David Hogg is one of those people who shouldn’t be famous. Yes, he’s considered a survivor of Parkland. No, I don’t care whether he was actually at school that day or not, though I’m unconvinced he wasn’t.
He shouldn’t be famous because he doesn’t typically know anything about the subject he’s talking about. He routinely pontificates on Second Amendment issues and yet doesn’t do anything except parrot talking points someone else is making. He simply doesn’t understand guns, gun laws, crime, or any other associated topic enough to really offer up anything approaching a reasonable argument.
A prime example of this is him freaking out over the case before the Supreme Court.
Claiming it will “have an effect on an entire generation” sounds like hyperbole. Hogg is freaking out, concerned that a change that will likely only impact permitting criteria yet still be limited to law-abiding citizens will somehow lead to widespread violence and/or mass shootings.
Of course, Hogg would think that. He’d think that because he’s been told to think that by others and he’s a good little soldier for the anti-Second Amendment cause.
The irony is that Hogg says he doesn’t oppose the Second Amendment, just that he thinks there should be some “common-sense” restrictions on it. However, like so many other anti-gun jihadists, he can’t tell you where the line in the sand is. He can’t tell you just what gun control is too far for him.
But in a way, he’s right about his hyperbole.
I know, by definition, that really shouldn’t be possible, but I’ll say it is simply because he’s right in ways he doesn’t intend to be.
You see, a generation that will grow up with expanded concealed carry is a generation that will see less crime. They’ll see more armed citizens in our largest cities, armed citizens who may well stop mass shootings or prevent terrorist attacks from taking place. They’ll grow up in a world made safer by more people being able to lawfully carry a firearm.
We’ll also see fewer younger men locked up for carrying firearms illegally–often carrying them that way because they can’t get a permit no matter how law-abiding they are. The fact that many of these will be young black men, a group Democrats routinely claim to want to look out for will not be lost on folks.
All of this will change with a single Supreme Court decision.
Of course, Hogg talked about “the American people’s right not to be shot.” He’s convinced that law-abiding citizens are monsters in the making, that if you just add a gun, you’ll see widespread violence because we simply can’t be trusted, and that’s the heart of the issue with people like him.
Now, people have a right to not want to be shot. There’s also no right to shoot people who aren’t a threat to you or anyone else. That’s not really a topic up for debate.
However, what Hogg doesn’t understand is that my right to not be shot includes me being able to arm myself so as to respond to threats of lethal force.
That’s what’s up for consideration in this Supreme Court case, so while Hogg is getting hysterical about it, it’ll deliver the very thing he says he wants. And yes, it’ll change things for an entire generation, but in a good way.
After all, Hogg talks about growing up in the shadow of Heller, but he fails to note that violent crime was consistently dropping during that era, right up until last year when no major gun laws changed but crime shot up.
Funny, that.
