Anti-gun media has a "style" all its own when reporting on "military-style rifles"

The New York Times, once a trusted and semi-unbiased news source, has slipped into the pornography business. I can say this about the gray lady because it’s my opinion, and it’s stated as such. NYTs recently reported on Daniel Defense, in an apparent hit piece; “Gun in Texas Shooting Came From Company Known for Pushing Boundaries”. The context and content of their “reporting” fits the definition of pornographic. 


After one of its military-style rifles was used in the Texas elementary school shooting on Tuesday, the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense published a pop-up statement on its home page sending “thoughts and prayers” to the community of Uvalde, Texas, and pledging to cooperate with the authorities.

If these newspapers are going to continue to call the AR-15 “military-style”, “assault rifles”, “assault-style rifle”, or “military-style assault weapons”, terms all used in this schlock, then The New York Times is pornographic-style. If they can invent their own meaning and terms for words, then so can I.

To call the AR-15 anything other than a semi-automatic rifle would be slightly inauthentic.

When it comes to “styles”, we’re really just playing semantical games with words. We can explore what “doggy style” is, but that’s not that accurate nor nearly inclusive enough. In reality when it comes to intercourse, there’s human style(s), and pretty much how nearly every other animal does it on the planet, with some exceptions. I don’t want to travel too far into the weedy bush here, but if we’re going to be playing word games, let’s play ‘em. Let’s play ‘em with style.

Regardless of the debate over the AR-15, its inception, and or style, we can consider so many other things as “military-style”. Do we call the current incarnation of the Jeep “military-style”, as the driver tosses out their little cultish wave to other Jeep drivers? That there was a military-style wave! No.


How about the socks that the military wears? One writer suggests:

If you’re looking for combat boots socks, don’t even consider a 100% cotton product. Cotton can’t wick moisture away the same way that wool or synthetics can, which means you’ll just be walking around with sweaty, wet feet. That’s a great way to get blisters and encourage bacteria to grow.

Does that mean that every sock that’s not 100% cotton is military-style?

The “article” continues on a quest to demonize Daniel Defense, specifically highlighting their marketing. The memo is out on the anti-freedom caucus waging their new war on firearm manufacturers and industry members through targeting marketing. Watching mainstream media outlets like the Times wade into the fight by running such interference pulls all the pieces together. You don’t have to be Robert Langdon from Da Vinci Code to see how these puzzle pieces fit. They can’t go directly after the guns, so they’ll go after the advertising (which is a First Amendment issue unto itself).

Daniel Defense is at the forefront of an industry that has grown increasingly aggressive in recent years as it tries to expand beyond its aging, mostly white customer base and resists the calls for stronger regulation that seem to intensify after every mass shooting.

“Daniel Defense is basically the poster child of this egregious, aggressive marketing,” said Ryan Busse, a former executive at the gun company Kimber who is now an industry critic. “Marty Daniel burst in the door, a lot louder and more brazen than other gun makers, much like Donald Trump did on the political scene.”


Look at the fantastic way the Times gets check marks on their progressive agenda punch list. Vilify firearms, check. Bring up race for no reason, check. Find one jackass that is/was an “insider” to say something against the industry, check. Bring up Donald Trump, check. That was just in one paragraph. #nailedit

He added, “Through this company, you are telling the story of how the gun industry has become increasingly radicalized.”

Daniel Defense’s strategy seems to have been effective. Its sales have soared, in part because of its successful targeting of young customers like [murderer’s name redacted], the gunman in Texas. Mr. [murderer’s name redacted], whom the authorities killed on Tuesday, was a “Call of Duty” video game enthusiast and appears to have bought his assault rifle directly from Daniel Defense, less than a week after turning 18.

I think the Times ought to tread carefully in their quest where they keep bringing up video games. The same games that come with advisories. Here’s a note on one of the “Call of Duty” games released in 2018:

The VSC rated this game PEGI 18, only suitable for those 18 and over. This rating has been given due to strong violence and language.

The VSC expand on the PEGI rating by stating, that the “game contains instances of decapitation, dismemberment and the use of the sexual expletive ‘fuck’ and its derivations.

They highlight that “in addition to the initial purchase price, this game offers in-game items which may be purchased by the player using real-world money. Although there is no use of or glamorisation of drugs there are occasions when packages, some opened and showing white powder, are seen as a background element.


The Times so eloquently blames the manufacturer of the firearm used as a responsible party. Because their advertising was just so damned good and targeted. I don’t hear any calls from the Times to call out “Call of Duty”. If the game(s) are intended for mature audiences, maybe the murderer should not have been playing it in the first place?

Nowhere is anyone talking about parental responsibility and what that means in this equation. A responsibility the progressives are begging for the state to take over. That’s probably why they’re mum on the subject.

What’s going on here is the (continued) morphing and bastardization of language, as well as deflecting fault onto gun manufacturers. The NYTs took the time to pull some quotes from the king of bastardization of society’s understanding of terminology, Josh Sugarmann.

Mr. Daniel has been an especially vocal critic of gun control. After the shooting at Parkland High School in 2018, he briefly expressed support for legislation, backed by the N.R.A., to bolster the federal background-check system. But he soon reversed his position, citing “overwhelming feedback.” He declared that “all firearms laws that limit the rights of law-abiding citizens are unconstitutional.”

“You don’t see the same kind of boldness from the chief executives of Smith & Wesson or the old-guard gun companies,” said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the nonprofit Violence Policy Center. “Daniel is more at the edges.”

The same kind of “boldness”? That’s ironic coming from Sugarmann, who’s been boldly making stuff up for decades. Sugarmann created the biggest farce in anti-Second Amendment nomenclature. Coincidently I just brought up Sugarmann the other day and will parrot a quote he’s most famous for again here. The quote is all that one needs to be acquainted with for us to discount Sugarmann completely on whether or not he’s authentic:


Assault weapons … are a new topic. 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…. Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Familiar bedfellows. The New York Times, a publisher of pornographic-style writing (per my own definition) and Sugarmann; someone that knowingly misled the public in order to push his anti-gun agenda. Now we can see how all this “assault-style” ties into the narrative, which also includes things like falsely stating that Remington settled over their advertising recently, when in reality it was Remington’s insurers. Little details are corrupted in order to feed the public a pile of dung. This is a cultural battle and has little to do with anything other than control. Period. “End of message”.

It’s okay my patriotic friends. We’ll keep working to set the record straight. We will. There’s been no greater assault on the Second Amendment and civil liberties in the history of America than there is now, and we have to call out the false narratives when we see them.

In the meantime, the next time your kid has a “current events” project, if they used something from the Times (or really any MSM source) and did not get a good grade, you can always blame it on the newspaper/publisher. Blame the writer and the editor. It’s not your kid’s fault. It’s clearly the newspaper’s fault (as well as the ink maker, paper mill, and loggers – lest we only include the “journalists”). Isn’t that how this is supposed to work according to them? 


Join the conversation as a VIP Member