In relation to the article published on a large gun-centric website, I have a few points of concern:

I can appreciate the idea of freedom. I can appreciate the argument for freedom and even some occasional hyperbole to ensure that people understand the need for freedom. What I cannot appreciate is using fear mongering and blatantly false (or severely premature) propaganda used in the gun rights media to push an agenda. I say this as one of the staunchest opponents of gun control in any format. 

Most of the time this agenda is not freedom, but rather the lining of a given writer’s pocket. 

I don’t begrudge people trying to make money. I largely derive an income from writing and I can admit, the more controversial the topic the better the income stream usually. Many writers and editorial teams use this to their advantage daily. 

The “writer” here (he presents the idea in voice on a podcast), is a credible enough figurehead in the gun rights movement – New Jersey Lawyer that has some specific 2A cases petitioning for Writ of Certiorari. But he makes quite a stretch to get this one out there. 

Playing on fears from the gun rights community that likely trends to overlapping with those same people who may have issues with the concept of individual freedoms when applied to mandatory vaccinations.

IMPORTANT: The connection between No-Fly/No-Buy regarding gun rights is tenuous at best. There is no federal legislation slated regarding such a matter, to be voted on at all, period. And regardless if Raum Emanuel or whoever, wants such a policy in place, there is exactly zero danger of such legislation being passed in the near-term. Furthermore, the referenced HR 4980 has a single originator and a single co-sponsor on the push for the legislation. It is a non-starter at this point. 

Should it be on your radar? Sure. Should you be reading this article or listening to the podcast because such a potential for this law is imminent? NO. It’s unfair to everyone fighting the good fight, to push nonsense like this with zero immediate need for it. It’s printed to get views and sell books at this moment in time. 

I want to note: While I don’t know Mr. (Evan) Nappen, I don’t have an issue with his desire to forewarn people of the dirty tricks of gun control activist politicians, especially when they work behind the scenes to erode rights. I DO have an issue with being an alarmist without realistic cause given the hurdles the proposed legislation faces and the timeline that it would realistically take to pass such a law. I also dislike the misleading use of the word “state” which is too ambiguous to be used, when he presents on NJ state issues, and references the “state” as in, the government from a federal level. 

It’s also not a “NEW SECRET PLAN FOR GUN CONFISCATION”. It’s well known that Rahm Emanuel and Juliette Kayyem support taking any gun they can out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Nothing new here. 

Furthermore, I take MAJOR issues with supporting such a misleading and incendiary headline, where Mr Nappen, merely alludes to potential for problems in his audio recording. 

  1. It is quite irresponsible to try to grab some advertising revenue by publishing a headline like that, and for pushing forward an agenda that doesn’t rely a whole lot on facts 
  2. The assertions made would require significant other events to pass before even having a chance to be considered as legislation
  3. The background research is weak at best
  4. There is a misleading storyline both in the published article on the website and in the podcast because they never really get to the heart of the assertion

Here’s the real issue – because gun rights activists should be able to point out future concerns without other gun rights activists calling them into question. The real issue is that when we make up storylines it makes us less credible to those who have not yet been converted to the same platform that we are all a part of. 

We tend to think within our echo chamber of gun rights proponents, that somehow acting like the other side is being crazy means we are going to get more accomplished to stop them. That is historically proven to not be the case. People outside of our group need to learn this, not the ones who already believe it.

The fringe supporters are the group most likely to be turned away by inaccurate reporting, or sensationalist content. Those fringe supporters are the ones that matter the most because they have the shortest pathway to add volume, and votes, and voices to the repeal of, or capping of gun control legislation. 

Additionally, there are people who are becoming more and more of a one or two issue voter, as conservatives coalesce on social policies and become more liberal on that social front, it allows a voter who may not have been a “top priority: gun rights” voter, to reassess their priority in voting – especially at the state level.

This is part of the reason why you have seen improved constitutional carry platforms in more than 30 states in the past 10 years – a realistic win on almost every front. Full transparency: (I don’t believe there is a lot of value to open carry in SOME scenarios, but I am pro 2A, regardless of the nuances rather than losing rights).

These new 1-2 issue voters are historically more likely to recognize that falling crime rates correspond almost in parallel with enhanced gun rights. They are also likely to recognize that increased crime rates can be solved with a better informed and more capable citizenry. These are important things for gun rights. Those who would have been only focused on abortion/women’s rights; LGBTQ+ issues; Military Spending; Civil rights/Racial divides and other hot button issues, may be more likely to re-focus on gun rights or personal freedoms and government overreach once there is a more balanced approach in their mnds on the other issues. 

This translates to enhanced gun rights across the board, generally.

That is why it is so important for the right information – accurate information – to be portrayed in any forum where gun rights activists seek to push their agenda. 

The bottom line is: we win on merit, not on hyperbole. It’s a proven fact.