● If You Want To Understand The Left: Look at the fact that Trump is offering them more gun control than any Democrat has ever offered and yet none of them can stop smearing him. To leftist drones, "who" offers the policy is even more important than the policy itself. Moreover, their leaders don't actually want their policies in place... it's bad for fundraising.
● It's Racist: According to an AP article, "as the country listens to Florida teens, black lives matter feel ignored." Ha ha. Good. That's the difference between having a genuine cause and using paranoid bullsh*t to try to push a leftist agenda to remake America in lunatic ways. But never fear, their "hurt" will translate into quality paranoia and racist victimhood and they will feel quite smug.
● Media Whore: The media finally has their pet. The pretty boy's name is David Hogg and he's just the cutest media-made martyr. Indeed, he's well-positioned to be the next Sandra Fluke as he runs around smearing every Republican he can find and spewing leftist talking points for his media overlords. His fifteen minutes should burn out in about two weeks when the next big thing happens.
● Idiot: Every once in a while, I can't stop myself from posting comments at other places. Today, I posted at the Daily Mail and I thought I would discuss this with you. Piers Morgan wrote an article attacking the idea of arming teachers and then also attacking Samuel L. Jackson for hypocrisy. Morgan noted that even trained police only hit their targets 17% of the time in a genuine firefight (according to a study of the NYPD). Ergo, he concluded that arming teachers was a horrible idea. But he's wrong. Here's why:
(1) He forgets the issue of deterrence. Even crazy people attack only soft targets. If shooters understand that schools are armed, most will likely avoid schools as targets. Peirs entirely ignores this effect.
(2) Piers's own numbers argue for a counter-shooter. If trained cops get that inaccurate just because someone is shooting back, then having someone shoot back should have a similar effect on shooters.
(3) The news (despite ignoring these stories) is full of people who take down shooters all the time. Hence, it makes sense to let trained people try. 17% chance per bullet > 0% chance
Interestingly, some wuss from London responded, "But what if they are facing an AR-15?" Well, wank-off, let's think about that. First, what does that matter? You can take down anyone carrying anything with any other gun. So this is an illogical response. Secondly, how does the fact they own an AR-15 reduce the deterrence factor or the accuracy issue? Third, this is false logic. I say this: having teachers with guns provides three benefits. He responds (essentially) having an AR-15 wipes these out. Ok. Even if that's true (and it's not), the answer is still so what? Just because this plan may not be effective against one type of gun doesn't mean it's ineffective in other situations. Indeed, his "logic" is basically since your plan can't work in all circumstances, we should never try it. That's stupid. In fact, it's so stupid is has to be disingenuous. But you see the left make this argument a lot... it's how they duck out of losing points.
● It's A Mistake: The right has made a mistake attacking this security guard who didn't charge in like Trump and this army of useless couch potatoes would have... hooha! First, the guy is going to come up with a valid explanation (sounds like he already has in fact) and all these couch Rambos are going to look like fools. Secondly, it's a bad look to attack law enforcement. Third, cowardice is a ridiculous charge for people to lob unless they were there and themselves acted heroically.
That said, there is one narrow way that this attack pays off handsomely. Without making this guy into some sort of unique case, you use him to point out that relying on the government to come save you is not a good strategy. People need to be allowed to be self-reliant if they choose. That is a strong anti-progressive attack which also neuters the idea that we shouldn't allow teachers or the public at large to arm themselves.
● Running In Place: Finally, all this talk of momentum for change strikes me as rather false. When I look around, I see none of the trappings of true political motion. What I see instead is a leftist media talking to itself as always as the public moves on. What tells me the public has moved on? Well, when the leftist media gets distracted, there is nothing keeping the issue going. A handful of leftist students skipping school is as useless as the Women's March. In the meantime, the Florida legislature did nothing. The attacks on Rubio and others brought about zero changes in position. There are no public rallies. You don't see this issue discussed. And the public dives readily into whatever comes next. That's not political momentum. Momentum is talk of switchboards, rallies, bumperstickers, Congressional critters suddenly announcing how they evolved, and pro- and con- legal action starting up all over the country. That means blood in the water. What we're seeing now is just political posturing.
Thoughts?
