Watch LIVE

Fact-checking the signs at the March for Our Lives

Conservative Review

I experience no shame or regret whatsoever that I was peacefully helping fix a neighbor’s deck miles away from the action over the weekend while CRTV’s Jon Miller and our production team braved the crowd of gun-haters at Saturday’s “March for Our Lives” in Washington, D.C.

But there is no escaping the headache-inducing “wokeness” of 2018, so I’m writing about it anyway.

And while everyone at the march wasn’t as vicious as this guy, there was still plenty of nonsense to go around, mostly in the agonizingly dumb protest signs.

Here are just a few:

Maligning Marco:

I already went on a tear about putting the “Catholic” part of the sign in scare quotes earlier. But it’s also crucial to note, despite the sign’s other allegations, Sen. Rubio has never once advocated or voted on any measure with the goal of making it easier or more legal to kill children; you’re confusing him with the 16 “Catholic” Senate Democrats who voted against Micah’s law last year. Instead, Rubio’s been working on the problem itself.

Liberty or freedom?

Honestly, this one could have been an entire post unto itself.

First off, since the freedom being threatened here is a fundamental right codified, not created, by the Second Amendment, and since gun control does not in any way necessarily equal crime control, the scare quotes are on the wrong noun.

Secondly, whoever taught this young woman American history might want to revisit that part where a bunch of folks signed their own death warrants on a hot July day in Philadelphia because, as one of them put it, they preferred “dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.”

Storybook protest:

As with any leftist protest in the Trump era, there must be ubiquitous references to works of young adult fiction, or it doesn’t count.


Reality check, folks: All the kids at Hogwarts were armed in the same way their attackers were. Katniss Everdeen was armed with everything from a bow and arrow to a rifle in the "Hunger Games" series. Superheroes in the Marvel Comics universe require adequate firepower to neutralize supervillains if they want to save innocent lives.

These characters were able to fight back because they had the hardware and ability to do so. If you think the moral of these stories is to take that away from someone else, read them again, very slowly.

… On second thought, actually, please read something else. Anything else. Something with some heft.

Uterus vs. guns:

We hear some variation of this from the pro-abortion members of the gun-grabbing coalition every time this debate kicks up. It’s pretty easy to debunk, and Ben Shapiro does it well, as he always does.

The sound of “silence”:

“Silencer” is a misnomer; the proper name is suppressor, because guns are loud, and putting a device on the end doesn’t make a gun completely quiet like in the movies. Second, nobody is trying to silence you. It’s not a liberal college campus. They just think your ideas are bad and misinformed. Someone who disagrees with you is hearing out your argument and explaining where all the holes in it are.

This old gem:

Exactly how many times does this garbage argument have to be taken out before it stays in the festering landfill of history?

If rights didn’t transcend technology, nobody would be guaranteed free speech on the internet, journalists on everything fom cable news to social media would report at the pleasure of the government, and your Fourth Amendment rights wouldn’t apply to anything you have online and police would be able to search your house with infrared technology, warrant-free. The Second Amendment is no different.

Sticks and stones:

Here’s a cute little rhyme that misses the mark. Note the sign that says “sticks and stones may break my bones, but an AR-15 will kill me."

Um, sir, without an effective means of self-defense or a good guy with equivalent means nearby, an assailant can still kill you with a stick or a stone. Just look at the FBI data on blunt objects and bare hands.

Tragedy does not change principle:

Once and for all, just because someone does not agree with your political agenda does not mean that person experiences tragedy any less than you do or that he or she somehow relishes the loss of innocent life. Empathy alone will not protect people from bad men with guns. If you cannot debate the merits of a policy without implicitly questioning the humanity of a person who believes it, public life isn’t for you.

Long story short, there are two sides that most people fall on after Saturday’s display. Either you want to repeal the Second Amendment, or you think we should at least take a good, hard look at the 26th.

Keep reading... Show less
Most recent
All Articles