And a child shall lead them

"...and a child shall lead them."  Isaiah 11: 6.

It seems that the Left always misinterprets the words of the Bible.  If you read the verse in context, you will understand that Isaiah is here talking about the coming Messianic King, who will judge with righteousness.  Of course, the prophesy has been fulfilled in the birth, life, death and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  But we will not experience these things until we enter His Kingdom.  Meanwhile, children need to learn from the experience of the adults who have lived and have experience, as well as from those who wrote things down.  But they do not have the experience to lead just yet. 

I don't have a lot of time today to dissect these two pieces from the American Thinker, so I ask that you read each in turn.

The first is from yesterday, by Jeffery T. Brown entitled The Yelling of the Lambs. Brown takes issue with what he calls the "newly minted child activists" who are suddenly demanding, with no real background information, no experience, indeed, nothing that would recommend their suggestions to us, that we abandon the Second Amendment now. Here's Brown:

For all of those who are angry about the Parkland attack and those before it, and who insist that the experiences of the newly minted child-activists for rescinding the Second Amendment require us to do what they demand, ask yourselves: do I want a society where my rights are determined by the raw and manipulated emotions of my accusers? Do I want my rights decided by what children feel? It is self-evident to rational people that anger, especially misinformed anger, is not a basis for good policy. However, it is all that progressives can offer. At least it helps them to deflect that armed teachers would have ended that attack before more of those children died, making their refusal to allow that defense for years an act of complicity in its outcome.

Being a victim and being young do not make one nobler or smarter than he was before he was attacked. The experience of being attacked certainly makes one vulnerable to exploitation by those who would manipulate the victim, but it does nothing to enlarge the victim's limited understanding of complex issues that are often polluted by corruption and disinformation. Victimhood does not create virtue or wisdom, but it does cause rage and emotion among those cultivated to default to feelings.

The sad fact is that people seem to no longer do the research, sort through the haystacks to find the needles, that must be done to understand and to debate the issues. Instead they resort to the notion that our modern times are somehow different. But man has not changed since he first walked the earth. Therefore, something like the Second Amendment is timeless, like the Bible, or Shakespeare's plays. As people, we always need to be able to defend ourselves against our fellow man, and today that means with a gun. Tomorrow it may mean with an electronic weapon of some sort, but we will always need to bear arms for our own protection, not the least of which will be form our own government.

The second article is from today, entitled Your Feelings Have Nothing to Do with My Rights by William Sullivan. Using as a starting point a tweet by Ohio Governor John Kasich Sullivan writes:

If the practical result is that my rights are inarguably infringed, why would your feelings, my feelings, or anyone else's feelings have any relevance whatsoever?

This is not a discussion. These are my rights. How you feel about the exercising of my rights doesn't matter at all. And if it is decided that your feelings warrant the legal erosion of my rights, isn't it clear that what we're talking about are not, in fact, "rights" as understood by our Founders, but allowances that government either permits or rescinds based upon the whims of a perceived majority opinion?

What Sullivan is reacting to are again the many people who say they somehow feel unsafe, or threatened by, people running around with concealed weapons. Of course, the fact that these weapons are concealed means that nobody but the one carrying the weapon actually know it. Therefore, most of this so called feeling is in reality manufactured for the purpose of ginning up a majority to repeal the Second Amendment.

It's important to note that while the majority rabble may undoubtedly care immensely about its own feelings, it does not care about your liberty. What the popular majority desires and what your liberty requires are two distinctly separate conversations. To quote Lord Acton: "At all times, sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities."

So does it matter if a majority want stricter gun control in general polling? No. Does it matter that Don Lemon, Jimmy Kimmel, and all the other leftist celebrities who've been granted implied expertise on the subject continue to pitch the easily disproven notion that fewer guns will somehow lead to fewer murders by gun? No. Does it matter if millions of high school students are demanding policy prescriptions toward strict federal gun control, despite having never owned a home where everyone they love and are honor-bound to protect at all costs, and everything they've worked a lifetime to earn, can potentially be stolen from them if they are left unable to adequately defend themselves? A thousand times, no.

Because our laws, our social contract, matter more than the whims of a majority.

Please note too that the NRA did not commit the Parkland school shooting, and that 5 million members of that organization are totally innocent of the crime. Nor did President Trump, nor the Republicans in Congress. This crime was committed by one individual. Sheriff Israel, if anyone, can be blamed for not taking action to get the individual some help, but the fact is that as always, you can lead a person to the right help, but you can't make him take it. The fact is that we have all the laws we need to stop these crimes. What is needed is for the men and women of law enforcement to do their jobs.