Black Lives Matter Radical Uses Black Lives Matter Terrorism to Push Gun Confiscation

Shaun King, one of the left wing radicals so eager to stir up hatred against law enforcement and push the divisive and factually false narratives of Black Lives Matter, is now attempting to use the recent domestic terrorist attacks he helped encourage to call for gun confiscation.


Like everything else King publishes, his call for stripping Americans of the most common firearms in America is based purely on the sort of lies we’ve come to expect in the execrable New York Daily News.

In Dallas and Baton Rouge, M___ J___* and G___ L___ killed eight police officers and shot 12 others. Based on the final act of each of their lives, many are calling them evil murderers. They were also well-trained military veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. From all accounts, both men were law-abiding citizens after their service.

King has a curious definition of “well-trained,” in asserting that these racist former servicemen were highly trained killers. The Dallas Black Lives Matter terrorist was a builder in the Army, with a MOS that made him proficient with only nail guns. The Baton Rogue terrorist was a data network specialist, a keyboard warrior, not an infantryman. He notes their military service, but somehow completely glosses over the fact that both of these domestic terrorists had ties to and attends protests with radical black nationalist groups, and harbored deep hatred of police officers, and desired to murder white people.

It shouldn’t be surprising that King was quick to lay on distorted hyperbole about the firearms these two men selected to carry out their terrorist attacks.


I say that not to compliment either of them, but to highlight the glaring limitations of America’s gun laws. J___ and L___, armed with vicious assault rifles designed to inflict catastrophic damage to the human body, used them to do just that.

Actual assault rifles—selective-fire, intermediate-caliber rifles or carbines—have been banned for manufacture for the civilian market for exactly 30 years. No legally owned assault rifles have ever been tied to a criminal homicide in the history of the United States, and have been controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934 since the first assault rifle (the German StG-44) was created during World War II.

The firearms King is so dishonestly describing are variants of the most common rifles sold in America, which are magazine-fed, semi-automatic carbines.

Dallas-Police Saiga

The Dallas domestic terrorist so interested in murdering white police officers was armed with a 5.45×39-chambered Saiga, a higher-end (price-wise), semi-automatic AK-74 variant with what they said was a red-dot sight.


The racist domestic terrorist so intent on murdering police officers in Louisiana was armed with a 5.56 NATO-chambered Tavor.

Both the 5.45×39 and 5.56×45 cartridges are on the low end of the rifle power spectrum, and far from inflicting “catastrophic damage,” they are considered to be too low-powered by many state fish and game departments to ethically be used for taking thin-skinned game animals like whitetail deer.


But that reality doesn’t serve King’s dishonest narrative.

The bottom line is that alongside hand grenades, plastic explosives, rocket launchers, and tanks, high powered assault rifles should not be available to the American public.

They are weapons of war. They cause mass destruction. This is not an abstract theory, but a deadly American reality — and a predictable one at that.

We have no idea where the next mass shooting will take place, and whose lives will be violently snatched from us next, but this much is clear, it won’t be long from now.

O___ M___, who shot and killed 49 club goers in Orlando earlier this summer, also legally owned the assault rifle he used. He, too, was seemingly a law-abiding citizen and a longtime security guard who would’ve easily passed through most of the current gun control measures being proposed across the country.

A ban and complete eradication of assault rifles from the hands of everyday citizens is a reasonable reform.

In Shaun King’s world, it is entirely reasonable to blatantly lie to your readers. Manufacturing entirely false narratives is the lifeblood of the Black Lives Matter movement, after all. Here in reality, we know that the common semi-automatic firearms King are not issued as “weapons of war” in any modern military. Being small arms, these firearms do not cause “mass destruction” by any rational definition.


If King wants “reasonable” constitutional reforms, I’d suggest that instead of banning common firearms essential to the security of a free state, we instead consider criminal sanctions for those who personally profit from stirring up racial violence by the dissemination of false and reckless narratives.

Somehow, I don’t think he’d be quite as thrilled to be held accountable for his domestic-terrorism supporting “assault speech.”



* Bearing Arms does not public the names of mass murderers or spree killers.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member