because certain victims say the right
things that the cameras want to hear
when one of those victims one of the the
witnesses to the shooting a guy named
David Hogg you've seen him all over TV
he's been very loud he's been saying
some pretty absurd things and over the
weekend he was on CNN with Brian Stelter
and Dan Rather for some reason he's a
journalism student I guess and Dan
Rather was there to advise him on
journalism which is sort of like being
advised on journalism by Stephen glass.
Why you're being advised on journalism
by a guy who's run out of the industry
in 2004 for putting forward a fake
letter about George W. Bush is beyond me
but I guess that's what the media do now
we have to rehabilitate Dan Rather.
In any case David Hogg who's one of these
students he actually gets on national TV
and because he understands that his
agenda here his goal here is to push the
notion that guns are responsible and not
the police department, suddenly he's
defending the cops for not doing their job.
Here's David Hogg defending the
police officers.  By the way no one should
be doing this okay?  If a police officer
does something that is wrong then
everybody should be condemning that
police officer.  When a sheriff's deputy
does not run into the line of fire when
he has a gun and try and save students
he did something wrong and David Hogg
nobody else nobody is allowed to go out
there and exonerate this person for the
sin of letting children die when you had
the capacity to stop it and it was your
legal duty to do so which is what
happens here.  Now I'm not talking about
whether it's suitable.  I'm talking about
you were hired to do a job and you
purposefully did not do that job even
according to your own Sheriff who
himself is a garbage provocateur.
But here is David Hogg on CNN defending the
police officers and saying well I don't
really want to say anything about Scott
Israel no shocked he doesn't want to say
anything about Scott Israel Scott
Israel's on the same side as he is when
it comes to guns and if he goes after
Scott Israel then it may allow the press
to swivel their attention away from
their maniacal approach to gun control
and toward what actually happened here
so here's David Hogg.  He  he just like
every other police officer out there at
heart he's a good person he didn't take
action in this event and I can't explain
why or I just can't explain there are no
words to explain why he wouldn't take
action to take out this individual but I
think it's a good example of how if he
didn't take action and supposedly four
others didn't I mean who does who wants
to go down the barrel of an ar-15 even
with a Glock and I know that's what
these police officers are supposed to do
but they're people too they need to
worry about themselves as well as all
the other students and I don't think
teachers need
responsibilities either so no one should
have the responsibility of facing down a
badger so who's gonna stop that bad
shooter I love this assumption that the
guns are magically gonna disappear from
society but they're not so who's gonna
stop the bad shooter it wasn't that long
ago that we forget that there was a
security officer with a Glock who
stopped the Congressional baseball
shooting is it that long ago that we
forget that it was an NRA member who
stopped who shot a mass shooter in Texas
is it a lot of that long ago that we
forget that the vast majority of these
mass shooters are stopped eventually by
a cop most of them don't end up shooting
themselves usually it's a police
officers who have to do something to
stop these guys but I guess that we're
gonna pretend that David hog gets to be
the Pope now he's gonna he's gonna
provide indulgences he's gonna provide
old-school corrupt indulgences all he
has to do is sit around and pass out
indulgences all you have to do to get an
indulgence to say that you're for gun
control that's all you have to do David
Hawk really keeping the blame where it
belongs
he keeps attacking Dana lash like he's
on CNN's reliable sources and with brian
Stelter and there he defended the
sheriff again said that the sheriff
Scott Israel hadn't done anything wrong
but attacked anal lash again because of
course Dana is more responsible than the
sheriff whose job it is to actually
protect these kids and who failed
dramatically over and over and over and
over 45 times and then had a sheriff's
deputy there who didn't do anything and
maybe three more who didn't do anything
and then went on national television and
yelled about it here's David Hogg though
attacking Dana lash because it's really
Dana's fault here's when Dana's been
saying as the spokesperson for the NRA
she says that she wants to continue to
pass laws she wants people in Congress
to pass laws that help out with mental
health and things like that and she says
that she can't do that are you kidding
me you own these politicians you've
passed legislation that enables these
bum stocks which by the way aren't
allowed at NRA shooting ranges because
they're too dangerous that's how bad
they're but continuing on with my point
she wants Congress to take action and
she says that they want are you kidding
me she owns these congressmen she can
get them to do things it's just she
doesn't care about these children's
lives so I asked Dana if she owns
congressman can she get them to do
entitlement reform I mean so long as
she's got them completely in her pocket
can she push them for maybe some better
regulations yeah they're about a
thousand things that I could ask Dana to
do as long as she has Congress directly
in her pocket but that last statement
really egregious and we're gonna discuss
that at length in just a second that
last statement where he says that inna
doesn't care if children get killed this
is sick stuff and I understand you went
through a tragedy I understand something
bad happened to you that does not make
that statement any less immoral it is
immoral to sit around suggesting the
Dana lash does not care about dead kids
because she disagrees with David hog of
all people on gun control again I've
been saying this for a week and a half I
don't understand what about tragedy
somehow confers expertise on policy on
people I don't think it does I think it
confers expertise on suffering because
that's what you've done you have
experience in suffering but you don't
magically
have knowledge about gun control or how
it works you don't magically have
knowledge about gun policy after
studying the issue for half a second
half a hot second and then going on TV
and spouting slogans that you got from
chuck schumer's webpage and you
certainly don't have the moral
credibility under any circumstances to
impugn the intent of people who clearly
do care about the death of children you
know doesn't care about the death of
those kids the shooter you know doesn't
care about the death of those kids
presumably Isis but I promise you Dana
lash does care about the death of those
kids I even believe that Scott Israel
who I think is a schmuck cares about the
death of those kids I think he's a bad
guy I think he cares more deeply about
his own political career than he does
about the truth but I'm sure that he he
has that he was pained by the death of
those children but attributing those
motives to Dana
it really is immoral and this brings up
a serious problem with the entire debate
that we are currently having it is
self-contradictory
we have all these statements that are
being put out there one after another
and they all contradict each other
and we are supposed to pretend like they
don't so for example we keep hearing at
the Parkland shooting witnesses are
taking moral leadership of the gun
control debate these high school
students they've filled the gap left by
the adults there are new leaders they're
the people who should take super
seriously and then simultaneously we are
told that you must never criticize their
perspective because they're victimized
children so which is it
are these the most brilliant wise and
and wonderful among us or are they or is
it possible that they could be
criticized like which is it are they
innocent children and if they are
innocent children then wouldn't that
suggest we have to protect their
innocence rather than using them as
political shields it's so disingenuous
to go around saying these kids are the
new experts on gun control and then the
minute you say what they just said is
wrong or immoral are not true then it's
you for the problem I'm not the one who
stepped in front of the camera after a
shooting and decided to to spout off
about gun control and that was not me I
mean that that's my job is to comment on
current events but these kids put
themselves in the public eye that's fine
that's their choice but being in the
public eye comes with criticism it does
have been doing it since I was their age
I understand that I got hit a lot when I
was a kid for all of the things that I
said politically and you know what some
of those were deserved sometimes I was
wrong and there's this weird notion
going around that they can
simultaneously claim that they are the
great moral arbiters of society and the
same time received no blowback
whatsoever that's not how the First
Amendment works
that's not how public debate works and
it's certainly not how politics should
work we cannot have a society if the way
we make policy is someone experienced a
tragedy therefore they are the new king
and potentate and they get to determine
what the policy is so pick one okay if
all of these witnesses are the moral
leaders then they also have to take the
slings and arrows that come with
speaking publicly hey how about this
people who are saying the Parkland
shooting witnesses demonstrate that 16
year olds have important things to say
about public policy and they should vote
okay that's fine
let's say that's true let's let's
pretend that's true for just a second
I'm gonna need to hear you make the case
why it is then that we should raise the
way in the age of being able to obtain a
weapon to 21 years old that children
should stand their parents health
insurance until they're 26 years old and
that teenage criminal should be treated
as juveniles you have to pick one our
kids adults or are they not adults
