Parkland Shooting Survivor Feels She “Has No Choice” But To Call For More Gun Grabbing

I suppose pushing for Government to follow existing law would be too much before we institute all sorts of draconian restrictions on law abiding citizens

(The Hill) Stoneman Douglas survivor Emma Gonzalez said on Sunday that she has no choice but to advocate for stricter gun control laws.

“I have no choice because there were CNN cameras there, and my speech was broadcast all over the country in like four seconds and I had no ideas they were going to be there, and that’s..like I’m not upset about that..I’m never going to be the same person again,” Gonzalez told “60 Minutes” on CBS. (snip)

She has become one of the more well-known shooting survivors, working to push Congress to enact new gun control laws.

Gonzalez has called on the National Rifle Association (NRA) to disband in the wake of the shooting.

“Disband, dismantle … don’t make another organization under a different name. Don’t you dare come back here,” she said, referring to the NRA.

While we all certainly empathize with her, her pain is no reason to curtail the Constitutional Rights of law abiding citizens, especially as this is being pushed by hardcore leftist groups, which are astroturfing this whole thing. They even have another march coming on March 24th. I wonder if any of them will discuss the failures of government?

(AP) Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month’s Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.

But the recommendation was never acted upon. (snip)

But more than a year earlier, documents in the criminal case against Nikolas Cruz and obtained by The Associated Press show school officials and a sheriff’s deputy recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation.

The documents, which are part of Cruz’s criminal case in the shooting, show that he had written the word “kill” in a notebook, told a classmate that he wanted to buy a gun and use it, and had cut his arm supposedly in anger because he had broken up with a girlfriend. He also told another student he had drunk gasoline and was throwing up. Calls had even been made to the FBI about the possibility of Cruz using a gun at school.

The documents were provided by a psychological assessment service initiated by Cruz’s mother called Henderson Behavioral Health. The documents show a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff’s deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida’s Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

Such an involuntary commitment would also have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities say.

There was a complete failure of Government. It’s not the fault of the gun. None of these gun grabbers like Emma are calling for Government to do the job an implement the Law, hence, it is easy to tell that this is all about gun grabbing.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Parkland Shooting Survivor Feels She “Has No Choice” But To Call For More Gun Grabbing”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH typed: “… no reason to curtail the Constitutional Rights of law abiding citizens… ”

    Are restrictions on AR-15 style weapons, bump stocks and high capacity magazines unConstitutional “gun grabs” in your opinion? Or are such restrictions merely something you object to? (Our Supreme Court disagrees with you, BTW).

    TEACH typed:

    None of these gun grabbers like Emma are calling for Government to do the job an implement the Law, hence, it is easy to tell that this is all about gun grabbing.

    That’s a lie. There are concerted social (and political) efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers such as Cruz, despite opposition from the NRA and the GOP.

    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey Jeffery asked our esteemed host:

      Are restrictions on AR-15 style weapons, bump stocks and high capacity magazines unConstitutional “gun grabs” in your opinion? Or are such restrictions merely something you object to? (Our Supreme Court disagrees with you, BTW).

      While I cannot speak for our humble host, I can answer for myself: YES! They are clear infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

      That’s a lie. There are concerted social (and political) efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers such as Cruz, despite opposition from the NRA and the GOP.

      All of the laws necessary to have kept Señor Cruz from (legally) buying firearms have long been on the books; it was the multiple choices of the Broward County School Board, the Broward County Sheriff’s Department and the local mental health center not to take the actions which were within their power to have restricted his access to weapons.

      Given all of the complaints about Sr Cruz, he should have had a criminal record long before he bought his weapons. Given the serious concerns about his mental stability, he should have been committed. Nothing was ever done, in part because deliberate policies were put in place to ‘disrupt’ the ‘school-to-prison pipeline,’ since that pipeline ‘disproportionately’ impacted blacks and Hispanics, and in part out of the sheer laziness of the public officials, given that doing nothing was much easier than doing something.

      • Jeffery says:

        While I cannot speak for our humble host, I can answer for myself: YES! They are clear infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

        So our Supreme Court is not the law of the land? That falls on some other body – or to each person’s individual interpretation of our Constitution? Or are you saying they are infringements but permissible under our Constitution?

        2nd Amendment text:

        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.

        • So our Supreme Court is not the law of the land

          No: our Constitution is.

        • Dana says:

          Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the status as final arbiter, and we have allowed one supposedly co-equal branch of government to become supreme.

          The fact that the Supremes have reversed themselves tells you, as clearly as anything, that the Court does not always get it right. They got it wrong in allowing same-sex ‘marriage,’ they got all of the abortion decisions wrong, they got it wrong in Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford, and more than a few other times.

          But my all time favorite is Grutter v Bollinger, in which the Court admitted that they were ‘approving’ an exception to the Equal Protection Clause, saying that such exceptions must always have an end date, which they then set. How the heck can the Court say that something is constitutional today, but won’t be constitutional ten years from now?

  2. Jeffery says:

    TEACHES cartoon, threateningly captions: Legal gun owners have over 200 million guns… and 12 trillion rds of ammunition. Seriously people, if we were a problem, you’d know it.”

  3. Jeffery says:

    Regarding TEACH’s cartoon: Have Americans really stockpiled 60,000 rounds of ammo per gun? I have about 20 guns, but little ammo, so I bring the average down. IF there are people out there with 60,000 rounds maybe we should be looking at them! We’re sure the Las Vegas shooter had stockpiled thousands of rounds.

    The argument being made is that our unfettered access to guns IS a problem as evidenced by our weekly society effacing mass shootings and a homicide rate that leads all advanced nations by a significant margin.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The argument being made is that our unfettered access to guns IS a problem …

      The nignorant angry little black fella has a problem with the meaning of his words also.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      by our weekly society effacing mass shootings …

  4. Dana says:

    I suspect that the 12 trillion rounds is inaccurate. Twelve billion rounds far more reasonable, given that works out to sixty rounds per gun owner.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The nignorant angry little black fella never has been very good with math.

      • Jeffery says:

        It was The TEACHs false math, not mine. I pointed out how dumb it was. Thanks for playing.

  5. mr. deplorable says:

    No more Mr. Nice Guy here anymore. All these little puke faced snowflakes, their teachers, and two faced politicians, can die by fire, I just don’t care. As far as my weapons go, come and take them, I’ll give you blood and fire, is my motto from now on.

    • Jeffery says:

      So if your duly elected government passed a law to ban your “bump stocks” you’d shoot the police rather than give them up? That’s what we suspected from ammosexuals.

      Moron labe.

      • Hoss says:

        You can produce the same effect as a bump-stock by looping your thumb in your belt. Nobody that cares about shooting gives a crap about bump-stocks unless they love wasting ammo.

        In honor of the gun-grabbing kids I bought the Mossberg SPX Tactical 30-30. I was going to buy another AR (Rock River Arms), but two is enough and the 30-30 was less than half the price.

        • Jeffery says:

          The Las Vegas mass murderer seemed to care about them; his bump stocks helped him kill dozens and injure hundreds.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    No the bump stock did not kill dozens. It is not even known for sure if he used them that I know of. After a few rounds have left a gun with a bump stock conversion to auto, the bullets are likely going off to the right and high. The weapon would not be accurate. For that matter, how many were killed by the gun versus the stampede. Now the reason that intelligent people don’t want new laws that on influence the law abiding citizens is that we want the real issue to be discussed and resolved and that is putting these nuts in the crazy house like we did in the past and are prevented from doing by liberals.

    • Jeffery says:

      There were no grounds to put the “nut” in Las Vegas into the crazy house other than his guns and ammo. Are saying we should lock up everyone with “too many” guns?

      If a new law says it’s illegal to have AR-15 type rifles, then you’re no longer a law-abiding citizen, are you?

      I’m a careful driver and can drive 90 mph on the highway safely, yet the law makes me obey the speed limit just like I was a dangerous driver. Waah!

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        You have so many holes in your logic that it hurts. You really are not a very intelligent shoe shine boy.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10024 access attempts in the last 7 days.