Exclusive: The Children’s Crusade

By David Codrea

The ginned-up objections to guns have never been more heated, nor the dangers for self-serving politicians doing something stupid to appease mob rage more likely. The collective “personality” of the Republic in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School atrocities could, at best, be described as split, with emphasis on the crazy half. And in a national acting out of the “For The Children” mantra, the Biblical prediction “And a little child shall lead them” is being misapplied and followed blindly.

The press is in eye-rolling feeding frenzy, imposing its trademark anti-gun bias, subject matter ignorance and lies of omission on allegedly “straight news” while screaming for citizen disarmament in its editorials. The New York Times, “the newspaper of record,” proudly featured demands to “repeal the Second Amendment” in its op-eds, as have no shortage of other media outlets.

Politically, the Democrats are predictable. Their opportunists vie for the spotlight to advance their “leadership” creds on “common-sense gun safety laws.” Also unsurprising are many Republicans, forgetting who put them in their positions of power and privilege, but now ready to throw supporters under the bus to placate people who would never vote for them regardless.

“If all the sudden you couldn’t buy an AR-15, what would you lose?” Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich asked angrily on CNN. “Would you feel your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”

“I absolutely believe that in this country, if you are 18 years of age, you should not be able to buy a rifle, and I will support a law that takes that right away,” Sen. Marco Rubio pandered to an inflamed mob at a CNN town hall meeting.

Even President Donald Trump is talking “gun control.” In one case, surpassing anything a Democrat would dare admit to, he declared “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Also feckless were some of the businesses that have enjoyed profitable relationships with the National Rifle Association. Car companies and airlines were quick to distance themselves from discount programs. Chubb Insurance announced a pull-out from NRA’s Carry Guard program. Walmart upped the age for firearm purchases to 21, as did Dick’s Sporting Goods, which not only completed its divorce from semi-auto rifles, but also called on Congress to ban them and enact a host of other disarmament edicts.

The fact remains, in spite of all the hand-wringing and demands that “something must be done,” only one change in “gun laws” would have any real chance of affecting “school shooter” outcomes, and that would be to end insane, murder-enabling “gun-free zones.” And true to form, “progressives” objecting to that won’t argue honestly.

“I will never have a gun in the classroom, and if required to, I would resign,” an opinion piece by a supposedly gun-savvy teacher in The Daily Beast misled, with plenty of similar stories pushing the same meme ‘suddenly” appearing throughout the media. Of course no one would be “required.” What they want to do is take away the choice of those who would be willing.

As for the alternative, trusting everything to the police? We saw what happened with “stand down” orders issued to arriving Broward County deputies—as contrasted with officers from Coral Springs who saw their duty was to run toward danger, albeit too late to intervene. We now see evidence unfolding of multiple warnings and police interactions with the disturbed killer over the years due to his bizarre and violent behaviors. We see new details emerging of the FBI dropping the ball. And we’re hearing allegations about an unholy alliance between Broward schools and law enforcement to “downgrade” infractions to keep them from being reported as crimes – and to keep government funding flowing.

From all this we see a new force emerging to take point where previous efforts to galvanize the citizen disarmament cause by an older generation of Demanding Moms have failed, a supposedly organic and spontaneous “children’s crusade” against guns (unsurprisingly bankrolled by some deep and shadowy pockets). Because its vocal media figureheads are “survivors” of the Stoneman Douglas incident, any criticism against their efforts and their tactics is now being excoriated as an “attack on schoolchildren.”

That’s allowed the savvy media pros managing the campaign to create some new “rock stars” to be the faces of the movement. One, the daughter of a refugee who fled Castro’s Cuba, is now doing her utmost to make his “¿Armas para que?” the new American question. Another, the son of a retired FBI agent,” excused “first responders” not responding while students were being slaughtered by asking “Who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15, even with a Glock?”

Magazines with lead times aren’t the best places to talk breaking stories. My prediction, by the time this hits the stands: Look for “bump stocks” to be a done deal and expect “enhanced” NICS and “mental health” legislation. Don’t look for movement on national concealed carry reciprocity, especially with midterms approaching.

And look for schools to remain attractive targets for any maniac craving success because of demands for childish “solutions” from a government counting on childlike dependence from its citizens.

Read More Rights Watch

Purchase A PDF Download Of The May/June 2018 Issue Now!

One thought on “Exclusive: The Children’s Crusade

  1. David Allan Roberts

    We often hear those opposed to the private ownership of firearms propose that the Second Amendment be repealed, imagining the Federal Government to then be free to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. This is a misguided notion uttered by those who do not truly understand the intent of both the Founders and the written Constitution.

    Were the Second Amendment repealed, or even if it never existed, the Federal Government would still be restricted from the purview of gun control. Well, that was the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

    James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” was initially opposed to the idea of a “Bill of Rights” being amended to the Constitution. Not that he was opposed to the provisions of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Madison’s view was that if a power was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then it was not within the purview of the new central government, and therefore, the addition of a proposed bill of rights would be redundant. Madison stated, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…”

    Still, knowing government’s tendency to usurp powers not specifically denied it, the faction demanding that a bill of rights be amended to the Constitution (The Anti-federalists) stood their ground. The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution, and their vision of limited government enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    There is nothing in the enumerated powers that authorizes the Federal Government to enact gun-control legislation. Yes, the government previously has, but when did, it exceeded the Founder’s original intent.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)