Note to Columnists: If You Don’t Know What You’re Talking About, Maybe Stay Silent

There are all kinds of people who have opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that, and they’re entitled to have them, even if they’re based on misinformation or just misunderstandings. They should try to be informed on the topics they’re opining on, but there’s no way to make anyone do any such thing.

The problem is when those people are in some kind of position to offer up uninformed opinions in a venue where some might assume the person actually knows what they’re talking about.

Like, say, their local newspaper.

While most of us know that the media has a profound anti-gun bias and that most reporters are absolutely clueless on the topic of guns, columnists have wide latitude to talk about things, and many columnists think they know more than they do.

For example, one out of Michigan seems to think he understands the topic pretty well, even as he illustrates how little he knows.

He starts by talking about the University of Texas shooting, which I’ve talked about before. It’s proof that bans on so-called assault weapons or more restrictions on who can buy guns aren’t likely to do all that much.

But our columnist in question has “solutions” he thinks we should ponder.

A call to action

It is clear to me, and others, that America’s growing gun violence is associated to mental illness and who gets guns.

Thoughts and prayers no longer “cut it.” The solutions are in the hands of America’s voters and elected officials.

A few proposals to reflect upon include:

· A computerized, nationwide background check system for the sale, purchase, or transfer of any and all firearms during a defined reasonable period of time.

· Coupled to the background check system, a national, cross-checked background system to ensure the wrong individuals (for example, convicted criminals or mentally challenged) do not acquire firearms.

· A basic educational program to understand firearm safety and responsibility — after all, we do so for the operation of vehicles.

· Helping family members, friends, health care providers, clergy, and other important contacts identify individuals who have mental health challenges and quickly direct them to resources.

· Cease the sales of military-grade firearms and massive-magazine armaments, as well as “ghost guns.”

Other sensible options exist that uphold the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

I’d argue that he failed to present any options that were either sensible or that uphold the Second Amendment.

First, let’s look at the first two items. Essentially, he’s pushing for a universal background check requirement, but doesn’t seem to understand what the current background check system actually does. He somehow thinks the NICS checks don’t try to keep the wrong hands from acquiring guns.

In other words, he doesn’t seem to understand what currently exists, even has he offers up “proposals to reflect upon.”

Then he introduces a mandatory training requirement, then likens it to cars, but clearly doesn’t seem to understand the differences there, either. For example, you do not have to have undergone any training in order to buy a car. You don’t even need one to drive a car. You need that training to get a license that allows you to drive on public roads.

On your own property, you can drive to your heart’s content without any license at all, much less any required training.

Further, the right to drive isn’t enshrined in the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. The courts have long viewed driving on public roads as a privilege, not a right. The Second Amendment, though, is a right. That alone makes the comparison absolutely ridiculous, but coupled with my previous point, it’s even more dumb.

As for mental health resources and getting people to them, I’m totally down with that. I agree.

However, I’ll point out that universal background checks actually make it harder for people undergoing a mental health crisis to hand their guns to a trusted friend or family member. Instead of just calling a family member and saying, “Come get my guns,” they have to go through the whole background check system in order to just hand them off. Creating another step for someone who is struggling, a step they might decide just isn’t worth it, isn’t the way to prevent people from hurting themselves or others.

Finally, the “sales of military-grade firearms and massive-magazine armaments, as well as ghost guns.”

Define military-grade for me. Define “massive” magazine capacities. Define “ghost guns.”

I ask this because the way people define these things is telling.

What is a military-grade firearm? If it’s just something that looks a lot like what the Army currently uses, then that covers a lot of guns that don’t even fire live ammunition. Of course, the definition wouldn’t be quite that simple, but there’s a point where you’re going to create a line that someone will either get around, or you’ll encompass so many things it’s ridiculous. After all, the military still uses bolt-action rifles to some degree. Are those “military-grade firearms?”

And magazine capacity is a weird thing to approach this way. Many of these firearms come with these magazines that our esteemed author might think of as “massive” in some way, shape, or form. It’s what they were designed to use, and the decision to restrict those is arbitrary.

Now, let’s talk “ghost guns.”

I have a “ghost gun.” A couple of them, actually.

These are firearms that are family heirlooms that predate the serial number requirement. One is broken and the other shoots a round that doesn’t exist anymore, but they don’t have serial numbers and thus count as “ghost guns” under most definitions.

Are we going to ban collectors’ pieces that date back a century or more? Is that really a threat to our safety?

Of course, the author doesn’t know. He doesn’t know because he doesn’t have a clue about guns in any way. He just knows what the news told him, and that’s what literally everything he’s talking about is based on. His first two points alone illustrate this perfectly. He’s saying we need to pass a law that creates a system that already exists. He’s clueless about the topic in question, but he’s offering his opinions.

My advice, as a former newspaper columnist, is that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, inform yourself before you start writing.

Otherwise, you look like a complete and total idiot.

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.