Reuters:

The teen organizers of Saturday’s nationwide “March for Our Lives,” aimed at toughening gun laws to help stop school shootings in the United States, have won kudos and cash from dozens of celebrities, helping to raise their national profile.

The April 2 cover of Time magazine will feature five students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida who have organized rallies, walk-outs and challenged U.S. lawmakers since the February 14 mass shooting at the school that left 17 students and staff dead.

Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, Demi Lovato and Common are due to be among performers at Saturday’s main march in Washington D.C., while “Trainwreck” actress Amy Schumer and pop star Charlie Puth are expected to headline a march in Los Angeles, organizers said.

“So inspired by the incredible students behind #MarchForOurLives. Can’t wait to join them in DC to perform and show my support,” Cyrus tweeted earlier this week.

“Proud of these kids,” Justin Bieber wrote on Twitter.

Winfrey, Clooney, director Steven Spielberg and Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg have donated an aggregate of $2 million to the “March for Our Lives” movement. Clooney and his wife Amal have said they would march with the students on Saturday.

“This is their moment,” Winfrey told Reuters Television in praising the students. “They are the new young warriors of the light.”

“Groundhog Day” actor Murray compared them to the young protesters of the 1960s who helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.

Reuters is lying.  The students didn’t organize anything.  Everytown is organizing and managing the entire process.  The students are just being used.

The lie notwithstanding, make no mistake about what’s happening here.  This is a religious quest for them.  The language (“warriors of the light”) has very direct theological import.

This is a worship service, and they wanted to have the high priests of paganism there to preach sermons to them.  Thus, the priests were made available.

I know I have readers who do not hold to my own theological views or my Christian beliefs.  But you can be sure that your gun controller enemies aren’t atheists.  Their religion is collectivism, and their god is the state.  You’re on notice that they’ve declared war on you.

David Codrea:

“What about people that already had weapons? Well, I’m gonna tell you now, don’t buy into the scare tactics, don’t believe the scare tactics, because you’ve heard people say ‘You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands,’” Fischer admonished.

“OK, he grinned and shrugged to delighted laughter and applause of the Bloomberg Moms.

So this should be an easy and simple question for Daryl.  You are going to be on those teams trying to confiscate guns aren’t you?  Tell me you’re not going to send deputies to do that alone?  You’re going to be right there in body armor going door to door and breaking into homes to take guns away, right?  Right beside your deputies?  Or better yet, leading the way in through the doorways?

The Nation:

But Chipman says that the reality is that, even though they undergo extensive training designed to inoculate them against natural human stress reactions, it’s not uncommon for soldiers to freeze up the first time they experience combat. It’s not a sign of cowardice. In most cases, those same troops perform well—or even heroically—after that first exposure to real-life combat. We can’t expect police officers to behave any differently.

[ … ]

So I think that unless you are trained—and you’re trained over and over again, and you practice like you play, which means you’re training in simulated life or death environments—the likelihood of you even firing your gun is small. And then the likelihood that you would actually hit a moving target surrounded by other moving targets—any trained operator knows the fallacy in that. It’s highly unlikely that it would turn out well.

Wow.  You’d think this guy did room clearing in Fallujah with my son in 2007.  But on to his points, these sound like the same ones made by “military expert” Ralph Peters.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Well, this is depressing.  For some oddball reason, I’m recalling some happier times here at The Captain’s Journal.

Like the mother who chased away a home invader using a handgun, protecting her children.  Or the sixty year old Texas woman who shot and killed one of two home invaders using a handgun.  Or the Indiana woman who used a gun to scare off home invaders.  Or better yet, the 23 year old woman who used a handgun in self defense with someone pointing a gun at her own head.  She had the presence of mind to draw from her own holster, present and discharge her weapon.

Maybe I need to ask these women to talk to the SWAT cop or Ralphie so they can be told, “Since you don’t have all of that super secret Ninja warrior stress management training, you can’t do that.  So don’t do it again.”

Finally, would you want to be the one trying to defend the cop who hid while children were being executed?

Minnesota gun owners explain.

Anthony Bieker.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes. Always.

Jay Daley.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes, locked full size safe.

Mike Potter.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

Richard Troxel.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, a locked closet.

Peter Boelter.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, but they are not readily available for use.

Nick Booth.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Always. We have a daycare in our home.

Isaac Lees.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No. I live in a small town where we don’t even need to lock our doors because there is no crime. There are also no children in my house. If I lived in a high-crime area like the Twin Cities or had underage children in the house, I would absolutely use a safe if I kept guns in the house, but safes are extremely expensive both to purchase and to have installed, and since it is not necessary in my situation and I can’t really afford one I don’t use one.

Julie Mills.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

Ron Smith.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Most of them. I keep two pistols handy for self-defense/home protection. I keep a rifle handy for varmints.

Brad Leeser.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Of course.

Daniel Becker.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, my rifles are kept in cases and stored. My handguns are out of sight and kept unloaded but are accessible for self-defense purposes. If there were children in the house all firearms except my handgun used for my concealed carry [would be in a safe], but my girlfriend and I don’t have children. I’m former infantry and she grew up with a firearms instructor father.

Melissa Timm.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

First of all, I realize that these gun owners aren’t exactly apologizing for anything, but there’s an undertone here I don’t like.  It’s a man’s own business what he does with his guns and how he keeps them (I’m not giving legal advice or recommending that you keep firearms unsecured with children around).

Furthermore, while I get the idea that you want to keep firearms secured with children around, there are many ways to do this, including putting them out of reach, not allowing children unsupervised time where there could be firearms, and perhaps the most effective, putting your home defense gun in a biometric safe where you can open it immediately with a thumbprint.

But let’s be clear about one thing.  When one respondent says “my rifles are kept in cases and stored. My handguns are out of sight and kept unloaded but are accessible for self-defense purposes,” he’s just kidding himself.  An unloaded gun is not for self defense or defense of home and hearth.  It’s an expensive paperweight.  An unloaded gun may as well not be considered accessible at all.

Having them “accessible” means the home invader has a loaded weapon and you do not, and thus when he sees you attempting to load a weapon he has two choices: (1) risk the outcome, be that death, injury, and/or prison, or (2) shoot you.

Don’t give him that choice.

I took this picture today at a local Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Edward, I told you that you couldn’t survive as a golf shop, didn’t I?  We’ve had this discussion, I know we have.

On a related note, I met a temporary manager of a local Gander Outdoors in Gastonia over the weekend (Rodney, who is the store manager in Tampa).  Apparently, the Gander in Gastonia is profitable, and they want to reopen it with all new firearms, all new gear, a new bike shop, new camping gear, and so on.

He told me “You know what’s funny?  I worked at the third Dick’s ever opened, and you know who my manager was?  Edward Stack.  It’s a shame what’s happened.”  We agreed that if he could wait a year (which they can’t because they’re going to reopen soon) they could probably hire most of the employees at Dick’s right down the road.

Edward, what happened to you?  Did the HR and corporate communications folks you hired change your soul, or have you always been a collectivist?

Military.com:

As women enter ground combat fields in larger numbers, the military services are working harder to make gender-specific accommodations for their gear — even down to tweaking protective equipment to fit around longer hair.

According to presentations prepared by the Army and the Marine Corps for the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, both services are making independent changes to ensure gear fits correctly for women with hair buns.

I don’t know about you, but as we make sure we’re prepared for war against near-peer actors, it makes me feel safer to know that women can have hair buns along with their body armor.

David Codrea:

OK, so a picture of an AR-15 with the words “MOLON LABE!” is probably out. And even with Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, chances are anything specifially Second Amendment-related would get the boot. Even though you and I might not find it “controversial,” the court was divided five to four in each case. Hell, let’s just stipulate all the lies and manipulation have succeeded in creating an unbridgeable gulf between those demanding citizen disarmament and those who believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

OK, so how close to the edge can a kid get?

That’s a good question, and that line changes with each passing day, getting closer and closer so that there is no more liberty.

I think it’s a fair statement that “all the lies and manipulation have succeeded in creating an unbridgeable gulf between those demanding citizen disarmament and those who believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  In fact, I don’t think it takes lies and manipulation to do that.  I think it just takes a belief in the right things.

Belief isn’t something the public school system can abide.  What we have in place now was essentially created by John Dewey, and children are treated as a tabula rasa, with the values of the state poured into their soul day after day, year after year.  That blank tablet doesn’t stay blank for long.  It’s not by accident – it’s by design, or another way of saying it is that Dewey didn’t see children as a blank tablet being a detriment, but as the entry point of how the state can socialize them.  It’s a good thing to Dewey, this nexus of state values and children in school.

Given that, why would you want to educate your children in the public school system?

The Washington Post:

Edward W. Stack is chief executive of Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Throughout history, the United States has been a beacon of hope for the world — especially for people who appreciate and respect that we are a country founded on laws that have been enacted to guard our freedom and keep us safe.

As a gun owner, I support the Second Amendment and understand why, for many, the right to bear arms is as American as baseball and apple pie. But I also agree with what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion in 2008’s landmark Heller case: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

It is clear we have a problem with the gun laws in this country. They are not squarely focused on keeping all of us safe — especially our children.

There continue to be mass shootings — at our schools, churches and entertainment venues. Following each of these senseless, tragic events there’s a great deal of idle, fruitless talk in the halls of Congress, and then the conversation quickly comes to an end.

It’s our great hope and belief that this time will be different. It has to be different.

Maybe it’s because the survivors of the Parkland, Fla., massacre — and the thousands of students who made their feelings known for 17 minutes last week — are standing up and shouting “enough is enough” and “never again.” They are demanding that our elected officials come together to find solutions. These brave young men and women are not going away.

In the weeks since we at Dick’s Sporting Goods announced plans to stop selling assault-style rifles, plans to only sell firearms to those over 21 and other new policies, we have been striving to keep this conversation going. We have met with a number of lawmakers and have talked with many of our peers in the retail industry. We have spoken with strong-willed advocacy groups and visited with families in Parkland.

It is becoming increasingly apparent through our conversations that there continues to be deep skepticism that anything of substance will be done.

Some members of Congress are committed to change, but not enough are willing to set aside partisanship to find a solution. I continue to call on lawmakers in both parties to talk with each other with the expressed intent to act.

What’s also surprising is how many citizens and leaders in our government are not aware of the loopholes and inconsistences in our firearms laws.

Here are some to think about:

●You can’t buy a handgun until you’re 21, but you can buy an assault-style rifle at 18.

●You can buy a gun on the Internet from someone in your state without a background check, but a background check is required to buy a gun on the Internet from someone in a different state.

●Few states provide a list of those in their state who are banned from buying a gun to other states.

●A person deemed too dangerous to fly on a commercial plane is nonetheless legally permitted to purchase a gun.

We understand this is a complex issue and Congress has a number of constituencies with broad agendas. But we hope Congress will take notice of not only what students are saying but also what the private sector is telling it. Two of the three largest firearms retailers in the country have publicly said we are implementing our own policies for the sale of firearms.

This issue transcends our company’s bottom line. We suspected that speaking out would have a negative impact on our business. But this was about our values and standing up for what we think is right.

After we announced our new firearms policy, we were gratified that Walmart, Kroger, L.L. Bean and REI showed courage and leadership by announcing their own new policies. We hope others in the private and public sectors join us in this effort.

A group of us in corporate America have taken a stand, made hard choices and enacted reforms on our own because we firmly believe it’s the right thing to do for our kids and for our country.

The kids in Florida and across the nation have taken a stand and been brave enough to make their voices heard.

The majority of Americans are demanding that members of Congress take a stand and be brave enough to do their jobs.

The Washington Post:

Police say they saw an object in Stephon Clark’s hand before they fired 20 bullets that killed him in his back yard Sunday night in Sacramento, a disturbing moment that was made public through body camera footage released Wednesday night.

The two officers were responding to a 911 call about a man breaking vehicle windows when they encountered, then killed, Clark, an unarmed black man.

Video released by the Sacramento Police Department depicts a frantic foot pursuit through darkened streets pierced by white slivers of police flashlight.

The officers spot Clark approaching a house and shout: “Show me your hands! Stop! Stop!”

Clark is seen running, and the two officers round the corner of the house and find him under a covered patio.

An infrared camera on an overhead helicopter briefly loses sight of Clark.

“Show me your hands! Gun!” an officer shouts and ducks behind the wall in a fraction of a second.

The helicopter footage shows one of the officers appearing to grab his partner to pull him to cover.

Clark steps toward the officers. Behind the wall, one of the officers issues another command. “Show me your hands!” And then: “Gun, gun, gun!”

Both officers open fire. Sparks from the bullets light up the helicopter’s infrared camera in sharp white pops.

The sequence, from the first glimpse of Clark on the patio to the first gunshot, unfolds in about six seconds.

The officers are never heard identifying themselves as police before fatally shooting Clark.The gun officers thought Clark had in his hand was actually a white iPhone.

“He was at the wrong place at the wrong time in his own back yard?” his grandmother, Sequita Thompson, told the Sacramento Bee. “C’mon, now, they didn’t have to do that.”

Quick!  He has something in his hand – furtive movement – everyone is trying to kill us – shoot – kill, kill kill!

Hmm … let’s see, trespassing, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, brandishing a firearm, entry without a warrant, and second degree murder.

That should about cover it.  Except for qualified immunity and all that.

NYP:

What enables this dictatorship of the caliber-iat? A spineless Congress that puts re-election ahead of children’s lives, safe schools and the right to safety of law-abiding citizens.

The irony is that, if only members of Congress banded together against the NRA, they’d quickly find that the emperor-for-life has not only no hunting clothes but an empty magazine, too.

[ … ]

The NRA’s dire warnings fuel a bizarre, all-too-common fantasy among its acolytes (I’ve been startled by how often I’ve encountered it). The scenario runs that either our government and military will turn on the population in a new civil war, or the government and military will suffer catastrophic failure — at which point our freedom will be preserved by out-of-shape, middle-aged men with AR-15s.

My fellow Americans, if our military can’t protect us, geezers with guns won’t.

[ … ]

Also in the name of liberty, NRA supporters circulate carefully selected quotes from several Founding Fathers — Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry — in support of the notion of a well-armed population.

None of those cited served in the Continental Army that freed us from Britain. Each of them let others do the fighting for them.

Jefferson famously remarked that “the tree of freedom must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.” He just didn’t want it to be his blood.

And each of those men was a slave owner. I’d take their rhetorical bravado with a very large grain of saltpeter.

Hey Ralph, I don’t cite Jefferson, Madison or Henry to justify my views of liberty, an armed public or the right to either defense of family or the amelioration of tyranny.  I go right to the fountain of such rights.  The constitution is just a covenant by which we’ve agreed to live together.  If you want to break it, thanks for letting me know.  I’ll make a mental note of it right alongside your name.

As for whether these men did or didn’t fight in that “continental army that freed us from Britain,” Francis Marion says hello.

Regarding those “middle-aged geezers with AR-15s,” I don’t really think you understand 4GW.  In fact, I know you don’t.  The U.S. Army is practicing 5GW because they never learned to win at 4GW.  But in order to know that you’d have to be a military analyst, and you suck as a military analyst.

I always thought you were a crackpot.  Now we have the proof.  What are you doing – trying to beef up your creds for a gig at MSNBC or CNN?  You never really believed in your oath of enlistment, did you?  You knew all along it was a lie, didn’t you?