Three things about the Trump assassination attempt the media will gloss over or ignore…

I debated doing a post a post here at SIC about this because it was pretty much all over the blogoshpere already and I didn’t know what to add to it…and then I realized something. Several somethings, actually.

From Freedom Daily:

On June 18th, a 20-year-old British man who was in the states on an expired visa, grabbed a police officer’s gun at a Trump rally and attempted to assassinate the presumptive Republican nominee.

Trump was holding a rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. Little did Trump know that the person he believed to be a protester disrupting the event, was actually trying to take his life.

ABC News reported that Michael Sandford told a Secret Service agent that he had driven to Las Vegas from California two days earlier with the intent of killing Donald Trump.

You can read the entire report, which includes court documents on the case here. It’s a sad story, it sounds like this kid might be mentally ill, and at a minimum he certainly was some sort of troubled.

Thinking about this case, which will not get the attention it deserves, it busts a few liberal narratives. The lack of love between Trump and conservatives and the fact that the MSM loves him even less will mean that these points will be glossed over at best, and most likely just flat out ignored:

1. Illegal is not a race, this man is British and as white as the stuff they used to edit the Omar Mateen transcripts. He had just as much business being here as anyone who crosses the border from Mexico. Stopping illegal immigration isn’t about white supremacy, it’s about national security.

2. Given that even British conservatives would align more with our Democrats, this is yet another example of terrorism from someone who is likely left-of-center. Since the infancy of Obama’s presidency his DHS has been putting out warnings and reports about how conservatives are the ones we need to look out for when it comes to attacks like these. Yet they’re all coming from liberals, starting with this guy. It wasn’t a conservative who fired shots at the White House years ago, it was someone from the Occupy movement.

Like Jesus is central to Christian faith, a belief in the necessity of violence is central to leftist politics. So is bald-faced lying, which is why you have leftist administrations like Obama’s telling us that conservatives are the violent ones as people who would/do support him are out assaulting Republicans in broad daylight (and recording it to celebratory reaction on social media), trampling their first amendment rights, and attempting assassinations of their political candidates.

3. This is someone who was clearly out of his depth, but the lengths Sandford went through to carry out his assassination attempt shows how truly feckless gun control is even in a HIGHLY CONTROLLED environment like a campaign rally. If this guy was more organized (not working alone), or more capable (had some sort of training in combat or gun handling), instead of a string bean with mental issues and minimal knowledge of the task he set out to execute, who knows if he could’ve pulled this off.

The point being, this campaign rally is a gun free zone for all except armed as security, and rather than being a deterrent armed security became central to the plan. Guns aren’t the issue, they’re virtually banned in Britain and a member of Britain’s Parliament, Jo Cox, was still assassinated last week, shot (with a very old gun) and stabbed, no problem.

The evil that resides in the hearts of people is the issue here.

If this were his home of Britain, where even the police aren’t armed, and he found a way to bring in a gun how would he be stopped in time without unspeakable damage being done? Good guys with guns aren’t a panacea, but they certainly minimize damage done by bad guys with guns.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.