On Wednesday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann claimed that pro-gun groups like the NRA "are trying to increase deaths by gun," as he used his "Worst Person" segment to attack a gun rights activist who infiltrated gun control groups to spy on them: "Mary Lou Sapone infiltrated the executive boards and learned the plans of organizations trying to decrease deaths by gun in this country, and apparently reported it back to organizations like the NRA, which are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country." A month earlier, on the June 26 show, after the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, Olbermann named Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he called a "clown," as "Worst Person" as the Countdown host ridiculously claimed that the Second Amendment only applies to the types of weapons that existed in 1791, like muskets, to be used in a militia. Olbermann: "You've got around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year, another 75,000 non-fatal gun wounds, half the suicides are by gun; and this clown and his four colleagues decided that the 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and the demand that firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment." (Transcripts follow)
The Countdown host continued: "Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn't very complicated: For the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed -- the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that. Scalia, of course, simply decided that the militia part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore. And there's the beautiful thing about our country -- they say anybody can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice. And in Antonin Scalia, there's your proof, and tonight's 'Worst Person in the World'!"
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the July 30 and the June 26 Countdown show on MSNBC:
#From the July 30 Countdown:
KEITH OLBERMANN: The runnerup, Mary McFate, also known as Mary Lou Sapone. Mother Jones magazine reports this today. Ms. McFate is a 60-something woman, a quirky but constant participant in gun control organizations, like the Brady Campaign. Ms. Sapone is a 60-something woman, a former figure in the National Rifle Association and wealthy pro-gun activist. The magazine says they're the same person. As Mary McFate, Mary Lou Sapone infiltrated the executive boards and learned the plans of organizations trying to decrease deaths by gun in this country, and apparently reported it back to organizations like the NRA, which are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country. In other words, she was a Benedict Arnold for the gun lobby.
#From the June 26 Countdown:
KEITH OLBERMANN: And our winner, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court. You've got around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year, another 75,000 non-fatal gun wounds, half the suicides are by gun; and this clown and his four colleagues decided that the 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and the demand that firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment. You remember the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn`t very complicated: For the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed -- the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that. Scalia, of course, simply decided that the militia part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore. And there's the beautiful thing about our country -- they say anybody can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice. And in Antonin Scalia, there's your proof, and tonight's "Worst Person in the World"!
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hey... Olbie... ...Mary
July 30, 2008 - 23:35 ET by bigtimerHey... Olbie...
...Mary McFate....
..."Best Person in the World!"
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Limits on 1st Amendment?
July 30, 2008 - 23:36 ET by nkviking75By extension, freedom of the press only applies to media that existed in 1791. That eliminates TV, radio, and the internet. I guess that means Olberman can be locked up for his attacks on the Administration.
What a sick, twisted mind he has.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
excellent point
July 30, 2008 - 23:46 ET by bigpapankviking75,,,
But try to remember olber"man" is a big ole pu$$...
and would most certainly be the woman in prison!
NOBAMA 08 !!!
Excellent point
July 30, 2008 - 23:50 ET by KC MulvilleI'd include freedom of religion, meaning the freedom of Keith Olbermann to waste netwerk television time worshiping Keith Olbermann. Even though only one person really worships him (Keith himself), I'd still arrest the guy anyway.
You hit a home run with
July 31, 2008 - 06:18 ET by NewsbusterbrownYou hit a home run with that, nkviking75.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Scalia
July 30, 2008 - 23:45 ET by KC MulvilleI was going to write something about Olbermann, but I decided that it was too much of a risk. In trying to make sense of Olbermann's arrogance and ignorance displayed in this post, I'd have had to risk mentioning his name in the same sentence. I couldn't insult Justice Scalia so viciously.
Better just to walk away ... walk away ...
Now I'm sure that Conan
July 31, 2008 - 00:18 ET by Warner Todd HustonNow I'm sure that Conan O'Brien's laugh team is writing Oblermouse's stuff.
"Mother Jones magazine reports.."
July 31, 2008 - 00:50 ET by mastersofdeceitha ha ha ha ha........
Rolling On Floor Laughing My Ass Off
Using KO's logic
July 31, 2008 - 01:18 ET by mlongUsing KO's logic then..Blacks should still be slaves and Women don't get to vote...since the same Contuititon that KO say's we should only follow as things were in 1791 for guns didn't allow freedom for Blacks or Voting rights for women.
"I want to cut his b*lls off" Jesse Jackson on Lord Obama
Militia
July 31, 2008 - 01:39 ET by cocodrieIN 1791 the militia was not an organized fighting unit. It was literally a posse, a group of men armed with their own personal weapons,[pistols, muskets, rifles, shotguns] nothing was provided by the state. Many states required men to own and use firearms so that they would be available for the militia. some people should learn American history before they make fools of themselves. Keith however has a head start - He was born a fool.
Anyone notice that his
July 31, 2008 - 02:05 ET by robert108Anyone notice that his position on national defense sounds a bit like Ron Paul's?
Huh???
July 31, 2008 - 02:24 ET by sarcasmoRon Paul is about the strongest politician out there on the second amendment, which this is about. I defy anyone here to name a stronger friend to self defense rights. He has far different positions than Keef, like it or not, on foreign policy, which doesn't seem to be the subject of this blog anyway, but I'm happy to correct your false impressions for the record...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Ron Paul is an isolationist
July 31, 2008 - 11:00 ET by robert108Ron Paul is an isolationist nutbag who wants to roll us back to the Eighteenth Century. That's the part I'm talking about. It was the part about muskets.
So THAT's
July 31, 2008 - 11:04 ET by sarcasmoWhy he voted to go after Osama in Afghanistan with the US military!!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Has Keithamphetimine
July 31, 2008 - 02:07 ET by AgentAmerican...paid his back taxes yet. When does the madness stop? We do we stand up and say DAMMIT STOP!
Drill ANWAR
The man has a point. Even
July 31, 2008 - 02:18 ET by OrroThe man has a point.
Even though it is a sacred document, the constitution was written for different times in different circumstances. It alone cannot be used as a basis of modern laws.
As for overturning a 32 gun ban, say no more.
Orro
http://www.dragonlas...
Modern laws
July 31, 2008 - 02:31 ET by cocodrieOur modern laws are taken from the laws God gave Abraham 4,000 years ago. The price of freedom never changes. We would be much better off if selfish people would stop trying to change things for their own benefit.
How do you figure?
July 31, 2008 - 14:42 ET by mvfreemanWhich laws did God give to Abraham? Nothing in Genesis except the covenant that required circumcision. Can't base modern laws on that.
And if you meant Moses there were several civilizations that predate him significantly that already had laws in place. Otherwise they wouldn't be "civilized".
Wrong again
July 31, 2008 - 03:03 ET by wdhorning"Modern" laws cannot change the Constitution and Bill of Rights, only a vote by Congress and the states can do this, which explicitly change the Constitition or Bill of Rights. Until then, the Constitution and Bill of Rights define the bounds/limits of law making, that is, the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain supreme.
Your reasoning is like saying because "freedom of the press" was in an era where the king of England was a tyrannt, it was needed, but now that we have a modern, established democracy, a free press should be greatly curtailed.
(Of course we all know that liberal, socialist Democrats would like the right-wing press to be curtailed. Is that not right sir? Will that be your next argument?)
Or we could also argue, by your reasoning:
- the advent of the Internet means the printed newspaper should not be allowed
- those with college education no longer have a right to counsel in a trial because they are smart enough to defend themselves
- the right to a trial by jury is no longer needed, since it is hard to find good jurists, or they are too busy at their careers
- the Internet has made the right to petition the government obsolete
- free speech is no longer needed, because the press is watching out for us
So Olbermann is correct
July 31, 2008 - 06:26 ET by motherbeltSo Olbermann is correct when he says:
For the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms.
So no one can own a gun unless the state announces that it's forming a militia?
Obama's theme song
Even though it is a sacred
July 31, 2008 - 06:46 ET by Jack BauerActually, it can. The President of the United States declares an oath to defend and preserve the constitution.
Not the "legislation." Not the "laws." Not the Republic. No, the Chief Executive is tasked with DEFENDING & PRESERVING THE CONSTITUTION which is the Republic.
Not the world constitution. Not the law suggested by Europeans. Not the United Nations.
His task is to DEFEND & PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION (AS WRITTEN) OF THE UNITED STATES.
the constitution was
July 31, 2008 - 07:01 ET by motherbeltthe constitution was written for different times in different circumstances. It alone cannot be used as a basis of modern laws. -orro
Really? Then we can go along making new laws, willy-nilly, with no regard for what the Constitution says?
And no new law can be declared "unconstitutional"?
How about the other enumerated rights? Were they also written for a different time and can we disregard them now? Somehow I doubt you would feel the same way about the first, fourth or fifth amendments.
Obama's theme song
Bingo... the U.S.
July 31, 2008 - 07:11 ET by Jack BauerBingo... the U.S. constitution was written with the built-in ability to AMEND it. Constitutionally.
Boy, those founding fathers were plenty smart for old dead white guys.
No one is saying...
July 31, 2008 - 07:25 ET by on-the-rocksthat the Constitution ALONE is the basis for modern laws, but for the sake of stability and civilization we need to maintain that rock-solid foundation. Changeable, but not too easily so, so as not to be affected by society's temporary whims and passions.
Consider the words attributed to Daniel Webster:
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."
The Second Amendment is there because our Founding Fathers knew what it was to have their doors kicked down by the soldiers of a corrupt king. It is not about hunting, it is about being able to defend our homes, and by extension our livelyhoods, from mobs and out-of-control tyrannical politicians. It is part of our system of checks-and-balances that far too few citizens understand.
People like Keith Olbermann or Joy Behar are simply too stupid to understand what it took to capture those brief moments-in-time, in order to get the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights written and ratified. And what it takes to preserve them.
Olbernann is all opinion and zero facts
July 31, 2008 - 02:38 ET by wdhorningThe FBI reports, that at a minimum, 1.5 million crimes are deterred each year just by brandishing a gun (not even having to fire it), of which about 150,000 are prevented murders, which is higher than the murder rate (30,000). So then, guns save a lot more more lives than they take.
On average, States with right to carry laws have lower murder rates than the states with no right to carry.
After they took the guns away in Australia, the murder rate soared.
A militia may be self-regulated and still be "well-regulated," therefore a militia does not have to be under government control to qualify it as giving individuals who are members of a private militia the right to carry guns at all times. In fact there are some private militias in this country and they do practice being well-regulated, albeit self-regulated.
There is a list in the 2nd Amendment, to which the right to carry is given. The first item in the list is the "militia" and the second item in the list is "people." The reason "people" is mentioned in this list is because it is distinct from "militia." If they were one in the same, there would be no need to mention the word "people" in the 2nd Amendment, since a militia would be composed of people (not rabbits, cats, dogs, insects). So then, by mentioning "people" separate from "militia," the authors of the 2nd Amendment were saying in effect, "in addition to the members of the militia, the people also have the right to carry".
The fact that situations have changed over time and militias and armed citizens seem obsolete cannot negate a right in the Bill of Rights, only a change voted upon by Congress and the states can do this. By this flawed reasoning we could claim that because the Internet now exists, newspapers are obsolete and should not have the right to print papers anymore. (See how stupid their reasoning is.)
Self-defense is a right that supercedes the Constitution, any country and any laws. However, preventing citizens from being armed in order to defend themselves is a gross human rights violation. It is a tryanny and such a government is an accomplice in the murder of innocent persons.
Personally, I do not know why the NRA and other orgs do not file a massive federal class-action lawsuit against all states and cities that refuse to let citizens carry guns. Not only should they sue for the right to carry, but sue for financial harm on behalf of those citizens who lost their life because they could not defend themselves with a gun, because it was against the law to carry a gun.
The second Amendment uses the words "shall not be infringed", which is very strong language that leans far more in the direction of the right to carry than any imaginable restriction. Even registration and safety requirements infringe, albeit, even most gun-rights advocates concede it is a good thing, nonetheless.
KO Is...
July 31, 2008 - 09:21 ET by Wildcatter1980...fact-free opinion!
well said
July 31, 2008 - 16:36 ET by wizardjrThe one picking point is that the gun rights groups needed the Supreme Clowns to own up to the individual right in the Second Amendment before they could stand a chance of winning.
And yeah... it's funny how the lefties cherry pick the data and don't publish the entire body of facts and numbers. Oh, what a suprise. Then there's the assumption that if you take away guns no one will be killed or commit suicide. Well, just ask the Brits and the Aussies. Gun crime up. Violent murder up. Armed home invasions up. Suicides about the same. Violent attacks with knives so bad they're thinking of banning them. Good grief, that'll fix it.
PRICELESS
July 31, 2008 - 03:36 ET by TruestarThe abject irony (and high comedy) of an idiot like Olbermann calling a Supreme Court Justice a clown. Such is the state MSLSD. I honestly don't understand how his "show", or MSLSD for that matter, can continue. But I do watch for a few minutes occasionally, for comedic relief.
Obsaid: organizations like
July 31, 2008 - 04:34 ET by USA4freedomObsaid:
organizations like the NRA, which are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country. In other words, she was a Benedict Arnold for the gun lobby.
Ok, for the argument, lets say that is true.
Why would the NRA want more deaths? Why??
To what purpose would that advance the NRA’s view that we have a right to firearms.
The fact that the NRA is one of the best run and intelligent special interest groups in America, they would “want people to die from firearms??
How would that advance the views of the group?
Every time there is a school killing it’s the anti-gun groups that make it to the paper, get interviewed, gets quoted in every paper.
If anyone benefits from more killings its the ANTI-GUN GROUPS!!!!
This fits into that emotional template that the liberals have about anyone that has a gun that we are all bloodthirsty killers.
NRA member from 1968 and proud of it.
This speaks volumes about the I.Q. of the average Ob viewer.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
"Why would the NRA want
July 31, 2008 - 08:52 ET by contrary"Why would the NRA want more deaths? Why?? "
Stop that! You must not ask any fundamental questions that may put Keithy's argument in a bad light. Just say this, Keithy is right, Keithy is right, NRA is evil, NRA is evil.
There, consider yourself informed.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Don't you think that, if
July 31, 2008 - 05:02 ET by SchnikeysDon't you think that, if the second amendment were meant to "only apply to muskets", it would have explicitly stated "the right to bear muskets shall not be infringed" and not have used the word "arms" while associating it with "militias"?
<sarcasm> But hey, what do I know? I'm too busy wasting my days away, thinking about how to get all those stupid people out there to kill themselves with their guns without those meddling Democrats thwarting my devious scheme. </sarcasm>
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Drop all firearm regulations
July 31, 2008 - 06:25 ET by Red JeepThe firearm laws in this country are outdated. Americans could fight the Revolutionary War because they had personal firearms equivalent to or better than the British army. We no longer are allowed to own weapons that are some of the best and most powerful. So Olbermann is correct. Our gun laws are outdated and all restrictions should be dropped.
The NRA is "reasonable."
July 31, 2008 - 06:40 ET by sarcasmoI like JPFO, in part because they publish El Neil's rants. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Last time I checked it
July 31, 2008 - 06:46 ET by athoughtor2Last time I checked it takes someone to pull a trigger....The DC gun ban worked really well, not so much. But he loves Freedom of Speech and Freedom of ther press only when it supports him.
I guess I could have summed it all up with he's an a-hole! and moved on from there....
Taking away guns won't stop
July 31, 2008 - 07:08 ET by SchnikeysTaking away guns won't stop guns from existing (especially if there are people out there who know how to make them). Nor will it stop murder from existing, nor will it stop people from finding different ways to defend themselves in an instant, some of which can be used for the same murders that people use guns to commit.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Heller II
July 31, 2008 - 07:23 ET by ricklailI heard last night on Cam and Company that Mr. Heller of the Heller v DC is fiilng a Heller II lawsuit agaisnt the District. This is over the unlawful regulations the city put on buying a gun. What DC is doing is still totally against the SC ruling. As Cam Edwards said Mr. Heller's suit may get kicked back because of "Standing." The orginal suit against DC was filed by Shelia Parker. She was shot down because of standing.
They, being the libs, are bound and determined to trash the 2nd Amendment. So far they have failed in the courts. They are trying so many retrictions like in Philly, DC, Chicago, Boston, etc, that I believe will be stuck down it they can ever get to SCOTUS. I know it any suit does not stand a chance in the liberal 9th Circuit so that is why it will wind up in the SC.
Be kind to your kids. They'll be choosing your nursing home.
Well if they can't outlaw
July 31, 2008 - 08:21 ET by motherbeltWell if they can't outlaw them, they will make it nearly impossible to buy or keep one.
Like laws that guns must be stored locked or unassembled and with the ammunition in a different place. Of course, how they would enforce this rule without violating the 4th amendment is an interesting question.
Or they will make it nearly impossible to buy ammunition.
Just like they won't outlaw cigarettes, but they accomplish their goal by forbidding smoking just about everywhere but in one's home, and even that right is under attack now.
Obama's theme song
Unable to comprehend English
July 31, 2008 - 07:42 ET by c5thenThat is the problem that Olberman and the rest of the libs have who want to argue away the 2nd amendment.
Regardless of the reason for the statement, the part about the right belonging to the people and that it "shall not be infringed" is extremely clear.
Notice that after the 18th amendment became unpopular ( the one that abolishes liquor) no one tried to argue that it had a different meaning. No one said that "what it really means is...". No. They proceeded in the proper way that the Constitution has already laid out for modifying it. They passed and ratified the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment.
Why won't these 'activists' simply advocate for the proper method of implementing gun control? Specifically proposing and lobbying for the repeal of the 2nd amendmnet. I suspect it's because they are afraid that they will lose, and therefore are more comfortable with trying to force their opinions on the rest of us by getting judges to use creative reading comprehension and rule away the pesky right.
But if that succeeds, then all of the other rights are at risk of being ruled out of existance by a 'reading comprehension challenged' judge. The 1st amendment or the 4th amendment or the 5th amendment, etc. are no more or less secure than the 2nd amendment
By the way, deaths by automobile dwarf those by firearm, so why are these people not advocating for the complete abolishment of cars. Having and driving a car is not even protected by the Constitution.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Wouldn't you just love...
July 31, 2008 - 07:49 ET by unkeeafTo kick this guy's ass?
Who's the clown?
July 31, 2008 - 08:36 ET by StrictConstructionistThis guy has to be the worst "journalist" in the country. Scalia ignored the fact that "militia" was used in the Second Amendment? Really? This "clown" Olbermann obviously didn't even read the opinion because Scalia completely disects this clause for him.
Consider this Olbermann:
"A well regulated electorate, being necessary to the freedom of a free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall NOT be infringed."
Would one consider this clause to apply ONLY to the electorate (those registered to vote)? Of course not, the electorate clause explains why it is so important to ENUMERATE this right so it is not infringed upon. No intellectually honest person would interpret this to mean that only those who are registered to vote may keep and read books.
Further, the phrase "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" was used 3 times in the Bill of Rights; in the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourth Amendment. The court and every honest person has interpreted that this term as used in the First and Fourth Amendment is used to protect the INDIVIDUAL right of each INDIVIDUAL person. Why would the framers use this same EXACT phrase for the Second Amendment if they intended it to mean only to a collective right? The answer: THEY DIDN'T!
Olbermann is not a smart man to begin with, but I think he is simply being intellectually dishonest with this one. Even Allan Dershowitz has said as much about liberals who contend the Second Amendment only refers to the collective right.
So I ask again, Olbermann, who is the real clown? It is YOU sir.
absolutely...but first
July 31, 2008 - 08:42 ET by theduck6I am still waiting for someone to explain why a failed sports guy is suddenly a policy wonk? Or Frank Rich is suddenly a wonk instead of theatre critic. or George Stayontopofthis is an impartial commentator. etc etc etc
Unbiased media my patootie.
I am inspired by Olbermann's mention...
July 31, 2008 - 08:53 ET by ThalpyI am inspired by Olbermann's mention of muskets and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear" when, for any perceived insult to honor, a duel to the death or some lesser consequence could be arranged. It would be duelling pistols at sunrise for Keith!
reallly Keith?
July 31, 2008 - 08:56 ET by candanceThe second amendment only applies to guns that existed in 1791? That's your argument? As others here have correctly pointed out, by that logic the first amendment only protects traditional newspapers and the fifth amendment does not apply to blogs.
And please Keith, by all means, tell me that if I go to an antique dealer and buy a Brown Bess, I'll be allowed to carry it around wherever I please. What's that? I'll need a permit? Hmm so really you don't think the second amendment should apply to anything.
These people truly want us unarmed and defenseless, not just against possible criminals, but against Obama's citizen police brigade.
Giving the people a resource to protect themselves is the only way to ensure freedom. This is the true reason libs hate average citizens owning guns.
Out Of His Mind - But What's New?
July 31, 2008 - 09:27 ET by DoktorFrankenIt's nice that Olby spends so much time out of his mind. One can just imagine how extremely cramped it is up there in that thimble-sized brain cavity.
Out of respect for this wonderful website I will not place my thoughts about Keith Olbermann here. He doesn't deserve any attention at all so I will comment on how President Bush stopped to give that 91 year-old lady the biggest hoot of her life. What other President (including those running for that office) would even bother? W is a caring, classy guy.
I'm gonna miss George.
Obviously...
July 31, 2008 - 09:28 ET by Wildcatter1980...KO missed or ignored the fact that Britain is suffering an increase in crime and knife-based violence including deaths since they banned private ownership of guns, I believe, in the late nineties.
Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020920.php
Where's My Musket?!
July 31, 2008 - 09:54 ET by Dr_LibertyIf the 2nd Amendment was intended for muskets, can't we declare that muskets are a right -- just like high-definition TV converter boxes -- and demand that the government give everyone a coupon for a new musket?
(Olberman might also be unaware that muskets are more dangerous for the user than are contemporary handguns or rifles.)
Dr .. if Big Government was
July 31, 2008 - 10:10 ET by Jack BauerDr .. if Big Government was involved in designing and building that new musket, when you pull the trigger, remember to duck if you want to keep your head on.
government designs
July 31, 2008 - 16:48 ET by wizardjrThe definition of an aircraft carrier is a rowboat to government specs.
Consider what a 'government' musket would look like. Consider that the special ops guys are mostly going back to 30 caliber long guns and 45 caliber pistols after decades of 'smaller lighter weapons' dictated by government experts. Big bullets have big stopping/knockdown power. Duh!
Consider what a disaster the M-16 was when first introduced to combat in Viet Nam. Hundreds were killed or wounded when their toy guns failed to fire. It took years of rework guided by combat experienced NCO's and officers to fix it. It's still a puny round.
Typical Liberal Elitist
July 31, 2008 - 09:58 ET by AnclersonDon't you just love when some prick who makes over 4 million a year, lives in a gated community patroled by security guards, and has a mansion with a state of the art security system says that americans shouldn't have the right to own firearms!
Reminds me of rich liberals who say that $4.00+ gas is a good thing. These people couldn't be more out of touch if they tried.
OUR Checks & Balance
July 31, 2008 - 10:10 ET by GeoGolfBath Tub Boy:
The 2nd amd is our checks and balance on the gov't. They KNEW folks like you would come along.
Sorry, our founding fathers were a touch brighter than you. And you couldn't hold Scalia's jock.
GG
July 31, 2008 - 18:23 ET by DoktorFrankenWell said.
More rantings of a mentally
July 31, 2008 - 11:19 ET by marpelMore rantings of a mentally ill person.
The Founding Fathers
July 31, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Crusader16The founding fathers understood that our liberties could be usurped in a slow or "progressive" manner. The constitution was intended to be a binding document that was deliberately made difficult to amend. It does not morph into whatever interpretation is convienent at the time. Jefferson believed that the constitution was the "chains that bind the republic". Besides, by Mr. Olbermann's reasoning the first amendment would only apply to parchment.
Olbermann is a Bozo
July 31, 2008 - 12:04 ET by SFCMACSo, Olbermann the Moonbat is in a snit over the SCOTUS decision that "firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment."
Yeah, right. Some thug breaking into my house is going to wait until I unlock my .380 Browning semi-auto so I can protect my loved ones, self, and property. I'll be sure to keep his number on speed dial so I can get briefed on the ROE.
Olbermann has become such a parody, he cannot be taken seriously.
"On the Eighth Day God Created the United States Army and the Devil Stood at Attention"
Ah yes, and gun free zones
July 31, 2008 - 13:05 ET by wiwfAh yes, and gun free zones don't kill people...
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Just Plain Stupid
July 31, 2008 - 14:22 ET by ArtisteInstead of "worst person of the year" which would be very befitting for Olberman, how about most stupid of the year? How does this guy get to drone out this drivel and get paid for looking stupid? He really has become the cartoon of the day.
Yup
July 31, 2008 - 18:28 ET by DoktorFrankenAnd I, for one, will not contribute to his salary. I will not buy anything GE, or it's many other companies, produces. I never watch NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, or any other media outlet that GE owns.
Hit them in the pocketbook and let them know why you will never do business with them. Soon, they will wake up and toss Herr Olbermann out on his dupa.
Hit them in the pocketbook
July 31, 2008 - 20:38 ET by lotrHit them in the pocketbook and let them know why you will never do business with them.
Totally. Make no mistake, money talks, even with self-proclaimed "liberals."
using Keith's logic,
July 31, 2008 - 14:37 ET by athoughtor2using Keith's logic, oxymoron i know, the auto makers must be trying to increase the # of deaths on the roads as well. in 2006 there were about 42,600 auto fatalities....i believe the # of murders was around 16,000 or so....in 2005 "accidental" handgun fatalities was 730....so should we go after ford or gm 1st? any ideas Keith?
imbecility
July 31, 2008 - 14:45 ET by lotrMan, this guy just continues to exude ignorance. Funny how the authors of the 2nd Amendment didn't even use the word "gun," "musket," "firearm," and the like. They simply use the term "arms," as they, unlike Olbermann, possessed intelligence. They knew well that weapons technologies change, and it is not merely a matter of "militiamen being allowed to carry muskets." Were this (Olbermann's "vision" for the 2nd Amendment) the intended meaning, it would make no sense whatsoever to include it as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights, alongside freedom of religion and speech. Any militia, outside of Gary Larson's Far Side universe that Olbermann apparently dwells in, would already be armed by definition. There's also that pesky phrase "the people"; why not "the militiamen"? Nope, sorry -- it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." If one day we find that firearms are obsolete, replaced by phasers/blasters/light-sabers/etc., then we shall still have the right to keep those as well. Of course, that doesn't mean that there can't be restrictions, but outright bans are simply unconstitutional and totalitarian.
This clown. Olbermann, won't
July 31, 2008 - 16:02 ET by NL207This clown. Olbermann, won't mind at all if some enterprising liberal constructionist at some future date decides the First Amendment doesn't refer to radio or television but pertains only to print media, now will he?
Living document
July 31, 2008 - 20:04 ET by NonanonSo is Olbie saying the long-held liberal idea the the Constitution is a living document is now dead? That it can not be changed and re-written by judical opinions? That any that have come down that change the Constitution are to be rolled back? Will he start with abortion? I have no idea whether it was around back then, but it sure isn't spelled out in the document. Only a twisting of 'logic' produced that ruling.
I'm sure he won't push for that because I doubt he thought that far ahead when he started talking moronish (language of morons).
Olbermann the Great Elite!
August 1, 2008 - 06:46 ET by kathleenirishLord, Help Us!
The Left sees all kinds of rights in the Constitution that aren't there- right to gay marriage, and unlimited abortions-R-us, for example: but one that is clearly spelled out in straightforward English is a befuddlement to them, and they have to keep trying to obfuscate its meaning and add the kind of crap Olbermann the Elite does such as 'MUSKETS! It's only for MUSKETS!' The 2nd admendment says what it means and means what it says, Dude. "The RIGHT to bear arms!" But, only criminals would have them then,as it basically is pretty much right now in this society!
So, if I follow what this pimple-on-the-arse-of-society says, then I should be able to have a musket in my home? What do you suppose my local police chief would say about that? Because, you know, in Massachusetts police chiefs have a lot of say whether or not you can have a gun permit or not...I doubt Olbermann would think it okay for me to have a musket, right? Or, anything else for that matter, me being the working, married (straight), tax-paying mother type.
Liberals! They suck the life out of ya.
P.S. They are trying to ease the "burden" of background checks on felons here, too. You know, it's hard to get a job when you get out. Yeah, it's hard for me to get a job right now, too! So, put 'em on the state payroll, you idiots, you love illegal immigrants and criminals so much! I'm just the one who gets to pay for them, either way. I don't qualify for aid for college, either, but they want to give free tuition to illegals. I don't own a gun, and probably never will, but private citizens have the right to do so, DILDOS!
I want to slap that guy SOOOOO bad....