Students Call for Solutions, Not Politics – Then They’re Used Politically and Become Agitators for the Left

Posted by Tina

Yesterday I saw footage of fresh faced teens in Florida demanding that we put politics aside and work together to find solutions that would ensure the safety of students in our schools. A mature response IMHO.

That was yesterday. In less than 24 hours Democrats and left activists have hijacked the nonpartisan plea and motivated an activist movement to push for “gun control,” the same worn out talking point the left has used for decades to stir up emotions and create an election year “cause” for votes and donations. Democrat activists don’t listen. They refuse to participate in solutions oriented noodling. Instead they become instant opportunists motivated by extreme politics. Example:

This week we lost 17 Americans in Parkland – the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook in 2012. Since then, 438 people have been shot and 138 killed in over 230 school shootings. That’s 5 school shootings every month, 16 of which classify as “mass shootings.” — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 16, 2018

But there’s a problem with Hillary’s statistics. Even the Washington Post noted the lie in it’s article: “No, there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong.” The number of fatal school shooting incidents since Columbine in 1999 is actually 25 — certainly no small number, but nowhere near “230 school shootings since 2012.” Hillary’s numbers derive from “Everytown for Gun Safety,” a radical left-wing, gun control group.

The same lie was repeated on twitter by Bernie Sanders, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Cher, Alexander William, Misha Collins and Albert Brooks and retweeted thousands of times. News organizations also falsely used the numbers in their coverage of the incident: MSNBC, ABC, NBCs, CBS, Time, MSN, BBC, the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post.

It’s called left generated fake news. So much for a solutions based approach.

Following a tragedy, the left always swings into action to agitate! In this case the dead are shamefully used as vulnerable students become pawns in a tortured political game. Democrats are not above stretching the truth, nor are they above flat out lying, to sensationalize the issue and promote their party.

Related: NBC Miami, “Broward Deputies to Carry Rifles on School Grounds: Sheriff”

This entry was posted in Civil Rights, Constitution & The Law, Education, Morals and Ethics, Protest and Agitation. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Students Call for Solutions, Not Politics – Then They’re Used Politically and Become Agitators for the Left

  1. Jim says:

    The Russians have hijacked the Republican party. At least these students are listening to Americans.

    • Tina says:

      Jim how have the Russians “hijacked” the Republican Party?

      I agree the students are listening but truthfully they are listening to some Americans…the gun control, safe space Americans that have done nothing to secure the students in our schools and will only consider solutions that disarm law abiding Americans. Why not address social, criminal, and mental issues. Why not let the local districts seek ways to effectively secure the schools?

      Students are being emotionally misinformed and used politically by radicals on the left.

      Is the left afraid of useful and statistical information because it would crush their ability to use students politically?

      • Jim says:

        Nobody is seriously talking about disarming law abiding citizens. I agree with you that we should address mental health concerns. So how about a psychological evaluation before purchase of a firearm? How about more thorough background checks?

        The assault weapons ban, reduced mass shooting by about 40%, how about bringing that back?

        As for your question about Russian involvement in the Republican party. We know that they spent millions of dollars to influence the election. Some of that Russian cash was funneled through the NRA.

        At first I was in favor of Trump, until I realized what he was up to and how the was a pawn of Russia.

        The Russians figured that the best way to damage the United States was to elect Donald Trump. It’s working.

        • Tina says:

          Jim I wish it were true that “nobody” is seriously talking about disarming citizens. Our former AG, Eric Holder, wanted to accomplish just that in the 1990’s through “brainwashing,” especially of “young people,” into thinking that owning or “carrying” guns is “wrong.”

          The idea remains alive but lacks political favor so the left is willing to make piece meal attempts to destroy the Constitutionally protected right by passing ever more restrictive gun laws.

          I’m not well versed in weaponry but I do know that the public is being mislead about which guns are legal and which are not, what they look like and how rapidly they fire. See this article for information:

          When silly people like Seth MacFarlane and Susan Sarandon say they want to ban “automatic weapons,” what they mean is that they want to ban guns that look scary. They don’t understand that you can’t walk into a gun store and walk out with a military-style assault weapon (one that can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull). That’s because 1) most gun dealers don’t carry the military version of the scary looking gun, 2) you have to jump through an obscene number of hoops with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to even obtain a tax stamp that says you may purchase such a weapon (a process that takes months, if not years), and 3) the actual versions of rifles used by the military are really expensive and unaffordable for the vast majority of prospective gun owners.

          What you can buy from your local gun dealer, after that licensed gun dealer has confirmed that you passed a federal background check (yep, that’s required by existing law), is a semi-automatic rifle. And now, a bunch of gun controllers who don’t understand the slightest thing about guns have decided that rifle needs to be banned. Not because it’s more deadly than a typical hunting rifle (it’s absolutely not), but because it looks scarier. …

          … before we dive into whether the assault weapons ban was merely dumb, or if it was monumentally stupid and counterproductive, it’s important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an “assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

          That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires. Note that under the 1994 law, the mere existence of a bayonet lug, not even the bayonet itself, somehow turned a garden-variety rifle into a bloodthirsty killing machine. Guns with fixed stocks? Very safe. But guns where a stock has more than one position? Obviously they’re murder factories. A rifle with both a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock? Perish the thought.

          A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly. Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor. And for heaven’s sake, good luck finding, let alone purchasing, 40mm explosive grenades for your rifle-mounted grenade launcher (and remember: the grenade launcher itself is fine, just as long as you don’t put the ultra-deadly bayonet lug anywhere near it). …

          … If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people. And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today, more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault weapons ban was in effect.

          The law expired in September of 2004, making 2003 the last full calendar year in which the law was in effect. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime statistics, 390 people were murdered with rifles in 2003, making rifles the weapon of choice in 2.7 percent of murders that year. But in 2014, more than a decade after these vile weapons of war flooded American streets, the number of rifle murders surely skyrocketed, right?

          Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248 murders. And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2 percent…

          “As for your question about Russian involvement in the Republican party. We know that they spent millions of dollars to influence the election. Some of that Russian cash was funneled through the NRA. ”

          I still have to guess what specifically you refer to. I will agree that the Russians spent money on ads to influence the election. But they spent money on ads that would benefit Hillary too. As far as I know the evidence so far, especially that associated with the 15 indictments of Russians living in Russia that will never be prosecuted, cannot be traced to any individual who knowingly accepted or orchestrated the acceptance of the funds spent.

          On the other hand…we know that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid many millions ($9.6 million collectively) for the salacious Russian Dossier.

          Andrew McCarthy at National Review, not always a friend to Trump, has a fairly in depth report on the events surrounding Russian involvement in our election. It was published last year and we’ve learned a great deal more since. The MSM avoids reporting much of what we have learned. The bulk of evidence incriminates the Clinton Campaign and the DNC and their various players. I hope you’ll read it and become curious. The rule of law in this nation depends on good people being willing to accept the evidence and demand justice.

          “The Russians figured that the best way to damage the United States was to elect Donald Trump.”

          A talking point, Jim. Are you really going to remain at such a shallow uninformed level in our discourse?

  2. Harold says:

    Never let any tragedy go to waste! …. It is the mantra of the Left!

  3. Tina says:

    Recommended reading, The American Spectator, “Toxic Liberalism Created Nikolas Cruz,” by Brandon J. Weichert

  4. J. Soden says:

    A WORLD of difference between an actual discussion regarding solutions to violence as was had in the Trump White House vs the staged semi-riot “townhall” sponsored by Fake News Network!

    • Tina says:

      Absolutely!

      Trump is genuinely interested and a problem solver not a symbolic gesture maker. We might actually see some effective policy coming out of this.

      Bottom line it’s up to local school districts to know who the troubled kids are and what signals they are sending. It’s also up to them to secure the schools. Making them “gun free zones” has been a disasterous, feel good gesture.

      In 2012 National Review reported the following:

      Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

      In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

      Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

      The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

      Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

      Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

      First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

      Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

      Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

      The left is not filled with serious people who are interested in solving problems. They are creative agitators and sensationalists!

      • Libby says:

        “Trump is genuinely interested and a problem solver not a symbolic gesture maker. We might actually see some effective policy coming out of this.”

        Oh, my Lord. Did you actually watch the man’s performance? … read the moronic tweets? This linguistically-challenged doofus has totally worn out the term “unpresidential.” “Sicko-shooter” is for us simpletons to use. Coming from the nation’s chief executive, it is barf-making.

        What you need is some guided instructional viewing. I recommend Colbert’s latest.

      • Chris says:

        “Trump is genuinely interested and a problem solver not a symbolic gesture maker. We might actually see some effective policy coming out of this.”

        The Wall would like to have a word with you.

  5. Harold says:

    “Students are being emotionally misinformed and used politically by radicals on the left. ”

    Yes they are, and very susceptible to liberal teaching on campus and reinforced through the news media. Plus it is not a far stretch to understand Mike Bloomberg billions and “Every town” is funding this recent student outcry. Gun control advocates will not stop using any twisted action and misuse of weapons until ALL guns are outlawed, it is not better control they seek it is total elimination of gun rights they want. And once Liberal Government gets it way into further in control it wont be long before gun ownership for responsible gun owners is a thing of the past. Hello Germany 1938.

    Criminals do not and never will fear rules and regulations, but responsible people do and end up victims.

    I don’t have any answers as to how best to handle this problem, however I do believe some areas that need be addressed are:

    Stop glorifying the murders with names and pictures, unless you need so just to capture them. Also the media rush to exploit events with little or no facts just is fuel in flame of fear.

    Assemblies on campus with positive info that can be vetted and proven.

    Eliminate the gun free zone thinking that has proven itself to just encourage a target rich environment. lets try arming trained personnel, teachers, security guards, maybe allow retired military or ex cops to be stationed and armed on campus. You do not see these murderers shooting up police stations, and only on some occasions are Military bases target’s (but here again most soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons or in some cases no live ammo is issued, Thank You Bill Clinton for the former.

    Of Course better Government response to issues when notified, Parkland FL. might have been prevented if FBI and Sheriffs dept. had some legal latitude to investigate and hold reported people, it would require a trained psychologist to be part of this type of intervention.

    Stop blaming the tool and start stopping the fool…….many lives are saved each year by responsible gun owners, so guns by themselves are no more the problem than drivers license and drunk drivers, both of which have government oversight, and the problem being the wrong people will always find a way to take advantage.

  6. RHT447 says:

    So part of the current gun control du jour is the banning of ‘bump stocks’. This is just more PC feel good BS. The bump stock is a spring loaded device that uses the weapon’s recoil to bounce the weapon against your trigger finger.

    Well pilgrims, guess what—

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64

    You cannot legislate morality. Self government will not work without self discipline. One of the most horrific mass killings in this country by a single individual was accomplished with a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter.

    • Libby says:

      Could your arsonist murder dozens before he was murdered himself? You deliberately ignore important aspects of the problem.

      And we are not out to regulate morality; we are out to regulate the purchase and use of firearms.

      • Tina says:

        Actually we’re talking about providing security in America’s schools. We are talking about effective ways to make our schools safe for the kids, teachers, and administrators. Banks, hotels, residences, airports, parks, politicians, celebrities…why not schools?

        Firearms have already been regulated up the wazoo, which is why the conversation has sanely shifted to security, accountability, morality and mental health.

        Perfection will never be achieved. We can only do so much to prevent criminals and the deranged from carrying out evil plots which, in most cases, are planned and carried out covertly.

        Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course arson could be used to murder dozens or more. All it would take is a good plan and well placed explosive and inflammatory devices.

        If all you care about is more gun regulation and government controlled health care you are not interested in talking about safety and security in the schools. Instead you’re interested in a political agenda and the power to take both freedom and responsibility from individual citizens….and giving power and control to the government!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *