Monday, April 6, 2009

Contradicting their own point.

Paul Helmke on the recent tragedy in PA:
an assault-weapon wielding man shooting 'hundreds of shots' who apparently believed the gun lobby propaganda that an Obama gun ban would lead to his 'rights being infringed upon.'
So what does Paul recommend?
At the very least, require Brady background checks for all gun sales; restrict military-style assault weapons to the military and law enforcement and help law enforcement crack down on corrupt gun sellers.
So we shouldn't believe the 'propaganda' about the Obama Administration wanting to ban guns and the Brady Campaign being a 'gun ban' organization but we should support the Brady Campaign in calling for the Obama Administration to ban guns.



Dan said...


If you remove the all from the "all gun sales", we pretty much do all the other stuff already. Oh wait a minute, he means semi-automatic not assault weapons (you know, the kind with select fire capability)... Sorry, I forgot, they are not just dimwits... they are uninformed dimwits.

Oh yeah, the part about enforcing the law... that's a bit rich. ;)

Thirdpower said...

I'm going to disagree w/ you on one point. They are very well informed. They are just intentionally dishonest to deliberately confuse the uninformed.

Don said...

In Illinois, you don't have to take away the "all." We do require background checks for every gun transfer, plus every gun possession, plus possession of ammunition.
And we still lead the region and most of the nation in violent crime, "gun crime," murder, deaths involving firearms . . . . well, you see how this goes.

Weer'd Beard said...

What's great is all souses point to this loon being a prohibited person, meaning he ILLEGALLY bought and possessed his guns.

The Gun banners LOVE the idea where one law fails somehow a redundant law would be successful.

kaveman said...

I noticed Paul's little contradiction about him fearing a gun ban and then pushing a gun ban as well.

He's not even trying to hide the lies anymore.

Anonymous said...

Alas, I doubt there is a contradiction in their minds. From their perspective, you don't have a right to possess "military style assault weapons," so the "propaganda" is not that the Obama administration would (given the chance) impose a new AWB, but that doing so would infringe your rights.

All clear?