Posted on 02/22/2018 5:21:44 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
The newest iteration of the gun control debate concerns whether teenage survivors of last weeks shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, should be immune from criticism when they argue for gun control. This is a relatively new question: other school shootings, like Sandy Hook in 2012, have involved children too young to have opinions. But the answer is no: once you enter the political arena, your views are fair game. Democrats have perfected the art of using sympathetic public figures to argue for positions most Americans reject, then accusing critics of mean-spiritedness when they disagree. We saw that tactic in the Khizr Khan controversy in 2016, when a Muslim father whose son died fighting for the U.S. blasted Donald Trump from the podium at the Democratic National Convention. When Trump responded, he was accused of attacking a Gold Star family. Likewise in the gun control debate, where people who disagree with impassioned calls for gun control from some of the students who survived the Parkland shooting are being accused of attacking children. Some of the responses to the students are, indeed over-the-top, such as conspiracy theories about whether some of them are trained actors. It is probably true that some are being coached or fed talking points, but that does not make their beliefs less sincere. However, the fact remains that many of the arguments used by the teenagers are weak, or simply false.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
These kids are too good at this.
Something ain’t right...
They are being used.
Those teens feel so good about themselves, speaking out for a worthy cause, doing something. Fame on TV and social media. Cameras looking at them. Great self-esteem enhancer. Probably getting participation trophies. Missing school to travel in style to speak out. Taking on people that have been into the issue for longer than theyve been alive.
In other countries, teens are indoctrinated to do suicide bombings for their worthy cause.
What are the students responsibilities in all of this when they admit they knew this guy was trouble? Did they demand security at the entrances? No, maybe they should take some of the blame.
I’m actually surprised - The kids from Sandy Hook are old enough to appear on camera and yet we haven’t seen or heard anything from them.
Normally a non-issue but we all know the Media wants to parade kids out to push their own agenda and NOTHING will do it like the Sandy Hook kids.
You see, this is why I think the Sandy Hook thing was partially faked. And “I’m from” Sandy Hook.
Democrats say it is 26 (Obamacare). Hold them to it.
They said that only for some college-related reason. Right?
Teenage kids don’t need to start running the country. They are just being exploited by the gun control crowd.
Raising the legal age to 21 will do nothing to stop school shootings. Adam Landa used his mothers guns. Its feel good legislation to avoid holding the FBI and the community accountable. All these shooters are known entities and nobody intervenes.
Oh I agree, but since this is turning into some fake agenda talk....I’m a believer in raising the poker stakes and making the game more interesting. I just want to layer the whole board and make the dimwit anti-gun idiot to start sweating over a lot of age 21 issues....not just guns.
By ignoring them they are allowed to bask in their limelight and feel like they won something. What needs to happen is for reasoned adults to be seen in contrast to them (preferably on the same stage), taking their disrespectful righteously indignant barbs and deflecting them with real-world experiential solutions. These adults must debate the students into logical holes where they become frustrated, angry, and irrational in response. They must be confronted with facts, statistics, prior legislations, and other historical evidence that student minds haven't absorbed yet.
The students must be made to feel embarrassed by their youth and inexperience, as Ronald Reagan once quipped, such that they would think twice before fronting for an issue again until they are mentally and emotionally prepared for the rebuttals, and until they can comport themselves respectfully towards more accomplished people than themselves.
Michelle Malkin was right in yesterday's column, Do Not Let the Children Lead
Excerpt:
This is not compassion, but abdication. America is not a juvenilocracy. It is a constitutional republic. There is a reason we don't elect high school sophomores and juniors to public office or allow them to cast ballots. There are many, many reasons, actually.Pubescents are fueled by hormones and dopamine and pizza and Sonic shakes. They're fickle and fragile and fierce and forgetful. They hate you. They love you. They need you. They ignore you. They know everything. They know nothing. All in the span of 10 seconds. I know. I have two of them.
If you're lucky, they've only Googled "Should I eat Tide pods?" or "What happens if I snort Ramen powder?" and not actually attempted the latest social media stunt challenges.
But that's what kids do. Because they're kids.
Many may be exceptionally smart, passionate and articulate beyond their years, but they do not possess any semblance of wisdom because they have not lived those years. Their knowledge of history, law and public policy is severely limited (Common Core certainly hasn't helped). And their moral agency and cognitive abilities are far from fully developed.
Most are in no position to change the world when they can't even remember to change their own bedsheets.
-PJ
I say we ban all children.
That’s just as sensible as banning guns to solve school shootings.
If Cruz had used a bolt action the dumshits would still be callling for AR 15 bans ....and bolt actions as well.
How can you blame high school students for not recognizing whenThe republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. ― Alexander Hamiltonapplies to a political nostrum someone has them all excited over?
You don’t need to ask them — They’re going to tell you whether you ask or not.
Since these kids decided to play with the big boys, time to open up with both barrels on them. (Pun absolutely intended) Of course, now I expect I will be accused of threatening someone, somehow since the topic is about guns and the cliché has to do with guns as well.
So, for those of you out there thinking this, my comment above uses a cliché and the pun is intended as a pun only.
Sad to think I believe I have to write all of the above to use a cliché and make a pun.
JoMa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.