A murderous rampage – there simply isn’t a better definition of what happened last week at Tree of Life Synagogue. The murderer, and that is a key and honest description—not the “shooter” as the media has tried to downplay him to—killed at least 11 worshipers and wounded six more, including four of the responding police officers intent on stopping the murderer.
Whenever one of these murders exploits the dangers posed by entering a gun-free zone, I become incensed. “Gun-free zone…” Doesn’t the term itself sound so falsely utopian? It conjures images of safe zones or areas of protection, when reality proves to be the exact opposite. It is much easier to conjure clever terms that promise protection than it is to deal with the reality that evil exists and feeds on weakness. Likewise, reality does not support the position of anti gun politicians and media. While gun-free zones are simply red meat for these murderous cowards, I am straying from my true point here.
Whenever one of these tragedies is perpetrated, there are typically three common threads—mental health, a soft target such as a gun-free zone, and a host of media and politicians with gun control agendas spewing their rhetoric (rhetoric: noun, language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content).
Not surprisingly, when I watched as the coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting unfolded and details were released, two of the three elements were predictably obvious. The murderer chose a soft target, the Tree of Life Synagogue—a gun-free zone. He also had a history of mental illness as identified by a previous interaction with law enforcement where he agreed to voluntarily commitment after a suicide attempt.
The third element to the gun control advocates’ response was conspicuously absent. Where was the outrage? Did you hear any of the normal calls to repeal the Second Amendment or ban AR-15s and high-capacity magazines? The politicians were silent, and so was the media. Why were they not out calling for their “common sense” reforms?
My initial reaction was a bit of elation. I thought, “The antis finally get it!” After mulling it over with a couple of coworkers, my hopes were quickly dashed as something much more insidious emerged. The deafening silence of the antis was intentional and politically motivated, but in a much different way. A major push for gun control, with less than two weeks to the midterm elections, would not help their gun control agenda—it seldom does anyway. However, in this case, it would incite gun owners—who vote Republican for the most part—and send them to the election booth.
The anti-gunners made a choice, and in doing so, they showed their true colors. These are not the social justice warriors they pretend to be. Repealing the Second Amendment or vilifying and outlawing standard-capacity magazines or their so-called “assault weapons” is not at the top of their agenda. Politics and political control are their true motivation. You might expect political games from the politicians, but let’s not forget that the media’s normal rally against our Second Amendment rights was also absent.
This did not happen by accident. This was a coordinated act between the politicians and the media. Political motives sway politicians, but the media’s silence was due to nothing less than its reluctance to veer from the wishes of its political masters. All of the usual political talking heads and their media lapdogs were silent. In my opinion, that points to collusion.
The lack of a response from gun control politicians and the mainstream media also reveals that their assault on our Second Amendment rights is not so much an ideology as it is a political tool in their bag of tricks. Their true goal is a rebuke of the pro-Second Amendment forces within government. Today, President Trump and the Republicans, with a few exceptions on both sides, lead those forces.
Following that path of logic, you can see why the anti gunners did not haul out their tired and overplayed gun control arguments. That is why the media was conspicuously silent and failed to tout “common sense” gun control during its Pittsburgh coverage. It is not that they have suddenly come to the actual common-sense realization that gun-free zones breed environments for tragedies such as the massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue. It is simply a play against the Second Amendment via political gamesmanship, but in a much more clever way.
Think of a political scale with the Second Amendment on one side and gun control on the other. After a high-profile event such as Pittsburgh, the anti gunners typically do not attempt to place a thumb on the scale, they send Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer out to jump on it with both feet. This is overt and obvious, so we respond and fight back.
This time, they are playing a different political card—one that is much more dangerous. The anti-gunners are unanimously silent, placing an invisible thumb on the pro Second Amendment forces’ side of the scale. This certainly is not done to help our cause. Instead, it is to suppress our urge rally and vote against the anti-gun candidates. They are not giving up their attack on our Second Amendment rights—they are outflanking us.
Absent are the overt calls for gun control and banning particular firearms or accessories. That would encourage you, me, other gun owners to vote. This plays into the long-term strategy of the anti-gunners. Instead, they want us to feel confident and secure, so secure by a lack of reaction that we do not vote. That way, the path for Democrats to win at least one house of Congress, Governors races, Senatorial and House seats, and state and local elections will be easier.
In truth, their silence is as much of a referendum against President Trump and his policies, including his staunch, pro-gun stance, as anything. Before I draw the anger of too many of my non Republican brothers and sisters who support and fight for Second Amendment rights, President Trump is not on the ballot; there is no hidden agenda in this writing to support him. However, regardless of party affiliation, his record regarding our Second Amendment rights is clear, as clear as the support from most Republicans and opposition from most Democrats.
Let your conscience be your guide, but if you still have any doubts, look to more than what you see and hear from the mainstream media. Pay attention to what you expect, but do not hear. Look for what is conspicuously absent, such as the anti-gunners exploitation of tragedies and high-profile shootings for political purposes—and question why. Watch for the flanking maneuver and VOTE!
I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. I do not care whether you vote Red or Blue. Hey! Vote Green if that is what moves you. For me, it is only important that you vote pro gun. However, in today’s political environment, the Republicans as a whole have shown the strongest support for our Second Amendment rights and that is worthy of being noted. However, as I earlier noted, there are exceptions on both sides.
How important is a candidate’s voting record and support for our Second Amendment rights to you? Share your answer in the comment section.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.