Propaganda. If you’re not familiar with the term, its definition is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.” To be clear, propaganda specifically presents information in a biased manner to try to change public opinion about an issue.
One of the clearest examples of propaganda is gun control. Those who support gun control, unfortunately, don’t mind twisting any information to try to give an anti-gun slant, even if the original situation tells a very different story.
Take, for example, a recent school shooting in Indiana. The Brady Campaign recently tweeted “One teen has died after a school shooting in Richmond, Indiana. When will it be #ENOUGH? We need stronger gun laws to ensure students’ safety across the nations.”
That makes it seem like a pretty cut and dry situation, doesn’t it? The problem? It wasn’t a simple school shooting, and gun control wouldn’t have solved the problem. (hat tip to here for the lead.) Emily Shapiro gives us the details which tell the real story:
After a tipster reported a “potential violent act” that might occur at an Indiana middle school, officers confronted a 14-year-old gunman, who killed himself but didn’t harm any others, according to police.
Shapiro continues,
After officers confronted the teen outside the school, the gunman “reportedly shot out the glass of a locked entry door” and ran inside the building, police said.
The teen, who was not a student at the school but lived in the area, exchanged gunfire with the officers as they followed him, police said.
The 14-year-old died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, police said. It’s not clear if the suspect was wounded by officers, police added.
No students were hurt, police said.
So, take a closer look at this story. The Brady Campaign made it sound like guns are everywhere causing violence, but the truth of the matter is that one sad child decided to shoot at police and, then, take his own life. How, exactly, would gun control have saved any more lives in the situation with this child?
The answer is that they wouldn’t, but, sadly, that doesn’t prevent anti-gunners from trying to deceive people by twisting information into a false narrative. In other words, they are using propaganda, while we have the truth on our side.
Gun control advocates know as much about guns as the rest of us know about brain surgery!
Actually probably a little less to know about brain surgery you would have to have one or know someone that does, that disqualifies the Anti-gunner on both counts. They have a mind of concrete (permanently set and all mixed up)
well the Brady campaign Moms demand Bloomberg and the rest of the rabid anti gunners Feinstein, Pelosi included can not and will not accept or admit that their GUNCONTROL mantra is FLAWED and does nothing to save lives.!!
Ice? They do not care. Key word here. CONTROL. We need to stop the over regulation. Repeal the unconstitutional brady bunch N.IC.S. system. 4473 form crap. They have manipulated their authority and it needs to come to light and be stopped. PERIOD.
Don’t forget NFA1934.
Assume that n o police were involved and a concealed carry confronted the shooter and he shot himself. Or assume that the concealed carry shot the armed student and shot him dead. The outcome is still the same. Neither has any involvement in gun control in this article except that the shooter was a juvenile with a gun. Where did he get it? If he got it from home, his parents should be also arrested for not securing a firearm. That is how we stop shooter from attacking a school. Secured firearms stop such shootings completely unless the shooter acquires a firearm elsewhere, which is certainly possible. But it takes the shooter a longer time to secure a firearm or failure stops the shooter.
Does this really surprise anyone? The way things are going. If WE ALL do not rise up and let them know WE have had ENOUGH. They will achieve what they are after. We will have only ourselves to blame.
The high profile leaders of the firearms confiscation agenda need to be exposed for what they really are to the part of the population that believes what they say and are being duped into thinking they are squeaky clean honest and moral individuals. But it would need to be on any subject EXCEPT anything having to to with their firearm confiscation piloting and implementing those plans. Literally anything about firearms should never even come up. Obvious reasoning for that.
It’s obvious that they are dirty at many levels A certain portion of their hidden background history dirt directly revolves around firearms confiscation. Unlike the way they would and actively do this as shown with the Brett Kavanaugh witch hunt, the facts would all be true and verified. And would not need to be about any single monumental scam they pulled but it would or should be about things that are everyday common occurrences that literally everybody finds majorly irritating when getting the short end of the stick on them. It’s to establish a pattern that would get a person to get the idea on their own that they would not trust the person to be in their residence without they themselves present and supervising them constantly at the same time. It would be a ‘fool me once same on you fool me twice shame on me’ mind game they can play on themselves while hiding in their gun free zone safe rooms as they wait for illegal aliens to move in and share all that safety together.
(the profile that would benefit the most from public firearms confiscation are the criminally insane)
(and they deserve the business end of a GITMO noose)
IMHO and easy to write about armchair quarterbacking it.
Tell me what law will work! Murder,assault and using a weapon to commit a crime, are already illegal. We need concealed carry for all! Gun control should be : hit what you aim at. I have yet to have my question answered , by ANY official I have asked: ” How am I safer unarmed? “
Tell me what law will work! Murder,assault and using a weapon to commit a crime, are already illegal. We need concealed carry for all! Gun control should be : hit what you aim at. I have yet to have my question answered , by ANY official I have asked: ” How am I safer unarmed? “
The courts have ruled (all the way to the SC) that the citizens have no right to protection and the cops have no duty to protect anybody but prisoners.
Then the state and federal governments are doing their utmost to disarm citizens.
What does that tell ya?
Maybe you’re not familiar with the Heller decision, which states clearly that we DO have a right to self protection
Gun control is only peripherally about guns! It’s more about control! Specifically about government control of the people. If the government can succeed in removing guns from the hands of the people, it will then remove the only check on rampant government tyranny that exists in this nation. The Founding Fathers knew this which is why the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment, immediately following the right to freedom of speech and religion! The drafters knew that one day, the government would try to run the people, instead of the other way around, as they had envisioned, so they inserted a safety check in the form of the Second Amendment, knowing an armed populace would never let itself be bullied by tyrants. Therefore, for the tyrannical regime in DC today to succeed in their aims, they have to disarm the population so resistance will be next to nothing. Since a straight forward repeal of 2A cannot happen without another Constitutional Convention, they have to pick away at 2A around the edges with enough hoops and barrels to jump through (gun control laws), no one will be able to legally purchase a gun unless one is a government agent of some sort, be it Law Enforcement, Government Security or Military!
Yes, it is about control. Most recently as the Venesualian’s bout gun control.
Comments are closed.