Gun Grabbers Blame The AR-15: Oops! No AR-15 Found, But They Hate Them Anyway


Gun barrels were still warm and smoking and blood was still flowing from the bullet wounds inflicted by Aaron Alexis at the Washington Navy Yard when the gun grabbers began calling once again for a ban on scary-looking guns. One problem: No scary-looking AR-15 was used in the shooting.

The guns recovered, according to CNN yesterday, were a Remington Model 870 shotgun and two handguns. The shotgun belonged to Alexis. There was no clear indication where the handguns came from. They “may” have come from base guards.

But that didn’t stop CNN, the rest of the mainstream media or other gun grabbers from pointing out (as they always do, truth be damned) that Alexis could have used one, if he’d chosen to, because anybody can buy one at any time without a background check and, well, AR-15s have been used before and, well, “Don’t they look scary?” And, after all, Adam Lanza and James Holmes and some other guys have used them to kill a bunch of people so President Barack Obama should just issue some executive orders and Congress had to get busy banning scary-looking guns, if not guns in general. And it all has to happen yesterday because, well, people are getting killed, but don’t look in the dumpster for the bodies of all the aborted babies because they don’t count anyway.

Never mind that guns are already banned in Washington, D.C., and on the grounds of the Navy Yard, which is why Alexis was able to kill 12 and injure 14 before he died. And never mind that he probably shouldn’t have been on the Navy Yard to begin with, given his previous run-ins with law enforcement and the fact that he was being treated for “a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia” and “had been hearing voices in his head.” And never mind that that means he was likely on some type of SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) medication, which is commonly prescribed for people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which Alexis had previously claimed.

In fact, the mental disorder and medications (and possibly violent video games), not the weapon, seem to be the common denominators in mass shootings. Go here to see what I mean.

Meanwhile, the gun grabbers are in full shriek and attempting once again to disarm Americans even as Obama is wide open arming al-Qaida terrorists in Syria with the military variant of the same AR-15 — along with a lot of other weapons Americans can’t legally own, because Americans can’t be trusted with them.

But there’s no mention of looking into the pharmaceuticals Alexis, Lanza and Holmes, et al., were on. No MSM organization can be bothered by trivial details like that. Those are hard questions.

And there are never any questions about whether there’s a causal relationship between mass shooters and an obsession over violent video games. More hard questions.

And what about the second shooter? Why does there always seem to be a second shooter in these instances who disappears down the memory hole?

And why does it always seem The Associated Press or some other “news organization” has the story before it actually happens?


These questions aren’t asked because these things don’t fit the narrative that gun grabbers are pushing. Nor does the fact that in the past 30 years, mass killings have accounted for less than .10 percent of all murders, according to the FBI. Even anti-gun Bloomberg had to admit that.

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.