f804f2f87a1dc0c372d5a8d8debc86b4--assault-rifle-gun-control.jpg

- “When has anyone marched to have a right taken away usually it’s the other way around.”

Is it a right or is it a responsibility? Is it your right to defend yourself using whatever means necessary? Why then do we not allow private individuals to own rocket launchers and tanks or nations to own nukes? If somebody has a handgun then I should be able to defend myself with an AR-15. If somebody has an AR-15 then I should be able to defend myself with a bazooka. If somebody has a bazooka then I should have a tank. It's because the rights of the one do not out weight the rights of the many and we as a responsible society must draw a line. I have the right to live in a society where weapons with a massive potential for damage are forbidden. These weapons cross the line from an acceptable means of self defense to a tool that is too easily turned into a tool for mass murder. If we place restrictions on cars and boats then why not place restrictions on weapons of war? I realise some people will use them responsibly but some won't and the consequences of just a few can be great in this context. I don’t believe this is true for most gun owners but far to many of them exaggerate the need for a firearm and own them simply as compensation for not having an adequate penis. 


this-is-joe-biden-in-1990-he-introduced-the-gun-free-30955062.png

- “Sure there are wrong doers that will always exist and if you do what these kids are asking you will only see more of it that is a fact.”

These kids and the vast majority of liberals are not calling for a ban on guns. This is exactly how the conservative media is twisting the message in order to spread fear and confusion among their base. The idea behind gun free zones is not to stop mass shootings. (See: What is the real purpose of gun free zones) What year were gun-free zones introduced? That would be 1990, 9 years before Columbine. Any idiot can see how easy it is to simply carry a weapon into these areas and do as they feel. Conservatives love to mock these zones and point out how ineffective they are and wilfully confuse people as to their real purpose. The fact that they then become targets doesn't mean we need to ignore the tools used by violent people and pretend peaceful people need to become soldiers. It means we need to focus on how to minimize the ability of murders to do as much damage. And no, nobody is under the illusion that gun restrictions will fix the problem overnight. We all get the fact that this is bigger than just guns. Simply put, guns are not helping and some guns are used to deviating affect.


rockwell-teacher-guns.png

- “Gun free zones are a target if you can’t defend yourself that’s where these types of situations will continue to happen.”

Undefended positions will always be the target of aggressors but should we then fortify every position and spread tools of war to every corner of our society? Should we start placing artillery in school yards or should we try to take the means of causing mass murder out of the hands of the aggressors? AND DO NOT TELL ME “BAD GUYS WILL GET THEM ANYWAY!” we have many laws that are broken easily but we still keep that law with the idea that it does stop some. We don’t get rid of laws forbidding people from robbing banks simply because a few will inevitably do it. 


- “Why don’t they talk about when a shooter is stopped by a good guy with a gun they only talk about the ones that our law enforcement fails to do there job this kid could have been stopped just like many other mass shooting cases.”

Because those are few and far between and can cause far more problems than they solve. We’ve all heard the stories of some hero with a gun saving the situation before the police could respond. These situations often cause more problems because the hero, on many occasions, is not trained, thanks in part to the NRA, in how to discern friend from foe or how to properly act in a tense and quickly developing situation. Why doesn't the conservative media ever talk about the times a gun owner thought he’d be a hero and shot the wrong person or escalated a situation that might have otherwise been a harmless grab and run? How about every single French officer responding to the terrorist attack in Paris, thanking God that wasn't a country where everybody is armed to the teeth? Imagen coming onto the scene, seeing everybody shooting at anybody with a gun because mass panic has taken hold. You know those terrorists don't wear uniforms right? 
 


- “I agree we need to change some gun laws but an all out ban is just over the top and it won’t fix the problem.”

If I want to know what conservatives are saying I ask conservatives. I suggest you ask liberals what liberals want as conservatives don't seem to have a clue. Nobody wants to take all your guns away! We only want more responsible gun owners and less lethal, weapon on our streets. 


4bakpscc40i01.png

- “The media is doing what they do best playing one side against the other if we all play along we can’t move forward this issue like most difficult issues doesn’t have an easy button we have to come together and have some compromise on both sides one side can’t just get what they want and expect the other to just settle.”

Yes we need a compromise! And in order to do that we need to have a conversation. But tell that to the NRA. These kids, who the NRA will stop at nothing to slander, simply want the debate to happen. The NRA has blocked the conversation from even happening by locking congress from even discussing the issue and their campaign of misinformation is creating more barriers to any compromise than anything.  

Why is there so little research on guns in the US? : http://theconversation.com/why-is-there-so-little-research-on-guns-in-the-us-6-questions-answered-92163


- “How are conservatives twisting this story because one side is defending what they believe is right and just Those types of comments are only making things worse.”

Wilfully misrepresenting what your opposition is trying to say is one. Framing the situation in an advantageous light instead of looking at it for what it is. Personal attacks that lead the viewer away from the main issue and slander the opponent rather than defeating their argument. These are not unique to conservatives but the issue of guns is one area where I believe in most cases liberals have taken a higher ground. Again: I don’t believe either side has a monopoly on “truth” as we have seen some pretty ridiculous shit coming from both conservatives and liberals. I stand firmly on the left when it comes to gun control.  
 


27867877_851014425086293_443203371700008137_n.jpg

- "One day that generation is needing laws made so they don’t eat tide pots the next they want to march for gun reform. And you say conservatives are twisting the story."

The kids calling for the march aren’t the ones eating Tide Pods! I find it really disturbing how conservatives want to vilify and discredit an entire generation of kids. They will take over the world one day whether conservatives like it or not: ridiculing them because they don’t see the world the way older generations do, won’t end well. I've seen too many people lash out insulting ways of describing them and issuing statements depicting how out of touch and ridiculous they are. This whole “snowflake” bullshit conservatives like to throw around, trying to make themselves feel tuff, is one example of the pot calling the kettle black. Again: Do you really need a gun or are you just a pussy with a metal penis extension in your hand? 


Older generations have always looked at younger ones and criticize them for one reason or another but this attack is unprecedented and unwarranted. My concern is not that these kids will grow up and have self confidence problems. I’m concerned for how they will look at older generations and their values in the future. If conservatives continue to attack them they will obliterate anything you stand for. It’s not what I want and shouldn’t be what they want but when somebody is under attack it’s hard to keep perspective. 

These kids are growing up in a world that is exploding with new information and new ways of looking at old problems. The world is changing faster than ever and they are the ones who are feeling those changes and adapting to them. They do need guidance like always as they are just kids but they are extremely intelligent and understand somethings on a level that those of us who grew up before may never. There has been a massive shift in how we see the world in recent years and young kids are taking it all in like sponges. They are accomplishing things that previous generations could never imagine. Nobody has yet become all knowing and understanding and that’s why on some occasions they’ve taken a good idea too far. 


This idea that there are “no winners” and “everybody gets a medal” is based on a good idea that gives kids a sense of inclusion. Inclusions has been proven, in recent years, to be a much better motivator than “punishment and reward,” so why shouldn’t we take this into consideration? Of course the way the world is set up now, not everybody is a winner and if you fully implement this you will be doing them a huge disservice. That being said many of them are not looking at the world for how it is now but, how it should be and more to the point, how it could be. We have the means in some situations to make the world a more fare and balanced place and often we don’t because old ideas are in the way. They see that and want to change it and why not? The world is moving and time stops for no man. We must get with the times or get out of the way. 


One area where they are light years ahead of older generations is the fact that they are living in an increasingly crowded planet and can see how interdependence isn't a luxury, it's a must. They see that we must depend on each other in ways that were not necessary before. Why are people in urban areas predominantly liberal and why do rural areas tend to lean conservative? We see in cities how much we depend on each other for peace and quiet as well as safely or just how to get our food. It allows us to dive deeper into areas of expertise instead of being self sufficient and having to tackle many of the daily details yourself. Being self sufficient is a great thing. I don’t need to lecture conservatives on the virtues of individualism but “being independent” has its drawbacks. Conservatives need to recognise that when we delegate many of the daily chores, that go along with being self sufficient, we can then spend more time and energy diving into our expertise and becoming a leader in our filed. This of course has drawbacks as many millennials are clueless about basic things that are very important to older people and still have valuable lessons for life. Today, unfortunately, spending all your time on your preferred field doesn’t get you ahead, that’s how you keep pase. Neither situation is better, it is a preference and both sides should recognise this. These kids are viewing the world through the lens of how it will be, not how it was.


Take a second and think about the fact that the global population is growing faster than ever and that for the first time in history, just a few years ago, human population shifted from being predominantly rural to now being predominantly urban. Also consider the fact that what was once a stupid idea that went around the classroom or the neighbourhood now goes around the world faster than you can write Tide Pod. Is this generation a bunch of massively stupid kids or are they just like every other generation but with abilities that nobody has yet found out how to control? It’s disgusting that many in the conservative media jump on this issue and ignore so many of the dynamics at play just to vilify a generation of Americans and prove a point. The internet and rapid transit can take a dumb idea and make it explode just as fast as good ideas, these kids just happen to be in the time when this is becoming a reality. 
Will we need to pass laws to protect people from themselves? That is not such a simple answer as conservatives would make it seem. Societies are always filled with ideas that may not be the best idea but for many reason they continue. Should the government step in if unpopular solutions are the answer or let society decay because government has no place in our daily lives? Conservatives loth the idea of government playing a part in the household unless they think that something is "immoral" and will erode society. Then they love the idea of government stepping in to tell people how to live their lives. Oh by all means government, step in and pass laws regarding people's sexual preferences. 

DZEJwUsXcAEBvR1.jpg


Older generations can be a force of encouragement and guidance or they can watch their legacy burn with every insult and barb they dish out. With every new technology there is great potential for both good and evil and it seems to go hand in hand with this generation, who is witnessing all of it and learning. I hope that people can see how reaching out to this generation and looking at the dynamics they face can help them understand what these kids are going through. That might help older generations be the people who these kids can lean on or seek guidance from. There is a time and place to cast people out but we are far from that and if conservatives continue to wage this war of words they will lose! Time is on the side of the millennials.