Media Pushes 'Gun Control' After Trump Assassination
We don't need 'gun control', we need radical control.
By Daniel Greenfield. July 16, 2024
Article Source
The rifle used by Crooks, who shot and tried to assassinate President Trump, had been bought by his father back in 2013, that means 'gun control' legislation would have done nothing about it even assuming that was a desired outcome, but why should a minor detail like that stop the New York Times.
Few Lawmakers Called for Tougher Gun Laws After Trump Shooting – New York Times
Does the paper have an actual argument to make? No. But that's a minor detail.
"Little was known about the gunman, leading to some uncertainty about which gun safety issues were directly implicated."
So what? Ignorance is no reason not to shout things anyway.
"Still, the lack of such details has seldom stopped members of Congress from responding to gun violence with renewed calls for tougher firearm safety measures."
The New York Times isn't making the case here that it thinks it is. Members of Congress spouting off slogans when they don't know what actually happened just further discredits the whole cause.
But the New York Times then demonstrates that it isn't familiar with the basic details here.
"lawmakers tried but failed to get Republicans to agree to add a ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons for individuals under the age of 21. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard against that provision."
The rifle wasn't bought by Crooks, but his dad, who was older than 21.
"Some Democrats privately said that even an assassination attempt on the leader of the Republican Party was likely to only further cement the longtime congressional gridlock on guns. They compared it to the Republican reaction to the 2017 shooting of Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana, who was gravely wounded when a gunman opened fire on a congressional softball practice in Virginia."
A "gunman"? Try a fanatical Bernie Sanders supporter and MSNBC viewer with a hit list of Republicans in his pocket.
The New York Times unintentionally shows why lefties focus on 'gun control', because it distracts from the actual shootings.
We don't need 'gun control', we need radical control.
