A letter to David Hogg and the ‘Never Again’ movement

“Can we please not debate this as Democrats and Republicans but discuss this as Americans?….WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE OUR FUTURE.”

This tweet is pinned to gun control activist David Hogg’s Twitter profile. At this juncture, there aren’t many Americans who haven’t heard of David Hogg or the “Never Again” gun control movement. Following the recent school shooting in Parkland, Fla., gun control advocates have ramped up their efforts tenfold to push gun reform legislation and mitigate supposed rampant gun violence in the U.S. 0011

So, Mr. Hogg, I accept your offer. I won’t debate you as a Republican or even as a conservative. I’ll respond to you as an American, an American about your age, as a matter of fact, and an American who is gravely concerned with your proposed courses of action.

As I ponder even the title of the movement “Never Again,” I can’t help but chuckle. No, this chuckle isn’t cold or depraved, but rather perplexed. If you’ll recall, the first World War was dubbed “The War to End All Wars,” but you already know how successfully that endeavor turned out.

While it’s noble to work to obliterate a segment of evil or even have that goal in mind, movements with the attitude of “Never Again” fail to recognize the most imperative fact fundamental to the crafting of public policy: humans are evil, depraved, and always in pursuit of their own self-interest.

One may strive to control the effects of human evil, indeed, that is why human government was instituted. However, when evil wants to have its way with the world, history has proven, at every turn, that it will find a way. The founding documents of the United States were written regarding the characteristics of mankind fully taken into account. The principles of limited yet strong national government, federalism, checks and balances, separation of powers, and individual liberty were the result of this philosophical outlook. Most empires don’t experience such longevity or success as the United States has experienced for some 242 years. Perhaps before disregarding the principles put forth in such documents they might merit a closer observation.

David, in an interview with Bill Maher, you and your friend Cameron Kasky assert a line of thought that, as an American, I find to be the most troubling thing I’ve heard your movement assert. And trust me, you assert a host of troubling lines of thought.

“The Second Amendment is a very good piece of rhetoric defense, that I’ve seen a lot, because they put it as if you’re attacking a right that you’re BORN WITH.”

Something I’d suggest doing in your spare time would be a comprehensive study of the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Instead of merely advocating for change driven by emotion, look to the Constitution as a whole, specifically the Bill of Rights and the defense that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay provide for them. Perhaps you won’t share the same view, but I highly doubt you’ve ever taken the time to research it. Rights, David, come from the Creator, to be preserved and protected by government.

The Bill of Rights was crafted not to enumerate privileges that Americans are granted by government, but rather to entrust the citizenry with what the Declaration of Independence defines as inalienable rights – rights that can never be stripped from a people because no human being has the jurisdiction to do so. The purpose and nature of this form of government you actually may quite agree with, without even realizing so. I’ve often heard your movement champion the idea that government works for us, the people. I’d have to say that you are correct on that. However, it’s perplexing that you then use that idea as backing to advocate for policy that would reverse such a wonderful dynamic. How can you be so blind as to not see the glaring contradiction in your own line of thought?

David, the Second Amendment is a right you are born with. In fact, it was so valued that those who crafted it called it “necessary to the security of a free state” and added the qualifier that this right “shall not be infringed.” Infringed is a strong word meaning restricted, limited, checked, curbed, or anything of the sort. The Second Amendment wasn’t acknowledged so that you could hunt or even defend yourself from “robbers and bears” as Cameron (bless his heart) says in the interview. It was written to defend against tyranny and oppression, and also to check and balance the very human nature that is capable of committing acts such as the one that devastated your community. The right is not to be trifled with.

A member of your movement said at your recent protest, in reference to the recent bump stock bans, “when they give us that inch, we’ll take a mile.” It’s concerning that such an attitude pervades your movement. Again, as you assert in the interview, living through a tragedy does not make you an expert on an issue. Perhaps it sounds cold, but your experience is one instance – one tragic instance no doubt – that makes my heart bleed for you and your community. It is also one instance, however, that should not drive us to taking reactive action that we will undoubtedly later regret.

Last week in Maryland, as a matter of fact, an atrocity perhaps with the potential to be as large as your experience was prevented because someone with moral clarity had a gun. Not commonly known, these experiences are far more frequent than high casualty massacres. If we were to legislate based solely on one event or even a string of events and not a historical record, we would cease to be the successful republic we still are.

I’m not far removed from an atrocity such as your experience. A few years back, a teenager at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, Penn., walked into school with a knife stabbing 20 students. Franklin is a mere 20 minutes from my residence. At the time, I had many friends, teammates, and acquaintances that attended there, all of whom were affected in some way by the event. Not once did I hear advocacy groups advocating for knife control in the days following the travesty. I don’t really know for certain why that is, but I like to think that perhaps it’s because those affected understood the economy of man.

Perhaps they grasped that regardless of government action, evil people find the means to do evil things, and it is then imperative that rights remain intact to counterbalance that nature in a way that government has never been able to. I say this to prove that I’m not some bloviating pundit looking to score political points. No, I’m an American about your age who’s concerned, like you, with the direction of this nation.

Statistics show that guns aren’t the issue here and an understanding of Founding documents explain why gun rights are a part of the solution.

Gun violence is an awful thing, and it is certainly not to be downplayed, but you must examine facts before advocating for action on an issue so consequential as this.

Guns don’t kill people, David. People kill people.