Before winter break, 12-year-old Artemis Rayford wrote a letter to tell Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee that he opposed a new law reducing restrictions on guns. Before the end of that break, the sixth-grader would be shot and killed by one.

In his letter, Artemis told Lee (R) that his school’s anti-violence initiative with the Memphis Police Department had been discussing a law that went into effect in July, allowing people 21 and older, and military service members 18 and up, to carry a weapon without any training or permit.

He introduced himself as a student at Sherwood Middle School before writing his thoughts about the legislation.

“It is my opinion that this new law will be bad and people will be murdered,” Artemis’s letter said.

…

Artemis wouldn’t be around to find out what Lee thought of his letter.

Early Christmas morning, he was shot and killed by a stray bullet that came from outside the Memphis home he shared with his mother and 6-year-old sister.

When Artemis’s teachers found out about his death, one of them sent his mother a photo of the letter that was addressed to Lee.

Well…so there are jackwagons aplenty, aren’t there?

As bad as the teacher sending the letter to his mother might be–and I think that was kind of a schmuck move–at least that was a private act that I can theoretically see being motivated by something that’s awful.

But why would the Washington Post report it? Are they seriously trying to suggest that this kid was somehow responsible for his death?

While there’s a certain degree of irony here, I still don’t see why one of the largest newspapers in the nation would care about a bit of irony for Tennessee unless it could serve a deeper narrative.

In this case, advancing the gun control agenda.

This is why people don’t trust the Washington Post like they once did. While there were days when they did some top-notch reporting, what we have today aren’t journalists. They’re activists who want nothing more than to reshape the world in their image.

A story about this letter isn’t because the kid was killed, though no one will deny how awful this is. No, this story is because they can use this kid’s murder to push through an idea that gun control is a good thing.

They don’t bother to show how any gun control would stop a stray bullet from hitting the boy. After all, it’s already illegal to kill someone, even with a stray bullet. It’s illegal to fire bullets in such a way as to endanger people, too.

There’s no law that would have prevented what looks to be a horrible tragedy.

But the Washington Post doesn’t want you to think about that. They don’t want you to think at all. They want you to feel instead. They want the irony of the situation to rip you up inside so that you’ll do what they tell you is the only possible solution to preventing another horrible tragedy like this.

Logic and reason are the enemies of emotion, so they don’t want you using any of those.

So, they’ll somehow imply that a kid’s letter is somehow responsible for his murder and hope you fall for it.