Joshua Cooke, currently serving a 40-year prison sentence for the brutal murder in 2003 of his adoptive parents, has become the “gun control” movement’s newest ambassador. His “reasoning” is that if not for the federal ban of so-called “assault weapons,” still in effect when he bought the shotgun he used in his butchery, he would have used an AR-15, and murdered far more people. From the Daily Mail:
‘If I had an assault weapon, things would have been much worse,’ Cooke told Piers Morgan Live [surprise, surprise] from his prison cell.
‘I thank God I didn’t have an AR-15 or some other type of assault weapon because the way I was back then mentally, I would have gone to the mall that night or to one of my old high schools the next morning and killed as many people as I possibly could,’ he said.
One could, of course, point out that even in 2003, nine years into the 1994 AWB, AR-15s in various configurations that did not meet the arbitrary definition of “assault weapons” were still easily available (as the Violence Policy Center never tired of wailing about), as were aftermarket attachments by which one could easily transform an erstwhile legal rifle into a banned, supposedly far “more deadly,” “assault weapon.”
The much larger point, though, is that Cooke is just the most recent example of a murderous beast of a semi-human predator pressed into service to the forcible citizen disarmament agenda, calling for the disarmament of those of us, who unlike them, are not perpetrators of heinous crimes. Regular readers of National Gun Rights Examiner Dan will note that one need not go back very far for the second-most recent example.
An older example would be the “gun control” lobby’s enthusiastic endorsement of Al Qaeda spokesthug Adam Gadahn’s “expertise” regarding the mythical “gun show loophole” and the (even more mythical) widespread availability of “fully automatic assault rifle[s]” at said gun shows.
In the previous examples, these moral paragons, and their cheerleaders and handlers in the “gun control” community, have deliberately relied on their malignant infamy as proof of their ostensible authority on the subject of the need for more forcible citizen disarmament laws. That, though, is not the only way that perpetrators of heinous violence serve their “gun control” masters. Occasionally, convicted rapists call for oppressive new gun laws while hoping to conceal their “expertise” on the “dangers” (to whom?) posed by an armed citizenry.
In the final analysis, though, how much more reprehensible can murderers and rapists be, than those who seek to provide them with a pool of helpless victims?
- Criminals for gun control
- Why are so many anti-gun mayors criminals?
- What’s to debate when anti-gun advocate has criminal past?
- Adam Gadahn: New spokesman for ‘gun control’?
- Murderer for ‘gun control’ highlights evil absurdity of citizen disarmament