Thursday, March 1, 2018

NRA is ‘basically killing children' says student at marjory stoneman douglas

By Twitchy, Feb. 28, 2018

The Daily Caller managed to catch a bit of video from CNN Wednesday afternoon in which Wolf Blitzer interviewed Marjory Stoneman Douglas student Alfonso Calderon, who noted that the NRA is “basically killing children.”

Here’s a bit of the segment, in which Calderon, applauding DICK’S Sporting Goods’ decision to stop selling “assault-style rifles,” says he’s “glad that companies, which are what will stop the NRA from doing what they’re doing, basically killing kids, the companies are going to be the ones that are going to stop this.”
Read More:

Join us - become an Elderado today at:

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

1 comment:

  1. The student has not been taught what it means to be responsible and accountable as an individual?

    The government's duty is to protect people. The government is obligated to protect the nation's people. Protecting the citizens is one of our government's main functions for its existence.

    It is the government's duty to protect the lives of its citizens under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government itself from taking lives or liberty, except in a manner consistent with due process.

    When it comes, however, to a government duty to protect persons from bad private actors, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to find one -- even when reasonable government actors could easily have saved lives or prevented serious bodily harm. The leading case concerning the government's duty (or lack thereof) to protect persons is DeShaney vs Winnebago Department of Social Service (1989).

    The Supreme Court recognized in Youngberg v Romeo (1982) that the Due Process Clause protects the right to personal security in state institutions. In a case involving a profoundly retarded individual housed in a state mental institution, the Court recognized that the repeated injuries suffered by the patient at the hands of other patients could constitute a violation of his constitutional rights. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said:
    Respondent's first two claims involve liberty interests recognized by prior decisions of this Court, interests that involuntary commitment proceedings do not extinguish. The first is a claim to safe conditions. In the past, this Court has noted that the right to personal security constitutes a "historic liberty interest" protected substantively by the Due Process Clause. And that right is not extinguished by lawful confinement, even for penal purposes. If it is a cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed -- who may not be punished at all -- in unsafe conditions.

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See

    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. See


Comment Policy:

The author of this blog will attempt to engage in conversation via the comments section whenever possible and recognize the 24/7 nature of the internet. Moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular operational hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible, however admins and/or the author is unable to commit to replying to every comment posted.

This is a moderated blog. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, it is expected that participants will treat each other, as well as the author and admin, with respect. Comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind will not be posted. Comments that are spam or that promote services or products will not be posted. It is requested that all comments remain on topic.

The Elder Statement blog does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this blog is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. The Elder Statement blog may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. The Elder Statement blog does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those Web sites that may be reached through links on our Web site.

To protect individual privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include phone numbers, addresses or email details in the body of a comment. Such information will result in removal of a comment.

Thank you for your attention.

The Elder Statement