Tag: gun ban

Will We Stand Up to the Ban on Bump Stocks?

By Benjamin Olsen | United States

2018 is gone, and yet the New Jersey ban on High Capacity magazines is still yet to gain any ground. The ban was implemented during the 218th commencement of the New Jersey legislature and limits the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. The previous law on the books already limited the capacity of magazines to 15 rounds. This came on the heels of new of the Trump administrations ban on Bump Stocks. Trump’s ban will take effect in March 2019.

We might consider New Jersey a liberal state, and the passage of the law would support that, but the lack of compliance from all residents of the state is a beacon of hope for opponents to gun control. So far no citizen from New Jersey has turned in a magazine. This proves promising for the Bump Stock ban to take place in 2019, hopefully, we will see the same example of civil disobedience take place on a nationwide scale.

You will hear from the left and from mainstream Republicans, that the government will not take your guns and that these measures are simple and common sense. Where is the sense in banning magazines? Where is the sense in a ban on a mechanism that can be made at home with a belt or rope? These bans and limitations are an infringement on our rights. We may not be able to turn to the Constitution in all things but the wording of the 2nd amendment is clear. “Shall not be infringed” The relentless parade of laws from the Federal Government are nothing more than infringements. Starting with the National Firearms Act in the 1930s, Washington has slowly chipped away at our right to bear arms.

The ban on Bump Stocks is simple posturing by Trump for his bid for reelection. He is trying to gain favor on the left without much outrage from his base on the right. The argument has been made by many in the NRA and Mainstream Republicans that bump stocks are “stupid anyway.” They have lost the point if their argument is just that they don’t like them. They have gone away from “shall not be infringed” and are ready for their guns to be taken away, as long as a Republican does it. Trump supporters must realize that their “drain the swamp” candidate has now been enveloped in the blood sport of politics. They may not be coming for our guns in the normal fashion but the threats we have heard from Washington such as door to door confiscations of bump stocks or even the threat that any armed resistance could be met with nuclear retaliation. Where is the line that we will draw with our government? New Jersey has answered that we will draw the line at magazines. Will the nation answer will a line drawn at bump stocks?  


71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Advertisements

Oklahoma Gubernatorial Candidate Hopes To Shut Down Jeff Sessions’s Influence

By John Keller | United States
Rex Lawhorn is a small business manager that is seeking the Libertarian nomination for governor of Oklahoma, where he hopes to bring about reform to restore liberty in Oklahoma, and hopefully be a part of the movement to restore freedom in America.
Keller: You are running for governor of Oklahoma. What inspired you to pursue a career in politics and seek this office?
Lawhorn: I never aspired to be a politician.  I’ve been interested in the process my whole life, and my proclivity toward economics makes public policy a natural area of interest, but as far as being in the spotlight?  No, that was never my intent.  However, Oklahoma has a relatively young party, and there were no voices standing up.  This is a ballot access race for us, so the Live Free team felt compelled to recruit someone. 
I, more or less, fit the profile of a politician, and I have an exceptional grasp on policy and libertarian principles, so they recruited me.
We never expected this to be a winnable race, but we’ve been surprised at the amazing reception we’ve received from Oklahomans.  It only took us three months to dive into this, full-time, and try to turn Oklahoma gold.  That 2.5% goal became 30% overnight.
Keller: You are running as a libertarian. There are many misconceptions about what a libertarian is, as people from anarchist Adam Kokesh to neo-conservative John Bolton have called themselves a libertarian. What is a libertarian and what attracted you to its message?
Lawhorn: I’m going to change the wording of the question a little bit. I am a libertarian, as opposed to running as one, and that’s an important distinction. Oklahoma has the same issue, where many people call themselves Libertarian but don’t actually grasp the meaning.
Most people take their own rights into primary consideration, not recognizing that giving the state the authority to oppress anyone gives them license to oppress everyone – and the state takes every opportunity to do so. A libertarian recognizes that basic truth and advocates for all rights for all people, all the time.
A libertarian candidate of any color should be advocating for the absolute minimum governmental restrictions on an individual’s day-to-day life, so long as no one else is harmed in the process.
Keller: Why is the time now for a libertarian governor in Oklahoma?
Lawhorn: Because though both the old parties are recognized in Oklahoma, we really only had one until the LP gained recognition. Very few will argue that both parties are the same old tax and spend, throw water into a leaky bucket, don’t ever fix anything, don’t care about the people conglomerates that have no interest in maximizing individual opportunity.
It’s been bad enough for long enough, that record numbers of citizens here have become engaged in the process, and on top of that, they are looking for someone to break the stranglehold the legislature has placed on the economy and the lives of Oklahomans. I’ve not seen a climate so ripe for liberty as Oklahoma is right now in the 20 years I’ve followed policy closely.
Keller: Important to voters is where candidates stand on key issues. What are the three most important policies to you that define your platform?
Lawhorn: The three main areas I focus on are educational opportunity, economic diversification, and criminal justice reform. Those don’t just define my platform but are the largest issues our state faces. We have close to the worst education system in the country, despite spending near the median in per-pupil spending. It’s an antiquated industrial model that is failing all of our students, and they don’t have options, primarily due to legal restrictions.
Add into that the state formula crippling private school growth and opportunity, and we have what most anti-choice advocates fear – a system that bleeds the poor to provide luxury to the wealthy. My plan fixes this, pays our teachers a good wage, and provides exceptional options for every student, no matter their socioeconomic class. Next, our economy is highly invested in oil and gas and energy, in general, and they ignore the wealth of other natural resources.
That’s led to an economic climate of dependence on the price per barrel of oil, and it has bankrupted us. Our tax structure needs to make sure that every industry has equal treatment under the tax code and that Oklahoma is developing the employees and infrastructure to grow into a healthy economy. Finally, CJR is a hot-button issue in Oklahoma, as we incarcerate more than any other state.
It’s been a perennial issue for us, and we have learned that throwing addicts, mentally ill, and cannabis users in jail doesn’t help anything. 52% of our prison population has never committed an actual crime against any other citizen or property.
As much as 65% of our prisoner-citizens have a mental illness they’re being treated for. Jail isn’t the place for people like this. The state is just wasting money to feed taxpayer dollars to their friends in the private prison industry. There is no impetus to solve the issue until someone sits in the capital to make it a priority. That’s my job.
Keller: Recently there has been an increase in political dialogue over gun control. What do you have to contribute to this national dialogue?
Lawhorn: I have nothing more to contribute that hasn’t been said a million times already. The two most important things to remember is that gun control doesn’t reduce violence and those words “shall not be infringed”.
If they come to me with a proposal that addresses the real causes of the increase in violence, we can start a conversation. Until then, I’m unwilling to engage in even peripheral conversations about restricting the right of self-defense from anyone.
Keller: The Trump Administration has spent increasing effort to expand the power of the national government while weakening state authority. How do you plan to balance serving the people of Oklahoma with mandates from the Trump Administration?
Lawhorn: By utilizing 10th Amendment protections guaranteeing state authority over powers not enumerated in the Constitution. I plan to mostly ignore mandates coming from Washington DC unless they are returning plundered dollars back to the people that paid them.
It’s very difficult, as most of the federal overreach doesn’t come through the state, but rather bypasses the state and directly attacks the people. The only way that most of the problem can be ameliorated is through secession, and that’s a call that needs to come from the people.
That being said, my initial campaign promise was to be the shield for the people of the state from a government that has stepped way out of line. I intend to have an entire staff centered on making sure that I use every opportunity available to achieve that goal.
Keller: A key issue in the balance of power is the Drug War. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has increased the government “clamp down” on states with legal marijuana, whether recreational or medical. What do you believe is the solution to this growing issue?
Lawhorn: That’s an area that a governor can have a strong effect. With the cooperation of the sheriff departments in each county, we can prohibit federal legal activity from pursuing and prosecuting any victimless crime. I’ll ask them nicely to refrain because Oklahoma opts out.
If they don’t stop, I will tell them forcefully to back off. If they still don’t stop, I will activate the National Guard, and I will forcibly remove them. It’s a personal invasion of the people of the state that is preventable, and I’m fairly sure that not even Jeff Sessions is willing to do war over a plant.
Keller: If someone was interested in getting involved with your campaign, how would they go about getting involved?
Lawhorn: Stop by the web page, rexforgovernor2018.com and hit that volunteer button! While you’re at it give the ‘donate’ button a push and give whatever you can. This process isn’t cheap until a Libertarian can get in office and make the changes necessary. If I get into office, I will work as hard as I can to ensure no politician ever asks you to press a donate button, ever again! You can also come by my Facebook page, facebook.com/rexforgovernor2018, and participate in the debate, follow me on the campaign trail, hear and read my interviews, and even participate in one of my monthly live events, where I talk directly to anyone who wishes to show up and answer any question you like.
Keller: Do you have any final remarks to give to the readers?
Lawhorn: We are at a turning point in American politics, and never before has liberty had such a large and wide audience listening very close to see what we offer. Some people of our party are actively using that to promote their own self-interests and others are using it to spew hate and bile.
We can’t let this opportunity slip away from us. Educate yourself on the issues, and engage in meaningful, productive, and, most importantly, persuasive discussions about how liberty makes a difference! Be the change, and don’t waste your minutes in frustration and anger.
Use them to alleviate the frustration and anger that the uninitiated have which makes them hostile to us. Not since 1774 has the US felt more frustrated with the failures of government, and it’s time for them to have a real option. We are not the 3rd party. We are THE party, and it’s time we started acting like it and getting things done.
I would like to thank Rex Lawhorn for his time. Be sure to visit his website and follow him on Twitter and Facebook for all updates!

Interview With Britton Wolf: SC House District 71 Candidate

By John Keller | South Carolina

Britton Wolf is in the Republican Liberty Caucus and is running for the South Carolina State House of Representatives in the 71st District to limit government intrusion upon the people of South Carolina. He is self-described on his website:

“My name is Britton Wolf. I am a Christian, a Conservative Activist, an Ecclesiastical Leader, a Mentor, a High School Lacrosse Coach, and an Eagle Scout. I am a legacy member of Young Americans for Liberty; I am also a trained Conservative Activist by the Leadership Institute and the Foundation of Applied Conservative Leadership.”
Keller: What inspired you to pursue a career in politics?
Wolf: My family and I are originally from California and we are first-hand witnesses of the destructive nature of big government policies. More than anything I am just tired of the State that I love becoming more like the State that I escaped from.

August of 2017, I read an article about the abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project, a project to construct two nuclear power plants in South Carolina. This failed $9-billion project resulted in the loss of 5,000 jobs. I began researching more about this issue and learned about the Base Load Review Act (BLRA) which was the legislation that led up to this nuclear fiasco in my State.

After looking up the voting record of my current Representative, I found out that he voted for the BLRA. January 31st he had the opportunity to vote for a full repeal but instead he chose to abstain from voting for or against the repeal. Someone needed to step up to run against him and I answered the call.

Keller: What, to you, is libertarianism? What attracted you, and what do you think will attract voters, to its message?
Wolf: As a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, I believe that liberty extremely important, bringing liberty to South Carolina is the purpose of my campaign. The term “Liberty” is something that I have studied for the past three years of my life. I’ve read the writings of free-market economists: Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard and F. A. Hayek. The definition of liberty that I have discovered is: Liberty is that condition of man, where coercion by some over others is reduced as much as possible in society. In other words, liberty is the condition of reducing man’s ability to wield political power to coerce or force human action.
Ronald Reagan said: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” I’ve found that voters want to be left alone but more importantly, they want to keep their hard-earned money. As a legislator, I would fight to protect our economic freedom and civil liberties. I don’t believe that there is anything moral or honorable about spending other people’s money.
Keller: You are running for your state house. What is the “State of the State” and why is there a need for change?

Wolf: Right now, South Carolina residents pay the highest electric rates of any state in the nation, the average ratepayer pays $400 more per year than the national average. This has to do with legislation passed in 2007 called the Base Load Review Act (BLRA) which charges ratepayers for the construction of two nuclear power plants and permitted the utility providers of South Carolina to pass rate hikes. In the past decade companies like SCE&G have raised rates nine times and the project to construct the nuclear power plants was abandoned in 2017. The vilest part of this legislation is that the law leaves ratepayers on the hook for paying for the $9-billion project “upon completion or abandonment,” in other words we’re still on the hook for this.

My opponent voted for the BLRA in 2007 and abstained from voting for or against amendment 2 of H. 4375, which would have resulted in a full repeal of the BLRA and gotten ratepayers off the hook for continuing to pay for the abandoned nuclear reactors.

My solution to this issue would be to sponsor legislation for a full repeal of the BLRA to get ratepayers off the hook for paying for the abandoned reactors. Then to pass legislation that would free ratepayers from the territorial monopolies held by the utility providers of my State. South Carolina needs to open up for a free market by allowing for ratepayers to pick and choose which utility providers they want to purchase electricity from. This would create competition and drive down costs for electricity.

Keller: The gun debate is gaining intense traction in American politics as a result of the tragedy in Florida. What is your stance on this policy issue?

Wolf: The gun debate is certainly a hot topic right now and my heart goes out to the victims of the events that occurred in Florida. My concern with the recent gun discussions is, the demand for legislation to protect us from those that would prey on innocent citizens of society, such laws won’t protect us but would instead treat law abiding citizens as criminals.

I believe that we have a fundamental right to protection and that the most effective means of protection is through gun ownership. I have made a promise to my supporters that as a future legislator; I would defend their right to protect their lives, families, and possessions, and I would oppose all legislation that would infringe upon their ability to possess firearms.

Keller: The Drug War has been going on for over thirty years with no end in sight. What role do you want to play in the Drug War in the South Carolina, and how will you work with state policy and federal mandates? In other words, where do you stand on medical cannabis?
Wolf: I support the legalization of medical cannabis, right now there is a proposed bill in my State called the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act (H. 3541/S. 212). This legislation would allow for qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions and a written recommendation from a physician, access to medical cannabis to treat cancer, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease and more life-altering diseases. I believe that patients should have access to or the ability to consult with a medical professional about medicine that could help alleviate their suffering.
Recently, the SC House leadership blocked the SC Compassionate Care Act from coming up for a vote because this session falls upon an election year. To me, it’s a tragedy that my State’s elected representatives would play these political games, over granting suffering patients access to medicine. If elected, I will work with Rep. Jonathan Hill, Rep. Josiah Magnuson, and other sitting House members to help alleviate human suffering!
Keller: What do you hope to accomplish once elected? In other words, what three policies and stances define your campaign?
Wolf: Once elected I would like to focus my efforts on three issues:
  1. Repealing the Base Load Review Act; this would get ratepayers off the hook for paying for abandoned $9 dollar nuclear reactors. Sponsor legislation to remove the utility providers monopoly so that ratepayers can pick which provider to purchase electricity from, this competition would cause electric rates to decrease.
  2. Tax reform; I want to cut the State sales tax in half from 6% to 3%. Last year, the Republicans in my state voted to raise the State gas tax from 12.75 cents/gallon to 28.75 cents/gallon. If throwing more money at the problem solved problems then
  3.  Constitutional Carry; I believe that we have a God-given right to be able to bear arms, I don’t support licensing to exercise rights.
Keller: Do you have any concluding remarks for the readers and voters?

Wolf: If I were to say anything to readers or voters it would be that South Carolina is prime for liberty; and if elected, I will stand as a principled statesman like Rep. Jonathon Hill and Sen. Tom Davis. Liberty is the goal and we need more advocates for liberty to infiltrate our State legislature.

I would like to thank Britton Wolf for his time in conducting this interview. For more information visit his Facebook page and be sure to donate! His campaign is only $2,000 of the quarterly fundraising goal with YAL.

Post Election Analysis and Exclusive Interview with Drew Miller

John Keller | United States

Drew Miller, former candidate for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, spoke with 71Republic in this exclusive post-election interview. Drew Miller received 1,378 votes – more than the margin Conor Lamb won by. The GOP is pushing for a recount and many are criticizing Drew Miller for “handing the election” to Conor Lamb. This is simply not the case.

Keller: What encouraged you to run for public office?

Miller: I decided to run for public office because I was tired of going into a voting booth only have to choose between 1 — or at the most — 2 options.  I knew that if I wanted to see real change, maybe it could start with me.  I really decided after the Libertarian Parties of Allegheny and Washington Counties came to me and said they wanted me to be their candidate. 

Keller: You are running for Congress as a libertarian. In your own words, what is libertarianism?

Miller: Libertarianism is the idea of taking power away from the government and putting individual freedom and responsibility back into the hands of the people.  It’s also about being fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  Essentially, “live and let live”.

Keller: With a majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, how would having a libertarian in Congress change the dynamic of the national government?

Miller: Being a Libertarian in Congress would allow me to be a truly independent thinker and could allow me to bridge the divide between the two major parties, since I consider myself to be a mix of the best qualities of each party.

Keller: Gun control has come to dominate the national conversation with the recent tragic events in Florida. Where do you stand on gun control?

Miller: I don’t think banning guns or putting in more restrictions will help the root cause of gun violence and mass shootings: mental illness.  People can always find different ways to obtain a gun or different ways to kill and creating some sort of a “mental illness database” would only stigmatize those deemed to be mentally ill.  I think the best way to address it would be to address the mental illness problem we have in our country.  If we do that, we won’t just solve gun violence, but a plethora of societal issues.  

Keller: Pennsylvania is a battleground state and arguably decided the 2016 presidential election. What is your message to on the fence voters?

Miller: My message to on the fence voters is that the 2 party system has failed you. 221 years ago Washington gave his farewell address to Congress and he warned us that if we allowed the parties to get too strong, they would undermine everything we worked so hard to create as a country. Now we are at the threshold of Washington’s premonition. We have the ability to send a REAL message to Washington, D.C. by rejecting the duopoly and authoritarianism and giving the power back to the people. Republicans and Democrats tell you how government can make your life better. I’m here to tell you how your life will be better without the government interfering.  

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Miller: My entire campaign relied upon unpaid volunteers and talking to high school and college aged students.  I believe we are going to see a youth-lead revolution of libertarian ideas very shortly.  This will be the first time since 1996 that voters in the 18th District will have the ability to choose a 3rd option for a congressional candidate.  It has been an honor to be that 3rd option.

Drew Miller formally conceded the election at 8:05 am on the 14th of March, 2018, after receiving 0.6% of the vote, triple the 0.2% margin of victory. Conor Lamb was able to secure an upset victory in Pennsylvania’s 18th District against Republican Rick Saccone, not because of Drew Miller but simply by gaining enough support.

Many are trying to look into the “tea leaves” to see what the future holds for November elections. Trump won this district by twenty points in 2016, and a democrat was able to win the seat in 2018 election. While many are saying this is a voter mandate rejecting the policies of the Trump Administration, it is hard to speculate due to the democrat that one being a moderate, pro-life and pro-gun veteran. Only time will tell what this means for 2018.

I would like to thank Drew Miller for his time. Be sure to follow him on Twitter for updates.

Image Source WikiMedia

The Student Walkout Movement? It’s Pro-Gun

By Andrew Lepore | United States

“The 2018 student walkout movement will be one of the largest and widespread movements in favor of guns and coercion in recent years”

Since the recent tragedy in Parkland Florida, a series of student walkouts have sprung up across the country. These protests, intended as a call to action for state and federal lawmakers, have gained significant traction and support from mainstream media outlets. This 17-minute walkout will take place at my high school this week, and is likely to see widespread support among to student populace. Emma Mair, a co-organizer of this weeks walkout, told the School Committee last Wednesday, “Silently walking out to protest the country’s current gun policy is how Masconomet students would like to stand in solidarity with the Parkland victims and survivors, with all shooting victims and survivors.”

The end goal of “protesting the countries current gun policy” is different according to the opinion of each individual protester; although it ranges from stricter background checks, a national registry, banning bump stocks/ other accessories, and the full-on ban of “assault weapons.” Due to the fact that these protests hope to achieve stricter laws regarding guns, even full-on bans; this movement is, in fact, one of pro-gun, pro-violence, and pro-coercion.

“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.” -Stefan Molyneux

The very idea of laws making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect their family, and the outright banning of certain firearms if passed into law would be enforced through the barrel of a gun. I don’t think these students have any idea what they’re really begging for. Do they think that Congress just signs a paper and at the stroke of a pen all guns are magically transported to some safe government vault? Do they think millions of Americans would just all come together and turn their firearms into the state? Considering the people who own these firearms do so precisely for protection against government tyranny (which is the main purpose of the second amendment), I don’t think that would be so easy.

Let’s pretend following the protest, Congress passes a bill making guns harder to get (for law-abiding citizens, of course, criminals will get guns regardless of laws), banning bump stocks/ other accessories, and banning assault weapons. Imagine this legislation is announced and the country is told that all tactical accessories and assault weapons should be turned into your local police station. Not only that but, they announce all people on any form of ADHD, depression, anxiety, or other mental health medication would no longer be allowed to purchase a gun of any sort; and that any with those conditions who currently own a gun would be required to turn theirs as well.

To those ignorant of gun culture and its distrust of government might think this is an easy task. Many think guy owners are some dying minority of rednecks that can easily be corralled and tamed. The truth is there are over 270 million privately held firearms, and America has the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, with an average of about nine guns for every 10 Americans. It would probably be safe to bet that almost every single one of these gun owners has a serious distrust of the government. Many Firearm owners think the state has been planning to disarm them since the 90’s, and they simply would not go down without a fight. This hardcore sentiment dates back to 1776, the War for Independence, and the signing of the Second Amendment to our constitution. It is reflected in the popular NRA slogan “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

This sentiment may not be unjustified. Considering Before the holocaust the Jews were disarmed, before Stalin’s great purges the people of the USSR were disarmed before Mao starved and murdered millions of his own people the Chinese were disarmed. While genocide may seem like a far-fetched scenario for America, all it takes is small steps to reach such great evil.

When the state makes a victimless action in and of itself a crime, resistance to that law becomes imminent (and to me, justified). When in resistance to the power of the state, even when justified, you will face the full force of the authoritarian iron fist of the state and its enforcers.

What happens when these stubborn, independent firearm owners refuse to hand over their guns to the first man with a shiny badge who knocks on the door? Waco, Texas 1993; members of the Branch Davidians religious group are suspected by the ATF to be converting semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic rifles in their isolated rural compound. After an initial failed ATF raid on the compound, the FBI took over the operation. The FBI surrounded the compound and began siege tactics as the Branch Davidians refused to surrender themselves or their firearms. On day 51 of this siege, the feds attempted a tactical assault with tanks armed with tear gas to flood the compound and “force the group out.” They used CS gas (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile), which can be highly incendiary, yet the feds made no preparations to put out a fire had it occurred. The assault resulted in a fire ripping through the compound, killing 26 children, and 45 adult men and women.

This is the power of the state. This is the power of laws enforced through the barrel of a gun. The means to an end for a law is always violence. In other words, the goal which a law is aimed at achieving is always achieved by violence or the threat of violence. Sure there are FBI negotiators, but that does not change the nature of crime, punishment, and enforcement within the United States. The power of a law simply comes from the barrel of a gun.

This brings us back to the Stefan Molyneux quote:

“You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government should have guns (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns.”

The point of wanting to use guns to disarm law-abiding gun owners is hypocritical enough itself, but weren’t many of the people who are in favor of only allowing police and military to have guns just a few weeks ago protesting police for systematic racism and brutality? And also aren’t many are in opposition to wars of aggression in the Middle East? Why are they one week protesting against police and the next week they’re declaring only police should have guns? This makes very little. It proves to me that this is no movement against guns and violence. It is a movement to strip Americans of their right to self-preservation.

In conclusion, The 2018 student walkout movement will be one of the largest and most widespread movements in favor of guns and coercion in recent years. I will be staunchly advocating for the rights of the American people to keep their own weapons, and I will not tolerate any government steps to infringe upon those rights.


Image Source John Stuart