Moms Demand: one blatant lie worked fine once, let’s try another.

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Winston S. Churchill.

Moms Demand Missouri fail

So what is this new horror?

NRA-endorsed HB 1220 would exclude these and other crimes from the definition of “violent felonies,” and make it legal for offenders to own a gun under the laws of the Show Me State:

Attempted Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
Attempted Forcible Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
Deviate Sexual Assault
Sexual Assault/ Rape in the Second Degree

via This is who the NRA thinks should have guns in Missouri. — Medium.

HB 1220 was signed into law and it will become effective on January of 2017. What does this evil bill say”

“Dangerous felony”, the felonies of arson in the first degree, assault in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible rape if physical injury results, attempted sodomy in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible sodomy if physical injury results, rape in the first degree, forcible rape, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, assault in the second degree if the victim of such assault is a special victim as defined in subdivision (14) of section 565.002, kidnapping in the first degree, kidnapping, murder in the second degree, assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, domestic assault in the first degree, elder abuse in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, statutory rape in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to the offense, statutory sodomy in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to the offense, child molestation in the first or second degree, abuse of a child if the child dies as a result of injuries sustained from conduct chargeable under section 568.060, child kidnapping, parental kidnapping committed by detaining or concealing the whereabouts of the child for not less than one hundred twenty days under section 565.153, and an “intoxication-related traffic offense” or “intoxication-related boating offense” if the person is found to be a “habitual offender” or “habitual boating offender” as such terms are defined in section 577.001;
(Word Count, 272)

But wait, what does the actual law say? The one right now in the books:

“Dangerous felony” means the felonies of arson in the first degree, assault in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible rape if physical injury results, attempted sodomy in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible sodomy if physical injury results, rape in the first degree, forcible rape, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, murder in the second degree, assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, domestic assault in the first degree, elder abuse in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, statutory rape in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to the offense, statutory sodomy in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to the offense, and, abuse of a child if the child dies as a result of injuries sustained from conduct chargeable under section 568.060, child kidnapping, and parental kidnapping committed by detaining or concealing the whereabouts of the child for not less than one hundred twenty days under section 565.153;
(Word count, 208)

So the old law still active has 208 words, the new one has 272. I wonder why? Now, it wouldn’t be because they added more violations to the list of Dangerous Felonies, would it?

Added new felonies (but somehow overlooked by Shannon Watts):

-assault in the second degree if the victim of such assault is a special victim as defined in subdivision (14) of section 565.002
-kidnapping in the first degree
-child molestation in the first or second degree
-an “intoxication-related traffic offense” or “intoxication-related boating offense” if the person is found to be a “habitual offender” or “habitual boating offender” as such terms are defined in section 577.001;

But it gets even funkier. I wanted to get a quote from the NRA-ILA in relation to HB 1220…and could not find anything. I went wider using Google, and I only got the original article and another like it. So, as far as I know, the NRA had no dealings with HB 1220. I might be wrong and looked in the wrong places, so if anybody finds something, please let me know….but it does not look good.

I cannot longer give Moms Demand the benefit of the doubt as in being stupid. This is a conscious effort to  lie without shame in order to grab headlines may it be because they think they can get away with it or maybe it is desperation. I don’t know and I really do not care.

 

8 Replies to “Moms Demand: one blatant lie worked fine once, let’s try another.”

  1. Not sure if it’s a ‘lie’ or a part of their mental delusion that anything firearm related is directly controlled and manipulated by the NRA octopus. Just like we get our marching orders from them on what to post.




    0



    0
  2. Wait, I’m confused.

    If I get the scenario straight:

    Current law prohibits people who have been convicted of dangerous felonies from owning guns.

    Missouri passes a law that enumerates a whole bunch of new dangerous felonies that would further prohibit people from owning guns.

    The CSGV figures out what is not on the list and then claims that the new law allows these people to have guns?

    Then they then blame the NRA for this?

    That makes no sense what so ever.




    0



    0
  3. They throw around the term “common sense” and it is funny but that is what they entirely lack.

    They run on the illogic of panicked emotion.

    Oh, and I stopped giving them any benefit of the doubt. Their goal is explicitly evil so their means are already tainted. It’s like saying that the Nazis were good because they gently deceived (so as to not alarm) the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals to go into the showers (i.e. gas chambers). That’s not a kindness and neither is trying to disarm me. (Yes, I played the Nazi card).

    Why do they want me disarmed? It is because their calls for socialism and control over me will not be received well and that only leaves them with force, and if I am armed I can resist.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .