The assassination of Charlie Kirk was still fresh when anti-gunners started working to try and use it to justify gun control. They didn’t yet know that absolutely nothing they’ve been pushing for years would have done a thing to stop the alleged killer. He didn’t use an AR-15, wasn’t showing signs of psychological distress, fired exactly one shot, and so on.
They jumped on it and, frankly, we expected it.
But according to a writer at The Guardian, following this and a school shooting in Colorado that was largely missed in the national discussion, there hasn’t been any discussion at all to speak of.
The confluence of two bloody incidents just one minute apart – the first taking the life of a key figure in Donald Trump’s “Make America great again” (Maga) movement, the second erupting in the same school district as the notorious 1999 Columbine massacre – underlined America’s dirty little non-secret: the ubiquitous, quotidian nature of its gun violence.
“Yesterday was a dark day in the United States,” the former Republican political strategist and Trump critic Steve Schmidt said on his podcast on Thursday. “It was a day of mass violence, of killing, of gun violence – in other words, in America it was a day like any other day.”
The sense of shock that has ricocheted across the US since the Kirk shooting has been palpable. Cable news shows and social media feeds have been overflowing with intense browbeating and soul-searching about the parlous – and perilous – state of the nation.
There have been umpteen calls to prayer, plenty of partisan name-calling, and even dark warnings about a coming civil war.
What has been noticeable by its absence, though, is virtually any talk about the instrument that lies at the heart of America’s copious ongoing blood-letting: the gun.
Of course, the author then goes on to quote Hamas sympathizer Hasan Piker, then anti-gun law professor Adam Winkler, both of whom tried to paint America as the problem, but absolutely ignored all of the anti-gun activists like Gabby Giffords and Fred Guttenberg, who pounced on the gun as the problem.
Again, nothing the anti-gun left has demanded in the past could have stopped this. Even many anti-gunners are forced to acknowledge this. It wasn’t the kind of attack they were geared up to fight because of the choices the alleged gunman made.
They’re trying, but everything is out of whack for them at the moment.
Yet the fact that it’s out of whack shows you a lot about what the author is trying to prove here. He’s quoting anti-gunners left and right, but the only pro-gun voice he remotely tries to quote is Kirk himself, who can no longer speak on the subject.
It’s not that there aren’t pro-gunners he could have looked to. Even if your’s truly is overlooked, there are hundreds of well-respected Second Amendment advocates he could have quoted via their videos, writings, radio shows and podcasts, and a host of other media.
So we’re not talking about guns enough, which means the author needs to stir the pot by presenting a very one-sided approach to the topic.
What we see is that author Ed Pilkington has his head in a hole and doesn’t know what he’s talking about on any level, and hopes his readers are simply as clueless as he is.
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.
Read the full article here
