It’s also a total lack of listening comprehension. Let’s look at the actual sentence said!
“The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”
Biden isn’t talking about magazines.
Biden didn’t say “The idea you need a magazine,” he said “weapon.” PolitiFact is lying. I’d flag it for misinformation, but in addition to deleting all my followers, Twitter banned me from applying as a fact checker because I shared the NYP Hunter Biden story.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dana Loesch

Dana Loesch Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DLoesch

22 Jul
First — my Glock isn’t an “assault weapon.” I don’t have a 120 round mag. The vast majority who own AR-15s are law-abiding people who did not get their rifles illegally. Rifles are not the favored weapon of choice for violent offenders ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u…
This is as I’ve ALWAYS said — the goal isn’t just to ban the legal fiction term “assault weapons,” they want to ban ALL semi-auto.
Joe Biden on guns is the textbook example of misinformation.
Read 6 tweets
7 Jul
Democrats refuse to enforce full penalties for repeat offenders (ex twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/… ) and instead blame the resulting increased homicide rate on law-abiding gun owners.
New York has some of, if not the, strictest anti-2A laws in the nation: Defining anything accepting a detachable mag as an “assault weapon," registration, universal background checks, ammo restrictions, mag capacity restrictions, storage requirements, doctor reports, more.
Why don’t these laws work? Because the problem isn’t the law-abiding. The problem is the repeat offenders and ridiculous judges like this one nypost.com/2021/06/09/how…
Read 7 tweets
14 Jun
Yep. @Twitter took over 200k in just the last several months and delete on average 1k a day. I noticed a 30k drop overnight once and began taking a screenshot a day to track it. It lost its value as a platform with no real, organic, measurable reach.
Run your platform in whatever scared way you want, just don’t pretend that you’re fostering anything but an echo chamber of confirmation bias and mob rule. It stopped being a place reflective of real conversation a long time ago.
Meanwhile, most of the tweets capslocking “gun whore” or “hope you die” stay up while people are suspending for innocuously mocking mockable journos. This platform is the social media version of “Caillou.”
Read 4 tweets
20 May
I wonder why @twitter @jack don’t just delete all my followers at once instead of this drip drop 1k follower deduction every day and a half. Hundreds of thousands deleted since 12/14/20. I’ve even had to refollow my own husband repeatedly. I’m sure it’s just a glitch.
I’ll stay until they shut me down entirely (yes, I am at other places so unnecessary for folks to suggest) but let’s stop pretending that @twitter in any way represents real organic discussion or reach. It used to be cool, now it’s just basically an ant farm.
@Twitter For fun I did an experiment since 12/20 and screenshot followers near daily. Lists never changed, followers did, and I kept having to repeatedly follow actual IRL friends who had to do the same. Again, I’m sure it’s just a glitch.
Read 7 tweets
10 May
Btw, please note the handle of the account.

The funny thing is that no one would expect him not to say something like this.
Also nothing could make me hate garlic knots.
Read 4 tweets
6 May
With all the talk of waging war on the GOP conference, I’m curious what some Republicans have to say about backing potential replacements that have pretty moderate records, especially on immigration, border security, climate, etc.
If the issue is that Cheney is antagonistic towards Trump, wouldn’t a replacement on record voting repeatedly to oppose his policies be as well? What’s the measure here? What am I missing?
BTW, voting against border wall funding, for amnesty, for the Climate Action Now (following Paris Accord) bill, etc is beyond simply “moderate."
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(