Friday, March 23, 2018

Tyra Hemans - Parkland Truth Speaking Hero © 2018 Phillip Evans

Yesterday she spoke a mouthful of truth, even more than she realized herself, I suspect. She keeps that up, and I may vote for her some day. So what did she say? When speaking about the new rule regarding clear backpacks, she said, "I'm not happy with it. Why are you punishing me for one person's actions?"

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead of President Trump's School Safety Meeting

Well Tyra, allow me to be the first to explain how things work with government. When you call on government to "Do Something!", you will always get a government solution.

And young lady, as you have learned, trampling Second Amendment Rights is not the only right government infringes when it "does something". When it passes punitive laws, it punishes not just 3300 of us at a time, but millions of us for the actions of just one bad guy. Repeat that cycle a few times and you just might have to kiss your rights goodbye.

Fourth Amendment Rights are not immune either, such as requiring you to show your personal items to everyone in your see-through book-bag or backpack. Besides, the shooter at your school used a bag of some type to bring in his gun. Had his bag been clear he could not have hidden it so well and might have been caught before using it.

Allow me to play "devil's advocate" here a little:

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with a little search and seizure of your property? Or in your case, if you have nothing to hide, why not use a clear backpack so that school personnel can see you have nothing dangerous inside, like a gun, a knife, or some other weapon?

You see, if you ban guns and somehow manage to make them all disappear from society (a tall order indeed), there are still knives, acid, poison, needles, bombs, drugs, etc., that can be smuggled into a school with a concealment backpack. Making sure we can see inside helps keep you safe, and well, schools have heard your demand to keep you safe.

Government officials are starting to take commonsense measures to restrict your liberty in order to help keep you safe, so what is your complaint? Is it that not looking cool with a snazzy Hollywood-style backpack is too high a price to pay to save lives? Is it that losing a little 4th Amendment privacy is too high a price to pay for a little less bloodshed? Surely blushing from a little embarrassment cannot compare to the suffering a bad guy's bullet can cause.

Remember, one Constitutional Right is no more or no less written on paper than the others, correct? If Second Amendment Rights have "reasonable" limitations, such as background checks, age limits (for those not legally adults), and a license to carry, then the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments also have limitations, correct again?

The building is not on fire:

The "you can't falsely cry 'FIRE!' in a crowded building" argument to illustrate limitations on the First Amendment are often touted as an example to excuse infringement on Second Amendment Rights.

Falsely yelling "FIRE!" is a MISUSE of free speech. The infringements on the right to keep and bear arms prohibit good and honest people from merely POSSESSING certain firearms or accessories, often based on nothing more than cosmetic appearances of the items, even if citizens would use them safely and lawfully, as the vast majority of us do.

This type of logic fail is called a faulty comparison. The argument is offered by otherwise intelligent people who would hear how foolish they sound if they would only give it a bit more thought.

Ban Them All!

Under state law in Florida, schools are already off-limits to guns. If that law, along with gun-free zone signs are not enough to keep the guns of bad guys out, then what is your solution? To ban  possession of AR-15 rifles, even though MILLIONS of people use them responsibly in this country? Over one bad guy?

The worse school shooting happened at VA Tech, where almost DOUBLE the number of people were killed as at your school, 32 to be exact. And no rifle was involved, only two pistols. Are we to expect that the call for bans will stop at rifles once all rifles are gone?

And by the way, banning is one thing, taking them is another altogether. What sort of solution would confiscation look like at the hands of armed government agents - a war perhaps? People lose a lot of blood in wars, and I thought we were talking about saving lives here. 

Finally, some common ground:

Perhaps I agree with you after all, that free American citizens like me should not have to be punished for the evil acts of one person. My belief in fairness and liberty just might have me incline to not accept my unjustified punishment from government that wants to step over the line of tyranny. 

Personal Transparency:

Let me be as clear as your new backpack - I do intend to keep my lawfully purchased property and will not accept confiscation from the hands of anyone. The official state motto of New Hampshire is, "Live Free or Die!" Even though I live in the South, that's mine, too.

See how we can both love liberty?

Non-Government Solution:

School teachers, administrators, and parents allowed to exercise their human right of self-defense even while on school property and in school buildings. And highly advertise that fact. 99.9% of bad guys will take heed and stay away. Those that don't will get their day cut short.


  1. "Progressives" often lecture us on the Second Amendment, that sometimes we have to give up some of our liberty in order to gain safety.

    How does it feel for the shoe to be on the other foot?

    "Progressive" government officials offending "progressive" students with infringements. Oh, the rich irony! Not to mention a life lesson in how government works.

    Phillip Evans

  2. You know, I just thought of something:

    Clear backpacks can still have hidden guns inside. Ever see a hollowed out book? Those things can hide weapons and other contraband and still appear to be a normal book until you open it.

    I would encourage Broward County Schools to have a book inspection rule to check for such things. It would be an inconvenience, but if even one life is saved it will be worth it.

    Perhaps folks can call them at 754-321-0735 to ask that book screening be implemented, and perhaps pat-downs, if schools don't yet have metal detectors.

    Phillip Evans

  3. Schools should at least let the kids carry a couple of smooth river rocks in their pockets to throw at a mass shooter. It would give them a better chance than just huddling together waiting to get shot.

    And by themselves, stones do not go off unless activated, so they should be safe to carry in class.

    Phillip Evans

  4. is a public school education without having to set foot in a school building. All done at home on the Internet. Government approved, and accredited.

    Phillip Evans

  5. About that slippery slope:

    At an anti-liberty rally, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School student, Delaney Tarr, let the cat out of the bag:

    "When they give us an inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for bread crumbs, we are here for real change."

    Translation: They want to ban whatever they want to ban, and when they get what they want, they will keep on banning if they want to. Demanding little tyrants, aren't they?

    Right now, they are only revealing they want to ban "weapons of war" and "high capacity" magazines. I suppose those ignorant youths are unaware that the military does not issue AR-15 semi-auto rifles. They issue the M16 full-auto rifle, simply because the AR-15 cannot do what they want it to do on the battlefield.

    As for magazine capacity, why do police need "high capacity" magazines to keep themselves safe from criminals, but if three bad guys with guns break into my home to harm me, my wife, and my children, I'm supposed to have only 10 rounds in my magazines? Does that make sense?

    And 10 is not such a magic number. New York has a 7 round limit for magazines, except for police, of course.

    Phillip Evans

  6. Nikolas Cruz only brought 10-round magazines for his rifle he used to commit his murders because the longer ones wouldn't fit in his bag.

    So even if "high capacity" magazines were banned, mass shootings could still occur? You mean 10-round magazines can be evil, too?

    Sounds like this shooter just proved the anti-liberty tyrant solution would not work. They might cry about "assault weapons" in response to this fact, because those rifles looks "scary".

    However, bullets from a pistol with 10-rounds magazines would have still been able to kill 17 people. 32 were killed by a murderer with only pistols at VA Tech.

    Maybe they will now call for a 5-round magazine limit for citizens for both pistols and rifles?

    Maybe they will call for a ban on all pistols and rifles, except for the military and police?

    Delaney Tarr already warned us at one of their rallies that they will take a mile when we give them an inch. The sky is the limit on what they will demand next, and next, and next.

    Phillip Evans