On Fox News, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre gets skewered
What happened when NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Fox News’ Chris Wallace debated gun control this morning?
Let’s just say that if the Super Bowl is this one-sided, millions of TV sets will be turned off by halftime.
Also, in another tragic case that casts doubt on the usefulness of guns as a self-defense measure, former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was shot and killed yesterday evening at a gun range in Texas. Kyle came to national fame as a sniper who claimed more than 150 kills, supposedly making him the most prolific sniper in U.S. military history. Kyle wrote a best-selling book, “American Sniper,” about his experience and parlayed his fame into a regular spot on the reality show “Stars Earn Stripes.”
He leaves a wife and two children.
UPDATE: I’ve dealt with this several times in the comments below, but let me post it here as well. Yes, the circumstances of Kyle’s death suggest that he was given no real chance by his killer to defend himself. But the sad truth is, that’s almost always the case anyway. The good guy almost never gets the drop on the bad guy; the Keith Ratliff murder here in Georgia is another example of that reality.
In almost every case, the person who draws the weapon first has an overwhelming advantage, and most of the time the person who pulls first is the criminal. If you’re getting robbed at gunpoint on the street, for example, having a concealed weapon in your shoulder holster does you no good at all, and if it tempts you to try something stupid, it could end up getting you and others killed.
Let’s review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That’s a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That’s one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms. That’s the basis on which these fantasies are built. (And for the record, I recognize and support the constitutional right to possess firearms for home defense, etc.)
On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
947 comments Add your comment
GT
February 3rd, 2013
12:05 pm
Shame is the idea that violence or bullying has value and that academic endeavor has no value. The cave man calling the civilized man ignorant in its self shows the problem first hand. We have redefined brains as something physical and the new Einstein is a loud mouth hulk instead of a more timid man of letters. In this definition Ray Lewis could split the atom simply by scaring it open. He certainly gets paid like he has a brain but don’t draw any false conclusions. Aren’t these NRA lobbies kind of based on this same lynch mob mentality? It is like forcing a woman to love you by intimidation, see how well that works for ya.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
February 3rd, 2013
12:06 pm
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
11:53 am
How is this LaPierre guy really any different than the lobby for big pharma and the like?
Why kid ourselves that any of our interests can compete with cash?
Sadly, we should have been enforcing many laws..guns, immigration and the like…but when votes and cash are on the line, our interests are no longer relevant..
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 3rd, 2013
12:09 pm
More, overthrow the government violence porn from a new crop of nuts.
This article must be linked somewhere on batcrapcrazy.com.
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:11 pm
This is where the left goes off base. Jay the AMA came out the other day as being opposed to documenting treatment the insane obtain. They quoted the HIPA law and stated that it would discourage people from getting treatment. So we all know that the mentally ill are roaming this country undocumented.
Also the last time I checked a CRIMINAL background check did not provide medical information.
You have once again, as a lib does, stretched the truth with misinformation. If you were correct in your position then a criminal conviction would also be accompanied by a sanity statement, which it does not. So if you were convicted of a felony, which you committed because little green men told you to, you would be denied a gun purchase based on that felony conviction not your mental background or thoughts on little green men. In other words those who are currently talking to little green men yet, as of now have not been convicted of a felony, can by a gun.
Why we can’t look at the facts and then reach a compromise is beyond me.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
February 3rd, 2013
12:12 pm
JAY
To be fair, citing Fox or any other liberal or conservative site of one-sidedness is kinda intuitive..or otherwise the norm and not the exception..your modus operanti is not different in the least..
We need these laws enforced but do you either think there is any reason to believe these laws will actually affect outcomes or that something is different this time that makes the probability that these laws will get enforced this time?
BTW, everyone should support universal background checks….expecting that this will prevent the ill-intentioned from getting guns is an assumption that queers the entire question.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
February 3rd, 2013
12:14 pm
So the right wants there guns to protect the right to kill another. At the same time, they want to make sure an unwanted child is guaranteed birth…pretzel logic as those unwanted children are the ones most likely to become those targeted by the self protecting gun folks..
td
February 3rd, 2013
12:15 pm
If we are enforcing the current laws on the books (and this is what Wayne was saying) in cities like Chicago then we would not have to talk about “infringing” on the rights of the American people. Current laws on the books that are either not being enforced at all or are barely being enforced:
I. POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED
PERSON:
18 USC § 922(g) & (n). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May receive
minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if offender has three or more prior
convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault, possession
of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony
USE, CARRY OR POSSESS A FIREARM IN RELATION TO OR IN
FURTHERANCE OF A DRUG FELONY OR A FEDERAL CRIME OF
VIOLENCE:
18 USC § 924(c). Punishment ranges from at least 5 years up to life imprisonment,
without parole, or death if death results from use of firearm. Sentence must be
served consecutive to any other sentence. Mandatory minimum sentence increases
depending upon: the type of firearm involved (sawed-off gun, silencer, etc.);
whether more than one offense was committed; and whether gun was simply
possessed or was brandished or discharged.
STOLEN FIREARM, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVE:
18 USC §§842(h); 922(i), (j) & (u). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
A. May not receive, possess, conceal, store, pledge or accept as security for a loan, barter, sell or
ship or transport across a state line any stolen firearm, ammunition or explosive.
B. May not steal or unlawfully take or carry away a firearm from the person or premises of a
firearms licensee.
Self Defender
February 3rd, 2013
12:18 pm
Jay – re: “So Self-Defender, you would support universal background checks to help ensure that mentally ill people can’t buy guns?”
As with all legislation it would depend on the exact execution of it. The devil is always in the details with the limitation of any freedom. What would the definition of mental illness be in the law? If a person had temporary mental health problem, would they always be unable to purchase and own a gun? These aren’t easy questions and as with all regulation a thoughtful debate of the particular limits would be in order. As with any right, when you start limiting it, the people who don’t respect the right at all will use any limitation as justification for further limitations. A lot (all?) of these shooters displayed warning signs of erratic behavior that weren’t taken seriously enough as potentially dangerous mental health problems.
seanchelsey
February 3rd, 2013
12:20 pm
The idea that US gun rampages stem from a culture of violence is a “self-serving lie promulgated by fundamentalist religious wacos, brain dead survivalists, and America’s propaganda-savvy gun-pimps. Much of the opposition to gun control stems from paranoia about the federal government. These guys and gals actually believe that dictatorship will follow disarmament, with tanks in the streets of Glendale.
No one wants to take away their hunting rifles, shotguns or pistols, as long as they held no more than 10 rounds. “If you can’t kill a home invader (or your wife, up in the middle of the night to get a snack from the fridge) with ten shots, you need to go back to the local shooting range.”
Semi-automatics have only two purposes: to kill people, and to let their owners go to a shooting range, “yell yeehaw”, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel.
Plenty of gun advocates cling to their semi-automatics the way Amy Winehouse and Michael Jackson clung to the dope that was killing them.”
If you disagree look up the schadenfreude.
willydoit?
February 3rd, 2013
12:21 pm
“No, it does not. If it did, you could trot down to the gunshop and buy yourself a nice little .50 cal machine gun to mount on the parapet guarding your perimeter”
If you could rewrite the 2nd amendment….How would you word it?
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:21 pm
Incorrect, Mama. Existing background checks include both a check of criminal record AND a check of mental health records. Federal law bars gun purchases by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” So I’d back off your complaint about others stretching the truth, if I were you.
Now, can we do a better job of incorporating mental-health records into the database? Absolutely. As the doctors mentioned, HIPAA privacy restrictions are an obstacle, but one of the actions proposed by Obama would revise HIPAA to overcome that problem.
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:23 pm
Stevie Ray,
U personify the entire argument. I made no such accretion that the founding fathers thought of guns that shoot this much. And it is you who is deflecting. Auqa asked or pointed out the need to ban high capacity magazines. I asked her the question to see if she has a clue about any gun.
But to entertain you, when you start yelling about banning high capacity guns you ignore two things. Fist off you ignore the fact that ALL weapons privately owned, with the exception of the ones permitted by the federal government, are SEMI auto. Meaning it takes a trigger being pulled for each time a bullet is fired. So the ban on assault rifles is a fictions ban. The federal government could stop permitting automatic guns today and you would still have Sandy Hook tomorrow.
The second point is when you permit the government to take anything which is directly commented on in the constitution you are permitting me to alter ANYTHING. Before we ban anything we may wish to consider that if you set the precedent, those of us in the conservative world may very well decide to ban abortion, gay marriage and make pray n school a law.
Your thoughts on one issue have major impact on all issues.
By the way I am not even saying you can’t ban all guns, just do it legally. The constitution can only be amended in one way. Pursue that if you wish
td
February 3rd, 2013
12:24 pm
. POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED
PERSON:
18 USC § 922(g) & (n). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May receive
minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if offender has three or more prior
convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault, possession
of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony
This is what Wayne was talking about. You get the FBI to go in and sweep these gang areas and stop and frisk anyone on probation or parole (you do not have 5th amendment rights if you are in these conditions) and then anyone with a gun gets prosecuted and sent away for 10 years. It would not take long for the gangs to get the message and at least stop carrying.
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:25 pm
“Fist off you ignore the fact that ALL weapons privately owned, with the exception of the ones permitted by the federal government, are SEMI auto.
No. They are not. To cite just one example, the bolt-action .22 that my father gave me on my 11th birthday was not a “semi-auto.”
indigo
February 3rd, 2013
12:27 pm
Jonathan Nichols – 11:30
I support your right to keep and bear the arms that were in use when the 2nd ammendment was written.
After all, that was the full “intent” of it’s authors.
And, if you are honestly afraid of a “total Government takeover, then “paranoid” is the word.
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:27 pm
Jay,
Thank you for your obvious lack of knowledge. The statute u misrepresent says a conviction involving mental defect. For the legal terminology to apply you have to be found guilty but insane. Or in some legal manner be proclaimed guilty because of your insanity. There is no mental health tracking system for those who are not convicted. Read the law, and then refer me to the insanity data base on non convicted persons please.
MikeB
February 3rd, 2013
12:28 pm
Jay….. Why do you consistently overhype the titles of your blogs? Every time you do this your credibility diminishes to the point of being a laughing stock… A “Court Jester” if you will……
RIP Chris Kyle…. A true Patriot who went and did vs. just writing about these kinds of things……. Jay…. Have you ever served your country?
Lastly… When seconds count, and help is minutes away….. Do you want to be helpless… To know that you are helpless? Or have the tools in your hands to handle the job? Regardless of what that job is……
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:28 pm
Jay are you saying you have a fully automatic 22 rifle that’s bolt action ?
If so you simply don’t know anything about guns either
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:29 pm
Willydoit, I’m not proposing to rewrite the Second Amendment. Everything that we need to do can be done legally and constitutionally within the current confines of the Heller opinion as written by Justice Scalia.
td
February 3rd, 2013
12:29 pm
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:21 pm
Incorrect, Mama. Existing background checks include both a check of criminal record AND a check of mental health records.
Except for the fact that many states barely participate in this system.
‘
3/4ths of States Ignore Mental Illness Background Checks For Gun Buyers
Virginia has more than 180,000 on its list. Nineteen states have less than 100 each.
December 24, 2012 |
As the White House eyes new gun-controls following the Sandy Hook school massacre and firearms dealers are seeing guns sales spike, a handful of recent investigative reports suggest that the nation’s state-run system of screening gun buyers for mental illness is mostly a mirage—except in a dozen states where governors want the system to work.
Federal prohibits gun sales to anyone who was declared mentally unfit by a court. In Bill Clinton’s first term, Congress passed a law requiring states to report these mental health records to the FBI. But in 1997, the Supreme Court threw out that requirement, saying states could share whatever information they wanted to—or more likely not share it.
Fast-forward to 2012, and as the Wall Street Journal reported, only 12 states account for the majority of mental health records in the FBI database. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reported that 19 states have each submitted less than 100 mental health records to the FBI database.”
http://www.alternet.org/34ths-states-ignore-mental-illness-background-checks-gun-buyers
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
12:29 pm
“Kyle’s proficiency with firearms provided him no defense whatsoever, which is exactly my point. In almost every case, the person who draws the weapon first has an overwhelming advantage, and most of the time the person who pulls first is the criminal. Having a concealed weapon in your shoulder holster does you no good at all, and if it tempts you to try something stupid, it could end up getting you and others killed.”
It provided him with plenty of defense, but it was not a fullproof defense. We don’t know as yet what exactly motivated Mr. Routh, but I think it would be strange to initially view this as a random shooting by a madman instead of an assassination of sorts, given Routh’s and Kyle’s background. It is just plain dumb to say having a concealed weapons “does you no good at all”, because it is both logically and statistically untrue. BTW, I am still waiting on a column from you championing a plan for dealing with the primary cause of gun violence in America: criminals using handguns.
“Let’s review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That’s a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That’s one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms. That’s the basis on which these fantasies are built.”
It is rather the basis for specious reasoning – you know, the sort that concludes that carried weapons are ineffective in deterring crime UNLESS someone is killed. Let’s do review some data, shall we?
http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02/14/news/concealed-carry-prevents-more-crime-than-it-creates-study-says/
“(And for the record, I recognize and support the constitutional right to possess firearms for home defense, etc.)”
That is what many of the gun control nuts say. You should see if you can do some skeet shooting with Obama. It might enhance your “rep”.
“On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.”
80% of which are with mostly illegally possessed handguns. How is any on the proposed legislation going to solve that problem, pray tell?
JamVet
February 3rd, 2013
12:30 pm
Wow. That was one of the more brutal beatdowns that I’ve seen in ages. Especially the part about Wayne L. having armed security himself.
And on Fox News, no less???
Maybe the tide against the tacit acceptance of violent extremism is beginning to slowly turn.
BTW, did anyone notice there is a new movie coming out titled, Bullet to the Head with the disgusting Mr. Stallone in it? I’m sure it will be a huge hit…
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:32 pm
So Mama, your assertion is that every firearm that is not a full auto is a semi-auto?
So a musket was a semi-auto? The Civil War cannons that you see on county squares throughout Georgia were semi-auto?
Metfan Lou
February 3rd, 2013
12:33 pm
Okay , for all you gun control zealots. I want you to post a lawn sign in front of your house that says “I am for gun control. There are NO firearms in this house.” Go ahead and I’ll even pay for the sign. Go ahead DO IT!
Jhunt163
February 3rd, 2013
12:33 pm
and a repeating rifle is not a semi-automatic but fires just about as fast. Brings back memories of Chuck Conners in the beginning of the rifleman TV show. They don’t look scary enough to classify as assault weapon though.
Jays ladyparts
February 3rd, 2013
12:33 pm
Jay speaks of justifiable homocide as if the good guy must kill the bad guy in order to defend himself. Do the police fire a fatal shot every time they pull their weapon ? Dishonest crap.Young black men shoot each other every day..for fun. No great loss other than the fact they shoot poorly, always manage to hit a kid or other bystander.I call for free Obama guns in the big cities with mandatory marksmanship training.
Silverback
February 3rd, 2013
12:33 pm
The difference between Chris Wallace and Chris Matthews is the spelling of their last name.
FarTrain
February 3rd, 2013
12:33 pm
Jay Bookman has the least amount of common sense and logic of any newspaper column writer I have ever come across, and that includes several dozen as I read a lot. Hopeless liberal, no other word for him.
FarTrain
February 3rd, 2013
12:34 pm
Oh, “Silverback”, you are so, so wrong. The difference is what lies between their ears!
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:35 pm
The net effect of this gun argument can be summarized like this.
The libs think a butter knife and a bayonet are the same and in the end, left up to them, none of us will have buttered toast.
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:36 pm
“and a repeating rifle is not a semi-automatic but fires just about as fast.”
Great. In other words, jhunt, we can go ahead and ban assault weapons, knowing that people who need and want the firepower to defend their homes can always turn to a repeating rifle, correct?
td
February 3rd, 2013
12:37 pm
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:29 pm
Willydoit, I’m not proposing to rewrite the Second Amendment. Everything that we need to do can be done legally and constitutionally within the current confines of the Heller opinion as written by Justice Scalia.
Kind of like the progressives thought it was a reasonable restriction to basically outlaw conceal carry?
mheck
February 3rd, 2013
12:37 pm
get real its not going to happen that way……though its the truth
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:37 pm
Jay,
By definition there are semis and full autos. Although a musket is a powder fired gun it is a single shot weapon. Again it takes a trigger pull to fire one bullet. A automatic is a weapon that fires 50 rounds with one pull of the trigger
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 3rd, 2013
12:38 pm
I want you to post a lawn sign in front of your house that says “I am for gun control.
I want an evening of hot, steamy passion with Sarah Shahi.
Neither one of us is likely to get what we want.
FarTrain
February 3rd, 2013
12:38 pm
JB, the same amount, 10-11K are killed yearly in the US by “loaded” people using their cars as weapons. DUIs account for about one third of all traffic fatalities, but I don’t see you and your liberal agenda calling for any stricter laws on this. Where are your priorities, Mr. Bookman? Your convoluted thought process amazes me daily!
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:39 pm
Are these arguments really the best the pro-NRA guys can offer?
You guys are faring worse here than LaPierre did on Fox, which is saying something.
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
12:39 pm
“Why is the conversation in the media focused only on guns and not the mental illness of the shooters in all the recent shootings?”
Because the UGLY truth is that a number liberals (we don’t know how many, because they may be afraid to come “out” – like homosexuals in the past) want to ban all guns:
=http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/105337/yes-really-ban-all-the-guns#
=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/banning-guns-is-necessary_b_2308272.html
=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process
And so on….
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:40 pm
By the way Jay, a cannon is an artillery piece. It’s not a gun. I would support a ban on private ownership of artillery
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 3rd, 2013
12:40 pm
The libs think a butter knife and a bayonet are the same…
A butter knife is the “gateway” knife.
bman.
February 3rd, 2013
12:41 pm
it’s now good to watch Fox news?
Krystal'sBalls
February 3rd, 2013
12:41 pm
Awareness, awareness, AWARENESS! Makes all the difference in the world. I argue the reason a criminal gets “the drop” on someone because their level of awareness and street smarts are off. I don’t care what anyone says because I have LIVED it. People may ridicule others who come from less than desirable or bad circumstances and places, but I can tell you this..it is the highest of blessings in being able to instinctively read the people and vibe in your immediate environment. Not everyone is the same, and neither is every outcome. That’s just the way it goes.
Skip
February 3rd, 2013
12:41 pm
They hate the current government and want more guns, what’s wrong with this picture?
td
February 3rd, 2013
12:42 pm
Jay
February 3rd, 2013
12:39 pm
Are these arguments really the best the pro-NRA guys can offer?
You guys are faring worse here than LaPierre did on Fox, which is saying something.
I have debunked two of your arguments and you have not even responded, yet you now say the gun rights people are not “faring” to well. LOL
Dang!
February 3rd, 2013
12:43 pm
td
Your appraoch is likely to have the best result, but it would be impossible. This would be profiling, and everyone knows profiling is worse than gun violence.
Jhunt163
February 3rd, 2013
12:43 pm
“and a repeating rifle is not a semi-automatic but fires just about as fast.”
Great. In other words, jhunt, we can go ahead and ban assault weapons, knowing that people who need and want the firepower to defend their homes can always turn to a repeating rifle, correct?
No, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in trying to pick or choose. Why label some semi-autos as assualt weapons, but not all? Why not address the repeating rifle? Many hunters use semi-autos and repeating rifles. It honestly comes down to looks when discussing the assualt weapons ban.
Texas Pete
February 3rd, 2013
12:44 pm
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video-gun-carrying-girls-high-school-basketball-coach-shoots-2-armed-attackers-saves-2-female-players/
The bad guy pulled first.
Also, please don’t misuse statistics Jay. You assume that 300 million guns in circulation MUST be used. People generally don’t have guns with the intent of going around shooting other people. Those who do would be criminals who don’t care about the law so what difference does it make to them if guns are banned?
Also, when you say 10,000 firearm homicides occurred last year, how many were senseless violence where both parties were looking for trouble (fight at a party, gang related attacks and retaliations, etc) as compared to a home invasion or car jacking? Numbers don’t mean anything without context.
Besides, I don’t care what the numbers say. If someone breaks into my home or tries to rob me I want a chance to defend myself. How do I know if the perp is a non-violent robber compared to the type who kill cooperative victims?
It’s like being a batter in baseball. You can take a called third strike and always be out (not ever trying to defend yourself) or you can take a swing where you may still strikeout, ground out, fly out, foul it off and get another chance, or get a hit. Not having a chance guarantees failure but having a chance gives you the opportunity for success.
One more thing, what is the victim didn’t have a gun but had a large kitchen knife or baseball bat and mortally wounded a violent criminal? Should we ban knives and bats too?
kayaker 71
February 3rd, 2013
12:45 pm
So, Feinstein and other liberals would limit magazines to a 10 shot limit. What if there was more than one intruder, say four or five. You might take out the first two or three but with only 10 shots, the average joe would have at least two perps left . That is why a 12ga is the best answer. The Winchester Defender carries 8 rounds in the tube but oh, what those eight rounds can do. Not to mention what just the sound of chambering a shell in a 12 ga does to the mind of an intruder.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 3rd, 2013
12:46 pm
It honestly comes down to looks when discussing the assualt weapons ban.
It honestly “comes down to looks” in marketing them, too.
mheck
February 3rd, 2013
12:47 pm
When the Chinese want there money the USA owes them in Debt, we all are going to wish we had an and at least million rounds of ammo with high capacity mag…..unless you turn coat and learn Chinese….and you think we are racist……wait till a China military member has his way with you and your family
indigo
February 3rd, 2013
12:48 pm
Kamchak
Sarah Shahi
Is she Muslim?
If so, you better start facing Mecca five times a day, boy.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
12:48 pm
“Let’s review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That’s a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That’s one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms.”
Don’t be ridiculous Jay. You know very well that there are probably countless times a year when someone is threatened by a larger man or by a group of men and pulls a gun to ward off the threat of an imminent buttkicking. People probably thwart threats many more times than you think without alerting the police. A lot of people just don’t want to get the police involved. And as you well know in some of the tougher urban areas because of the “no snitch” policy people probably do regularly ward off threats without then getting the police involved. Its incredibly naive to think that people warding off threats with a gun doesn’t happen on a regular basis and that often the cops are not called.
bman.
February 3rd, 2013
12:48 pm
mheck .. .. haha
bring those Asian women to me!
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:49 pm
Jay,
I can’t for the life of me understand what’s wrong with talking factual.
I have said hundreds of times I think we should do more yet libs insist in using general terms when talking. To me when you hear someone say we should ban assault weapons its a non sentence. Libs need to define assault weapon.
The entire semi auto — auto argument is what comes up when you guys used general terms. There are also a lot of political hypocrisy in the argument.
When libs try to argue that this assault weapons ban would save kids it would be useful to know that the Sandy Hook kids were not killed by an assault weapon. All of them were killed with Semi auto handguns and a semi auto rifle.
An assault weapon is a weapon, generally banned for private ownership. It includes all military rifles which are fully automatic. The AR 16 is a fully automatic version of a semi auto AR 15. The military uses the AR16 to assault the enemy.
Therefore when a lib says they want a ban on assault weapons all u are rally asking for is a ban on the weapons that have not been used in these killings. You are also saying therefore that you wnt all guns banned.
Get it
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 3rd, 2013
12:49 pm
Is she Muslim?
I believe she is a Texan.
barking frog
February 3rd, 2013
12:50 pm
The support of liberals of the right to keep and bear arms dooms
almost all attempts to create safety through gun control.
indigo
February 3rd, 2013
12:51 pm
I really have to wonder why you nuts here a so passionate about your guns?
Do you really think your Govt. is out to get you?
Are you just so phallic challenged that you must have “the big iron”?
Either way, you need meds and counseling.
GT
February 3rd, 2013
12:51 pm
One of the problems with mental health is the right’s labels they place on everything. Their thumping of the individuals that are different than themselves, which fuels the paranoia and gun, sells in the first place. To voluntarily summit that you are mentally ill or gay or anything less than full is an invitation to have your life a living hell by the paranoid right.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
12:52 pm
Anybody else read Chris Kyle’s book? I’ll never forget the river balloon episode. RIP Mr. Kyle.
Dang!
February 3rd, 2013
12:54 pm
So the moral of the story is that it would be better to have 9800 homocides each year with none being justified. It makes a lot of sense when put that way.
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
12:54 pm
The NRA didn’t have a lobby arm until the left began their push to take away guns. And the left is incorrect at targeting the NRA. The NRA isn’t why gun bans can’t get passed these days. They can’t get passed because when they passed the one in 94 the Dems took a beating and lost control of the Senate. That’s why BIll Clinton is out there warning the left to not push things too far. But its too late. Feinstein over reached and now gun owners are energized. And the pols know it. They’re backing off already. The fallback position is “universal background checks”. The NRA will fight them to “include adjudicated mentally ill” in the database. Pols like Franken will fight that, but it has to be done since its the nutjobs doing all of the mass murders. Most general homicides are done by handguns and the average number of rounds fired is three. So high capacity magazine laws won’t do a damn thing to change overall gun violence not perpetrated by nutjobs.
Amazing
February 3rd, 2013
12:54 pm
Mental illness is one factor in some gun related deaths but not all. Clearly, mental illness should be one factor in the solution. Universal background checks are another piece of the equation.
Fox news is not some shining example of journalism. The fact is most news media today are biased. Fox and WSJ clearly are biased toward the right as NBC and NYT are biased to the left.
President Obama is not trying to take away anyone’s 2nd amendment despite the attempts by those oppose to taking any action. We, those on the left and those on the right, need to come together so that we can reduce the number of Americans killed by guns in this country. This can be accomplished without violating the 2nd amendment. We simply can’t continue down this path. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result. Are we that insane as a country?
kayaker 71
February 3rd, 2013
12:54 pm
Perhaps we should limit Bozo’s security force to a 10 round limit. Or perhaps Bozo can carry his skeet shotgun along with him in the limo. Hell, according to Bozo, people don’t need weapons to defend themselves. Just ask him. Being from Chicago, I would think that he would have a better perspective on home invasions and their prevention.
DannyX
February 3rd, 2013
12:55 pm
“Because the UGLY truth is that a number liberals (we don’t know how many, because they may be afraid to come “out” – like homosexuals in the past) want to ban all guns:”
Your paranoia is very entertaining Towncrier! The end of your Daily Kos link had a poll attached.
1%, 185 votes, voted for a total gun ban in the next 10 years
91%, 9131 votes, voted NO
Even the overwhelming majority of very liberal Daily Kos readers know how stupid it is to even bring up the question of a total gun ban. Most of the comments at the end mocked the idea.
barking frog
February 3rd, 2013
12:56 pm
La Pierre loses an argument while the White House touts
President Obama’s skill with a gun. Gun slingers win.
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
12:57 pm
“No, it does not. If it did, you could trot down to the gunshop and buy yourself a nice little .50 cal machine gun to mount on the parapet guarding your perimeter.”
I really, really hope you are not arguing that the SC’s interpretation of the Constitution – even if it is the operative one for Americans due to judicial review – is always (or even mostly) correct. If you are, then please explain to all of us here who it could possibly have reached two diametrically opposed “opinions” in Plessy and then Brown.
The best interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it does indeed protect an individual’s right to bear arms, particularly to protect a state against threats to its freedom, foreign or domestic in the manner in which such things were defended then (even as now) militias formed by the people.
bman.
February 3rd, 2013
12:57 pm
“La Pierre loses an argument while the White House touts
President Obama’s skill with a gun. Gun slingers win.”
haha
Texas Pete
February 3rd, 2013
12:57 pm
My apologies for spelling errors.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
12:57 pm
But but but Chris Matthews and Faux news are allies with the far right wing causes…
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
12:58 pm
Indigo,
I am not arguing for gun ownership I am arguing for constitutional law. Follow the law if you wish to ban things that are specifically spoken of in the constitution. It would also help if you understood why they particular articles were written.
I doubt for example you support any restrictions on voters rights, women’s rights or the right to assemble. I suppose you would want a 2/3rds majority of states to approve any changes to the rights you have to be secure in your possessions/papers. I mean you do t want some con saying the police can go into any liberals house they wish do you
Whatever
February 3rd, 2013
12:58 pm
Say what you want about the ability to defend ones self with a weapon. That’s not the issue. The issue is the 2nd Amendment and the rights it gives.
Talk of hunting, self-defense, etc. are strawmen.
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
12:59 pm
If anyone has the interest, read Scalia writing for the majority in DC vs Heller. He’s pretty clear that firearms such that are commonly used for lawful purposes by law abiding citizens are protected under the 2nd amendment. The AR-15 is the most popular selling rifle in the US and it used for hunting, self defense, and sport shooting. Lawful purposes. I see a possible opportunity shaping here. The Feinstein will get nowhere. But Coumo rammed through essentially the same bill in NY. That will be challenged and probably eventually heard by SCOTUS. I think it gets struck down hard and if this happens the gun grabbers will be set back for a generation until they figure out a way to backdoor it.
kayaker 71
February 3rd, 2013
1:00 pm
Indigo, 12:51,
Looks like you have never heard your home alarm system go off in the middle of the night or the sounds of someone crashing through your front door. That lady in Atlanta who shot that animal in the face five times, is, in my mind, a hero. Without that revolver, who knows what could have happened to she and her kids. I am not so sure that she was worried about the “big iron”….. just the safety of she and her kids.
DannyX
February 3rd, 2013
1:00 pm
“They can’t get passed because when they passed the one in 94 the Dems took a beating and lost control of the Senate.”
Gary, then why did last weeks Gallup poll find strong support for reinstating and STRENGTHENING the 1994 ban?
“Should the government reinstate and STRENGTHEN the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004?”
YES…60%
NO…35%
Its the gun nuts that are in the minority! Only 35% said no.
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
1:02 pm
I think Chris Matthews was upset because he’s an elite who’s kids went to private schools and he took that commercial personal. The ad clearly was not an attack on the President’s kids. It was an attack on a president who thinks guards at schools are bad while he ensures his kids will be protected forever. That nincompoop who pulled out the 30 round mag in TV has kids going to a private school with armed protection and he thinks having guards are regular schools is stupid. Hypocrit.
barking frog
February 3rd, 2013
1:03 pm
Universal background checks cannot work without gun registration.
Texas Pete
February 3rd, 2013
1:03 pm
I’ll bet the people screaming about banning guns don’t feel the same way about banning alcohol and keeping drugs illegal. How many alcohol related deaths occur each year compared to guns? Drugs?
Aquagirl
February 3rd, 2013
1:03 pm
Auqa asked or pointed out the need to ban high capacity magazines. I asked her the question to see if she has a clue about any gun.
Who the hell is “Auqa?”
If you meant “AQUA,” I served in the military and have owned various types of firearms including revolvers, semi-auto pistols, (BTW I personally use one general definition of semi-auto: a weapon that automatically chambers a round using a slide or bolt after firing, a full auto fires continuously with the trigger depressed) and at least one firearm mentioned by name in the 1994 ban.
So if your intention was to try and make a “lookit the dumb gun-ignorant LIB” argument….you lose.
That usually happens with you binary types, who are convinced the world is divided into freedom-loving gun owners and skeerdy-cat libs on the other.
P.S. I am probably a better shot than you are.
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
1:04 pm
Dang,
I see what you are saying but I will ask you this. Are we doing all that makes sense with any of our laws ?
I mean at some point it would make sense for the police to go door to door in the inter city and take every gun there is, I mean the vast majority of murders take place in the inter city correct ? Does it make sense that more people were killed in Chicago than in the entire deployment of Afghanistan ?
This country’s murder rate would be the lowest in the world if we simply made guns illegal where they are used to violate a persons life the most. You want to do that ?
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
1:05 pm
To whoever asked. If you don’t understand what they are trying to ban you really can’t discuss the topic reasonably. You don’t know that the AR-15 is a common ordinary semi-automatic rifle that only looks like an assault rifle. An analogy would be putting a hood scoop, a spoiler, fancy wheels and a racing stripe on your Honda Civic. It ain’t no race car. Its a Honda Civic. And AR-15 ain’t no assault weapon. Its just a rifle some nutjob got ahold of. He could have killed as many kids with a Mossberg 500 shotgun and a pillow case full of shells. Actually, he could have killed more in that confined space. Its really sad that the left chooses to use such a tragedy for political purposes.
MikeB
February 3rd, 2013
1:05 pm
Jay say… “Are these arguments really the best the pro-NRA guys can offer
You guys are faring worse here than LaPierre did on Fox, which is saying something.”
I say…. When the Feds/State Govt. demonstrate the ability to consistently get criminals with guns off the streets, then we can talk about what would come next……… We don’t need more laws… We need professionals who are willing to expend the extreme effort and put themselves at the risk they signed up for, to enforce the laws already on the books…. Its a war in our streets… It requires our Police to focus and execute, not just show up and wear a uniform… Not trying to bash our Police forces here…. Just trying to say that criminals have no fear of the uniform and that is wrong… It is also wrong that law abiding citizens have some fear of the uniform….. Its time to get priorities straight…
Lastly….. we need a Federal Govt. that does not approach governance from a Machiavellian perspective (Ends justifying the means)….. Fast n Furious for example……. This is an example of why the gun lobby
approaches gun control the way it does…. The Govt. is not their to act one way, while requiring citizens to act another……. The laws of this country are for everyone… Even high ranking Justice
Dept. and Obama Administration Officials….. Criminals are not just on the street corners in our country…
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
1:06 pm
“Your paranoia is very entertaining Towncrier! The end of your Daily Kos link had a poll attached.”
And you ignorance is appalling, Danny boy. First, I linked to ARTICLES written by LIBERALS advocating the banning of all guns (supporting my claim that a number of liberals want to ban guns outright). Secondly, “online polls” are NOT scientific and therefore prove NOTHING.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
1:07 pm
The majority will not get everything they want on guns but they will get immigration reform.
Krystal'sBalls
February 3rd, 2013
1:08 pm
“The support of liberals the right to keep and bear arms dooms almost all attempts…”
Which is exactly why the gun issue should never become or never should have become a “liberal/Democrat vs conservative/Republican” issue, because it ISN’T. We oversimplify too much, and to our own detriment.
Gary
February 3rd, 2013
1:10 pm
On the question about Gallup and the support for gun bans. This shows why the left is using misleading language to fool most of you. Of course we don’t need assault weapons, and thankfully they are already restricted. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The left is calling hundreds of rifles and handguns assault weapons so they can ask that very question in a poll and get that response. If you asked the American people if they want to ban hunting rifles and sport rifles they would say no. Well, that’s what the AR-15 is. Its used to hunt and for target shooting. And its used for home defense. And please, no one tell me we don’t need a rifle for home defense. LA riots. Katrina. Sandy. In all three instances civil authority broke down and innocent people were being attacked by groups of thugs. In that situation, I damn well want a rifle with a high capacity magazine. Just the kind of situation the framers had in mind.
barking frog
February 3rd, 2013
1:11 pm
Tim McVeigh was the last American to kill supposed oppressive
government officials. Why is he not the poster child for the protection
from oppressive government advocates ?
Mama Says
February 3rd, 2013
1:11 pm
Well Auqa,
To be a rights violating liberal you are retain lay well armed.
Since you have no idea what you are talking about I suggest you be the first target of the gun confiscation.
As for your stupidity, or is simple lack of historical knowledge, I am sorry that you fail to understand that you have guns because it is your constitutional right. Which apparently you are willing to cede to the government.
Tell you what, when you start talking in definitive terms and definitions then you can lecture me about guns, until then I will refer to the actual definition of a semi auto and full auto.
Either way when someone takes 5 magazines of 7 rounds into a school and loads them into a pistol your assault gun ban will prevent nothing, get it now ?
Lee
February 3rd, 2013
1:12 pm
Talk about different perspectives, I watched the interview and felt that LaPierre made his points very well.
The fact remains that the Founding Fathers were very literate men and wrote exactly what they meant when they penned the Second Amendment to the Constitution. If you have any doubt, there is ample quotes from them to clarify.
The fact remains that American citizens could own the same (sometimes better) armament than the standing army of the day. If you could afford it, you could own it.
In a twisted bit of irony, Congress passed the Fireams Acts of the 30’s, which placed restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, in response to the criminal act of a few (gangland killings as a result of Prohibition). Some of today’s politicians are wanting to further infringe on our Second Amendment rights due to the criminal actions of a few.
Here’s a tip, quit enacting laws that create artificial black markets.
Texas Pete
February 3rd, 2013
1:12 pm
The reason political identity has become so important in the past 20 years is because people like being able to label and judge rather than think and cooperate. It’s just easier that way.
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
1:13 pm
“The best interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it does indeed protect an individual’s right to bear arms, particularly to protect a state against threats to its freedom, foreign or domestic in the manner in which such things were defended then (even as now) militias formed by the people.”
In evaluating the claim I have made here, it might be useful to read this article (paying particular attention to statements made by our founders and early Americans regarding oppressive government):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
DannyX
February 3rd, 2013
1:15 pm
” Secondly, “online polls” are NOT scientific and therefore prove NOTHING.”
Who said it was scientific? That poll followed the story, 91% (9,131) of the most likely very liberal readers voted against a total gun ban. You linked that story trying to make it seem like liberals were coming after your guns. They are not!
Towncrier, most liberals are NOT for a total ban, not even close. Sure you can find a few that are, but to use it to represent all liberals, and use it to try and claim liberals want to take away your guns is dishonest. You do that a lot around here.
weetamoe
February 3rd, 2013
1:16 pm
The man who shot Kyle was a fellow vet and was suffering from PTSD. He and Kyle were at the range together and Kyle had been counseling him. So Kyle would still be alive had the military insisted that the vet be confined to an asylum. LaPierre has never killed, wounded, or counseled anyone to use a gun to harm another person. Yet his life has been and is threatened by those who disagree with him.. There are 9 year old twins in Loganville GA alive today because their Mom had a gun. Fortunately there was just one bad guy threatening them. The young woman who testified at the Senate hearings last week was correct in her assertion that in the hands of a woman a so-called *assault weapon* is a weapon of defense. I hope the Loganville woman’s husband buys her one for Valentine’s Day.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
1:17 pm
You will see fair minded Republicans join the new majority.
This leaves the cons all alone and irrelevant.
This is great for our country.
Join us.
jconservative
February 3rd, 2013
1:18 pm
The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia. being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Question: where does it say in the 2nd Am. that criminals cannot “keep and bear Arms”?
Question: where does it say in the 2nd Am. that the mentally ill cannot “keep and bear Arms”?
Who decided that they could not? The Supreme Court of the United States is the correct answer if you do not know.
This brings us to the Heller case and Justice Scalia’s majority opinion:
” Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Also from Scalia’s opinion:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Whatever Congress passes will have to meet the “tests” established by the Heller opinion.
And on the NRA and background checks. From 1999 through November 2012 it was the position of the NRA that universal background checks were OK. That position only changed after Newtown. See today’s Super Bowl commercials.
Escaped from Email Purgatory
February 3rd, 2013
1:19 pm
“Also, in another tragic case that casts doubt on the usefulness of guns as a self-defense measure, former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was shot and killed yesterday evening at a gun range in Texas.”
You’re a real piece of work, Bookman. Using Kyle’s murder to present some half-assed notion, that since guns can’t protect the armed victim from the armed perpetrator 100% of the time, they are somehow rendered ineffective as a self-defense measure.
barking frog
February 3rd, 2013
1:19 pm
Those of you who disdain the right to keep and bear arms
for self defense and hunting should research the right. It
has a long history and was grandfathered into the Constitution
before the militia arms right was introduced by the 2nd amendment
and the 2nd amendment can be repealed but not the inherent
underlying right to keep and bear arms.
DannyX
February 3rd, 2013
1:20 pm
“This shows why the left is using misleading language to fool most of you.”
Baloney.
Back up your claim that the American public would take it out on Democrats come election time.
The truth is you don’t have near the support you think you have.
indigo
February 3rd, 2013
1:23 pm
Mama Says – 12:58
I support you right to keep and bear the arms that were in use at the time the 2nd ammendment was written.
I believe that would come under the category of “specifically spoken of in the Constitution”.
Towncrier
February 3rd, 2013
1:23 pm
“Towncrier, most liberals are NOT for a total ban, not even close. Sure you can find a few that are, but to use it to represent all liberals, and use it to try and claim liberals want to take away your guns is dishonest.”
Sorry…I don’t believe or trust you on this issue. Hasn’t it been the ACLU’s mindset that unless rights are zealously guarded – even if it results in extreme positions (e.g., dismissing charges against a clearly guilty person because he wasn’t read his rights or evidence was taken without a wannant), they will be lost? Have you not been supportive of such arguments? Why do you want to change your tune now?
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
1:24 pm
The majority might not get everything they want on guns this time but be patient, the massacres will not stop.
Our President’s goal is to save one life so he set this bar really low this time but he knows the massacres will not stop and the goal will be stepped up next time.