Media Happily Lends Republicans Its Megaphone to Sell Out Gun Owners

Ammoland – David Codrea

U.S.A. – -( “A red flag law will reduce bloodshed and respect the rights of gun owners,” Florida “Republican” Senator Marco Rubio disingenuously promises in a Thursday promo piece for universal harassment of the “law-abiding,” happily hosted by The New York Times.

“The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Rubio lies. 

Sure they will. American citizens will have their guns taken away without being convicted of anything or diagnosed beyond any reasonable doubt as a danger to themselves and others. And if it turns out they really are dangerous, they’ll still be out there posing a threat to themselves and others.

But Rubio’s getting cover from “red flag” supporters like fellow “Do Something” Republicans and supposedly “staunch Second Amendment supporters” Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn. He’s also getting it from so-called “conservative” influencers like Heritage Foundation and National Review, and, disappointingly, from the National Rifle Association itself, all repeating the “due process” mantra. The fix, it would seem, is in for “Take the guns first, due process second” President Trump to sign a “bipartisan compromise” and get away with it.

Even the “libertarian think tank” Independence Institute’s resident research director, attorney David Kopel, is defending “kinder, gentler” ERPOs, Denver’s Westwood tells us. The presumption is they will pass “legal” muster (and with the composition of the courts today, that’s a given), if not alleviate our due process concerns.

“Senator Graham’s proposal was to provide funding for states that adopt red flag rules,” Kopel explains of his role in advising the effort co-led by avowed Democrat gun-grabber Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “My point of view is that the funding should encourage best practices and not subsidize the worst.”

Some might substitute “infringements” for “practices,” but let’s hear the man out. What might “best” confiscations look like?

“I think anybody should be able to express their concerns to law enforcement officers. But it should be law enforcement officers only who should initiate a petition,” Kopel advises. That and he recommends a “middle ground,” where no ex parte orders can be issued without the person being disarmed present to defend himself. That is unless the petitioner can present “good reason” why that would be dangerous.

What kind of “good reason”?

“Nancy VanDeMark, then the interim president and CEO of Mental Health Colorado, argued that letting suicidal individuals know in advance that their firearms might be confiscated can actually trigger tragedy,” the Westwood article notes.

Does Nancy not think they’re going to have a meltdown when SWAT shows up to take the guns by surprise? If someone is demonstrably suicidal, it’s inhumane to do anything other than take them in for observation and necessary treatment.  And ditto, if they have engaged in behavior threatening others, that too is actionable.

We’ve seen time and again, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. If you take the guns but leave the threat, what makes anyone think they can’t get other guns (just look at your average weekend in Chicago), or use something else to do in themselves or someone else?

On top of that, once you’re demanding a burden of proof necessary to take in and hold a human being, there’s now a vested interest throughout all of society, rather than just an increasingly marginalized, disfavored subset of “gun extremists” that some in power are equating with terrorists. Expect the ACLU, at that point, to get vigorous about giving a damn.

Besides, to trust that what Republicans give up today will define the extent of infringements tomorrow is not only foolish, it is a denial of reality and what has happened before — every time concessions are made. What more do the Democrats need to do to show us when it comes to guns, they want it all but they’ll take what they can get today. Give it to them and they’ll be back tomorrow demanding more, and accusing anyone who balks of being an extremist who refuses to “compromise” on “commonsense gun safety.”

It’s like, in lieu of repelling them, throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and thinking that will make them go away satisfied. You know, instead of taking that as a sign of weakness and an invitation to move in closer…

So Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are going to put limitations on how the states can administer federally-funded “red flag” programs? See how long that lasts if the Democrats take it all in 2020, as remains a distinct possibility thanks to GOP fecklessness and betrayals. What will they do if a state that has its funds withheld sues and an activist federal judge sides with them? Anyone who tells you either of these likelihoods can’t or won’t happen is a liar. And the perverse “win” for Republicans is they’ll get plausible deniability that should work on the ill-informed, meaning everyone who relies on the DSM for “news”:

“Hey, that’s not what we voted for. The Democrats did it.”

We should see what “the plan” is when the White House announces its “gun control” agenda later this week. In the meantime, just to soften everybody up and show us how “reasonable” such edicts are, we get a low-hanging fruit story about a New York man who “will give up his firearms in the first case to be resolved through New York’s ‘red flag’ law, which took effect last month.”

Whew! No tragedy. The guy didn’t oppose the complaint.  The cop who made it was commended. All’s well that ends well. See? We told you. There’s no need for all this paranoid alarmism!

Except those guns will be gone for longer than the year the story says the law allows if that felony charge sticks. And come on, the guy is allegedly out there firing his pistol into a neighbor’s car and then threatening suicide?

Of course circumstances like that warrant taking in more than just the guns and extending more than “Due Process Lite.”

About 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.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

6 thoughts on “Media Happily Lends Republicans Its Megaphone to Sell Out Gun Owners

  1. MEH………. COME GET EM…………

  2. I don’t even want to read these anymore. They can take their double speak and communist mind control and shove it. I want zero infringements on our bill of rights. That’s the only discussion worth having.

    1. YEP. That’s the only thing I wanna hear, as well. NO compromise. We KNOW their end game and anything less is totally UNACCEPTABLE.

  3. As with Jews these folks are walking contradictions, communists trying to look like “law abiding” politicians as they show the truth of something some communist once said (Mao Zedong that is)….maybe they will understand it soon enough–political power grows out of a barrel of a gun…which explains what they have most to fear, and not from so-called maoists (antifa whatever) either…. Or are they just trying to one-up ol’ “Beto”?

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *