This NRA protest sign misses the target

“Adults choose their toys over my body. Where are my rights?”

Those words were chalked on a sign held by a ten-year-old girl at a rally outside of the National Rifle Association’s annual convention this past weekend. That will instantly tug at your heartstrings, unless you think.

What this sign really says: Your constitutionally-protected right is superseded by my imagined rights.

We already have laws protecting this child’s body and rights. She needs to ask what her rights are instead of where, because she’s under the misapprehension that her rights are violated by someone owning a gun. You don’t need a constitutional law degree to know that there are flaws in this child’s knowledge and reasoning; you just need to stop and think. Then you can avoid experiencing inappropriate emotions and going down a path of thoughts, words, and actions predicated on a faulty premise.


Another potential misfire in reasoning here? The idea that I don’t care about this child because I find fault with her protest. That is far from truth, but that’s where some people go with this debate. Not only do I care about her body and her rights, I care about her psyche and her future. I’m sad for her, that her fears have been dangerously misdirected and that she believes she is a victim of people so selfish, they care more about “their toys” than her body. I’m angry at those who feed her such lies and praise her misguided response.

Let me pause for a moment on that thought, because this child isn’t alone in her belief. A generation of Americans is being trained to believe that millions of their fellow citizens are so selfish, they care more about “their toys” than others’ lives. Let that sink in, because that mass belief will reap extraordinary consequences. Our thinking (or lack thereof) leads to our beliefs, which lead to everything we do.

It’s a shame that this child and so many others are not being educated in truth and reason, because it obscures the real issues, subsequently hurting people and pushing real solutions further from our reach. Perhaps, though, it tells us something about the real agenda. As always, thinking helps us awaken to truth.

Surely you have your own thoughts about this. Leave a reply below!

6 thoughts on “This NRA protest sign misses the target

  1. greenpete58 says:

    First off, I “think” you’re taking too literally the words on a sign held by a “ten-year-old girl” that protests the gun policies of the NRA, a lobby funded by gun manufacturers, and which are contributing to unprecedented mayhem in America. Secondly, you say the sign protects an “imaginary right” over a “Constitutionally protected right,” because the sign uses the words “toys” and “body,” but this is an enormous leap in reasoning. You need to be much more specific as to why a limit on certain “toys” is unconstitutional, and why protection of a child’s body from weapons, including military weapons, is an “imaginary right.” Are you familiar with the term “human rights”?

    There are other things in your essay I find fault with, such as your blazing arrogance that you’re more educated in “truth and reason” than a ten-year-old girl merely because you have a different belief system, but I’ll stop there.

    “Think” about it.


    • Elizabeth Whitworth says:

      Thank you for your comment! The “imaginary rights” I speak of are those in conflict with someone owning a gun. Someone owning a gun doesn’t conflict with anyone’s rights, but this sign’s message says that it does. Her belief that her rights are violated by someone owning a gun reveal to me a flaw in her knowledge and reasoning.

      Liked by 1 person

      • greenpete58 says:

        Thanks for replying. Does her sign dispute anyone’s Constitutional “right” to own a weapon? No. It’s saying adults “choose” their toys. Which is what they do. No dispute of any right, regardless of whether certain “rights,” such as an individual owning military weapons, are truly guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. As far as the “Where are my rights?” part, she is obviously indicating that she has the right to walk down the street, and attend school, without being gunned down. Her sign implies that she has the right to EXIST, without fear of being murdered, or killed accidentally, by a legally or illegally owned firearm. Which supersedes an adult’s right to own a dangerous “toy”… in her and many people’s opinion.

        Only in this day and age in America would I be debating the meaning of a 10-year-old’s protest sign against NRA gun policy in the wake of successive mass murders in public schools. With an adult, no less. Very sad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elizabeth Whitworth says:

        I agree with you that the sign does not dispute the right to bear arms; it acknowledges it. I agree with you that she has the right to exist. What I take issue with is the way the sign misleadingly belittles a constitutionally-protected right and juxtaposes it with the right to life, indicating that the two are incompatible. They are not.

        Certainly, if someone uses a gun or anything else to take her life, her ultimate right would be violated. But she’s protesting outside an NRA convention, not a maximum-security prison. She’s protesting gun ownership and use, not murder.

        If your premise is that gun control is the only (or best) way to protect children from gun violence, then I can understand your concern with my views. I don’t believe that gun control is an effective way to protect people, so that’s perhaps where we ultimately differ.


      • greenpete58 says:

        You seem like a nice person, and you look fairly young, so you may be new to the gun debate. I don’t claim to be more knowledgeable, but I’ve been at it for a while. Here’s my stance:

        “If your premise is that gun control is the only (or best) way to protect children from gun violence…” I don’t believe it’s the only way, but probably the best way. Gun violence is a public health crisis in America. When you have a public health crisis, you attack the problem from multiple fronts: watchdogging/limiting violence in media, increased mental health funding, AND gun control. But the gun lobby has successfully bamboozled many Americans, like yourself and a number of politicians, that the last-named should be taken off the table. Primarily by waving the 2nd Amendment and misinterpreting its intent (which is a whole separate discussion).

        “I don’t believe that gun control is an effective way to protect people…” I’m not sure how you can reach this conclusion, other than you’ve, again, been bamboozled by the NRA. If you limit availability of a tool of violence, you make it harder for dangerous individuals to obtain those tools. Can they circumvent the law and obtain them anyway? Yes, certainly. But limitation reduces the likelihood. America has laws restricting the sale, distribution, and possession of hard drugs, which kill a lot of people (including people I’ve known). I could be wrong, but I don’t think you’d advocate removing controls on drugs like heroin. Not a good public health policy.

        There are many statistics out there that show stringent gun control measures, while never totally eliminating gun violence, do have profound effects. America has the most lax gun laws of any developed nation, and 25 times the per capita gun murder rate of those same nations. 25 times. And you don’t think that, maybe, there’s a connection?? Come on.

        Please, before you are so quick to drink the NRA Kool-Aid, check out what’s happening in other free nations regarding THEIR gun policies. You may want to start by reading this article:

        Thanks for listening.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s