In the wake of a shooting that left four dead in Louisville, KY, MSNBC propagandist Andrea Mitchell speculated about a scenario in which the alleged assailant used a so-called assault rifle, suggesting an Australian-style gun buyback to get “weapons of war” off the streets.
Speaking on the shooting, of which there were no details available yet, Andrea pondered, “Ken, not to be too graphic, but if it does turn out to be that kind of weapon, the damage to your bodily organs, as we’ve seen with — with children, with people unidentifiable, it’s meant for war. It’s not meant for hunting, and it’s not meant for, you know — I mean, not that anything is for this kind of violence, but the damage is just horrific. And that’s why we see so many deaths and critical — people critically injured.”
MSNBC correspondent Ken Dilanian concurred with Mitchell’s assessment and declared we have a problem with these “weapons of war” on the street.
“[U]nless you do something like the buyback like they did in Australia,” Mitchell replied.
First, there is no such thing as an “assault” weapon. The same gun could just as easily be a “self-defense” weapon, but labeling it an “assault” weapon helps the Left’s demonizing narrative. Same with labeling it a “weapon of war,” which is a meaningless term. Second, offering a gun buyback will do absolutely nothing to prevent gun crime or gun violence, because criminals aren’t going to give up their guns. A buyback will only disarm more law-abiding citizens. Third, that’s exactly what the Left wants: not to stop gun crime, but to disarm citizens who stand in the way of state tyranny.