Those who put their faith in gun control fundamentally believe government can solve all our problems because government flawlessly succeeds in all its endeavors… i.e. worship of the state. The Texas shooting shows the fatal futility of such beliefs.

In Liberal Fascism the author, Jonah Goldberg, first had to define fascism. After spending a chapter reviewing the origins, history, and various manifestations of fascism to date, he concludes that fascism is most simply defined as “worship of the state.” The rest of the book examines the various fascist political platforms throughout history and at the end compares them to various US Presidential political platforms. You can probably guess which historic and recent US Presidents aligned most closely with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler according to their campaign promises. (Hint: it’s not Trump.)

Aside from the obvious idiotic disconnect that a man planning on violating the law by going on a killing spree likely does not care about obtaining a gun be legal means, gun control arguments implicitly assume that the government agencies enforcing gun control will not make mistakes. Let’s look at the scoreboard on the recent Texas shooter.

Here’s the feature image again, showing the killer before his murder spree showing off an evil looking gun that is a prime candidate for the types of weapons the leftists would like to ban.

Wow. All black. Large clip. Short-ish barrel (no ruler is present to verify if it is technically a short barrel weapon). Tactical sights and light. Foregrip under the stock. Flip up iron sights as backup. Adjustable stock. According to a leftist analysis, this completely legal tool is a murder machine that ought to be allowed only in the hands of police or military forces.

For comparison, here’s a media guide to evil black rifles created back in 2013. How many features of the Texas shooter’s weapon match the gun control scapegoat?

I’m actually shocked at the similarity the two weapons have in features and did not expect it prior to pulling the images. If ever there was a candidate for gun control, the Texas shooter’s weapon matches up as nearly the most evil of Evil Black Rifles. (Needs a “silencer” to be more evil.)

In Government We Trust

Shockingly, CNN has the most transparent news at the moment. Isn’t it the home of fake news? Yes, but it also sports a high degree of professional incompetence, so either they’re engaging in real journalism for a moment, or else they totally missed the memo about the news-scrubbing going on to protect the narrative (more on that in a bit).

Here’s what we’ve got for the gun control scorecard.

First, on 07NOV, the USAF admitted that they failed to report the gunman’s domestic violence conviction to the FBI database. A DV conviction would, under current law, have prevented him from being able to legally obtain all the firearms he had obtained and brought to the mass shooting, because he got them all after his conviction. Further, the details of his conviction are fairly startling, with the worst being that during a beating he had cracked the skull of the toddler under his care (child of the gunman’s first wife, stepson of the gunman).

Second, on 08NOV, we learned that the gunman had escaped a mental health facility back in 2012. The USAF had committed him to a private civilian facility while awaiting court martial. Apparently, he’d attempted to smuggle weapons on base to carry out threats to murder his superiors. Involuntary commitment to a mental health facility is another automatic disqualifier on background checks for firearms purchases. Again, it had not been reported.

[Voluntary commitment to a facility (from someone realizing they have an issue and asking for help)is unfortunately a grey area in the letter of the federal law, as many service members with PTSD and other mental injuries have been finding out. According to court precedent, it is not supposed to be disqualifying, but the government doesn’t really follow precedent or even the letter of the law these days. Sadly, this is resulting in discouraging responsible service members who need help from asking for it, lest they be lumped in with those “crazies” who truly are dangerous.]

Third, while a dishonorable discharge would also be disqualifying for firearms purchases, the shooter had only received a “bad conduct” discharge. This leads us to ask, “If the shooter had been convicted of beating his wife and young child within an inch of death, and attempted to smuggle weapons on base to murder his military superiors, but that’s not dishonorable discharge material, then what is?” Ask an active duty service member and they’ll probably point out DUI as a virtually automatic dishonorable discharge.

Administrative discharges are usually given to folks who are no longer a good fit for service, such as someone coming out as homosexual during the “don’t ask don’t tell” era. A guy hadn’t broken any rules yet, but was no longer fit for service. Bad conduct discharges are usually given for unredeemable violation of rules, such as if the suddenly homosexual service member went ahead and blatantly violated military regs. He’s done wrong, but the brass doesn’t want the bad PR of dishonorably discharging the individual.

In the shooter’s case, DV charges are almost as bad as DUI. A member can still serve depending on the nature of the conviction, but it’s hard to be in the military and not allowed to touch a gun. But bringing weapons on base with intent to murder the chain of command? The shooter had blatantly and violently flaunted military requirements, yet that was treated as less severe and less irresponsible than a serviceman busted for having gotten behind the wheel with .08 BAC, even if no crash or injury had occurred.

We have two instances in which the government was required to list the shooter as ineligible to buy firearms, and one in which they should have categorized him as such (bad conduct versus dishonorable) but didn’t.

Plainly, gun control doesn’t work, no matter how strict, especially if the enforcing institution can’t be bothered to enforce the law anymore. But, hey! In government the leftists trust!

Scrubbing the Story

In writing this, I was surprised to find hard evidence of the story already being scrubbed from the news record. It doesn’t look like a government cover up like in the Vegas shooting (to hide police incompetence and possible government ties of the shooter). But the Texas shooter does violate the current leftist narrative. One possible motivating detail is that the shooter was stridently atheist. But those noble atheists (like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) aren’t supposed to be violent. Religion causes wars, right? Not lack of belief in the inherent sanctity of human life? After all, Christianity leads to countless shooting sprees at abortion centers and gay pride parades, while militant atheists and peaceful members of the “religion of peace” stand by in shock at the violence, right?

Anyways, Facebook promptly deleted the Texas shooter’s profile in total, and most of the screengrabs out there are thanks to quick thinking folks who grabbed screenshots before possible evidence of a motive was made to vanish. Did Facebook decide to punish the memory of the killer by making sure no one would ever know why he might have done this? Or where they scrambling to hide the fact that their platform allowed numerous warnings of criminal behavior from a non-Christian to go unchallenged all while they clamp down on conservative and Christian “hate speech” that might hurt folks, right in the feelings?

Next, compare the AP reports on the shooter’s escape from mental health facility. Here’s how their article looks today. The words “mental” and “health” and “threat” do not even occur in the article. It’s just some sappy story about authorities reviewing videos and politicians hugging survivors. But notice the web address up in your address bar: “Gunman-once-fled-mental-health-center,-threatened-superiors”. Here’s an archive of the page as it appeared when first published. There it originally gave all the embarrassing details about the major government failures in controlling this psycho’s gun purchases. I encourage you to look at those two versions of the article side by side. If not for the odd web address in the current article, you’d have no idea about the original content. There’s no notice of updates or changes, no retraction of erroneous info. Instead, the embarrassing news simply vanishes. I wonder how long before CNN and other leftist fakenews sites follow suit?