Editorial Says Leave Guns At Home, But Should You?

When people try to claim there’s no liberal bias in the media, I can’t help but laugh. Sure, I once believed there wasn’t such a bias, but the truth of the matter is that after having been part of the media to some degree for a while now, I’ve come to realize that yeah, there is.

I see proof all the time. One bit of evidence are newspaper editorials. Different from op-eds, editorials are from the newspapers themselves. The editorial board tends to be made up of key members and essentially takes on the role as the voice of the newspaper. I read a bunch of them, particularly on the topic of firearms, and it’s odd how so few ever take a pro-gun position.

Oh, a few do, but almost all of them take an anti-gun position, especially now with the issue of riots.

Americans can take pride in our First Amendment freedoms. This liberty must be safeguarded, now and for future generations. But of late, gun violence has marred such protests, in a frightening series of deaths.

In Kenosha, Wisconsin, authorities have charged a 17-year-old in the shooting deaths of two protesters and the wounding of a third. In Portland, Oregon, gunfire last weekend took the life of a protester. And in Omaha, James Scurlock was fatally shot in May during protests over the death of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer.

Yes, the Second Amendment safeguards gun rights, though with leeway for government regulation, as the Supreme Court has stated. But experience — in Kenosha, in Portland, in Omaha itself — makes clear that guns and protests make for a perilous combination.

Except, guns and protests aren’t the problem.

While Aaron “Jay” Danielson was shot and killed during a protest, it was the exception, not the rule. The two killed in Kenosha were shot while taking part in a riot. The same is true of James Scurlock who had his knee on his eventual shooter’s neck–the same kind of chokehold that was blamed for taking George Floyd’s life.

See, for me the problem is calling these last three “protestors.” They weren’t. They were rioters, violent thugs and vandals who were looting and burning their way through towns.

Now, I happen to believe that it’s not a great idea to go into a town with the intention of trying to protect property that wasn’t your own. That said, I’m not going to judge those who disagree. Especially in light of the facts on the ground.

Most of these people weren’t killed during peaceful protests. The one individual who was–Danielson–was killed by the same kind of people who were shot in these other incidents. Frankly, I can’t say that I blame anyone for taking a gun to protect themselves anymore. Had he not had a gun, Kyle Rittenhouse would have been a victim as well, as would the gentleman who shot Scurlock.

(It should be noted that Danielson’s shooter, who is now deceased, has argued he fired in self-defense as well. However, I haven’t seen any evidence that Danielson had any kind of a weapon.)

Frankly, though, if I had to go near a protest, I’d damn sure not go unarmed, regardless of what some newspaper editorial said.