Donald Trump hasn't demanded a gun ban or called for restricting the Second Amendment in the wake of two attempts on his life, and for some folks, that seems to be a bigger issue than the actual assassination attempts. 

Raleigh News & Observer editor Ned Barnett complains that there "wasn’t much discussion about doing something about guns" after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania two months ago, and says that the most recent arrest of a man accused of hoping to kill Trump at his Florida golf course this past weekend should cause Trump and other Republicans to "have second thoughts about guns." 

After Sandy Hook, we know there is apparently no level of gun violence that will make Republican politicians question their devotion to the illusion that more guns create more safety. But now even Trump may be wondering whether more guns actually create more danger. 

In July, a bullet came less than an inch from seriously wounding or killing him. A supporter at that rally was killed. Two others were wounded. Now, Trump knows that another heavily-armed gunman was waiting for him along the edge of the Trump International Golf Club.

The Washington Post reported that the weapon in Florida appears not to be an AK-47 style rifle, as originally reported, but a semi automatic SKS-type rifle that has similar qualities. “The SKS is a mainstay at shops and gun shows in the United States because they are relatively cheap and fire plentiful ammunition,” the Post said. Somewhere along the line, prodded by generous contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Republican Party became dedicated to the insane idea that freedom means almost every adult should be able to have a machine gun.

Again, this isn't just some letter to the editor. Barnett is an editor, and he should damn well know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a machine gun. If he doesn't, he has no business opining about gun control. And if he does know the difference, it's an act of journalistic malpractice to conflate the two and confuse his readers. 

I'm not one of those people who believes that the Second Amendment does protect the right to own a machine gun, but as Second Amendment advocates are well aware, that is not the majority point of view for Republicans or Americans in general. 

Semi-automatics, however, are essentially the standard when it comes to modern firearms. They're in common use for a variety of lawful purposes, and despite the repeated attempts by the media and gun control activists to turn them into the weapon of choice for killers, semi-automatic rifles are only used in a small number of homicides every year. To put them beyond the Second Amendment's protections is akin to saying the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and printing presses. 

That wasn't the only whopper in Barnett's column, either. A few paragraphs later, he unleashed this drivel. 

Gun control isn’t about ripping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It’s about ensuring that firearms – especially assault weapons – don’t get into the wrong hands.

No, gun bans are about prohibiting everyone, including folks with the "right hands", from legally purchasing, selling, or possessing certain firearms. And inevitably, those bans end up restricting the law-abiding among us while violent criminals have another law to ignore. 

From 1977 to 2008 the District of Columbia banned the sale and possession of handguns (unless they were owned and registered before the ban took place). Did that prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands? Absolutely not. Throughout the entirety of the gun ban's existence D.C.'s homicide rate was far above the national average. In 1991, after the ban had been in place for more than a decade, there were more than 480 murders in D.C.; a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 people. Residents who wanted to possess a pistol to protect themselves in their home were out of luck, while violent predators had no trouble whatsoever illegally acquiring a gun through illicit means. 

And despite Barnett's claim that gun control isn't about taking guns away from current owners, he repeatedly complains that "it’s crazy to have millions of assault weapons floating around the U.S." and we are "a nation awash in guns." Sounds to me like Barnett is demanding action that would infringe on the rights of tens of millions of lawful gun owners, even if he refuses to admit it.