Top Menu

Astounding Videos of Firearm Misinformation and Lies

American's trust in the news media is at an all-time low.

We assume that our elected politicians have a great understanding of the facts surrounding the issues affecting their constituencies. Or, if they don't have a grasp of the topic, they spend time educating themselves so they can make appropriate recommendations and decisions. After all, their decisions have a far-reaching impact on the lives of so many.

Similarly, we trust that news reporters and writers have more than a lay person's understanding of the information they are disseminating. Undercover video and audio have exposed how prolific ‘fake news' is.

In ‘How The Anti-Gunners Brainwash America’s Outlook On Gun Ownership‘ I explained how deliberately spreading misinformation and lies has been used to change people's opinion on guns. After all, the facts don't support their notion that legal gun owners are the cause of violence in America. The piece was widely accepted and shared on social media. This is great because I have always believed that knowledge is power and we must spread the truth.

Since the time the article was published, there have been a few tragedies in which evil people used guns to commit mass murder. Almost as if on cue, politicians, and media jump into action to exploit any tragic event involving a firearm.

On a side note, during this same time, a terrorist also committed mass murder with a rented pick-up truck and no gun. But this was quickly forgotten, and brushed aside as just a terrible, unfortunate and unavoidable event.-

Tragedy one

A horrific mass-shooting in Las Vegas, where the piece of garbage supposedly used a bump stock equipped rifle. I only say supposedly, because even well after the incident, key-witnesses of the crime are strangely silent, and the facts of the case are surprisingly few. Media outlets jumped into action to describe the device used, and why it must be banned.

Legal gun owners and NRA members were once again the bad guys and gals. The only responsible thing to do would be ‘have a serious discussion' about their right to own scary AR-15s. You know because discussions are very beneficial, especially when the people in the discussion have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Here is just a little taste of the meaningful bump stock discussion from the always accurate CNN:

It was so irritating, I had to write an article describing what a bump stock actually is.

Tragedy two

A disgraced former Air Force service member with a history of wife and child abuse, who was an escaped mental patient, hater of people of faith, a psychopath, and, had it not been for an error in reporting his violent conviction of abuse, illegal gun owner kills peaceful people worshiping in a church.

What does the media focus on? The gun the guy used was an AR-15. Pundits and politicians again attacked legal gun owners as the problem. They attacked the NRA and again talked about why any reasonable person needs an AR-15, sorry ‘assault rifle.'

-By the way, the NRA member, who engaged the scum bag and stopped him from continuing on a homicidal rampage, also used an AR-15. But that was downplayed and discounted on most major stations.-

Of course, the gun is to blame. In fact, USA Today showed how scary the bad guy's rifle was. I mean didn't you know owners of AR-15's can attach things to them. Like a chainsaw bayonet …

It's all real, I am not making this stuff up. Almost comical right? If it weren't causing an impressionable generation to grow up with so much bogus information they don't know the difference between video games and reality.

But the media is one thing. Politicians have better sense than to try to pass legislation based on bogus information and a pathetic understanding of what they are talking about … right?

Chances are you have seen this gem from 2014. California Senator De Leon, an apparent gun expert, explains why he is introducing a bill to ban ‘ghost guns.' If his complete lack of the most basic understanding of how a gun operates, he doubles down on stupidity. He makes claims about crime that are blatantly false, and how his bill would create a utopia of safety. If you haven't seen it, grab a seat because it is pure comedy gold.

How about the failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? While speaking at a fundraiser in 2015, Hillary was unknowingly recorded. She candidly talked about gun legislation and the Supreme Court's landmark decision on District of Columbia v. Heller. 

After hearing her opinions, and knowing the media is a mouthpiece for them, it shouldn't be a shock that there is a push to delegitimize the NRA and legal gun owners. After all, CNN's own Chris Cuomo publicly and unabashedly admits the media in general and their own network support Hillary Clinton.

Finally, when you hear politicians or media commentators say things like ‘common sense' legislation is needed, rarely will that conversation include what ‘common sense' ideas they have. Because terms like common sense, are designed to make it seem like most Americans would support it. But that is not the truth. Many common-sense proposals, are not supported by the majority of Americans and would likely not withstand a legal ruling. For example here are a couple ideas from the infamous Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein on how to make Americans safer. Enjoy…

In Closing

My feeling is that the Supreme Court correctly ruled in the Heller decision, and the most common sense thing we can do is enforce current legislation. I've said it before and it is worth repeating. Stringent and extreme enforcement of straw purchases, illegal possession of firearms by criminals and using firearms in the commission of a crime would do far more to make the streets safer than 30 round magazine bans.

Fight the misinformation with respectful and educated dialogue. Then you won't have to sell a bill of goods to anyone. The facts and numbers will speak for themselves. Which of the above videos was the worst one? Let me know in the comments below.

 

, , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to Astounding Videos of Firearm Misinformation and Lies

  1. Chuck Shelabarger November 27, 2017 at 12:31 pm #

    Please remove me from this publication email list. I do not want to be a part of this far right wing ideology that also misinforms the public. You do the same thing that you are accusing the left of doing. Only telling part of the story. The problem with assault weapons is that it allows someone to kill masses of people without having the to take the time of reloading. That time could be used by a defender to strike at the assailant and end an assault. Mandatory background checks in any type of purchase…. these are ‘COMMON SENSE’ changes to current gun laws that could help make our society safer.

    Dont tell me, Oh that is just a first step to taking our guns. That was an excuse used for 8 years that President Obama was in power, and it was completely a LIE.

    No one is trying to take your guns, we just want to do whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.

    • Matthew Maruster November 27, 2017 at 1:25 pm #

      Hi Chuck, thanks for the feedback. Sory you feel that my take on this topic is misinformation and a lie. I guess it boils down to what you believe. I would just address a couple of your concerns:

      The assault weapons ban was not continued because it resulted in little to no effect on the number of homicides. In fact, the vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns, which have much less capacity. Magazine capacity limitations have also shown to do absolutely nothing in reducing death from shootings.

      The ironic thing about believing that ‘assault weapons’ are the problem, and “time could be used by a defender to strike at the assailant and end an assault” overlooks the fact that ‘assault weapons’ are the best tool to stop an active shooter. So the idea that banning or turning in assault weapons would somehow stop mass shootings relies on the very concept of disarming the population of said ‘assault weapons.’ It is completely illogical to believe that everyone would just turn them in, so how exactly all the ‘assault weapons’ would be removed from the population without confiscation?

      As far as the term ‘common sense’ it suggests that anyone who does not follow that belief lacks common sense. It is hard to follow along with ‘common sense’ ideas about gun control that there is data showing that such measures do nothing to reduce crime. I am not of the belief that just because someone says something is ‘common sense’ that it necessarily is so.

      Mandatory background checks are one such ‘common sense’ rally point. They are already required when purchasing a firearm from a dealer (even at a gun show). What is not required in some states are background checks between private parties. Why should I be required to perform a background check on my neighbor or family member? If background checks on gun purchases like these are the ‘common sense’ silver bullet that keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, why do criminals have guns in states that require such checks?

      first, the information in the system is only as good as what has been entered. Mistakes and omissions happen as we saw with this last shooting. Criminals do not submit to background checks. Instead, they steal guns or buy stolen guns. Lastly, if the idea that failing a background check prohibits that person from buying a gun, why are these people not being prosecuted under laws that make that illegal? under the 8 years of President Obama, straw purchasers and other federal laws dealing with guns were at an all-time low.

      If we really want to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not own them, why not harshly prosecute those people who commit crimes with guns and those who shouldn’t have guns in the first place?

      I hope you reconsider not following concealed carry. I don’t agree with your stance, but I appreciate your opinion.

    • George Prestridge November 28, 2017 at 7:55 am #

      Looks as if Chuck is displaying a level of ignorance when it comes to firearm’s capabilities; His perceived view point flows the same as those of my very left wing daughter, whose focus is on an AR/AK style weapon with large capacity magazines as the preeminent “scaaarrrwe” gun for murdering the masses. My only chuckle (ironically speaking) is that those of us who know weapon capabilities (and I’m very happy that these clowns that randomly shoot-up places don’t have a good capabilities knowledge) know that the AR/AK is not the weapon of choice (outside of TV or movie goers) for inflicting a large number of casualties in a closed crowded space or, even to use for the random drive-by. I know Chuck that you’ll be disappointed to know that 9-30cal lead balls per trigger squeeze is far more devastating than jerking the trigger on an AR 30-40 times before reloading. Additionally, someone trained can do far more damage with well-aimed, controlled rate of fire using 7-10 round magazines and having to reload. (recommend watching a 3-gun old west style competition sometime).

      I would be remiss if I didn’t address bump stocks; I’ve used them and they in my opinion are a waste of ammo as you can’t aim well when firing, additionally, unless the Adolphsen Brothers have fitted your AR upper with a Straight Jacket Retrofit, you stand a good chance of burning-out your barrel.

      My final thought for Chuck (and I’ll think like a liberal on this one) since the majority of the mass shootings were caused by people who were mentally ill, had radical motivations or came from predominately liberal democrat backgrounds, new gun laws are required. Since the mental issue is already in law, we need addition laws the prevent gun ownership by radical religious individuals and liberal democrats…..

  2. Timothy K. Toroian November 27, 2017 at 12:32 pm #

    To quote Ronald Dworkin,” What it means to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even there is significant social costs in doing so.” If one thinks there is no social costs to other rights consider amendments 4,5,6,7 and 8. We don’t have space here to discuss them individually, but each will put a criminal back on the street, at least temporarily, to commit other crimes against society. It would be easier to solve crimes without those amendments, but consider what life would be like with an intrusive government, or like much of the world where, for one example, the prosecution can appeal a loss and try one a second or third time for the same offense. You can use this argument on any anti-gun people It may take a while for them to understand the concept. If you don’t understand, read the amendments.

    • Matthew Maruster November 27, 2017 at 1:30 pm #

      Timothy, well put. Our constitution is unique in that it limits the government, not the people. I believe each of right in the bill of rights is what sets us apart from other countries, and has allowed our country to be the example for others to follow.

  3. Jerry November 27, 2017 at 12:55 pm #

    Kevin DeLeon’s presentation was horrific. Sadly the law Enforcement officials surrounding him certainly knew his comments were inaccurate and fabricated but are simply puppets in a massively corrupt government system and they don’t want to put their careers at risk. The worst is yet to come in California…When Gavin Newsome is elected governor the real battle will begin. God help us!!!

    • Matthew Maruster November 27, 2017 at 1:27 pm #

      While it is entertaining, it is difficult to watch people with such a poor grasp of facts, lobby to make laws for us citizens.

  4. Mark Johnson November 27, 2017 at 3:11 pm #

    I once visited Washington DC and toured the FBI building. One of their people told an audience that a semi-automatic weapon was one which fires several shots per trigger pull. This really happened!

  5. Matt November 28, 2017 at 8:21 am #

    It is absolutely ridiculous what the media gets away with in this country. If you ever really want to see how bad it is, simply get involved in an event that creates a news story (not a shooting obviously, but a mundane event). The reporting at the local level up to the national level comes out of a Cracker Jack Box, and the journalists will most often inject an opinion or an outright falsehood into the story. While I think that some is intentional falsehoods, like the gun debate, I think more often, it comes from a lack of comprehension. Journalists and Politicians have a huge lack of comprehension and empathy that places them into the shoes of the thing they are reporting/ legislating about.

Leave a Reply