Watching elite media “journalists” trying to act like they know what they’re talking about when it comes to the subject of guns is a pitiful experience. I think that just as many of them know the definition of “assault rifle” as know the meaning of “objectivity.”
That aside, you just knew somebody would be able to make the trail lead to Bush for at least some element of the Aurora, Colorado shootings, and Michael Isikoff, formerly of Newsweek and currently with NBC, managed to connect the dots straight to W:
What we do know is that he purchased those four weapons recovered from him, the two Glock pistols, the shotgun, and that AR-15 assault rifle, legally in Colorado, although it is worth mentioning – and this is something gun control groups are emphasizing today – that that AR-15 is something that was illegal as recently as 10 years ago.
There was an assault weapons ban in this country from 1994 to 2004 that was lifted under President Bush. President Obama had pledged during his campaign to restore it. He has dropped that issue, so the assault, that AR-15 is a legal weapon now but was not 10 years go.
Does it never occur to these geniuses that maybe he’d have just gotten a different kind of gun? I’m continually amazed by the left’s obsession with the notion that people capable of mass murder will otherwise be law-abiding citizens when it comes to their armament purchases.
Here’s a story about a shooting in Aurora at a church earlier this year that was brought to a fast end because somebody in the congregation had a gun.
According to Dianne Feinstein, it would have been worse if somebody in the theater had been carrying a gun. I kid you not: “And maybe you could have had a fire fight and killed many more people.”
Well in that case why even call the cops and, according to Feinstein, risk making the situation more dangerous? Eventually Holmes would have run out of bullets, right? No need to risk even more lives by shooting back at the guy.