DES MOINES – A liberal Iowa political group is calling for a pro-gun right-wing Senate candidate to apologize for saying recent shootings in California were “an unfortunate accident”.
Progress Iowa Executive Director Matt Sinovic issued the following statement today, calling on State Senator Joni Ernst to apologize for characterizing the recent shooting at the University of California, Santa Barbara, as an accident in last night’s US Senate primary debate:
“Joni Ernst was presented with a simple question during last night’s debate: in light of recent shootings, including most recently at the University of California Santa Barbara, would she change a recent campaign ad where she points a gun directly at television viewers?”
“Not once did Ernst offer her condolences to the victims of the shooting and their families. Instead, she quickly bragged about her endorsement from the National Rifle Association, eager to score political points on a question asked about a tragedy.”
“Her statement represents hyper partisanship at its worst. Ernst should apologize immediately and retract her callous characterization of the murder of six people as an accident. Her statement does a disservice to the victims, their families, and does not reflect the compassion and values of Iowans.”
The National Rifle Associate has endorsed Ernst, saying “Joni Ernst has consistently opposed all attempts to restrict gun rights and has been a true friend of the Second Amendment. She is one great example of NRA moms all across this country fighting for our freedoms. She’s the only candidate in this race with a proven record of defending our rights. I urge all NRA members, gun-owners, and sportsmen in Iowa to vote for Joni Ernst in the June 3rd Republican primary.”
We need guns to protect ourselves from the police.
Outlaw all guns now! Guns kill!
Great point Morty, let only the outlaws have them. Good thinking!!!
If laws are irrelevant because criminals will simply ignore them, then there is no purpose for
any laws and no potential for a safe society.
Ultimately, rational gun laws will not prevent all gun deaths, but they will gradually reduce gun violence.
We shouldn’t sit idle as fellow Americans are gunned down each day.
Stronger gun laws may not prevent all shootings, but it is virtually inarguable that such laws would not reduce the number of gun crimes in the long term.
Then why haven’t they? Chicago have some of the strictest guns laws but a high amount of gun violence. Why?
Hence the need for NATIONAL gun control laws
You might want to do some reading about how many of those “Chicago guns” came from Indiana, which has much less strict gun laws, or other parts of Illinois, where laws don’t come close to matching those in the city of Chicago.
If the ease of gun ownership and lax gun laws were the answer, then the United States would be the safest place in the world.
How’s that playing out?
Doesn’t matter where they come from, they are still restricted in Chicago. Hence the problem with anymore gun laws; they do nothing.
So your rationale is that if a law is ignored they are useless.
Does this theory apply to all laws that are ignored or just gun control?
For the simple minded: No matter how many laws you pass, they will make no difference in the amount of gun violence. Nada, Nothing, Nil. Gun laws have no effect on gun violence because those who perpetrate the violence will continue to do so. And that is the 500 lbm gorilla in the room you choose to ignore.
The fault for the recent shootings in California rests on the shoulders of Progress Iowa.
It is Progress Iowa’s liberal policies that have promoted the goofy world of psycology telling people what ever they want to do is right and ok to do.
No fear, no guilt, no shame, no respect, no boundries. What ever feels good just do it, so these idiots go out and kill.
Progress Iowa must be real proud of themselvs and then they want to blame someone else. What a crock!
I did not realized influenced so many in other states.