All we’ve heard from the left, Democrats and media hacks since the Las Vegas shooting is publicizing the shooting to pure their narrative of gun violence and calling for the “ban” of automatic weapons. There’s only one problem that these goober Democrats and media idiots don’t seem to understand. Automatic weapons have been banned in this country for 31 years. They have been banned since 1986, when Ronald Reagan was president.
If the Las Vegas terrorist did in fact use automatic weapons while firing on the crowd of people at the Route 91 concert, then he either obtained the automatic weapons illegally, or he modified as semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic. Obviously, Paddock didn’t follow the gun laws that were on the books in the first. So what exactly would more gun laws do? How would more gun laws have helped prevent the Las Vegas terrorist attack? Paddock didn’t care about the laws on the books. He got his regular guns legally, had no known prior criminal history and wasn’t on anybody’s watch list.
| Hint to liberals politicizing Vegas shooting – automatic weaspons have been banned since 1986 |
|---|
|
This is the problem with the media like cock holster Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kibble. They don’t think before they spew their left wing propaganda about gun control. You aren’t going to take guns away from people who have the legal right to own them. You would have to abolish the Second Amendment. There is no way in hell 2/3 of Congress would go for it because they would be kicked out off office faster than the NFL “oppressed” players could take a knee.
Instead of spewing left wing propganda on guns, maybe the left should actually do some research and learn the facts. Automatic weapons have been banned in this country for 31 years. If someone uses an automatic weapon, they didn’t follow the “gun laws” that state they can’t have them in the first place.
BTW, does anyone else find it odd how there is still no mention in the media about the Sudanese shooter who killed people attending church in Tennessee?