WaPo’s Desperate ‘Do Something’ Demand Inadvertently Shows Futility of ‘Gun Control’

WaPo’s Desperate ‘Do Something’ Demand Inadvertently Shows Futility of 'Gun Control'
WaPo’s Desperate ‘Do Something’ Demand Inadvertently Shows Futility of ‘Gun Control’

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Do something, Mr. McConnell,” The Washington Post wrings its hands and wails in a virtue-bleating Wednesday editorial. “When the Senate returns from its Labor Day recess, it must act on guns.”

Something must be done! We’ve heard that before. And as usual, that “something” involves curtailing the rights of those who already follow the rules and does nothing to curtail the predatory actions of those who never will.

“No, no single law would end gun violence,” the editors admit.

We know. We’ve been watching the calls for “baby steps” and the admission from Nancy Pelosi that she’s relying on that “slippery slope” the lying gun-grabbers (but I repeat myself) ridicule as “rightwing paranoia.” We know that the goal is citizen disarmament because the pioneers of the movement used to admit it before the totalitarian lobby figured out that slick weasel-words like “gun safety” played better with naïve marks being swindled out of their birthrights.

Deceptive denials notwithstanding, of course they’re talking about taking your guns.

“But there are reasonable, obvious measures that would help. For example: Ban the sale of military-grade assault weapons,” WaPo whines. “Unneeded by civilians, they are a blight on the nation, their ready availability a national disgrace. Eliminating them would slow the growth of this list.”

It would be interesting to see the qualifications the editorial board possesses so that they can pronounce “need” for all conceivable circumstances is based on experience and expertise, or if it’s just more journalistic malpractice by opinionated incompetents. It’s also interesting that they don’t entertain the notion that such firearms, as the Miller court noted, might have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

The Founders wanted the militia of “the whole people” to have “weapons of war.” And that drives latter-day Tories nuts.

Nor does it enter into the equation that of the millions of semiautomatic rifles peaceably owned, used and enjoyed by Americans who do understand the Second Amendment, per Pew Research, “Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as ‘assault weapons”– were involved in 4%’ [of murders/non-negligent manslaughters].”

That means they represent an unknown subset, a percentage of four percent. Don’t worry—WaPo doesn’t want you keeping and bearing handguns, either, but we’re doing things in baby steps, remember?

“Would any volume of bloodshed convince the Kentucky Republican that Congress faces a moral imperative to act?” the editors self-righteously plead, relying on dancing in that blood to make an emotional appeal where a factual one won’t work. And to prove that so-called “progressives” really don’t have original ideas, and perhaps channeling their own in-house, award-winning anti-gun plagiarist, they steal an idea from Michael Bloomberg’s “No More Names” bus tour. They list the names of all the “mass shooting” victims since Columbine (albeit Bloomberg’s list also included criminals shot in the act and the Boston Marathon bomber).

The thing is, every one of the entries could be preceded by statements of fact to put things in perspective, such as “Victims killed in enforced ‘gun-free zones’” or “Gun laws utterly failed.” Tellingly, the Sutherland Springs entry failed to mention that an armed citizen stopped the killer and saved more lives. It was literally the “good guy with a gun” the anti-gunners ridicule so often and so loudly, who proved them so profoundly wrong – and he did it with an AR-15.

Not that any of this matters to the WaPo editorial board, or to the rest of the DSM out there singing the praises of their novel approach. You can see it for yourself, how the rest of the media is amplifying and spreading the story in a transparent attempt to spook the Republicans into betraying their core constituency of gun owners. Unfortunately, efforts countering that are for the most part limited to “pro-gun” echo chambers, with attempts to share them often stymied by hostile social media moderators and skewed search engine algorithms.

Despite such uneven playing fields, here’s the thing to keep in mind: No matter what oath-breaking political parasites do, a critical mass of committed gun owners will not surrender their guns and there aren’t enough enforcers to make it happen. That both enrages and scares the hell out of those who would control all, but it also shows that the Second Amendment is still working as intended, even when apparently dormant. Just as arms in private hands discourage individual predators from attacking, so too does that work on a societal scale.

One man’s “blight” is another man’s freedom. To those who insist otherwise, no. We will not disarm.

Your move.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.