Video: Jack Kingston spars with MSNBC host on gun control

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Let no one say Savannah Republican U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston hides in a conservative media bunker. Today he had a tough interview with MSNBC host Thomas Roberts on the subject of gun control in light of Friday’s tragedy in Connecticut. Kingston said gun control laws should be under discussion, but the discussion should also include mental illness and other aspects of mass shootings.

A key moment comes around the 7:30 mark, after Kingston describes mass shootings in Europe that occurred in spite of strict gun laws:

Roberts: So there’s nothing we can do? …. We need to just be complacent in the fact that we can send our children to school to be assassinated?

Kingston: Thomas, I think one of the problems we have on the gun control debate is it immediately starts dividing people into: ‘You disagree with me, therefore you are the enemy.’ I’ve opened up by saying let’s put gun control up for discussion. Let’s include mental health. Let’s put video games, let’s put home background in there. And I think where there is some common ground you could say the storage of weapons. But when we immediately start saying, ‘Well, you want this, therefore you dislike children,’ it’s not productive to the debate.

- By Daniel Malloy, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

136 comments Add your comment

911

December 18th, 2012
4:21 pm

After much soul searching I have thrown my whole hearted support to both the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment is just as dangerous as the Second. It’s not only the guns that kill innocent people. It’s the spoken word of the freedom of expression crowd. TV, radio, internet, and especially the congress, that must be stopped from exercising and and all the rights of freedom. How stupid it was for the founding fathers to have ever adopted such nonsense.

LoganvilleGuy

December 18th, 2012
4:22 pm

@Baron DeKalb -

I’d be careful with your argument about wanting to go with the “original intent” of the second amendment. The original intent of the second amendment was to allow able-bodied men to form a well-regulated militia complete with weapons in order to maintain their freedom from any form of oppression. Therefore, under the “original intent” of the second amendment, people would be able to own any form of available weapon to maintain the ability to form such a well-regulated militia.

Also, the second amendment says the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I’m not sure how you define “bear” but it certainly has nothing to do with keeping weapons in the home… that would be the keep part.

FYI, the Constitution does not “grant” rights… it merely protects them. The first ten amendments of the Constitution were considered by our founding fathers to be inviolable. I’m not sure about you, but I consider them to be legal and scholarly geniuses. I think they were right on the money with the Bill of Rights.

The fact that we are willing to give up rights for the sake of safety is scary to me.

Idontgetit

December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm

Banning ownership of assult rifles would have prevented the latest shooter from getting that gun from his mother. Gun supporters say banning such would just take guns away form ‘law abiding’ citizens. Wouldn’t that be exactly the point here? It seems incredulous that she, a ‘law abiding citizen’, would buy such wepons and then teach her son (’who shouldn’t be left alone for a second’) how to use them.

Outlaws WILL HAVE outlawed guns

December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm

Washington DC and Chi Town ought to be safest cities on earth,,as they have stringent gun controls and the basic outlawing of guns. These two cities lead the world in gun crimes. Murder, etc.

FIX the soul, fix the heart, fix the broken homes, broken minds, then you fix crime.
Government cannot fix anything, people. They caused most of this.

smitty

December 18th, 2012
4:34 pm

They are willing to give up rights for a sense of safety that doesn’t exist. You certainly won’t be safer when the guy on the street attacks you with a knife. You certainly won’t be safer when somebody kicks down your door in a home invasion. You certainly won’t be safer when a guy gets a gun on the black market and does the exact same thing that was done on Friday.

I’ve lived in a neighborhood where I was awoken to gunshots on a regular basis. It was not long after when I got my first handgun. That sense of helplessness is one that I hope to never feel again.

Kris

December 18th, 2012
4:35 pm

The nation’s largest gun-rights organization — typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths — has gone all but silent since last week’s rampage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 people dead, including 20 children.
Its Facebook page has disappeared. It has posted no tweets.

http://myfox8.com/2012/12/18/nra-facebook-page-goes-dark-after-newtown-school-shooting/

Why is the mighty NRA (proud owners of many politicians’) Hiding?

DILLIGAF

December 18th, 2012
4:47 pm

The 2nd Ammendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Period.

You liberal sissies that are on here mindlessly babbling about, “assault weapons”, and “high capacity clips” have no idea what you are talking about as 90% of you have never even held a firearm let alone loaded or shot one. You idiots are hell bent on taking away everyone’s liberties and rights and are probably the same weenies whining about Silent Night being sung at the Christmas play.
You liberals that state that,”only the military and police should have guns” will be the first to line up for the RFID chips and will go sit in a corner and wet yourself while waiting for the police to come save you when the SHTF! Good luck wiith that.

If you want to end the senseless tragedies such as the one that we have recently endured then lets talk about separating the mentally ill from the rest of society, let’s talk about outlawing the mind-altering pharmaceuyticals that you start pumping into your children at an early age.

I’ve shed my share of tears over the CT tragedy and I’m also very angry. I’m a responsible person that enjoys sport shooting, pays my taxes and have never had as much as a speediing ticket yet feel like I have to defend my thoughts on my God given rights.

How come no one mentions the 2,000 children that are murdered through abortion every single day?
How come no one bothers to bring up the thousands of innocent children that have been murdered through drone attacks in other countries?

You people need to get your heads out of your a….!

curious

December 18th, 2012
4:56 pm

The absolute refusal of the NRA and its supporters to even consider any suggestion that might keep guns out of irresponsible hands will ultimately be the causation of more strenous gun control laws than they ever imagined.

Do you believe George Wallace,those sheriff’s deputies at the Edmund Pettis bridge, or those Church bombers in Birmingham figured there actions would have a completely different reaction?

NRA. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem and just may become extinct ala the KKK (once a huge group).

Ocmulgee Paddler

December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm

Baron,

If we are only going to take the constitution’s wording for when it is written, then it is fair to assume you do not think the first amendment covers radio, television, and the internet?

Diggins

December 18th, 2012
5:04 pm

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Assault. Is a human behaviour. A person could put to death with a ball at . This makes the weapon something you are assaulted with. All of my firearms are for sport or for defense. Not for offense. This includes my ar15.

td

December 18th, 2012
5:05 pm

DJ Sniper

December 18th, 2012
3:35 pm

I consider myself to be on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I have no issues at all with gun ownership, and that includes high powered rifles like AR-15’s, AK-47’s, and the like. What kills me though is when people swear up and down that situations like this could have been avoided if the teachers had been armed. There’s no guarantee of that.

You are right that there was/is no guarantee that this would be stopped but if that poor Principal had been armed then at least there would have been A chance instead of her going out there trying to stop him unarmed and being gunned down. The police were at the school within 18 minutes (which by most standards is a great response time). The real wake up call is that we can not depend on the police to stop these types of killers and we must do something to protect ourselves and our children.

td

December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm

MoFaux

December 18th, 2012
3:51 pm

@ Solve the problem: We only need one gun control law: outlaw guns period except for law enforcement and military.

Well since that is unrealistic because the 2nd Amendment is NOT going to be repealed. What is your next plan?

SBinF

December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm

Christ, as a teacher I now have to attend firearms training in addition to my other duties?

Makes sense, the 3 R’s:

readin’, writin’, and revolvers

SBinF

December 18th, 2012
5:13 pm

“I’ve shed my share of tears over the CT tragedy and I’m also very angry. I’m a responsible person that enjoys sport shooting, pays my taxes and have never had as much as a speediing ticket yet feel like I have to defend my thoughts on my God given rights.”

Yes, God has granted us the right to owning as many firearms as possible, with as much capacity to kill as many as possible in a matter of minutes. I think it’s in Leviticus. Praise Jesus! God bless America, and nobody else!

td

December 18th, 2012
5:15 pm

BARON DEKALB

December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm

Solve: We have the 2nd Amendment to make sure that ordinary citizens’ rights to keep muzzle-loading, single-shot hunting rifles at home is not infringed. Got it?

Wrong, There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about hunting or self protection rights.

Retired Soldier

December 18th, 2012
5:16 pm

curious-

There are already plenty of laws to keep guns out of “irresponsible” hands. What you are advocating is keeping guns out of responsible hands. That is an irresponsible position.

NoMoreRawDeal

December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm

All you Dems here calling for a ban on ‘assault weapons’: The deadliest mass shooting in US history – at Virginia Tech – was carried out by a man carrying only two handguns. He killed over 30 people.

Also: when a crazy person steals a car and proceeds to drive it into a crowd of people and kills 20 of them before the car stops, should we ban cars? It’s no different than a mass shooting. The intention is the same – to kill lots of people – only the tool is different.

smitty

December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm

We can afford to build these million dollars schools but can’t afford to secure them….

Diggins

December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm

Drunk drivers kill innocent people everyday. Don’t recall any debates on banning liquor.

RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm

“There are already plenty of laws to keep guns out of ‘irresponsible’ hands. What you are advocating is keeping guns out of responsible hands. That is an irresponsible position.”

Well said, Retired Soldier.

The statists who want to abolish the Second Amendment are the same ones that say we can’t do anything about illegal immigration. They say we couldn’t possibly find and “round-up” 12 million illegals. But now they say we should find and round-up 200 million firearms.

Liberals have trashed God, prayer, charitable giving, free enterprise, our Constitution, and our way of life. They have embraced abortion, taxpayer-funded contraceptives, medical marijuana, Hollywood’s violent movies, the growth of single-parent households, permissiveness, the drug culture, a war on religion, an expansionist, intrusive government, and indebtedness that will end our standard of living.

With a self-created, twisted society as the backdrop, the secularists propose the way to end gun violence is to take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

You’ll understand if I “Just Say No” since your track record in solving societal problems is abysmal. How’s that War on Poverty working for you?

ODD OWL

December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm

You don’t need the intellect of Einstein to figure out that we have a gun problem in this country… The best way to solve this problem is by banning all hand guns, ban all concealable guns… Ban all semi-automatic guns that are designed for killing humans… The only guns that should be legal are long rifles and shot guns with a maximum 5 shot capacity, that are designed for hunting game and target shooting…

NoMoreRawDeal

December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm

In keeping with RGB’s last question I’d like to add:

How’s that War on Drugs working for you?
How’s that War on Terror working for you?
How’s that War on Obeisity working for you?

Oh, I could go on all day…

Retired Soldier

December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm

Also well said RGB.

RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm

One more thought: Obamacare will kill more people on a daily basis than were killed in this recent tragedy. This will occur because of market distortions that will reduce both the quality of and access to medical care.

The difference is that the names of those whose lives are shortened by Obamacare will never be on TV for 6 days straight. And many will not be children.

Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.

NoMoreRawDeal

December 18th, 2012
5:35 pm

@ODD OWL:

From your statement I think it’s pretty obvious your intellect is nowhere near Einstein. More like Barney Rubble.

North resident

December 18th, 2012
5:36 pm

Christ, as a teacher I now have to attend firearms training in addition to my other duties?

No. But if there are other faculty members of your school who have the ability and wherewithal to attend firearms training and use the weapon in the event of an emergency, that would be sufficient.

As to collecting “registered guns”, guns aren’t registered in most states. Further, the only record of them might be a NICS background check at the point of transfer from an FFL. So Feds know what has been sold at some point in the past, but that is not an indication of where the firearm is currently.

Confiscating firearms from 80 MILLION households is no small feat.

To suggest that firearms have no business in this, or any other, society is to ignore the plight of every abused citizenry, from current day Syria to mid 18th century America. The only constant is that , eventually, all governments come to overstep their bounds.

Before the advent of guns, thugs formed gangs and terrorized the local populace, travelers, etc. Much like the gangs using twitter and facebook to descend on a store and rip them off. THAT is the fate of America without guns.

The SCOTUS ruled, in 2005, that the police have no duty to protect you. (Warren vs. DC and Castle Rock vs. Gonzolez). YOU are responsible for your own protection. Right now, your neighbor’s gun and the possibility that you might have a gun serve as a deterrent to anyone who might want to do you harm in your own home. There is a reason why these mentally ill idiots choose soft targets.

The AWB of 2004 limited hi cap magazines. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the affect of that ban showed that banning hi cap magazines had ZERO affect on crime. If AWB worked, they would have worked in CA, IL, CT, NY, etc.

Retired Soldier

December 18th, 2012
5:36 pm

ODD OWL-

Can long guns and shotguns kill people? Why not ban them too. What an inane posting.

Monorail cat

December 18th, 2012
5:37 pm

To hear some of you guys talk about it, bans on things have no impact on people aquiring them. I guess this means you also support unlimited access to abortions and drugs! Right?

Retired Soldier

December 18th, 2012
5:40 pm

To the contary cat, bans do affect the lawful, not the unlawful.

td

December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm

ODD OWL

December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm

You don’t need the intellect of Einstein to figure out that we have a gun problem in this country… The best way to solve this problem is by banning all hand guns, ban all concealable guns… Ban all semi-automatic guns that are designed for killing humans… The only guns that should be legal are long rifles and shot guns with a maximum 5 shot capacity, that are designed for hunting game and target shooting

Please show me in the 2nd Amendment where it says we can keep and bear only hunting weapons?

RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm

Removing guns from law abiding citizens fits neatly with Obama crony Harry Belafonte’s belief expressed last week that everyone who disagrees with Obama should be imprisoned. See, people are easier to subdue, capture, imprison, and torture when they are unarmed.

Isn’t it great to be a liberal?

NoMoreRawDeal

December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm

@Monorail cat:

Well, I do, but I’m more libertarian than I am Republican. But in general yes, prohibitions – on anything – generally have little impact on a persons’ ability to acquire the prohibited item or perform a prohibited act.

North resident

December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm

To hear some of you guys talk about it, bans on things have no impact on people aquiring them. I guess this means you also support unlimited access to abortions and drugs! Right?

Bans on things have on impact on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS acquiring them. It makes no difference to criminals.

But to answer your question, I support first trimester abortions and legalizing most drugs. I care not one whit about meth heads killing themselves as long as I don’t have to wait for 30 minutes at the pharmacy to buy pseudofed when I have a cold.

td

December 18th, 2012
5:45 pm

RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm

“Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.”

It is nice to debate the 2nd Amendment on philosophical grounds but let us not fool ourselves. Democrats can say all they want that they are taking these stands to “protect children” but when 2000 children are killed each and everyday by their mother’s following the policies of the Democratic party their “save the children” stance is just a bunch of BS. It is all about getting rid of guns.

RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:47 pm

td

Yes sir. Precisely my point.

Idontgetit

December 18th, 2012
5:51 pm

Wasn’t the mother of the shooter considered ‘responsible’ by most standards? Shouldn’t certain guns have been kept out of her hands so she couldn’t have taught her (apparently) irresponsible son how to use them? Did she need a gun for protection in her safe town? We all see the results. And the answer is clear.

North resident

December 18th, 2012
6:01 pm

Idontgetit: you are right, there IS an issue here. The mother would have legally been considered responsible right up to the time she taught her mentally ill son to use a gun, and left a gun where he could access it. Yes, there is something there to be considered. But in the U.S. of A, we are innocent until proven guilty… even the mentally ill. Perhaps all gun owners should be required to keep their guns either on their person, or in a safe with a biometric lock? But that still wouldn’t help if the owner allowed their mentally ill children to access the safe. You can never legislate stupidity away. But it certainly IS the responsibility of gun owners to do everything they can to keep others from accessing their guns… a step the mother did not take.

Making the gun easily available to the owner, but to no one else, is the key. Even then… you can’t legislate common sense.

Monorail cat

December 18th, 2012
6:07 pm

To the contary cat, bans do affect the lawful, not the unlawful.

Exactly, Planned Parenthood appreciates yours and all other 2nd amendment maximalist support of unlimited access to abortions. Your membership card is in the mail.

Buckhead Boy

December 18th, 2012
6:21 pm

td, seems to me that the mother of the shooter had quite the little arsenal at her disposal, and she’s very dead too. I suppose, though, that the element of surprise is never taken into account by those who haven’t heard a loud angry shot, but foolishly advocate a solution lying in arming more people.

And, by the way, the Heller decision that discounted the prefatory clause and discerned the individual right was a 5-4 decision. That means that your individual right hangs by a thread — just one old man. Time for the gun-happy to be prudently reasonable, don’t you think?

CONS The Party of the Bushmaster

December 18th, 2012
6:39 pm

WHY should the NRA care?

It wasn’t their children that were MURDERED.

CONS The Party of the Bushmaster

December 18th, 2012
6:46 pm

@td

December 18th, 2012
5:45 pm
RGB

December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm

“Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.”

2000 children are killed each and everyday by their mother’s following the policies of the Democratic party their “save the children” stance is just a bunch of BS.

It is all about getting rid of guns.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What is the GOP stance?

KILL the children that are alive with the Bushmaster?

RGB

December 18th, 2012
6:48 pm

The NRA did not kill the children.

The NRA teaches gun safety courses (Eddie Eagle) to hundreds of thousands of children and teaches women and the elderly “How Not to be a Victim” through its educational endeavors.

Abolishing the NRA (which would be removing their First Amendment rights) would not have stopped these killings.

The laws and measures that people such as Dianne Feinstein propose would not have prevented this tragedy. So if none of the measures proposed would have prevented the problem, what is your purpose in supporting such nonsensical measures? Do you just want to feeeeel like you are doing something?

Liberals do this all the time. With their proposed tax measures they acknowledge that taxing the upper income families won’t do anything to reduce the deficit. When asked why, then, would he support such a measure, President Obama replied “fairness”.

Liberals don’t aim to solve problems. They never do. Their aim is to abolish the Constitution one inconvenient amendment at a time so as to consolidate their power.

The Columbine shooting happened smack in the middle of the earlier “assault” weapons ban. It did nothing.

Do you propose we do something that accomplishes nothing again?

DDS

December 18th, 2012
6:54 pm

I have read most of the above posts. Not all of them to be sure. Some of them made my head hurt. Some were downright hilarious. Pretty much par for the course for an internet flame war.

But what you are discussing is serious business, not adolescent word games.

Many years ago this republic was established by men who had just fought a bloody eight year war against their own government for the right to decide their own fate without having it dictated by a king. Many of their fellows died in the struggle. In the process, they had to, in some cases, fight and kill their own neighbors and kin. Do not trivialize what they had to go through so you could enjoy the ability to vent on this blog.

In an attempt to make sure you and their other decendants did not have to repeat the process, they added a Bill of Rights to the constitution in an attempt to limit the power of their new government. There is a preamble document that goes with that Bill of Rights that explains why they added it. That preamble is rarely covered in American schools because many feel it is no longer “Politically Correct”. I’m going to suggest that you look it up and read it carefully before you attempt to “improve” the system they created.

I’m also going to suggest you research te various groups in this country that take defence of the founders republic very seriously. They believe that the current state of our government is unsustainable. Even if you disagree with them, and I’m sure many of you do. You must remember that they are not only willing to fight for it or willing to die for it. They are willing to kill any who threaten it. Unless you are willing to go toe to toe with them in a combat situation you had best consider carefully what you urge your government to do in the next days and weeks.

Raw emotion, like you have vented above, makes for very poor legidlation, but is extremely useful for provokeing a civil war.

Unless you can put 20 rounds into a man sized target at 500 meters in under a minute, you may not want to go there. You are not ready.

They are.

Molon Labe!

CC

December 18th, 2012
7:17 pm

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
—Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

CC

December 18th, 2012
7:23 pm

Here is the text of the NRA statement on the Connecticut school shootings, released Tuesday Dec. 18.

NRA STATEMENT

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

Source: NRA

you dont say

December 18th, 2012
7:29 pm

TD

You rant and rave about abortion, yet I have never read where you did any of the following:

1. Counseled those seeking an abortion
2. Working in a woman’s shelters
3. adopting kids

Maybe you have posted it or did it. I hope so. Or are you just doing what you do best? diarrhea at the mouth

Carl

December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm

What gun control legislation woulod have prevented this?

CC

December 18th, 2012
7:48 pm

Buckhead Boy:

“That means that your individual right hangs by a thread — just one old man.”

Are you so foolish as to think that YOUR rights as a citizen of this country would not be endangered by a ruling against the Second Amendment? If you abrogate one of the rights PROTECTED by the Constitution, what prevents the further usurpation of all of our “unalienable rights”? It would be a prudent thing to think through what is being advocated primarily by liberals before signing on for the entire tour.

you dont say

December 18th, 2012
8:03 pm

CC

Are the majority of Democrats advocating the doing away with the 2nd amendment?

Can you post that substantiated information? Is it elected Democrats? Those who tend to vote Democrat?

Post that information.

Thanks

wise willie

December 18th, 2012
8:06 pm

Enter your comments here