Bill Whittle, David Hogg, Dr. Chad Searcey, First Amendment, free speech, gun ownership, MO, Number One With A Bullet, Parkland Attack, Platte City, second amendment
There are some people who cannot be sufficiently mocked. David Hogg, the so-called “survivor” of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack is high on that list. Hogg was apparently on campus the day of the shooting, but I’ve not been able to find any direct information that he was actually in building 12 of the 13 building campus that day, or if so, that he was ever in any direct danger (the SMM Parkland archive is here). In fact, as my articles on the attack reveal, most students in the sole building attacked were never in any real danger. Hogg continues to labor mightily to turn 15 minutes of anti-liberty pseudo-fame into a career, and woe betide any that oppose him. The children–survivors–have ultimate moral authority and must be obeyed. KCTV5 reports:
PLATTE COUNTY, MO (KCTV) — A Missouri elementary school principal is on paid administrative leave after posting a tweet mocking a tweet by a school shooting survivor. [skip]
Dr. Chad Searcey is the principal for Compass Elementary in Platte City who is now in hot water.
It all started with a tweet from David Hogg, a Parkland, Florida school shooting survivor who was calling for congress to invest in research on gun violence
In a video, Hogg said: “Gun violence is the second leading cause of death for the young people in the United States, yet basically gets no research funding from the federal government at all whatsoever. We have a chance to fund it currently in this Congress with this Senate and give $50 million to the CDC and NIH.
In response to that tweet, Principal Searcey tweeted a collage of pictures he put together showing him and his sons shooting and holding guns. He included a hashtag that read “’Merica”.
As one might imagine, the anti-liberty Left went berserk:
Some were more forgiving, writing: ‘Dr. Chad, You and your boys enjoy target practice. I am not afraid of you and your boys hunting me down to kill me. I AM afraid of the mentally ill person who can buy the rifle you hold as easily as you did and murder kids or coworkers . #GunControlNow #KeepOurChildrenSafe’
Another wrote: ‘If he had chosen it post it on the twitter-verse as a stand alone tweet no one would respond in this way. He is a school principal. As an educator myself, it is my opinion that he should be fired for this.’
Some have attacked Searcey for wearing what appears to be a mask–the American flag bandana pulled up, apparently to better display it. They accuse him of trying to be anonymous, of lacking the courage to speak his mind, which is rather an odd accusation in that his twitter account clearly identifies him by name and title. He was wrong in one thing, however: imagining an educator has free speech rights. This is part of the school district’s response:
On June 11, 2019, a school district employee posted a tweet in response to a comment encouraging Congress to fund research on gun violence. The post was made from the employee’s personal Twitter account. Posts from employee personal social media accounts do not reflect the views or opinions of the Platte County R-3 School District.
The District learned of the tweet on June 12, 2019, and immediately placed the employee on paid, administrative leave while we investigate the situation. We understand why the public response has been strong with regard to student safety in our nation’s schools. We intend to address the situation immediately and in a manner consistent with our Board of Education policies, as well as our goal of ensuring a safe and caring environment for our students, staff, and community.
As one might also imagine, Searcey’s twitter account has been deleted. No doubt, the anti-violence Left has been threatening his life and the lives of his family.
Why not fund anti-gun research? The Dickey Amendment:
The Dickey Amendment arose in response to efforts made in the early 1990s to begin treating gun violence as a public health issue. In 1992, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) converted its violence prevention division into a center that would lead federal efforts to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from violence. Soon, studies funded by the center began to draw attention to the gun issue. In particular, a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues revealed an increased risk of homicide associated with presence of a firearm in a home.1 The Kellermann study and other similar investigations struck a nerve and began to receive widespread attention in newspapers and other media.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) accused the CDC of being biased against guns and began lobbying for the elimination of the injury prevention center. Although the center survived, the NRA persuaded its allies in Congress to take action. Led by Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas, they added a provision to a 1996 spending bill declaring that ‘[n]one of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.
The same provision has been added to spending bills since. What virtually every article ever written on the Dickey Amendment neglects to mention is Congress was wasting millions on incredibly biased anti-liberty propaganda whose conclusions were written before “research” began: guns bad and must be banned. One of the primary arguments against spending money on such research is it is nonsensical to treat the individual acts of individuals as though they were a disease/epidemic. Go here for an informative article about why Kellerman’s research was anything but scientific.
Since the imposition of the Dickey Amendment, anti-liberty cracktivists have constantly argued for spending billions on government-produced propaganda. A significant portion of the medical community is more than willing to produce the right–socialist–results.
So why would gun grabbers want to spend millions to come to conclusions they already know? To give the appearance of scientific authority to their unconstitutional, irrational hatred, fear and prejudice.
But isn’t young Mr. Hogg right? Isn’t America a terribly dangerous, violent nation? No and no.
As I’ve often written, school attacks are not increasing, and the attacks with the highest death tolls are in the distant past. As I’ve also noted, particularly in my yearly series on preventing school attacks–enter “school attacks: saving lives, 2018” into the search bar on the SMM homepage for the most recent series–while kids are quite safe in schools, there is nothing preventing an attack, anywhere at any time. This is not an argument for disarming the law abiding, but for intelligent and effective deterrence and response should an attack occur.
One might also want to visit the classic Bill Whittle video Number One With A Bullet where we learn that despite having the highest per capita gun ownership in the world, America is 111thin the per capita murder rate.
So, what should be done with Dr. Searcey? Nothing at all. Is it mockery to point out that gun ownership and use is a family affair, an Americanfamily affair? Notice that Searcey did not denigrate Hogg. he did not call him names, or say anything about him at all. He merely demonstrated, in photos, that gun ownership is a legitimate, safe family pursuit, implying it is also recognized by the Second Amendment. And for this he should be suspended?
I know the current state of American education well, and in many school districts across the land, normal American educators tread lightly. They know that any mention of their constitutionally aligned beliefs will bring scorn, at the least, and could end their careers. That may be the case with Searcey, yet what is his offense?
Did he blaspheme? Is young Mr. Hogg now a holy figure, an uber being of such wisdom, intellect and moral purity that none dare contradict him in the slightest way? Is the now public knowledge that Searcey owns guns, and his family and he enjoys shooting them a threat to the students and staff of his school? Are gun owners unfit to teach children? Does their mere existence make them incapable of “caring,” and render their workplaces unsafe?
Cool guns, you know what’s more cool? Moms and dads getting to see their kids graduate high school alive. Kids not having to step over bloodstained sidewalks on their way to school. Parents not coming home to find their child with a self inflicted gun shot wound.
Oh, but what Searcey said offended some people! Please tell them, kindly, that there is no such thing as a right never to be offended, and that if they knew the details of the lives of just about anyone, they would surely die of offense in short order. In other words, mind your own business and get a life.
Searcey has, of course, engaged in preemptive groveling:
Searcey later apologized for how the photos were perceived, adding, ‘I reflected on the feedback and will continue to apologize to anyone who is offended. I hope you and others can accept my apology’ in response to @AMpplH8r.
If Searcey is not fired outright, he will be made to more formally genuflect at the altar of gun control, and kiss the ring of the snot-nosed high priest of survivorship. And perhaps he should. Who does he think he is, after all, an American citizen with a right to free speech?
Perhaps not in Platte City, MO.
Searcy made this into a thing when he, with hat in hand, genuflected to the alter of lunacy. Supposedly this is an American imbued with a sense of individual liberties. Yet, apparently not, for he doth forsake all that he had purportedly stood for the possibility of appeasement to the crackpots. By his own hand, they won; they won another round in subsuming the individual into the collective. Hmmmph, some guy, eh.
If it were me…. He should have stood tall to hold his ground, not to attempt to reason with them for that is a lost cause, but to tell them where to get off. Them and their horse, as it were. Because he did respond in such manner, it is difficult for me to have sympathy towards him.
Mike McDaniel said:
One does need to give Searcey a bit of slack, I think, in that his primary mistake was in thinking he was an American citizen with all the rights that appertain thereto. If he wants to keep not only his job, but his career, he’s doing what’s necessary. The real problem is the idea educators apparently can not express opinions in support of the Constitution outside the realm of their employment.
If he’d replied in support of Hogg, THAT freedom of speech would have been revered by the left and accepted by the right. THAT is the real problem.
Mike McDaniel said:
Quite so. We measure our commitment to free speech and liberty by how well we support the rights of those with who we disagree.