Right now, it's kind of hard to find Second Amendment news that's substantially different than what we're currently running. That's because the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump has sucked all the air out of the room on the topic of guns.

What we have is a lot of media outlets calling for more gun control, a lot of people claiming that if we'd had gun control, Saturday's events simply would never have happened, and other forms of anti-gun rhetoric.

Of course, it's all nonsense, but it's what's out there.

Yet a few pieces stand apart for various reasons. This one comes from the Madras Courier, a publication that originally existed in British India and has somehow been revived centuries later, but which has a decidedly anti-gun lean.

We know this because of the op-ed titled, "The Attempt To Assassinate Trump Points To America's Toxic Gun Culture."

This is labeled opinion, of course, as it should be, but the byline is "staff writer."

That's the byline I used for things like press releases and other pieces that really weren't of particular import when I was a newspaper editor and publisher. I would never have used it for an op-ed, however, particularly one on such a polarizing topic. I believe that if you're going to refer to an entire segment of the American population as "toxic," then you need to be prepared to stand by your words.

The piece itself is relatively unremarkable. They don't repeat the claim of toxicity or anything of the sort, but do try to pretend that without an AR-15 being available for purchase then the attempt on Trump's life would never have happened. This is a common enough refrain that I'm already growing bored with it.

It also requires us to ignore the assassination of the former prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, or the attempt on the life of the prime minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico.

Neither of those nations has ready access to guns of any kind. Japan, in particular, has some of the toughest gun control laws anywhere in the world, and yet Abe was shot and killed.

This idea that a fanatic willing to die in the process of killing a political figure would be deterred by a law is beyond ridiculous.

But then to use a headline--which is all some people read, if we're being honest--to call America's gun culture "toxic" means labeling millions of Americans themselves as toxic. You can do that if you at least attempt to show your work, but that's missing entirely. Apparently, we're toxic not because of any particularly toxic actions, but just because we won't fold and think or rights are actually important.

If that's what it takes to be considered "toxic" in this day and age, then so be it. Call them the Toxic-freaking-Avenger, then, because I'm not about to bow down to fear. 

Yes, someone attempted to kill President Trump. They did kill an innocent man who died protecting his family. Two other innocent people were shot and injured. Whether it was an attempt to foist gun control on the American population or not, bowing down now would only encourage this kind of things going forward. Instead, I'll stand firm in my supposed toxicity and hold the line on our right to keep and bear arms.

Don't like it? Don't care.

The phrase "shall not be infringed" doesn't include some clause rendering it null and void if certain things happen; not if someone tries to kill a former president and the current frontrunner for the office once again and damn sure not if some "staff writer" calls us toxic.