The Parkland Generation

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
There is this large media narrative that today's youth supports gun control because they are tired of being murdered in their schools on what the news would have you believe is a routine basis. Reason makes the case that the younger generation is actually substantially more pro-gun than previous generations (all that Call of Duty and Battlefield?).

http://reason.com/blog/2018/03/29/the-media-ignores-millennials-skepticism

If this is the case, then the push for gun control now is basically an attempt to lock in as much gun control as possible before older voters who are more supportive of bans die off.
 
This is the latest in a coordinated movement. During the 2016 campaign, Wikileaks showed that news media was running stories by the Hillary Campaign before going on air or to print.

It is meant to give the impression most students want gun bans. The same people that "cannot be trusted to own a gun until 21" are somehow the ones we are "supposed to listen to on gun rights."

It will cow some spineless politicians, Marco Rubio already caved on standard capacity magazines, it will demoralize some gun owners, but it will wake up others....this has been tried before and it failed then.

We are up against a lot though, for sure, but the only difference now is how organized their side is, how connected with their phones, and we have a GOP dominated govt that is full of RINO's. Their failure to make good on their previous platform of "repeal ACA" is an excellent example of what to expect from them now.
 
^^^

Lesson -- it's not okay for adults to tell the truth about Parkland "survivors" (most of whom were in a different building and didn't "survive" anything), but it's okay for kids to attack adults in any way they wish, because they're "survivors" and they want to change the world. (Never mind that they don't know anything about the real world in general, let alone the issue on which they wish to change the world -- we're supposed to pay attention to them and give in to their demands because they're "survivors.")
 
A few things to keep in perspective.

#1. The vast majority of kids today didn't participate in any type of gun protests. There are about equal numbers who have strong pro-gun views as those who are anti gun. Most are somewhere in the middle with no strong feelings either way. Those can either be on our side or against us depending on how things are handled.

#2. There is no rule that says we have to participate in every fight we are invited to. Sometimes ignoring someone is the best way to insult them. Ingraham's comments recruited more anti-gun than pro gun teenagers.
 
Ingraham's comments recruited more anti-gun than pro gun teenagers.

I doubt she created anything. I don't like that she got off topic but that happens all the time. A certain President is attacked, daily, with wild statements, accusations, protests, etc. and no one is punished for it.

One side will do whatever it can to silence dissent and the other side doesn't. Business owners tend to be very weak these days, even though the "700,000 Twitter followers" never bought from them in the first place and even if they did, you have to stand for something or you'll go along with anything.
 
I'm trying to word this in a manner that is not going to become too political... I have managed to do this and some of you are going to take this a condemnation of "today's" youth. It's not. Yes there are exceptions. Yes I know some of you were / are independent and handling everything since you were six years old. SOME.

At 18 years old most people have had someone else handle major issues and solve most of their issues of them. Get in a fight? The teachers and school administration handles the problem. Forget your lunch money? The school has a solution. Need lunch money? Your parents will give it to you. Can't afford lunch money? The government will solve it. Need a ride to your friend's house? Someone will get you a ride. Don't know how to hit the ball? The coach will help you out.

There is absolutely no reason to think that individuals, at that point in their life, should expect that some problems cannot be solved readily. And like it or not mass shootings look like a MAJOR problem. Surely the government and the other adults can SOLVE the problem right?

Then again maybe I just lived a blessed and isolated childhood.
 
#1. The vast majority of kids today didn't participate in any type of gun protests. There are about equal numbers who have strong pro-gun views as those who are anti gun. Most are somewhere in the middle with no strong feelings either way. Those can either be on our side or against us depending on how things are handled.
Click to expand...

This. We were in downtown Grand Rapids when the "march for our lives" went on. My wife noted how many people were there. I noted how few there were considering the big push for it, the scheduling of it, and the short time "required" by those who wanted to march. Were they vocal? Yep. Were they anything but a vocal minority? Nope.
 
jmr40 said:
Ingraham's comments recruited more anti-gun than pro gun teenagers.
Click to expand...

That seems unlikely.

I'd wager that the number of teens who watch Fox News evening programming is quite small. Her comments reviewed in the Tribune were not false or provocative; they were pretty bland. Her comments weren't off topic for her; when your role is commenting on current events, and the advocate du jour with mediocre SAT numbers complains to a reporter about the schools he didn't get into, that's a current event that will draw comment.
 
zukiphile said:
when your role is commenting on current events, and the advocate du jour with mediocre SAT numbers complains to a reporter about the schools he didn't get into, that's a current event that will draw comment.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it's not an even playing field. Special snowflakes are allowed to spew the vilest, nastiest insults about anyone they like, and they get a pass because they're "special," but nobody is allowed to say anything remotely unflattering about them because ... well, because they're special.
 
This is the only country on Earth were people are 'protesting' to relinquish their rights...

WTH is wrong with us...
 
This is the only country on Earth were people are 'protesting' to relinquish their rights...
Click to expand...

Relinquishing rights you have no intention of exercising is fairly meaningless. They are not protesting to relinquish their rights. They are protesting to rescind yours.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Unfortunately, it's not an even playing field. Special snowflakes are allowed to spew the vilest, nastiest insults about anyone they like, and they get a pass because they're "special," but nobody is allowed to say anything remotely unflattering about them because ... well, because they're special.
Click to expand...

These figures are as "special" as we allow though. It's the metaphorical tip-toeing around them that perpetuates an aura of untouchability. Encouraging that special handling gives the advocate what he or his affiliates sought.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son and was opposed to the action in Iraq. She was supposed to get special treatment, but that sense that this woman couldn't be criticized melted away the more she was legitimately criticized for the what she said and the alliances in which she involved herself.
 
zukiphile said:
These figures are as "special" as we allow though. It's the metaphorical tip-toeing around them that perpetuates an aura of untouchability. Encouraging that special handling gives the advocate what he or his affiliates sought.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son and was opposed to the action in Iraq. She was supposed to get special treatment, but that sense that this woman couldn't be criticized melted away the more she was legitimately criticized for the what she said and the alliances in which she involved herself.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but in the case of the Parkland Posse we're not allowed to say anything contrary to their narrative because, after all, "they're children," and they "survived" an horrific event. I still want to know how many of them were actually in the same building and on the same floor as the shooter. If they weren't "there," then they didn't "survive" anything -- they were just in the general vicinity of an event that affected other people, but not them.
 
What we are seeing is more of what we have been seeing since the early 90's, except now they have radically stepped up their game.

Most of the big media companies (newspapers and TV) are against the masses having and being able to use guns.

The big social media companies, the alternative to the large media corporations and newsprint: Twitter, Youtube (Google), and Facebook are openly opposed to gun ownership and to conservative voices in general. This is very well-established and conservatives are constantly banned and silenced on these sites.

The school systems and colleges are very anti-gun ownership and anti-conservative voice. This has gotten to the point of rewarding violent behavior being used to prevent conservative speaker lectures.

Laura Inghram was targeted. After the success found taking down Bill O'Reilly, those that hate the First Amendment learned what works, going after the sponsors with social media avalanches. Laura was targeted because she is one of the very few people on TV that is (was) critical of Hogg and his positions. Her having to apologize shows how readily Fox News will cancel her show and replace her with someone more pleasing to Hogg and his crusaders.
 
Too many growing up fatherless, too much "genderblending", too little time with adults, too much with peers, the web, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top