Wingnut extraordinaire Dana Loesch attacks Piers Morgan and "anti-gun" liberals

Recently, GOP and NRA shill Dana Loesch has attacked "gun safety"/"gun control" supporters for simply trying to get common-sense reforms on guns in America.

Loesch on the Sandy Hook Shooting and how she blamed Liberals/Progressives:

Friday was a day of horror, heartbreak, and prayer. Despite this, some of our progressive brethren couldn’t resist using the tragedy to make a case for risking lives by preventing families a means of self-protection via their Second Amendment rights. Let us have a frank discussion: Progressives believe that our Second Amendment rights are what perpetuated the horrific massacre in Sandy Hook. They believe that if firearm ownership was illegal then Adam Lanza wouldn’t have murdered. They say that Americans shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons,” as they call them.Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?

Dear Dana, it is conservatives like you that politicizes shootings like Sandy Hook, by blaming the following: the alleged lack of spankings in school, alleged lack of mandated [teacher-led] school prayer, unarmed teachers and support staffabortionsame-sex marriage, liberals, unions, et al.

More Loesch distortions on the gun issue:

The other evening Piers Morgan continually referred to the weapon Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook massacre as an “assault rifle.” He’s not alone; many left-leaning hosts do the same. Unfortunately, it’s wrong, and it’s dangerous for any conservative to accept such a mischaracterization of these firearms in any conversation. Doing so immediately cedes to the left that such assertions are acceptable and correct. They are not. Unless Morgan and other pundits are insisting that Adam Lanza used a firearm with fully-automatic firing capability, we need to stop using these make-believe, unicorn terms and get educated on firearms. 
First and foremost there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Any device used to assault (a behavior or action) someone can be defined as an “assault weapon.” There exist fully automatic firearms and semi automatic firearms, period. There technically is no such thing as an “assault rifle,” either. The term is a Nazi invention (Sturmgewehr) fully named Sturmgewehr 44, and is regarded as the first “assault” rifle. Firearms which shared the technical characteristics of Hitler’s rifle were casually defined with this sobriquet and it grew over time.

The problem with using this phrase to define scary-looking rifles is that it betrays a gross lack of knowledge on firearms. The rifle Lanza had in the trunk of his car (and there are various conflicting reports from a too-eager media about whether or not this rifle was used in the shootings) was not an “assault rifle.” Anyone claiming that it was is insisting that Lanza’s weapon was a military-grade rifle capable of selective fire, meaning, it has the giggle-switch to kick it from semi-automatic to fully automatic. I’ve shot so-called “assault rifles” and I own semi-automatics. They are not the same. Anyone calling any of these rifles “assault rifles” used in the Sandy Hook shooting and any other such tragedies are claiming that fully-automatic weapons, regulated to banned, are somehow in the civilian market used in mass shootings.
If the left can move conservatives into using their misused terminology, they’ve already won ground in the anti-Second Amendment battle. When we start taking on the language of the left, we are no longer defending our position, we will have ceded it. We can’t afford such mistakes.

Typical right-wing/pro-NRA apologist rubbish by Loesch. Also, Ms. Liaresch, Liberals/Progressives like me do NOT hate the 2nd Amendment.

And yes, "assault weapons" exist and are a valid definition.

On the 01.09.2013 edition of The Dana Show, she blamed the liberals for "the corruption in society and attempting to ban guns."

From the 01.09.2013 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:

Excuse me, Dana Loesch! Your gun (or anyone else's) will NOT be confiscated. And the 2nd Amendment is NOT "under attack", either!

She attacks Piers Morgan, who is being chewed out by wingnuts over his recent comments endorsing gun control, on Twitter:

Piers Morgan's rebuttal tweets to Loesch's misleading falsehoods;

No comments :

Post a Comment

Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr