Gun Rights

Students Across the Country Walk Out of School in Defense of Gun Rights

Students who support the Second Amendment "feel that they're being misrepresented by the media," says protest organizer Will Riley.

|

Yesterday at 10 a.m., pro-Second Amendment students across the country participated in a 16-minute walkout from class as part of a national event backed by the Tea Party Patriots.

Stand for the Second Twitter

Called "Stand for the Second," the demonstration was a response to the March 14 National School Walkout in support of gun control.

The idea was hatched by New Mexico high school senior Will Riley. Riley told USA Today: "I'm watching the news, and I see they're saying, 'We have to do something about this. We have to enact some sort of gun control legislation because this is what the kids are asking for.' And I'm thinking, 'I'm not asking for that.' I look at my friends, and I think, 'They're not asking for that.'" Riley says his event was for pro-Second Amendment students "who feel that they're being misrepresented by the media."

Photos of crowds, some big and some small, can be found at the Twitter feed StandSecond. Riley claims there were walkouts at 300 schools in 40 states.

The event received extensive local and national press coverage. Some highlights:

Los Angeles Times: "The demonstrations were significantly smaller than the National Student Walkouts March 14 and the March for Our Lives 10 days later, with participation in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands. The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania."

• Crowds of 200 or more were reported by newspapers in New Mexico, Nebraska, and Illinois, while news outlets in California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah reported at least dozens of participants.

Huffington Post: "We are all not ideologically aligned as much as the media portrays us as such," [Terre Haute senior Lucus] Bendzsa said in an email. "We are, as Kayne West said, 'independent thinkers.' We form our own opinions, and we are stout in what we believe."

Associated Press: Eddy County, New Mexico, Sheriff Mark Cage named Riley an honorary deputy "for his efforts in organizing the walkouts."

Deseret News (Salt Lake City): Student organizer Collin Thorup at Hunter High School said, "We can speak for ourselves. There's two sides for this. A big problem we see right now [is] we feel everyone thinks the teens are only one-sided since the Parkland shooting survivors have been talking." After Thorup declined to participate in the March 14 walkout, he said, "I stated my opinions a few times and got a lot of hate for that, saying I didn't support what they were doing." The newspaper adds that "Thorup suspects that many more students feel the same way but they fear being bullied and ostracized by peers."

Greenwich Time (Connecticut): Greenwich High School sophomore Anastasia Zygmont, one of the organizers, "said gun-rights advocates at the school were not being heard in a larger debate dominated by gun-reform advocates. 'A lot of the time at Greenwich High School, Republicans are suppressed and we're not allowed to voice our own opinions,' Zygmont said….Co-organizer Juliana Salamone, a senior, said she tried to publicize the event on a student-moderated GHS Facebook group but she was blocked and her post was deleted. 'The school is very liberal,' Zygmont said. 'It has very liberal views. The principal is liberal and often times saying something, the littlest thing, that could 'trigger' somebody, is frowned upon.'"

Yakima Herald (Washington): "The local demonstration's coordinator, Aubrie Bosworth, a junior at Eisenhower High School, said she chose to walk out of school without alerting school officials after seeing their response to the walkouts on March 14…'When there was the nationally planned walkout, my school decided to do a mandatory assembly and put security guards on all of the doors during the time that the walkout was supposed to go on…I was offended that they'd stopped the kids from exercising their First Amendment rights …and with this one, it was obvious that the school wouldn't support any kind of walkout…so we decided to do this by ourselves.' Yakima School District spokeswoman Kirsten Fitterer said staff members were placed by school exits Wednesday to inform any students participating in the walkout that they could face disciplinary action."

NBC-2.com (Cape Coral, Florida): "Students at Ida Baker High School tell us as few as three people willingly left school Wednesday as part of the planned walkout. One student said several students changed their mind after administrators told them there would be school disciplinary action taken for those skipping class."

The Messenger (Ft. Dodge, Iowa): "As cars drove by many motorists honked their horns—a few expressed their opinion by extending their middle finger at the group of students holding signs and flags."

Advertisement

NEXT: K Street Lobbyists Are Loving Trump's Tariff Threats

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Meanwhile, congress-cretin lets the mask slip

    https://bit.ly/2HO3Jzq

    1. But I’ve heard no one is trying to take your guns.

      1. How long until liberals run a candidate named No One?

        1. They would never risk the cyclopes vote.

          1. True. The blind Cyclops demographic is very important to Democrats.

            1. The commenters here aren’t children, you know. You don’t have to explain basic political knowledge to them.

            2. #CyclopsEyesMatter

          2. I wondered if anyone was going to make this reference.

            1. If I was a kid, I would have walked out both times. Better than sitting in class.

        2. I might vote for Nobody.

          That guy can drink and shoot.

          1. And he is better than me at satisfying women in bed.

          2. I used to shoot pool against the one-eyed mayor of Subic City and proprietor of the High Times Hotel. The mayor’s office was in the bar. The guy was incredibly good. I only beat him a few times out of hundreds of games, but I came close a lot of times and choked. Eight-foot tables really put you to the test. I first met him in court because a girl I was with was arrested because she sneaked out the back window in Olongapo so I didn’t have to pay her bar fine, and the barangay caught her because she didn’t have proper paperwork. I paid her 35 dollar fine so she didn’t have to go to jail for six months. Good times.

    2. …we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.

      That should end well. Molon labe, motherfucker.

      1. More people will be killed with “assault rifles” during one year of a gun confiscation program than will have been killed by “assault rifles” in 200 years of them being legal.

        1. As long as the majority of those killed are “bitter clingers” felled by heroic government agents, then it’s all for the “greater good.” /sarc

      2. I logged in to say exactly this^

      3. And exactly how long did it take before ‘they’ came and took them?
        As I recall, four days of waiting, three days of battle. (Recall from history books, I was not actually there)
        Oh, well, dying for the constitution is as good a way to die as any, and better than most. At least it will help with the social security financing.

    3. I don’t really think there’s a mask to slip.

      1. Pretty much anyone with two brain cells knows that the goal is, and possibly always has been, complete confiscation.

    4. I can no longer hold the false moral equivalence between protecting the Second Amendment and protecting lives – the right to live must take precedence.

      Of course, he supports ‘a woman’s right to choose’ over the right to live.

      1. Of course, he supports a woman’s right to end a heartbeat over the right to live.

  2. “As cars drove by many motorists honked their horns?a few expressed their opinion by extending their middle finger at the group of students holding signs and flags.”

    Stay classy, gun grabbers.

    1. Eh, the same thing happened during the Kiddie Gun Grabber marches, too. This is a divisive issue that’s going to piss off people no matter which side you’re on.

      1. Because kids should be in school.

        Its great that they want to protect their rights to keep and bear arms but they are their parent’s responsibility until they are legally adults.

        1. Do you not have any gratitude for these youngins’ who were protesting for the purpose of defending your right to keep and bear arms?

          1. I think it’s wonderful young’uns protesting for this core constitutional right during school time provided they have parental permission.

            Personally said permission would depend on the age of the child. Protests can turn ugly fast. An 11-year old boy from El Paso was struck and killed by a vehicle at one of these protests. Presumably he had his parents’ permission to be there and that’s their call to make. At that age permission would have been withheld here with us.

          2. I need them to go to school and get smart so they can counter all the lefty nonsense that is out there when they are adults.

            The kids that walked out to have guns grabbed were wrong to skip school and these kids are too.

            1. Don’t expect Tony to commend your evenhandedness.

              I respect your consistency.

              1. Though I will raise an eyebrow at “I need them to go to school to get smart…”

                1. +1 common sense unit

            2. I need them to go to school and get smart so they can counter all the lefty nonsense that is out there when they are adults.

              To be fair, they’d have a better chance of that reading on their own in the library than whatever shitlib indoctrination they’re getting in public school.

    2. They probably just jumped to comment section without reading the article.

    3. They probably just jumped to comment section without reading the article.

  3. quick, we need John and co. in here talking about how these kids should be charged with truancy.

    1. *shrugs* Fair is fair, they probably should be*. Of course, since the “march for our lives” clowns weren’t, then hopefully none of these will be either.

      If they are charged with truancy, then that would definitely be a double standard. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

      *Not really, truancy shouldn’t even be a crime in the first place.

      1. I think a simple parent’s note should cover something like this. That’s all it took in my day, at any rate.

        1. I think a simple parent’s note should cover something like this.

          Do parents own their children? I thought the Civil War put an end to that sort of thing.

          1. Yep, we sure do.

    2. I’m not John or co. but I’ll throw in my 2 cents and say that whatever punishment – if any, which is a different question – they receive, it should be consistent.

      1. I’m not John or co. but I’ll throw in my 2 cents and say that whatever punishment – if any, which is a different question – they receive, it should be consistent.

        Slight disagree. On truancy, yes. Academically, no. Protesting to strip people of rights that you, as a minor, don’t generally enjoy should be an automatic fail of your American History and/or Civics/Ethics classes. Protesting as a minor to retain rights that you won’t enjoy until you’re an adult? Pass.

        1. There is not a constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle.

          1. Show me the language that says that.

          2. True, the right to keep such a rifle is not in any way granted by our Constitution.

            The Constitution cannot grant us Rights we already inherently possess.

          3. True, the right to keep such a rifle is not in any way granted by our Constitution.

            The Constitution cannot grant us Rights we already inherently possess.

            1. We just skipped school for the first day of deer season.

          4. Do you think you have a constitutional right to a strawman?

            No one mentioned semi-autos.

            However, since semi-autos are the most common type of gun in use. I’m sure many people would make the argument that they are.

            I already know where this will lead (the moving goal post) so I won’t debate it with you.

          5. There is not a constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle.

            Weird, I didn’t say anything about the Constitution or Rifles.

            You failed even further back to 3rd grade reading and comprehension.

            1. The constitution does not grant any rights. We already had those rights before we formed this government. The constitution is there to make sure tyrants like you don’t take our rights away

              1. We already had those rights before we formed this government.

                Right. The Constitution is, in part, irrelevant to my point. If you take a class in ethics and then take a shit on the teacher’s desk for no reason or because you think the teacher might be a threat to you, you deserve a failing grade in ethics without regard for what the Constitution may or may not say on the matter. If you take a class in civics and then go protest someone’s right to own a PB&J, you should fail civics without regard for what the Constitution may or may not say on the matter.

          6. Tony|5.3.18 @ 5:27PM|#
            There is not a constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle.

            Yes they are.

            Arms are protected in the 2nd Amendment: Semi-auto rifles, machine guns, tanks, ships, airplanes, swords, nukes, pistols, grenades, explosives, knives and any other weapon that can be created.

          7. Show me the section of the constitution where that is explicitly forbidden. If you can – since, according to you, the Founding Fathers never could imagine owning a semi-automatic weapon. Which have been around since 1885.

            Because that’s how that works – unless the constitution specifically says you don’t have the right, then you have the right.

            And then you’d have to explain why a semi-automatic rifle was illegal but not semi-automatic pistols and shotguns – which are just as old.

            Side question – would a pump action rifle satisfy your hate? Because those can be fired nearly as fast as a semi-auto. Or would you still want to ban pump/bolt/lever actions because even though they are not semi-auto, they’re not ‘manual’ enough for you?

            Maybe you should mandate for mechanical delays in all civilian rifles that lower their rate of fire or something?

            1. unless the constitution specifically says you don’t have the right

              The only things the constitution prohibits for individuals at the moment are slavery, treason, and suing a state where you don’t reside (and the limits on the qualifications for running for office).

            2. I’m talking about the reality of United States constitutional law. The 2nd amendment does not protect these weapons. Thus, any bloviating about the 2nd amendment is a distraction from what people are actually talking about.

              You can assert rights to exist that actually don’t all you want. So could I if I were inclined. (Natural right to healthcare!) But that’s not in the law right now.

              1. The difference between the rights you would assert (if you believed in them) and those I do, is that mine are backed by the evidence of what has happened to every people that found themselves under a dictatorial government without weapons, and every healthcare system that was subjected to state intervention (most notably our own), where all of your inevitable counter-examples are, without exception, based on the same selective omission of key facts that one finds on WordPress “race realist” blogs.

                And militia is not capable of being reinterpreted by any basically cogent analyst as meaning something other than private citizens with contemporary weapons.

                1. Fine. So where are these militias? Are they not completely obsolete and nonexistent? So the fundamental purpose of the other part of the sentence simply no longer exists.

                  1. Given that we were discussing the meaning of the amendment as written, not the validity of the philosophy which inspired it, I’ll accept your concession.

                    But to branch out into the question of validity, here’re some 20th century militias.

                    And there are still people living who remember these guys. And say, what’s this…

                    In the end, despite all the efforts, most Home Army forces had inadequate weaponry. In 1944, when the Home Army was at its peak strength (200,000?600,000, according to various estimates), the Home Army had enough weaponry for only some 32,000 soldiers. On 1 August 1944, when the Warsaw Uprising began, only a sixth of Home Army fighters in Warsaw were armed.

                    Good thing America would never elect a fascist president. Isn’t that right Tony?

                  2. They’re your neighbors, dipshit.

                  3. New York has a State Militia separate from the National Guard.
                    Tennessee has a State Guard separate from the National Guard.

                    Raising a volunteer force in response to an imminent emergency from a populance unfamiliar with the use of arms has an unacceptable training curve.

                    1. @ Naaman Brown

                      Unideal, yes. “Unacceptable”, absolutely not.

                      Militia with no or little prior experience using arms will not be able to defeat conventional military forces with maximal training and fire support in open battle, it’s true. But even without training, enough will survive the earlier stages of the war to be able to learn how to fight and win by its end (see: the Taliban’s “Red Teams”, the Continental Army itself), and often sheer numerical superiority is enough: if they’d had lots of guns, the Home Army likely could have drawn enough recruits to greatly outnumber the Germans, and the Red Army garrison afterward.

                      More importantly, a basic level of experience just from range shooting and hunting, combined with a few people educated in tactics and strategy who can lead and mold the rest, is more than enough to form the basis of an unconventional insurgency, of the sort that has vexed the British soldier from King’s Mountain to Afghanistan (twice).

                      Those state “militias” answer to the state governments, which could easily serve the federal in event of tyranny. The 2A protects private militias for that exact reason.

              2. “Natural right to healthcare” is explicitly denied by the Constitution since commanding actions by someone else is slavery, that is outlawed.

              3. I’m fine with a natural right to healthcare, assuming we are viewing it in the same way we do the right to bear arms. No one claims the natural right to self-defense (and, by extension, the Second Amendment) requires the government to provide arms to citizens. It merely prohibits government from standing in the way.

                Of course, the statist fucks on the Left are totally cool with single-payer healthcare, which *does* stand in the way of individuals seeking healthcare.

              4. The 2nd amendment does not protect these weapons.

                I think that is a question yet to be answered by the courts.

                And since they are arms, a plain reading would suggest that the 2nd does in fact guarantee a right to have a semi-auto rifle.

              5. You’re right in the sense that a ban on semi-automatic weapons has never been litigated. If your side is so certain that such a ban would pass constitutional muster, why bother with going for bans on only a subset of semi-automatic weapons (so-called assault weapons)? Why not try for a ban on all semi-automatics? Even California isn’t willing to try something like that. Probably because they will get slapped the fuck down by the Supreme Court and don’t want to set that precedent.

          8. Right. A class of weapons only rarely used in crimes, which are the best-suited of all civilian arms for use by a militia, and which are in broad civilian use both domestically and internationally by hunters, are absolutely the ones least likely to be protected by any reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment.

            Molon labe, clingers.

            1. The only reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that all Arms are protected.

              No background checks, bans, waiting limits, ammo limits, etc.

            2. Your devotion to impersonating an actual libertarian is impressive, Bigoted Right-Wing Authoritarian Mini-Me.

              Maybe you recognize, at some level, that being backward and intolerant and a faux libertarian is wrong?

              1. Maybe Arthur L. Hicklib is embarrassed that his sockpuppet is smarter than he is.

            3. What are you talking about? The point you’re making would support civilian ownership of so-called assault weapons. Have you been drinking?

              1. That was in response to the good Reverend.

          9. 9th Amendment. Basically you have all sorts of rights even if they aren’t listed in the rest of the Const. It limits govt, it specifically says it is not supposed to be read as an exhaustive list of citizens rights.

          10. Nor is there a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex, get an abortion, write the word ‘fuck’, or own a 2009 Ford Focus.

            1. You can have my ’09 Focus when you pry the key from my cold, dead hand (or use the one in the magnet case below the gas cap).

          11. The government has no constitutional authority to confiscate semi-automatic rifles.

            1. The federal government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does.

              1. Maybe it turns out that “necessary and proper”, “regulate interstate commerce”, etc. are not strong enough wording to check government expansion? The Constitution is a poorly written, only vaguely libertarian document.

          12. Yeah, it’s there…just below our right to have healthcare.

    3. I think the punishment for skipping class should be the same on a scheduled walk-out day as any other day of the school year (regardless the subject of the walkout).

      It really bugs me when authority figures in schools promote disruptive protests. Not because I’m against protesting, but it kind of negates the whole purpose of protesting in the first place. Kids don’t learn anything at all about making sacrifices to stand up for their principles when their actions are sanctioned and facilitated by those in power.

      Respect to those kids who risked detention or suspension to stand up for the 2A. Those who were allowed to leave without any repercussions… well, big deal; I risked more just to drink beer and go fishing all the time in high school.

      1. Those who protest for the purpose of defending natural rights should not face any penalty from a public school. Why empower a commissar, particularly in furtherance of collectivist ends?

        Those who protest for the purpose of abrogating natural rights should be expelled.

        1. I don’t trust public schools to arbitrate what qualifies as natural rights. Schools should focus on teaching kids how to read and write and stay out of politics.

          1. Politics wrought public schools.

            Don’t you think that part of learning how to read and write is learning about natural rights? Should not the public schools be introducing Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises et al to the children?

            1. I think schools should encourage/require students to be well read. I’m most certainly not going to rely on public schools to teach my kids about natural rights; that’s on my wife and me.

              My children are too young for those authors, but read them Aesop’s fables and “Oh, the Places You’ll Go” (possibly the most libertarian book ever written IMO).

              1. Good call on you and your wife not relying upon public schools to teach your kids about natural rights. I don’t think you can rely upon them for much good, period.

                Good call on Aesop. Perhaps I should revisit.

                1. Thanks. I really hope that fostering a sense of individual responsibility and accountability leads them to grow up to think for themselves, truly care about and respect others, and resist the temptations of coercive collectivism.

                  1. That’s some might fine parenting, I reckon.

                    Hopefully, your kids will not only meet, but exceed your vision.

              2. Back in the day there was a cartoon called Aesop and Son. I’m sure today it would not be allowed.

      2. #me too

    4. They should certainly be disciplined for staying out of class…unless of course their school has adopted a policy of permitting walkouts, in which case such a policy should be administered evenhandedly, not allowing students to walk out if the agree politically with school administrators while prohibiting walkouts from those who disagree.

      But if the school has no history of discriminatory enforcement, then go for it, punish away! Give these students the same penalties received by the students who tried to walk out in support of gun control.

      1. No, why employ any scheme which treats bolzheviks the same as liberty defenders?

        If you protest for the purpose of defending a natural right, no punishment from a public school.

        If you protest for the purpose of abrogating a natural right, you go to the camps.

        1. Ha ha, you so silly!

          1. So silly I could cry because we are, in many ways, on the precipice of the inverse.

            1. Eidde, Libertymike, you two are merely dancing around the point that compulsory schooling is an undeserved prison sentence in the first place. I support any school walkout on general principles of youth liberation.

              1. No, I agree wholeheartedly with you, except the students who support gun grabbing informed us that they were protesting, in large measure, so that they could feel “safe” and “protected” in their prisons.

                1. Thanks, Libertymike. Correction noted.

        2. If you protest for the purpose of abrogating a natural right, you go to the camps.

          You can pay for the camps. I’ll only donate for rope, bullets and helicopter fuel.

  4. The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania.”

    Helpful when trying to figure out who to ignore.

    1. “The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania”
      Ah, the legendary Realm of The Deplorables.

  5. The demonstrations were significantly smaller than the National Student Walkouts on March 14 and the March for Our Lives 10 days later, with participation in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands

    Breaking News: “March To Not Be An Emotional Tribal Mob” Fails To Attract Emotional Tribal Mobs

  6. I am so fucking triggered right now, I can’t even!!1111!1!!1!!!1111!

    1. LC, I am counting on you to be with me on this one.

      If a kid protests for the purpose of defending a natural right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, he should not face any discipline from a public school. In fact, if a public school commissar attempts to punish such a kid, the commissar goes to the gulag.

      1. The commisar goes to the Gulag for the first offense, for a period not less than 1 year. Second offenders will be shot after a brief trial.

  7. Los Angeles Times: “The demonstrations were significantly smaller than the National Student Walkouts March 14 and the March for Our Lives 10 days later, with participation in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands. The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania.”

    If racist dog whistles are a thing, what about progtard dog whistles? Let me see if I can translate this into what the LA Times is really trying to say here:

    “The demonstrations were significantly smaller than the National Student Walkouts March 14 and the March for Our Lives 10 days later awesome woke teens who bravely walked out in support of taking other people’s rights away, with participation in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands only a few bitter clingers participating. The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania gross, unwoke flyover country.”

    1. If you ended that with “Carry on, clingers” you would have a RevL post.

    2. Yeah, that whole paragraph is dripping with contempt. And I’m sure they genuinely see themselves as objective.

      1. And to think I didn’t notice Rhywun’s post.

  8. “The demonstrations were significantly smaller than the National Student Walkouts March 14 and the March for Our Lives 10 days later, with participation in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands. The schools tended to be in rural areas, from Oregon to Pennsylvania.”

    Wow, I can feel the sneering comtempt through my computer monitor.

    1. You’re easily triggered by statements of fact.

      1. Cherry picking facts is a common form of bias.

        1. Is stating a fact also a common form of contempt? Because that’s what Rhywun felt.

    2. No shit. I hope the smug from the LA Times doesn’t combine with smug from San Fransisco causing a perfect storm of self satisfaction. San Fran might disappear completely up its own ass.

      1. Judging by the smell of its streets, it already has.

    3. Well, of course they’re going to be smaller, when you have an institution for whom left-wing dogma has been the de facto teaching curriculum for several decades now. You’re not really speaking “truth to power” when power actually agrees with the reasons for your actions.

    4. Two thousand Bill of Rights supporters versus one of Nick’s magnitude of order larger crowds of self-disarming Kristallnachtzis sounds like a pretty even match to me. I like those odds.

      1. If a man’s going to to decorate his saloon with my friend he should have armed himself.

  9. And I’m thinking, ‘I’m not asking for that.’ I look at my friends, and I think, ‘They’re not asking for that.'” Riley says his event was for pro-Second Amendment students “who feel that they’re being misrepresented by the media.”

    Dang! Just —>*this*

      1. WTH? Greater than but not less than? WTF?

        1. It’s because it’s html. It reads it as the opening of a tag.

          I can’t remember what you need to do a left bracket, but it requires calling the ascii code directly I think.

          1. I can’t remember what you need to do a left bracket, but it requires calling the ascii code directly I think.

            No, I did [ampersand]gt; and it works but [ampersand]lt; breaks.

            1. Fuck. OK, at this point, I can’t be certain of anything I did besides fuck up repeatedly.

              1. Interesting, I can’t get it to work either now.

                1. Good job guys, you broke the internet.

  10. Nothing in the Washington Post or NYT?

    My shocked face, where is it? The clues to its whereabouts are in Jimmy Hoffa’s pockets.

    1. Most of the national media is probably going to just ignore this.

      “What do you mean teens aren’t a monolithic hive mind?”

  11. Praised be all the Gods. As a youth liberation radical who also happens to be a libertarian, I no longer have to be ambivalent about these political walkouts.

    Regardless of their stated purposes, though, I hope we all get used to seeing more and more student-initiated school walkouts in this country. The more comfortable that young people get with excusing themselves from the government-run day prisons en masse as a political statement, the better it will be for the cause of youth liberation itself. John Holt and Richard Farson will have their posthumous reward.

    1. “I hope we all get used to seeing more and more student-initiated school walkouts in this country.”

      I hope students get used to doing their work, while taking into account the biases of their instructors.

      I hope they don’t walk out of class unless of course the school has a policy of allowing same – and public schools, of course, would have to administer such a policy without political discrimination.

      1. I hope students get used to doing their work?

        Their work? Let’s be precise with that possessive pronoun. It’s not their work unless they have chosen it of their free will. Otherwise, I have to quote from last year’s Wonder Woman movie: “Where I’m from, that’s called slavery.”

      2. “…and public schools, of course, would have to administer such a policy without political discrimination.”
        Why? As LibertyMike said, why treat statist authoritarians as morally equivalent to those in the side of freedom? This is America. Communists used to be discriminated against, as were Nazis, etc. I’ll protect their right to free speech, but I’m not going to tell children there is a moral equivalency between the anti and pro freedom sides.

        1. My idea of nondiscrimination would for public schools be to forbid student walkouts, even for good causes. The school’s idea of a good cause would probably be different from yours or mine, so a “good cause” exception (in addition to violating the First Amendment) would probably favor left-oriented causes like disarming the politically non-connected.

          Even if, by some chance, a public school happens to be under the control of 2nd amendment supporting anti-communists, then they should still forbid walkouts, even by students who are right about everything.

          1. If these student demonstrations were forbidden, then they could actually be called protests. Instead of teacher and teacher’s pet led groups of virtue signaling. As Butchie from The Wire would say “Conscience do cost..”

    2. “The more comfortable that young people get with excusing themselves from the government-run day prisons en masse as a political statement, the better it will be for the cause of youth liberation itself.”

      When they get tired of empty gestures, we’ll have to get comfortable with other student shenanigans, like blockading those nasty government run roads.

    3. Hate to break it to ya kid, libertarians are statists.

      1. SIV|5.3.18 @ 9:19PM|#
        “Hate to break it to ya kid, libertarians are statists.”

        Thus spake ignoramus nearly equal to Tony!
        Thanks, SIV. It’s been a while since you’re proven how stupid you are.
        Fuck off.

  12. The original protesters were not protesting the second amendment.

    1. Bullshit.

      1. The weapons they don’t want in schools are in no way protected by the second amendment, and regulations keeping any weapons from schools are not prohibited by it. The 2nd amendment is a red herring, a way for you idiots to say “I’m right because God says so.”

        1. “”keeping any weapons from schools are not prohibited by it”‘

          The school was a gun free zone. So the weapon used by the shooter was already prohibited.

          1. See part 1.

            1. Part 1 of what?

              1. Tony is intimating that if the rules didn’t allow the weapons off campus, they wouldn’t find their way on campus.

                I’d list the number of ways this is obvious bullshit, but there’s something like a three link and 900 character comment limit.

                1. I think he’s saying that this is part one,
                  “The weapons they don’t want in schools are in no way protected by the second amendment,”

                  Which he also said
                  “The 2nd amendment is a red herring””

                  So I’m wonder if he’s trying to point me back to the red herring.

                2. 2 links and 1500 characters IIRC.

                  1. 2 links and 1500 characters IIRC.

                    You can do 3 if you use https links. FACT!

                    1. Not being a philistine, I wouldn’t know.

            2. Part 1 of what?

            3. Which doesn’t make your inclusion of Part 2 any less superfluously stupid.

            4. Gun free zones, by definition, infringe on the protected right to keep AND BEAR arms.

              1. Including Mike Pence’s appearance at the NRA?

                1. I’m sure that wasn’t the NRA’s decision. When the President or Vice-President comes around. The Secret Service is the one making the decisions.

                  1. But the administration and the Republican party are NRA fuckbuddies. Guns protect, period. So what gives?

                    1. Try arguing with established Secret Service rules.

                      When the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act was passed, making it a felony to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school grounds, my home was 500 ft from the local school grounds. The newspaper reports made it sound like I was an automatic federal firearms felon and was one dime dropped to 800-ATF-GUNS away from ending up like Ken Ballew.

        2. All weapons are protected. Semi-auto rifles, machine guns, tanks, ships, airplanes, swords, nukes, pistols, grenades, explosives, knives and any other weapon that can be created.

        3. Militia = organization of private citizens with weapons capable of engaging contemporary military forces.

          Semi-automatic rifle with greater-than-10-round magazine capacity = standard weapon of all global infantry forces since the 1950s.

          And as an atheist, I don’t think the Law of Non-Aggression comes from “God” any more than the Laws of Gravity or Magnetism do.

        4. You never seem to be able to disagree with anyone without going straight ad hominem – “you’re an inbred hick”. The 2A doesn’t affect me at all because I don’t own a gun. Unlike you, I’ve got principles – I’ll defend the rights that matter to others that don’t matter to me because I don’t want the government to take ANY of our rights away.

          So fuck off, asshole. Show me one post where I’ve said anything close to “I’m right because God says so”. Put up or shut up, dickhead.

          1. “So fuck off, asshole. Show me one post where I’ve said anything close to “I’m right because God says so”. Put up or shut up, dickhead.”

            Good luck.
            Tony seems to think (if that’s what we’d call it) that those who disagree with him are the boogy men inhabiting the space between his ears. Further, he seems to think that being an atheist gives him insight in every subject.
            I’m an atheist, but it’s not my atheism that makes it clear that Tony is not real bright.

        5. “The weapons they don’t want in schools are in no way protected by the second amendment”

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ALL arms are protected by the second amendment, including all firearms.

          1. I’m not sure why everyone gets so confused over this one. It is only one sentence. It isn’t like this is a 2,000 page law with inscrutable and contradictory requirements. It is one sentence, and it only carries one requirement: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            So the only test for constitutionality is “does this infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?” Really, really simple.

            And it all hinges on the definition of infringe… and since we don’t all use that word in our daily lives, here’s the definition:

            act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
            “his legal rights were being infringed”
            synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

            So no limits on keeping or bearing arms. No restrictions on purchasing or transferring arms. No checks on ownership of arms.

            It is really, really simple.

            You might disagree with the policy, but the law is crystal clear. Don’t like it? Change the law.

            We have to stop these end-runs around the letter of the law.

            1. To play devil’s advocate for a moment: it doesn’t say anything about acquiring arms.

              I agree with your reading, but regulation of sales and transfers is less obviously prohibited than restrictions on owning or carrying weapons.

              1. How is prohibiting the purchase of a weapon not an infringement on our ability to own or carry it?

                Would it be like a “wet foot, dry foot” policy where the feds could clobber you for trying to buy an AR-15, but then had to let you go free and clear if you actually managed to buy it? That could be fun.

        6. The weapons they don’t want in schools are in no way protected by the second amendment

          NARRATOR: “The weapons they don’t want in schools are, in fact, protected by the Second Amendment.”

        7. Actually, Tony, the founders meant all arms. Back in the day, people owned cannons, hell some even owned battleships. You think a super scary looking AR15 can kill a lot of people? Even an antique battleship from the 18th century could kill tens of thousands today from, say San Francisco bay or Boston Harbor, before being sunk.

          1. I don’t give a flying shit what you think the constitution should say. Any moron can claim that the constitution supports his views. I’m trying to talk about reality.

            1. The Second Amendment unambiguously protects a right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has twice held that this includes weapons in common use for lawful purposes.

              Since, you know, we’re trying to talk about reality, and all.

              1. That case law does not as yet incorporate semiautomatic rifles and many other types of weapons. It does include handguns, against my better judgment.

                1. Weapons in common use for lawful purposes, Tony.

                  If you want to make an argument that this category does not include magazine-fed semi-auto rifles. feel free. But that’s what the Supreme Court has actually held. Twice.

            2. Any moron can claim that the constitution supports his views

              And here you are proving it.

              Militia is not open to interpretation. A ban on semi-automatic rifles renders a militia unable to perform its most basic duties against a modern army, ergo it is unconstitutional by default.

              Any court ruling that says otherwise is as wrong as the rulings that currently allow the police to violate the Fourth Amendment with interior checkpoints within 100 miles of the US border, and the Fifth Amendment by seizing assets without trial. I have no doubt you disagree with current court precedents on those issues; time to expand your mind. Your skull clearly has room to spare.

              1. Court rulings determine what the law is. They can’t be wrong, they can only be overturned.

                I don’t get paid to be anyone’s kindergarten teacher.

                1. Tony|5.3.18 @ 8:58PM|#
                  “I don’t give a flying shit what you think the constitution should say. Any moron can claim that the constitution supports his views. I’m trying to talk about reality.”

                  No, you slimy piece of shit, you’re simply claiming your assertion should be considered as an argument.
                  Those with an education extending beyond the 1st grade can easily see that you’re a fucking ignoramus.

                2. And the fact that you believe “court rulings can’t be unconstitutional” is why.

                  1. Most of the court’s findings on major powers of the government are unconstitutional.

                    As in, wow, this isn’t even close style unconstitutional.

                    The problem is that the constitution is way to constricting on the federal government, even for the founders. So we have always decided that we’d just bend the meaning a little bit if it was important enough.

                    So the first amendment doesn’t cover “obscenity”, even though it clearly does. There is no room in “not abridged” for “I know it when I see it” tests on the content of speech.

                    Social security? Clearly unconstitutional. Might be a great idea, but the Feds have no power to implement such a scheme.

                    The National Science Foundation does great things…. and I don’t really see how any of it is constitutional. Ditto for a lot of my favorite things, like NASA.

                    The FDA? Maybe for regulating interstate commerce, but they certainly don’t have the broad powers they have claimed. Not that there isn’t a strong argument in favor of the agency… but it isn’t a constitutionally granted power.

                    If we were honest about it, we’d need a few hundred amendments just to have a workable, modern government. Well, unless you wanted to write some catch-all language that ratifies our current system of “if we think it is a good idea, it is constitutional…. if we think it is bad in some way, it is unconstitutional.”

                3. Court rulings determine what the law is. They can’t be wrong, they can only be overturned.

                  Look at hicklib Tony standing up for racial “separate but equal” laws.

                4. “”Court rulings determine what the law is. They can’t be wrong, they can only be overturned.”

                  Really? On what grounds could they be overturned? Being wrong on the law?

                  1. Because allegedly learned men and women entitled to make these decisions say so.

                    1. Fair enough. Go ahead and try that ban on semi-automatic rifles of all time. I think you know that it would be struck down as soon as it made its way up to SCOTUS. Do you want to set that precedent? Any such ban will be litigated and very likely won’t end well for your side of this debate.

                    2. *of all types.

                    3. And when they say so, they’re entitled to be in violation of the constitution by saying so.

        8. Do children want ice cream for every meal, or tide pods? Like I give a fuck what children want.

    2. They were trying to get politicians to grab guns.

      Now they are adding threats to businesses to cut financial ties with anything relating to the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    3. Tony,

      I am truly grateful for your comments. Very few embody the complete dishonesty, combined with being completely out of touch defining the democrat party the way you do. Just when I think it’s not possible for someone to properly put into words the ridiculous beliefs of the democrat party, you faithfully succeed.

    4. NARRATOR: The original protestors were, in fact, protesting the Second Amendment.

      1. I would protest the 2nd amendment, but these kids were more politic than that. Not that it matters to cousingfucking FOX News junkies who believe whatever the rodent on Sean Hannity’s head tells them to think.

        1. Aww, look, someone’s all butthurt that he got called out on his lies.

          1. I think the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete abomination used by murderers-by-proxy to justify their reign of carnage.

            But the kids were actually more narrowly tailored in their grievances.

            1. Tony|5.4.18 @ 12:08AM|#
              “I think the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete abomination used by murderers-by-proxy to justify their reign of carnage.”

              Yes, we know. You’re a fucking ignoramus.

              1. No, that is actually a cogent argument.

                The logic is simple and straightforward. Thousands of people are murdered with guns every year. The second amendment guarantees the right to keep these guns. Removing the second amendment and banning guns will reduce these murders that use guns.

                It is a straight line. Confiscating every gun in the US would undoubtedly reduce gun violence. Repealing the second amendment should be required in order to do this.

                Now, this policy choice ignores a lot of obvious pitfalls to such a policy, but it is definitely a more honest statement than “assault weapons” bans and outlawing 15 round magazines.

                1. @ Cyto

                  It’s the willful omission of the “obvious pitfalls” from his statement’s assertion that make him a fucking ignoramus.

            2. You misspelled “government”.

          2. “”Aww, look, someone’s all butthurt that he got called out on his lies.””

            He definitely showed his cards.

            I don’t expect anyone who hates anything to be fair about the subject of their hate.

  13. K-12 Public Schools should remain totally viewpoint neutral.
    Want to protest?
    Then get parental permission or face the consequences for skipping class.

    1. Do you know that slavery has been illegal since the Civil War? Or do you just think that the young are less equal than their elders?

      1. Enough with the absurd hysterics.

        We send our kids to school and expect and require them to behave and follow the school’s rules.

        1. You know who else was expected to follow the rules?

          1. Not a fuckin’ clue…

            1. I set them up, you’re supposed to knock them down. You must be new here.

              1. This is an attempt to accuse me of violating Godwin’s Law?even though I’m simply taking the idea of human liberty to its logical conclusion.

                1. Children, like animals, don’t have the full range of freedom as adults. This is because children are generally ignorant, and lack the maturity and full mental capacity to take full responsibility for the exercise of such rights. Unless you think a 12 year old should be able to buy whiskey, sign contracts, or serve on a jury.

                2. No, it’s a Hit & Run meme that’s been going for years.

                  You know who else . . .

                  And then everybody pipes in with their own “guess” that isn’t Hitler.

                  He wasn’t accusing you of violating Godwin’s Law.

                  He was treating you like family.

                  1. So all it takes to be welcome here is to jack off to dead children? Jesus Christ I’ve been doing this wrong.

                    1. Tony|5.4.18 @ 12:11AM|#
                      “So all it takes to be welcome here is to jack off to dead children? Jesus Christ I’ve been doing this wrong.”

                      Nope. You and the rest of the slimy lefties have been doing so for a loooong time.

        2. We send our kids to school and expect and require them to behave and follow the school’s rules.

          Because “we” haven’t applied the same skepticism to anti-youth ageism as to racism and sexism. Can you spare a few minutes to listen to John Holt and Richard Farson on youth liberation? Thank you.

        3. “Enough with the absurd hysterics.”

          Well, so much for a career as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel.

      2. “”Do you know that slavery has been illegal since the Civil War?””

        It’s true. That’s what keeps the teachers from buying one of the brats for house and or field work.

        1. We send our kids to school and expect and require them to behave and follow the school’s rules.

          Because “we” haven’t applied the same skepticism to anti-youth ageism as to racism and sexism. Can you spare a few minutes to listen to John Holt and Richard Farson on youth liberation? Thank you.

          1. Done already and rejected.
            Holt and Farson will have as much input to our kid’s education and upbringing as you, namely zero.

            1. But, not in the 5 minutes between Brian’s post and your post given that the linked video is 46 minutes and change.

              1. But, not in the 5 minutes between Brian’s post and your post given that the linked video is 46 minutes and change

                I know who Holt is and was already familiar with his work and ideas.
                I reject them.

                1. Until today, I had never heard of him.

                  1. He was one of the earliest proponents of home schooling and good for him.
                    Completely support the right of parents to homeschool, it’s the natural right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

                    His pedagogical and educational philosophy, however, is BS.
                    As were his views on childhood.

                    Also, when someone makes a functional and moral equivalence between slavery circa the American Civil War and K-12 Public schools my immediate response is to either dismiss them as idiots or desperately unserious. It’s rhetorical hysteria.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_(educator)

                    1. “He was one of the earliest proponents of home schooling ”

                      How much do you have to pay a home to get it to school your children?

          2. I’ll believe in youth liberation when parents are no longer held responsible for the actions of their kid.

        2. Most of the teens I’ve seen these days (Christ, I’m old) don’t have the requisite build to be suitable for field work (or for working in my diamond mine *adjusts monocle*). And most of them don’t even know how to use a washing machine or run a vacuum cleaner, so they don’t make good house slaves either.

          1. They can’t do much other than stand in the corner looking at their phones.

  14. Nothing about this story confirms my preexisting biases or the dominant media narrative, so it can’t be true.

  15. How dare they undermine support for commonsense Kristallnacht gun laws?

  16. wtf I love high school kids now!

    1. (snappy comeback omitted)

  17. Gun rights? How about people rights! I demand the right to be locked and loaded, just like my beloved rifle.

  18. I can imagine the condescending circle jerk of shared wokeness that must have filled the news room that pointed out that as compared to the hundreds of pro-2A demonstrators, there were tens of thousands of anti-2A kids. But it only shows how completely retarded the average journalist is.

    10,000 / 100 = 100. So every pro 2A kid is outnumbered 100 to 1. Of course, we have roughly 1.2 million law enforcement officers in this country at the state and federal levels to police a population of 330 million. So they are outnumbered roughly 275 to 1, and yet they manage to keep the plebes in line. So the outnumbered kids are actually far better off from a numerical perspective than cops. Math is so hard when you’ve gotta SJW all day.

    I know that the morons who write things like this think that they’ve scored some big moral victory, but in reality all they have demonstrated is that the second amendment is not in danger of going anywhere, and there are more than enough gun rights supporters to ensure that.

    Bottom line – Those who will beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

  19. Of course there were fewer marching in this walkout than the other one. This one didn’t have the help of professional agitators who do this sort of thing for a living. The other one did. Taking that into consideration, the difference in numbers of marchers should have been on the order of 1,000-1. It wasn’t.

    1. With Bush, Obama, and Trump as their examples, young people are going to be liberals and not conservatives until long after the day you die.

      1. “With Bush, Obama, and Trump as their examples, young people are going to be liberals and not conservatives until long after the day you die.”

        With idiots like you posting imbecilic assertions, we’re not worried.

        1. The educated, accomplished ones will tend to become part of the liberal-libertarian alliance, favoring reason, science, tolerance, education, modernity, and progress.

          The lessers will tend to become conservatives, Republicans, and faux libertarians, preferring backwardness, superstition, ignorance, insularity, and bigotry.

          This pattern seems destined to continue.

          1. backwardness, superstition, ignorance, insularity, and bigotry

            That’s kinda funny. Because nothing is much more backward that socialism. Global warming is a superstitious cult. Leftists have perfected the art of willful ignorance. No group is more insulated than leftists. And the idea that minorities can’t accomplish anything without help from government is the height of bigotry.

    2. Yes the anti-gun protest had the organizational support and money from outside anti- gun groups and the approval of the school administrators.

      The majority attendance at those “marches” were adults – not high school students.

      Of course none of the media pundits can be counted on to point this out as they willfully tried to portray it otherwise during the preceding anti-gun walkouts/demonstrations.

    3. The also don’t have the help of school administrators making the walkout mandatory.

  20. Omg I feel good! Got my money’s worth that I spent on booze and pot. Viva la capitalism! I wish you all a good night, and Tony, I include you in that. You’ve been here as long as I, and you serve a useful foil to the echo chamber.
    Viva Las Vegas!

  21. Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely believe this website needs a lot more attention. I’ll probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the information! uktvnow apk

  22. Fledgling gun nuts have rights, too.

    This is true even if many of them also are the type of bigots-in-training who will join the College Republicans if they defy backwater odds and make it past high school.

    1. Was moving to the big city and getting AIDS worth it, Arty-poo?

  23. Hope for the future.

  24. So the reporters report that there were some middle fingers. You don’t think there were middle fingers during the March 14th event? Why wasn’t that reported ever reported?

  25. Thanks for the great share and keep up with this great work! Best of luck

    Arcade Games

  26. Great post, you have pointed out some fantastic points. Thanks for sharing.

    Puzzle Games

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.