Some in the Obama water carrying State Run Media are in such a full on “never let a crisis go to waste” panic mode over the right of American’s to keep and bear arms that you can almost hear their panties wading up when they speak. And by “speak, I mean hissy fit.
“Yeah – yes, we need to address mental health, but mental health in this particular issue, let’s not get it twisted, is a secondary issue. If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this,” he responded to CNN contributor Will Cain’s argument that the mental health of the shooter was the paramount problem.
“Who needs an armor-piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?” Lemon argued against the legality of assault weapons.
Yes, we need to address the mental health issue and that is all, the only secondary issue in play here is evil not guns, and not people with mental illness that have access to guns.
There is also no reason for lefty “journalists” to distort, or outright lie, regarding the facts in this case to help push their “we need to ban all guns” narrative.
It has been reported that the weapons used in the massacre in Connecticut were a .223 caliber rifle, a Glock9mm pistol and a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol, none of which, despite what the noted firearms experts at MSNBC tell us, are assault weapons.
What exactly does this bloviating assault on logic, reason, and common sense weapon of mass idiocy think makes a run of the mill 9mm pistol an assault weapon, exactly? Even according to Connecticut’s own gun law (similar to the federal law that expired in 2004), none of the weapons the shooter used qualifies as an assault weapon.
A point that fails to register with liberals is that guns by their very definition are weapons. They are designed, manufactured, and sold for only one purpose, to kill.
Anything that can be used a weapon could be incorrectly referred to as an assault something but have we lowered the debate to the point where we have assault cars, assault knives, assault rope, hammers, lug wrenches, assault poison? What if I killed a person by pushing them off a bridge, would it be an assault bridge, assault water, assault arms and hands? Or, would the assault duct tape I used to before I put them in my assault trunk be classified as assault weapons?
The fact here is that liberals, like their president, hate guns, want them all banned, and will use whatever Alinski tactic it takes to achieve their desired Marxist end, including making the weapons used in mass murders out to be worse than what they are.
Rush was correct in his assessment the other day when he said,
“It [the term “assault weapon”] has been manufactured, invented, purely for political-agenda advancement reasons. The term “assault weapon” first began being used in the early 1990s by people opposed to the Second Amendment. There was legislation in 1994 that banned “assault weapons,” and they had a definition. What they did was simply repeat a bunch of cosmetic features. They talked about single-action, dual-action triggers and so forth.
It was all designed to impact the low-information citizen into believing that certain weapons are invented for the express purpose of mass murder, weapons you can buy. Now, there are weapons made for mass murder. Chemical weapons, biological weapons, tanks, missiles, rockets. But we’re not talking about that. This was a purely manufactured term, and guess what? Because it didn’t mean anything, because there was no way to enforce it without violating the Constitution the large, the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004”
So, the media, the president, and people like Dianne Feinstein need to stop assaulting our intelligence, stop asking for a ban on something that doesn’t exist, and start talking about the two real problems, evil and mental illness.
Dodging real issues is troubling here, especially given the fact that a assault gun ban will likely not even work, as evidenced by thereport “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” that used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But
Predictions are Tenuous
• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
And then there’s this.
Soledad O’Brien Bullies Gun Rights Activist; ‘Your Position Completely Boggles Me’
The fact that everything (and I mean everything) doesn’t win a game of stump the dummy with this worthless talking points puppet boggles me.