March for Our Lives was the outcome of Parkland. Kids who went to that school formed a gun control group for young people in response to the shooting, which was probably inevitable.

Now, there's nothing wrong with young people getting involved in politics. This is probably a good thing, overall, though I do wish they'd do so with an understanding of what our rights actually are.

But it seems that they don't even understand what it is they're saying.

Let's start with this post, which started an entire thread.

2025: It’s not about “banning guns,” it’s about building a world where EVERY young person doesn’t have to fear for their lives. What’s controversial about that? That’s what we mean when we say the “five forces that fuel gun violence.” Let’s break it down. 🧵👇 pic.twitter.com/TSI4fanz6N

— March For Our Lives ☮️🟧 (@AMarch4OurLives) January 13, 2025

I believe that whole list is what we might call "cringe."

Seriously, for a group that bills itself as non-partisan, the part about Glen Powell is the only thing that's not explicitly a Democratic talking point.

But I share this mostly because it sets the stage for their next posts. First, let's look at this one:

The U.S. has 4% of the world’s population but owns 40% of the civilian guns. That’s not a “right,” it’s a cultural crisis. The gun lobby is playing us. They pretend like guns “keep you safe” and “protect your manhood.” Lies. Own a gun? You’re more likely to shoot yourself or…

— March For Our Lives ☮️🟧 (@AMarch4OurLives) January 13, 2025

So because we are the only nation that respects the right to keep and bear arms, thus have the lion's share of "civilian guns," that somehow negates it as a right?

Also, the whole "you're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one" nonsense is from a debunked study that didn't differentiate between lawfully owned firearms and criminals. Even then, they're misrepresenting what it actually said.

However, here's where things get interesting. This is where they lose the plot.

When armed militias storm capitols and threaten protestors, or when a cop threatens a civilian with a gun for little to no reason, that’s armed supremacy. Threatening others to get your way isn’t right, and it isn’t “public safety.” Time to break down this cycle of violence.

— March For Our Lives ☮️🟧 (@AMarch4OurLives) January 13, 2025

Of course, "armed militias" haven't stormed capitols and threatened protestors with guns. If they did, that's a crime and they should be prosecuted for it, only they didn't. January 6th, for example, involved the most heavily-armed demographic and yet not a single person other than Capitol Police had a firearm in the building.

But what's interesting is they say, "[W]hen a cop threatens a civilian with a gun for little to no reason."

Uh...are they talking about disarming cops, too?

It sure looks like it.

Again, let's understand that if a cop actually threatens a civilian with a gun for little to no reason, he too has broken the law or, at a minimum, department policy. He's likely to be out of a job, at least if the system works as designed. When it doesn't, by all means, call officials on it. This is something we can all agree.

But what they're doing here is equating illegal action with gun ownership.

Let's keep in mind that actual crimes, though, are generally committed with guns obtained illegally, something they never address. Instead, they seem to suggest complete disarmament of, well, everyone except maybe the military, all while ignoring how criminals get firearms in the first place.

They start off by claiming it's not about banning guns, but absolutely nothing that follows remotely looks like they want anything but.

For a generation that's supposed to be good at social media, they really suck at it.