In the first one, they say, " For instance, you claim that “In June of last year, the NRA fought to make sure people on the no-fly list can buy guns.” This is a lie, plain and simple."
And then go on to say, "What the NRA was fighting against last summer was not a provision barring people on the no-fly list from buying guns; it was a provision barring innocent Americans who had been placed on the terror watch list from buying guns."
What's the purpose of a 'terror watch list' if you're going to watch them buy guns? Can you imagine the uproar if it was found oud that the Las Vegas shooter was on the 'terror watch list' while he accumulated his arsenal?
Later there's this, "Mr. Kimmel, you also level an incredible charge at President Trump, claiming that “in February, he…signed a bill that made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns legally.” This is a gross and intellectually shameless distortion of what that bill actually accomplished.The rule change Trump authorized in February did not, as a policy, “make it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns legally.” Rather, it repealed a law that forbid “[Social Security] beneficiaries with mental impairments who also have a third party manage their benefits” from buying firearms.
Quibbling over semantics. Then there's this... "Lastly, Mr. Kimmel, you claim that “the House of Representatives is voting on a piece of legislation this week…to legalize the sale of silencers for guns.” This is false. The proposed bill will not “legalize the sale of silencers.” Rather, it “streamlines outmoded processes for acquiring this equipment.” Silencers are already perfectly legal; they’re just very difficult to acquire."
More quibbling.
Listen, I'm not making a judgement about the proposed legislation, I'm just saying it was all badly presented. And from the second one, there's this paragraph...
"Last night, in the course of his much-vaunted gun-control soliloquy, Jimmy Kimmel said the following: I’ve been reading comments from people saying, ‘This is terrible, but there’s nothing we can do about it.’ But I disagree with that intensely, because of course there’s something we can do about it. There are a lot of things we can do about it. But we don’t. Which is interesting, because when someone with a beard attacks us, we tap phones, we invoke travel bans, we build walls, we take every possible precaution to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But when an American buys a gun and kills other Americans, then there’s nothing we can do about that."
Which they rebut with..."There’s a glaring problem with this line of reasoning, and it’s a problem that undercuts his entire spiel. That problem? That Kimmel is in fact opposed to “our” responses to those dastardly “people with beards,” and on the grounds that they don’t work. By his own admission, Kimmel is not in favor of Trump’s travel ban, and he’s not in favor of Trump’s wall. To Kimmel, in fact, these policies serve as solid and mockworthy examples of the sort of ill-advised, knee-jerk reactions that we tend to see in the aftermath of tragedy. Despite this opposition, he’s apparently for emulating that approach when the impetus is gun control,"
How friggin circular could you argue? If the author, by his logic, approves the anti-terror measures he must approve similar anti-mass killing measures. By his own argument.
The third link is a repeat of the second.
