Posted on 2/22/2018, 8:21:44 AM by ChicagoConservative27
The newest iteration of the gun control debate concerns whether teenage survivors of last week’s shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, should be immune from criticism when they argue for gun control. This is a
relatively new question: other school shootings, like Sandy Hook in 2012, have involved children too young to have opinions. But the answer is no: once you enter the political arena, your views are fair game. Democrats have perfected the art of using sympathetic public figures to argue for positions most Americans reject, then accusing critics of mean-spiritedness when they disagree. We saw that tactic in the Khizr Khan controversy in 2016, when a Muslim father whose son died fighting for the U.S. blasted Donald Trump from the podium at the Democratic National Convention. When Trump responded, he was accused of attacking a Gold Star family. Likewise in the gun control debate, where people who disagree with impassioned calls for gun control from some of the students who survived the Parkland shooting are being accused of attacking children. Some of the responses to the students are, indeed over-the-top, such as conspiracy theories about whether some of them are trained actors. It is probably true that some are being coached or fed talking points, but that does not make their beliefs less sincere. However, the fact remains that many of the arguments used by the teenagers are weak, or simply false.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …