The Most Memorable Signs From Yesterday's 'March For Our Lives' Rally

Demonstrators flooded the streets of Washington, D.C., yesterday following a recent spate of school shootings, and The Daily Caller's Chris White notes the protesters were carrying signs opposing everything from the Second Amendment to the National Rifle Association to the millions of Americans who own guns.

But, some of the signs were 'better' than others.

Activists carried poster boards at March For Our Lives rallies across the country suggesting lawmakers ban guns like they “ban boobs.”

Activists were also distraught that guns supposedly have more rights than their uteruses.

“Guns shouldn’t have more rights than my uterus,” another activist wearing a “Fuck Trump” pin scrawled on a white piece of paper, while another demonstrator held up a sign lamenting what she believes is the U.S.’ lack of background checks: “My Muslim uncle gets more background checks than a gun.”

The rallies come after a Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people.

Others preferred to take their anger out on the NRA and gun owners.

“There’s no such thing as a good guy with a gun,” one rally-goer at the Washington, D.C., march wrote on a sign.

The D.C. rally comes less than a week after a school resource officer used a gun to stop a potential school shooter at a high school in St. Mary’s County, Md.

Survivors of mass shootings, including the one in Florida, rallied a whooping crowd at the D.C. crowd - “Welcome to the revolution,” said one student organizer, who also groused about how gun violence disproportionately affect black communities.


D503 FEDbuster Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:35 Permalink

Signs I might have made had I been close enough to possibly give a shit:

"If you support gun bans show us your tits!"

"If you are anti gun sign my petition, include your address."

Further, might be fun to set off some strings of black cat firecrackers and scream, "Gun, get down!"

And now you know why I may, or may not, have a lawyer on retainer.

In reply to by FEDbuster

J S Bach DuckDog Sun, 03/25/2018 - 20:01 Permalink

When "sane" people try to rally and protest, they get "Charlottevilled".  The way to take on these Soros-public-schooled zombies and antifa is the way the National Socialists took on the Communists in the streets of Weimar Germany.  If they send one of yours to the hospital, then you send one of theirs to the morgue.  It's as simple as that.  Nature may seem cruel at times, but it doesn't change the fact that we have to abide by Her laws or go extinct like 99.9% of all species that ever inhabited this planet.

In reply to by DuckDog

Jeffersonian Liberal J S Bach Sun, 03/25/2018 - 22:56 Permalink

I don't know what is more terrifying, how lost and stupid and brainwashed the Useful Idiot communists are...or that their parents approve of their protest and are just as stupid and brainwashed and every bit the Useful Idiots that Lenin loved to manipulated.


Yuri Bezmenov on youtube. Watch his interview with G. Edward Griffin and his full lecture.

In reply to by J S Bach

any_mouse D503 Sun, 03/25/2018 - 23:17 Permalink

Adult human female breasts , aka boobs, aka tits, are okay for viewing.

It is the profane functional nipple prominent upon the female breast (unless inverted) that must never be seen.

Scary nipple!

They can show scary black rifles on TV, but never, ever must a female nipple be seen.

Meanwhile, the parade of man boobs and useless male nipples continues.

In reply to by D503

D503 any_mouse Mon, 03/26/2018 - 01:00 Permalink

That is because men invariably hold the reigns of actual physical and mental dominance and they are held accountable for such responsibility, whether or not they are holding guns.

Women, on the other hand, hold power over the men they willingly share their reproductive facilities with, in the form of exchanging her ability to incubate children for his ability to keep her safe from harm and through provision. 

In the tiny fraction of the human existence these past three generations have observed, fossil fuels have perverted people's understanding of the necessary dichotomy of gender roles.

Women imagine they are equal in the workplace when no data supports that claim generally. They avoid high stress, high risk jobs and work five hours less a week on average.

No one acknowledges that the pay gap is more than balanced by the income produced by husbands that is shared with stay at home mothers in single income homes. Or the disparity in benefits granted by the state to the taxes paid. 

No one discusses the fact that infanticide is ~8/100,000 of live births with 70%+ involving the mother but the murder rate is magically only ~5/100,000. That does not include abortions.

And no one acknowledges that no woman has been convicted for whipping out a titty for nearly fifty years. 

A woman's worth is her ability to bear children, and a man's worth is his ability to provide for her and said children.

Neither the former, or the latter, needs, or can reasonably expect, the other to do their respective work. Hence the male nipple is of no import to other men or a woman and not as erogenous to a woman as a fat wallet, bulging muscles, or a brilliant mind, and the woman's nipple excites men. 

So shut up about your supposed oppression olympics and show me 'em titties baby!

In reply to by any_mouse

bloofer D503 Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:00 Permalink

men invariably hold the reigns of actual physical and mental dominance and they are held accountable for such responsibility

Well actually men are not held accountable for much of anything. I often remark (whenever I get the chance) that the Women Liberation Movement liberated men, not women; it liberated men from all social, sexual, and financial responsibility. The feminist movement, with its demand that women be compensated equally in the workforce, arose largely because men had already abdicated from the abovementioned responsibilities and women had already been force to assume the traditional male responsibilities of provider and protector of the family by this male abdication.

They avoid high stress, high risk jobs and work five hours less a week on average.

I don't know if women avoid high stress, high risk jobs. Depends which jobs you would define as high risk, high stress. It is probably true that women work five hours less a week on average--in the workplace. This is partly because they work an additional 40 hours a week in the home, which the men do not. That is, most women are putting in a double shift every day, compared to the men's single shift. The men can put in 50 hours a week in the workplace due to having few if any additional responsibilities outside the workplace. He may put in 50 hours a week at work, but his wife is pulling 80-hour weeks, all told.

I was recently watching Molyneux's video, The Truth About the Fall of the Roman Empire, in which he mentions that one of the "tells" of a declining/collapsing civilization is the increased presence of women in roles outside the home, and in leadership roles. He is suggesting--perhaps--that women in such roles is a causative factor.

Actually, this is not a cause of decline/collapse, but a symptom. Women assume roles outside the home because the men previously abdicated from all responsibility, ceased to be providers and protectors, and women were forced into these roles. The decline/collapse of civilizations is not because women assume male roles, but because men cease to assume male roles, leaving women to fend for themselves and their children.

Women assume male roles subsequent to the men's abdication from them. 

In reply to by D503

D503 bloofer Mon, 03/26/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

"Well actually men are not held accountable for much of anything. I often remark (whenever I get the chance) that the Women Liberation Movement liberated men, not women; it liberated men from all social, sexual, and financial responsibility."

 It transferred the power from the individual to the state, and criminalized being a bad provider.

Your position is nullified when one considers that women are free to abandon their responsibility to their children at any time after consenting to sex and that invariably the collective of men are forced to provide when the individual man is dismissed. That is demonstrated in the taxation to benefits disparity between the genders.

Just because men and women were foolish enough to trade a sustainable structure of individual rights and responsibilities to each other does not imply additional freedoms granted.

"I don't know if women avoid high stress, high risk jobs. Depends which jobs you would define as high risk, high stress."

I would define high risk, high stress jobs as being those where death is a daily possibility or highly contentious battles for superordinance is a standard. 

This is demonstrated in the disparity in female CEOs and dangerous fields of work. While a woman who flags cars might be considered "a construction worker," she rarely is the one swinging from a building or liquidating assets.

We can take note further that the debate constantly is concerned with men not encouraging female participation. Once again men are held accountable for women being unable to force their way into the leadership role. 

"It is probably true that women work five hours less a week on average--in the workplace."

 It is demonstrably true given the BLS reports, not "probably true."

Further, the labor women claim to do at home has no objective proof. My housekeeper comes one day a week, is never here when I leave, and is rarely here when I return. She does all the laundry, dishes (I dont make many), cleans all the rooms, and all the women I date remark on how incredibly clean the house is. Therefore the labor one could objectively compare is less than eight hours a week. 

The only houses I have been in that I could white glove for dust have professional housekeepers. How can that be?

Just because a woman might claim she works thirty-fifty hours in the home, unpaid, does not make it true. Moreover, the labor she might be performing is for her own satisfaction and is not expected, requested, or necessary. There is a tax exemption for hobbies.

"He is suggesting--perhaps--that women in such roles is a causative factor."

He very likely is suggesting that, but I find Molyneux to glom onto successful narratives in order to promote his own platform.

That being said, women, in general, actively discourage competition and want responsibility to be distributed among a collective and not individuals. Especially not individual women. 

I argue women typically do not move into fields of work until the work is low risk relative to the other options, and that any field of work nearing gender parity often contributes little value to society or is "busy work." Women tend to gravitate towards positions that require a lot of talking, menial repetition, hand waving, subjective indefinable topics with low reward, low risk and low specialized instruction, and facilitation roles. 

And this brings us to your final point:

"Women assume male roles subsequent to the men's abdication from them"

It is the fact that women in general advocate for the right to be granted the opportunity for responsibility and then complain when men facilitate that right by granting it. 

When you have to ask for permission to be free to fail, you are not an agent. 

Women assume roles when there is no risk in taking them and forcing men out of them.

When you are granted those freedoms and you choose to exercise them to everyone's detriment (80% of divorce filings, abortion rates almost at parity with birth rates despite contraceptives and sex ed, dominance of the education system and access to college degrees without success in the workplace etc), and you still promote the concept that men are still the beneficiaries of your own granted're quite simply claiming men are superior by birthright and that women are incapable of agency at parity.

If I have to take pieces off my side of the chess board for you to occasionally win, and you still complain when you lose, we aren't equals. 

Women demand men abdicate the throne, then bitch about the work and competition required on the throne, but argue lesser roles are subservient?

​​​​​ Your entire response attempts to hold men accountable for the actions, and outcomes, of women's decisions. How does this not support my postulation?

In reply to by bloofer

InnVestuhrr FEDbuster Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:36 Permalink

First legislation resulting from the suffragette movement was Prohibition, which banned all alcoholic beverages, including all beer and wine, put millions of Americans out of work, closed thousands of traditional businesses and gave birth to organized crime.

Yeah, sure, lets let these slime slits run society with their superior morality and judgement.

In reply to by FEDbuster

Pure Evil InnVestuhrr Sun, 03/25/2018 - 20:06 Permalink

Make no mistake about it, in about 20 years they will be running society.

First they'll have to get through their party years, that takes about 10 years.

Then when they become thirty somethings they'll become more politically aware.

Then they'll start running for public office and back-stabbing their way up the corporate ladder.

Right now the major corporations are so politically correct by the time these young ones arrive it will be all over for the old US.

In reply to by InnVestuhrr

bloofer InnVestuhrr Mon, 03/26/2018 - 05:28 Permalink

You may have noticed that there is no modern Prohibition movement among women.


Divorce. In the olden days, an alcoholic husband was a lifelong curse. You couldn't get rid of the guy. Hence, the womenfolk focused on getting the dude to stop drinking.

Nowadays, the womenfolk divorce their drunken husbands and hence no longer care if he drinks--as long as he drinks elsewhere. 


In reply to by InnVestuhrr

WOAR IridiumRebel Sun, 03/25/2018 - 22:05 Permalink

That won't matter though - they will simply delete your comments. It has happened to me on different forums. You cannot be allowed to win, so rather than leave your facts to stand on their merits, they will obliterate them from the record, and say it didn't happen.

You will be on the defensive forever, always having to defend yourself from not only the next moron, but the moron from yesterday that refuses to lose. It is an unwinnable situation. The only way to win this game is to topple the board over, and stop playing by their rules.

By that, I don't mean that you should attack them. That would be asinine, and self defeating. Rather, attack the things that give them their power. Media. Youtube. Cameras. Fame. Notoriety. Take these away from them, and they won't act as they do - they will become violent, and let their true views out. That is the only way you can win; defend yourself when they are free to be violent, and the story afterwards will be your own.

So don't attack these idiots. Hit the power plants. The substations. The fiber optic cables. The roads. The bridges. The buses. Everything these idiots depend on, take it out. Then we'll see just how peaceful they really are, and how many actually believe that guns should be taken from everyone...

In reply to by IridiumRebel

DaiRR Nekoti Mon, 03/26/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

Three observations about high schooler David Hogg, self-styled "spokesman" of the Children Against Guns movement:  1.  He's Joseph Goebbels reincarnated,  2.  He's a pencil neck geek, little twerp that he is, and  3. Soros and the globalists are loving and funding Children Against Guns with tens of millions.

April 14th, 2018 at my state capital, I'll be there.

In reply to by Nekoti

Oldwood gatorengineer Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:45 Permalink

You fail to recognize the principles of progressive instigation.

They have successfully framed to conversation so as to incite a reaction that proves their point.

Gun owners reacting violently to real provocation demonstrates EVERYTHING their decades of indoctrination have been preaching.

Rational thought is verboten, criminal hate speech, that also proves your hate and indifference to the lives of innocent chillens. Speak of facts, of statistics, and you are as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger.

In reply to by gatorengineer

Oldwood gladih8r Sun, 03/25/2018 - 22:10 Permalink

That might be fine if not for progressives forcing us to subsidize and "save" them.

Remember, personal responsibility is outlawed except for a select group of white hetero males who suffer eternal guilt....for wanting pussy and for the heritage of sin from two thousand years of injustice to the losers of the world.

In reply to by gladih8r

serotonindumptruck NumberNone Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:22 Permalink

I've seen no indication that this movement has anything to do with race.

If people choose to call me a racist because I point out statistical facts, such as where one half of all homicides in the USA are committed by African Americans, who represent approximately one third of the entire US population, then logic dictates that African Americans are genetically predisposed to acts of murder and extreme violence, and thus, I must be a racist for pointing this out.

I'll wear that label as a badge of honor.

In reply to by NumberNone

serotonindumptruck NumberNone Sun, 03/25/2018 - 19:50 Permalink

I have a couple of nice ball-peen hammers that can effectively kill someone, and yet, there is no popular revolution calling for the banning of ball-peen hammers.

This movement is less about gun-control, and more about society control.

The presence of firearms in American households create a stumbling block to a complete governmental dictatorship, where any resistance or dissent from the average citizen is met with extreme violence from the State.

If the average citizen has the means to resist the State, then a balance can be maintained. 

In reply to by NumberNone