CSGV are trying to convince folks they never ever supported a handgun bans, and that there can’t possibly be documentation for such a position. Unfortunately for them, the Internet is forever. I continue to be amazed what utter amateurs some of these folks are, which is sad, because we’re all amateurs, and they are actually professionals.
9 thoughts on “White Washing History”
Some of us are amateurs at spelling, apparently ;-)
I’ve fixed the error, regardless. I don’t have autocorrect on the machine I used to post that, unfortunately.
I am not a spelling or grammar nazi by any means. On the other hand, I agree that it behooves us to keep our communications proper, in order to lessen the “Bubba” accusations.
That being said, this site is one of the most “correct” in my travels, and I appreciate it’s existence.
its, not it’s.
Baited and hooked.
As I pointed out over at Days of Our Trailers, one of their supporters, Kristin Goss in her book “Disarmed, the Missing Movement for Gun Control in America” said that they changed their name from National Coalition to Ban Handguns to their new name “to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.”
They changed it in response to the Stockton Schoolyard Massacre in January 1989.
I’ve met Kristin Goss. She’s a big wheel in North Carolinians against Gun Violence, so no one could claim that she’s on our side.
I can’t remember off the top of my head right now, but which one use to be “Handgun Control Inc.”?…
Just looked and it was the Brady Campaign. Still, these statements amuse me with the amount of ammunition they provide.
They know what they are doing. It is a very small variation of the Big Lie principle. They can say anything, and no matter how patently untrue it can be proven to be, their supporters will reject the truth in favor of what they choose to believe. That is all that is necessary to keep those dimes and nickels and votes rolling in.
That is independent of ideology, unfortunately. On either side of the fence, I am forever encountering people who choose not to believe some uncomfortable but documented fact about someone or something on their side, because it was reported by a source considered to be in the enemy’s camp. That it can be documented from impartial sources impresses them not at all. They don’t even bother shooting the messenger; they just choose never to hear him.
Comments are closed.