We Hear You: ‘Unvarnished Truth’ and Other Perspectives on the March for Our Lives
Ken McIntyre /
Editor’s note: We continue to receive more emails and other comments on the gun debate than we can feature. But here are some more to lead off this week’s collection. Be sure to write us at [email protected].—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: I wish to thank The Daily Signal and Jarrett Stepman for the unvarnished truth about the March for Our Lives event (“I Went to the March for Our Lives Protest. Here Are My 7 Takeaways.”).
It was painfully evident what this was really about. I applaud the passion and intentions of all the young people who participated. I decry the exploitation of them for the leftist agenda.
These kids did not provide transportation, lodging, meals, and other expenses. These kids did not erect the “rock concert” stage, audio, and video setup.
These kids are terribly misguided about how voting will end the shootings. By the time many of them can cause changes in a voting booth, many more of them could die in shootings such as Sandy Hook and Parkland.
The left has demonstrated 24/7, 365 how hurt they are about losing the last presidential election. That being said, the Trump circus is only the lesser of two evils. Politicians will always serve their best interests, no matter how many protests take place.—Jake P.
Jarrett Stepman writes of the March for Our Lives: “Many held signs saying essentially that the Second Amendment is irrelevant because the Founders wrote it in the 18th century. But following that logic, one would have to question all the other provisions of the Constitution that were written by the Founding generation, including the First Amendment.”
I think Stepman has hit on something there, the long-term objective.—Rich Olmsted, Peoria, Ill.
***
What started the American Revolution in 1775 was the British army’s attempt to confiscate weapons in Concord. The Framers of the Constitution knew very well what it meant when they made the right to bear arms.—Philip Daspit, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
***
The participants in the March for Our Lives are still missing the point. If the FBI had acted on not one but two tips called into them, Nikolas Cruz probably would have been arrested or dealt with in some way that he could not have bought the gun he used at the high school in Parkland, Florida.—Kelly Crist
***
Jarrett Stepman is absolutely correct in his commentary on the March for Our Lives. I would like to add two important points that either are deliberately or ignorantly ignored by the protesting students, their handlers, and the media.
First, grammar. The Second Amendment is separated by a comma, making the first part a dependent clause and the second, after the comma, the independent clause. The dependent clause relies on the independent clause for its validity, but the independent clause stands as a sentence in itself with no dependence on the dependent clause.
The dependent clause could be to hunt, for sport, or self-defense without affecting the independent meaning. This clause clearly states the intent of the right to bear arms, which was not a new law, it was already in place, but to prevent government from eliminating it. That is why the Second Amendment reads “shall not be infringed.” You cannot infringe on something you already had and this amendment did not create a new law.
Second, Supreme Court rulings. In several cases, like the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides Americans “a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local for lawful purposes” and the Second Amendment “protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.”
Perhaps even more significant is: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. …The Second Amendment extends prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The Supreme Court held that “firearms cannot be categorically prohibited because they are dangerous. The relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when a weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. The right to bear other weapons is no answer to a ban on the possession of protected arms.”
The M15 is a protected firearm under this ruling.—John Skoufis, USMC, retired
ICYMI: I Went to the March for Our Lives Protest. Here Are My 7 Takeaways. https://t.co/ux5tJkqs4x via @DailySignal
— Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) March 26, 2018
This is illogical. Banning guns will not stop gun violence. Guns don’t shoot themselves. Someone has to pick up a gun and fire it. If people didn’t have guns they would pick up something else to kill with. Besides, taking guns away from the lawful will not take them away from the unlawful.—Michael Williams, Houston
***
Personally, I think mental illness is this country’s biggest issue. The left, in this March for Our Lives, support and praise Planned Parenthood, which kills 97 innocent children every second in the U.S.
The enthusiasm for abortion in the U.S. is this country’s biggest mental illness. In fact I’m sure a lot of the protesters are happy when these marches take the spotlight off the abortion debate.—Victor Cyr Pelletier Jr., West Grove, Pa.
***
Let’s make new rules, OK. But let’s start with the premise that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” —Larry Johnson, Pleasanton, Neb.
***
Unfortunately, the same populace that has allowed only leftist teaching in our schools and universities has taken control of many of our 16- and 17-year-olds. Now, it is indeed unbelievably sad that so many of our children have lost their lives, but what can one expect? All these mass shootings have taken place in “gun-free” zones.—Deanna Green Drab
Watch this: A perspective on #MarchForOurLives you won't get from mainstream media https://t.co/pw8vdEdRs0 @genevievewood @DailySignal
— Ken McIntyre (@KenMac55) March 24, 2018
A Different Perspective on March for Our Lives
Dear Daily Signal: I just watched the interviews conducted at the D.C. March for Our Lives by The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood (“March for Our Lives: A Perspective You Won’t Get From the Mainstream Media”). She totally missed the point of the march that the student organizers have fought so hard to get across.
Wood injected her own opinions, creating bias. She certainly was selective in her interviews and did not represent a diverse group. Why give so much time to a Ben Shapiro supporter? What did that accomplish? Do you have proof that these kids are left-wing supporters and are only doing it for political motives?
These shooters would not have killed anyone with a tennis racket. It is only because they had access to a gun that so many died.
I live proudly in Canada and I never feared for my kids’ safety. I would never want a teacher to be armed; a week’s training is hardly sufficient to send someone into a highly charged, deadly situation.
I went to the Toronto march to show my support to those kids who are trying to make U.S. schools safer. Even though I am a Canadian, my heart breaks every time I hear of another shooting, including in Chicago and other violent communities.
When will your country start protecting the lives of its children ahead of the rights of gun owners? Maybe never, if this video is an example of the mentality in America.—Suzanne Luc
***
Nice job by Genevieve Wood at the March for Our Lives. Thanks for being there and talking to some of the participants.
I’m struck by the number of people who are passionately motivated by misinformation. Many of the actions these people sincerely support could ironically result in even more tragedies.
If you restrict the rights of people to acquire guns, you diminish their ability to defend themselves or to deter those who would harm them. Evil people don’t respect gun laws, but law-abiding people do.
This event was obviously an effort to further polarize our nation. Using ad hominem smears, such as appeared on so many of the signs, in order to silence diverse voices does not solve anything.—Norm Stephens
***
Regarding the commentary by John Malcolm and Amy Swearer, “3 Common Traits of School Shooters”: One major cause is the number of males in prison who were raised without a father in the home. The range is from 60 percent to 90 percent.
I believe this is the result of the huge increase in government taking over families (welfare programs that “removed” fathers from families). And, yes, feminists who decided they didn’t need men.—Janet Beihoffer
***
You left out that over 90 percent of mass shooters since the 1980s were on antidepressants. There is a link between the two.—Bob Komarek, Berlin, Germany
Nancy Pelosi, Other Liberals Condemn Return of Citizenship Question to Census.
https://t.co/amYyRbQscP via @LRacheldG @DailySignal— Jim Polk ?? (@JimPolk) March 28, 2018
A Census Question on Citizenship
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Rachel del Guidice’s story on asking about citizenship on the census (“Nancy Pelosi, Other Liberals Condemn Return of Citizenship Question to Census”): As a legal immigrant and American citizen, it was made very clear to me that it was illegal for me to vote when I was a green card holder (which took 10 years), and that I could vote only as a citizen.
It was on all the paperwork that was signed, it was told to me in interviews. And I was asked if I had ever voted when interviewed for citizenship (which took another five years). With so much emphasis about the legalities of voting, why do Democrats not understand that there are laws that should be enforced?—Bonnie Clarke
***
Illegal immigrants should not vote and their population should not count toward electoral votes.—Michael Lovett
***
If Nancy Pelosi and other liberals are going to protect illegal immigrants, they no longer represent the citizens who elected them. The census should reflect honest numbers, and not be used for political purposes.—Wes Potts
***
Of course Pelosi condemns common sense. It is so predictable to see the liberals fight against any of President Trump’s actions. They are afraid that if the “citizenship” question is on the census, they will lose their potential voting machine.—Yasuko Kearney
https://twitter.com/VinceLeach/status/970003503337807873
Forced Union Dues at the Supreme Court
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Elizabeth Slattery’s analysis of arguments in the Janus case before the Supreme Court (“6 Key Exchanges From Major Union Case at the Supreme Court”): Any infringement on the rights that are ours needs to be fought, we are guaranteed the right to assemble and to speak our minds on issues that affect us, this union fee is an infringement on those rights.—John Quigley, Brackettville, Texas
***
This is looking (guardedly) good for the rights and freedom of nonunion workers.—Debra Klyne, Seattle
***
If the unions had a good product, they wouldn’t have to force people to pay for them.—Thomas Skinner, Yazoo City, Miss.
***
Aren’t forced union dues contrary to our fundamental right declared in the Declaration of Independence of “the pursuit of happiness?” I would contend that in order to pursue happiness one needs the means to support himself without having to “buy the privilege” from a third entity that does not pay one’s salary.—Louise Eddings
***
The original cause for unions was the abuse of the companies when labor was abundant and finding replacement workers for fired people was not a problem. Unions brought balance back into the system. But that was long ago. Now for many companies, the unions are more powerful than the company is.—David Sparkman, Winchester, Va.
***
If Janus succeeds, unions that truly represent their members will survive, unions that represent a political ideology will fail.—Myron Hofmeister, Prophetstown, Ill.
The Government Has Already Tried Universal Basic Income. Here’s What Happened. Increasing Dependency on Govt #Fail https://t.co/0xKwb1sx19 via @_MimiTeixeira @DailySignal
— e.Diane (@Dianestraley) March 5, 2018
What’s This About ‘Universal’ Income?
“Free” money, no strings attached, is the subject of Mimi Teixeira’s commentary (“The Government Has Already Tried Universal Basic Income. Here’s What Happened.”). What a concept.
And people wonder why we are flooded with illegal immigrants from the Third World. If Musk and Zuckerberg think a guaranteed income should be provided to everyone, let them use their own money to provide it. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay a dime to support this.—Jerry Zacny
***
Apparently there are two major factors at play here. The first is a refusal to accept that truism, “Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.”
A second truism is the one I believe is probably the most endemic in the “minds” of our academics, and not a few in politics: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Matters not who said them first.—Edward Vanover
***
San Francisco tried this years ago: $300 a week for the homeless so they could get a room. Look how successful that was.—Jim Brown, Dallas
***
Until we have a “universal work requirement” it is nothing more than another “beggar thy neighbor” scheme meant to put millions more into poverty so they can be ruled over.—Ferd Berfel, Saint Paul, Minn.
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: Is Heritage Action going to propose to lawmakers that something needs to be done about how the biased mainstream media lies to the American people? It’s not good for this country.
The mainstream media is undermining, dividing, and causing civil unrest. What they are doing should be considered treasonous and traitorous, and they need to be held accountable and stopped. I don’t hear the White House nor any politician wanting to address this issue.—J.K. Ng
***
The Daily Signal is great for inquiring minds seeking knowledge and truth. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Thanks for the staff selection that represents my concept of investigative journalism.—Brannen Edwards, Savannah, Ga.
***
Each morning you keep me informed on the news that really matters to a conservative American.—Ralph Andrea
Absolutely fabulous work. Thankful for all of you.—Cynthia J. Kress, Claysville, Pa.
Great job. The Daily Signal is the first place I turn for my morning news. You’re the best.—Susan Rose, Reisterstown, Md.
This is the only news that is truthful.—Marilyn Braun
Chrissy Clark helped to compile this column.