Another example of the dissociative mind of the left:
On Monday’s Charlie Rose show David Remnick exploited the Boston Marathon bombing to push for more gun control as he told the PBS host: “We see yet another act which might have been a Hell of a lot more difficult to pull off with effective gun control.”
In a discussion about the Tsarnaevs’ terrorist plot, the editor of The New Yorker and former Washington Post reporter pondered where they got their “pistols from?” and said that while he didn’t “want to politicize” the tragedy proceeded to do just that, as he complained: “Within a week’s time a very, very, very weak gun control bill gets defeated.”
The following exchange was aired on the April 22 edition of PBS’s Charlie Rose show:
CHARLIE ROSE: Any evidence of any training anywhere?
DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR, THE NEW YORKER: Well, it was said that the family’s father had some, had given them some military training but I don’t see any evidence of this yet and that might have been anecdotal and he taught them how to shoot a gun or something like that. I think a domestic question has to be asked is how do kids like that get guns?
ROSE: Yeah, I’ve always wondered that. What did they do to get? I mean they had-
REMNICK: They build this…
ROSE: -an arsenal of guns and weapons. Pipe bombs.
REMNICK: These bombs are so crude.
REMNICK: Thank God, they’re so crude. That the poor eight-year-old boy who was killed by this bomb, there were people right next to him that were barely harmed at all. A much more effective bomb by, as it were, a pro — and thank God they, they weren’t or didn’t seem to be – would have had a much more effective bomb as you see all the time in Baghdad-
ROSE: What did they find?
REMNICK: -or Kabul or wherever. Where are they getting side arms from? Where are they getting, where are they getting pistols from? It’s not, to me, and I don’t want to politicize an act of terrorism, but it’s, it is worth remarking upon, worth remarking upon, in that within a week’s time a very, very, very weak gun control bill gets defeated, in effect defeated in the Senate, we see yet another act which might have been a Hell of a lot more difficult to pull off with effective gun control. Not for nothing.
How The NRA Has Made It Harder To Connect Criminals To Their Weapons:
“The struggle to figure out how Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev obtained their weapons began almost immediately after the manhunt ended, but very little has yet been discovered, thanks in part to policies pushed by the NRA that obfuscate how a criminal gets his or her weapons.
While law enforcement has argued that it would be helpful to be able to trace weapons to their source, the National Rifle Association has led the charge against any laws that might make this possible. Here’s a look at how the NRA’s pet policies are working against the public good…”
Are you the same guy who had nothing but spit for the link in my other post and now you link to Think Progress?
Do you know that all these guns have serial numbers? How many illegally sourced weapons do you think can be traced by possessor?
How would your magnificent law have traced them?
How would it have prevented Boston?
Not granting these miscreants asylum and citizenship- THAT would have prevented Boston
Sorry, but Thinkprogress is a leftwing political agitprop group and is totally unreliable as a source for any objective data. The only thing that Thinkprogress is good for is alerting sane people on what new tyranny the left wants to impose on the rest of us that we need to resist.
Using the islamic jihad attack on the Boston marathon as a justification for violating the 2nd Amendment right to the possession of personal firearms is the height of leftist hypocrisy. Those islamist scumbag murderers obtained their weapons ILLEGALLY and you leftards absolutely know that. How did these two filthy cowards obtain GRENADES, which require very precise explosives licenses to obtain?
So shove your dubious anti-American agenda up your pseudo-intellectual 4th point of contact. Your tyrannical gun grabbing horse pucky nonsense would have done NOTHING to prevent these jihadist bastards from murdering and maiming innocent Americans. You and your kind are despicable for trying to use islamic terrorist thugs as a justification for taking constitutionally protected firearm rights from law abiding Americans.
Firearms in the hands of honest citizens scares you so much, by all means pack your leftist arse up and go to one of those countries that prohibits its citizens from owning firearms.
All one needs to look at, to counter ‘This one’s suggested premise, is to look at the man in NY who recently had his firearms confiscated for an asinine reason by the state of NY and see that the NRA’s efforts have been purely on the side of the legal gun owners.
The Thinkprogress article assumes that absent the NRA that the criminals would not be able to acquire weapons with which to engage in their various criminal activities. What utter BS.
@Pete#4 – Your’s is a lot of sanity in this insane world…excellent comment!
“The gun lobby has argued we go after the people— keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. Which makes sense: If we could only keep guns out of the wrong hands, we won’t have to deal with the guns that are currently in the right hands.
But they blew that out of the water with this vote— the background check bill would have done quite a bit to reduce criminal and lunatic access to guns, by closing a ‘loophole’ via which up to 40% of all firearms are sold without any check at all, without substantially burdening anyone who isn’t mixing up gun control with gun removal (A mass confiscation is about likely as me hooking up with Kate Upton). That’s why 90% of Americans think it’s a great idea. “
Remnick sounds like a doofus…can he even get an intelligent sentence out of his pie hole???
Criminals [felons, lawbreakers, malefactors, miscreants, offenders]…hence the synonyms….once again, do not follow ANY LAWS…hence the name C r i m i n a l!!
NRA it’s members, and hundreds of thousands of gun owners in America are “responsible” gun owners ….The Criminals ARE NOT… there is NO LAW that will STOP A CRIMINAL/FELON from achieving his or her goal of Obtaining, or getting possession of a [ILLEGAL] GUN….for very very very BAD Purposes!
I am not grasping what the Left, many Americans, our politicians, Charlie Rose and the doofus Remnick are not understanding…. So, lets see, if they cannot GRASP the simple concept of our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS as US citizens…
….Then it is definitely all Political Point Scoring Bull Shit…Topped with an Leftist/Progressive/Communist Agenda to endlessly chip away at our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right as US Citizens… until that right is gone and the citizens are left vulnerable to an overbearing tyrannical Government… And don’t Think that the last part can’t Happen….just because it hasn’t happened here YET…
yo “this one”… The Obama FBI… had intel this guy was BAD NEWS.. two years PRIOR, as the RUSSIANS tipped us off about him…. and they said they checked him out……then let him WALK…….. looks like they didn’t check VERY WELL DID THEY?????
THERE is your “SMOKING GUN”….
Tell that to the people in NY state who have been subjected to confiscation by the state via illegal cross-checking of their medical records.
And for your information, confiscation never starts out with an all-encompassing gathering of people’s weapons. It starts out by taking them away from this group, which people don’t speak up about, and then that group, and people still don’t speak up about it. Eventually, it gets to the stage where it is a complete ban, unless you belong to the “right” group of people, and no one is left to speak up for your rights.
The NRA, which you seek to vilify, has the interest of every law-abiding citizen of these United States as it’s concern, whether you support the 2nd Amendment or not.
And here is your biggest problem. Who decides whose hands are the “right hands” and whose are the wrong ones? You? The majority? Government?
As a refresher on the Constitution, although it seems as if you never had a full course of understanding on it to begin with, the rights enshrined in the Constitution extend to ALL peoples, no matter what group, or groups, of people they belong to. And if We, the People, are not willing to stand up for the rights of the few, even if we don’t agree with them necessarily, then how, and most importantly, WHY, should we expect those same people to stand up for the rights the majority agrees with?
If you can answer that last question without being a hypocrite(an impossibility, in my opinion), then people might start to at least listen to what you progressive tyrants have to say.
@This one: So… you quote the famous percentages like they have any credibility, and expect us to give you credibility? Really?
I find it simply amazing how gullible liberals are, and enthusiastic they are about beliefs most often based on lies.