Previous post
They’re baaack. March for Our Lives, you recall, is the anti-gun group formed by the teenagers who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland during the 2018 shooting. Now they have demands, and have created quite the manifesto to inhibit Americans from owning guns. Because, you know, they were there, and that makes them experts on All The Things.
Their plan, released on Wednesday, is called “A Peace Plan for a Safer America.”
And because these are all woke young adults, they find that gun deaths are “deeply intersectional.” Gotta make sure they reference all the victims at their website:
“Among young people, gun violence has become a top cause of death, second only to drug overdoses. It has many root causes, including hate, poverty, and despair. It’s a deeply intersectional issue, inextricably bound with our long journey for racial justice, economic justice, immigrant rights, and the rights of our LGBTQ allies. And it’s amplified by the societal belief that a gun can solve our problems. Gun violence is destroying our generation. This is simply unacceptable.
Here are some of their demands.
A ban and mandatory buy-back program for “assault weapons.”
Never mind that these simpletons have no idea what an “assault weapon” is. In reality, there is no absolute definition of an “assault weapon.” They’re merely parroting what the anti-gun crowd calls scary black rifles, like the AR-15. Moreover, they probably think “AR” stands for “assault rifle,” when it really stands for “Armalite Rifle.”
Credit: giphy.com.
But wait! There’s more!
Raising the age for all gun purchases to 21.
So an 18-year-old can join the military and have access to a true “assault weapon,” but cannot buy a gun to go hunting. Nor can a young woman buy a pistol to protect herself.
A federal version of Extreme Risk Protection Orders, commonly known as “red flag” laws.
States’ rights? Pfft!
A limit of one firearm purchase per month.
Now children, you can only have once piece of candy at a time. Nanny state says so.
A national licensing and registry system for guns and ammunition.
March for Our Lives also wants you to register your ammo. What’s more. . .
A ban on all online firearm and ammunition sales or transfers, including gun parts.
Never mind that if you purchase a gun online, it must be shipped to a federally licensed gun shop anyway, and it doesn’t come to your house. So no Amazon Prime for guns.
The creation a “National Director of Gun Violence Prevention,” who will report directly to the president.
Heh. They’re assuming that Trump won’t be back for a second term.
In addition, March for Our Lives also wants a re-examination of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the 2008 case which protects the right to own a gun without demanding that the owner serve in a militia. Yeah, good luck with that one, kids.
Now here’s where March for Our Lives goes into full indoctrination mode. They’re proposing that once a teenager turns 18 years old, the government automatically registers them to serve in a “Safety Corps.” Here’s how their website touts it:
“Over the next 10 years, this new domestic program would put 10,000 young people per year to work on paid, one-year engagements in communities and nonprofits around the country. The Safety Corps would unlock the power of young people to bolster the civic infrastructure of anti-poverty and criminal justice reform nonprofit programs that address the root causes of gun violence.”
Yeah, good luck with that in Chicago.
Credit: giphy.com.
And finally, since March for Our Lives really does want to take your guns away, they want a national gun buy-back and disposal program. Their goal? “A reduction of our domestic firearm stock by at least 30%.” Did you catch that prepositional phrase? At least by 30%. Yes, they want to take all the guns.
I have two words for these kids: Molon labe. And stop telling adults how to live their lives.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Featured image: Peter Gorman/flickr/cropped/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Lloyd says: Sheesh….Children marching!! Would someone please direct them to the playground; they can play make believe in peace!!
GWB says: Again with the lack of history. I wonder if they realize how well the last “Children’s Crusade” turned out?
CaptDMO says: Amusing plan. Bless their little hearts.
Plan …DENIED.
Come back when you are no longer students, and by definition, still learning.
GWB says: Your definition assumes they are learning now. I would say that’s claiming facts not in evidence.
GWB says: the anti-gun group formed by Soros’ organizers, fronted by the teenagers who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
FIFY
Now they have demands
I have demands, too. We’ll talk when they accede to mine.
(Mine mostly involve learning some facts and some critical thinking, and shutting their yaps until they have done so.)
It has many root causes, including hate, poverty, and despair.
Wait, didn’t you forget one? Guns?
In reality, there is no absolute definition of an “assault weapon.”
Actually there is. Anyone arguing otherwise is trying to change the language.
(A lightweight medium caliber weapon with the ability to select semi-automatic fire or some form of automatic fire [full auto or 3-round burst] and a reasonable ammunition capacity.)
Raising the age for all gun purchases to 21.
Fine, then we’re raising the voting age to 21, as well.
A federal version of
Sorry, there’s this thing called ‘jurisdiction’ that you obviously don’t understand.
(There’s that “facts and critical thinking” thing again. Get back to me once you’ve mastered that.)
A national … registry system
Oh, so you haven’t studied history, then? Or are you hoping I haven’t?
Won’t work, anyway. Everyone I know loses their guns on their annual canoe trips.
(BTW, ever heard of Connecticut? Or New Zealand? Ha!)
A ban on all online firearm and ammunition sales or transfers
Ummm, yeah. This won’t accomplish much. (Except, maybe, make the ‘dark web’ more popular.)
Also, will this include your local store? Can they not advertise their wares on the internet? Because I’m seeing a loophole an opportunity here.
a “National Director of Gun Violence Prevention,”
Again, jurisdiction issues. Also, a big waste of money – unless your only desire is growing the national gov’t.
a re-examination of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision
Well, find an appropriate court case and push it to the SCOTUS level. Maybe you’ll have grown up by then. (You will certainly have aged.)
10,000 young people per year to work on paid, one-year engagements
We already have that. They’re called JOBS. Go get one, start paying income taxes, then maybe we can talk (this comes after you learning facts and critical thinking).
And stop telling adults how to live their lives.
Stop thinking you know WTH you’re talking about, as if no one has ever thought your thoughts before. You are NOT unique. You are NOT special. You’re just another immature dullard who thinks way too much of xerself without cause, and you’re particularly annoying because of it.
SDN says: You missed one:
“A federal version of Extreme Risk Protection Orders, commonly known as “red flag” laws.”
Which they’re already boasting they’ll use to file false reports. And that leaves out the completely normal government fuck-ups:
askeptic says: A “…lightweight medium caliber weapon with the ability to select semi-automatic fire or some form of automatic fire…” is an ASSAULT RIFLE.
The statement that there is no hard, definite definition of an “assault weapon” is correct.
Charles N. Steele says: You are wrong about “assault weapon,” GWB. The term was invented by an anti-gun organization and was intentionally undefined, meant to be a tool for propaganda. You are probably confusing it with “assault rifle,” the translation of “Sturmgewehr” from the German Stg 44 of WWII, the first “assault rifle.” Assault rifles are selective fire and use an intermediate cartridge between a pistol cartridge and a battle rifle cartridge. A civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it is not selective fire.
GWB says: OK, I get your point, though I think you’re splitting hairs. I will stick with the “assault rifle” definition for “assault weapon”. I think “assault weapon” is just a lazier version of the already misapplied “assault rifle”, and I don’t think it helps to argue “no definition exists” for one but not the other.
Actually, I think your answer (to a gun-ignorant person) is probably best, after the first 2 sentences. Start with “You are probably confusing that with the correct term ‘assault rifle’….”
(And, you’re repeating the definition I already gave above. 😉 )
askeptic says: Now, who’s being lazy. The great lie about “assault weapons” was perpetrated in the beginning by the Brady Group by using that term and showing film clips of cops firing M-16’s on full auto – 30 years ago.
Charles N. Steele says: It’s not hair splitting at all. And “assault rifle”is quite different from “assault weapon.”
Charles N. Steele says: I should mention that firearm authorities such as Col. Jeff Cooper have written extensively on the assault rifle concept, comparing it to battle rifles, SMGs, etc. — “Assault rifle” is well-defined in technical firearms literature; the term assault weapon was invented by gun control advocates, as askeptic confirms, but not defined… it was supposed to sound bad and turn the public against such a category, which then could be filled with whatever gun grabbers could squeeze into it. I no longer have the citation but gun control advocates actually said this.
Charles N. Steele says: Memo to “March:” I have a demand myself. Leave me alone. You can’t have my guns. This is not negotiable and if you ignore my demand you are in for more trouble than you can imagine.
I urge all my fellow gun owners to make the same demand.
MortMain says: Leftists are experts at using children for propaganda purposes.
GWB says: BTW, other features of this ‘plan’ include:
-Making it harder to transfer a firearm than it is to transfer a car.
-Applicants for the national firearms license would have to re-complete the process every year.
-And they want to resurrect the 10-day waiting period. (‘Cause that psychopathic ex- is gonna wait 10 days after you start the process before he stalks you and kills you in a dark parking lot. *eyeroll* )
-They also want to go all Sheldon and pack the courts with anti-freedom judges and “restructure” the SCOTUS so there’s no more “partisanship”.
And plenty more.
I don’t think any of them truly understand just how they’re pushing law-abiding and freedom-loving Americans over the line. And they don’t comprehend in what ways the ugly will come to them.
Enlarging a beaurocracy to perform “enhanced” background checks, whatever that is, will not make anyone safer. Crazy people are shooting at us and idiot politicians want us to further restrict the means to defend ourselves.
Red Flag laws are just a Dem/Prog idea to circumvent due process and must not be allowed.
Public education: Quit raising privileged self centered assholes with zero sense of responsibility and the idea the world owes them everything. That would be a good start.
Do not trade Constitutional Guaranteed rights for an illusion of security. It may be nearly impossible to get those precious rights back.
Universal background checks will be nearly impossible to enforce as the government doesn’t know where all the guns are. This will be the first step to registration of firearms. Once it Is known who has and where the guns are, confiscation will be much easier.
MarkJ says: Captain Obvious asks the MFOL Kidz the musical question, “In order to implement your plan, what would be your idea of an acceptable casualty level?”
Charles N. Steele says: I would modify this to “In order to implement your plan, what would be your idea of an acceptable casualty level *on your side*?” I think a fair number of them don’t care how many of *us* eggs they break in trying to make their omelet.
Chris Morton says: NO, I REFUSE.
Better think of something else.
19 Comments