Editorial in Massachusetts Betrays How Little Anti-Gunners Care About Facts

While much of the media is very focused on Bondi Beach right now, not all of the American media is hyperfixated on that awful tragedy. After all, there was still a shooting at Brown University that left two people dead, and, as of this writing, we still don’t have a clue just what the hell happened.

Despite the lack of details from the authorities, there’s still been plenty of ink spilled throughout New England discussing the shooting and what the response should be.

One would imagine that if we wanted to make sure something like that didn’t happen again, we should probably consider the facts of the case, many of which we’re still unaware of.

That’s not stopping the Cape Cod Chronicle from publishing an editorial calling for all sorts of gun control.

 But in the United States, well, we get a lot of thoughts and prayers but no actions. 

 There are other measures the U.S. can take, unless we want to continue to see our citizens — including our children — cut down by senseless gun violence. Implement universal background checks; eliminate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; require training and insurance (as we do for driver’s licenses and cars); and take guns away from those under domestic violence orders and, further, take them away — forever — from anyone convicted of a serious crime.

 We’ll get letters about this editorial; so be it. If there can be restrictions on free speech, there can be restrictions on the Second Amendment. Our politicians are ineffective in dealing with gun violence, and they must be held to account. Send them photos of the students killed at Brown. Let them know that their failure in this area jeopardizes their position. Demand action on gun control.

Except there aren’t restrictions on free speech except when it deals with acts of violence, and not inherently then, or when you defame someone and it causes that person hardship, and that’s a civil matter, not criminal.

Even the venerable line about “can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” thing isn’t exactly true, and a later Supreme Court overturned that so-called thinking.

So no, there aren’t really restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on the ramifications of one’s speech, much as there are and should be ramifications for the misuse of a firearm. Your threat to someone’s life is akin to pointing a gun at them, after all.

But what gets me is that they immediately jump to the standard anti-gun narrative, that all of those things should be passed in the wake of the Brown shooting, even though we don’t have any idea of just what happened.

We do seem to know that the killer used handguns, not assault weapons, though. We know guns are prohibited for convicted felons and domestic violence offenders already. While there’s a renewed mechanism for people to get those gun rights back, the reality is that it hasn’t really happened on any significant scale.

So we already have what they want on some of that, and some of the rest is clearly irrelevant, but that isn’t stopping them.

That’s because Brown isn’t relevant beyond being a good reason to bring it up again. For all their rhetoric about how “thoughts and prayers” aren’t enough, they don’t actually care a damn about what happened. They just want to push for what they want to push for and they’ll use any tragedy they can to try and get it.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.