Conservative Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv, a young man who has found himself thrust into the public arena as he continues to battle in favor of the Second Amendment, was provided a prime opportunity to showcase the power of the truth when a zealous anti-gun columnist for the New York Times penned a piece in favor of gun control.

Kashuv took the opportunity as a challenge and ended up thoroughly dismantling Nicholas Kristof’s arguments with extreme prejudice.

This kid gives us all a lot of hope for the future.

Trending: HERE WE GO: Judge Orders Mueller to Hand Over Documents, & Things Get Interesting

Anyway, in Kristof’s column, he listed what he referred to as “10 modest steps” to reduce gun violence, a list that necessitated an entire article, but got destroyed in a Twitter thread.

Kristof’s first three points were:

1. “Require universal background checks to see if a purchaser is a felon or a threat to others.”

2. “Improve background checks by allowing the federal government adequate time to perform them.”

3. “Pass “red flag laws” that allow a judge to order the temporary removal of a gun from people who are a threat to themselves or others.”

Kashuv responded with the following three points:

pt 1) This is a survey by gun control advocates that I trust about as far as I can throw it.

Pt. 2 see https://t.co/u922SDgDOL

pt. 3) “red flag laws” — If people "really" believe that these individuals are a danger to themselves or others, confine them to a mental…

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

health facility. Simply saying that someone can't legally buy a gun isn't a serious response. People can get guns in other ways just about as easily as they can buy illegal drugs. In addition, if you really people someone is a danger, why only take away their guns?…

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

The fourth point of Kristof’s piece was “Get guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.”

Kashuv wrote the following in response:

“The intimate relationship numbers are useless because they also include crimes committed against prostitutes by Johns and Pimps. Women shouldn’t be concerned about all men, but those who have a violent criminal history. 90% of adult murderers have a violent criminal history. When you see how relatively small murders are involving women, you get an idea how important these considerations are. Women, because they are weaker physically, also benefit much more from owning guns then men do.”

Points 5 and 6 of Kristof’s nonsense include the following:

5. “Require safe storage of guns, preferably in a safe or at least with a trigger lock.”

6. “Make serial numbers harder to file off, and require microstamping, so that cartridges can be traced back to the gun that fired the bullets.”

And, again, Kashuv’s brilliant replies:

Pt 5) Safe storage laws. https://t.co/QpJM3oy4zV

pt. 6) You can easily recover the serial numbers off of guns after they have been filed off. The original stamping of the serial number alters the metal under the serial numbers and can be read. Microstamping….

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

Let’s round out the slaughter with the remaining four points and the laser point precision of Kashuv to thoroughly shut down the argument:

7. “Invest in ‘smart guns’ that require a PIN, fingerprint or nearby bracelet to fire.”

8. “Support community anti-violence programs, like Cure Violence and Becoming a Man, that work with at-risk young people and show excellent success in reducing shootings.”

9. “Limit buyers in most cases to one or two gun purchases a month, to reduce gun trafficking.”

10. “Invest in gun buybacks.”

Pt. 7) Smart gun laws https://t.co/paC3Ganx1A

pt. 8) If you look at the month by month changes in crime in Boston for example where they did this experiment, the drop in crime occurred months BEFORE the program started. Only by looking at longer periods of time do they….

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

obscure that fact. In other places, there have been other changes in law enforcement occurring at the same time (e.g., such as more police).

pt. 9) There no evidence that limiting gun purchases reduces crime in either the state that the law is passed in or in neighboring…

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

It’s also illegal for domestic abusers to possess guns — Lautenberg Amendment. Buybacks don’t work (mandatory Australia mid-90s), prohibited possesses won’t submit to UBCs.

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) May 25, 2018

Boom.

The bottom line is, it’s every citizen’s right to own a firearm for the means of protecting themselves against tyrannical government leadership and criminals who desire to steal their property or harm them in some way.

This is a right given to us by God, therefore, no government ever has the right to infringe upon it.

Let’s all follow in Kashuv’s footsteps and work toward defending our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Source: The Daily Wire