Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 13,298
- Reactions
- 47,461
I'm flabberghasted that MSN has actually taken the stance that they have in this article, finally someone gets it...
Like these passages from the article:
For one, the shooter was only 16. That means it was illegal for him to purchase or own a firearm. The idea that more laws would have prevented a crazed actor from doing something, even though they already clearly evaded and trampled on the law, is simply nonsensical.
Let's be clear: Liberals are telling you that more gun laws — which don't actually apply to the specifics of this case at all — would have stopped a shooting in the state that already has one of the strictest gun control regimens. Right. They'll have to do better than that if they want to make the case against our Second Amendment rights.
Like these passages from the article:
For one, the shooter was only 16. That means it was illegal for him to purchase or own a firearm. The idea that more laws would have prevented a crazed actor from doing something, even though they already clearly evaded and trampled on the law, is simply nonsensical.
Let's be clear: Liberals are telling you that more gun laws — which don't actually apply to the specifics of this case at all — would have stopped a shooting in the state that already has one of the strictest gun control regimens. Right. They'll have to do better than that if they want to make the case against our Second Amendment rights.