Tag: Propaganda

Perennial screwball, Virginia Governor, and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Terry McAuliffe recently stated that 93 million Americans die each day from gun violence. Sounds a little off, doncha think?

McAuliffe made this claim the day a Democrat extremist and Bernie-bro attempted to assassinate members of the House GOP. It’s been more than three days since his remarks and we’re all still alive. It’s thus safe to conclude that 93 million of us don’t die every day from “gun violence”. (Or any other flavor of violence, for that matter.)

Well… OK… It was a slip of the tongue. Even though he said 93 million, twice, he really meant 93; as in three more than ninety and 7 less than one hundred; the precise value between 92 and 94. But it does raise a pair of questions: Where did he get the number 93 and why did 93 million pop into his head, twice?

The first answer is easy: He’s cooking the books. 93 per day is the total number of firearms related deaths in the US each day. This includes suicides. He’s deliberately conflating the two in order to make homicides look more common than they really are. Suicides are not preventable via gun control laws any more than homicides are. In both cases, those intent upon killing, either themselves or others, will find tools appropriate to the task. It’s also important to remember that this is a nation of 321,000,000 people. Even if there were 93 homicides each day, that’s only .000029% of the US population.

As to the spurious multiplier, My guess is that McAuliffe said it because he truly believes that there are that many deaths per day. He’s not alone. There are lots of anti-gun activists out there who are thoroughly convinced that we’re all gonna DIE, if “something” isn’t done. You can hit them with the real numbers all day long, but you won’t get past their irrational fears.

News

You sometimes have to wonder why the MSM is so consistently wrong on subjects such as guns. Are they simply stupid? Are they being willfully ignorant?

Or are they just lying?

It really could be that last one. But what I don’t get is how they think that they can away with it. It’s not like it was back in the good ol’ days. They can’t tell a lie and then expect it to be months or years before they’re found out. (Just ask Dan Rather! His career was over before “Fake but accurate” had finished airing in the Hawaiian market. And that was over a decade ago.) The latest are claims that Democrat Party extremist and Bernie-Bro James Hodgkinson was armed with an “M4 assault rifle“.

It was an SKS.

Now, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? The M4 is a military weapon system capable of fully automatic fire. That’s like a machine gun for those of you in Rio Linda. (Or journalism school.) The SKS is a semi-automatic rifle. It fires once and only once for each pull of the trigger. The M4 fires the 5.56X45mm round while the SKS fires the 7.62X39mm round. They’re very different rounds. The 5.56mm round is a much higher velocity round, though both have the similar effective ranges.

And now the really important differences: The SKS can be purchased by civilians in the US while the M4 cannot. The M4 accepts a detachable magazine, while the SKS (almost always) does not. (There are some after-market modifications and some versions that do accept a detachable magazine, but these aren’t common.) The standard magazine for the M4 holds 30 rounds. The standard fixed magazine for the SKS accepts only 10. This means that the SKS isn’t classified as an “assault weapon” anywhere in the US.

But all of this information is available on the Interwebs. Why didn’t the dim bulbs at CBS, ABC, or the New York Post bother to look? Don’t they have computers?! Do they know about Google?! Or were they just trying to squeeze in a little more propaganda?

News

No, this isn’t the same sort of paradox as the bootstrap paradox. I’m talking about the weird, nearly simultaneous arguments that anti-gun types make claiming that we pro-gun types are either stuck in the past or not stuck in the past.

We’re told, on the one hand, that the 2nd Amendment is an outmoded document. We’re told that it’s a relic of a bygone era when most of the country was lawless frontier. We’re told that we need to get with the times, be like Europe, and all but ban firearms from civilian ownership. If there’s trouble, the argument goes, just call 911.

And in the next breath, we’re told that our view of the 2nd Amendment is far too modern. “The Founders could never imagined fearsome weapons of war like the AR-15!” And then, after stating that the 2nd Amendment only protects Brown Bess muskets, these same anti-gun leftists will hop back into their TARDIS and proclaim that the Constitution is a “living document” that evolves with the times.

…but not when we’re talking about guns.

Both arguments are ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment did not create a new right out of thin air. It recognized a preexisting freedom that flows from a right that all Humans have: The right to self defense. If one has the right to self defense, then one has a right to the means of self defense. It doesn’t matter whether that means is a sharp stick or a semiautomatic rifle. Not one of the Founders would have argued that a version of the 2nd Amendment written in the Bronze age wouldn’t have applied to steel weapons. And not one of these anti-gun leftists would argue that the 4th Amendment applies only to documents written on parchment. (Unless, of course, if that level of doublethink were necessary to argue against private gun ownership!) Just as the 4th Amendment applies to electronic files on your computer, so too the 2nd Amendment applies to the modern firearms in your gun safe.

As to their first claim that firearms are now “unneeded” in a modern, civil society, I suggest that they skim a few headlines from media outlets in Chicago. The Wild West was far more peaceful than is “civilized” Chicago.

News Privacy Self-defense

It’s called Confirmation Bias; the tendency to view statements that agree with our existing beliefs as true. The Left does this frequently (Remember Dan Rather and his misadventures with MSWord?), but sometimes we “gun folk” do it too. There are plenty of dubious memes out there that get passed around on pro-gun websites. The basic rule holds: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The latest faux-fact that’s bedeviled the Left are these bogus “Fred Trump for Mayor” ads. Clintonista Sid “The Squid” Blumenthal fell for them and the London Review of Books has since had to edit a Blumenthal essay they posted. Politico researched the “Fred Trump campaign” and found that there was no such campaign. The ads, which appear to contain several anachronisms, are modern creations. But, they confirmed Blumenthal’s pre-existing beliefs about Donald Trump and his supposed racism. In short, they told him what he wanted to hear.

Then end result is that Blumenthal looks like a partisan hack. (OK… Make that like more of a partisan hack.) Whatever credibility he had before hitting “send”, he has less today. As gun owners, we can’t afford to lose credibility in the public square. Blumenthal has the entire US Media machine behind him, ready to rehabilitate his reputation. We have that same machine poised to pounce on any misstatements we make as proof that “the rabble” shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms. We don’t get a pass the same way Leftists do.

You wouldn’t fall for a painting entitled “George Washington Holding an AR-15”, so why would you fall for a “quotation” from Washington that appears to directly refer to that rifle? Think before you share!

News

Apparently not. Our President chooses instead to play Pinocchio Go. His latest “Gotta catch ’em all” moment came when he bagged another three with the same Pinocchi-ball by claiming that “it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” The Washington Post fact checkers awarded this bizarre claim 3 Pinocchios saying  that this is “an exaggerated claim based in no real statistics, and which does nothing but distract the public. The president earns Three Pinocchios.”

pinocchio_3

Couldn’t he go out and look for a Charmander rather than try, again, to deceive the American People?

News

From NRA-ILA:


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2016

California: Anti-Gun Bills To Be Voted on Tomorrow!

The legislature will convene tomorrow for the last time before summer recess. It’s anticipated that a number of gun bills will be considered in both chambers. This could be the last opportunity to voice your opposition before the bills are sent to Governor Brown’s desk for his consideration. The eligible bills range in topic but hold a central theme, limiting and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.  Click here and here for additional information on the eligible bills.

It is CRITICAL that you contact state Senators using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE AB 450, AB 1664, AB 1673, AB 1674, AB 1695, and AB 2607.

Contact state Assembly Members using the take action button below urging them to OPPOSE SB 880, SB 894, SB 1235, SB 1407, SB 1446, AB 156, AB 857, and AB 1511.

Yesterday, June 28, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 450 on a party line vote.  AB 450, sponsored by “F” rated Assembly Member McCarty, is a  “gut and amend” that covered a completely different subject matter until last week. Now, AB 450 is aimed at arguably the most law-abiding citizens, CCW permit holders.  The bill seeks to increase fees to not only cover issuance but also enforcement.  Exactly what “enforcement” is to cover remains unclear, however what was abundantly clear is McCarty’s disdain for concealed carry permit holders and his desire to put a price tag on permits beyond the reach of average citizens.

It is important that you forward this alert to your family, friends, and fellow guns owners and sportsmen and urge them to contact state Senators and Assembly Members. 

AB 1511 AB 156 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 AB 1695 AB 2607 AB 857 AB450 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 1235 SB 1407 SB 1446 SB 880 SB 894 State

bizarro

Welcome to the Bizarro World of Democrat gun politics!

Up is down. Right is wrong. Ineffective gun control laws are effective. Like the inhabitants of Bizarro World, anti-gun Democrats need to exist in their own little reality to make their proposals seem reasonable. National Review’s David French looks at The Bizarro Morality of America’s Gun Control Debate

Up is down, good is evil, and truth is fiction for anti-Second Amendment progressives.

To the geeks among us, “Bizarro World” is a fictional planet in the DC Comics universe, a place featuring alternate versions of Superman and other comic-book heroes, governed by a code whose first principle is, “Us do opposite of all earthly things!” But to everyone else, the planet’s name has become shorthand for a backward state of affairs in which up is down, good is evil, and truth is fiction. The gun-control debate is a Bizarro World unto itself, one where activists, writers, and politicians — operating with an attitude of absolute moral superiority — operate according to their own “bizarro code” with three main tenets: Make up history, propose ineffective remedies, and mock proven solutions.

Let’s consider just one of the Bizarro World proposals recently rejected by the Senate, using the terrorist watch list as an excuse to stop gun purchases. The supposed reason for doing this is to prevent another terrorist rampage like the one that killed 49 Americans at the Pulse night club in Orlando. There’s just one problem with this: The jihadi, Omar Mateen, had been removed from the watch list! (And if you followed that link, you’ll noticed that this fact is cited by the L.A. Times as a reason to use the watch list this way. In other words, since the law wouldn’t have stopped Mateen, that’s why we need it!)

Gun control advocates have never had logical arguments as to why their ideas should be adopted into law. They use emotion and hope that no one will notice until it’s too late. It’s the only way their Bizarro laws could ever get passed.

News

As we’ve already mentioned here, Katie “The Perky One” Couric tossed aside whatever cred she had as a journalist to churn out a piece of anti-gun propaganda. And while she was paid to do so, she got caught lying about one of the groups she “interviewed” for the piece. (She also forgot to pat them down for recording devices!)

There have been multiple calls for Yahoo! News to fire her. These come not only from gun rights groups, but from real journalists who don’t wish to be tarred with her brush. But that could be the least of her problems. She and her staff may have broken Federal gun laws.

[I]t would appear that a producer of the Katie Couric documentary “Under the Gun” committed at least four federal felonies, one for each firearm he appears to have illegally purchased since the individual was not a resident of Arizona where he purchased the firearms.

Couric, given her involvement with the project, could be charged as a co-conspirator.

I’m sure she looks extra perky in orange.

News

News

There’s even a hashtag for it: #GunGate.

Katie Couric was caught lying about gun rights advocates in her EPIX “documentary” Under The Gun. Through a bit of creative editing (Which is fine for movie making, but not for something that’s allegedly journalism.) Couric and her minions made it look as though the gun totin’ Virginia hicks were dumbfounded by her question about background checks. In fact, the editors spliced in a nine seconds of “B-roll” footage from before the interview started. What she didn’t realize is that the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League had made their own audio recording of the interview…

So no, Under The Gun isn’t journalism. But in Ms. Couric’s defense, it wasn’t supposed to be. She was getting paid to deliver a product to her clients; not to do real journalism. And per the film’s site, these clients include:

          

These are groups that paid good money for a “documentary” and they expect results. The last thing they want is an even handed work of actual journalism. They wanted something that says what they want to hear. They wanted an infomercial; not a documentary. Do you think that Couric would ever have lunch in this town again if she delivered the latter? Of course not!

So in her defense, she was simply giving the customers what they asked for. Don’t you wish that all of your vendors were as compliant as Katie Couric?

News