MSNBC: ‘Real Criminal’ in Waffle House Shooting Was AR-15, Pro-Gun Culture
Stephens recently called or the repeal of the Second Amendment, too . . .
In a stunning attempt to shift blame for Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee away from the mentally unstable criminal who perpetrated the crime, on Monday, an MSNBC panel claimed that gun he used, an AR-15 rifle, was the “real criminal” and that America’s pro-gun culture was also responsible for the killings.
“What is your message, I guess I want to ask, to those who say, ‘Don’t touch my guns no matter what’?,” anchor Stephanie Ruhle fretted to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens early in the 9:00 a.m. ET hour. Seizing on the opportunity to immediately exploit the tragedy to push the gun control agenda, Stephens proclaimed: “Well, that’s exactly it. The problem that we have is that we have not just a legal regime, but a culture in which the way in which guns are treated as sort of ordinary household implements is precisely what leads to the deaths of the sort we just saw in Waffle House.”
Following Walkouts, Gun Control Forum Encourages Policy Conversation
“We thought it was really important that a march not be the last thing that gets done,” said Giancarlo Valdetaro, a member of the Roosevelt Institute, referring to the March for our Lives at Cornell that his organization led about a month ago.
The Roosevelt Institute, a student public policy think tank, organized Friday’s forum and presented perspectives from four students and a professor on topics ranging from legislation to cultural values surrounding guns. It also coincided with a second nationwide school walkout.
The panel included Sydney Eisenberg ’21 of the Roosevelt Institute, TJ Hunt ’21 of the Cornell Political Union, Denny Lee ’20 of the Speech and Debate Society and Quinn Otto-Moudry ’21 of the Cornell Republicans.
Valdetaro also emphasized the importance of how the conversation brought in voices from across the political spectrum, saying that the campus can often be a “liberal bubble.”
“We forget to talk about solutions and importantly we forget to talk to people who disagree with us,” Valdetaro said.
Oh, they don’t forget about them. They mostly just shout them down.
How to tell if the gun-control movement is going to be a major player in November
If under 25 voters actually make a difference this time, it will be a first . . .
With a couple of tweets, a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting in February was able to get several companies to boycott Fox News’s Laura Ingraham’s prime time show after she mocked him.
And candidates in Virginia and Pennsylvania won competitive races recently while supporting gun-control measures.
But gun-control activists have seen a surge in activism before, most notably after the 2012 massacre of elementary school students and their teachers in Connecticut, only to have its effect on politics fizzle.
So will this time be different? No one knows for sure, but there’s evidence that the gun-control movement could be a political force this November.
California: Legislation Requiring Background Checks on Barrels and Other Parts Up For Hearing!
From the NRA-ILA:
Assembly Bill 2382, sponsored by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-64), would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases. It would further create a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer and transfer to anyone under 21 years of age or prohibited from owning firearms. Precursor parts include items such as barrels, ammunition feedings devices and upper receivers.
Assembly Bill 2103, sponsored by Assembly Member Todd Gloria (D-78), would add certain requirements in addition to the already mandated training courses for a citizen to obtain a concealed carry license. Currently, concealed carry permit holders are already required to receive up to 16 hours training prior to receiving a permit and at least four hours of additional training every two years prior to renewal.
So only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun? @NRA 🧐
https://t.co/a61hDQrWyD— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 22, 2018
Behold The Absolute Worst Anti-Gun Argument Ever Made
Well, it’s the worst one today, anyway . . .
The standard gun control talking points do not apply in this case because the shooter’s guns had already been seizedby authorities prior to this massacre, so the gun grabbers took a different approach this time around. Many of them immediately pointed to Shaw as proof that you don’t need a gun to defend yourself against an armed assailant. The Parkland activists, in particular, were quick to seize on this idea. As Emma Gonzalez put it:
“The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting. There goes the sales pitch for @SmithWessonCorp.”
That tweet was “liked” 20,000 times. David Hogg’s tweet making the same argument was “liked” more than 50,000 times. Apparently the gun grabbers believe they’ve really stumbled onto some kind of brilliant point here.
They have not. On the contrary, they have stumbled onto something utterly nonsensical.