On Fox News, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre gets skewered

Well, I guess there is still one broadcast outlet where you can go and still see journalism practiced.

• Link
• Report this comment

The NRA’s job is to get gun manufacturer profits as high as possible by pushing for as many gun sales as they possibly can.

American capitalism at it’s finest.

• Link
• Report this comment

You don’t see Obama on Fox because Fox makes stuff up and is openly hostile to Obama, often questioning his legitimacy as president or American citizenship. Elections have consequences…one being, no sane Dem would sink so low as to appear on a fake news network.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fox, Objective?? What planet are you from?

• Link
• Report this comment

If the government would just enforce the gun laws and deal with the gangs (i.e. the killings in Chicago…Obama’s home) this would not be an issue.

Here we go again. The law abiding citizens take the blame when the criminals roam free. Shame on Chris Wallace. He didn’t skewer the NRA guy. He just looked silly trying to do so.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fox News the misinformation network

• Link
• Report this comment

Hallelujah we still have a Wallace on the scene. Now if we can just find him a real news network so he can keep doing this kind of thing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Does Mr LaPierre also believe all schoolchildren deserve the same student/teacher ratio in the classroom that the Obama children have?

• Link
• Report this comment

4.3 Million members of the NRA disagree.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, every child in every place “deserves” armed guards like the “elites”? Who’s going to pay for it? You, laPierre? I doubt it.

• Link
• Report this comment

You hit the nail on the head Patrick Edmondson. We live amongst some people with no human values and would put their mother 2nd to the almighty $!

• Link
• Report this comment

I predict Chris Wallace’s career won’t last much longer on FOX.

• Link
• Report this comment

Are you denying a Fox News viewer’s Constitution rights to simply make stuff up and act as if it really exists? And posting videos as proof! Shame on you! Don’t you know American soldiers have died to preserve the God given right to lie? The First Amendment to the Constitution (republican revised version) says clearly that lying is the highest form of truth, and that the people’s right to lie and to listen to liars shall not be abriged by any act of Congress. The (un)Holy Republican Conservative Edited Bible, revised, 33rd edition says “And God so loved the liars, he sent his only Son to them, that they might say whatever they wish and it shall be as if the words actually came from His mouth”! So there! God helps those who make stuff up! And that’s just the way it is!

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] reading here: On Fox News, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre gets skewered – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.”

Bull puckey. A weapon does not convey magical powers of protection. It only gives you a fighting chance. This author was STUPID to make such a statement, for it reveals his tyro knowledge of reality and exposes the fallacies in his thinking. Think of this. Abraham Lincoln, James Butler “Wild Bill” Hickock, Garfield, Kennedy, and, I think, McKinley, were all shot FROM BEHIND. No one has a chance in a situation such as that. The sucker punch is always a possibility…look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

This author would have you believe that a weapon doesn’t even give you a chance, but that is what it does and that is ALL that it does. You see, sometimes even the good guys LOSE!

• Link
• Report this comment

The 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms is not about defending your home or hunting deer. The right to defend ourselves is meant to be that we should have means to defend ourselves from our government should they decide to rule us as the English government did. Give us the ability to defend our freedom should our government decide to try to take it away.

And some of you want to give this government, that we are constitutionally promised to have a means to abolish if so needed, give them the right to decide how, when and IF we are able to defend our freedoms from them? Yes, we need anti-tank weapons because this government has tanks. We need machine guns because this government has machine guns itself.

It isn’t about hunting nor robbers breaking into our homes. It is about being able to stop a total government takeover if the need should ever rise. No matter how small of a chance that we could have a need to do, if there is even the smallest chance, I want that fighting chance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fox was invented by Roger Ailes to try and manipulate American politics for his big-money backers. 2012 demonstrated clearly he and his “news” organization failed in that ploy. The folks didn’t buy into their racism, fear and scare facist tactics. Slow learners, they’re still at it. The NRA represents Only the manufacturers of weapons and their own financial powerbase.The Second Amendment has made them lots of money, of course they are big supporters.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d like to see Jay Bookman judge the usefulness of guns as a self defense after some hoodrat sticks one in his face and pulls the trigger.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”… but sometimes the good guy just gets shot.

• Link
• Report this comment

So Jay, care to elaborate how getting shot in the back by some spineless prick casts doubt on the usefulness of guns as a self-defense measure?

• Link
• Report this comment

I wouldn’t say he was skewered. He gave responses to reasonable questions in a very murky issue.

At heart, the gun debate is about trust — do you trust the government, do you trust individuals. What we have seen over the years is that neither government nor many individuals can be trusted with weapons.

We conduct illegal wars, and yet were founded on the fear and experience of subjection under government tyranny. The example being that government can be used both to protect the public and to oppress them.

Guns were given as a right to the people to protect against an unjust government. But people too can use guns to protect the public like a private security guard, and to commit crimes.

Ultimately the argument always rests on the people you trust to have guns to protect against the people you don’t trust who also have them.

And these days, its hard to trust anybody. So we can argue all day long and both sides will make salient points, and there doesn’t really seem to be an obvious solution because the problem is inside the enigma of the human mind. We never really know what someone’s intentions are.

No matter what solution you come up with, someone will kill or oppress someone else.

• Link
• Report this comment

All this talk about gun laws and gun control, I have yet to hear one person want to pass more laws and push gun control onto the military of our government. I think disarming the people of this country while letting the government have as many weapons as it sees fit is illogical and not responsible. Letting a government disarm everyone while it builds its military larger and stronger is a good way to find ourselves one day under strict government control.

You don’t believe the government should force you to buy health insurance but that they should force everyone to disarm and give up the only means we have to protect our freedoms. Stop buying into the media that is pushing you all to believe you need this control from the government. If not, one day they will be reporting about the fierce dictatorship that rules this land.

• Link
• Report this comment

LMAO…Fox..journalism. talk about an oxymoron. There is no way the division on opinions will ever change. I am a gun owner and believe that I have my rights as spelled out by my state and federal governments. Others believe those rights should be infringed. I strongly believe in your right to be wrong.Citing recent crackpot incidents, and attempting to infringe my rights on this issue are not rational arguments.

In turn, lets pick another polarizing issue….immigration, abortion, states rights…pick one, we will not ever reach a fair and balanced approach on either side. Exercise your right to vote, know that majority rules, and that majority changes constantly contingent on the issue at hand.

The only thing I can support FOX news on is in it’s recent dismissal of Sarah Palin…how she lasted as long, or even got hired in the first place ( huge political mind? insightful opinions? well educated?…ooops another oxymoron!!!) .

• Link
• Report this comment

The one funny thing is that LaPierre is a horrible, horrible PR spokesperson for the NRA. Most lobbyist media spokespersons are glib, trained, handsome, and convincing. LaPierre is combative and doesn’t photograph well, and constantly looks like he is on a Hitler-like tirade, but he sticks to the talking points without deviation. This is really the NRA’s achilles heel; they exercise their power not through public persuasion, but through campaign funding and holding pro-gun legislators to unrealistic pledges.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well if you have ever been outside this country to see what tyrannical governments have done their people……issue them all a fire arm……never not seen a tyrant leader not applauded at his dimise

• Link
• Report this comment

49ers by 4

• Link
• Report this comment

It is a shame to use the death of a soldier who gave a decade of his life in defense of our country to ‘cast doubt on the usefulness of guns as a self defense measure’. The circumstances of his death are not known at present and he may well have been shot without warning. There are documented cases daily of even children defending themselves successfully against predators and attackers. I guess we know where you stand Jay and that is your right. The right that Chris Kyle defended for you and me.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m amazed at the ignorance of the anti-2nd amendment crowd. They have such strong opinions and haven’t read the proposed bans or know next to nothing about firearms. Or gunshows. Or the flaws in the NICs system.

There will be no ban of any more weapons. Its very unlikely that high capacity magazines will be banned. There can be a compromise on the background checks, but i don’t think it be universal. The NRA position is that the current system is struggling to handle its current demand. Adding double the use will make it a nightmare. Fix it first. Besides, if I want to give my 16 year old son my 22 caliber rifle, why the hell should I need to make him have a background check? That’s just dumb. The NICS system has a high number of false positives. A lot of states fail to include their data in a timely manner. Making that system universal before its fixed is just… stupid. Fix it. Finally fix it. The NRA has been trying to get it fixed for years and have been able to get nowhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just think you liberals I shot a 94% complete pistol target qual yesterday and my well taught son a 100%

• Link
• Report this comment

I will never give up my guns,but I will give up Obama.As long as he is in office MY COUNTRY will suffer.

• Link
• Report this comment

The second amendment exists as the citizen’s defense against tyranny. Nothing about skeet or hunting ever….we need crazy people control, not gun control!

• Link
• Report this comment

Exactly which of the new proposals by Obama would have stopped the Chris Kyle murder? And if you don’t think a gun is useful in self defense, talk to the woman in Duluth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fox News has thrown in the towel on the 2nd. All anyone has to do is look at the massive amount of crime in all the minority cities like L.A. CA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC, etc., etc., to know why we need guns TO PROTECT OURSELVES AGAINST THEM. Look at the “flash Mobs” conducted by negros through out our country, to show us why we need high capacity manginess. The 2nd Amendment is not for just personal protecting, it is to protect us from a tyrannical government. A government gone against its own CITIZENS. A government that has failed to protect our border from a Mexican Invasion. A government that intentionally stacks the deck to allow Mexicans & other foreigners to vote in our country via “no ID required” etc..

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Bookman, it is difficult for a gun to be used for self defense when you are shot in the back, as was Chris Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Apparently Chris Kyle took some poor unfortunate vet with PTSD (his killer) out to the shooting range for some “shooting therapy.” LOL. I sincerely hope all you gun freaks are feeling *something* other than your usual jaw flapping, false superiority, and twisted sense of security against “government.” The dude was just another Obama hating blowhard gun nut. You reap what you sow buddy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

I am for stricter laws but please don’t use those who opposed your position in your argument. All evidence in the Kyle case points to the murderer being a mental case. Kyle worked with Vets who suffered PTSD. It was one of these men who shot him.

Which if anything should stand to support any effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. A position that the NRA supports.

• Link
• Report this comment

BOB A booey

February 3rd, 2013
11:37 am

Of course nothing will change in media. The minute that the media became news, the news took on a whole new look. All sources have bias and rush too much to report any story early in order to shape opinion before a situation is even moderately assessed. The way they report, the amount of confirmed data they choose to use etcetera, allows the bias to become the prime theme of such reporting…

I’m sure this has been a way for ever, but now for entertainment purposes, it is put right our front…proudly…

• Link
• Report this comment

Lapierre is a bulldog. His place is behind the scenes. David Keene does a much better job dealing with the public. He’s charming, engaging and very knowledgeable. Lapierre is not extreme, if you actually understand the issues…which it doesn’t seem most do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, how many of those crimes were committed by people with priors or used in gang violence? I have heard estimates anywhere from 60-80%.

Why does Chicago have such a gun violence rate even though guns are banned?

Gun violence is regional and should be treated as a regional problem. The big cities where gangs are located are where most of the murders happen. There is no reason for the Federal government to enact a law that would punish Wyoming for the violence in Los Angeles. That is the whole point of the 10th amendment. Different states and cities have different problems. The Federal government cannot make a law that fits every locale.

• Link
• Report this comment

Meanwhile on another network they had that clown Paul Krugman. Does anyone actually take him seriously? He blamed austerity on the drop in GDP. Only in America can you have a trillion dollar deficit and call it austerity.

• Link
• Report this comment

The NRA does not speak for all Americans. A Gallup poll from last week found overwhelming support for Obama’s sensible gun proposals.

January 23 Gallup

“Do you support background checks for all gun sales?”
YES…92%
NO…8%

“Should the government reinstate and STRENGTHEN the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004?”
YES…60%
NO…35%

Should the government limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less?
YES…54%
NO…43%

In fact every single one of Obama’s proposals has more support than opposition. The NRA thinks they speak for the vast majority of Americans, they DON’T.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

IMPEACH LAPIERRE!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Mama Says

February 3rd, 2013
11:54 am

Why is the knowledge or definition of an assualt weapon relevant? The founding fathers in no way, shape or form concieved at the time that a weapon that can fire rounds in seconds is what they meant.

Nice deflection but the question remains..why is there so much paranoia by those who insist on having such guns? Why are those folks more vulnerable to assualt than the rest of us?

What’s next, jeeps with mounted machine guns to provide adequate self defense?

I think the self defense and paranoia offerings are simply a ruse. Some folks feel the need to harness that kind of power…why they hide behind this idiotic reasoning is beyond me…

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.”

What an utterly dumb thing to say. Does the fact that airbags or seatbelts do NOT fully ensure the survival of people in car wrecks “cast doubt” on their usefulness? Only, I suspect, to someone whose real aim is to completely ban guns. Why not be honest, Jay, like Piers Morgans and just ADMIT you want to ban all guns? Why dissemble like Barack “Skeets” Obama?

• Link
• Report this comment

He threw nothing but softballs to Mark Kelly. 13 minutes and Kelly never mentioned anything about what drives people to commit violent acts. In the past several weeks we’ve had a young mother stabbed multiple times by a psycho at a Target store in NJ, and in NYC a 14 year old broke into a neighbor’s apartment, snatched a 9 year old boy, dragged him up the stairs to the roof and threw him off. But the liberal left is only interested in taking away guns. They have NO INTEREST in studying the REASONS WHY people behave violently. They don’t care about reducing violence. They only want to bash the 2nd amendment. WALLACE IS A DISGRACE AND SHOULD BE FIRED FOR SUCH A ONE-SIDED “INTERVIEW.”

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

More, overthrow the government violence porn from a new crop of nuts.

This article must be linked somewhere on batcrapcrazy.com.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

. 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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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……

• Link
• Report this comment

“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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

The difference between Chris Wallace and Chris Matthews is the spelling of their last name.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, “Silverback”, you are so, so wrong. The difference is what lies between their ears!

• Link
• Report this comment

get real its not going to happen that way……though its the truth

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

it’s now good to watch Fox news?

• Link
• Report this comment

They hate the current government and want more guns, what’s wrong with this picture?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

It honestly comes down to looks when discussing the assualt weapons ban.

It honestly “comes down to looks” in marketing them, too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak

Sarah Shahi

Is she Muslim?

If so, you better start facing Mecca five times a day, boy.

• Link
• Report this comment

mheck .. .. haha

bring those Asian women to me!

• Link
• Report this comment

Is she Muslim?

I believe she is a Texan.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anybody else read Chris Kyle’s book? I’ll never forget the river balloon episode. RIP Mr. Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

La Pierre loses an argument while the White House touts
President Obama’s skill with a gun. Gun slingers win.

• Link
• Report this comment

“La Pierre loses an argument while the White House touts
President Obama’s skill with a gun. Gun slingers win.”

haha

• Link
• Report this comment

But but but Chris Matthews and Faux news are allies with the far right wing causes…

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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 ?

• Link
• Report this comment

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…

• Link
• Report this comment

The majority will not get everything they want on guns but they will get immigration reform.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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 ?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

” 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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I know this is a great topic for a blog, but I simply don’t understand your premise: Are you saying:A) you would like (even though you respect the 2nd amendment) personal weapons to be illegal? or B) person weapons are unnecessary? or C)????

I just don’t understand. The man was shot in the back BY A CRIMINAL. The only way Mr. Kyle would still be alive was if he was covered in armored Kevlar. Whether or not he had a weapon was irrelevant. What is relevant is how (and why) the assailant acquired the weapon HE USED.

I hate to bring this up, but everybody dies. The law cannot change that. All the law can do is prevent the criminal from doing it a second time. Why are you not for extreme measures for commission of a crime with a firearm? We have numerous laws in place for criminals. Why are we incarcerating drug users, prostitutes, etc, and filling up our jails when ARMED drug pushers (and their ‘enforcers’, pimps, etc get reduced sentences? Are you for mandatory long sentences for commission of ANY crime carrying a weapon? If not, why not? If yes, why don’t you do a blog article on this?

NONE of the proposals put forward by MY Democrats in the legislatures would have any effect on a criminal. All we want to do is play politics and not fix the problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gun toters, the American public is tired of their children
being slaughtered and change is in the air. Reason
should guide your steps.

• Link
• Report this comment

fully automatic guns – none of which, by definition, are legally possessed…

Fully automatic guns can be “legally possessed.”

All it requires is a special license.

• Link
• Report this comment

ROFL:

http://twitchy.com/2013/02/02/hilarity-ensues-as-twitter-users-caption-and-photoshop-obamas-shooting-photo/

• Link
• Report this comment

“Many of you here have been convinced by Rush, The NRA, Republican politicians and your pastors….”

Libs do love they gobbledeegook they do. Indigo must be another of them super duper lib mind readers to know who was and wasn’t convinced by Rush, the NRA, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve bought guns from legal dealers and always had to wait until my background was checked before I could actually get the gun. So, it’s not the legal gun owners that cause problems, it’s the culture that liberals have championed.

• Link
• Report this comment

I love the way our President punks the cons over and over and over.

All he had to say this time was he shoots skeet at Camp David and the cons scream you lie?

Just another day of our President crushing the cons.

Love it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Iraqis all had ak’s. How did that work out for them against the tyrranical us govt?

• Link
• Report this comment

Fully automatic guns can be “legally possessed.” All it requires is a special license.

True. But none manufactured after 1986. So, aside from not having the most modern weaponry available, and because of supply and demand, the cost can be astronomical (thousands and thousands of dollars).

• Link
• Report this comment

“Iraqis all had ak’s. How did that work out for them against the tyrranical us govt?”

Not bad but they used IED’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

In just the last month there have been several instances of women and men saving their lives and the lives of other because they were armed. So let me throw Obama’s words back at him. If having a gun saves just one life…we have to try.

• Link
• Report this comment

“True. But none manufactured after 1986.” Crier is that true? Most of the reality tv shows dealing with gunsmiths, ie Sons of Guns, show them making fully automatic shotguns and other bizarre weapons for clients.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mama Says

February 3rd, 2013
12:23 pm

I would never suggest any so impractical as taking existing weapons away. It can’t happen so anyone who is defending themselves thinking the evil government is going to come to your house and take the guns so desperately needed for self defense is absurd and not remotely related to the point.

AR-15’s are the one, if not the most popular weapon purchase today. That is wrong and not in accordance to 2nd amendment. The ability of gun manufactures to influence government to look askance at enforement and directing advertising to manhood and/or scaring one that greatly exaggerates any exposure is an issue. The second issue IMO is that while we need to enforce such laws, nothing on the table will remotely impact gun violence. It is a political ruse to impress voters most of whom don’t think practically.

Nothing here would keep bad guys out of schools, malls or other common areas. Go ahead and buy and maintain (safely I hope) your treasured weaponry..our culture has evolved to AR-15’s, the use of straw man arguments to keep this culture…

Culture is a living breathing thing…nothing will ever stem the gun culture in this country.

We can put up effective obstacles to keep bad guys out of our schools but for political reasons, no body wants to discuss that..

• Link
• Report this comment

Gary

February 3rd, 2013
1:49 pm

OK how many of those instances required a gun to a path of safety? How many of those situations where other means of risk avoidance considered prior to the gun? How many of those risk situations where initiated by a gun owner simply because they were armed and as a result, put themselves is situations any reasonable risk taker would avoid?

• Link
• Report this comment

The press is supposed to be openly skeptical of the President and the administration, not be a fawning support mechanism.

The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am a gold fish teaching in a fish bowel

Fish bowel?

Waaaaaaay too much information.

• Link
• Report this comment

The M16A1 had a three position switch. Safe – semi auto – full auto. The M16A2 followed up and it changed to Safe- Semi Auto- 3 round burst. Some soldiers in the heat of battle emptied their magazines too fast. So they reduced it to 3 round bursts. The AR-15 does not have a 3 round burst. There are still full auto versions, the M16A3 and some versions of the M4 which is a carbine version of the M16. Those are used by Special Forces, some Seal members, and some security forces. The guns you see sold on the TV shows are gunsmiths that can only sell that stuff to Law enforcement, military or people with the special licensing. The requirements for special licensing are more stringent than a typical background check. i think they fingerprint you and register your particular firearms.

• Link
• Report this comment

steve…how many murders occur each year with AR 15s being the murder weapon.Just asking.. guess I could google it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. LaPierre is the chief lobbyist is the gun manufacturers, nothing else.

• Link
• Report this comment

Watched the video and a few questions come to mind:

(a) Are the NRA / Conned NOW using “class warfare” in their agendas? Most of the conned on the blog, before Newtown, denigrated “class warfare” as a means to disrupt conversations — now it seems that they are FOR class warfare if the “elites have access to armed guards and they don’t”. Are the conned now flip flopping on this issue?

(b) What constitutes an “elite”?

(c) Fox News going after the NRA? I guess since Rupert Murdoch said it was ok it’s open season on them. However, the questions asked of LaPierre, like all Faux News questions, are disingenuous and faulty.

(d) Women needing more than 6 rounds to kill/maim an intruder while protecting their home and children? Then perhaps they need to take some gun training classes; and other safe home training. If you’ve missed someone after shooting point blank 6 rounds, then you probably forgot to put on your contacts. Kinda reminds me of this scenario.

Nothing beats training.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wayne LaPierre was not stewered…unless you believe left socialist like Jay that uses his job at liberal AJC to spread his own agenda. Same for cnn, msnbc and other media’s that are bought and paid for by Obama’s billionaire supporters. Hail to the Chief!

• Link
• Report this comment

Winifred Dunn-Jones

February 3rd, 2013
1:59 pm

Given the odds of any individual wanting to get into your school, if you feel that way maybe you should consider another career. There aren’t many more safer work environments…

I understand 181 school shootings have occured since Columbine that took at least one life. This equates to about 13 per year. There are 98,000 public schools in the US. If you have a calculator…well the risk of it happening at your school is so negligible to warrant such discussion. Best thing you can do is to request better perimeter security to discourage and/or provide earlier warning…

• Link
• Report this comment

As to Chris Kyle’s death, he likely never saw it coming. As is the case with most criminal shootings, the victim doesn’t know what’s coming until it’s too late to react. Action is always faster than reaction. When we know that our military personnel can be killed in battle by firearms and our police can be killed as well, what makes one think that merely having a gun on you will make you safe?

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama should spend more time on conservative outlets than playing to those already sold

Being that Obama,like you, is free to choose where he wants to go and whom he wants to talk to; if I was him, I’d file your comment under:

Dumb sh##t the Conned say while masterba##ting to Obama’s picture”

No need to explain.

• Link
• Report this comment

jbill

Yep, both sides ride emotion. Hang around this place long enough and you’re likely to see that statement that I talked about.

• Link
• Report this comment

good post dumb… but ya gotta admit the right is also willing to attack liberty ie bedroom stuff, abortion,heck, untill recently you could not buy a 6 pack on Sunday.The left is for chicks..and weenies, but our guys …gotta watch them too.

• Link
• Report this comment

DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman

February 3rd, 2013
2:16 pm

What’s wrong with making an attempt to reach all americans? Whether folks agree with his policies or not, he should take the time to accept challenges…He should man up and, like Al Sharpton, periodically put forth his positions in any forum..

He may actually gain respect of more than 51% of voters…maybe not but not making an attempt is spineless…its’ a great opportunity wasted.

Why are you afraid for him? Maybe he will make a gaffe? You don’t have much confidence in your guy to defend his policies I guess. Many of which are completely logical and sound…

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

” Just imagine how many robbers there would be if they knew no one carried a weapon ”

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.

” But wouldn’t it be nice to shoot them as they started to run away? ”

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,

” It is a tiny number, but what if it was your 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.)

” If you support the right then what in the hell is your point? ”

I see where Panetta claims that WATER BOARDING led us to Bin Laden.

• Link
• Report this comment

Deep down, they have nothing but comtempt for tools like you.

They’re laughing all the way to the bank! The best laughter of all……

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s wrong with making an attempt to reach all americans?

Mitt “47%” Romney says, “What?”

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s wrong with making an attempt to reach all americans?

Stevie – What century and/or time are you living in? Seriously?

This is the twitter, video blogs, computer age. You don’t have to go on every news outlet to get your point across. You only have to go on ONE — it’ll get around the world in less than 24 hours- everything you said, what you wore, your demeanor, if you farted, everything………from going on that ONE show.

Seriously.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, missed this: “To add to the likelihood a purchased gun safe would be used, all owners of all guns should all be held responsible for all shootings that happen with their guns unless there is a police report of their gun being stolen FROM THEIR LOCKED SAFE”

I’ve already proposed a similar requirement: that gun owners be held responsible for any crime committed with their gun. If it’s stolen, they are still responsible unless the theft is reported as soon as it is discovered. Because you know, and I know, that people who have guns for protection (real or perceived” are NOT going to lock up every gun they own.

• Link
• Report this comment

The conclusions that he attempts to draw are absolutely ludicrous and without basis in reality.

Then he MUST BE republican…… Just saying……

• Link
• Report this comment

DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman

February 3rd, 2013
2:28 pm

Yes seriously. He should most definitely go on conservative media sites and routinely defend his positions…the only way for him to get an unbiased commentary directly from his mouth is in this manner.

Why are you so opposed to this? Politics will always prevail so he like them all only care about party re-election…heaven forbid he is unsuccessful defending his position.

He is an easy target remaining in his safe, warm and fuzzy nest.

• Link
• Report this comment

A gun is not the ONLY way to “defend yourself” And if you can’t afford the insurance, you can’t afford the gun either.

” Hit them with a frying pan “

• Link
• Report this comment

And what if you couldn’t afford the liability insurance are you not afforded the right to defend yourself?

LL Cool J says “Huh?”

He defended his entire family during a break in of his home bare handed without the need for a gun.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Let’s review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm ………….. On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.”

And ……… as usual ……. Jay leaves out:

1) The number of times a perpetrator was only “wounded” which stopped a crime.
2) The number of times a perpetrator was “shot at and missed” which stopped a crime.
3) The number of times a firearm was “pointed at” a perpetrator which stopped a crime.
4) The number of times a perpetrator “knew” a victim had a firearm which stopped a crime.
5) The number of times a perpetrator “thought” a victim might have a firearm which stopped a crime.

Geez !

• Link
• Report this comment

Well at least your reading something other than all the spam on here

No, I am derisively mocking you for posting drudgey crap.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jhunt163

February 3rd, 2013
2:31 pm

Insurers dont cover intentional shootings…wrongful deaths may get some defense coverage up until the time you are found guilty…

If a record is established that any firearm has been accidentally discharged or otherwise not secured..you will find yourself a difficult time trying to get a good liability policy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Liberal logic: Requiring a photo ID to vote for president, a right not guaranteed equates to a poll tax. Licenses and liability insurance for firearms are okay.

• Link
• Report this comment

DudleyDoRight – A Do Right Woman

February 3rd, 2013
2:39 pm

Wow, so I see you are in the mood for a no-holds barred debate? Your response to what would seem to be a point to further your position is turned into pettiness.

If you want to go to the mat, best we find something we disagree on…bring it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The constitution to does not protect your right to drive, thus it is considered a privilege and not a right.”

Actually, that’s not neccessarily true. The Constitution says:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If we, as a people, decide that driving IS a right, then yes, the Consitution DOES protect it.

And where in the Constitution does it say that it cannot be decided that in order to PROTECT your right to bear arms you CAN’T be required to buy insurance? The right to bear arms is not unlimited. Just like the right to speech, it CAN be hedged with requirements for public safety.

• Link
• Report this comment

Requiring a photo ID to vote for president, a right not guaranteed equates to a poll tax

And how much are you willing to spend — on a per head basis — to produce and distribute a national ID that would not only be used for voting, but to also address the illegal immigrant problem as well?

• Link
• Report this comment

Read any states driving laws and you will find that driving is a privilege and not a right. Why do you always want to change facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

The other half of your brain.

February 3rd, 2013
2:36 pm

I guess the thought never occurred to you to focus efforts on keeping them out in the first place….all these examples presume the bad guy is armed and in the house…if you have a gun for the minute possiblity that an armed intruder will threaten your life, wouldn’t you do everything to prevent entry? Most of these “incidents” are random and if they are not, perhaps one should reassess other decisions..

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess we all know by now that the N.R.A. has withdrawn its previous support for background checks. As Captain Kelly pointed out, the shooter in Arizona who killed a child and others with an assault weapon, had previously been found on his U.S. Army physical to have a mental disorder precluding him from handling weapons and from joining the Army. He was, nevertheless, able to purchase an Assault weapon and multiple rounds without difficulty. Although Captain Kelly did not point it out directly, he did eye Wayne LaPierre while making this statement. Mr. LaPierre was also refused U.S. Army induction because of a “nervous disorder”, but Mr. LaPierre refused to discuss this as the reason the N.R.A. was withdrawing support for the background check. Mr. LaPierre did complain that he was not allowed to carry his weapon into the Senate hearing. In his multiple public appearances Mr. LaPierre has frequently appeared to be anxious, unhinged at times, and angry. Should citizens whom the U.S. Army finds unreliable for the safe operation of firearms still be able to buy military style weapons for civilian use? Of course not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

February 3rd, 2013
2:43 pm

Wow, if everyone with a gun would buy a specific gun owners policy that covered intentional shootings anywhere, I want some of that action.

I could charge a small fortune and load that sucker full of so many exclusions…awesome concept.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Oak Creek, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine) have resulted in 95 dead people. On average guns killed 88 Americans and injured 202 each day during 2011. When available, it is estimated that firearm homicides and suicides in 2012 will exceed motor vehicle fatalities. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, we now own 40 percent of all firearms in civilian hands. (N Engl J Med 2013:368:397-399) Are they WELL REGULATED as prescribed by the Second Amendment? Obviously not. If you own a gun, you are statistically, significantly more likely to commit murder and to eventually commit suicide (LDI Issue Brief 2003;8(8), 1-4). What mental screening should be required prior to purchase? I propose a significant upgrade. If guns cause more human damage than automobiles then funds of equivalent amounts should be devoted to registration of each weapon, licensure on your birthday, a psychological screening test (MMPI), a practical operation test, and a written test of the weapons laws.

• Link
• Report this comment

He should most definitely go on conservative media sites and routinely defend his positions…the only way for him to get an unbiased commentary directly from his mouth is in this manner

Have you been drinking? I mean when I look at that statement above ^^^ I’m wondering if you were sober when you wrote it…..

Stevie: Why are you so opposed to this? Politics will always prevail so he like them all only care about party re-election…heaven forbid he is unsuccessful defending his position.

Again, i reiterate, have you been drinking?

Stevie: He is an easy target remaining in his safe, warm and fuzzy nest.

OK let’s have a quick reality check here (if you’re up for it):

These “conservative media outlets” were the same outlets pushing the “birthers” movement to national prominence.

These ‘CMO’s” were the same outlets that pushed the “Obama is a Marxist” idiot filled tirades.

These “CMO’s” are pushing the “No Global warming” idiocy when we see weeks with a 70 degree Monday and a 18 degree Friday in the same week; but according to them that has NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to do with GW.

These “CMO’s” also are the same outlets who are pushing the Bengazhi bullcrap express. And before you start, YES its awful what happened to the Americans there but, deep down don’t they think its imperative to mention the BUDGET CUTS BROUGHT ON BY THE REPUBLICANS that made US embassies LESS SAFE as a contributing factor?

So, StevieWonder — In essence i’m going to drop some words of wisdom on ya — just because there are dumb people in the world who believe and listen to everything they wish to hear substantiated, doesn’t mean that OBAMA should pander to them.

Make sure you write that down — you may be seeing it from me again, and as you know i really hate to repeat myself.

To paraphrase something that SoCoBro said on the last blog — Why bother? The people who hate Obama, it doesn’t matter WHAT he does or WHAT he says. The hate will remain.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA,

Sorry, I know your discussion isn’t with me, but I couldn’t resist. So… a gun owner who spends $500 for a weapon, AND goes through a background check(not even get into the possibility he/she gets a concealed carry license which is an extremely intensive – if not invasive), and ACTUALLY buys a gun safe because of the tax break… will probably not use it????? And you say logic is easy? Inigo Montoya had a quote that applies here.

As I implied earlier, citizenship in a nation based on personal liberty has enormous risks. Sometimes bad people do bad things to good people. That can’t be prevented. You have to accept this. That is reality! All you can do is make the cost of the crime so high, the individual who committed it never has the chance to do it a second time. If the criminal commits suicide before YOU can execute him, that’s sad. I’d like to take the criminal and hang him in the middle of the town square AND require the national media to cover it in all its gore, but that’s not going to happen – mores the pity, but that’s just my opinion and no better than your’s. But, making ME PAY for this asocial sociopath’s criminal act is WRONG!

And by the way 90 % of the time I vote Democratic

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, and BTW: “And by the way 90 % of the time I vote Democratic”

Why should I care how you voted?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d like to take the criminal and hang him in the middle of the town square

Not all crimes qualify for capital punishment.

• Link
• Report this comment

But… but… but… If I’d been given a chance to aim my 50 caliber machine gun at the bad guy before he snuck up on me, I woulda blowed his buttocks all over the place hence proving that more bigger faster guns with bigger magazines is the non-violent answer.

• Link
• Report this comment

The reason Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, et. al., should never go on Faux Newts is that you will never be allowed to win an argument…you’ll either be shouted down, cut off, or both. After all the only purpose for you being there in the first place is for ‘them’ to beat the crap out of you for the ‘enjoyment’ of their audience. An audience whose minds you’ll never change anyway. So just don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s interesting to me how often media outlets color the argument using the term “powerful gun lobby” … it’s never about “a majority of American voters” or the “will of the people”, rather some inherently evil, phantom organization which is trying to carry out its sinister plans

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, so I see you are in the mood for a no-holds barred debate? Your response to what would seem to be a point to further your position is turned into pettiness.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at Stevie (no big surprise there).

YOu asked a question, and I, nicely I might add, GOGGLED the information for you. and NOW you’re upset with me?

Are you my bitter ex boyfriend?

Just wondering………………….. BTW I’ve moved AND I still have those pit bulls and a glock. Just thought I’d mention that…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Well Jay, I guess your definition of “skewered” and mine come from a different dictionary, yours from the liberal one and mine from the one most others look at, I watched the interview and although Wallace did come off as semi attacking Wayne, Wayne held his on, Wallace is usually pretty fair so I will let him slide on that one.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Are they WELL REGULATED as prescribed by the Second Amendment?”

Please…take some grammar courses before attempting to interpret the Constitution. The phrase “well regulated” modifies the noun that follows just after it: militia. Once you have taken these courses, the thing you will have to do is show – grammatically, stylistically, historically and logically – how the prefatory clause limits the meaning of the main or operative clause in the manner liberals like Justice Stevens argue.

Here is a similarly construction article found in the Northwest Ordinance:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Following Steven’s hermeneutical rationale, this would mean that “the means of education should forever be encouraged” only so long as it promotes “religion, morality and knowledge”. A much more plausible interpretation is that “the means of education should forever be encouraged” since education – by acquainting the people with such things “religion, morality and knowledge” – is necessary to “good government and the happiness of mankind.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Not sure if it has been said already, but the most interesting part of this to me is the change in message from Wallace. There is no way, no how that he went after the NRA guy without direction first from his bosses at Fox and their bosses at the RNC. So, much like immigration last week, I suspect we will be hearing similar sentiments from Republicans soon.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m reminded of Christmas music, here in North Georgia with snow outside on the ground and LaPierre getting skewered on FOX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhzxQCTCI3E

Someone rotate Wayne. I think he’s done on that side.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA…Most of the amendments have restrictions. The right to vote is restricted by age, free speech by content and context, and so on…

• Link
• Report this comment

“GUN CONTROL IS LIKE TRYING TO REDUCE DRUNK DRIVING
BY MAKING IT TOUGHER FOR SOBER PEOPLE TO OWN CARS”

• Link
• Report this comment

Please…take some grammar courses before attempting to interpret the Constitution. The phrase “well regulated” modifies the noun that follows just after it: militia

OMG here we go again! Another non-understanding-non-lawyer type-trying to explain the constitution-by repeating the mumbo jumbo they heard on talk radio-by a bunch of high school drop outs nee drug addicted sociopaths-who can’t even spell yet know everything – “constitutional law expert”!

When does it end, sweet Jesus…..when does it end!?!?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Doggone/GA…Most of the amendments have restrictions”

and so should the 2nd. The question is: WHAT restrictions? No restrictions is a recipe for anarchy, too strict is a recipe for infringement.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife @3:21 – I keep telling him that!

• Link
• Report this comment

Not sure if this link was posted or not, but made for some interesting reading. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

It’s like a companies defense of it’s branding. Once you don’t defend it it dilutes your right to defend it in the next case.

We must vigorously defend our constitution, even if we do not agree with it. Then take the proper steps to change what we disagree with.

Obama has proven he is not concerned with proper steps. He showed that with selling the snake oil called ObamaCare, and that is part of the paranoia of some folks.

• Link
• Report this comment

“OMG here we go again! Another non-understanding-non-lawyer type-trying to explain the constitution-by repeating the mumbo jumbo they heard on talk radio-by a bunch of high school drop outs nee drug addicted sociopaths-who can’t even spell yet know everything – “constitutional law expert”!”

ROFL!!! Talk much, DDR? Unintended self-defeating irony is truly comic. Thanks for the laughs, girlfriend.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know why I bother but:
Lets look at Jay’s survey shall we:
surveyed – 2703
non-gun owners – 1756
gun owners – 947
NRA members – 169

So, 169 NRA members are an adequate survey of a membership of over 3.4 million?
yeah right!
And just where were these members? You can bet they were not in Georgia or even the South. perhaps in New England, where the survey was commissioned?
74%? that would be about 125 so that represents the will of 3.4 million? sure it does.

Background checks? we already do that so what does the survey show? the stupidity of the people being surveyed? Is the data incomplete? Sure it is; now show me a system that is 100% accurate.

Mental health records? are you willing to have your Dr submit your and your families records to the government for inclusion in the database? how else will it be accurate? Ever taken an antidepressant? you might be dangerous in some pencil pusher’s opinion.

Bottom line: I WILL NOT register my firearms with the government. there are millions like me. How are they going to tax and confiscate them when they have no idea who has what?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Deep down, the liberal elites have nothing but contempt for tools like me.- Indigo

Had to do a typo correction for Indigo.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone, the second does have restrictions. You cannot buy a handgun or ammo for one until a certain age. You cannot own an assault weapon without a federal permit. without a permit there are few ways to transport or carry your weapon, and the permit only allows a few more. You cannot fire your gun unless on private property outside the city limits, at least where I am, and that is restricted by acreage. There are more restrictions, and I’m sure you can look them up.

• Link
• Report this comment

TC — your posts and the regular irony of most of them, is truly whats “laugh worthy”.

I should be thanking YOU for all the hours of enjoyment that you’ve given me over the years – your skewered vision of the world is not only ……umm…………different, it’s entertaining too!

Thank YOU TC for being you!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Gun control is a way to protect law abiding citizens…both gun owners and non-gun owners…from idiots who own guns.”

Let me reword that…”Gun control is a way to control law abiding citizens…both gun owners and non-gun owners…from idiots who govern them.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not sure if this link was posted or not, but made for some interesting reading”

Well, I, for one, don’t need to read it…since I have no problems with the 2nd amendment

• Link
• Report this comment

How are they going to tax and confiscate them when they have no idea who has what?

Last time I checked, guns require ammo. They can track your guns through the ammo you buy.

Even if you make your own, you still need to buy the components. Those purchases can also be tracked.

• Link
• Report this comment

According to the NRA the only way to prevent gun violence is more guns. I think it’s a good point. The only way to prevent more drunk driving accidents is cheaper beer and booze. Also, to stop an intruder I need a 100 round clip. How many people could I shot with a 100 round clip. Before I stopped I could even shot some of my neighbors. The logic makes no sense. The big issue is a fear that the government is coming to get your guns. My basic belief is that if a President ever has the power and desire to come for your guns they will get it with no shots fired. Could you imagine a gun ship above your house. Would you risk your family for your gun very few would. Time to wake up to reality and common sense..

• Link
• Report this comment

MM – 3:35

I see you’ve finally found something you can do here, check spelling and grammar.

Your serious lack of intellect made me worry that posting here would give you an inferiority complex.

It is just so precious to see you actually succeed in something, even if it is small.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Doggone, the second does have restrictions”

And they need to be strengthened. And, mind you, *I* am the one that spent hours and days here DEFENDING the 2nd amendment and trying to bring some reason to the idiots who think the solution is to ban guns. But we do need stronger laws to control guns AND to protect both gun owners and non-gun owners. The question is going to come down to: what are REASONABLE strengthenings of the laws and what are not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doom – 3:37

Actually, I don’t have much use for any of the elites, poopie.

• Link
• Report this comment

How are they going to tax and confiscate them when they have no idea who has what?

By following your entries on certain websites and certain blogs. Duh!

The use of real identities across the Web is going mainstream at a rapid clip. A Wall Street Journal examination of nearly 1,000 top websites found that 75% now include code from social networks, such as Facebook’s “Like” or Twitter’s “Tweet” buttons. Such code can match people’s identities with their Web-browsing activities on an unprecedented scale and can even track a user’s arrival on a page if the button is never clicked.

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re gonna have posters looking over their shoulders for blacked out SUVs and helicopters.

Just a small part of my nefarious plan.

• Link
• Report this comment

I didn’t know a re-make of “Dumb and Dumber” was even being considered.

• Link
• Report this comment

“they’d still think the Second Amendment was perfect?”

What makes you think they considered it “perfect” to begin with? They were quite aware that protecting a right does NOT mean we don’t need LAWS to define that protection.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Oh. You thought you could come to a Bookman blog and get a rational real world conversation”

You come here, you get back what you put in.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Oh. You thought you could come to a Bookman blog and get a rational real world conversation?”

Says “Gun nut totin’ a gun in a gun culture. Yep. That’s me.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“but does Jay favor banning alcohol???”

Does Jay favor banning guns?

• Link
• Report this comment

In 2010, almost 11,000 Americans were killed by drunk drivers but does Jay favor banning alcohol???

Already addressed numerous times on other threads.

Maybe you can borrow the notes from one of your classmates that actually did their homework….

• Link
• Report this comment

If all these sheriffs and their deputies publicly declare to support the right of gun owners to keep and bear arms, in violation of their oath to the state and to the Constitution of the United States, how does one feel assured that they well faithfully execute the laws the have been voted on by our elected representatives and adjudicated by the Supreme Court to be legal? Should we be concerned that laws will be upheld and we are safe from the tyranny brought on by law enforcement community being in direct conflict with the law?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m not sure about the validity of these polls that posters are quoting. I don’t know anyone in my personal or professional life that wants to eliminate the ability to purchase weapons or clips currently available. I’m not sure how background checks will stop someone from eventually buying a weapon, just thinking realistically.

• Link
• Report this comment

scout,

Nobody is jumping down your rabbit holes anymore.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bookman, why do you even bother putting these articles out? You will never change your stance and those in opposition to gun-control will never change their stance. You have the venue to put your opinions and slants out as fact and that is all you have. Each side can produce numbers to refute the other side. It has been going on for decades and will not change.

Why do you not delve into why people mistrust the government in general and this administration in particular? Give us your opinions on that. Why do people that pay the bills want the government to keep their hands out of their pockets and quit giving to the give-me crowd? Enter those fields of discussion. The government cannot legislate common-sense and that is what it takes when handling and possessing firearms, not prohibition of them.

Why do you not delve into the area of racial genocide that we are seeing on the very streets of Atlanta? Do you honestly think that a back-ground check is going to stop these youths from shooting each other and from them attaining firearms? Nope, they are going to steal the firearms from those people that jump through the already in-place laws to get those firearms and then go out and shoot up their perceived enemies as well as innocent bystanders to get their point of supremacy across. Just look at the shootings this past week in the gun-free zones in Atlanta. Did those laws help?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Here’s the Chart That Supporters of a Federal Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Want to See”

“While anti-gun advocates argue that banning semi-automatic rifles, like the popular AR-15, will help decrease shooting deaths in the U.S., FBI data suggests that the average American is more likely to be killed by “hands, fists” or “feet” than a rifle.

As you can see in the chart ……. , the vast majority of murders in the U.S. are indeed committed with handguns, not rifles. More people were killed with shotguns (373), knifes/blades (1,704) and “other weapon[s]” (1,772) more often than they were with rifles in 2010, which were reportedly used in 358 murders that year.

Whether it’s a knife, gun or a fist, will a “ban” of any kind sway a deranged individual’s decision to take human lives?”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/20/heres-the-chart-that-supporters-of-a-federal-assault-weapons-ban-wont-want-to-see/

• Link
• Report this comment

opey just wrote the dumbest comment on this thread.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’ve told you before…don’t put YOUR WORDS in MY MOUTH and expect me to defend them. It doesn’t work.”

Neither does deflection or ignoring a question put to you. As I said, surely you realize that the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed by youths illegally possessing handguns. Please tell us all how the currently proposed legislation will prevent that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jackie:

“,in violation of their oath to the state and to the Constitution of the United States”

That’s where you have it exactly backwards. They “are” upholding their oath !

I took the oath four times in my life ………. and it wasn’t to the Congress, the President or the Supreme Court ………. it was to the CONSTITUTION !

• Link
• Report this comment

“The mass murderers all turn out to be liberals.”

Tim McVeigh was a liberal? The stuff you read on a blog!

• Link
• Report this comment

“The ugly hate of Twitter is mainly spouted by liberals.”

Bqhatevwr

• Link
• Report this comment

“1905 Argentine Mauser that uses 7 MM ammo that is hard to get. The ammo I am now using was loaded in 1936 for the Spanish Civil War, it still fires flawlessly!”

I had a 7mm American Mexican war rifle.

Big kick and big flame out the barrel.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Does anyone out there really think if the founding fathers were brought to 2013 and saw the kind of weapons being sold in legitimate gun shops they’d still think the Second Amendment was perfect?”

How about this retort?….

Does anyone out there really think if the founding fathers were brought to 2013 and saw the kind of CRIMES being committed against American citizens, property and businesses they’d rethink the Second Amendment altogether and just go ahead and write AR-15s in? Think about that!

• Link
• Report this comment

Who is going to win today – Ravens or 49ers?

• Link
• Report this comment

@DannyX

February 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm
“The ugly hate of Twitter is mainly spouted by liberals.”

Bqhatevwr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Evil is not to be traced back to the individual but to the collective behavior of humanity.

• Link
• Report this comment

The State….and its mouthpieces want your guns.
But NOT for the stated reasons.
.
From Claire Wolf————A reason to be Optimistic…………….in this………………ObamaNation———————

.

“I find post after abortive post going in a different direction. Not because the reasons to be hopeful don’t exist, but because they all lead to a conclusion I don’t want to conclude.

It’s not a new conclusion. Others have reached it long since. It’s just one I think more of us need to quit dancing around, like it or not. We’ve bitched about how the fedgov now treats its citizens subjects as criminal suspects. But that misses the point by orders of magnitude.

You don’t spy on millions of people, militarize your police, encourage neighbor to rat out neighbor, define thousands of innocuous activities as “domestic terrorism, conduct checkpoints and VIPR raids, lock people up without trials, kick down doors in the middle of the night, or arbitrarily deny people the freedom to travel if you’re looking for mere criminals.

You do that only if you’re pants-pissing terrified because you fear that those millions — millions! — of peaceable people are enemies of your regime.

The U.S. federal government has (covertly of course, and gradually) declared war on its citizens. That’s the reality. We’re not mere criminal suspects. We’re enemies — and by their choice, not ours.

Sure, some of us may have philosophically fancied ourselves enemies of the state. Some of us prefer to be ignorers of the state. Most of us have learned to live, one way or another, peaceably in the shadow of the state. But I don’t know one of us who has ever violently attacked the state — or wanted to.

But no matter what we think, or how we live, or with what civility and decency we conduct ourselves, in the eye of Mordor-on-the-Potomac, we are all enemies. All despised. And above all — all subject to destruction at the whim of power.

We need to recognize exactly what that darkness is, massing on our horizon. We need to quit being indignant innocents protesting against it and nattering about constitutions and rights — as if anyone in power listened or cared. We need to understand exactly what the looming darkness portends for us — and what the forces behind it intend for us.

• Link
• Report this comment

If the Anti-Gun group was truly worried about safety, they would be going after drugs, prescription drug abuse, DUIs, and bad drivers, but hey, guns are scary!

More people died from being kicked/hit/punched than from assault rifles.

In 2010, more than 10,228 people died because of a DUI involved traffic collision, that is near close to the number of firearms related homicides by in the US, which is 11,101 for 2010.

What does that mean? You are just as likely to die on the road today, as you are to die by a firearm anywhere in the US.

If you look at firearms accidents and other traffic collisions, they are comparable still.

2009: 31,347 firearms related deaths (including police shootings, self defense, and suicide.)

In 2009, motor vehicle crashes killed about 35,000 people and 22% of those killed were between 15 and 24 years old.

In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.

Where is the outrage?

Here are my citations, where are yours?
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

• Link
• Report this comment

I took the oath four times in my life ………. and it wasn’t to the Congress, the President or the Supreme Court ………. it was to the CONSTITUTION !

I hate to say this, but what an idiotic statement you just made. First because Jackie, like you PROFESS to be, is an ex-vet. He knows more about the oath than you profess to, obviously.

The oath for a servicemember says:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

• Link
• Report this comment

Okay…I’m out guys…SB time.

• Link
• Report this comment

@1811

You swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, not to interpret those laws to your own liking.

• Link
• Report this comment

First of all, taking a soldier who has returned home from a combat theater struggling with PTSD (apparently a very well known fact among his family and friends) to a shooting range was, to be kind, a display of very poor judgment. These soldiers should not be allowed access to any kind of firearm, if for no other reason than their suicide rate is already off the charts – let alone be given access with others present. And, as Jay noted correctly, in situations like this when the shooter gets the drop on the victim, having a gun, or being in a room full of guns, is not going to help the victim.

As a strong Second Amendment advocate, I feel that universal background checks on all gun sales, public and private, is a reasonable requirement. No, it will not stop criminals who always have and always will scoff at obeying such laws (the black market is all that they need), but not all legally purchased guns are properly used or accounted for, and are often found to be used in crimes because they were stolen or borrowed, etc. And such checks would be a useful tool in taking the steps necesary to prevent access to fire arms by the mentally ill. Simply finding out if those qualified to purchase fire arms have relatives or live with those who have had mental health problems, and the nature of those problems, would be useful – so that those in that situation can be properly trained in securing those firearms and ammunition and preventing access by those with mental health issues.A program like that may have prevented the Newtown shootings.

The danger here, the risk, is one worth taking, in my view. Even though many law abiding gun owners fear that the end game of those wanting background checks is to compile a list that could be used to enforce any future confiscation laws, or more likely, and ammunition taxes. The Dem/Libs and the Left have certainly demonstrated over the years that there is not one problem or issue that you can name that cannot be remedied by levying a tax, or raising taxes. So the fear is not unfounded. But, full background checks would prevent a number of gun related deaths, and would be a step in the right direction in limiting their access by the mentally ill.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak

You own that one outright. All the regulars know where that quote originated, and it didn’t come from Thomas Jefferson.

• Link
• Report this comment

fox new objective…hilarious

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob:

Thank you.

Jackie:

No ………. I swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION.

Debbie:

The military oath is different from the civilian oath but that said, even the military oath means “lawful” orders. We were told that repeatedly. Remembe Mi Lai ?

The civilian oath is to support the CONSTITUTION !

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Right. The NRA and gun rights group have no trust of Feinstein and those on the left because they purposely use misinformation. Since they are openly dishonest from the outset suspecting their motives behind a universal background check is actually not only reasonable, its appropriate.

I don’t favor a universal background check for sales or transfers to your own family members. I have no real issues with running a background check on other sales, although some accommodation must be made for people in rural areas where there isn’t a gun store around the corner.

No registration. Ever. No database of what guns I own. Ever. That will be their way of back dooring a ban. I don’t understand how mentally ill patients can have the right to not have their names in a national database but law abiding citizens must. I would not register my weapons. I can’t stop them from getting the info on new guns, but I won’t register my current weapons.

• Link
• Report this comment

This debate has become Furious so Fast!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jackie:

“@1811

You swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, not to interpret those laws to your own liking.”

Exactly ……….. unless those orders violate the Constitution !

I remember explicitly one of the last lectures we got before we went to Vietnam. A Chaplain and a major addressed our group and told us that inspite of all of our training to obey an order without reservation that there “could” be a time when we would have to do just that. I couldn’t believe what they were saying at the time but now I know.

Remember My Lai ?

There were even times in my federal law enforcement career when I refused (or modified) an “order” as I believed it was a violation of the Constitution.

I live to a higher standard.

• Link
• Report this comment

…and those on the left because they purposely use misinformation.

The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gary:

Thank you !

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yet conservatives, such as yourself, show up here without fail to post your statements about whatever Jay posts.”

. . . and will continue to do so until the First Amendment has been duly altered by the libs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Q: How many NRA execs does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: More guns! More guns!

• Link
• Report this comment

Well gang, rest assured if Obama gets what he wants, the old expression …only criminals will have guns… will be ever so true. And nobody has mentioned how the black market for guns will become the new problem. Let’s have a history lesson real quick. Prohibition becomes law in America in the early 20s. Crime related activity surrounding alcohol goes through the roof, violence, black market and bootlegging are rampant. Prohibition is repealed. Crime element surrounding alcohol disappears. Better quit while you’re ahead. And by the way, if you don’t like Fox, watch something else. Nobody’s forcing anybody to watch them. I can’t stand CNN, so guess what? I don’t watch it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Trying investing in a home in SW Atlanta and see weather or not a gun comes in handy thwarting criminals.

• Link
• Report this comment

Indigo,

tick tick tick

• Link
• Report this comment

America is over 200 years old. In that time, our Govt. has never even come close to “taking over” the people.

And yet, many of you here are convinced your guns are the only thing keeping our Govt. from a full and brutal crackdown.

Incredibly, you don’t seem to understand that, if that actually happened, your guns would be no match for F-18 super hornets, tanks, RPG’s, grenade launchers, artillery and JDAM’s, just to name a few of the weapons in our Military’s arsenal.

Your paranois beliefs didn’t just happen. They have been carefully instilled in you by The NRA and The Republican Party. This is because they want you to buy as many guns as possible. This will keep the gun companies in full profit mode and will keep the campaign cash flowing to the Republican politicians.

Do you really want to be used for the rest of your lives?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Incredibly, you don’t seem to understand that, if that actually happened, your guns would be no match for F-18 super hornets, tanks, RPG’s, grenade launchers, artillery and JDAM’s, just to name a few of the weapons in our Military’s arsenal.”

And yet for some reason the US and Russia both had issues with Afghanistan. Must be because of their advanced weapons programs.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve lived in a “transitional” neighborhood since 1997 and have never felt the need to own a gun. That’s your thing if you do. But guns are extremely dangerous and should be regulated like everything else in this crowded, modern, technologically advanced world we live in. Otherwise, move to some country that has no gun control and good riddance. Better learn some Arabic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Two failed gop occupations.

We won Libya to free Libyans but did not have one military death..

Nuff said.

• Link
• Report this comment

Muskets and militias – and militias to protect from uprising of slaves in the South. Time to revisit that 2nd Amendment and grow up as a nation, then onto bigger and better changes.

• Link
• Report this comment

And yet for some reason the US and Russia both had issues with Afghanistan. Must be because of their advanced weapons programs.

Don’t forget about Hannibal too. I doubt that American forces would have the same geographical issues on their home turf as they’re facing in Afghanistan. That said, don’t let me interfere with your “Red Dawn” fantasy.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve sat here reading through these five pages and can only shake my head. While I own no guns anymore, I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, but I am not a supporter of the NRA or …for that matter, assault weapons. I know from personal experience how deadly assault weapons are and I also know they make lousy hunting and home defense weapons. They tear up the body and there is not a wall in America that will stop penetration. Kyle proves that, except in Hollywood, there are no stand up, face to face gun fights. Ambush and back shooting are the norm. Those of you “wannabe Rambo’s” are in for a very rude awakening, should you ever find yourself trying to defend your home with a Bushmaster. You are more than likely going to kill your own family or your neighbors by accident. A good pump shotgun is a much better choice for home defense. Be a real man and ditch the assault weapon…you don’t need them.

• Link
• Report this comment

WOLVERINES!

Thomas”Kamchak”Jefferson

• Link
• Report this comment

Wayne LaPierre is a phony.

He’s only interested in fear mongering because it’s profitable for himself, the gun lobby, and gun makers.

His irrational approach to this issue will ultimately lead to stricter gun control than any of the NRA membership ever dreamed.

The South’s resistance to integration and voter rights accelerated the rest of the Nation’s push back.

Same will happen to guns.

• Link
• Report this comment

2nd Amendment!

• Link
• Report this comment

No one is more one sided than the AJC liberals.

• Link
• Report this comment

One more thing, it really smells of MSNBC when I watch this interview. Anyone also thinking what I’m thinking? Chris Wallace jumping ship and landing at MSNBC?

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama has and will not go on Fox News because he knows that he’ll be confronted with intelligent, verifiably valid questions about the true issues and will not be “babied” like the mainstream news networks babies him. I think he should man up and go on. If the debate he has on gun control, economics, unemployment and all the other talking points are straight up, he has nothing to be scared of. Otherwise, it leads one to believe he’s afraid and hiding from the straight forward questions that he’d be on the spot to answer rather than sound bites he gives mainstream media. The American public deserves precise, truthful answers, which is what true leaders provide…Obama works for the citizens of this country (making us his boss).

• Link
• Report this comment

The things you do in the past can sometimes bite you in the ass in the future…

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/canadian-man-wins-contest-attend-super-bowl-not-210921980–nfl.html

• Link
• Report this comment

@Dan

You are not taking into account President Obama is only the President. In other words, he can not dictate to the House or Senate, nor can he force the Supreme Court to declare a law passed by the Congress and signed by him to be constitutional.

He has stated his position on all the subjects you mentioned, yet, the Congress has not acted on any of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think he should man up and go on.

I think you should read through the comments before showing your ignorance.

Page 1, seventh comment, Jay provides 4 links where Obama has been interviewed on Fox News.

Now, ain’t your face tight?

• Link
• Report this comment

MSNBC?!? Ha ! I get MY news from Comedy Central!

• Link
• Report this comment

Bottom line….. most thinking people do not trust our government, especially our esteemed president. Most everything coming from his speeches are lies, lies and more lies. How can a responsible person trust this clown. He doesn’t really care about who has a gun and who doesn’t. He is only interested in increasing his power base. If he really cared, he would do something presidential about those estimated 700 black males who are estimated to be killed in Chicago this year. He and his stooge, Emanuel have done little to nothing to stop this carnage. How many of the black families from Chicago were summoned to listen to his gun control speech. Seems that the predominance of those present were white. He doesn’t care. He really doesn’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

@kayaker 71

What do you think the President should do to prevent those murders in Chicago, stop the illegal gun trade in Mississippi?

• Link
• Report this comment

Now, ain’t your face tight?

I seriously doubt it…

———————–

Jackie

Kayaker doesn’t give a sh*t about Chicago beyond using that as a talking point to display his ODS. I don’t know of a single conservative here who has actually given enough of a sh*t about Chicago to try to do something about it other than attacking Obama about what’s going on there.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Brosephus

Maybe asking the question will get them to think about what they are saying?

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe asking the question will get them to think about what they are saying?

And maybe a frog won’t bump it’s ass the next time it takes a hop. Personally, I’m betting on the frog not bumping it’s ass before one of them actually thinks about what they’re saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The founding fathers would look at their muskets and then look at the weapons we have now and insist that the Constitution be re-written/amended for changing times.”

The first thing said by them would be, “Anyone want to buy some genuine antique muskets?” The second thing they would say is, “How much for the AR-15’s with the extended clips? How much are the extra clips?”

Before that was discussed, however, they would look around and then exclaim, “What the hell have you done with this country of freedom and opportunity that we left you? The Constitution was not a work-in-progress, it was a FINISHED document and a guide for your continued freedom and opportunity! Looks like you people have had one hell of a lot of ‘taxation WITH representation! You have turned a wonderful land of freedom into a socialist welfare state!”

• Link
• Report this comment

Jackie, 5:48,

Those 20 white children from Sandy Hook seem to have been the catalyst for our present dialogue about gun control Feinstein mentioned little to nothing about gun violence prior to that event and certainly did not introduce legislation to limited rounds in a magazine. Knee jerk reactions to a crisis usually result in a questionable result, especially when Joe Biden is heading up a “task force” to spit out an expected answer to his boss and all of the liberals panting at the door. I mourn those kids. Some are the age of my grandchildren. That maniacal animal that shot them all should rot in hell. There is very little in Biden’s proposals that would have prevented another Sandy Hook. As an aside, item #4 in Bozo’s list of Executive orders gives the ATTY GEN the right to determine who will own a gun and who will not. Not acceptable from a known liar and crook who evades the truth and hides behind his president. He is a coward, plain and simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

The gunners will work themselves into a frenzy on this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

As an aside, item #4 in Bozo’s list of Executive orders gives the ATTY GEN the right to determine who will own a gun and who will not.

Gotta tag that one with Kamchak’s Corollary: “If you’re going to make sh*t up, then there’s no need to be half assed about it.”

4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

So, nowadays, simply reviewing the categories of individuals who are prohibited from possessing a gun is the same thing as someone deciding who gets to own guns and who won’t. The things I learn here… If my daughter applied logic like that, I’d take her to the doctor to see if she had some kind of mental disability.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay— once again you don’t get it. How many violent acts, including murder, rape, assault, etc. are stopped each year because of the prescense of a gun? Does if have to be a justifiable homicide for it to count? No…The mere existence of weapon evens the playing field and stops thousands of violent felonies from occurring each year. What about the lady in Georgia who stopped a home invasion and protected herself and her 2 nine year old daughters from a violent criminal. She shot him 5 times (she had a revolver .38) and thankfully that was enough. He did not die…You want to get deal with firearm murders then you need to address 2 things: 1. gangs 2. illegal street drugs, that is where about 75% of all firearm related homicides occur.

Nobody is against guns. You either support law-abiding citizens RIGHT to own firearms alongside law enforcement OR you support the use of force (arms) of the government to take away arms and be the only ones to have them.

It is not about guns…It is about you feel like only the government should have them…..Get Real….

• Link
• Report this comment

@Brosephus

You da’ man!!! LOL, LOL, LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

You either support law-abiding citizens RIGHT to own firearms alongside law enforcement OR you support the use of force (arms) of the government to take away arms and be the only ones to have them.

You’re either a cowboy or an Indian?

I think it’s time for you to graduate to big-boy pants.

• Link
• Report this comment

“On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm”

Curious, in general, what are the demographics and SES of the criminal/shooter? PERHAPS, in general, the problem is not the gun, but the crimimal/shooter…but, we don’t want to go there…

• Link
• Report this comment

“pea brain wing nuts attack the president!! their act is predictable and stale”

They are staying the course focusing on getting our President.

It is sad and pathetic.

• Link
• Report this comment