Ok, I'll explain myself:-
As misguided as the gesture is, at least the kids are making a gesture out against gun violence. For children, this is a very honorable thing to do. I can't think of any kids I know willing to give up their video games for anything, let alone something of such an indirect and abstract rationale.
I just wish they looked at destroying the games in more of a symbolic than practical manner, but if that were the case we probably wouldn't have the cynical commentary we see here.
It's not the kids' misguided gesture that bothers me, it's their father's irresponsible "My kids are so wise and mature that they don't need my guidance" attitude that I find absurd. The "honourable" thing to do would be to donate those games to some terminally ill children instead of trashing them; I don't suppose that a child in the thrall of chemotherapy would be remotely affected by the alleged effect that violent games can have, if there's even a shred of truth to it. Naturally, this would make for an "anti-climactic" piece of news, but to the discerning viewer the symbolism - however naive - of parting company with something they believe is wrong would remain intact.
Of course, this is assuming the whole thing isn't staged, which is debatable.
That, and British soldiers were ordered to destroy every gun they found that belonged to the colonial uprising during the earliest stages of American independence. I suspect the Founding Fathers saw the gun as a symbol of freedom as much as a personal tool with which to defend yourself, or a cultural novelty.
Also, the fact that "the right to bear arms" was built-in the US Constitution (even if via an amendment, so a-posteriori), can be seen as yet another attempt to make a clean "break off" and create a polar opposite with the Old Way of the former British rulers: the British had a King, the US would have a president. In England only the upper class could bear arms, in the New World under the New Way of doing things, everyone had this right (well..except blacks and Indians, but that's another story...)
On that subject, despite my generally "pro-gun" point of view, I don't think they had any idea in the late 18th Century what the Second Amendment would entail 200 years down the line. A modern automatic assault rifle is a rather different piece of equipment compared to an antique musket. Trying to go on a one-man shooting rampage with the latter would be not much more effective (in the most objective sense of the term) than using a knife or a sword.
Last edited by DoomUK on Dec 23 2012 at 09:22