I’m a bit slow posting this because it’s just hard to keep up with the Brady Blood Dance Congo Line. But, yea as usual, the Brady Bunch is capitalizing on fresh corpses in order to push their agenda like a pack of vultures. And, like usual, they’re twisting and omitting facts like crazy. From their front page:
We are saddened by the recent shootings that left four people murdered and four more wounded at a missionary training center and a church in Arvada and Colorado Springs, Colorado. This follows on the heels of the shooting in the Omaha, Nebraska mall where eight people were murdered and five wounded. Our sympathy and prayers go out to all of the family and friends who are grieving.
Having a military-style assault rifle with high-capacity ammunition clips, enabled two troubled young men to kill and injure innocent people quickly and efficiently. Allowing the easy acquisition and possession of military-style weapons like this is foolhardy and the results are tragic.
So high-cap “clips” enabled both of them, eh? But, umm, the Colorado shootings left eight people injured or dead, in two separate incidents. That’s one single ban-compliant magazine worth of ammo, or a revolver reloaded between locations. How would the “assault weapon” ban prevent that? Oh, right. It wouldn’t.
Now, is it just me, or does their second paragraph sound like an advertising campaign for “assault weapons” begging lunatics to use them? I was just thinking the other day how their propaganda reads almost like a manual for would-be mass shooters. And seeing as they’re self-proclaimed experts on “gun violence,” would it really be surprising if someone used their hype as a shopping list? Especially with their friends in the media giving them so much free air time.
Naturally, they blame the availability, but can anyone think of a single massacre involving an “assault weapon” before they started campaigning against them? Before 1934, when real machine guns could be bought with no questions, the only known school massacre involved a bomb. Back before the 1968 import ban on semi-auto rifles and the ban of mail order, the largest mass shooting was at the University of Texas, and that involved a bolt-action rifle. If it’s really about availability, shouldn’t that be backwards?
And isn’t it quite convenient that they make no mention of the fact a woman with a CCW stopped the attacker? But then, seeing as they’ve always been against concealed carry, I’m sure they’d have preferred her unarmed and dead. Perhaps they should just change their name to The Brady Campaign to Promote Gun Violence.
Next up, Paul’s Blog (or whoever writes it for him) has a list of shootings involving “high-powered” “assault weapons,” which, presumably, he’s implying would have been stopped by the now expired ban. That would probably be a really scary list if 90% of the things on it weren’t things that aren’t “assault weapons.” Seriously, there’s even several incidents where revolvers were used. Revolvers!
Just looking at the first two on the list which involved something that resembles an “assault weapon” shows they’re lying or ignorant. The Omaha shooter supposedly used a WASR-10, which was not covered by the ban. And the link to the article about the Idaho shooting just under it says a real, fully-automatic AK-47 was used. The sale of which was banned in 1986, and the importation banned in 1968. How is another ban going to stop something which is already banned?
And, gee, I wonder why Paul (or whoever) left out this shooting…