Many people who support gun control think those of us who oppose it are immoral. Look at their arguments if you doubt me. They think that we’re fine with kids being killed at a Wednesday mass in Minneapolis, or in a high school in Parkland, or any of a thousand other places where awful things have happened.
Now, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, two regular voices here at Bearing Arms–myself and Ryan Petty–have lost people they care about in mass murders committed with a firearm. To claim we’re fine with such actions is infuriating to me. It’s insulting on a level that goes beyond simple disagreement, especially if someone knows that history about us.
But then we’ve got the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
It undermines many of the anti-gunners’ arguments about gun control. It wasn’t an evil “assault weapon” or a “ghost gun.” It wasn’t a firearm that used a “high capacity magazine,” nor was the alleged assassin a convicted criminal or someone with a long history of mental health issues, so far as we know.
There’s nothing at all that fits the typical narrative.
And, as Dean Weingarten points out over at Ammoland, there’s a profound note of ideological bankruptcy in their arguments.
Newsweek.com quoted an influencer who claimed Charlie Kirk lost the gun control debate. From newsweek.com:
On X Brandy Bryant, a self-styled transgender comedian with 21,000 followers on the platform, posted: “Breaking: Charlie Kirk loses gun debate.”
Brandy Bryant is exactly wrong. When you have to kill someone to silence them, it shows you have lost the debate. The left is driven to violence because they have lost the debate.
On Reddit, Mormaglis wrote this:
While there might not be a perfectly secure system, there are obviously systems that greatly reduce the accessibility of firearms for those who would use them to harm others. You might not be able to say for certain that it wouldn’t have prevented the assassination – but you can reasonably say that it would reduce the likelihood of an assassination occurring.
There are systems that might be secure enough to do this. They are called totalitarian systems.
The bolt-action hunting rifle is the type of firearm least subject to control. People who hunt and have no prior history of violence, such as the assassin, are most likely to be able to access this type of firearm. The argument is common among people who want the population disarmed. They refuse to acknowledge the benefits of widespread ownership of firearms.
As the National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke noted, this kind of rifle is even legal in England, which is one of the most gun-controlled nations on the planet. It’s the least objectionable gun there is, and it’s the gun we’ve been told time and time again that no one wants to take from millions of Americans who own them and use them for lawful purposes, such as hunting.
While the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with outdoor sports, no one seems willing to say that even hunting rifles should be banned.
Granted, we all know they’ll be called “sniper rifles” first, but as things stand, we’re not remotely close to that point.
As it stands, there was absolutely no way the alleged killer would have been barred from buying a gun just like this. “But it was his grandpa’s gun, which he got from his dad, so we should have universal background checks,” someone will say, and that’s apparently true based on the text messages he sent to his significant other. He did get it from his dad.
Do you think he wouldn’t pass a universal background check? He had no criminal history and hadn’t been ruled as “mentally defective.” He showed no indication he was even planning this, as the roommate made clear with their questions in the text exchange. He’d have gotten the gun anyway, so that argument is stupid.
The truth is that their entire anti-gun ideology is premised on the idea that gun control works for anything and everything, which is about as idiotic as an ideology can get. They see the same policies solving regular crime, mass murders, and now political assassinations that didn’t even use the kind of weapons they say are the only ones they want to restrict.
That’s a bankrupt ideology that is premised on people being stupid and a complicit media.
They got half of what they want in that; it’s just the first part is more elusive than they’re fond of.
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
