“A charlatan makes obscure what is clear; a thinker makes clear what is obscure.” — Hugh Kingsmill
A Charlatan is defined as, “A person falsely claiming to have special knowledge or skill; a fraud.” The Nation is a 150-year old leftist publication, dedicated to the progressive left wing narrative and they are skilled at manipulating and twisting data and anecdotes in furtherance of that narrative. The Nation, akin to…or analogous to Mother Jones, Doesn’t have a mass media presence on any of the major television networks. The reason is their use of facts is even too sketchy for the likes of MSNBC. The Nation is just another Charlatan.
Women Against Gun Violence is a 2013 upstart with the late Left wing Feminist Activist Betty Freidan’s name all over it. Their Facebook page has about 5,000 likes, unlike Moms Demand Action‘s Facebook page with its behemoth 433K likes. Obviously they haven’t gotten creative like Moms Demand and bolstered the page with fake likes. More Charlatans.
There are no pure moderate gun control groups in existence. If there are, they are obscure in their existence. In other words, no groups that advocate for gun control without an underlying subterfuge of an all out ban on guns, exists. The Brady Campaign has morphed into a total gun ban group, like Moms Demand Action, Newtown Promises, and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Just Charlatans.
So, yesterday The Nations Josh Holland presented its readers with the headline, Combat Vets Destroy the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy.
Military Veterans constitute about 1% of the total population. The overwhelming majority of them are mid-American to conservative in their cultural leanings. A vast majority also support the second Amendment. It also goes without saying there are a very small number of past military members who are reliably left wing. The Armed Forces is a mere cross section of our overall society.
Holland then quotes a, “Stephen Benson,” telling readers he is a, “former Navy SEAL,” and, “Saw extensive combat during his three tours in Vietnam.” Benson, however does not appear to have much online about him. Holland quotes Benson and is clever and crafty in doing so. In the Benson quote, he never once made any direct reference to civilian use of firearms to stop attacks, from the quoted source. Easily, this could have been a quote from another column from a totally unrelated article or feature.
Some vets even turn into left wing hacks. For example, “Retired Army Sargeant” Rafael Noboa y Rivera is such a left wing hack, with a resume touting Obama for America, Denver Young Democrats, CT Democrat Ned Lamont, defeated by Joe Liebermann, and New media Specialist for SEIU. This guy falls on his sword for his fellow leftists, throwing all his fellow vet under the bus.
“I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” he says. “When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance,” Noboa said. “I think they would absolutely panic.”
Clearly from this quote Noboa buys into the sans competency narrative actively being pursued by the left in their quest to pry guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether he realizes it or not, a number of those “citizens” now carrying perhaps saw as much, if not more combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His relational patterns are not consistent with an objective evaluation and flies in the face of facts. For example, The Uber Driver who stopped an attacker shooting at people in Chicago. Or perhaps in a Philadelphia Barber Shop where a concealed carrier stopped a shooter; Or the Hospital in Philadephia where a Doctor shot and killed an attacker with a gun. The list goes on of “Good Guys with Guns stopping Bad guys with guns.”
The hit piece goes on to quote some former ATF Agent and an academic. Its not hard to shop around fitting the narrative to the thesis. How about a former Police Officer? Does his training and experience escape him once he becomes a citizen again? What about a former service member engaged in a tactical role?
Josh Holland leaves no arse unkicked in his quest to discredit the currently available training. First, the narrative states, a desire to not have untrained civilians with guns intervening when attacks take place. Then it evolves to how the training “sucks” or is no real.
The lack of consistency here is laid bare where much of this training is done by former law enforcement people seeking to make a buck after retirement. Much of the training is as good as what Law Enforcement gets.
There is a transition now taking place within the anti-gun community. And that transition is the use and treatment of facts and statistics. One thing liberals master first and foremost is an absolute command of the written language. Largely dependent on what they write is the notion of the short attention span where people read what is written, accept it on its face value and not check or critically evaluate the claims being made. They are sneaky with “what if’s” craftily couching them in quotes from those purported to have experience on the subject matter. Statistics are used out of context and often the claims made are completely untrue and made up of whole cloth.
The one difficulty anti-gun liberals cannot get around is the fundamental question of whether or not passage of the legislation sought corrects the problem at hand: How to stop these mass shootings. No restriction sought by these anti-gun progressives will do that.
Moms Demand Action, Women Against Gun Violence, The Brady Campaign and other such nefarious Bloomberg funded endeavors always—100 per cent of the time, advocate for laws that affect law-abiding citizens owning guns. Never do we see solutions or initiatives aimed at criminals or crazies who take guns and kill many people. Never do we see the paradigm change for target-rich environments…more school security, armed personnel or effective security measures. The conversation never gravitates to protecting the most vulnerable in society.
Instead, we see articles like this one where law-abiding citizens, choosing to be proactive about protection are ridiculed, scorned and scoffed at…blamed for the bloodshed, the law-breaking and the societal tumult that follows in the wake of these killings.
These people do not care about the murdered victims. These people are viewed by liberals as collateral damage and bloody pawns in their quest to take guns away from citizens. It is our task to make sure we call them all liars and prove them so.
So on the one hand, these “Military Experts” assuage the value of the training, yet the quotes are mere invective and hyperbole to support the thesis that untrained civilians should not be armed, Yet on the other hand, the training undertaken by civilians, “sucks,” is not credible and cannot be taken seriously.
The college was not really a “gun free” zone because some concealed carriers were present, yet chose not to act because it would make the situation worse. I have been unable to confirm that after an exhaustive search. It would appear Josh Holland told an outright lie, Aside from the fact that it makes absolutely no sense.
This is what happens when Angry liberals take to the pen.