Latest tactics of anti-gun enthusiasts: Use school kids for gun-control.


Students walk out for gun control. School kids march for their lives. Students want government to protect them?

Wait, what? The same government that can’t even balance a budget … let alone navigate the tightrope between liberty and tyranny? I’ll get back to the idiocy of trusting in government in a moment.

First, dear anti-gun enthusiasts:

You’ve decided that NOW is the time to make activists of school kids. You’re actually pushing the absurd notion that young people who experience school shootings are more qualified to effect the change you want than those who haven’t?

Memo to students

This is one time you should NOT listen to your elders. Here’s some better advice:

Protect yourselves by policing yourselves. More gun control cannot and will not make you more safe. Ask yourself this: Are you’re willing to put your safety in the hands of THIS government? You do realize that if you are and if you push this to its endpoint, you’ll be trading freedom for LESS security, right?

Back to trusting in government:

Do you think it wise to trust a government whose FBI failed to follow-up on multiple tips about Nikolas Cruz? Can you rely on a government that made it much more difficult for schools to punish violent students and for local law enforcement to partner with districts to remove repeat offenders?

Wait a minute. Why am I addressing students? The vast majority of them don’t know their butts from holes in the ground. I know—I was one. And I remember that I pulled many silly and senseless stunts simply because I was young and dumb.

Let’s face it—we were ALL young and dumb. We lacked wisdom and maturity because we lacked experience and life lessons—and the ability to speak effectively on issues like gun control.

In the words of savvy Mad Men Creative Director Don Draper, “Young people don’t know anything. Especially that they’re young.”

Exploitive adults

I’ll now address the real movers of this movement:

Anti-gun enthusiasts, who are using young people to further your gun-control agenda, listen up:

Qualification to speak wisely on issues and effect real solutions isn’t earned through the fear and tragedy of surviving a school shooting. It’s earned through earnest study of cause and effect and the ability to objectively process evidence and weigh the viability of potential solutions.

Most kids can’t process the causes and effects of a bad date.

The notion that these Florida students—or any high school or younger people—are qualified to speak expertly about gun control is absurd. It’s “thinking” like this that springs from the same illogic that asserts that children can responsibly decide to change their gender.

Any parent can tell you that their kid can change his opinion about virtually anything five times in five minutes. I know that school kids aren’t toddlers and that many are bright and eager to make a difference. But intelligence mixed with inexperience—and tragedy—does NOT make them more qualified to be voices for any issue.

Stop using kids

Anti-gun activists: Have you considered that the intense fear school shooting survivors experience may make them LESS qualified to speak objectively about gun control? Could your insistence that they’re freshly qualified to do so be exploitive?

Let’s talk qualifications again. Qualifications are attained through education and experience, which leads to expertise. Going through a traumatic experience doesn’t qualify anyone for anything. Yes, these school kids’ voices are important and may be more resonant than others, but more qualified?

I would listen most intently to anyone who can separate his emotions from his intellect and actually process and analyze data involving existing gun laws and mass shootings. Do you truly think traumatized school shooting survivors can do either objectively?

Would you consider that maybe we should let these kids process and heal from the tragedy they’ve endured? And instead enlist those who’ve already graduated from high school and maybe even have college degrees. And perhaps we could listen to those with real-world experience that comes with being … I don’t know … a few MORE years beyond puberty.

Let’s go ground zero

Stop using kids to bring us to our senses about the senseless need for MORE gun control. Never mind that the real need is for more parental and familial latitude to commit mentally ill young people like Nikolas Cruz who bragged about his plans to become a killer.

Do you think that cajoling students to walk out of class and march for their lives to get THIS federal government to pass more gun control legislation is a better solution than coming up with ground-zero solutions at the state and local level?

Would you rather protect the freedom of troubled kids like Cruz to skirt mental health treatment than empower parents and families to force them to get help? Do you truly think this upside down “logic” is a smart way to protect our students?

Glaring illogic

Speaking of logic, let’s summarize yours:

More gun controls laws + scattershot enforcement by a government that consistently proves itself unable or unwilling to make them work = equals safer schools.

Armed guards + schools ≠ safer school zones while posting gun-free zone signs in schools does.

Allowing teachers to arm themselves = terrible idea. Relying on local, hamstrung cops to risk life and limb and do their duty = good idea.

And now you’re pushing school walkouts and marches for gun control? I can tell you that as a young student, my friends and I would’ve walked out of school in support of any cause. We would have walked out to support anti-mosquito discrimination—as long as it got us out of class.

We’d march in a March For Our Lives … or Chives … or Hives event as long as it included girls or free pizza.

Whose movement?

Truth to adult users:

Your student gun control push is a movement only because you’ve made it one. You seem to think that government is the answer to all our problems while ignoring commonsense people-to-people solutions. And you’ll use any tools it takes to push your agenda—even kids.

The March For Our Lives events, billed as “for the kids, by the kids,” are promoted and sponsored by a collection of progressive organizations including Everytown For Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, The Women’s March On Washington, Planned Parenthood (that’s rich), and as usual,

The Florida school kids went through some real scary trauma. We owe them a clear-headed discussion and swift action to better protect them and others, not self-serving, never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste partisan activism.

As Americans, school kids’ voices are important, but their experience does NOT make them uniquely qualified as voices for gun control. To pretend that they are and to use them to further one side of the argument is opportunistic and abusive.

Let’s protect our children—not weaponize them.

School shooting shocks us. Media fans flames. Left blames right. Root causes are ignored. Repeat.


Another day, another school shooting. This time it happened on our national day of love. Cue the Valentine’s Day massacre headlines. Go, media—do what you do best—whip us all up into a gun-control, finger-pointing frenzy.

A nutjob white supremacist claims the shooter is a member of his hate group. What do you do, press? Run with it or verify first? You run with it like you mean it.

Why verify anything anymore when a CYA headline will suffice? Especially when you can imply the awful and (in their minds) predictable “truth” that Nikolas Cruz was driven to do what he did by his white supremacy.

We didn’t hear a peep about this verified and newsworthy phrase on Cruz’s Instagram page—Allahu Akbar. Predictably they don’t want to go anywhere near that one. Must be careful (and professional) when it comes to tying a religion of peace to violence.

Journalism is dead. Left-leaning scribes and editors officially killed it nearly two years ago. Their job now is to frame the news to fit their ideological preferences—even if it means sacrificing any vestiges of integrity that survived the political pyre of the 2016 election.

Shooting off our mouths

Even before news outlets trumpeted the white supremacist nonsense, many on the left screamed their exclusivist outrage to the heavens:

“The NRA killed those kids!”
“The GOP has blood on its hands!”
“Trump revoked mental illness background checks!”
“F*** your thoughts and prayers!” (We need legislation, not God.)

Newsflash, bigmouths:

Nikolas Cruz is the murderer. Not the NRA or GOP or Trump or people who own guns. We’re all outraged and saddened by this tragedy. Claiming the moral high ground and blaming the other side of the gun control issue is reactionary, thoughtless and despicable.

Those on the right could just as foolishly blame bigmouths on the left by reminding them that it is they who want gun-free zone schools. Gun ownership proponents could say that they’re the ones who want armed security guards in schools to protect kids.

By the way, does anyone think school shooters give a rip about gun-free zone signs? They may as well read, “Shooting Gallery—OPEN.”


How to fix this

Let’s talk about assault rifles—or more accurately, about semiautomatic rifles that fire one round per trigger pull (just like handguns), but are mistakenly referred to as assault rifles.

I can see how they’d be fun to shoot, but for the life of me, I can’t think of one good reason why anyone needs one. In fact, I’d prefer our citizenry NOT match firepower with law enforcement or the National Guard.

I know … the Second Amendment, right? I accept that it was designed to protect our right to bear arms and resist government tyranny, but I’m confident our rule of law, our constitutional checks and balances and the spirit of our nation will ensure that we’ll likely never need these weapons to resist our government. Call me naive, but I just don’t see tyranny as a real possibility.

Here’s a certainty: Gun-free zoned schools do nothing to protect children. We have non gun-free zones in shopping malls and in other venues where young people gather—why not have good guys with guns to stop bad guys and crazies?

Why is it a bad idea to allow school districts to have security guards? Before you answer, consider this scenario: A shooter enters his school and starts his killing spree; security forces scramble and take him down. What’s wrong with this? It’s what we’d see happen in an airport or sports venue.

How about allowing teachers to conceal carry or to have a firearm in a locked safe in or near their desks? This could provide a second line of defense … and a deterrent.

Mental health. Maybe if we encourage school districts to employ professional mental health counselors with in-school offices, kids who are about to snap won’t. Perhaps they’d get real help and begin to hope.

Many if not most school shooters are deeply troubled and aren’t getting any help. We should also ensure students can anonymously report bullying and threats, which, in this case actually happened, but was inexplicably ignored.

The FBI’s failure to act on a vital tip they received concerning Nikolas Cruz’s desire to be a school shooter is indefensible.

Guns aren’t evil—people are

At this point, this may seem trite, but it’s still true—guns are not the problem. They don’t run down the street shooting people. They can’t hop around looking for evil people to pick them up and use them on others. But we can and should limit their accessibility.

I grew up in Texas in the ’70s and ’80s. There were no background checks to buy firearms. There weren’t any requirements to keep them locked away from kids. Yet I don’t remember ever even thinking about the potential of gun violence in my schools.

It was infinitely easier for adults to buy guns, use guns, and have guns in one’s truck rack, glove box and purse and yet we had virtually no school shootings—as in rarely ever. What changed?

We changed. Our culture changed. Our expectations for our children changed. The public school system changed. Our laws changed. Our expectations of personal responsibility and accountability were lowered by nanny-state policies. Helicopter parenting became the norm.

An adversarial parent-teacher dynamic emerged. In better times, parents and teachers were on the same team and worked together for the good of society AND for the good of the child. Instead of rearing kids to become decent citizens who respect authority and help ensure the common good, we coddle and enable them to demand safe spaces and their rights to resist free speech.

The power of community

I realize that Nikolas Cruz was an outcast and was terribly ostracized. This is awful. And despite our education system’s focus on inclusion and fairness, it’s not surprising. But somehow, he thought that lashing out with deadly force was an option. If he had been born thirty years earlier, would he have thought so? Not likely.

How can I be so sure? Because he would’ve known he’d be going up against EVERYONE on the same team: teachers, parents, police officers, firefighters, students—those who worked together to make schools criminal-free zones rather than gun-free shooting galleries. They knew what we should know—guns weren’t and aren’t the problem—bad people are.

Disagree? Then kindly answer these questions:

If you think that more gun control is the answer, consider this: For decades we had little or no gun control and yet suffered a tiny fraction of the gun violence that now plagues our schools. How will more gun control address the root causes of our problem?

Okay, let’s ban “assault rifles.” I’m onboard. Now what? Won’t troubled kids like Cruz use hunting rifles or shotguns or handguns or whatever?

Root causes

Aren’t the root causes of the problem within us, within our devolving culture? What about the glorification of violence in video games, music and entertainment? How does the vilification of law enforcement factor in to the problem? How does banning prayer in schools contribute?

What happened to parents empowering educators to help discipline their children rather than insulating them from authority and consequences? My parents would’ve (and often were) embarrassed by my misbehavior at school. They didn’t blame my teachers for reporting it—they blamed me.

I’m ready to listen. I truly am.

And I’m just as outraged and fed up with the senseless slaughter as you are. Let’s solve the problem together. No more grandstanding, blame gaming, finger-pointing and moral high grounding. Kids are dying. There’s got to be something we can do to help stop the killing.

And you’re right. Doing nothing isn’t the answer. Neither is vilifying a political party with disgusting lies about its members not caring about kids. People on the left AND right care about protecting our schoolchildren. Let’s stop the sickening partisan mudslinging.

We must do something. On that, there’s no disagreement. We simply disagree on how best to do it. Let’s respect one another’s viewpoint and get to work.

Labeling, law breaking, border walls, and a living, breathing Constitution


Labels. I think this word gets a raw deal. It’s been twisted and misapplied to the point of lowering it to a near expletive. I’d like to buck this political trend by restoring a perfectly good word from its smeared state.

Here goes:

We use labels and categories to organize and provide meaning. I’m a veteran. This label means that I’m a veteran, that I served in our armed forces. I’m also an American and a citizen. People like you and me who were born in their countries are natural-born citizens. Virtually every nation on Earth makes these distinctions and uses categories to organize and provide meaning for their people.

Illegal immigrant. Illegal alien. Legal resident. When it comes to immigration and citizenship, somehow the phrase “undocumented worker” is deemed more palatable and “humanizing” than the aforementioned perfectly viable labels.

Phrase swapping

Here’s the problem with phrase swapping—it alters meaning and pushes political narratives.

In the case of undocumented workers, the phrase implies that those here in the U.S. illegally are working, but are doing so under the radar. Are all working? The phrase invites us not to focus on the fact that they’re breaking the law, but rather that they’re contributing to our workforce in a desperate (yet honest) striving for a better life. They’re dreamers, you see.

After all, aren’t we all here because our ancestors dreamed of a better life in America? Aren’t we all immigrants? It’s who we are as Americans, right? I’m the grandson of an immigrant. My grandfather came here legally and jumped through all the hoops to become a citizen. He was a dreamer—and an honest one.

Phrase distortion is another political propaganda device. For example, the original phrase “illegal alien” has nothing to do with doing, but rather with being. It’s a temporary state that describes the legality of someone’s status in a sovereign nation; it has nothing to with their humanity.

The dehumanizing argument is a political construct designed, among other uses, to “label” and vilify those who believe in their nation’s immigration laws and its sovereignty and reject open borders and policies that seem driven by mere compassion (or worse) rather than compassion tempered by wisdom … and a respect for the rule of law.

Legal, precise and meaningful labels like illegal alien do not strip anyone of their humanity or God-created image. If you disagree and FEEL that they do, I’m not surprised. For years, we’ve been pelted with politically driven and partisan constructs like this one through education, social and other media, Machiavellian politicians and a subjective spirit of the age.

Rule of Law

Do you think it’s right to break the law? And I don’t mean laws you think are wrong; I mean laws that have withstood legal challenges and that the majority of citizens support—like our immigration laws.

Is it right for a father to break the law by breaching an enforced border, so he can work to give his children a better life? Good fathers would do virtually anything to improve their kids’ life chances. Should they break the law?

I applaud fatherly love and devotion, but don’t see how flaunting of the rule of law would provide a good example for one’s children. It seems to me that a father who respects the rule of law would offer an essential character building example for his kids and that this example would go much further in improving their life chances.

Here’s my advice to a father seeking to improve his children’s futures: If you can’t find suitable work to provide for your family in your country, seek employment in ours, but do it lawfully.

I’ve read someone claim that it’s human nature to put labels on people to help us rationalize decisions when we dehumanize others by categorizing them. Really? Labeling people to rationalize or dehumanize them is NOT in my nature. This is another construct and a faulty argument.

It’s faulty because it’s based on the flawed premise that labels dehumanize. I grant that there are people who use labels to devalue others. There are racists and elitists in our midst. But to say that this is in our nature is a stretch. And to say that categorizing people in terms of their legal or illegal status is dehumanizing is to buy into a cheap and transparent political ploy.

It seems to me that attempts to dehumanize come mostly from one side of the argument—i.e. those who believe in border security are heartless, unfeeling, alt-righters, uber-nationalists, and/or racists. The labels-to-dehumanize argument is lazy and partisan and a dishonest justification for anti-border security arguments.

Rubber meets road

Consider this hypothetical:

You live in a southern border town. People who chose to run the gauntlet show up on your porch. They’re tired, thirsty and frightened. What do you do? You give them water—just as I would and just as the neighboring pro-border wall ranchers would had they been standing on their porches. (And just as border patrol agents would.)

Are you breaking the law? It’s not illegal to give illegal immigrants water, is it? Now if you were maintaining water stations and, by doing so, helping people break the law and attracting more people to break the law, would this be wrong?

Now remember: These people are CHOOSING to break the law—they aren’t forced to—a lack of job opportunities in their area of, in this case, Mexico, does not justify their decision to break our laws. Aren’t we all accountable for our decisions?

Let’s consider this example:

You live in France in 1943. You’re working and living on a farm. In the dead of night, a family of Jews appears on your doorstep. They’re haggard, cold, tired, hungry, scared out of their minds and a half-day ahead of the Gestapo. The puppet Vichy government has decreed it unlawful to help fleeing Jews. What do you do?

You do just what I hope I would do—you give them food, water and shelter and a hiding place. Or do you give in to fear and close the door? Why put your life in danger? Because your government’s law violates God’s laws. You help them out of love and obedience to Almighty God and in defiance of your weakling government that’s doing the will of its evil client regime.

Big differences

Let’s review some key differences in these scenarios:

A) One describes a violation of God’s laws.
B) The people in one scenario are forced to flee and break the law; they have no other choice. Instead of looking for work, they’re looking to stay alive.
C) The American government is not a Vichy government enforcing evil immigration laws.

More questions:

Is the rule of law dependent on compassion? Do you think Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues know real hardship? Just because they care about people doesn’t mean they can empathize with them.

How much of their concern for illegal immigrants is powered by real compassion and how much is driven by new voter creation … or a craving for the endorphin release that comes with an eight-hour self-promoting pro-Dreamer speech?

In any case, why do we give them a pass to vilify their opponents, slander them and insult our intelligence by feeding us bull that they’re the only ones who care because they’re willing to brush aside the rule of law in order to help people break our laws?

God and borders

To those who think sovereign nations have no business securing their borders and like to say that God is on their side; here are a few questions to ponder and a counter argument to consider:

What if God recognizes nations and their sovereignty and rule of law regarding immigration? After all, the concepts of national sovereignty and natural-born citizenship originated from God regarding his people.

If this is true, there’s a sanctity to the rule of law. And if all legitimate laws come from God and are instituted by him, as Paul says in Romans 13, all are called to obey the laws of the land—UNLESS they conflict with God’s laws.

Whether or not you accept these as truths, here’s my challenge:

Convince me that the immigration laws that we have on our books conflict with God’s, and I’ll storm the Bastille with you. I’ll resist a border wall to the death. I may even join your silly resistance.

Let’s put rubber to road: Where does God stand on refugees and widows and orphans fleeing intolerable living conditions?

I think we can agree that he stands above and beyond petty politics and weaponized partisan constructs. We’re right to extend help and compassion toward refugees, travelers and the poor and widows. God is right there with us in our compassion and love toward others.

However, if you equate border walls and enforcement of existing immigration laws and those who the value rule of law to a lack of compassion, cruelty, hubris and any other misplaced, cheap and partisan propaganda word-bomb, I say you are wrong. This equivalence (which isn’t) is a form of arrogance and ignorance.

And so is the notion that, in a little over two centuries, we’ve evolved to the point that we’ve outstripped elements of our Constitution’s applicability to our lives and laws.

Our Constitution

Our Constitution is certainly not inerrant. It has its flaws just as we have ours. I have problems with some of Jefferson’s ideas about government and the governed and some of his word and phrase choices in it, but it is nevertheless a beautifully written document. It’s also merely a document; there’s nothing living or breathing about it. But it’s just as relevant today as it was 200 plus years ago.

Here’s why: We haven’t evolved in any way that requires alteration of our Constitution. Human nature and the nature of our fallen world haven’t changed a lick. Solomon is right on—there is nothing new under the sun. People are people now and certainly haven’t evolved significantly in a mere two centuries and some change.

The living-breathing-document-that-must-evolve-jazz is yet another political/social construct. And it is so because those who espouse it arrogantly deny the unchanging nature of our nature. This concept is shortsighted and reeks of presentism. And to some it has evolved from an element of their ideology to a core belief of their secular theology.

Ideology vs. theology

Ideology is an important component of one’s belief system. So is theology. Which has the preeminence in your worldview?

I try to make sure the ideas I embrace regarding government and politics are ruled by my understanding of God’s take on government. When I examine them in this light, I always return to Romans 13.

There’s something liberating about laying my passions and feelings about what’s wrong or right with government next to the black and white words found in the only truly living and breathing document and one that never needs nor allows adaptation to the spirit of the age.

Disagree with me? Bring it.

But do so with substantive, ad hominem attack-free arguments and honest discussion. Don’t take the easy, lazy, low road. It requires little effort to pour to page emotive, amorphous, feel-good and universal-sounding truths; it’s much more difficult to provide logical, thoughtful defenses of ideas. The former is another aspect of our shallow spirit of the age; the latter is a lost art.

Let’s rediscover it.