After seeing former president Trump shot on national television, I was glad to see figures like Joe Biden do the (politically) smart thing and call for unity while condemning what was clearly a vile act of political violence. While we all have our differences — sometimes big ones — it makes no sense to resort to violence while there’s still ample opportunity for peaceful resolutions through the ballot box, court action, and other legal, non-lethal means. On that, we should all agree.
Sadly, not everyone sees it that way. Conspiracy theories, broad-brushing, and political opportunism were everywhere in the minutes and hours after Trump was hauled off the stage in Pennsylvania by his Secret Service detail. Even if most people find the speculation and vitriol deeply distasteful, there was plenty of it on social media.
But even among the tweets from “journalists” about making America aim again and from US Congressmen expressing frustration that the assassination attempt would generate “sympathy for the devil,” one particular bit of stupidity from Shannon Watts stood out for its opportunism and its ignorance . . .
You’d think an allegedly politically savvy person would suspect that her side of the political spectrum is likely where the would-be assassin came from. Absent some wild conspiracy to make Trump look good by shooting him in the ear (there was plenty of that out there), it’s very likely that hatred for Trump was the motivation behind the shooting. While not all Democrats or even Trump’s fiercest critics are not to blame for the shooting, minutes after the shooting in which one person died and two more bystanders were seriously wounded wasn’t the time for anyone from that side to be lecturing anybody about gun violence.
The wiser and more politically astute among them did something similar to what Biden did: decrying the violence, calling for unity and expressing concern for Trump’s well-being. Others (which obviously includes Shannon Watts), blundered into the situation as if it was just another mass shooting that they could use to dance in the blood of the victims and use for political advantage.
What Watts was probably hoping nobody would realize is that even if she got her entire wishlist of additional gun rights restrictions in Pennsylvania, it would have made zero difference to a killer looking to make a 150-yard shot with a rifle.
Let’s take Watts’ gripes point by point . . .
- Gun sales are already subject to a background check and Plenty of people willing to engage in political violence have had clean backgrounds.
- A clean background means they can easily get a gun license, even in European licensing systems.
- There’s often no sign at all of trouble ahead of time that would lead to a “red flag” confiscation. Even in cases where shooters have shown clear signs of problems, nothing was done.
- You don’t need an “assault weapon” to assassinate someone, even at 150 yards.
- The shooter only fired a few shots — probably only three — so magazine restrictions would have made no difference whatsoever.
- Someone planning an assassination can easily buy a weapon long before a waiting period, even as long as 10 days.
- Open carry usually applies only to pistols. The Trump shooter used a rifle.
- The shooter wasn’t a child, he was 20 years old. What difference would this have made?
- Stricter local gun laws do virtually nothing to reduce crime.
In other words, literally nothing that Watts was criticizing about Pennsylvania law would have made any difference, let alone prevented last night’s assassination attempt.
Her ignorant tweet does, however, show us is that she’s intellectually weak and has no feel for strategy. She couldn’t see that about an hour after the shooting was a time for her side to lay low and only say nice, anodyne things until much more was known about the shooter and his motives. She just couldn’t see that nothing on her standard gun control wishlist would have done a thing to stop the attack and it made her look like just another political opportunist. She also didn’t wait long enough to see that someone likely agreed with her on those points was the person who pulled the trigger.
Watts’ tone-deaf approach here goes to show that she’s lost the gun control debate…and might not even care any more. For her, gun control is all that matters, and that single-mindedness blinds her to seeing the rest of the chess board.
“You don’t need an “assault weapon” to assassinate someone, even at 150 yards…”
1. ‘Assault weapon’ is a legal term, not a technical one. Anything can be an ‘assault weapon’ if the law defines it as such. For example there are various pistols and shotguns defined as ‘assault weapons’ under CA law. 1911 with a threaded barrel and 8 round detachable magazine for example.
2. There are those that would argue a bolt action rifle is a better choice than an AR or AK based semi-auto rifle for precision shooting.
ASSAULT Weapon, rifle, yada, yada is a term coined by the third reich. There is no legal use for concocted nazi busswords in America however there is use for sleazy Gun Control zealots to spread fear about firearms.
“Assault rifle” is original a literal translation of the name “Sturmgewehr” used for the first mass-produced firearm (the Sturmgewehr 44) that sought to combine the rate of fire of a submachine gun (which is typically only usable at close quarters) with the midrange precision of a rifle. The (in)famous AK-47 (a.k.a. “Kalachnikov” after its designer) is not a direct copy of the StG 44, but clearly very much inspired by it.
NA – thanks for getting the terms correct – seems there are way too few who know the origins of many terms regarding firearms and do not use them correctly.
JD – actually the bogus term “assault weapon” was coined in the early 70s by a kaly state rep named art agnos. It didn’t gain a lot of traction until the then head of what is now the brady bunch specifically popularized it with the intent to confuse and scare people. Of course the lame stream media conflates that ambiguous term with the legal term of “assault rifle” as Nitay correctly stated in his post.
He was quoting Hitler with that term. Hitler saw the Mg/Stg 44 and famously named it the ” sturmgewher ” literally storm or assault rifle. Just because some scumbag in 1970s Kalifornistan quoted him to use it doesn’t mean that he coined it. Learn history, there’s no downside to it.
Excellent.
gray – you are correct regarding that ambiguous term being ‘legal’ in kaly and a few other blue states. WA is one of them, they call the Ruger 10/22 one for example (noo joisee as well) but there is no nationally recognized or military definition.
Since ‘assault’ is an act committed by a person, you are correct that anything can be the weapon used. Mike Royko (late of the Chicago news rag) figured that out a couple of decades ago when someone used a toilet seat to beat the victim to death……………………..
She has her own personal body count.
While working for Monsanto, she literally killed or seriously injured, collectively, thousands of people in South America (and in other countries) by marketing Monsanto chemicals in the country that were either already banned for sale in the U.S. or were known to be deadly and not marketable in the U.S….got a nice paycheck and nice bonus and promotion for it too.
2016: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2017: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2018: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2019: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2020: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2021: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2022: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2023: HE’S LITERALLY HITLER
2024: How dare you say our rhetoric caused this!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9apblSQ-s
Also: “We’re glad Hitler is doing well and wish Hitler a speedy recovery.”
*Literally worse than Hitler
That’s a bot.
Shannon Watts retired from MDA last year.
https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/01/09/shannon-watts-retiring-from-political-juggernaut-moms-demand-action-n2270696
The only people they can get to push their nonsense are mentally ill cretins and script bots who aren’t actually people.
To those who seek implementation of the Gun Control agenda, immediately after any shooting is exactly the time to comment on their favorite policy prescription. It is at a time of high emotion that Pathos (This is bad, we must do something! This is something!) may sway the weak minded. At other times Ethos (It is wrong to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.) and Logos (Criminals don’t obey laws.) offer greater resistance.
One might note that PA does have laws against murder, that didn’t seem to deter the assassin.
If I ever hear anyone call Trump “Hitler” in my presence, they will get the beat down they deserve.
Just another Brainless Twat. Sadly that describes the majority of American women.