Just hand the keys over to the kids….they know best


Idiot “meme”/sign of the day:

A “Pulitzer”?!  Puh-leaze…

Whoever made that sign just went full-blown retard.

Okay, first of all, the right to bear peanut butter doesn’t appear in our Constitution.  Second, aren’t schools already “gun-free zones”?  Meaning, kids are already restricted from bringing loaded guns to school?  Hell, in some schools they can’t even make the shape of a gun out of pop tarts without getting suspended.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a peanut allergy is with peanut butter, anyway, right?  Well…I guess you could use other means that won’t bring harm to other innocent peanut allergy sufferers.

So in regards to schools that do ban peanut butter from being brought to school in order to safeguard kids who have a life-threatening allergic reaction to peanuts, should the ban be limited to just schools?  After all, kids navigate through the world in many places aside from just their schools.  How many deaths occur each year due to peanut allergies?  Can these deaths be controlled by anti-peanut legislation?  A national ban?  Dennis Prager, years ago, felt those calling for a ban are doing so for selfish reasons, where the problems of the minority tyrannize the majority:

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, schools in “at least nine states” now ban peanuts and peanut butter. The reason? A few students are highly allergic to peanuts, and if not treated in time, the reaction can lead to death. Lest 1 or 2 percent of the students have a bad reaction to peanuts (a reaction that is entirely treatable by the school nurse), the cheapest, tastiest, healthiest food that most kids like — the peanut butter and jelly sandwich — is now forbidden in some American schools. We have here in microcosm five highly destructive developments in modern American life:

1. Social policies determined by “compassion.” To the Nickajack Elementary School’s principal and the many other Americans who support a peanut ban, the issue is simple: peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on one side, the health of some students on the other. Compassion obviously dictates a peanut ban. More and more Americans want more and more of American social policy — from schools to government — to be guided by compassion. But compassion-first advocates do not understand that while compassion can and usually should determine personal behavior, it must almost never determine society’s behavior. When compassion determines social policy, it is almost always destructive. Because compassion is by definition highly selective, it is not possible to be equally compassionate to everyone.

When dealing with the public, compassion to some people inevitably means injustice to others. For example, if compassion for the sufferers of one disease determines society’s funding of research into that disease, sufferers of other diseases will receive less compassion and therefore unjustly receive less funding. Banning peanuts is unjust, even mean, to the 98 percent of elementary school students for whom peanut butter is the most practical source of protein they will eat at school. It is cheap, delicious, and won’t spoil as meat or cheese might. For the sake of a few students, thousands are seriously inconvenienced.

2. Compassion or selfishness? To deny nearly every student at an elementary school the right to eat their favorite healthy food is labeled compassion, and the educators who push for the ban may well be motivated by compassion. But the activists who demand the community’s compassion are simply selfish. On my radio show, I spoke to a parent whose child is highly allergic to peanuts, and who supports school bans on peanuts. After a few minutes of challenges, he acknowledged that he is simply being selfish. I saluted his honesty. Would that the rest of us acknowledge the selfishness that is at the root of so many policies determined by compassion.

3. Compassion trumps all. Compassion trumps all other considerations, especially facts and reason. The fact is that there is an antidote to peanut poisoning that every school can easily administer. The fact is that banning peanuts actually makes schools less safe for nut-allergic students, since they then let their guard down and think they can eat other students’ food. And reason suggests that if we ban peanuts, we should also ban school picnics to protect those who can die from bee stings. But to raise such objections only shows that one is not compassionate.

4. Fear of lawsuits. As powerful as compassion is, neither it nor justice dominates school, company or government policies today as much as fear of trial lawyers. Parents now sue schools for their children’s poor grades. Surely they will for allergic reactions.

5. The pursuit of a risk-free world. Perhaps it has been this generation’s unprecedented affluence. Perhaps it has been the absence of widespread suffering in America since World War II. Whatever the reason, more and more Americans have been preoccupied with abolishing all risks to their well-being. Americans increasingly feel that no price is too high to pay to ensure no risk. Such thinking, however, is very wrong. With fewer and fewer risks demanding ever more money and ever more legislation, the prices we are paying are getting ever steeper. Just ask the tens of thousands of schoolchildren now eating junk instead of peanut butter. If your kid is allergic to peanuts, have the school stock epinephrine. Don’t deprive all the other children of peanuts. That’s not compassionate; it’s selfish.

Recent research into peanut allergies seem to indicate that early exposure to peanuts is the key to prevention.

A group representing 26 professional organizations, advocacy groups, and federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has just issued new clinical guidelines aimed at preventing peanut allergy [1]. The guidelines suggest that parents should introduce most babies to peanut-containing foods around the time they begin eating other solid foods, typically 4 to 6 months of age. While early introduction is especially important for kids at particular risk for developing allergies, it is also recommended that high-risk infants—those with a history of severe eczema and/or egg allergy—undergo a blood or skin-prick test before being given foods containing peanuts. The test results can help to determine how, or even if, peanuts should be introduced in the youngsters’ diets.

This recommendation is turning older guidelines on their head. In the past, pediatricians often advised parents to delay introducing peanuts and other common causes of food allergies into their kids’ diets. But in 2010, the thinking began shifting when a panel of food allergy experts concluded insufficient evidence existed to show that delaying the introduction of potentially problematic foods actually protected kids [2].

I wonder if early firearms training/handling and education could prevent injury and accidental deaths by firearms?

Anyway, the entire attempt to draw an analogous or synonymous comparison is ridiculous.  So I’ll quit my attempts to wrap sense around it.  The sign is non- sense.

In regards to this whole March for Our Lives turnout, I do think it’s admirable for kids who truly are conscientious, being activist about their concerns and not just offering lip-service…even if they are entirely wrong.

What I do find ridiculous though, are those adults who are using the kids- especially the students-turned-activists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School- as political props and political aegis from criticism of the anti-gun movement.  Apparently, if you haven’t experienced firsthand the terror felt by these students during an active shooter situation (or even the anxiety and stress kids are being made to feel over the possibility of their school being locked down in the future by an active shooter), then you are a kind of chickenhawk and your opinion has less weight than that of these students who experienced the terror of a Parkland shooting or a Columbine.  (It’s similar to the argument pushed around by the torture alarmists who use John McCain as their politically useful idiot prop (as opposed to valuing the opinion of Leo Thorsness) to denounce the CIA RDI program because he experienced REAL torture- so he must be an expert witness on the sins of enhanced interrogations- even though he seems to actually be pretty ignorant of the specifics of how the CIA interrogation program actually worked).  This is like saying John Kerry’s opinion on war and the military has merit because he served in Vietnam.  Or John Lennon is an authority because he lost a best friend to gun violence.

Ben Shapiro:

The Parkland shooting witnesses are taking moral leadership of the gun control debate, filling in the gaps where the adults have abandoned their responsibilities.

You must never criticize their perspective because they are victimized children.

Pick one.

The Parkland shooting witnesses demonstrate that 16-year-olds have important things to say about public policy. They should vote.

It’s obvious that we must raise the age to purchase a weapon to 21-years-old, that children should stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26, and that teenage criminals should be tried as juveniles.

Pick one.

The police response to the Parkland shooting demonstrates that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.

Hand over your guns to the authorities, who will protect you from bad guys with guns.

Pick one.

Members of the NRA do not care about the deaths of children in mass shootings, because they continue to promulgate policies that make shootings more likely.

The media do care about the deaths of children in mass shootings, even if they continue to show the names and faces of shooters regularly and engage in the same sort of coverage studies show tend to make shootings more likely.

Pick one.

Parkland student David Hogg was completely right to shellac the NRA’s Dana Loesch over her culpability in the Parkland shootings.

Parkland student David Hogg was completely right to ignore the culpability of Sheriff Scott Israel in the Parkland shootings, because the facts aren’t out yet.

Pick one.

The shooting survivors are perfectly within their rights to suggest that Loesch and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) are morally inferior human beings who don’t care about the mass slaughter of innocent kids.

Americans are doing something deeply wrong by questioning whether it’s appropriate for survivors to impute nasty motives to those with whom they disagree.

Pick one.

Semi-automatic rifles must be banned because they are so commonly used in mass shootings.

The Second Amendment is not being threatened, and those who say it is are paranoid.

Pick one.

More armed security at schools won’t make children safer.

No, we in the media won’t give up our armed security.

Pick one.

What’s most annoying to me is the presumption that kids who have very little life experience somehow “know better”.  That we adults should relinquish control of the reins of the world; and their way will reign in a national order filled with peace, free of gun violence.

What exactly is the goal of the anti-gun movement?  An end to violence in general?  Or just violence through the use of guns?  Because those darn statistics, you know….?

Oh, and let’s politicize and not let any crisis go to waste and make this another opportunity to bring up race

Anyone else see any “clever” signs they “liked” out there?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My grandson has been driving since age 2 careening up sidewalks like a little madman, why dont those battery 4 wheelers work in the lawn, the crazy grandma also gave him a gun, it shoots a beam into a plastic log and cans pop off the top, he can only play away from the tv cause the channel changes. This weapon of mass destruction makes riccochet noises, no can or bottle in the recycle bin is safe.

CNN quoted Parkland senior (19 yrs old, did all these kids flunk at some point?) Tyra Hemans.
She supports the gun law changes David Hogg has pushed BUT she opposes the new clear backpack rule at her school!
She actually had the nerve to say, & I quote:
“I’m not happy with it. Why are you punishing me for one person’s actions?”
Un-f’ing believable that she does not see that that’s exactly what her anti-NRA, anti-gun laws is doing that to more than just a few high school students!

@Nanny G: Turning them all into truants so they can only learn hypocrisy, lets cut the teachers pay for every day these kids are not being taught.

Screw David Hogg and the rest of the useful idiots Hitler/Stalin,Marx and Lenin would love these type of fools and why are they not blaming the Violent Video Games.Movies, and Music and why dont they blame the one who did the shooting? Because there are sinister motives behind it all Soros,Bloomberg,Gifford,and the UN and the Democratic Party

It’s kinda ironic that after years of politicians not giving voters a voice (relying on their donor class to con their constituents) now all of a sudden forced to answer to the voice that has no vote.


Adults manipulating and abusing children

the future of socialism. Hitler would be proud. kid can not even read but knows that the 2ed Amendment is bad-bad parents.

These kids who were told to blame the NRA, have no idea why. They are never told what the NRA does. They have never been exposed to alternative viewpoints . The were taught to believe the NRA owns politicians. With apx 5 million members and the small membership fees they are not buying politicians.
There are 70 million hunters who spend much more in licenses that money is used for conservation.
Chris Wallace had a pair on this morning and the young man thinks hand guns are fine, even though it was a stolen hand gun that was responsible for the last school shooting that caused the death of a young girl, and a gun that stopped the shooter. 98 % of the money from the NRA goes to conservatives, that is why the children have been taught this bias, the only reason.
Get these children into a real debate make them back up their liberal Feelings with facts.

Hey all you March for Our Lives Useful Idiots check out the word Hypotcrite and look up its meaning then look in a mirror

The left is so desperate (and despicable) they have resorted to using teenagers to get their message out just like their communist and NAZI predecessors. Apparently the adults have realized that normal people are no longer listening to their garbage. Someone posted a video today whereby a reporter asked a group of adults at one of the protests to define what an assault weapon is. None of them could do it and they became quite unhinged and resorted to name calling. They also displayed an acute ignorance of the Second Amendment. So if you want to know why these kids are so unhinged and ignorant, follow them home and see it someone just as unhinged and ignorant opens the front door for them.

It used to be that in school we were taught honor;
we were taught chivalry;
we were taught about heroes and sacrifice, like John Kennedy’s efforts to save his injured crew after their PT boat was lost, and we held a prayer when they announced his death over the intercom;
we were taught about the horrors of tyranny and in GRADE SCHOOL watched actual films of the Holocaust to show the evil of tyrants.
We carried guns (semi-automatic Glenfield model 60) to school for hunting after. Every boy, and many girls, carried a pocket knife, yet we did not have mass killings. We fought with our fists in the corner of the school yard and other kids made sure the fight stayed fair.
And the mentally ill stayed in institutions rather than ranting and flashing Nazi salutes before their adoring rabble.

schools in American have seen nothing of the violence to come. Beslan is coming to America.

Federalist #29 (emphasis mine):

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people,… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;…”

“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” -Alexander Hamilton

The purpose of the 2A seems pretty straight forward. Apparently the left is either illiterate, historically ignorant, or they don’t care and simply want to scrap it as a means to end that being controlling everyone who disagrees with them (the most likely explanation given their other exploits).

I sent money for relief to the families of Beslan. Let’s hope that it never comes here.

@AK: There are terrorist investigations in all 50 states…tick tock. 🙁