Anti-gun crowd uses incorrect news 
to push extreme gun-control agenda

It’s the mendacity demonstrated these last few days we should recall, the mendacity of the professional left and its followers among those who deal in newsprint and electromagnetic waves.

Another tragedy befalls a group of innocents at the hands of a lunatic, and these groups seek first to advance a political agenda that hopes to blame inanimate objects for human failings while minimizing the failure of institutions they dominate. All the while they use an untruth that even when discovered was ignored to the last gasp of the message.

Madness and murderous compulsion, such as that demonstrated at this week’s Washington Naval Yard shooting, are not entirely preventable, no matter what the safeguards of a rational society. That being said, policies that allow angry and mentally disturbed individuals to have high-security clearances, as was the situation in Washington, are less than useless and rapidly become dangerous.

The purpose of investigating individuals to give them access to sensitive areas is to prevent them from doing harm and must be an ongoing pursuit, not static and perfunctory.

But this avenue of inquiry was barely explored and apparently not on the mind of many politicians and commentators who took to the airwaves, before the crime was even completed and the perpetrator determined. They wanted to discuss his gun.

When the crime spree began, the story that the perpetrator was armed with an AR-15 type assault rifle hit the national media sprinkler heads almost instantly, even though it was unverified. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was practically drafting new legislation on air while law enforcement officials were seeking to halt the crime.

The New York Daily News, a tabloid for those on the left, published an edition with an enormous graphic of an AR-15 and the headline “Same Gun, Different Slay,” calling the firearm the “Newtown” weapon and declaring it was “Made for Murder.”

This statement was made while law enforcement personnel were swarming the shipyard, carrying the same weapon. So, it had come to this: Those who would not know the difference between Colt’s AR -15 and Lincoln’s Mark VII, would now define a weapon’s character, no matter the hands operating it.

Throughout the next 24 hours, the narrative evolved: The killer, it turned out, did not bring an assault rifle to the crime but obtained one from a victim. Then it became clear he never used one at all.

In Colorado, we had experienced quite enough of this alarmist manipulation and took steps to rid ourselves of politicians who would foist such nonsense upon constituents and citizens of the state.

Last Tuesday, voters in Colorado Springs and Pueblo rightfully changed their representation from two state senators who chose to lead the charge of ineffectual and job-destroying gun legislation to people voters believed would reflect the wishes and values of their constituents.

The change was literally historic and created a tremor that was felt from the base of the Rockies to the tidal basin of Washington, D.C.

Voters removed state Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron in the most closely watched state elections in recent years, as voters recalled not one but two state elected office holders for the first time since the state’s birth.

National attention and money flowed like manna to the embattled senators’ supporters, who outspent their opponents at least five to one. It was estimated that more than $3 million was spent in these campaigns, with a $350,000 donation from New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, for variety of stated reasons. I believe he follows Bruce Springsteen’s lyric, “Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, And a king ain’t satisfied, till he rules everything.”

But he was neither king nor kingmaker here. This is the West. We’re a bit tough on princely potentates.

The spending by the anti-recall group attempted to blur the reasons for the political action and misdirect voters toward issues such as abortion etc. But voters, in this case, knew the issues. When the dust had cleared, faces had changed and Colorado’s Senate went from a comfortable five-vote Democrat plurality to a razor-thin single vote.

To those in the nation who would battle for freedom and reason I say, “Look to Colorado.”

Rick Wagner writes more on politics at his blog, The War on Wrong.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Rick Wagner’s latest offering – “Anti-gun crowd uses incorrect news to push extreme gun-control agenda” – could just as easily have been titled “Wagner uses incomplete news to push extreme gun rights agenda”.

Reportedly, the Naval Yard shooter attempted to purchase (or at least test-fired) an AR-15 at the same gun shop where he purchased the shotgun actually used in the slaughter.

Also reportedly, Alexis was unable to purchase the AR-15 because a Virginia statute limits sales of assault weapons to in-state residents.  If true, then Virginia’s common sense law – a limited “assault weapons ban” – may have prevented even more carnage.

Moreover, if any “assault weapons ban” were unconstitutional – as extreme gun rights advocates insist – then Virginia’s law would also be unconstitutional under both the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, Section 2 (which prohibits a state’s denial of equal rights to U.S. citizens residing in another state).

Recalling that both Republicans and the NRA once supported the 1994 assault weapons ban (until such weapons became big money-makers for gun manufacturers and the NRA), the incident actually supports the proposition that a nationwide assault weapons ban – coupled with closing the “gun show loophole” and limiting magazine capacity—could indeed prevent mentally unstable purchasers from legally purchasing such weapons.

Likewise, while Kathleen Parker’s column – “Mental illness, not gun access, biggest problem in shooting sprees” – may be correct as to mass shootings, addressing that component is complicated by medical privacy laws.  Moreover, the element common to all incidents of gun violence is a gun – whether or not “mental illness” is also involved.

Wagner is correct in pointing to inadequate background checks as a contributing factor – which is the direct result of Republican-backed out-sourcing of traditional personnel security functions to private entities paid on completion rates rather than thoroughness.

Rick Wagner’s latest column was so right on the money that it spurred an early-bird “liberal” response from Bill Hugenberg. Let’s examine and deconstruct that response.
First, there is the manipulative marketing euphemism “assault weapon” used by Feinstein, Schumer et ilk. Anything used to assault someone, including a rock, a knife, or a big stick, is an “assault weapon”. The very same weapon fraudulently called “assault weapon” is a DEFENSE WEAPON when used for self-defense. So, get over that one, libs. What you should be saying is “an ugly black gun I neither understand nor like.” Actually, what the libs’ wannbe-clever language manipulation is trying to accomplish is the demonization and abolition of 100-year-old semi-automatic — (where one round is expended each time you depress the trigger) — technology without openly and honestly saying that is their purpose. What Feinstein et ilk don’t understand is that their polemic manipulations have the exactly opposite effect of their intended effect. They alienate rather than attract an audience to the point virtually all rational people simply tune that crap out. In fact, once a manipulator like Feinstein has been identified as such, most people can’t even hear what’s being said. They simply automatically dismiss the liar as BEING the lie.
As an enthusiastic supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the self-ownership it facilitates, I am OK with drawing a line between hand-held semi-automatic guns and, say, the Apache helecopters with their 70mm Hellfire missiles and 30mm chain guns available to the American police state’s militarized local police SWAT teams.
As for Republicans once supporting a ban in 1994, I suggest economic conditions and wannbe-clever social engineering have changed dramatically for the worse since then.
What control-freak gun banners never seem to talk about is the nuts and bolts of a corrupt political and monetary/tax structure which causes the social conditions that make people want to have guns for self defense and survival. “Gun control is about making it easier to take away the financial assets of us hard-working people.” ~ Catherine Austin Fitts (formerly a world class banking insider who now runs a financial advice website at But there is not enough space to go into that here.
It suffices to say, it’s a lot easier for the Left (Hugenberg et ilk) to simply blame guns, skin color, or a lack of a big enough “welfare” check than it is to educate themselves and do the hard work of trying to fix a self-evidently corrupt and unsustainable political and economic “system”.
What Hugenberg et ilk are actually selling is not “reasonable” regulations against “assault weapons”. (Thankfully, the wannbe-clever marketing term “assault weapon” has become a non-starter.) No, what Hugenberg et ilk are actually marketing is a slippery slope against self-ownership. No informed rational mind should buy that.

So, predictably, John Wilkenson is at it again—spewing his usual vituperative nonsense as if it were rational thought.  “Let’s examine and deconstruct [his] response”.

First, the term “assault weapon” appears in quotes precisely because of the definitional difficulties encountered by lawmakers attempting to regulate them.

Second, because any firearm can be used in “self-defense”, Wilkenson fraudulently denies the distinction between traditional handguns, shotguns, and rifles, on the one hand, and the more recent class of weapons routinely characterized as “assault weapons”.

Third, Wilkenson is impliedly (and even more illogically) arguing that – had the authors of the Second Amendment known about or anticipated the proliferation and lethality of modern automatic weapons – they would have written it no differently.  Both the double-barreled shotgun and the multi-shot Derringer were invented late in the 19th Century – almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted.  The Gatling Gun was invented during the Civil War, and regulation of machine guns has long been constitutional.

Fourth, Wilkenson concedes the weakness of his argument by acknowledging that a legal line can be drawn between “assault weapons” and even more powerful weaponry.  By the same logic, that line can be drawn between “traditional” weapons used for hunting and/or self-defense and “assault weapons”, or between single-shot and multiple-shot firearms, or between manual and automatic weapons.  Because Wilkenson rightly admits that a line can be drawn without violating the Second Amendment, it becomes a political question – for legislatures and voters to decide – where that line should best be drawn. 

Fifth, as Wilkenson apparently concedes, the 1994 “assault weapons ban” was supported by both Republicans and the NRA, and its constitutionality was never in doubt.  Its failed extension in 2004 was supported by Republican President Bush.  What changed in 2004 was the NRA – not “social conditions”.  Since 2004, the NRA has engaged in a cynical marketing campaign on behalf of gun manufacturers to spur gun sales and membership by employing fact-free scare-tactics to convince gullible patsies that they need guns “for self-defense and survival”.  Wilkenson has obviously fallen for that false propaganda. 

Finally, Wilksenon relies on the familiar NRA canard that disparages those who call for “reasonable [and constitutional] regulation” of “assault weapons” as “actually marketing a slippery slope against self-ownership”.  “No informed rational mind should buy that”.

Rather, “informed rational minds” appreciate that—because there is a “slippery slope” inherent in any policy decision – it is the weakest form of fear-mongering argument and presumes the nonexistence of any intermediate decision points where the “slide” stops.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy