Mainstream Media’s War on Guns Marches On

Gun Confiscation
Gun Confiscation

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)-The war on guns marches on. Instead of concentrating on real solutions like getting rid of “gun free zones,” focusing on mental health, and allowing teachers to carry guns the mainstream media pushes “common sense” gun laws. These proposed laws are anything but common sense.

Texas shooting suspect's choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles,” reads the headlines in the Chicago Tribune.

The Texas shooter used a revolver and a shotgun to kill ten students. The Chicago Tribune article highlights that only the most extreme gun grabbers want to ban shotguns and revolvers. At least publicly. The article quickly points to the Las Vegas and the Parkland shootings to show more people died there.

“The reason most mass shootings are conducted with assault weapons is that shooters know full well what weapon to select, if they want to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time possible, and that's an AR-15-style gun with a large-capacity magazine,” the article quotes Avery W. Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “If this shooter had had one of those, quite likely there would have been more deaths and injuries. But we don't know.”

Gardiner is living in a world of hypotheticals. This tactic is one of the most commonly used techniques by the left. When a tragedy happens that proves your theory wrong, instead of accepting the evidence and reevaluating your theory, you change the reality by using hypotheticals. “It was bad, but it could have been really bad.”

Michael E. Diamond of NBC News calls gun culture a “dysfunctional mess.” They know the respect veterans have in the gun world, so they wheel out a vet who is anti-gun. They do this for two reasons. First, being in the military, the vet speaks from a place of authority even though this vet admits he really didn't use a gun in the military.

The Second reason is that they want to try to frame it that every veteran agrees with the one outlier. Just look at the headline “The Texas school shooting reminds America what vets already know: civilian gun culture is a dysfunctional mess

He encourages people not to listen to the NRA or other pro-gun groups. Instead, he wants people to look to vets. I would be willing to bet that most vets do not agree with Diamond. So, what he really means is that he wants people to listen to him.

He starts by pointing out that most soldiers are unarmed. He uses this fact to push that most people should be unarmed. He says that only MPs are armed on base. He points out that professional soldiers get extensive training with firearms. He suggests that civilians should be required to get the same amount of training as the military. Also, he says that the military tracks their ammunition and firearms. I track my guns as well. Most gun owners do.

His great solutions are to impose military-style regulations on civilian populations. Without saying as much, that would mean a gun confiscation for everyone besides the police. He finishes the article by reminding people that he fought for our country in Desert Storm (even though he didn't see combat) so we should listen to him.

The Atlantic runs the headline, “It's the Guns.” Right away you know where this story is going.

What “The Atlantic” does is throws various misleading stats from anti-gun groups at the reader in hopes that they don't actually look into them. Anytime you see statistics you have to take them with a grain of salt.

I once had a professor who told that class that you can use statistics to prove anything you want. He took the same study and framed the stats in two different ways. The results were polar opposites. This “statical jiu-jitsu” is what David Frum of The Atlantic is doing.

The United States is a big country. We have over 300 million people. That is a hell of a lot more people than most countries in Europe. This fact alone means that you can't use raw numbers. You have to use per capita numbers. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, you are 27% more likely to be killed in a mass shooting in the EU than in the US, but that doesn't fit Frum's narrative.

He then goes on to attack gun owners. He calls us irresponsible. He points out that most gun owners don't feel the need to inform visitors that there are guns in the house. “Hey come in! By the way, I have an AR15 and a Glock in a safe downstairs.”

Then there is an article in “Deadline” attacking movie posters. The author, Michael Cieply, thinks that Han Solo holding a blaster on a Star Wars poster is damaging to our kids. Yes, a blaster from Star Wars could be making our kids the next mass shooter.

Deadpool 2
Deadpool 2

He claims Chewbacca has the space equivalent of an assault rifle. He goes after other movies posters as well. For example, the hilarious poster from Deadpool 2″. That poster shows a cartoon Deadpool riding a unicorn with a gun.

Adam Swiderski, of Syfy, writes that he is very anti-censorship, but he thinks that the movie industry should look at their movies and tone down the guns. Yes, in one breath he says he is anti-censorship then in the next asserts that the entertainment industry should censor itself.

The most ridiculous article I ran across was one from Jill Lawrence of “The USA Today.”

The headline reads, “Would the Founders want our kids to die in school shootings like Santa Fe? I doubt it.

She says that the Founding Fathers were unbound by the past and wouldn't let something like that pesky Second Amendment get in their way. She claims since a lot of the signers of the Constitution had children that died that they would support gun control. Later she claims that The Second Amendment was put in place to control slaves.

“Does anyone think they would expect us to live by a 230-year-old document,” She asks referring to the Constitution.

My response would be an astounding “Yes!”

I do believe the Constitution should bind us. That 230-year-old document is the bedrock of our country. It stops people like Jill Lawrence from trampling on our rights. If the founding fathers were alive today, they wouldn't change a damn thing in that Masterpiece.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.

  • 20
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    12 Comment threads
    8 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    15 Comment authors
    tomcatWild BillMartinTodd NoebelJim Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    @ Wild Bill yes and the national makeup day would be the most necessary. Most of those liberal women need to sneak up to get a glass of water. They would need a tiptoe through the tulips day to make them all complete.

    Todd Noebel
    Guest
    Todd Noebel

    Would the Founders expect us to live by the document they crafted over 200 years ago? That’s a resounding yes when you consider, among other well documented writings of their own, that the founders looked heavily at something written in 1215…perhaps some folks have heard of The Magna Carta.

    Martin
    Guest
    Martin

    Good Point!
    There are people out there who don’t want to be confused by the facts. Why give them information that may completely baffle them when it comes to history?
    You will then have to explain Memorial Day, The Fourth of July and Veterans (Armistice) Day. It will overwhelm their capabilities to comprehend.

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    @Martin it may well be in their plans to do away with the holidays you mention. Afterall, those days are part of our history. That may be their next target as soon as they get rid of all the statues. History books and teaching history in school went by the wayside while we slept. Erase all objects of history and a generation later there will be no thought o what happened in the past and the Constitution and Bill of Rights will have no significant meaning, something like it is now for the liberals.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Tcat, I heard that the socialist democrats want to replace those traditional holidays with “National Makeup Awareness Day”, “Origami Day” and “Essential Oils Day” so that they can joyfully celebrate their inner libtardness.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    The 2A was put in place to control slaves? How asinine! Shows what attending a public school (on any level) does to the brain—no willingness to do true research because it might take some effort and might lead to an inconvenient truth that could hurt a leftist’s feelings.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    The founding fathers intended that each of our Constitutionally enumerated Civil Rights was, and continues to be, a limit on government action. Each time that even one person exercises his Civil Right to speak or shoot, that person is limiting for that moment, the various governments’s ability to act.
    When our Civil Rights are diminished, the governments’s power to act is increased. And then… precedent is made.

    Edward Weber
    Guest
    Edward Weber

    You are correct on many levels. One is, I think, the way that you intended. At least in the way that I interpreted your post. Another way that it could be read and interpreted, “When our Civil Rights are diminished, the governments’s power to act is increased. And then… precedent is made.” The precedent was the Revolutionary War. Except in this case it would be another Civil War.

    Gene Ralno
    Guest
    Gene Ralno

    I monitor this issue and Gardiner’s madness seems to have triggered more references and comparisons to Hitler than previous democrat bills. I sense that firearms owners have finally had it. Perhaps it’s time to mention that Hitler not only disarmed his people, he also nationalized firearms manufacturers, ammunition producers, importers and exporters, ranges, shooting and hunting clubs. Never doubt for a moment that Gardiner would follow Hitler all the way to heil. Hard numbers are difficult but the U.S. has about 17,000 indoor firing ranges and an unknown number of outdoor ranges. Outdoor facilities vary from farms with berms to… Read more »

    Colonialgirl
    Guest
    Colonialgirl

    One MUST look at HOW MANY of these Anti-Gun Idiots live in Walled-gated communities, and how many of them have 24 hour armed guards around them SAFETY for THEM , BUT NOT for THEE; Gee so sad you cannot afford your own force of armed guards like Bloomberg and the other elite rich liberals. You are just suppose to call the police and hope you aren’t dead or have bled to death before they arrive in 15 to 30 minutes plus to draw chalk marks around your body. Imagine the Revolutionary War IF the American Colonists HAD NOT had the… Read more »

    Oldvet
    Guest
    Oldvet

    The loss of power and water can be done from outside of their walls . Their fortress can become a prison !

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    This Atlantic rag is trying to compete with NYT and WP but they are a day late and a dollar short of being a liberal big wheel. I don’t bother to read any articles written by and of them because I know they are all full of it and only tell the liberal lies. Maybe I should see what they are saying but it always irritates me to read the trash they spew.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Two things: First, in regard to the premise that this kid would have killed a lot more if he’d had a Bushmaster: maybe so… but don’t forget HE was taken out of action by proactive intended victims. Parkland school shooting ended because his AR jammed. I’ve NEVER HEARD of a Remington 870 jamming. In light of the claim the shotgun contirubuted to a lower kill count: anyone else here remember what the California Highway Patrol selected as their “weapon of choice” for scenarios such as riots or out of control demonstrations, where a rapid high kill count was necessary to… Read more »

    2WarAbnVet
    Guest
    2WarAbnVet

    According to the F.B.I.’s count of violent crimes reported to law enforcement has declined from a rate of 747 violent incidents per 100,000 people in 1993 to 386 incidents per 100,000 people in 2016. During these years private gun ownership has skyrocketed, except in the abattoirs of Democrat controlled cities where strict gun control is maintained, and citizens are denied the right of self-defense.

    TheHolyCrow
    Guest
    TheHolyCrow

    I think we should demand ownership of some of the decommissioned “Davey Crocket Nuclear Rifles”. Ever see one of those babies ? Google it up, they have declassified training films now on the net, one with RFK in the audience that witnessed its demonstration, way back in 1961 before we had all these snowflakes moaning and groaning about semi auto pea shooters.

    Martin
    Guest
    Martin

    I am certain that most members of the lamestream media either wear blinders or are so wrapped in their own commentary that they have absolutely no idea which end of a rifle, pistol or revolver the lead comes out of AND, if they did they’d keep it to themselves otherwise they’d be drummed out of the news brigade. I too served during Desert Storm, I never fired a shot nor did I go to the “sand box” but I respect those who did and believe that using a person like me as a “Poster Child” for the anti-gunners would be… Read more »

    SK
    Guest
    SK

    I am done debating this issue. I will not be giving up any of my firearms. Game over!

    Boz
    Guest
    Boz

    Amen! No “debate” needed.

    Edward Weber
    Guest
    Edward Weber

    Ditto times 1000.

    Douglas Kuykendall
    Guest
    Douglas Kuykendall

    I disagree with the part founding fathers wouldn’t change a thing!!!! First thing they would change is to have the second amendment in stone with no wiggle room to try an interpretation other than what it is.Have in it, to try an down grade the constitution,bill of rights would be treason ,any guilty verdict,a public hanging or firing squad decided by judge.Can be one or the other,but can never be changed.