House panel requests gun manufacturers testimony

[DaleA]

Committee should be meeting today...

If there is any doubt about the bias of the House Committee meeting today (7/27/2022) just take a listen to one of the people that's going to testify.

Ryan Busse a former exec at Kimber and now working with the Giffords Gun Safety Organization.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...46eda0a068f188756bdd&category=foryou#comments

Busse's comments start at about 1:30 into the video.
Here's some:

"The gun industry is giving us a glimpse of its next customer: the American child soldier."

"-and we've been targeting troubled young men with [gun advertising] marketing and now we're going to target kids? ... Congress needs to step up and do something."

 

[RickB]

Politely tell the committee to pound sand?

 

[DaleA]

Ruger and Daniel Defense showed up and (gasp!) refused to take responsibility for the mass shootings that have occured.

I didn't watch the House Oversight Committee meeting, if you want to you can on Youtube although the thing is five and a half hours long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5su9tM23V50

Reading the news summaries it was a totally predictable virtue signaling fest demonizing firearms manufacturers.

A prime example of this is the committee chair Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NC) expressing her intent to subpoena S&W

"-so we can finally get answers about why this company is selling assault weapons to mass murders."

You can hear her say it here:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1552301335449665542

 

[44 AMP]

"-so we can finally get answers about why this company is selling assault weapons to mass murders."

I recognize it is political theater (theatre??) but just taking the words at face value, it would seem to me the answer is rather obvious...

$

Though I would dearly love to see ANYONE come up with a valid instance where ANY gun maker sold any gun to a "mass murderer".

Because that would be against the law. Just how stupid does one need to be, to ignore the fact that guns are not legally sold to criminals?? AND that while there are people who do horrific things with guns, they weren't criminals when they bought the gun. (or at least not criminal enough to be stopped by the infallible "background check")...

I tried to watch some of the "hearings" but got so sick of trying to endure pain and grief used for political expediency and pushing an agenda that I changed the channel to something more real, like Jurassic Park....

Realizing it would possibly be contempt, but just once I'd love to hear someone respond to a statement like this "-so we can finally get answers about why this company is selling assault weapons to mass murders."
with something like this...
"the answer, lady Congressperson, is the same reason you got elected!...FREE WILL!"

 

[ballardw]

I recognize it is political theater (theatre??) but just taking the words at face value, it would seem to me the answer is rather obvious...

Actually I would say the answer is sheer ignorance of the speaker.

Companies do not sell to individuals. They sell, or is transfer better, to FFL holders.

Not to mention that the quote probably should have been

to mass murderers

. I severely doubt that any "murder" every bought anything.

 

[44 AMP]

Unfortunately, proper understanding and use of English grammar is not a requirement to hold public office, or, apparently, be in the news industry...Even with computer assists....

 

[DaleA]

Yes, I am responsible for the misquote and it should have been 'murderers' not 'murders', it's my mistake.

Companies do not sell to individuals. They sell, or is transfer better, to FFL holders.

Correct.

The point about manufacturers, distributers and dealers did come up at about 2 hours and 36 minutes into the hearing.

Committee member Andrew Clyde (R-Ga), a 2nd amendment supporter, questions Ms. Sampson on the point and she claims manufacturers are quite capable of addressing the problem if they wanted to do so. It's paintful to hear Ms. Sampson address this point.

 

[44 AMP]

News reports said the House was supposed to vote on the measure Friday (today) but now say the matter has been "punted" to next week by Pelosi.

Accurate or not I have no idea, only that some of the news said that. Wonder if next week some other more "urgent" matter will result in delaying the vote again....??

want to bet they'll keep pushing it back, until there is another murder done with an "assault weapon", and then they'll vote within a day, or possibly three??

Update:

News now says they voted and it passed 217-213 in the House.