Prairie Press shoots but missed target – Gun Control Act of 1968 already regulates automatic weapons ownership

Edgar Co. (ECWd) –

Once again we must point out the total failures of the Editorial Board of the Prairie Press, a local paper hanging on a thread with their one day a week publication publishing misinformation to the community.

They have now taken on an anti-gun position, on the backs of the Las Vegas tragedy, and done so by showing their absolute inability to report truth or facts and provided false information to support what appears to be an anti-gun agenda.

Let us explain.

“Americans woke to another national nightmare Monday Morning as we discovered the worst mass shooting in our country’s history had occurred at an outdoor concrete venue in Las Vegas”

Sand Creek Massacre –1864 – Well over half of the 230 dead were women and children

Bloody Island Massacre 1850 – Captain Nathaniel Lyon, accompanied by soldiers and local White volunteers, invaded the island and killed 60 of the 400 Indians

Wounded Knee Massacre -1890 When the smoke cleared almost all the 300 men, women, and children were dead.

As you can see, more definition of “worst mass shooting” needs to be determined.  Of those injured at the Vegas shooting, it is still unknown how many of those were the result of gunfire vs. injury from the chaos that took place during attempts to evacuate the area.  How ironic that the above-listed events were at the hands of our own government, which are the same ones the Editorial Board believes should have control over our ownership rights.

As a means of trying to justify their agenda on guns, they cite the New York Times.

“According to the New York Times, there has been 521 mass shootings, instances in which four or more people have been killed or injured while in the same place in the last 477 days”

How convenient.  Cite a left-leaning newspaper that did not do the research on the matter.  Had the Prairie Press just done a smidgen of investigative journalism they would have been able to not only debunk the New York Times, they could have bolstered their numbers considerably.

The source, quoted by the NYT, is Gun Violence Archive and according to them, the number of 2017 mass “shootings“, according to their numbers, may total 521 in the last 477 days but they do not disclose how many of those are from defensive shootings.  The total dead/injured in that same time frame is 2,952 and as you can see viewing the information, little details are given other than a link to local news reports and the vast majority are from major cities, as can be viewed on the Maps at this link.  While looking at those maps, ask why they have no report of the deaths from Defensive use of a gun?

“used multiple weapons that had been changed from semi-automatic to fully automatic by the gunman, legally”

• To date, the only evidence that has been shared regarding the weapons is the fact there were multiple weapons in the room. There has been no release of information regarding how many weapons were used.
• To date, there is no evidence that has been shared that any weapons found in the room were changed from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• To date, there is no evidence that the gunman changed any weapons from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• Legally? If any of what they claimed was true, and they cite that it was done legally, what is the point?

The fact remains, the Editorial Board would be better off keeping their keyboards on lockdown rather than showing the world how stupid they really are when it comes to guns.

Nothing in the reporting to date has determined who installed a bump fire stock on the guns used in the shooting.  Installing a bump fire stock does not convert the gun from semi-auto to fully automatic.  The only thing it does is make it easier to pull the trigger faster, as a semi-automatic gun only fires one round for each trigger pull, with or without a bump fire stock.

Converting a semi-auto to full auto is not legal without an FFL 07+SOT issued by the ATF.  Considering the machine gun registry was closed on May 19, 1986, I would bet it’s safe to say, had any of these guns actually been converted to full auto as the Prairie Press claims, then laws were already broken.  That being the case, what makes them think another law would stop someone who ignores the laws anyway?

If the concern is people dying, why no mention of the 28 deaths per day from DUI drivers, which is over 10,000 a year.  Considering drinking is not a Constitutional Protected right, you would think DUI deaths would be a much easier target for an Editorial Board unless of course, they are drinkers.

“We respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights”

Really?  What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you get?  Although we may not agree with the written opinions of the Editorial Board, we do respect and have served our country to protect their First Amendment right.  Interesting the means in which that amendment is protected by our service men and woman, is the very means in which they wish to diminish, our Second Amendment.

“But it’s time for the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates to quit delaying the real need to do something about guns in this society”

Do something?  What more do you want?  It’s a Constitutionally Protected right so if you want something done take the steps necessary for a Constitutional Amendment.  We already have a law that considers murder a crime, yet we still have murders.  I have said many times, you will never legislate lawbreakers into compliance.

“There’s only one reason to poses an automatic weapon – to kill people”

As it relates to our Constitutionally Protected right to bear arms, yes, it was to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, which may mean killing people.  Automatic weapons have more than one purpose and if they had the slightest bit of military background they would know it’s not just to kill people. There is nothing that puts more fear into your enemy in a gun fight than overwhelming bullets down range.  Even knowing the vast majority of them would never actually hit the target, the volume of incoming rounds sends a message.

“It’s not for deer hunting or shooting squirrels.”

Nor have we ever heard anyone make the argument that fully automatic guns were intended to be used for deer hunting or shooting squirrels.  Considering automatic weapons are already illegal without certain ATF issued license that few can afford to maintain, what more can be done?

“Congress needs to do its job to protect Americans.”

 That is not Congress’s job.  Their Job is to pass laws, which are not allowed to violate our Constitutional Rights.

 “We’re convinced the Founding Fathers had no idea how guns would change over the years.  Let’s face it.  One man couldn’t kill 58 people and wound more than 450 with a muzzle loading gun.”

Maybe they should go back and take a history course on the Constitution and read the Federalist papers to understand the issue was not about what the gun can do.  It was about the people having a right to use the gun to protect themselves.  Using their logic, we have no right to protect ourselves with current technology because the Founding Fathers had no idea how guns would change over the years.

As far as one man couldn’t kill 58 people and wound more than 450 with a muzzle loading gun, may we suggest they research civil war sniper Jack Hinson who killed upwards of a hundred with his muzzleloader.  As far as the wounding of 450 people, not sure how may Hinson wounded but as it relates to the Vegas shooting, that is a misrepresentation of the information. We still do not know how may of those injured were a result of being hit by gunfire.

All that aside, the Editorial Board is entitled to their opinion.  Just sad that it’s based on so little knowledge of guns and our history as a Constitutional Republic.
.