We’ve long seen the games anti-gunners play with various firearms. Privately made guns are “ghost guns.” Modern sporting rifles are “assault weapons,” or even worse, “battlefield weapons of war.”
        
And, we’ve long known that when they decide to come for our hunting rifles, it won’t be framed that way. They’ll call them “sniper rifles.”
It seems the Daily Mail is already setting up that framework.
FBI Director Kash Patel crushed efforts by Tulsi Gabbard‘s closest advisor to see if a foreign power was involved in Charlie Kirk‘s assassination.
The head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, analyzed FBI files to determine whether Kirk’s alleged killer received assistance from a foreign power.
Kent’s investigation alarmed Patel, who believed the counterterror chief was overstepping by interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation, according to the New York Times.
Kirk was shot in the throat by a high-powered sniper rifle while speaking to college students at Utah Valley University on September 10. Tyler Robinson, 22, was charged with the murder and now faces the death penalty if found guilty.
Except he wasn’t. He was shot by an antique milsurp bolt-action rifle that’s used by hunters all across the nation and has been for decades. It’s not a sniper rifle at all.
        
However, the writer of the piece isn’t escaping without some pushback.
“I’ve got to give the Daily Mail’s U.S. political reporter, Phillip Nieto, a little credit for revealing the depths of his anti-gun phobia,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “They weren’t even subtle about it. In true media fashion, the newspaper put the blame on the bolt-action rifle used in the slaying of Mr. Kirk. At least the reporter waited until the fourth paragraph.”
That’s certainly fair. They usually put their anti-gun animosity front and center via paragraph one.
“The media couldn’t blame Kirk’s murder on a so-called ‘assault rifle,’ so they’re doing the next worst thing,” Gottlieb added. “They’ve slapped a defamatory label on commonly-owned hunting rifles, hoping to make them the new bogeyman for the gun ban lobby. The Daily Mail has pulled a page out of the gun control playbook simply for the purpose of sensationalism. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”
But again, the framing of bolt-action hunting rifles as “sniper rifles” was something we all knew was coming. It’s a necessary precursor toward restricting these firearms as heavily as they’re trying to do with your average AR-15. Before you can ban it, you have to demonize it, which is where throwing “sniper rifle” into the mix comes in.
        
The alleged killer used an old Mauser that had been sporterized. It’s not a precision firearm. It’s minute of deer accurate, and that’s about it. It was great as a battle rifle back in its day, but that day is more than 80 years ago, at best. While the action itself still has fans, technology in other areas has moved on, and no competent military hands one of these to their snipers.
Yet that doesn’t matter when you’re demonizing a firearm. All that matters is that you make the term ubiquitous in the minds of the public sp they’ll be properly afraid.
        
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
        
    
Read the full article here
 
		

9 Comments
The narrative around firearm terminology is concerning. Labeling hunting rifles as ‘sniper rifles’ is a clear attempt to manipulate public perception.
This rhetoric makes it harder to discuss real issues like safety and responsibility.
It’s propaganda at its finest. Honest debate requires accurate terminology.
Calling a milsurp bolt action ‘a high-powered sniper rifle’ is either ignorance or deception.
Precise language matters, especially in media reporting.
The FBI’s resistance to investigating foreign involvement in Kirk’s shooting is troubling. What are they hiding?
A legitimate question. Transparency is key in high-profile cases like this.
The media’s framing of this tragedy is more about pushing an agenda than reporting facts.
Sadly, accurate journalism often takes a backseat to political narratives.