We have to go back a bit, but gun control, the Second Amendment, and the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are still fresh in the news. On March 25, Delaney Tarr and Cameron Kasky ventured onto Fox News Sunday, the day after the March for Our Lives rally. Once again, these anti-gun activists tried to convince viewers that they’re not after their guns, except that they are. It’s one of the most transparent agenda items from the progressive Left. They’re trying to say one thing to distract us, while trying to park an aircraft carrier from behind (via RCP):
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: The NRA says that what you guys want to do is not just take away semiautomatic weapons, just take away high-capacity weapons, you really want to take away people’s guns.
Here is one of your fellow students at parkland, Kyle Kashuv, talking during the march yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KYLE KASHUV, PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVOR: They truly don't know what they’re marching for. They think that they are marching to end school violence, but in reality, the March for Our Lives Website has it listed that they want to ban assault rifles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Cameron, how do you respond to Kyle?
CAMERON KASKY, MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL: Well, first of all, we are not just marching to end school violence. We are marching to end violence all over the country, because that's where it happens.
Second of all, we are not trying to take everybody's guns away. My father was a reserve police officer. We have guns in our house. They are responsibly managed and hidden from anyone but him.
The point is, we are not trying to take away everybody's guns away and the NRA wants people to think that. They are fear-mongers. They want to sell weapons by exploiting people's fears. So, the second we want to put common sense resolutions on these assault weapons, the NRA will say they are trying to steal every single one of your guns and people believe them. Fortunately, the majority of the American people see past this.
WALLACE: So, where would you draw the line in terms of eliminating guns? Would it just be assault weapons?
KASKY: I think assault weapons need to be banned and I think that smaller weapons used more for protection of your homes can be sold, but there need to be more restrictions. You need to go through mental health check, you need to be 21. These are all things that are common sense and I think getting a handgun to protect your home is an important thing if you need to, but it can't be that easy.
Yeah, nice try, kid; you forgot to add in that you’re for the prohibition of high-capacity magazines. That’s a backdoor ban since most handguns, with the exception of some carry guns, 1911s, and revolvers, take more than ten-rounds, which is the liberal consensus on what’s…acceptable. Can there be some discussion about improving background checks and mental health care and detection? Sure, but we’re dealing with an untrustworthy bunch. Denying Americans of their Second Amendment rights until they’re 21 is also grossly unconstitutional.
As they try to peddle these shoddy talking points, their cohorts are pushing for bans across the country. Vermont passed gun control measures, as did Florida. In Oregon, a church group is collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would virtually ban firearms in the state. Oh, and on top of the lie that the Left is “not going to confiscate firearms,” they’re actually trying to say that repealing the Second Amendment is not part of the national conversation, despite multiple op-eds and an Economist/YouGov poll that asked participants just that; how many of you want to see repeal. The liberal line is “yes, we want to repeal the Second Amendment, but you just didn’t hear us properly,” which is just abject insanity. Eighty-two percent of Democrats want to ban semiautomatic weapons. That’s a gun ban. The Left is quite clear how they think about the Second Amendment, conservatives, and gun owners: total and utter hatred.
Delaney Tarr, who was with Kasky, made the intention very clear as well. It’s what we’ve known for years. If you give them an inch, they take a mile, which is exactly what she said at the rally in reference to the Trump DOJ moving forward on banning bump stocks. And she said that’s exactly what they’ll do if they see such an opportunity. Now, this cadre of anti-gunners thinks that because their arguments are so sound (we all know they're absolute crap), that the NRA attacks them personally (via RCP):
WALLACE: We had a school shooting, as I’m sure you know, here in Maryland last week where a student went into the school and killed his former girlfriend, but he was stopped and died, we’re not sure whether he killed himself or he was shot by a sheriff's deputy at the school who confronted him.
A host on NRA TV yesterday talked about that deputy.
COLION NOIR, NRA TV HOST: To all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your First Amendment to attack everyone else's Second Amendment at your march on Saturday, I wish a hero like Blaine had been at Marjory Douglas High School last month, because her classmates would still be alive and no one would know your names.
WALLACE: Delaney, your reaction to that in your reaction to the NRA argument, which is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?
TARR: Well, first of all, our school is Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, not Marjory Douglas High School. So, I felt like I needed to clarify that.
But also, I’m glad that that sheriff had a gun, because he is a person who should have a gun. But a teacher? A teacher does not need a weapon like that. A teacher's job is to educate, not to defend.
They are pushing that a good guy with a gun -- what do you define as a good guy with a gun? Because I would define it as a highly trained professional, not as filling our classrooms with weapons. That is not a good guy with a gun.
WALLACE: And what about the application when he says nobody would know your name, that this is an ego trip?
KASKY: Yes. I think that's the most pathetic thing I’ve seen out of this, possibly even beating (ph) crisis actors. And that’s the NRA. You’ll notice. They can't attack our argument, so they are attacking us personally. The fact that they are saying that all we want out of this is for people to know our names, they have no idea how much each of us would give for it to be February 13th again. So, the fact that they stooped that low, I can't imagine how much lower they can get.
Yeah, sure—we can discuss teachers being armed. Would former veterans make you feel better? The point is armed guards at schools are not only a non-controversial point, and in many school districts, they have permitted armed teachers. These kids don’t realize it, but schools have never been safer. They’re not the only ones who have experience shootings in America. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Blessedly, it’s one that’s very rare. Mass shootings are rare; schools shootings are even rarer. And their arguments have been debated before—and like their predecessors, they’ve lost. We’ll beat them again. It may take more time. It may take more money. We may lose some ground, but these points have been argued time and again with no success from the Left because they’re frothing, anti-gun nutjobs who always overreach. They’ll do so again. And you’re public figures now, folks—ad hominem attacks will be part of your activist journey. And one way we know that you won’t last is your whining over your school’s new clear backpack policy. They’re the only ones allowed on campus, and some students are a bit irritated. Why are we being punished for someone else’s insane actions seemed to be the consensus? Well, NRA members and conservatives can certainty relate to that point.
Also, fewer than half of high schoolers aren't sold on new gun laws, so it's not like every young American is behind the Parkland Three agenda.