Sunday, December 22, 2013

Emily Miller Tries to Out-Lie La Pierre and Larry Pratt - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | 

I'll just mention the most blatant one. She said gun control laws would not have prevented Newtown. She didn't say they PROBABLY wouldn't have prevented it or that they MIGHT NOT HAVE prevented it, she said they wouldn't have, which is something that she could not possibly know. No one does.  No one knows what would have happened if something had been different.

But, it's worse than that.  In the case of Newtown there's a very good chance that if proper gun control laws had been in place and if they'd been followed by Nancy Lanza, the tragedy would have been avoided or if not completely avoided the number of dead would have been fewer. As a gun-rights person herself, Nancy failed to properly secure her guns from her mentally ill son. As a gun-control state, Connecticut failed to implement proper controls on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines until AFTER the terrible events of December 2012.

So, the slick-talking and very-convincing gun-rights shill, Emily, was lying through her pretty teeth when she said that.

Let's play a game.  Can anyone identify the other lies and distortions in her pitch?


  1. True statements:

    1. She was unarmed in the face of a home invasion.

    2. D.C.'s gun laws are repressive.

    3. Gun control laws don't decrease crime. The guns used in mass shootings are typically legally purchased. But our rates of violent crimes are at a decades-long low.

    4. Gun control as a response to mass shootings is a knee-jerk reaction to a rare event.

    5. Obama did wait until he didn't have another election facing him to push gun control.

    6. Gun ownership is on the rise, as is gun carry.

    7. Magazine size had nothing to do with the Newtown shooting.

    1. A hillbilly critique.

    2. Some of your points are opinions and therefore not subject to the true/false criterion. Others are untrue like especially number 7. But the real point is, if she made some true statements does that mean she's not a liar even though I pointed out at least one lie?

    3. Perhaps she hasn't learned about your demands, Mikeb, but certainly nothing presented on the national stage would have stopped Newtown from happening, since the shooter's mother bought the guns legally, and the shooter himself was an adult at the time of the attack. Safe storage laws are intended to keep guns out of the hands of children. And even if no one in Connecticut were allowed to own an AR-15, the shooter could have used a standard deer rifle or a shotgun to the same effect.

    4. "since the shooter's mother bought the guns legally"
      Seems the mothers safe storage failed. Unlike Greg, most people try to follow the law. If safe storage had been practiced, maybe he would not have gotten to any guns.

    5. Since the shooter here was an adult, safe storage laws typically wouldn't apply. Those laws require guns to be kept away from minors.

    6. The guy was on record as having problems. His parent should have kept guns away from him, knowing he had problems. But gun loon thinking say, nothing to worry about, now more dead, and we know you don't care about people killed by guns.

    7. "the shooter could have used a standard deer rifle" says the contentions one. But Greg won't admit that no one really knows what would have happened if things had been different. He insists that when the NRA shill said GUN CONTROL LAWS WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED NEWTOWN she was telling the truth.

    8. I'm talking about what is possible. But since you just admitted that you don't know that gun control would work, how about promoting solutions that would make a difference?

    9. Safe storage means keeping anyone from getting your gun; child or adult. Your twisting that fact only shows what a lying despicable person you are.

    10. Greg, you're dodging again. When Emily said gun control would not have prevented Newtown, something she could not possible know, was she lying or not?

    11. Mikeb, do you know the difference between a judgement and a statement of fact? She was giving an opinion--an opinion that I agree with.

    12. That's laughable; you prove everyday with your lies you know nothing about the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion, and you never give facts when asked to back up your lies.

    13. All right, Greg, I suppose you could call what she said about Newtown an opinion. She expressed some other opinions that were not quite true, did you notice any of them?

      1. 1:25 "we know they're good law-abiding citizens because they passed the background check."
      2. 1:35 "gun control laws that are spread around the country this year have not done anything to decrease crime, and they're not going to."
      3. 2:00 "the government really is Barack Obama."
      4. 2:20 "mass shootings are not increasing or decreasing."
      5. 2:50 "he's (Obama) is spending so much of his first-term agenda on something that affects so few people."
      6. 3:00 "the gun control laws that are being passed will do nothing to reduce crime, they would not have prevented Newtown."
      7. 3:30 "the gun laws we have right now are working well and that's proved out by the fact that gun homicides since 1993 are down 50%."
      8. 4:00 "we've got to pursue what we have now which is these background checks."
      9. 4:40 "all they're doing is infringing on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
      10. 4:45 "there's no evidence that any gun control law has ever reduced crime."
      11. 4:55 "this is not about public safety it's about a long-term agenda."

      Yeah, Greg, she's about as honest as you are.

    14. 1. If background checks don't verify a person to be a law-abiding citizen, what are they for?

      2. Gun control laws don't decrease crime and won't.

      3. That's a comment on the fact that the president is the head of government and therefore responsible for what the executive branch does. Certainly, there are control freaks in the Congress as well.

      4. You've seen experts make the same statement.

      5. She meant second-term, I'm guessing, but otherwise, the statement is correct.

      6. True.

      7. I don't know if she's claiming causation here, but certainly, our rates of violent crime, including homicide, are down from the early nineties.

      8. She's saying that we shouldn't ignore people who try to buy a gun illegally. We've discussed that here before.

      9. True.

      10. True.

      11. True.

    15. Total lies from the proven site liar.
      One sentence she claims gun control laws have done nothing to stop killings, then she states killings are down 50%.

    16. Emily's lie 1. 1:25 "we know they're good law-abiding citizens because they passed the background check."
      Greg's remark 1. If background checks don't verify a person to be a law-abiding citizen, what are they for?

      Cho passed a background check as did Loughner. Did we know those two to be good citizens because they passed, Greg? Or do we know that the background check system is so flawed that we can never be sure?

    17. The point is that background checks are worthless. Your side is obsessed with them, but we know better.

    18. If they're worthless, Greg, then she was lying when she said "we know they're good law-abiding citizens because they passed the background check."

      We don't know that, do we?

    19. "but we know better"

      Who is "we?"

    20. Again, no reply from the coward.