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
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
10:32 pm
josef saw the light.
Curtis
February 3rd, 2013
10:32 pm
If you can promise me that the “bad guys” can’t get guns, then I will give up mine. How is that war on poverty working out for America? How about anti-drug laws? Unless we stop producing all guns, destroy those that do exist, and destroy all plans which show how to construct gun, we will never be able to get rid of the gun problem. Look at Russian during the Stalinist regime, the black market thrived and those that could get things did. The problem is there are just people out there who want to hurt other people for what ever reason, and we will never be able to stop it.
Uh Huh..........Kudos to CHRIS Wallace for facing down evil
February 3rd, 2013
10:37 pm
@moonbat betty
February 3rd, 2013
9:53 pm
Ok, Uh Huh.
Sorry, you make no sense.
Take a deep breath.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you do?
The first thing in the human personality that dissolves in alcohol is dignity.
Don’t drink and blog.
Walterego
February 3rd, 2013
10:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqfKF_GxqGY
LaPierre, debating against himself. He was so absolute in 1999 FOR gun control. Read my lips, “no check-free gun shows!”
It’s all about the profit. Don’t be such a 2nd amendment absolutist dumbass. You’re credibility is being bargained with and you are being taken by the NRA. Obama doesn’t want your guns (unless you want weapons of mass destruction). No, LaPierre want your money. The NRA is ROBBING YOU BLIND! They’ll scare you into another $1800 on a Bushmaster, $400 on ammo, and perhaps, if you are like many, someone in your family will get injured or killed by a gun you bought out of fear and they’ll blame that too on Obama and scare you into another gun.
Don’t be so simple that you don’t realize the NRA industrial complex is goading you into another gun purchase with scary, racist, hateful, ignorant emails.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/
Don’t be that stupid guy with a gun, people. Be the smart NRA member; the one that turns its back on the NRA industrial complex and sees nothing frightening about laws against military assault weapons and background checks. Lapierre at one point, when profit wasn’t so set into the framework of the NRA, would have agreed with you.
W
W
Gunluvr
February 3rd, 2013
10:40 pm
“the 2nd amendment gives us gun ownership without infringement …”
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.
_________________________________________________________________
FYI as long as the 50 caliber machinegun was made before 1986(and most were) all u have to do is pay a $200 tax stamp to the ATF, the sale price of the weapon and if your home state has no laws against owning machine guns u can own and operate said 50 caliber M2 Browning exactly as u described.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
10:40 pm
If making guns illegal worked then Mexico would be the most gun safe country in the world. No gun violence there. How is that working out?
appleseed
February 3rd, 2013
10:44 pm
Thulsa how about one of the locals.Hunt kills wild hogs with only hunting knife.(with dogs)He’s probably to old now but did for years.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
10:47 pm
Life is good for Courtney Upshaw. The kid now has a Super Bowl championship right after a collegiate national championship. Just wow. Terence Cody too.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
10:48 pm
Ray goes out on top.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
10:48 pm
appleseed, had a death wish did he? Wild hogs are VERY dangerous!
Walterego
February 3rd, 2013
10:49 pm
Nobody is “making guns illegal”? They are making ASSAULT WEAPONS illegal. A little nuance goes a long way. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater and you DAMN well shouldn’t be able to carry a modified Bushmaster with 100 rds into one!
I assume you too were recently scared into buying another gun. The NRA loves your stupidity. Cha-ching! Stupid guy + easily scared guy + racism or other hatred + just above marginal credit = perfect post-Newtown Assault Weapon buyer. The NRA has a database including their emails to you and the time of your purchases. They know EXACTLY which buttons to push to get you to buy and the push them over, and over, and over, and…
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
10:52 pm
Appleseed,
That’s pretty cool. I can’t imagine anyone doing that but he’s one badass dude if he can. Years back a buddy of mine was telling me about a man who would go out on a small boat by himself and hunt right whales by himself. It was legal as long as you could do it by hand with a harpoon. I want to say it was right whales but I can’t remember. There was a book and or national geographic special on the guy. He was the last of his tribe that was daring enough, brave enough, and able enough to do it.
old man
February 3rd, 2013
10:54 pm
BookmanTheWuss
February 3rd, 2013
8:48 pm
There you go. Jay Bookman made a completely logical point. There are instances where having a gun makes you less safe. It makes more sense to give up your wallet than start a gunfight.
So your response is not to attack the logic. You just call Jay a “wuss.” So it’s not about logic or statistics, which might (and do) show that guns are unsafe per se. It’s about ignoring logic and statistics if they interfere with you fueling your testosterone deficiency. Guns make you feel tough and invincible. They give you a feeling of power and control.
Until you’re shot dead trying to “defend yourself.” Then that tough feeling goes away.
Jm
February 3rd, 2013
10:55 pm
Thugs win!
Thugs win!
Andrew
February 3rd, 2013
11:02 pm
I am a gun owner. As a matter a fact I own several.I even own ‘assault rifles’. I like guns and I use them mainly for recreation. With that being said I always cringed when I see on TV dumb people who defend their ownership of assault weapons as a means for personal or home protection.
Let me be clear. Rifles such as AR-15/AK 47/SKS etc are possibly one of the worst weapons you can use to defend your home in case of intrusion in real life!!! Use a handgun or even shotgun. Heck even a pepper spray is more effective!
These weapons are designed for outside open battlefield environment. They were not designed for indoor OK corral shootout with an intruder in your 850 sq/ft apartment or even your 5000 sq ft mansion with 5 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms!!!
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:05 pm
Andrew – best weapon would be a 12 guage pump. 2nd a 38 revolver.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:05 pm
Walterego
February 3rd, 2013
10:49 pm
“Nobody is “making guns illegal”? They are making ASSAULT WEAPONS illegal. ”
What is an “assault weapon”? Define it for us please.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:08 pm
td – Jay defined it yesterday. And it;s probably something easy to fin on google. There is aa definition.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
11:09 pm
Say hello to my little friend if you come in my house.
Walterego
February 3rd, 2013
11:11 pm
td,
Start here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
…and add in the gun the NRA recently scared you into buying.
W
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:15 pm
“They were not designed for indoor OK corral shootout with an intruder in your 850 sq/ft apartment or even your 5000 sq ft mansion with 5 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms!!!”
Why not? You can carry an AR 15 through a doorway or into a small room just like you can anything else. And Marines still have to use these type weapons in close combat quarters and in clearing houses in Iraq and Afgh of terrorists. You’re obviously more nimble and better off having a handgun when you’re hiding out in a closet or hiding behind anything and shooting back. But otherwise an AR 15 isn’t so cumbersome that you can’t use it at all for home defense. Its not the optimal weapon for close combat or home protection but it will still get the job done.
moonbat betty
February 3rd, 2013
11:15 pm
Hi get,
Sweet tea, please.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
11:16 pm
moonbat,
I have Arizona tea.
moonbat betty
February 3rd, 2013
11:17 pm
They should bring back the flame thrower then they could restrict the machine gun.
moonbat betty
February 3rd, 2013
11:18 pm
Good stuff, get. yum
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:19 pm
Andrew
February 3rd, 2013
11:02 pm
Let me be clear. Rifles such as AR-15/AK 47/SKS etc are possibly one of the worst weapons you can use to defend your home in case of intrusion in real life!!!
I have my doubts if you are a gun owner. The AK-47 is already illegal for most citizens to own in the US because it is fully automatic. The SKS is an old WW2 Russian rifle equivalent to the US M1 Carbine. I do not think I have even seen more the 20 still in use and if they are the fully Automatic versions then they are illegal.
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 and is a Semi Automatic that shoot a .223 caliber. I would much rather have my Semi Auto 30.06 (Deer hunting rifle) with a 20 round magazine for self defense because it is more lethal.
Now you are correct that a semi-auto 12 gauge shot gun is better in the home.
1811, etc.
February 3rd, 2013
11:19 pm
Jackie:
“@1811
1) “If you were an officer of the law and your superiors ordered to you arrest more people so that the money coming in is increased, do you follow those orders?”
Yes, because working harder/faster and arresting more people (as long as there is probable cause) is not a violation of the Constitution whether you call it a quota or it’s just more efficient.
2) “Same concept with the military; superior gives you an order, do you question the constitutionality of that order or do you do as your told and fight about it later?”
That would depend on the situation ……… is is immoral (a My Lai) or unconstitutional (a military police arrest without probable cause). Just like the chaplain and the major told us ……….. there may be a time when you will have to decide whether or not to obey an order ………. and then you will live with the results of that decision.
That was good advice then and it’s good advice now.
And I repeat ………. I live to a higher standard.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
11:20 pm
Flash Walterego the NRA doesn’t sell guns. As a matter of fact most of the companies that sell in the US are not US companies.
Glock – Austrian
Sig Sauer – German – (Swiss owned)
Browning – Belgian
Beretta – Italian
Bersa – Argentine
CZ – Chech
Daewoo – South Korean
Heckler and Koch – German
Kimber – South African
LLama – Spain
Rossi – Brazil
A great number of the firearms used by our police are Glock (Austrian).
Beretta (Italian) has the contract for our military sidearms.
Some manufacturers (such as Strum Ruger) give $1 for every gun sold to the NRA. Many give nothing.
But why shouldn’t they, it is the only organization looking out for their interests.
Most of the NRA’s yearly funds come from membership dues and contributions.
as a member I get an annual financial statement every year, about as up front as you can get.
WE ARE A MEMBER OWNED ORGANIZATION. We vote on our officers and board members.
We are certainly more open than the US Government.
p.s. we also don’t discriminate, we have white black,asian, American indian , male, and female members.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:21 pm
moonbat,
That would be cool. In chicago they could have a thug fry everytime a thug does a home invasion or a drive by and the defendant torches his sorry ass.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:22 pm
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:08 pm
td – Jay defined it yesterday. And it;s probably something easy to fin on google. There is aa definition.
And I called Jay on his definition because it makes absolutely no sense and he did not come back on my comment.
Under Jay’s definition all Semi Automatic rifles and pistols would be considered “Assault Weapons”.
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
11:24 pm
” I live to a higher standard.”
In la la land.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:28 pm
Jm
February 3rd, 2013
10:55 pm
Thugs win!
Thugs win!
Careful Jm. Keep in mind that some of the lib kooks on here think its cool to glorify the thug lifestyle by putting thug after their handle. Never mind that that “thug” lifestyle that they seem to glorify has resulted in a lot of dead young black men. Its still cool to them for some inexplicable reason- either cause they’re stupid, or just callous, or cause they don’t care because they don’t pay a price for promoting such a destructive lifestyle. Only the young men who live it do.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:29 pm
Walterego
February 3rd, 2013
11:11 pm
“Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.”
“In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain ergonomic or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.”
In other words there is no such thing as an ‘Assault Weapon” and the term is nothing more then a word to use to scare you libs. This definition means absolutely nothing.
As far as buying a gun lately. Nope. I already own enough for now and did not have to purchase anymore.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:29 pm
Looks like most everyone has their own definition of assault weapons, And people twist the definitions for their own purposes/
. Stae and federal laws that try to ban them have to inclde definitions to make the laws enforceable, otherwise the laws will be thrown out as vague. And these legal definitions vary.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:34 pm
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:05 pm
Andrew – best weapon would be a 12 guage pump. 2nd a 38 revolver.
12 gauge Semi Automatic and 44 mag are my choices. .38 is not even good for a backup weapon. Look at the woman in Walton county shot the guy 5 times with a .38 and he still made it to his car. She would have only had to hit the guy 1 time with a .44 mag and he is not going to run or even move for that matter. He may not even had half his head.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
11:34 pm
Also, Under the current proposal all greater than 10 shot magazines would be banned. That would include almost all of the sidearms currently being carried by our police. (.40 cal Glock 13 rd Magazine, 9mm Glock 16 rd Magazine)
smart move Huh
VFP42
February 3rd, 2013
11:35 pm
Ban 30 round clips and the gun manufacturers will invent guns that take five 10-round clips. Problem worse.
Instead the burden needs to be on the law abiding gun owner to own his or her gun safely:
Store it safely or else YOU are liable when somebody does something horrible with your gun, even if they burgled it from your house 6 months ago. You didn’t store your legal gun safely, so it became illegal due to YOUR negligence.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:37 pm
td 44 mag – semi-auto or revolver?
getalife
February 3rd, 2013
11:38 pm
MP5.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:38 pm
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:29 pm
“Looks like most everyone has their own definition of assault weapons,”
Now I agree with that statement. It is a political meaning only and the political reasons can not be justified. A Semi Automatic rifle or Pistol are all just as lethal. It does not matter if it has a pistol grip or could hold a baronet.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:39 pm
“You didn’t store your legal gun safely, so it became illegal due to YOUR negligence.”
Lemme get this straight. Someone breaks into your home, smashes your gun cabinet and steals your gun from your home. They then go out and use your gun in a crime and its YOUR fault that someone broke it and stole your property???
Only a liberal could possibly blame a gun owner for something that a burglar does to the gunowner. Unbelievable.
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:40 pm
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:37 pm
td 44 mag – semi-auto or revolver?
Revolver. Same gun that dirty Harry used in all of his movies except he had a Smith and mine is a Ruger.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:41 pm
Absolute liability even for a gun stolen from you sounds a little harsh to Leaving it out in the open would incur liability..
zeke
February 3rd, 2013
11:43 pm
If the liberals had not forced privacy issues in relation to mental illness and such, WE COULD HAVE THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS! They cannot check now on mental issues because this ridiculous government and the courts will not allow it!
I bet those 200 people in the so called 200 “justifiable” homicides think it is a pretty big deal!
And yes the Second Amendment gives us the right and in the wording of that amendment it is not to be infringed! If you do not agree, then you must also not agree with the constant misinterpretation of the First, and, it also must be revisited and changed!
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:44 pm
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:39 pm
“You didn’t store your legal gun safely, so it became illegal due to YOUR negligence.”
Lemme get this straight. Someone breaks into your home, smashes your gun cabinet and steals your gun from your home. They then go out and use your gun in a crime and its YOUR fault that someone broke it and stole your property???
Only a liberal could possibly blame a gun owner for something that a burglar does to the gunowner. Unbelievable.
Do not forget to mention that if all your guns are locked up then how can they be accessed in a hurry to defend your home.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
11:45 pm
So if someone steals you car and then wrecks it and kills someone you should be put in jail for their stealing your car? Must be Liberal logic!
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
11:47 pm
And you would prove that how Oscar?
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:49 pm
td,
Typical liberal insanity. Rather than blame the criminal who broke into someone’s home and stole their locked up property they blame the homeowner with some ridiculous criticism that he didn’t have his guns locked up adequately enough. Just insane.
Oscar,
Still insane. The only time a homeowner should reasonably be blamed is if he has kids and their friends come over and he has loaded guns laying around waiting for them to get a hold of them and do the foolish things that kids do. A reasonable and prudent adult should know better. But if he has no kids and his home is locked up he shouldn’t bare any responsibility for some criminal breaking in and stealing his guns whether they are in plain view or locked away.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:50 pm
It would be proved in a court of law the same way all facts are proved. Entry of evidence and the judge of jury if a jury trial decides what the facts were.
oldguy
February 3rd, 2013
11:50 pm
VFP42 And there we have another reason for not registering firearms.
Bills Cat
February 3rd, 2013
11:54 pm
Gotten to the point where the Mainstream Media, the Propaganda Machine, is even getting addled. In PlainSpeak, a whole lot of Americans are saying the country is tired of letting the MIC and the firearms industries run the show.
Oscar
February 3rd, 2013
11:54 pm
Doom – I would have to do some research to be sure, but I believe you have correctly stated what the laws actually are. There is such a thing as criminal negligence. Absolute liabilty applies to swimming pools. Gun possession should not result in absolute liability, but there probably already is liabilty for certain types of neglience regarding keeping of guns.
Thulsa Doom
February 3rd, 2013
11:55 pm
Oscar,
Exactly what are you saying? Are you saying that if a homeowner locks up his home but a burglar breaks in and steals guns that are in open sight that its still the homeowner’s fault what the criminal did? Please tell me that that is not what you are saying because that is nothing short of insane. The whole purpose of a homeowner having guns not locked up is so that he or she can access them immediately in case of a break in at night or a home invasion. What’s the point of having them for self protection if you can’t immediately access them?
td
February 3rd, 2013
11:56 pm
Bills Cat
February 3rd, 2013
11:54 pm
The most restrictive firearms communities in the nation have the most gun deaths. Now tell us how that is working out?
Gunluvr
February 3rd, 2013
11:58 pm
@Oldguy: Don’t waste your time telling anti-gunners that the NRA gets it’s money from members; for some reason they’re stuck with the idea that gun makers supply the NRA with it’s money to perpetuate gun sales. It seems that their little minds just can’t comprehend an organization’s members paying sustaining member dues to constantly thwart the efforts of anti-gunners to take our guns and that we actually believe in the mission of the NRA.
Oscar
February 4th, 2013
12:00 am
I started out be disagreeing with the statement that a gunowner would be liable if someone breaks in his house and steals his guns.
Then I added a statement that there may be some cases in which a gun owner could be liable for the use of his gun – such as the exaple of leaving it out in the presence of children.
Never indended to say there would be liabiliby for the use of a gun where a criminal broke in a house and stole it.
Thulsa Doom
February 4th, 2013
12:00 am
Oscar,
Exactly. With swimming pools for example. If you leave the back gate to your backyard unlocked or open and the 5 year old next door wanders into your backyard and drowns in your pool then yes. You should have some liability because you should have the common sense to know that young children can and do wander around. When I was a kid we had a 2, 5, and 8 year old next door that would love to come over and swim with us. When we weren’t there that back gate was locked and the key inside. Mom and dad weren’t stupid and they thought about the possibility of Betsy’s kids accidentally wandering over and falling into the pool. Same with leaving handguns lying around when you have kids and their friends coming over on occasion. But if your house is locked and you have no kids and a criminal steals guns I don’t see how it could or should possibly be your fault as a homeowner what a criminal did.
getalife
February 4th, 2013
12:00 am
You are donating to lobbyists.
Thulsa Doom
February 4th, 2013
12:02 am
“Never indended to say there would be liabiliby for the use of a gun where a criminal broke in a house and stole it.”
Ok. That’s what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. Looks like you just have the common sense everyday view that most of us have then.
Thulsa Doom
February 4th, 2013
12:04 am
“In PlainSpeak, a whole lot of Americans are saying the country is tired of letting the MIC and the firearms industries run the show.”
It would be a whole lot more useful if ya’ll just got tired of the crazies and the criminals instead.
Paul
February 4th, 2013
12:11 am
Gun control is like trying to stop drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to get cars.
rooster
February 4th, 2013
12:30 am
Wallace was rude, and would not let LaPierre finish his sentences. Reminded me of Boortz or Hannity at their worst. Wallace obviously had an agenda, and was obviously more interested in being argumentative than in getting LaPierre to provide the viewer with a clear statement of his position. Not only is this not journalism, it is the exact opposite of journalism. Made Candy Crowley look like a dipassionate professional by comparison. I’m not a fan of LaPierre or the NRA, but Wallace’s work on this was dead worthless as a piece of reporting. As a piece of showmanship, it was OK by today’s standards, I suppose.
Walterego
February 4th, 2013
12:56 am
Bloomberg News,
“From 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues, according to NRA tax returns.”
The NRA ruins the rep of sensible gun owners while cashing gun nut’s checks.
Scoop
February 4th, 2013
1:07 am
Jay,
Your review of the “hard data” is embarrassingly off center. The fallacy you’re attempting to create does nothing to justify your point. Let me explain:
-You argue in favor of gun control. I assume you support the assault weapons ban along with the more popular background checks. Yet, in your article, you claim self-defense/conceal-carry is ineffective according to your “hard data” (which in of itself is factually false). This you suppose is justification for gun control measures. This argument is inherently flawed beyond any measure.
Fact: no gun control law proposed yet to date, as they have been composed, would have or will prevent a mass casualty. Even the assault-weapons ban in the 90’s was deemed ineffective and allowed to expire (Ex. Columbine). The truth is gun control laws are not practical for its designed purpose, and as a result, ineffective.
I know what you are going to say…then the counter argument is gun control restricts the potential of mass casualties. But isn’t this the point have having conceal-carry laws? According to your “hard data”, there is 1 justifiable homicide for every 500 murders. This would have a positive correlation with preventing mass casualties. If you assume the proposed gun control measures would not have prevented these tragedies, then the laws would have saved ZERO lives.
Fact: Gun control laws endorsed by the federal government directly contradict the constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment. I know what you are going to say….then the counter argument is the constitution has been ratified before. It was ratified to expand rights and civil liberties, NOT to restrict them.
Fact: Historically, federal legislation on the basis of morality has been an absolute failure. Examples include the prohibition era and the drug war.
I would encourage everyone to educate yourselves and get past this left-right divide. It is sad that you have blatantly biased journalists like Jay who spread propaganda instead of the real information.
Walterego
February 4th, 2013
1:12 am
TD, smarter men than I can exhaustively define “assault weapon” for YOU as long as you don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Frankly, the “ban” is symbolic but is the least important part. Eh hem, background checks on all sales.
Glad you already own an arsenal and have been a pawn all along. It’s a new NRA. Dirty money first. Rights and responsibilities last.
Scoop
February 4th, 2013
1:21 am
Edit: there is 1 justifiable homicide per every 50 murders. This is a relatively high ratio, given current concealed-carry laws, which proves my point all the more.
Walterego
February 4th, 2013
1:23 am
Scoop, Id argue gun laws aren’t legislating morality but public safety.
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater despite free speech being an even more absolute American right. You can’t own a bazooka now and shouldn’t be able to own a Bushmaster. Not morality. Safety.
Scolia agrees with me.
“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. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Dangerous and unusual weapons are “unsafe” not immoral.
Thanks Scolia.
Walterego
February 4th, 2013
1:29 am
And by “safety” I mean Life and Liberty.
Why can’t assault weapon lovers pursue their happiness at a gun club/range allowed to have these weapons (i.e. in Austrailia).
Scoop
February 4th, 2013
1:41 am
Walterego,
Don’t get me started on federal legislation in the name of safety…(patriot act, NDAA, SOPA, DHS, just to name a few in RECENT years). The point is the same – federal legislation/expansion of government power is NEVER the answer because it is impractical and therefore, ineffective.
And be careful with your interpretation of Scolia’s opinion. Remember he voted to uphold the second amendment in that decision. While he did clearly say the right is not unlimited, he purposefully left it vague so as to constitute what defines unlimited.
Now why did he do this? Clearly, it was done to keep pace with the future. So whatever is modernly available at the time of the law’s application would be within the confines of the 2nd Am right. Now, given Semi-auto technology has been around for past 100 years and is widely available to the average consumer, I think it is safe to say assault weapons are with in the rights of the U.S. modern day constituents.
Thanks Scolia
Scoop
February 4th, 2013
1:45 am
Walterego – “Why can’t assault weapon lovers pursue their happiness at a gun club/range allowed to have these weapons (i.e. in Austrailia).”
LOl. Our country was founded on the 2nd Amendment. If you don’t like it, go back to where you came from.
Kathleen Kitchen
February 4th, 2013
2:35 am
“The NRA is off it’s rocker! Where do these people come from? They are brainwashing people to believe it is necessary to stockpile weapons because the Government is out to get them. They are cowards who are hiding behind the 2nd amendment. Their main goal is to instill mass fear in the American people so they will buy more guns! Wake up America, all they want is your money! I don’t know how anyone could feel it’s okay to be a member of this corrupt organization. The leadership’s bizarre behavior speaks for it’s self. And what do we need them for? NRA BEGONE!!!!!!”
DLink
February 4th, 2013
4:58 am
Thanks for the video links Jay. Controversy bares the truth of a person and it’s good to see I made the right decision.
NC
GB
February 4th, 2013
6:06 am
The 200 justifiable homicides are no the measure of effective self defense with firearms. Having a gun can deter an attack even if the assailant is not killed or even wounded. Often the gun is not even fired.
Yep... Here it is....
February 4th, 2013
6:58 am
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
makers vs taker
February 4th, 2013
6:58 am
Dpon’t worry, freedom lovers. Sure our country is at a low point, what with a commie president and liberals feeling their oats and blowing out their chest. But they will get theirs. NO liberal argument or policy mkaes sense, only intent is to take private sector money and restrict individual freedoms. it could be worse, YOU could be a worthless liberal lettting others pay your way. Never lost an argument to a liberal as all their arguments are indefinsible. Jay Bookman is a dinosour working in a exstinct industry.Can you hear the glee in Jays writing at the killing of the Navy Seal.
Liberals are the scum of the earth, absolute USERS. Take personal pride and responsibilty for your self and even the liberals (when you get them face-to-face and they need your help, know one EVER needs a liberal’s help) admire you. Not on this blog, but face-to-face and in the real world, they admire conservatives.
Yep... Here it is....
February 4th, 2013
7:01 am
And as far as providing a test to see if you are mentaly ill… in order to purchace a firearm…. Just who will set the standard… Most left wingers will insist the nright is mentaly ill, and the right will declare the left as unstable…. and the powers is charge thing every one else in the country in un-
fit – mentaly…..
Skip
February 4th, 2013
7:06 am
How many frickin guns can you fire at one time? At what point do you become an unhinged hoarder?
SouthernGent
February 4th, 2013
7:07 am
Jay, Chris Wallace owned NO ONE in that interview. In fact, Chris does what he often does when he can’t get a rise, he gets nasty. What the NRA has stated is true. Just last week here in Georgia an armed guard in a school stopped the mass shooting. You really need to come up for some air, you are fully engulfed in the kook aid!
woodrow
February 4th, 2013
7:12 am
Go ahead and disarm everyone. Give the criminals whatever they want. You’ll go to heaven anyway.
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.
February 4th, 2013
7:16 am
makers vs taker
February 4th, 2013
6:58 am
Two words…Stool softeners…
And a fine Monday morning to the rest of all y’all!
In the middle
February 4th, 2013
7:23 am
Once again, why should I need your permission for my rights. If we need to start overseeing everybodys rights perhaps the lib’s can have Obama establish an “Office of Acceptable speech” or an “Office of allowable press”. And don’t use the “if it will save one life” argument. If you hypocrits were really that “outraged” about people dying you would go after cars. But you can’t do that because your “value” in a car outweighs the “value” of the people that die in car accidents. For the lib’s there are “good deaths” and “bad deaths”, Selective outrage is a stupid case for an argument.
Guns are here. They are a fundamental right, like it or not. Focus on the problems. Pandering for votes will not solve the issue. But is is the easy way out. Outlaw a gun and go back to your lattes. When that doesnt work, claim more outrage and pass another law and go back to your latte. When that doesn’t work become even more indignant, pass another law and go back to your latte.
Holding responsbile gun owners accountable for the idiots may make you feel better about yourself but solves nothing. Now go back to your latte
clanmack
February 4th, 2013
7:26 am
Two things: 2nd Amendment originally was about protecting against government ruling by military force. Assume that our military, an instrument of foreign policy, is not used against our citizenry. It will be the police, county sheriffs, etc.. Given the evisceration of the 14th Amendment (search and seizure) armed resistance against questionable or illegal search will in interesting. Play it out in your head and see where you end up.
Number two: Chris Kyle was “helpng” a vet with PTSD when he was shot and killed. PTSD survivors, once out of the military should likely be put on “can’t purchase (or own) a firearm due to mental illness” list. Try running that through Congress or state legislatures.
Granny Godzilla
February 4th, 2013
7:28 am
When I skewer “dead meat” I add onions and peppers then marinate and grill.
La Pierre is and the NRW are dead meat.
They are losing the national argument.
stands for decibels
February 4th, 2013
7:28 am
Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm.
In a nation of 300+ million. That stat alone ought to be all you need to know that anyone claiming “more guns” somehow equals “less crime” is a liar and/or an idiot.
Granny Godzilla
February 4th, 2013
7:30 am
If you are afraid of having mental health professionals make a determination as
to your mental well being….
You just might need a mental health professional.
Granny Godzilla
February 4th, 2013
7:31 am
guns or lattes?
what deep thought.
stands for decibels
February 4th, 2013
7:31 am
A reminder: our homicide rate is ~3-4x that of western Europe’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
stands for decibels
February 4th, 2013
7:37 am
Anyone keeping track of the number of excuses the 2nd Amendment hawks have made in this thread for why we can’t have rational gun policy in America? Are we up to 500 yet?
In the middle
February 4th, 2013
7:41 am
Sorry you couldn’t figure it out.
Granny Godzilla
February 4th, 2013
7:45 am
in the middle
I did …
hence the sarcastic comment
mr silly pants
Orange13
February 4th, 2013
7:46 am
Donald Trump is saying he is going to sue Bill Maher for $5.000,000.00 due to Maher welching on a bet. This should be good.
In the middle
February 4th, 2013
7:50 am
Granny, I often need reminded about sarcasm. I should practice more.
Granny Godzilla
February 4th, 2013
7:50 am
Orange
Yep, a lawsuit over a taunt between celebrities would be most entertaining.
tiredofit
February 4th, 2013
7:56 am
“Kyle came to national fame as a sniper who claimed more than 150 kills”
++
Karma
Progressive, Liberal, Lefty
February 4th, 2013
7:59 am
Some of the perpetrators are mentally unstable and some are not. Some are just mean. Some just don’t care. Some are stupid. The mentally unstable ones are probably the least of the guilty. After all, is it their fault that they have mental issues? Some of those people are victims of war. I’m not giving them a pass, I’m just saying. Fact is, without guns they’d all be less effective at killing and terrorizing the rest of us.
As for Wayne LaPierre, if any public figure deseves to be skewered…he’s the number one candidate for the honor.
Wilbur
February 4th, 2013
8:02 am
The NRA represents millions of law abiding gun owners. Why is it that liberals have decided to demonize the law abiding rather than deal with the real issues. Why are the liberals in such a rush to deprive millions of their rights rather than face up to the underlying societal issues that drive crime in the first place.
Why is it that places with the most abusive gun laws have the highest crime rates?
bookman parrot
February 4th, 2013
8:02 am
jay,
what an off-handed, unsincere statement about your “support” for Constitutional rights.
If you support that right, then stop with the writings that have the motivation of
removing that right in some way, shape, or form.
it is called hypocrite.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
February 4th, 2013
8:02 am
Excellent interview by Bill Moyers:
MATT TAIBBI: Well, the HSBC settlement was a really shocking kind of new low in the history of the too big to fail issue. HSBC was a serial offender on the money laundering score. They had been twice given formal cease and desist orders by the government. One dating back as far as 2003, another one in 2010 for inadequately policing the accounts in their system. They laundered over $800 million for cartels in Colombia.
BILL MOYERS: Drug cartels?
MATT TAIBBI: Drug cartels in Colombia and Mexico. They laundered money for terrorist connected banks in the Middle East. Russian gangsters. Literally, you know, I talked to one prosecutor who’s, like, “They broke basically every law in the book and they did business with every kind of criminal you can possibly imagine. And they got a complete and total walk.” I mean, they had to pay a fine.
BILL MOYERS: $1.9 billion, a lot of money.
MATT TAIBBI: It’s a lot of money. But it’s five weeks of revenue for the bank, to put that in perspective. And no individual had to suffer any consequences at all. There were no criminal charges no individual fines, which was incredible. Incredible.
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/bill-moyers-and-matt-taibbi-everyone-pays-if-banksters-dont
the dog
February 4th, 2013
8:03 am
Downright scary were the people I saw in line at Bass Pro Shop over the weekend buying guns. I’m not sure how many of them could pass the background check but assume they did. Particularly scary was the twitchy guy walking out with his wife/girlfriend carrying a brand spanking new Beretta pistol. Hope he wasn’t planning on using it on the little woman.
Progressive, Liberal, Lefty
February 4th, 2013
8:04 am
What was it Hillary said? “They refuse to live in a fact based world”. That sounds like a pretty good description of some on this blog. What d’ya think, middle?