September 23, 2021
By Mark Chesnut, News Field Editor
You would think that any organization dead set on banning certain kinds of firearms and firearm parts would at least learn enough about the guns and parts targeted that they wouldn’t embarrass themselves every time they trumpet their beliefs from the nearest social media platform.
And—you would be wrong. Take a tweet from the group Giffords concerning AR pistols and AR pistol braces as a prime example. And no, we’re not making this up!
“AR pistol braces turn pistols into short-barreled rifles—concealable like a pistol but with the firepower of a rifle,” the gun-ban organization that employees failed ATF nominee David Chipman tweeted earlier this month. “But they’re not regulated like short-barreled rifles posing a dangerous public health threat.
“Tell the ATF to regulate pistol braces.”
Of course, the assertion is completely false. First, there is a legal definition for short-barreled rifles, which the group is completely ignoring. Also, anybody who has ever held a braced AR pistol in their hands knows that carrying it concealed would be very difficult—far more so than, say, a Springfield Hellcat or even a full-sized 1911. Short of hiding it under a trench coat, there are very few ways to effectively conceal an AR pistol, much less carry it comfortably.
So why do groups like Giffords make such outlandish claims about firearms that are easily checked and refuted? Four things come to mind when I see such outlandish assertions.
First, those involved in the group’s communications either don’t care enough to learn the truth or are just too lazy to do so. How hard would it be to go to a local gun shop and ask to see a braced AR pistol? After taking a look at it, they’d at least know enough about the gun to know statements like “concealable like a pistol” are wildly inaccurate.
Second, they know the truth, but since it doesn’t support their agenda and they don’t mind lying to score political points, they make such statements anyway. The ability to lie so easily is sometimes hard to understand for honest people, but gun-banners are well-known for bending the truth in order to win followers.
Third, have they have never seen in person, held or shot an AR pistol equipped with a brace? While most anti-gun activists are simply scared of guns, some probably know that shooting such a firearm would prove everything they stand for to be wrong and they don’t want to face that quandary.
Fourth, they don’t care what anybody thinks about either their integrity or their ignorance. Their followers believe their lies, and that’s enough for them, As for ignorance, most of their followers get their information on guns from such jaded sources, so they, too, are nearly completely ignorant about the topic of private firearms ownership.
Regardless of which, any or all of these things are true in this case, Giffords has proven that the organization doesn’t deserve a seat at the table in the ongoing gun control debate. Their obvious ignorance of the topic should be a disqualifier for their participation in such an important discussion about our Second Amendment rights, and their disdain for the truth further disqualifies them from being seriously considered by anyone interested in rising above the rhetoric.
Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC. An avid hunter, shooter and political observer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for more than 20 years.