Posted on 03/25/2018 10:03:03 AM PDT by Starman417
Idiot "meme"/sign of the day:
A "Pulitzer"?! Puh-leaze...
Whoever made that sign just went full-blown retard.
Okay, first of all, the right to bear peanut butter doesn't appear in our Constitution. Second, aren't schools already "gun-free zones"? Meaning, kids are already restricted from bringing loaded guns to school? Hell, in some schools they can't even make the shape of a gun out of pop tarts without getting suspended.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a peanut allergy is with peanut butter, anyway, right? Well...I guess you could use other means that won't bring harm to other innocent peanut allergy sufferers.
So in regards to schools that do ban peanut butter from being brought to school in order to safeguard kids who have a life-threatening allergic reaction to peanuts, should the ban be limited to just schools? After all, kids navigate through the world in many places aside from just their schools. How many deaths occur each year due to peanut allergies? Can these deaths be controlled by anti-peanut legislation? A national ban? Dennis Prager, years ago, felt those calling for a ban are doing so for selfish reasons, where the problems of the minority tyrannize the majority:
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, schools in “at least nine states” now ban peanuts and peanut butter. The reason? A few students are highly allergic to peanuts, and if not treated in time, the reaction can lead to death. Lest 1 or 2 percent of the students have a bad reaction to peanuts (a reaction that is entirely treatable by the school nurse), the cheapest, tastiest, healthiest food that most kids like — the peanut butter and jelly sandwich — is now forbidden in some American schools. We have here in microcosm five highly destructive developments in modern American life:1. Social policies determined by “compassion.” To the Nickajack Elementary School’s principal and the many other Americans who support a peanut ban, the issue is simple: peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on one side, the health of some students on the other. Compassion obviously dictates a peanut ban. More and more Americans want more and more of American social policy — from schools to government — to be guided by compassion. But compassion-first advocates do not understand that while compassion can and usually should determine personal behavior, it must almost never determine society’s behavior. When compassion determines social policy, it is almost always destructive. Because compassion is by definition highly selective, it is not possible to be equally compassionate to everyone.
When dealing with the public, compassion to some people inevitably means injustice to others. For example, if compassion for the sufferers of one disease determines society’s funding of research into that disease, sufferers of other diseases will receive less compassion and therefore unjustly receive less funding. Banning peanuts is unjust, even mean, to the 98 percent of elementary school students for whom peanut butter is the most practical source of protein they will eat at school. It is cheap, delicious, and won’t spoil as meat or cheese might. For the sake of a few students, thousands are seriously inconvenienced.
2. Compassion or selfishness? To deny nearly every student at an elementary school the right to eat their favorite healthy food is labeled compassion, and the educators who push for the ban may well be motivated by compassion. But the activists who demand the community’s compassion are simply selfish. On my radio show, I spoke to a parent whose child is highly allergic to peanuts, and who supports school bans on peanuts. After a few minutes of challenges, he acknowledged that he is simply being selfish. I saluted his honesty. Would that the rest of us acknowledge the selfishness that is at the root of so many policies determined by compassion.
3. Compassion trumps all. Compassion trumps all other considerations, especially facts and reason. The fact is that there is an antidote to peanut poisoning that every school can easily administer. The fact is that banning peanuts actually makes schools less safe for nut-allergic students, since they then let their guard down and think they can eat other students’ food. And reason suggests that if we ban peanuts, we should also ban school picnics to protect those who can die from bee stings. But to raise such objections only shows that one is not compassionate.
4. Fear of lawsuits. As powerful as compassion is, neither it nor justice dominates school, company or government policies today as much as fear of trial lawyers. Parents now sue schools for their children’s poor grades. Surely they will for allergic reactions.
5. The pursuit of a risk-free world. Perhaps it has been this generation’s unprecedented affluence. Perhaps it has been the absence of widespread suffering in America since World War II. Whatever the reason, more and more Americans have been preoccupied with abolishing all risks to their well-being. Americans increasingly feel that no price is too high to pay to ensure no risk. Such thinking, however, is very wrong. With fewer and fewer risks demanding ever more money and ever more legislation, the prices we are paying are getting ever steeper. Just ask the tens of thousands of schoolchildren now eating junk instead of peanut butter. If your kid is allergic to peanuts, have the school stock epinephrine. Don’t deprive all the other children of peanuts. That’s not compassionate; it’s selfish.
Recent research into peanut allergies seem to indicate that early exposure to peanuts is the key to prevention.
A group representing 26 professional organizations, advocacy groups, and federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has just issued new clinical guidelines aimed at preventing peanut allergy [1]. The guidelines suggest that parents should introduce most babies to peanut-containing foods around the time they begin eating other solid foods, typically 4 to 6 months of age. While early introduction is especially important for kids at particular risk for developing allergies, it is also recommended that high-risk infants—those with a history of severe eczema and/or egg allergy—undergo a blood or skin-prick test before being given foods containing peanuts. The test results can help to determine how, or even if, peanuts should be introduced in the youngsters’ diets.I wonder if early firearms training/handling and education could prevent injury and accidental deaths by firearms?This recommendation is turning older guidelines on their head. In the past, pediatricians often advised parents to delay introducing peanuts and other common causes of food allergies into their kids’ diets. But in 2010, the thinking began shifting when a panel of food allergy experts concluded insufficient evidence existed to show that delaying the introduction of potentially problematic foods actually protected kids [2].
Anyway, the entire attempt to draw an analogous or synonymous comparison is ridiculous. So I'll quit my attempts to wrap sense around it. The sign is non- sense.
In regards to this whole March for Our Lives turnout, I do think it's admirable for kids who truly are conscientious, being activist about their concerns and not just offering lip-service...even if they are entirely wrong.
What I do find ridiculous though, are those adults who are using the kids- especially the students-turned-activists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School- as political props and political aegis from criticism of the anti-gun movement. Apparently, if you haven't experienced firsthand the terror felt by these students during an active shooter situation (or even the anxiety and stress kids are being made to feel over the possibility of their school being locked down in the future by an active shooter), then you are a kind of chickenhawk and your opinion has less weight than that of these students who experienced the terror of a Parkland shooting or a Columbine.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Not when it comes to driving the good cars they don’t.
I just dropped off my wait list fee at a very nice county sportsmen’s club.
Takes years just to get wait listed and even more time to get in.
Hoping for full membership this summer.
Greatest group of guys and gals on earth.
Someone should ask these kids if they think, as time goes by, that they will acquire more wisdom, experience and knowledge.
Useful idiots + socialist-democrats + lord of the flies + snowflakes in meltdown + Hitler youth.
What could possibly go wrong?
The NAZIs, the Soviets, the Chicoms, and other regimes all recruited kids to rat out their parents and peers, and further the revolution.
The national-socialist-democrats (DNC) are attempting to do the same.
Their biggest problem is that there’s more firearms in the US than there are people. And that’s just the ones that they know about.
That’s the ONLY thing keeping these communist ruler wannabes from implementing their plans for total control “1984” style.
...if they agree to pick up the payments.
The guy behind is packn.
I think we should listen to these kids...
I mean who doesn’t want to live in perpetual sunshine, eat rose petals and drink dandelion tea...Frolic in the nice morning mist and live having fun all the time...No nasty old gun thingies to worry about and if we need money, Mommy and Daddy can just go to the bank and get us some...
Ahhh...The life!!! If we only listen to the kids...
“America”-the only country in the world that asks it’s children for advice and tells it’s adults to go out and play.
So, there was a wait list to get on the wait list...and then a fee to get on the final wait list?
Sounds pretty upper crust. Don’t forget about us low-rents.
On the other hand, couldn’t you just poke your shotgun out the back door and blast off a couple of shots?
One of the protesters in 20 years.
Were the Morans in attendance?
If he brings peanut butter to school, some schools are prepared to throw rocks at him.
Kids raised on sh!tcoms and commie commercials where every dad is dumb (or absent) and the 9 year old child is the smartest person in the room.
Looks like that would be awkward to draw with either hand.
>>Someone should ask these kids if they think, as time goes by, that they will acquire more wisdom, experience and knowledge.
wiki:
In the song’s lyrics (My Back Pages), Dylan criticizes himself for having been certain that he knew everything and apologizes for his previous political preaching, noting that he has become his own enemy “in the instant that I preach.”[2][5][6] Dylan questions whether one can really distinguish between right and wrong, and even questions the desirability of the principle of equality.[7] The lyrics also signal Dylan’s disillusionment with the 1960s protest movement and his intention to abandon protest songwriting.[5][6][8] The song effectively analogizes the protest movement to the establishment it is trying to overturn,[4] concluding with the refrain:
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZwncQfvaKk
what an ignorant comment.
not upper crust at all, just sensitive to patriot credentials.
you can’t get in without sponsorship(s).
good guys all.
the kinda guys you want on your side if or when shit goes down.
great company.
On initial blush, what is full-blown retard about that sign? Some kid cannot bring a peanut butter sandwich to his school because somebody sitting on the opposite side of the lunchroom has a peanut allergy? Now THAT’s full-blown retard!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.