It was just one of several recent gun safety developments in which the gun industry and NRA rhetoric of "protecting Second Amendment rights" for "law-abiding gun owners" — for "good guys with a gun" to "stop a bad guy with a gun" — is diametrically opposed to the facts of the case. [More]
No, it didn't. The case had nothing to do with a lawful DGU.
His whole premise is a non sequitur.
They would rather see all these people dead than armed, preferably killed with guns so they could have more blood to dance in.
[Via DDS]
1 comment:
"It's also a huge step in confirming that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), passed in 2005, does not shield the gun industry from all legal responsibility, despite widespread belief to the contrary. "
Belief? It's an outright lie, peddled incessantly and exclusively by leftist media outlets, almost certainly by Salon itself at some time or other.
Post a Comment