The National Review has been running pieces all this week devaluing the work of young people against gun violence—pieces like:
The key arguments are that just because one has been a victim of a shooting doesn’t make one an expert on policy. Also, kids! Sheesh! Also, if liberals think kids are so responsible, why are we always fighting against letting them carry guns in public and on campus and at ever younger ages without any training or permits? Doesn’t that make us hypocrites?*
Yes, seriously, the National Review is in a pretty bad place these days. Imagine taking a job that required you attack kids for their “simplistic plea” of “Stop killing us!”
But gun fetishists have a reason to be desperate.
At some point, our political leaders will have to decide who they will listen to: the very powerful but old gun lobby or the largest generation of people since the Baby Boomers–you know, the ones who gave us so much of the civil unrest of the 1960s.
Above, the Grim Reaper holds an AR-15 rifle, the weapon of choice for mass shooter. His bony hand seeks to pick his next victim from the young people in front of him, as he counts “Eenie, Meenie, Miney–” A young woman stands in front of the crowd and finishes his sentence with a decisive “No.”
In other words, ceding on guns might be politically smart for conservatives if it quells the rising tide of young people’s disgust with their ruling elders. Otherwise, we might just get action on climate change and economic inequality, too, areas where young people are far to the left of their grandparents.
PS. Remember that the Tax Reform bill that Congress passed in December says that your child is no longer a child for tax purposed as of their 17th birthday, even if they are just a junior in high school (like many 17 years old are). On the principle that taxation should guarantee representation, I think this means that they should get to vote. I assume that Republicans who supported the tax bill will support this move, right?