Veteran Campaigns for Office by Attacking Private Gun Sales and the Right to Own Semiautomatic Firearms
“Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes,” The Washington Post crows in a “Gotcha!” headline designed to misuse supposedly “straight news” to stir up a demand for political action:
“Dan Helmer, an Army veteran, said he bought a firearm similar to the one he carried in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how easy it is to legally obtain an ‘incredibly dangerous piece of weaponry that’s meant for war” from a private seller. He bought the gun less than two miles from a public school, he said.”
Emotionally manipulate the ignorant much? The firearm may be cosmetically “similar,” but you can bet he didn’t carry a semiautomatic rifle when deployed. As for being “meant for war,” you’ll note he’s not questioning why police should have them if that’s the case, plus he’s intentionally ignoring what the citizen militia is entitled to: Per the Miller Court, “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
Plus he’s repeating one of the oldest lies in the gun-grabber playbook.
It’s beyond curious that the monopoly of violence zealots behind semiautomatic bans “justify” them by screaming they are “weapons of war.” Those, of course, are precisely what the Founders deemed necessary for members of the citizen militia to keep and bear. To insist otherwise is to maintain their purpose was to have the “whole people” called forth to be slaughtered – hardly a prescription for a secure or free State.
And this business of “less than two miles form a public school” is pure hysteria –ginning aimed at spooking the herd. Helmer might as well tell them he thinks they’re ignorant and stupid, which you’d probably have to be to vote for such an obvious manipulator. And besides, if guns are too dangerous to be allowed in such areas, 90% of the country could be declared off-limits.
Helmer took an oath when he enlisted and he’ll take another if elected. How he squares that with active subversion of the Bill of Rights in order to gain political power is left unsaid. Hey,if these guys can get away with it and be rewarded…
And WaPo, of course, has long been in the business of undermining the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding, yet somehow ready to turn a blind eye to real and deadly abuses that don’t advance the narrative. Case in point: When they gave Obama cover over his transparent lie related to OperationFast and Furious “gunwalking.”
As a DSM outlet continually wringing its hands over “gun violence,” here’s a chance to see if they’ll do it again, via one of the comments they allowed to be posted under their article (it won’t “hot link,” but the comment appears at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrats-race-to-prove-who-hates-guns-more-in-northern-virginia-house-primary/2018/05/01/d3ad87a0-4cbb-11e8-b725-92c89fe3ca4c_story.html?commentId=a84d12d5-839e-4907-ba5e-80ec88add3e6&outputType=comment&utm_term=.718ade7a6fed) :
My money’s on the guy turning out to be an anti-gun liar, which is, face it, what all grabbers are. That said, if the paper’s editorial board is really serious about “gun control,” the comment poster is using their forum to brag that he committed a felony and is a “gun criminal.”
Seeing as how it’s impossible for us to tell if the claim is a lie or the truth, and in the spirit of the Department of Homeland Security’s “If you see something, say something” advice, it will be interesting to see if WaPo rats the guy out and volunteers his information (email and IP addresses, etc.) to the feds.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”
The post Veteran Campaigns for Office by Attacking Private Gun Sales and the Right to Own Semiautomatic Firearms appeared first on Oath Keepers.