There’s No Excuse for Paper to Host Demonstrable Falsehood on ‘Automatic Rifles’
“I own guns, but I also have a conscience,” guest columnist Dave Waldrop asserts in The Asheville Citizen-Times. “Does the NRA?”
What kind of obnoxious question is that? Especially since right out of the starting gate Waldrop showed everyone his big “but,” being the have-it-both-ways type who claims he believes in owning guns but…
“The National Rifle Association (NRA) along with thousands of its members insist that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms,” Waldrop declares. “To many it appears the NRA is willing to ignore the harsh reality that too many people have been killed by people wielding assault rifles.
“These are automatic rifles that fire dozens of rounds before requiring reloading,” Waldrop asserts, just like he knows what he’s talking about. “How long will the NRA shirk its responsibility to support legislation that sets reasonable limits on (A) who can legally own firearms and (B) which firearms pose too great a risk of harming or killing Americans and, therefore, must be controlled or banned for the safety of all?”
“I have personally chosen not to join the NRA because of their rigid stance that perpetuates this needless killing,” Waldrop declares. “I will continue, like many of my friends, neighbors and relatives to own simple non-assault firearms for personal safety.”
There’s so much loopy with this guy’s “reasoning” it’s clear he has no clue as to the purpose behind the Second Amendment and what the citizen militia it deems “necessary to the security of a free State” would need in order to carry out that mandate. Either that or he knows full well and he’s being disingenuous instead of just ignorant. Regardless, one point he makes is such an obvious and blatant falsehood there is no excuse for The Citizen-Times editors to have allowed it to see its way into their pages.
Waldrop is conflating “automatic rifles” with semiautomatic firearms, and that’s been a move straight out of the gun-grabber playbook since the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann explained the tactical deception back in 1988:
“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
The reason the paper allowing this deception to continue is inexcusable is because many of us have been loudly objecting to it for decades every time some ambitious, oath-breaking politician or police chief tries to use it to advance citizen disarmament. A journalist influencing the public on a prominent issue lacking at least minimal subject matter knowledge is guilty of malpractice. An editor allowing it is guilty of worse. And it’s tough to write this off to mere editorial incompetence or ignorance from inside a “progressive” bubble, especially since many astute readers have been pointing out the lie for days now, and there’s still been no correction issued by the editors who authorized this guest column.
That’s especially egregious in light of the paper’s ethics policy, which claims to place paramount importance on truth, integrity, public interest and fair play. Then again, the Citizen-Times is “part of the USA TODAY NETWORK,” which itself is owned by Gannett. And when it comes to Gannett, guns and ethics, let’s just say past experience has shown little evidence of them having much of a conscience.
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?”