I got pointed at this
article.
I thought I was reading a Brady Bunch press release. This guy is a respected law professor?
I sure would like to know where he gets his information on guns. It's every talking point of the Bradyites.
Let's see how many outright lies he can tell in one short article. Let's start with Aurora.
Redacted allegedly went into an Aurora, Colo., movie theater with an arsenal that included a semiautomatic assault rifle and 6,000 rounds of ammunition.
Sorry Professor. 6000 rounds of .223, the ammo the AR15 uses weighs in at 150 lbs. That's just the ammo, it doesn't include what ever means of carrying it he employed. It would take 200 magazines of standard 30 rd capacity to hold that much ammo. Let's be generous and call it another 50 lbs. We're up to 200 lbs just in ammo for one rifle. He was also carrying a .40 Glock and a shotgun. 12 Gauge 00buck isn't light on it's own. Most of the casualties were caused by buckshot. After just a few rounds from a 100 rd beta mag, it jammed.
If Holmes had used a handgun, far fewer would have been hurt or killed before he was stopped.
Oh? Stopped by who? This mass shooting, like nearly all of them, happened in a gun free zone.
Semi-automatic weapons — such as the Uzi, the TEC-9, some AK-47s and the Colt AR-15 — have the capacity to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time. In fact, they have no other purpose. Semi-automatic weapons are not used to hunt; they would obliterate the animal. They exist to fire multiple bullets in quick succession, a function that is useful only in war.
Why just some AK47's? They aren't used to hunt? someone had better tell all those coyote hunters they shouldn't do that. Obliterate the animal? Please.
In 1994, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The law prohibited individuals from possessing assault weapons, like the AR-15 rifle allegedly used by Holmes. It is a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16 and was a "semiautomatic assault weapon" under this law. But in 2004, this law expired and was not renewed.
No again. No one was prohibited from owning these. All the law did was "outlaw" some cosmetic features like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. The law wasn't renewed for good reason. It did nothing to the crime rate. Less than 2% of all gun related crimes are commited with long guns of any kind.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended."
This law was made necessary by people like Bloomberg and all the other gun haters. Holding a manufacturer liable for something a criminal did is wrong. You would think a law professor would know better than this.
Read the whole thing. If I had a student in this law school, I'd be down there demanding a refund. The dean of a law school should at least have a clue about the law.
H/T to David Codrea at
The war on guns.
