Hillary again used the tragic shooting in Las Vegas to keep herself in the national limelight yesterday.
In a series of tweets, she was quick to point the finger at those evil NRA people and those who fight for the Second Amendment.
In one of her most obtuse tweets, she wondered about the death toll had Stephen Paddock used a ‘silencer’.
Which of course conveys the typical liberal misconception that, just as in the movies, a suppressor completely muffles the sound of gunfire.
But any freedom-loving American who’s ever fired a weapon with a suppressor knows it’s still very loud…just less loud.
But the left won’t have any of the truth when it gets in the way of their agenda. Eliminating ‘silencers’ is second on the list just below total gun control.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
Following the heinous attack that resulted in 400 injuries and 50 deaths at a Las Vegas concert venue, Hillary Clinton tweeted that she could not “imagine the deaths” that would have occurred if the gunman had used a “silencer.”
Her use of the word “silencer” is leftist-speak for suppressor. It is intended to give the impression that suppressors completely mute a gun–the way they appear to do in Hollywood movies–thereby silencing the gunshot altogether.
Clinton tweeted:
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
In reality, suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a gunshot. Rather, they muffle that sharp, ear-piercing wave released from the end of the barrel when a gun is fired. The sound of the gunshot remains but the suppressor removes the aspect of the sound that damages the ear.
