Remember during the 2016 election when The New York Times legitimized bias in the news by telling its reporters that it was okay for them to bash Trump in their articles on the theory that he was so bad it was their civic duty to do so? Obama did the same thing with mass shootings. Certainly there have always been strong feelings on both sides of the gun control issue, but politicians traditionally did not politicize these events in their immediate aftermath out of respect for the victims. Obama changed all that when he all but demanded that Democrats speak out for more gun regulations even before victims were buried or the injured were out of surgery. And the entire Democrat/media/celebrity mafia has eagerly obeyed following the Texas church shooting.

Their lack of regard for the victims is stunning. Anyone who has not lost a loved one — spouse, child, parent, sibling — unexpectedly, particularly from something senseless like being killed by a drunk driver or being the victim of a mass shooting or a terrorist event, cannot fathom the impact it has on families. Lives are literally turned upside down in a heartbeat and left with nowhere to go for explanations and comfort. These are the folks who deserve our immediate care, not some political agenda. And the main source is community — family, friends, and faith. Don’t think for a second that letting them know that others care enough to support them with prayers doesn’t matter. Which makes the rote Democrat soundbite that prayers don’t count that much more despicable.

Trump doesn’t come away unscathed either. In the immediate aftermath of the New York City terror event in which a radical Muslim extremist ran over folks with a rented pick-up truck and celebrated with an “Allah Akbar” chant, Trump was front and center calling for more immigration restrictions since the terrorist was allowed in the country some years ago under a “diversity lottery” immigration program. No matter how absurd that program may be, it was not the time or place to make that case.

And one more thing. After New York there were calls to beef up the education of rental car employees so they would be more effective at identifying terrorists who might use the new ISIS weapon of choice, as if magically turning minimum wage clerks into FBI profilers was the answer. The focus on the instruments (pick-up trucks, guns, etc.) rather than on the person who uses them diverts resources from what should be the true target — namely, the perpetrator and the factors in that person’s background which provide clues to potential actions so they be stopped beforehand. It’s the failure to identify and act on the role of radical Islam in terrorism and the failure to focus on what are typically obvious (in retrospect) markers of prior psychological and criminal problems in mass shootings that are the issue.

The media does its part too. Witness the absurd question tossed at Trump by an NBC reporter while he was in South Korea dealing with national security matters: You support extreme vetting of immigrants, Mr. Trump. Would you also support extreme vetting of those looking to buy guns? My response to that would have been that if new laws were proposed that vetted prospective gun owners by screening them for obvious red flag issues like, say, domestic violence, prior confinement in mental institutions, felony or court-martial convictions or a dishonorable discharge from the military, I’d be all for it. But wait… All of those apply to the Texas shooter and are already on the books, and the NRA was supportive of getting them there. The government agencies responsible for getting the relevant data to the FBI simply didn’t (and what is surfacing is that the negligence in completing these data bases is rampant), and the shooter was able to buy the guns used in the murders. Before we start imposing new laws that are ineffective in addressing gun violence and generally only restrict access to firearms by law-abiding citizens, why not try beefing up the penalties for those responsible for not getting information to the right places? I wonder which side of the discussion NBC is on.

And then there’s The New York Times. There were two related articles yesterday. One made the point that if there are more guns in circulation there is a higher probability that there will be more gun violence (if only the variables could be reduced to that level of idiotic simplicity). And so it reaches the “duh” conclusion that if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. But the only way you get there is by confiscating all guns. I have no problem having that debate as long as the confiscation side is honest about its goals. But it would be nice to see some adults show up who could take into account all factors including practicality, effectiveness, and that pesky little thing called the Constitution instead of hiding behind slanted statistics and unrealistic conclusions, as the Times did.

The second article is even more shameful. It injects a discussion of whether the body count in Texas was 26 or 27, because one female victim was pregnant. Can you imagine how the family of that victim feels when the Times adds that on the back of this tragedy? Maybe that question is worth discussing at some point, but the woman is dead, her baby will never be born, and the family is in mourning. Is this really the time when a “news” organization should play abortion politics? Disgraceful.

For us responsible gun owners/NRA members who would love to have a reasoned debate about what can be done to address gun violence in a way that would actually be effective instead of simply scoring political points, nothing is more infuriating than being called accomplices to murder because we won’t “do something.” You see it in all the soundbites about how GOP pols refuse to act because they are in the pocket of the NRA and beholden to their campaign donations and how gun owners are Second Amendment absolutists. The fact is that NRA donations to the GOP are dwarfed by those on the Democrat side from trial lawyers and the teachers’ unions. And you can count on one hand the number of gun owners who believe common sense restrictions shouldn’t apply to the Second Amendment.

Political agendas seem to have overwhelmed everything, even common decency toward the victims of tragedies like in Texas. We all want solutions, but perhaps as we are gathering some adults to address the problems we could also give some thought to what those directly impacted are going through and first provide them our support, and maybe even our prayers.