@generikat kindly sent me a link to this article and suggested I comment on it. In case the post title isn't enough of a giveaway, I see it as blatant propaganda from agenda-fueled fearmongers, not sound reporting. It promotes fear of an armed populace based on irrationality, not factual journalism.
The NRA wants your kid to love guns: programs promote 2nd Amendment absolutism to Kindergarteners on up
Analysis by Laura Italiano, Jan 20, 2024, 4:01 AM PST.
- The NRA promotes its 2nd Amendment-absolutist views to children as young as Kindergarteners.
- Essays on "What the Second Amendment Means To You" can win $1,000 prizes for kids grades K-12.
- Gun-control advocates warn of indoctrination through these and other youth-focused NRA programs.
The use of "absolutist" as a pejorative betrays more about the author than it does the NRA. In fact, I can only wish the NRA were as principled and steadfast as its critics constantly allege.
Essay contests are sponsored by many groups. This is hardy unusual. Many encourage kids to consider divisive, controversial, politically-charged topics like climate change. Is it only indoctrination when kids are encouraged to explore the principles of liberty, and not when gun control groups exploit them to advocate control?
It is transparent from the start that Ms. Italiano has no desire to provide a nuanced, balanced, journalistically-credible article which might inform the public. This is naked propaganda and fearmongering.
For the National Rifle Association, no American is too young to join in their absolutist defense of the Second Amendment — and that includes Kindergarteners.
I could comment about how the American right accuses the American left of pushing various agendas on Kindergarteners, too. But that's stooping to the same level. And my back is sore.
As the NRA corruption trial began in Manhattan this month, the gun-rights lobby started accepting submissions from children grades K-12 for its 2024 "What the Second Amendment Means To You" youth essay contest.
So, we have an irrelevant tangent as a lazy smear tactic. Journalistic credibility at its peak! The linked article is similarly bad writing from the same "analyst," Ms. Italiano again.
Skipping a bit of filler...
Leaving aside the oddness of asking the youngest of grade-schoolers how the Constitutional right to bear arms affects them personally, the contest raises alarms for gun-control advocates.
Kids are asked for their personal perspectives on Democrat talking points all the time, including gender identity, climate change, and gun control. But it raises alarms when kids are asked to challenge your preconceptions? That is a double standard if this instance is your only concern.
Gun violence remains the number one cause of death for children, according to the CDC. So there's something almost macabre in enlisting children in the NRA mission to restrict gun control, said Kris Brown, president of the gun violence prevention group Brady.
"Eight kids a day are killed or injured by guns in the home," said Brown, calling that grim statistic "uniquely American."
Someone makes a statistical claim, so let's fact-check it! According to the New England Journal of Medicine, this is technically true, yet I would argue it is dishonestly framed.
source
Firearm-related injury is up. Drug overdose and poisoning is also up proportionately more. Motor vehicle crashes are down significantly, however, which plays far more of a role in firearm rates taking top spot in this ignominious ranking. This data set seems to include statistics through age 19, which could be seen as padding the data, since 18 is the legal age of majority for most purposes. It is also unclear from my cursory examination of the data whether this includes youth involved in gang violence and drug-related crimes as a consequence of poverty, prohibition, and the mental health crisis of the COVID era. A good journalist would ask these questions and provide data, not seize upon a statistic to justify an agenda.
Additionally, if firearm-related violence and accidents are on the rise, don't you think teaching children about rights, responsibility, and basic firearm safety would be a solution? Again, if you will allow some snark, isn't the point of sex ed and teaching kids about STDs, condoms, and how reproduction works supposed to protect them by informing them instead of keeping things taboo and secret? Surely the same form of argument can apply to firearms and violence in general, right? People today often mock the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) programs of the 80s and 90s for its abstinence and fearmongering approach to substance abuse.
"It's very dangerous for younger Americans to be indoctrinated with the viewpoint that the Second Amendment allows every American to lawfully possess a firearm," she said.
This is just an assertion. The condescending authoritarianism of organizations like the Brady bunch is just accepted by Ms. Italiano without reservation. Strange. It's almost like there's an agenda here, not honest reporting. Meanwhile, the second amendment itself, the writings of the people of the era, many subsequent court cases, and a basic application of reason have made it plain that firearm ownership is an individual right. Further, rights are not "allowed" or "granted" by constitutions or courts. They are inherent in our status as rational, acting individuals and defined by the sphere where we trespass against others, and they trespass against us. Governments also either respect or violate our preexisting rights, and are not their point of origin.
At any rate, there are several further one-or two-sentence paragraphs of similar hand-wringing opinion presented without challenge. A few excerpts from previous NRA essays are shared, although it is clear the author has no desire to endorse or engage with any such dissenting views. How dare teens parrot such ideas? No, we need brave young leaders like Greta Thunberg promoting climate alarmism, though! OK, that's an unfair characterization, but look at the yellow journalism I'm dealing with. It seems like a fair response when such a sea of fallacies is laid out before me.
There are more tangents about personalities and politics wholly irrelevant to the thesis. However, in closing, at least the article admits,
The gun lobby also offers free training programs through an online education course in several states; the New Mexico and Alabama program takes kids 10 and up. In Texas and Kentucky, it's 9 and up.
So, what's the real takeaway? Nowhere does the author of the original article examine overall crime trends, alternative explanations for why trends change, the practical efficacy of past legislation, or what people with differing opinions might say better addresses the problems in society today. Instead, anyone who advocates liberty is dangerous, imposing regulatory burdens is "common-sense," and children cannot be encouraged to explore ideas of individualism and liberty.
Lucky for Ms. Italiano the first amendment is also absolute, and she is "allowed" to spew her nonsense online with a fully-automatic printing press the likes of which the Founding Fathers could never have imagined, right?
But seriously, we do have major problems we need to address. I disagree with the impulse to blame firearms, though. The symptom is not the cause. Threatening innocent people with legislative fiat and law enforcement creates gun violence, no matter what excuse justifies it. We have a mental health crisis, a teen suicide epidemic, a failing education system, a broken economy, dysfunctional families, arbitrary prohibition laws with draconian punishments, corrupt courts, the highest incarceration rate in the world, and a political system built on divisiveness. Do you think maybe there is even the tiniest chance blaming gun owners and guns is just scapegoating and missing the mark?
Feel free to comment below. Do you agree with Ms. Italiano, and feel I am unjustly harsh in my criticism of her groundbreaking reporting? Should I have treated her with more dignity and respect? Or do I make any good counterclaims and ask relevant questions she should have addressed in order to write a better article? Is she completely off-base? I benevolently grant you the first amendment right to comment.
Further reading:
Gun Control, Crime Rates, and Liberty
Gun Rights and False Narratives
Reactionary Demands for Prohibition in the Wake of Tragedy
The ATF vs. The First Amendment
What Are Rights?
Three Laws Away From Utopia!
Fake News and Modern Yellow Journalism
