March for Our Lives Marches Off Toward Irrelevance

In the past couple of years, the gun control group March for Our Lives has been forced to lay off most of its staff and scale back its anti-gun efforts due to a lack of funding. Much of the group's work now seems to consist of trolling Second Amendment groups like the NRA, like a string of posts directed at the NRA over its praise for the armed citizen who stopped the shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon last week. 

The NRA wants you to focus on how this was stopped, but the focus should be on how it started: a system that allowed a gun in the hands of a 16-year-old. By the time anyone could stop him, a 5-year-old, an 8-year-old, an 11-year-old, and their teacher were already dead. That’s not a reminder of anything except what our leaders failed to prevent.

— March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) October 16, 2026

And what was this "system"? The 16-year-old couldn't legally possess the shotgun he used in the attack. He certainly wasn't allowed to carry it on to school grounds (neither was Kaylub Giamanco, the man who shot and killed the attacker). Oregon has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. If they weren't enough to prevent this shooting, it's reasonable to ask what law or laws March for Our Lives believes would have made a difference? 

We can ask, but don't expect an answer. The group has plenty of complaints, but no solutions. 

He stopped the shooter, but he didn't stop the shooting. That's the difference. Three kids and their teacher were already dead, and an unarmed teacher had tackled him first. YOU spent decades blocking laws that keep guns away from kids. Now you're taking a victory lap? Fuck that.

— March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) October 17, 2026

Despite MFOL's assertions, Oregon does have a gun storage law in place that states an "owner or possessor of a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the owner, possessor or authorized person, secure the firearm" with an engaged trigger or cable lock, in a locked container or in a gun room. 

Of course, there's no way to proactively enforce that law without sending police into homes to conduct warrantless searches of the premises and check to see if gun owners are in compliance. Is that what March for Our Lives is looking for? If so, why not come out and tell us? 

To be fair, MFOL isn't the only gun control outfit that has suggested there's some policy out there that could have prevented this shooting without sharing what that policy might be. Brady, Giffords, and Everytown have all offered commentary along those same lines. As far as I can tell, though, March for Our Lives is the only one who's directly engaged with Second Amendment groups like the NRA and tried to shame them for praising the man who put a stop to this shooting. 

March for Our Lives is right about one thing: stopping a shooting isn't the same as preventing it. But wishing this attack had never happened isn't a policy proposal, and attacking the man who stopped it (or those who praise his courage) does nothing to make another tragedy less likely. If March for Our Lives has a concrete proposal that would have prevented this killer from getting his hands on a gun, let's hear it. Until then, the group might want to spend less time lashing out at the NRA and more time acknowledging the bravery of a man who did what no gun control law could: stop a killer before he could claim another innocent life.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.