man. Obama’s skin color provided cover for him to unconstitutionally further leftists’ mission to transform America into a socialist/progressive nation. Opposing Obama was declared racist.

Leftists assumed Hillary would win the White House and they could use her gender for cover to continue implementing their agenda. Hillary and her fellow leftists still blame her crushing electoral defeat on misogyny

Leftists are now using a 17 year old as their front-person. Hiding behind David Hogg, leftists are using his age and victim status as cover to further their mission to disarm law abiding Americans. Hogg is allowed to spout false leftists’ talking points and make unconstitutional irrational demands with impunity. Leftists are gang attacking, seeking to silence and destroy anyone who dares offer facts, truth and logic that contradicts Hogg’s rants. According to leftists, disagreeing with Hogg makes you a hater of children and a gun nut. Yes folks, leftists arrogantly believe they can bully us into surrendering to their irrational emotion driven mission to disarm decent Americans.

As usual, rabid insane leftist aggressors are attacking the mainstream, in this case law abiding gun-owners, while portraying themselves as innocent victims of aggression from we everyday Americans.

This Incident Shows How Heeding Warning Signs of a School Shooter Works Better Than Gun Control

All of the glaring red flags surrounding the Parkland shooter were ignored.

Authorities failed to connect the dots through years of bad behavior, incidents on and off campus, as well as reports from concerned citizens that the shooter was displaying worrisome behavior.

According to a CNN report, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter even used to introduce himself to people by saying, “Hi, I’m Nick. I’m a school shooter.”

He should never have been able to pass a background check when he acquired his weapon if he had any kind of criminal record that seemed to be highly warranted.

Though protests and media coverage have focused almost entirely on the issue of gun control, it’s not hard to see how had other measures been taken the shooter could have been stopped well before he was able to commit mass murder.

A recent case in Kentucky shows how we can sometimes stop these incidents long before violence takes place, and without stripping people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Police arrested a student at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in Lexington, Kentucky, in February after they identified a series of warning signs about his behavior.

The case began when the police received an “anonymous tip to a school safety tipline,” according to the Lexington Herald Leader.

The tipster told police that the student, Timothy Felker, had been making threats to shoot himself, specific students, and people at his school more generally.

Sound familiar?

Felker was also otherwise behaving erratically.

After allegedly purchasing a firearm with money his mother gave him for a tattoo, he posted pictures on social media of putting a gun in his mouth.

Police arrested Felker at an airport after getting a mental health petition, and authorities charged him with “terroristic threatening,” WKYT reported.

Unlike with the Parkland shooting, authorities followed up on warning signs, and arrested a clearly troubled teen before an incident took place.

“This is an example of best practices in action,” Fayette County Schools Superintendent Manny Caulk said, according to the Herald Leader. “It’s about connections with students and multi-agency collaboration. The speed at which we’re able to share information is a reflection of the systems we have built to link students, school, and district administrators with law enforcement officers at the school, city, and federal level.”

The laws worked and concerned citizens and authorities intervened.

It was the anti-Parkland.

The Kentucky situation gets to the point that to prevent violence at schools, we need to do better as a society in identifying the warning signs and cultural maladies that are leading people to commit these horrible crimes.

As Amy Swearer, The Heritage Foundation’s visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, wrote, there are three common traits of school shooters.

The first common trait is that they are often people with a serious mental illness.

“It is not uncommon for a school attacker to have acted in increasingly disruptive and violent ways before the shooting,” Swearer wrote. “But for a variety of reasons, these individuals are often not involuntarily committed to a mental health institution or ordered by a court to receive mental health treatment.”

The second trait is fatherlessness and broken homes.

As Emilie Kao, The Heritage Foundation’s director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society, wrote:

Among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Psychologist Dr. Peter Langman, a pre-eminent expert on school shooters, found that most came from incredibly broken homes of not just divorce and separation, but also infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence, and child abuse.

The third trait is economic insecurity, as Swearer explained: “A major study by criminologists at Northwestern University looked at the effect of economic conditions on the prevalence of school shootings and concluded that there is a significant correlation between periods of increased economic insecurity and periods of increased gun violence at schools.”

Unfortunately, very little was said about these issues at the March for Our Lives rally. Protesters blamed the National Rifle Association and gun ownership for violence rather than the killers themselves, or the cultural dysfunction that may be feeding their lives of crime.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Concealed Carry on Campus Is More Common, and Useful, Than You Thought

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. (Photo: Amy Beth Bennett/TNS/Newscom)

Media Darling David Hogg Ducks Debate With Gun Rights Backer Kyle Kashuv

Kyle Kashuv, a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, emerged as the most prominent pro-Second Amendment voice among students there after the shooting at the school that left 17 dead.

Kashuv, 16, who has been embraced by many conservatives, hopes to debate David Hogg, 17, a Stoneman Douglas senior.

Hogg is one of the most visible liberal voices among the Parkland students in the media spotlight. The son of an FBI agent, he has been lionized by the left as he advocates more gun control.

By contrast, Kashuv does not get nearly as much media exposure as Hogg or other liberal-leaning Parkland students. His appearances typically are limited to Fox News Channel among the larger media outlets.

Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, argues that Kashuv is a worthy opponent for Hogg and other young liberals.

In an email to The Daily Signal, Kirk said:

Kyle is absolutely brilliant and deserves a chance to debate David Hogg in an open forum. David has insulted us gun owners enough, and Kyle deserves a chance to get his ideas out to the most amount of people possible.

CNN recently canceled a segment with Kashuv, apparently after someone there took offense to one of the teen’s retweets on Twitter.

Stoneman Douglas junior Cameron Kasky agreed in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” to debate Kashuv, but later backed out.

Kasky is credited with being a main organizer of the anti-guns March for Our Lives held March 24 in Washington, D.C.

Kashuv and other conservative voices were not given the opportunity to be heard at the march and rally in the nation’s capital.

These excluded voices included Hunter Pollack, 29, whose sister Meadow, an 18-year-old senior, died in the shooting. Their father, Andrew Pollack, has become a high-profile advocate of improved school safety.

Several organizations and individuals have offered to host and moderate a Kashuv-Hogg debate, including Dave Rubin, host of “The Rubin Report” on YouTube, described as “a talk show about big ideas and free speech.”

So far, Hogg has not agreed to debate Kashuv.

Hogg repeatedly has gone after Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for accepting contributions from the National Rifle Association, including at a “CNN Town Hall” held Feb. 21 and at the March for Our Lives rally March 24.

“I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here as a reminder for you guys to know how much Marco Rubio took for every student’s life in Florida: $1.05,” Hogg said onstage at the rally, referring to the Republican senator from Florida who ran for president in 2016.

Kashuv, who has traveled to Washington several times since the massacre, continues to meet with Rubio and other lawmakers and officials on both sides of the aisle.

He promoted the STOP School Violence Act of 2018, which the House passed March 14, a month to the day after the shooting. The Senate has yet to act.

Rep. John Rutherford R-Fla., a co-sponsor of the bill, said in a press release:

This bill invests in early intervention and prevention programs in our local schools, so that our communities and law enforcement can be partners in preventing violent events from happening. We need to give students, teachers, and law enforcement the tools and training they need to identify warning signs and to know who to contact when they see something that is not right.

Besides meeting with lawmakers from both parties at the Capitol, Kashuv has met at the White House with both President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump.

Kashuv is a regular on Twitter, calling balls and strikes and engaging in policy discussions with two mentors, Kirk and Ben Shapiro.

Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, is a well-known conservative political commentator. His popular podcast, “The Ben Shapiro Show,” is entering the radio arena.

Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization has chapters at over 300 college campuses that aim to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.”

Kirk and Kashuv participated in “man on the street”-style interviews during the March for Our Lives in Washington. Kashuv also provided some commentary on Fox News Channel during the event.

Kirk interviewed Trump at the “Generation Next” forum held March 22 by the White House. The forum, designed to engage millennials, focused on the economy, free speech, and the opioid crisis.

During that forum, Kashuv spoke with The Daily Signal’s Rachel del Guidice about the relative media blackout he faces for defending the Second Amendment. He also gave advice to students with similar beliefs.

“I’ve had a bunch of people reach out to me in Twitter DMs [direct messages], telling me they’re being silenced at their school,” Kashuv said. “My biggest word of advice is to keep on going. Don’t let anyone silence you and don’t give in to the criticism that you get.”

Portrait of Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Ginny. Twitter: @GinnyMontalbano.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Kyle Kashuv speaking on March 13 about the STOP School Violence Act is by Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom.

So They’re Not Coming for Our Guns, Eh? We call BS.

Why do we even have a Second Amendment? 

Because British tyrants came for the Founders’ guns, and the Founders knew, given the chance, overreaching officials in the U.S. would do the same thing. 

Now, some believe that chance has finally come. 

In the wake of the terrible crimes in Parkland, Florida, gun control activists and progressive social justice warriors have found their scapegoats in the National Rifle Association and its five million members. And as they always do when they feel emboldened, they are revealing the true agenda they usually try to downplay to the American public in less emotionally-charged times.

One media outlet after another has praised the activism and passion of those who marched for gun control last Saturday. We must listen to them, we are told.

Okay, in that spirit, here is just a sampling of the marchers’ own words.

Some of the lines that drew the biggest applause and cheering from the crowd during the speeches at the march included the following:

“When they give us that inch … we will take a mile!”

“I have a dream that enough is enough. And that this should be a gun-free world. Period!”

“Welcome to the revolution … The people demand a law banning the sale of assault weapons. The people demand we prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines.”

And no wonder the crowd cheered. The placards they carried in D.C. and elsewhere expressed similarly extreme sentiments and vicious ill-will toward those who disagree with their prohibitory agenda. Some were also of questionable suitability for a supposedly youth-themed march.

Meanwhile signs using the universal circle and slash of prohibition targeted handgunsrifles, and the NRA itself.

Okay, so the protestors want to ban guns, they hate the NRA, and many enjoy profanity.

Trust us, we get the message.

And so did none other than former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the very man who was one vote away from writing the individual right to keep and bear arms out of the Bill of Rights forever with his dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Addressing the protestors in a New York Times editorial, he encouraged them to “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.” It would, he wrote, move them “closer to their objective than any other possible reform.”

At that point, however, the gun control apparatus realized it had overplayed its hand. Adults that only the week before had been insisting that all of America must listen to the gun control wisdom of the protesting youth suddenly began trying to steer their message back to a politically safe space.

“[N]o one calling for a 2A repeal,” insisted anti-gun media personality Chris Cuomo in a tweet the day after the Stevens editorial was published. “[S]top with the bogeymen.” 

Yeah, echoed law professor and gun control advocate Adam Winkler, “There’s not a snowflakes chance in hell we are going to repeal the Second Amendment … . ” But then he added, “anytime soon.” 

Politifact – the progressive advocacy organization posing as a “fact checker” – also tried to contain the damage. It handed out a “pants on fire” rating to the claim that legislation already pending in Congress which would expansively ban semi-automatic firearms does in fact prove “they are coming to take away our guns.”

Politifact, however, created a strawman by insisting, “Gun owners would not be required to give up any of their guns as long as they were legally purchased before the ban.” 

But their analysis ignored the fact that many of America’s most popular firearms would no longer be available under the legislation, that parts for the banned firearms would also be banned, and that places which have enacted similar bans have repeatedly reneged on the original grandfather provisions. The pending legislation is also significantly broader than the federal “assault weapons” ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, displaying an obvious tendency toward gun control mission creep. 

So who are you going to believe? The protestors themselves, history, and your lying eyes? 

Or are you going to believe the media damage control? 

We know how we would answer that question. And we think the Founders would agree.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dissenting Justice in the Heller Case Now Argues for Repeal of the Second Amendment

Anti-Gun Research Methods: Whatever It Takes

President Trump Reassures Gun Owners: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!

Antigun Democrat Introduces Partisan Ammunition Control Bill, Claims No “Right to Bear Bullets”