Posts
Happily for those of us who live in New York, our local
newspaper the Times has offered some much-needed perspective about yesterday’s
children’s marches.
You are well aware that children across America
protested yesterday in favor of gun control. Given that the current laws were
not enforced or implemented in Parkland, FL these brilliant adolescents and
pre-adolescents want to shift the blame from government officials to the NRA.
Now, the Times has offered an editorial coda to it all, a remark
that provides some much-needed perspective. It recalls:
… a
revolutionary string of rulings by the United States Supreme Court,
all of which have found that young people are “constitutionally different” from
adults — their brains are still developing, their impulse control is weaker and
their ability to change over time is greater.
Yes, indeed... constitutionally weaker with underdeveloped brain structure. If the Times had not brought this to our attention we might have taken the child marchers more seriously.
To be fair, The Times being the Times, was not throwing shade on the child marchers. It was trying to spring spring
convicted killers from jail. You see, the Times wants the government to parole
juvenile offenders who received long prison sentences for homicide. By juvenile, it meant, in the example offered, a seventeen-year-old.
Being young and innocent, child murderers are less guilty. So says the Times. But, does this also mean that child demonstrators are less wise and less
intelligent than average adults?
The Times continued:
This
means that they are less guilty than adults and that their punishment must be
different, especially in the case of life sentences for those convicted of
murder. The “imposition of a state’s most severe penalties on juvenile
offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children,” the court said in 2012.
They must be given “a meaningful opportunity” to get out; actual life sentences
should be reserved for those few who exhibit “irretrievable depravity.”
7 comments:
ed in texas
So, when a child commits a felony, we should let it pass because they have "reduced capacity", but we should accept their political lead because of their fresh wisdom?
Sounds like an arguement for raising the voting age.
I have often said, if the children are so wise, why do we have a 2 tiered legal system? Let them have all the privileges and responsibilities adults enjoy starting at first grade. My local TV station interviewed a first grader during the Saturday march. His response was as incoherent and coached as one would expected from a liberal household member.
If teens were fighting for better access to AR-15 because its fun to cut down trees with bullets, I'd be questioning their march's wisdom. But fighting to reduce teen access to guns, and raising the legal age of gun ownership or purchase to 21, (and banning AR15 to anyone) that seems more like prudence from people who don't see the need for the power of mass murder for adulthood.
Of course psychology has long taught us that people want what they can't have, and the popularity of AR15 are in part because they were banned for a decade. And as we see in this mad world, the more the state says there should be limits to the first amendment, people will vote with their credit cards, and buy their 78th gun, just in case it is banned next week. If Hillary was president, gun manufacturers wouldn't be discounting their guns, but selling at a high premium. No one bet Trump would win.
The only real differences between an AR-15 and a semiautomatic rifle of another caliber is caliber and plastic instead of wood. Also, semiautomatic pistols and shotguns. The .223"/5.56mm round isn't a tree-chopper.
Did you ever wonder why during peace times, as rare as that is, that most western countries throughout much of recorded history has had more officers than enlisted? It might be because during national emergencies that it is much easier and faster to field a fighting force. More trainers to educate people in the Art of War. One of the things that ensures a force ready to go to war in a timely manner is the Second Amendment.
With large numbers of people knowing how to hunt, shot and handle weapons safely and effectively the country is far more capable of meeting its responsibilities to protect its citizens. Anything that interferes with the "Right to bear arms" makes us less capable in meeting the exigencies of life and leads to far more people dying, both civilian and military in the early part of wars. Also it can lead to defeat and slavery.
What these young people do not understand is the global importance of long term thinking vice short term harm to all of us. They are in essences placing a target on all of us in order to feel safe. The crime rate has gone down as the number of guns has gone up. One of the groups of people they are aiding and abetting are criminals and those who would like to control others. IF those who would control us and the criminal element needs not fear our ability to protect ourselves then home invasions, car jacking, et al become much safer to accomplish.
Because in many cases these people's frontal lobe has not matured sufficiently to see the ultimate damage this will inflict on all of us they are dangerous to themselves and every other law abiding person in this country. Feelings and safe spaces are nice, but do nothing to solve problems. Laws are of little affect if they are not enforced.
Again, a growing number of people who have guns and know how to use them adds exponentially to our safety and security as a nation. Every enemy we have or could have are applauding these people.
Post a Comment