Proof Facebook Fact-Checkers Are Censoring Debates On Constitutional Rights Like the 2nd Amendment

I made the video in response to US Representative Mike Thompson, who tweeted that,  HR8 “A Universal Background Check Bill”, Has bi-Partisan Support from 90 percent of the American People.”

In my video, I stated that this is not true, because the polls where Mike Thompson got this 90% number from were misleading because they didn’t ask about UNIVERSAL Background Checks which are different from the Regular background checks that we already have.

I further stated that if the people who were polled understood the distinction between a background check and a “UNIVERSAL” background check and that UNIVERSAL background checks can’t be ENFORCED effectively without a national gun registry, I highly doubt 90% of Americans would agree with a Universal Background Check.

Four Days after I released my video, I got an email from a guy named Tom Kertscher.

According to his LinkedIn, Tom is a national freelance reporter who works primarily for PolitiFact.

He’s also a regular contributor for the New York Times, Associated Press sports, other magazines, and websites with thirty-five years as a newspaper reporter.

Here’s what Tom’s Email Said:

That same day, PolitiFact Released an article from Tom claiming that my video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed and that my video was false.

Sites like Politifact are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable.

I am not a politician so why is Tom writing a Politifact article about my video.

Could it be that Tom is rabidly anti-gun and I am one of the biggest 2nd Amendment voices in the country and I just put out a video about destroying a narrative that the gun control lobby has been pushing for decades?

Let’s get one thing clear, this was not an article to determine the truth of my argument.

This was a hit piece designed to ruin my reputation and credibility with people who are in the middle when it comes to the gun debate.

When Tom writes an article like this for Politifact and Tom determines that my video is false, Facebook puts up a  disclaimer before you can watch the video, saying, “Independent Fact-Checkers reviewed the video and said that it was partly false.”

They understand that many of my followers share my videos with their non-gun owning friends as a way to educate them on the 2A issue because the mainstream media is anti-gun.

But if you send a video to someone and the platform that the video is on puts up a disclaimer before you even watch the video saying that it’s false, you’re not going to watch the video.

And if you do, you’re not going to believe anything I say because Facebook artificially props up Tom as an objective authority on the issue.

Tom is anything but objective on this issue.

All you have to do is search Guns on his Twitter feed and the vast majority of his gun tweets are anti-gun tweets from politicians and the PolitiFact articles that he’s written to attempt to disprove pro-gun arguments.

The time stamp on when Tom sent this email was at 8:46 Am, yet he gave me a 12 pm deadline to respond.

At 12:50 pm I got a text message from a friend with a link to the article.

Tom already had that article written before he sent the email.

If Tom was really trying to be objective as Politifact claims to be, at bare minimum he would have given me 12-24 hours to respond not less than four, but Tom had no intentions of actually being objective.

He just wanted the appearance of it so he could say in the article that he reached out to me but didn’t  respond to his email and that’s literally what he did:

“But neither his post nor an accompanying video provides evidence to back up his claim. He did not reply to our email.”

What makes it even more evident that this was a hit piece is the fact that Tom tries to dox me and then drag me through the mud with an out-of-context statement.

Colion Noir is not my real name and for good reason.

I am one of the most public voices on one of the most controversial issues in this country, my real name is tied to my mom’s address who lives alone and I have a lot of people who hate me for my stance on the second amendment.

So yes I use an Alias and I understand that I am a public figure, but Tom tosses out my government name halfway through the article when it has nothing to do with the argument.

The reality is, Tom was trying to mark me.

I know this because he ONLY uses my real name in connection to my statements about the Parkland shooting,  that were made almost three years ago, where I received the most backlash and hate I have ever received for a statement that was willfully and purposefully taken out of context in order to smear me.

You can see how he reaches to draw a connection between my Parkland statement and the fact that three republicans from Florida voted yes on HR8.

“The House passed the bill 227-203 on March 11 and sent it to the Senate. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote no; eight Republicans, including three from Florida, voted yes. 

Colion Noir is an alias used by Texas lawyer  (He Says my government Name) As a host on the National Rifle Association’s TV channel, (Keep In Mind I haven’t been with the NRA for Almost 2 years Now)  he criticized students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., as being un-American when they led a protest march in Washington after a former student shot and killed 17 people at their school in 2018. “

Tom then Links to a tampabay(dot)com article where they misquote me saying:

“The latest attack came from Colion Noir, a host on NRA TV who took to the airwaves on the eve of the Parkland teens-led March on Washington, telling them: “No one would know your names” if a student gunman hadn’t stormed into their school and killed three staff members and 14 students.”

Except, this is what I actually said in the video in full context.

The media purposefully and completely took my statement out of context because it was a critique of them and how they exploit tragedies and ignore tragedies that are prevented or stopped by a good guy with a gun.

They wrote article after article trying to demonize me for a statement they took out of context on purpose.

Now Tom, who is supposed to be an independent fact-checker, is doing the exact same thing while doxing me so that people who’re angry about that out-of-context statement can target me.

Again, I ask, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

So what if eight republicans voted yes, only 52. 8 percent of the house voted yes.

You can’t get 90% of 430 in the House of Representatives to agree on a bill that you’re claiming  90% of Americans agree. If you disagree with my position argue your points on the merits, you don’t need to put a  target on my back for a blatantly out-of-context statement.

Tom’s entire argument for why my video is false is based on two major Arguments. The first one is this:

“Noir argues in his post that a national gun registry would have to be established in order to enforce universal background checks and that support for universal checks would not be 90% if a registry were required. But neither his post nor an accompanying video provides evidence to back up his claim. He did not reply to our email.”

Let’s start with the first part of that argument.

I’ve done multiple videos on universal background checks explaining why you would need a gun registry to enforce it but since a so-called independent fact-checker can’t do his own google search to find my explanation as to why this is the case, I’ll give you a different authority.

How about The United States Justice Department review of violence prevention studies found that even a “perfect universal background check system” would not address the largest sources of crime guns. Further, the study found that effectiveness would depend on “requiring gun registration”.

But notice how he said,  I didn’t provide any evidence, yet he’s the one saying I’m wrong but won’t provide any evidence of his own to the contrary.

But I’m not surprised because he knows this already that’s why he trying to play the whole, “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” game.

He knows you can’t enforce a Universal Background Check without a Registry.

That’s why he didn’t answer it himself.

Besides, whenever you ask any of these pro universal background check politicians how they’re going to enforce a Universal Background Check, they can’t answer or refuse to answer because they know why I’m asking the question.

Here is Joe Biden Appointee Neera Tanden being left speechless when asked how can universal background checks be ENFORCED.  This is someone Biden was trying to add to his cabinet but couldn’t get her confirmed because her tweets demonstrated that she couldn’t be impartial, kind of like Tom and his tweets and this PolitiFact Article.

The Second Part of Tom first Argument states:

“Neither his post nor an accompanying video provides evidence to back up the claim, that support for universal background checks would not be 90%  if a registry were required.”

My argument is not that these polls weren’t conducted and that they didn’t get 90% of the people that they asked to agree with background checks.

The entire crux of my argument is that you only got 90% because you asked overly broad questions about background checks and that if you asked more specific questions about UNIVERSAL Background checks which is what HR8 is about and which I said can’t be enforced without a national gun registration I can almost assure you that you would not have got a 90%  approval on the polls.

I’m going to use an anti-gun groups website to prove it.

The Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence is one of the most recognized Gun Control groups in the country and literally on their website it says that:

“A nationwide survey conducted in January 2011 found that 66% of respondents favor laws requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry.”

If only 66% of people favor a gun registry it’s safe to say that if the 90% of the people who approved of background checks learned that you can’t enforce a universal background check without a national gun registry you wouldn’t get a 90% approval it would be more like 34%.

The Last part of  Toms Argument rest on his final conclusion:

“Noir claimed in a Facebook post that ‘90% of Americans do not support universal background checks.’

This contradicts numerous polls that show the opposite: The best available evidence is that support for universal background checks is at or near 90%.

We rate the post False.”

Tom’s entire argument for why my video was false, is based on 19 polls that found at near 80% – 90% of Americans support universal background checks.

But here’s the problem.

None of the polls actually used the phrase Universal Background Checks in their question.

Tom used it in his title when he concluded: Support for Universal Background checks on gun buyers is near 90%, but none of the polls actually used the phrase Universal background check or explained the difference from the Background Checks we already have.

The reason why this is important is that Universal Background Checks do not only apply to gun sales they apply to all transfers, but none of the questions on these polls states that.

So if  I wanted to loan a gun to a friend, I can’t loan it to him without first going to a gun store and getting a background check.

After that, we have to go back to the gun store and get a background check in order for my friend to transfer the gun back to me.

And let’s not forget, transfers aren’t’ free.

They can cost up to $50 per transfer. That’s $100 just to loan my friend a gun.

So you can’t state that 90% of Americans Support Universal Background checks as a fact when the polls you’re using to make this claim didn’t even ask about Universal Background checks, they only asked about private sales and gun show loopholes which is also not true.

There is no gun show loophole. IF you’re a dealer at a gun show you have to conduct a background check.

Not only did none of these polls ask specifically about Universal Background Checks, but this 90% number also gives the false impression that these polls asked a ton of people.

The First Poll Tom uses asked less than 2000 people. And only 66%  strongly supported, “Requiring Background Checks for all gun purchasers”.

18% only somewhat supported it. But of the 19 polls that Tom mentioned, none of them polled more than 2,000 people.

There were some that were as low as 800 people.

The only exception was the Pew Research Poll that polled 9,895 people. We have over 300 million people in this country.

I’m sorry,  I get that its virtually impossible to poll everyone in the country, but when I hear a stat that 90% of Americans agree with anything, I expect the polling sample to be much larger than 2,000 people or at the bare minimum if you’re going to chose polls with that size sample at least choose a poll that specifically asked about Universal Background checks specifically.

For example, the study conducted by Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in July of 2020.

They found that when asked specifically about whether the participants supported Universal Background Checks on 75% supported Universal background Checks and this was a sample size based on over 2086 people.

It’s even harder to believe this 90% Number when this percentage doesn’t actually show itself when universal background checks are voted on the state level.

Washington State has universal background checks but it only got  59% of the popular vote in Washington and that’s a state that hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1994 or a republican Governor since 1980.

In Nevada, it only got 50.5% of the popular vote and in Maine, lost with only 48% support.

Long story short, During ballet initiatives, people learn way more about a proposed bill than a random poll asking vague questions. Yet,  when they have more info about universal background checks, 90% of the people aren’t voting for it, it’s not even close.

And here’s the crazy thing, if you combine the number of people who actually voted on Universal Background Checks in all three of those states, it’s close to 3.97 million people and each of these states lean blue.

Out of the 3.97 million voters in those three states, only 54.7% voted in favor of Universal Background Checks.

Yet, you’re saying my video is false because you found some polls that barely polled 2,000 people while asking vague questions about background checks.

I promise you that if those ballet Initiatives were 90% Tom would have led with those numbers, but he didn’t even mention them. Instead, he crafted a strawman argument making it seem like I was questioning whether the polls actually happened or that they didn’t get the responses that they got.

When in reality I was arguing that the people who answered those polls didn’t get enough information about Universal Background checks to have an informed opinion and if they had that information those polls would not have got 90% support.

If you ask me, I think it’s incredibly deceitful to use polls over actual ballot initiatives and how people really voted, especially considering how unreliable polls have been proven to be since the 2016 election between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But like I said at the beginning of this video, you weren’t trying to objectively weigh the truthfulness of my video.

You were trying to smear me and destroy my credibility with people who don’t already know my body of work because you understand that I have a lot of cross over appeal that speaks to people on both sides of the issue in a way that is effective and the only way to stop me is to smear me or try to hit me with enough of this fake false fact investigations to get me banned from the platform.

Because of this Politifact Facebook partnership and one random claiming my video was false, now that video and any attempt to share it is hit with this disclaimer.

This also means that Facebook will limit the reach of that video and ultimately could result in my page being removed from Facebook.

Facebook is supposed to be a platform for open discussion. Instead, it’s turning into a platform where random fact-checkers get to play GOD.

How are we supposed to have an open dialogue and exchange of ideas and opinions when the platforms where the vast majority of these conversations are happening, use a clearly biased “Independent fact-checker” to justify invalidating my video and as a result limiting its reach.

I’m just trying to inform people about one of the most important, if not the most important, right we have in this country.

I get that Facebook is a private platform and they can do whatever they want and use whatever guy named after a pair of shoes they want to determine what can be posted on your platform but have an ounce of intellectual honesty and let us have the conversation without artificially limiting our voices.

That doesn’t help the country nor does it help the platform.

We become stronger as a country by sharpening our ideas against the blade of open discourse. All these so-called fact-checkers are nothing more than political and intellectual bullies, not because they critiqued my video but because there’s no one to check the fact-checkers.

They have the final say and their say dictates how many people get to hear and see my ideas and that indirectly makes them Gods of online political and intellectual discourse and it’s insanely dangerous.