The left is thoroughly confused when it comes to guns and the laws that surround them. Though so many lawmakers and liberal media personalities continuously rant and rave about the supposed need to more anti-gun laws, they never seem to stop to understand the laws already on the books.
Recently, a CBS News reporter purchased an AR-15 to show how easy it was to obtain one. However, she committed a felony to do so by lying on her background check application.
One New York Daily News eunuch shot an AR-15 to give his reporting more credibility. It, however, backfired when he attempted to rant against the “assault rifle” and in doing so, revealed that he knew absolutely nothing about the rifle or the laws surrounding it and was thus mocked thoroughly online for his pathetic failing.
Now, another genius from the mainstream media has attempted to show how “easy” it is to obtain an “assault rifle.” However, the “journalist” accidentally disproved his hypothesis when he was denied the purchase due to a failing of the background check required by law.
Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun Times went to purchase an oh-so-scary-looking AR-15 at an Illinois gun shop. However, after undergoing the background check and waiting for clearance, he was denied because of a domestic abuse situation.
In standard “ooh, isn’t this exciting?” fashion that is typical of liberal exposes on guns, Steinberg wrote,
Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.
Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.
After all was said and done, however, Steinberg did not get his new toy (nor was he able to prove his point).
I was looking forward to shooting my new rifle the next day. I’ve shot guns. It’s fun. I was worried though, about having fun with guns in the current environment of outrage and horror. Had I been co-opted by the purchase process? By the friendly staff at Maxon’s? […]
At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. […]
A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”
Well, didn’t see that coming.
Laughably, Steinberg insists that his alleged wife-beating wasn’t the issue; he insists, instead, that the gun store has a vendetta against journalists.
Steinberg offered a painfully-slow description of the series of events that occurred as he bought the rifle- which he continuously referred to as an “assault rifle”- and threw around manufactured and manipulated “stats” to show why guns are just so very dangerous.
He even cited the aforementioned CBS reporter who was able to procure an “assault rifle” through felonious deceit.
Ultimately, Steinberg concludes that terrorists can purchase “assault rifles,” but reporters cannot:
“Now I’ll state what I believe the real reason is: Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark. Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that’s a different story. Gun makers avoid publicity because the truth is this: they sell tools of death to frightened people and make a fortune doing so. They shun attention because they know, if we saw clearly what is happening in our country, we’d demand change.”
To be clear: Steinberg did not pop on the federal background check system because he was not convicted of spousal abuse. He did, however, fail to meet the background check criteria for the sale of the firearm.
The left continually insists that gun owners and sellers have a moral duty to scrutinize the motives of purchasers and there is an incredible burden upon gun stores to be vigilant.
In this instance, they identified a man with an admitted history of alcohol abuse and a domestic abuse charge that is absent a conviction. He may still buy a firearm elsewhere if he chooses, but it seems that Maxon’s did exactly what anti-Second Amendment proponents are continually advocating.
In contrast, if they were to sell Steinberg the firearm, his column likely would have been an indictment of the “irresponsible” gun industry who so-willingly sells guns to suspected wife-beaters.
It’s just another day in Liberal Land where the lunatics on the left are having their narratives debunked at a feverish pace…