Brev00 wrote:
Excellent reportage. Did women make up the same percentage of marchers in the entire scene as in these pics?
That's interesting. I took lots of pictures of men but didn't realize 11 of my 12 favorites that I fully edited had a female as the central subject. The crowd was probably 60% women, maybe a little more. The women were certainly more expressive, which I think is probably natural in this circumstance.
Of course not, but when taken in with all the other stats regarding the group as a whole it says something about the type of person or people who marched. And, as a group, college educated people tend to be smarter than non college educated. On average. Another interesting stat was that something like 75% percent of the marchers had protested for something before. Not their first rodeo.
I hope you're not implying that the people who did march were not smart.
Notice how when it's a knife or any other weapon, the wielder of the weapon is blamed. But when it's a 'big, bad gun', it's suddenly the gun's fault. I agree with your statement that many are not too smart. Basic commons sense evades them and they fall for the media driven propaganda that if we somehow ban 'assault rifles', this crap will stop. SMDH.
The 2nd amendment is no more antiquated than any other part of the constitution. And Lisa is right.
Our society seems to go for what I call the "least common denominator" (or maybe it should be most). If people misuse something then let's just ban it. That's the easiest fix. Doesn't matter about the many many more who do not misuse it.
The second amendment, if you read the actual language, protects the right to bear arms that already exists. Maybe we should ban cell phones, more people (especially teens) are killed by distracted driving while on there phones. Or, God forbid, maybe we should have an honest conversation about the lives that abortion takes.
I was an infantryman in Vietnam who carried a machine gun that was capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. Everyone around me had “assault rifles” and I don’t remember anyone getting hurt or killed without a human deciding to do so.
Let’s see, how does that work?
First you take over the schools and push an agenda
Next you use the influence of the media
Lastly you take away the people’s ability to defend themselves
Sounds about right
People that push for banning "assault weapons," never can fathom that a so called "assault" rifle is nothing more or less mechanically than the semi-automatic rifle I and all of us kids carried around squirrel hunting 50 and 60 years ago. The same weapons we took to school in our pickups to go shooting or hunting afterwards. They are not military grade weapons.
Once an act is committed such as a school shooting, people will copy-cat that act as long as they can get away with it, whether it's high-jacking planes or whatever. We stopped high-jacking, not by banning box-cutters, but by hardening the target. If you harden the target, people will move on and find another way to commit mayhem. But it's time we stop pretending that putting up "gun-free zone" signs, or banning a particular weapon will protect our kids. It won't
I'm in law enforcement. If you want to be afraid of being shot, don't fret about assault weapons. Worry about cheap pistols or knives in the hands of criminals, felons and drug addicts. Those are the guns that will kill you. And the best LE can do is reactionary. We MAY find your killer. If you don'[t want to be killed in the first place, harden yourself.
Archive 2018 · March for Our Lives
