Parkland Students pen a manifesto, but.........

In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, the student activists stopped eating tide pods and started lecturing the taxpaying grownups on what they'd like to see done about their safety.

However, I think they should get back into the classroom and do some research before trying to lecture us on how to make laws. Their editorial can be found by following the link.

I'll take their angst filled screed and explain why what they want would never work.

1. Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.

These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones.

This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's obvious that these kids haven't read the constitution, or studied the background on what led up to the revolutionary war. If they had, then they'd know that the colonists were under the tyranny of a king that was thousands of miles away, one that had the best army in the world. Every colonist had exactly the same weapons that the military had, because each colonist was expected to protect himself.

It's also obvious that these kids haven't read up on the aftermath of World War II, when Uncle Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao banned the ownership of weapons for self-defense, then killed more of their own citizens than the Germans had Jews.

The Second amendment was written because the founding fathers never conceived of a standing permanent army that would go from country to country imposing our laws and standards. In their minds each state was responsible for its own citizens and each citizen was responsible for securing his own liberty. They also don't know that our founding fathers participated in duels when they felt slighted.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting, it's about defending yourself from other people, especially the government, where power has corrupted our congressmen.

They have also not studied recent history (Or at least recent to my lifetime) when the government used it's own power to murder people in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Even when these people had military style weapons for self defense, the military and Federal government had better weapons and simply murdered these people that wouldn't conform.

2)Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons

High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.

That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

In the 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 851 others were injured. The gunman’s use of bump stocks enabled vast numbers of people to be hurt while gathered in one of the most iconic cities in America. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere.

The modern AR-15 has a 10 round magazine. The often portrayed 30 round magazine isn't so. In the parkland incident, the kid had four or five 10 round magazines.

These kids need to bone up on their weapons. Every rifle, shotgun, and pistol has a magazine or cylinder that holds from 6 to 15 rounds. If they are going to ban high capacity magazines, then they'll have to ban every weapon and hand out flintlock rifles again. (Oh crap, I've got to stop giving the tide pod eating children ideas.)
As for bumpstocks...they don't really make the weapon fire faster or more accurately. How do I know? It's because if I wanted to fire all 10 round from my AR's magazine, I could it (with my trigger finger) in under a 5 seconds. But they wouldn't be accurate.

1. We believe that there should be a database recording which guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber and capacity they are.

Just as the department of motor vehicles has a database of license plates and car owners, the Department of Defense should have a database of gun serial numbers and gun owners. This data should be paired with infractions of gun laws, past criminal offenses and the status of the gun owner’s mental health and physical capability.

Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.

I'm gritting my teeth, because I can't believe how stupid these tide pod eating children are. First, having a database of gun owners would be a violation of privacy. You know the privacy that they feel is being violated by requiring them to carry their things in a clear backpack.)
Their institutional awareness needs to be furthered, because the DMV isn't a federal database, it's a state database that the federal government can access. As to their wanting a database that includes infractions of gun laws, past criminal offenses, and mental health and physical capability, the federal government already has that (sort of) in the form of The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Gun dealers are supposed to run background checks through this system before selling a weapon, and in every case so far, the purchaser has legally bought his weapon.
Before they start advocating the removal of weapons from so-call mental cases, they should consider that even the normal thing that is called Teenage depression would prohibit them from ever owning a weapon. (Which might not be a bad idea.)

Once again, they really need to go do some research on how our government works, because the Department of Defense is an agency that defends our country from external threats. The military can not get involved in civil affairs, because of the posse comitatus act. Besides, do you really want the military getting involved in civilian incidents?

One of my favorite shows put it best when they wrote: "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

Getting back to the DoD. This is a department that can't account for over a billion dollars that they spent in the last five years, and they are always looking for enemies to fight. I know we don't need them deciding who owns a weapon or not.

Next is the mentally and physically capable idea. Ummm. Transgendered people are mentally unstable and have the highest suicide rate in the United States and world, and the military is letting these people have sex changes on the government's dime. Are you going to remove the right to own weapons from these people, while not removing it from the moody teenager and homocidal maniac as well?

1. Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement

As seen in the tragedy at our school, poor communication between mental healthcare providers and law enforcement may have contributed to a disturbed person with murderous tendencies and intentions entering a school and gunning down 17 people in cold blood.

We must improve this channel of communication. To do so, privacy laws should be amended. That will allow us to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or to others from purchasing firearms. That could help prevent tragedies such as the Parkland massacre.

To do this would require that the congress repeal the HIPPA laws. The HIPPA laws are in place to prevent your employer from getting your medical information and firing you because you might possibly miss days because of a not as yet existing condition. It also prevents insurance companies from terminating your policy because of your medical condition.

Oh, by the way, these children bitched when they were told they'd have to start carrying see through bags to school. I guess they didn't like their privacy being invaded. Oh, by the way, considering that doctors are now butting in and asking my children if I have a weapon in the house, I don't want doctors passing any information along to the corrupt police departments. So, that's a no-go.

1. Close gun show and secondhand sales loopholes

Thanks to loopholes, people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy firearms are able to purchase them at gun shows and secondhand sales. The existence of these loopholes reflects the ineptitude of state and federal legislators.

If we are serious about preventing people from purchasing deadly weapons, we must monitor sales that take place at gun shows and on secondhand markets. This is especially urgent given the danger posed by mentally unstable and violent individuals armed with firearms.

I hate to tell you, but most criminals don't buy their guns from gun shows. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a gun show come through town. Most criminals either steal their guns from legal gun owners or buy them from that other criminal selling them in the alley.

1. Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment. It also violates the rights of the American people.

It is hypocritical to rally people to protect the second amendment, while remaining silent on the ways that blocking research violates one of our most basic constitutional freedoms.

Where do I start? Oh, I know...Let's start with the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's see.....I don't see anything in there that makes it a right for the Center for Disease Control to do research on Gun Deaths, or gun Murders, or even Mental instability problems. Those things fall to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). The first amendment doesn't cover research, only the basic liberties of speech, press, religion, and protesting.

By the way, blocking research doesn't really happen, only the dissemination of information, and if the CDC wanted to, it could do an end run around the president and post to Twitter, Facebook, and on it's own website.

Having the CDC make recommendations on gun laws is like having the ATF give recommendations on income tax, and the FBI give out cooking information. It just doesn't fit. Once again, these tide eating kids need to think about what they want.

1. Raise the firearm purchase age to 21

In a few months from now, many of us will be turning 18. We will not be able to drink; we will not be able to rent a car. Most of us will still be living with our parents. We will not be able to purchase a handgun. And yet, we will be able to purchase an AR-15.

Why is it that we will be able to legally obtain a weapon that has the ability to fire over 150 rounds and kill 17 people in about six minutes? That is unacceptable. It makes no sense that to buy a handgun, you have to be 21, but a gun of mass destruction and devastation like the AR-15 can be purchased when one is just becoming an adult.

With the exception of those who are serving the United States in the military, the age to obtain any firearm must be raised to 21.

Of all of their insane ideas, this is probably the only one that I can get behind. If a person can't buy alcohol, why should they be allowed to buy a gun? But then, let's take it further. If a child can't buy a gun until he's 21, then let's raise the age of induction into the military until 21 as well, and the age of enlistment in the police and other security firms.

But then, I'm one of those people who thinks we need to get rid of government altogether.

1. Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals

Federal and state government should earmark more funds specifically for mental health services. Those with mental health issues, especially those who express aggressive, violent, suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts should have the opportunity to receive the help they need regardless of their economic status.

Schools specifically should receive more funds in order to hire more psychologists and guidance counselors who can aid students suffering from PTSD, depression and other debilitating mental illnesses.

Many of those who commit mass shootings suffer from these kinds of illnesses. It is essential that more funds be dedicated to mental health research.

I don't think that they've thought this through. Depression is on their list. So, let's say one of these tide pod eating children decides to get mental help. Would he or she be okay with that being the basis for them never being able to buy a weapon? Or would they think that's an invasion of their privacy.....you know, like having to carry a see through book bag?

I tend to agree with them that the mentally distressed need help, and that our government is notoriously bad about not getting them help. Our government won't even get help for Veterans with Gulf War Sickness, or PTSD from Vietnam, nor would they help shell-shocked soldiers in World War Two. Our government is great about sending men off of to die, but not so keen on helping them when they return from battle.

1. Increase funding for school security

We believe that schools should be given sufficient funds for school security and resource officers to protect and secure the entire campus. As a school of over 3,000 students, teachers and faculty, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school was only supplied funds to hire one on-campus armed resource officer by the state.

Without backup, this officer’s hesitation proved to be disastrous and allowed for the senseless deaths of people who were killed on the third floor of the 1200 building.

Though this idea has been proposed in the past, these funds should not be appropriated from the already scarce funding for public education. Governments should find resources to secure the millions of children that attend public schools without taking away from the quality of education that is offered at these institutions.

Okay, let's look at this one step at a time. One of the suggestions is that you carry all of your belongings in a clear plastic backpack, but you don't want that, because it invades your privacy.
You had a sheriff's deputy that ran and hid from the shooter, allowing 17 students to die, and yet you trust the law enforcement agencies. So, if you don't want plastic backpacks, what will happen when they put metal detectors in the hallways and armed officers that can pull you out of classrooms for disobeying teachers, or officers that can slam you to the ground for disobeying them when they tell you to stop?

If your solution is more tyranny, then you need to go back to school and study history. Please, go back and study history.

In short, after reading their list of demands, my reaction was: