Matt at Conservative Hideout lays it out very clearly.
In yet another example of self defence using a firearm, a man used a gun to defend himself, and his toddler son from home invaders. Yet, the national media chose to take a pass on covering it.
Funny how these stories NEVER make it to national news isn’t it? Media bias anyone? But Matt has more thoughts
My last post about guns and self-defense caused a big stink on some sites, where people took issue with the comment that the liberals would prefer people to be dead, as it is better for the narrative. Allow me to expand a bit: Democrats, liberals, regressives (whatever you want to call them) will not stop at taking ugly guns-they want them all. So, at some point, their desire is to have a 100% disarmed populace. When considering that, any example of the lawful use of firearms is detrimental to the confiscation narrative. However, dead civilians, and especially dead children, are easily exploitable-they are convenient emotional justifications to ban guns. However, if they ever did get all the guns, and only criminals had them, there would be even more dead children. But, I would wager that those dead children would no longer be worth covering. Dead children only have propaganda value in certain contexts
I hate to say it, but I believe Matt is correct. I have seen and heard too many Liberals dismiss self-defense, mock the very idea that self-defense is even possible, and even question if self-defense with a gun is moral. For the left, the only important thing is destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a Marxist Utopia. Anything that aids that cause is moral in their demented minds.