This week, New York suffered an act of terrorism. A follower of the Islamic State, using a rented truck, murdered 8 people in cold blood and injured 11 others in New York City. Let me begin by saying that our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and the families of those affected by this evil act of terrorism.

While the scale of this attack is far different, one can’t help but notice the difference of coverage & reaction regarding the New York City attack when compared to the Vegas attack in September. After the Vegas attack, that was the news for at least a week afterwards. However, scrolling around news sites just days after the NYC attack, there is little to no coverage to be found.

Could it be that the NYC attack doesn’t fit the narrative that many are trying to push, and therefore covering it is not an effective use of time to accomplish their goals?


And while the volume of coverage is vastly different, so too is the content of the coverage. After the Vegas attack, the calls for more control over the weapon used (a gun) were rampant. After the NYC attack, the calls for more control over the weapon used (a truck) were nonexistent.

The claim is that the call for gun control is to protect life (a hypocritical claim coming from many who support Planned Parenthood & abortion on demand, but that’s another story). However, if this is the case, the calls should be just as rampant and loud regardless of the weapon used.

One of the most effective gauges of the validity of an argument is whether is remains consistent when applied to different situations that contain the same elements.

After the Las Vegas attack, many were wanting to ban all kinds of things from guns to bump stocks. Yet after this week’s attack in NYC – silence. No legislation to limit truck rentals? No epic “sit-in” on the House floor to demand action? Have they stopped caring about life? Or does this attack simply not fit their narrative that guns are the problem?

It certainly makes you wonder.

Of Immigration and Rights

Whether you believe that immigration reform would’ve solved this problem (which is debatable), there’s something we need to realize – there’s a big difference between limiting the Second Amendment and limiting immigration from foreign countries.

After the attack, the calls for immigration reform actually sounded eerily similar to that of gun control advocates after a shooting – “this has been a problem for so long, why haven’t we taken action? How many more must die before we DO something? Laws need to be passed so this no longer happens!” And etc.

However, a close examination will show that these 2 arguments are fundamentally different. Gun control advocates are talking about passing laws (that have been proven to not work) to limit or remove a God-given, inalienable right that is specifically protected by the Constitution. Immigration reform advocates are talking about passing laws to stop bad people from coming into our country.

Immigration from a foreign country to the United States is not a God-given, inalienable right. It is not specifically protected by the Constitution. In the name of national security, it is completely within the jurisdiction of the United States government to pass laws to limit immigration in order to protect US citizens. Not only is it within their jurisdiction, it is their duty.


Consistent Argumentation

It is easy to parrot an argument. It is difficult to do your own research, examine the facts, distinguish them from opinions, and craft your own argument. It is even more difficult to critically examine that argument and insure that it remains consistent in different situations that contain the same elements. However, it is necessary. So do it.

Impugning Your Opponent

The moment we begin believing the other side, our fellow Americans, are evil or have bad intentions, is the moment unity crumbles. Gun control advocates, with some exceptions, believe that their proposals will protect people. Even though this belief is misguided, we cannot assign evil motives to our opposition just because it makes them easier to fight. Is it too much to assume the best of others until we’re proven wrong?

Do your research. Don’t hate.