The liberal press has wasted precious little time demonizing the Second Amendment in the wake of the shooting by an off-duty TSA worker at LAX.
Mother Jones tweeted the following a few minutes ago:
LAX Police Chief Gannon: Single shooter entered, pulled an assault rifle, began shooting at checkpoint, went past & into terminal 3.
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) November 1, 2013
Note the push-button word: “assault rifle,” a favorite emotional phrase adopted by the gun-grabber crowd. Every weapon, of course, is an “assault weapon,” but what the libs never tell you is that firearms are primarily defense weapons.
“Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense,” Gun Owners of America noted in 2008. “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”
http://www.infowars.com/lax-shooting-get-ready-for-more-anti-second-amendment-propaganda/
If you follow logic on this and if it was an off-duty TSA agent, then logic would dictate that because he was a federal employee then all federal employees should be disarmed and not the general public. Logic would dictate that only responsible citizens should have the right to carry firearms as we would need the protection from the federal employees and not ourselves. However if you ask Finestine what the meaning of logic is she would tell you gun control.
Then again maybe they are just starting to eat their own.
“assault rifle,”
Guess what?
How the hell did he even get into the building with an “assault rifle” is what I’m asking. If the government wants to play this game of security, then how did he even get that far with it? You’d think external security would spot something like this as an “assault rifle” isn’t that easy to conceal … is it? Doesn’t make sense to me unless he was “allowed” to do so.
. . .