[BenLurkin]

Thank you for posting a carefully crafted vanity. They are rarity.

That said, what you don’t understand is that youth are easily fooled into accepting “facts and stats” which have been tweaked and twisted in orxer to advance an agenda.

Which is where older persons have an advantage of experience. They sniff out the frauds with agendas who prey on idealistic youth.

[Lurker]

“The older generations indeed have their input on the past, since they lived through it.”

We are living through the present right along with you, you dolt.

L

[SkyDancer]

Thing is the 2nd. never says anything about age.

[Yosemitest]

If you think that 'the Youth' of today, as you wrote ...

"see the situation as it is –
and based on stats and facts,
they can come up with an objective solution. "

Then you need to THINK AGAIN !

By a large amount, most of today's 'youth' are governed more by emotions than by logic.
Of today's 'youth', the ones who can set aside their emotions, and use their logic to come up with an 'objective' solution, are few and far in between.
But there are a few of today's 'youth' that CAN and WILL set aside their emotions.
But few of those who can, came out of college, where they were subjective to liberal indoctrination for years and years.

Most of the few of today's 'youth' who can, came out of the military, or are still in it.
They have learned through experience, and those experiences cannot be learned in college.

But our founding fathers got it right in the Constitution of the United States of America.


"A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me."
King George III


The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You can not protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature...
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."




-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.

Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!

"Gun Control" is
a firm grip,
steady breathing,
accurate aim (developed by lots of practice),
and a slow trigger pull.

[NorthMountain]

Final Thoughts The older generations indeed have their input on the past, since they lived through it. Although that might prove to be an advantage sometimes, other times it might cause them to be too subjective. The youth, on the other hand, see the situation as it is – and based on stats and facts, they can come up with an objective solution.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter nonsense. To assert that "stats and facts" are the exclusive domain of the youth is wrong in general and wrong in particular. In general, "stats and facts" are the domain of anybody who bothers to learn them. Age is irrelevant. In particular, youth who are (as many are today) taught to value feelings and emotions over facts and logic are completely unequipped to deal with objective reality at all.

[faithhopecharity]

we need to restore firearms training and shooting sports into high schools

[MortMan]

For the past generation, this new society means a need for stricter gun control. They are protesting the right to bear arms, as they believe that such freedom will only lead to more violence. This generation wants things to go back to the way things used to be: with not as many guns and less violence.

While the quality of your writing is to be commended, I see several logical fallacies in the above quote.

First, you label a "need" for stricter gun control. This is not a need - it is a call. A need can be demonstrated, and they cannot do so.

Second, "this generation" wants to go back to the way things used to be, but without restoring the balancing forces that used to keep the violence under control. They blame a tool - an inanimate object - for human acts. That is not only illogical, it is demonstrably false and dangerously ignorant.

Once upon a time, punishment for stepping out of line was severe, swift, and proportional to the act of the aggressor. Now, being mistreated as a child may mean that murder can be written off as a late-breaking side effect of mistreatment, without any need to treat the psychosis that purportedly drove the perpetrator to his act.

Now, we criminalize a fair fight - fisticuffs - between men with honest disagreements. Once, when your honor or your family's honor was besmirched, you could challenge the besmircher to a fight, as long as it was fair. Whoever won, won the issue. I do not agree with dueling - killing because of a slight - but putting a bully in their place should be fair game.

Now, we glorify victimhood. The perverse incentives in this viewpoint should be self-evident.

Now, being offended is supposed to give you power over the offender. It's as if the rites of victimhood outweigh the responsibilities of adulthood.

Finally, the United States legal system has systematically declared that the government, in the form of police, have no legal obligation to act in defense of you or your family. But the kids, being inculcated in the social justice urinal of today's schools, think defending oneself is unseemly, at best. The only overlap between these two concepts is that the innocent have an obligation to die.

Why should we not listen to the young on complex, historically grounded, and liberty minded subjects like the right to keep and bear arms? Simply, it is because they have never been given both sides of the debate to consider, and all of the information that they have been provided points to a duty to become a dead victim of individuals in society who have forsaken the responsibilities of being individuals in a free society. I have four children, three of which are adults. I listen to their viewpoints. However, I am a terrible father if I do not also point out the fallacies in their thinking, because I reinforce the ignorance from which they make some of their decisions. Ignorance, unlike stupidity, is eminently curable. It only takes absorption of accurate facts.

One last note - Anti-gun activists like David (Camera) Hogg take to the airwaves to curtail Americans' second amendment rights not only to "protect themselves" (assuming that is one reason), but also to promote a specific political agenda from which they intend to personally benefit and prosper. Given that David Hogg had not been accepted to any university, and now is scheduled to go to some ivey league school based on his political advocacy, I'd say that wariness of such voices should be universal, and not really subject to frivolous debate.

I did not read all of your post. Once I got to the point I indicated at the top of this reply, I quit reading. The underlying assumptions in the indicated segment are overwhelmingly incorrect, in my opinion. Therefore, further dissection was both impossible and futile.

[Lurker]

“For the past generation, this new society means a need for stricter gun control.”

False premise.

You lose.

L

[antidemoncrat]

“This generation wants things to go back to the way things used to be: with not as many guns and less violence.”

How about less freedom that the socialist government many of you are supporting who will gladly strip away from you when you put them in power.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Granted, guns have been a constant presence in America over the past few hundreds of years – but it has only become a problem after the escalation in violence.”

Which indicates that the problem is not guns, the problem is the escalation in violence.

I believe reducing occurrences of violence will do more to reduce gun violence than reducing the number of guns will do to reduce occurrences of violence.

[Svartalfiar]

We have the older generation that is over their 40s – a generation that was only acquainted with one course of things. These people were not used to the way guns were circulated. In the past, unless you were a cop, there was no need to even get a gun. Indeed, the the Second Amendment has already been in order for a lot of time. However, people did not start buying guns on a mass scale until recently.
...
Granted, guns have been a constant presence in America over the past few hundreds of years – but it has only become a problem after the escalation in violence.

I'm not sure how this correlates..? You say old people (over 40) grew up with no guns around, but then state guns have been around for 100s of years. Your definition of old people is those born in 1980! There were plenty of guns around back then - almost every house had a rifle or shotgun, and almost every kid had a BB gun. Yes, firearm ownership has incresed from then, but not that much. Hard to find numbers, but it looks like 1980 had about 170MM firearms for 225MM people. They were plenty available, despite the Bradys and their crap.