We've been particularly tuned in to the teenage furor expressed since the latest school shootings occurred -- they're angrier and more passionate this time, helped along no doubt by a bevy of Democrats and others with a stake in the hate game. Watching some of the same student faces showing up on TV show after TV show does, however, raise certain questions -- for instance, some observers of a questioning mind have focused on young student David Hogg -- and no, I won't submit to low humor by asking if his friends call him "Boss Hogg" in homage to "The Dukes of Hazzard." Nevertheless, accounts allege that he maintains a deep interest in journalism and actually works as a "stringer" for a news service, and perhaps the thought is that he appears too willing to stand before the cameras to discuss the tragedy at his high school, as TV networks host him more because they consider him their guy who can do the desired talking for them. What are his politics? What are those of his friends, wounded or not? We have heard there are conservative voices among the school folk, but news services certainly aren't playing their lives up for the TV cameras.
So I've been watching all the TV reports and all the reaction, yet at first I was sincerely puzzled over why so many of the young people have slipped into such a heightened, stormy world of outrage seldom witnessed in past years.
But the answer wasn't all that elusive, for these, the 15 and 16-year-old kids in particular grew up in a world gone nuts, a world where fear of strangers and anything lacking electronics is common.
Worst of all, these young adults were raised with electronic devices promising instant gratification -- if they wanted something to happen, it only required tapping on a few keys and it was accomplished. They always get their way. They've always been special.
But not this time.
This time, it appears that a good many student protestors really thought that by attending a meeting or two and setting verbal traps for the NRA, Marco Rubio and other Republicans they would gain an instant win and all the guns which they personally detest would go away in one wide swipe of the hand. Instant gratification. I suspect they have a problem reconciling instant gratification with functions of the legal system, and when you're young and hysterical and you want something now, but you can't get it now, the shouts and literal tantrums grow. Where does grief hang out while public displays are orchestrated?
If government leaders took quick action to accommodate the fragmented "hope and change" desires of every group of protesting young people, imagine where the country would be.
Another issue peculiar to the current generation of high school as well as college students is a refusal to even listen to points of view contrary to their own, and "their" opinions are quite often implanted in their brains by progressive teachers and professors -- essentially wrecking opportunities for many young folk to perform any critical or balanced thinking at all. We've all witnessed the shout-down chaos initiated by the political left on college campuses when guests holding opposing views attempt to speak, and this approach was certainly obvious during CNN's free-range verbal massacre regarding gun violence.
The usual leftist component ranks supreme in this issue, the goal being to (1) rid the country of ALL firearms, no matter how long it takes and (2) win elections in November. But for now, using heartbroken students as dupes to chomp away at hard-fought rights the kids will likely never see again if poor decisions ultimately prevail, the progressive bunch will ply its trade either in front or behind the scenes, and we only hope the real leaders among students will come to realize how they may condemn their rights to oblivion when wrapped up in misguided efforts engulfed in panic and sadness.
Yet -- imagine if somehow all the major civilian firearm hardware was confiscated and destroyed over a period of years. Then, say an EMP or some electrical grid-demolishing process infiltrated the United States, perhaps initiated by an enemy with capabilities unknown. Suddenly, we're back to the 1800s, devoid of modern conveniences and the protection afforded by, truly, "big guns," a situation which goes not unnoticed by said enemy.
Sure, we're fully aware that survivalist or militia members secured in a bunker, expecting during normal times to hold off the entire U.S. military with a cache of weaponry, would be dog food in thirty seconds or less. But we're talking about a country in the future, devoid of major civilian firepower, and should we get to that point, what if well-armed enemy soldiers invaded the U.S. in numerous areas, many of which may be immediately inaccessible to or unknown to our own military? Suddenly, people would wish they still maintained the lost tools and era of self-defense, when at least they would have a chance to fend off an enemy attack.
Of course this sounds crazy, but so will the nutty gun legislation ideas poised to inundate us as election season approaches.
The school victims and the shooter? Oh, right, almost forgot about them. . .
Don't do it, Florida: The Florida governor wants to raise the age for purchasing any guns from 18 to 21. As a Republican, he should be a little more tuned in to the fact that not all 18-20 year old people are potential criminals. We realize he's trying to DO SOMETHING, but taking part in the chipping away of a basic right to please the grief-stricken in the short term is not the way to go, and he should stand up and say so. Alas, politics gets in the way and leftists in waiting will probably get their way, as they so often do.
