Dear Moms Demand (™2014 MAIG): Lying never works.

This hit the early Facebook yesterday:
Moms Demand ColumbineI did a double take. My memory might be fading some with age, but I was sure that was not the way it happened. I did not have to go too far to check, the link that Moms provided was enough.

The buyer was Mark Manes, a 22-year-old computer technician whose mother is a member of Handgun Control Inc.
Manes did not own his new assault weapon (TEC-DC9) for long. Phillip Duran, a friend who worked at a Blackjack Pizza parlor in Jefferson County, told him “two guys” at the pizza place were looking for a TEC-9. On Jan. 23, at another Tanner Gun Show, Duran introduced Manes to the two guys. They were both 17, too young to buy a handgun legally. But Manes offered to sell it for $500, and they agreed.
That night, Manes sold the gun at the house where he lived with his parents, on a suburban street not far from Columbine High.
The buyers were Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

And next: the Shotgun and the Hi Point 9mm carbine:

Investigators still don’t know who sold the carbine there. But they identified the buyer as an 18year-old Columbine student, Robyn Anderson. She was accompanied by two 17-year-olds, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, and shopping with their cash.
Anderson bought the two shotguns at the same show.
Federal law forbids gun dealers to sell shotguns or rifles to anyone younger than 18. It also forbids “straw” sales to someone obviously acquiring guns for people ineligible to buy them.

So, one gun never saw a Gun show and was sold illegally to minors by a son of a member of Handgun Control Inc. which is now know and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The others were bought legally and then passed to the two Columbine morons making it a Straw Purchase which was illegal.

Universal Background Checks would have not prevented Columbine in pretty much the same way the laws at the time did not. When people are willing to break the law, it does not matter how many extra words you put in it, they will still break it.  This concept seems to escape Madam Shannon Watson and her group…then again maybe they are aware but they don’t mind the lying as long as they can collect money for His Divinity,  Pimp Daddy Bloomberg.

21 Replies to “Dear Moms Demand (™2014 MAIG): Lying never works.”

  1. Wasn’t Ms Anderson prosecuted for her part? IIRC she was. Don’t these liberal idiot pisswits not understand that the law is to punish after the fact? We have laws against straw purchases, they just can’t be preemptive. They have to break the law first. It may not be the best system in the world, but it’s better than anything else out there. Maybe they have watched Minority Report too many times.

    1. They did not Prosecute Ms. Anderson. She claimed she had NO knowledge of what they were going to do with those guns, no mention that she knew either were convicted felons. Still I’d be interested to know why she didn’t know they were underclassmen and too young to accept the guns.

      Also she was a lead in testifying for Colorado’s ban on private sale….read into that how you want.

  2. “So, one gun never saw a Gun show and was sold illegally to minors by a son of a member of Handgun Control Inc. which is now know and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”

    So the Brady Campaign promotes high-school shootings.

    Actually not that surprising considering who some of their staff and spokespeople are.

  3. Did you actually read the article or do you just like pulling out quotes that don’t show the entire context? The 22 year old guy Mannes who sold the TECH-9 had nothing to do with his mothers being in the precursor to Brady. Its not even clear why they would mention that in the article, but she and Brady had nothing to do with the sale. As far as the sale of the guns to Robyn Anderson at the gun show it clearly states that all of the sales were made by unlicensed sellers and thus no background check was necessary. Had she gone through a background check she would have been make clearly aware of the law, she would have had to fill out paper work stating that the guns were for her and not for someone else and she would have been made aware of the consequences. Non of that happened here. Laws do deter, but people do need to be aware of them. Laws are not simple to punish after the fact.

    1. So she purposely searched out an ‘unlicensed seller’ so she wouldn’t have to go through a background check. She knew she was buying the guns for someone else and that they were underage, hence why she did it in the first place. He claims of ‘not knowing’ are a convenient excuse that those who don’t get to go in front of a legislative committee to testify don’t get away w/.

    2. “The 22 year old guy Mannes who sold the TECH-9 had nothing to do with his mothers being in the precursor to Brady.”

      So what? I’m declared guilty by much, much weaker associations by the gun-grabbers. If they don’t like it, they should stop dishing it out.

    3. So you’re telling me that it is your belief that their minds were not so entirely on track to commit this atrocity that they wouldn’t have just found someone else to sell them one? I didn’t think it was possible for any one person to display that much ignorance. That’s like saying if the store had been out of pressure cookers that the Boston marathon bombers would have just given up!

      I’m sorry, but unless you can show me one instance of a gang member going to a licensed dealer to buy a gun for a drive-by shooting, I cannot accept your response in the least.

      Because there are states where it is not legal to own firearms without a permit, there should be no way that anyone in those states could have one without a permit. Laws deter people, right? No, laws (much like locks) are really and truly in place to keep honest people honest. They only work if people follow them because they can only be prosecuted after a crime has been committed. Laws don’t prevent stupid people from doing stupid things and I think it’s time to stop punishing law-abiding citizen (the majority) for the actions of a few.

    4. Dear Dave:
      1) The irony is just delightful.
      2) “unlicensed sellers” is a term pulled out of some legalistic/confounding ass. In the real world they are called Citizens selling legal private property.

    5. Do you think if the parents were NRA members, the Mommies would not have made big deal about it? The anti-gun people seem to think that they are above the responsibilities that the rest of us have, like raising our children to respect laws and guns.

  4. Since when are laws NOT to punish after the fact? That’s all they can do. Do the crime, face the punishment. Btw, last time I checked, the cops are not there to save your ass first, they come in after the SHTF, which is why your should protect yourself first!

  5. I want to know how much money Madam Watts is making off of all this. Is it declared a non profit? I just saying I am sure she is not doing it for free.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.