Confounded Chris Matthews to Pro-Gun Senator: You're Getting Us Into a 'Strange World' of 'Cowboys and Indians'
A confounded Chris Matthews, on Tuesday's Hardball, couldn't get his head around the concept of Texas allowing 21-year-olds on college campuses to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves, as he repeatedly threw out scenarios, seemingly from TV, movies and his own imagination, of crazed students with guns.
Fortunately Texas State Senator Jeff Wentworth was on hand to repeatedly and ably clarify and correct Matthews of his misconceptions. In fact Matthews was so bewildered by Wentworth's command of the facts that by the end of the interview he admitted his own anti-gun bias as he blurted: "I don't know. It's a strange world you're getting us into Senator. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's cowboys and Indians. I live in a city, I think it's strange."
First up Matthews, drawing from his expertise in old TV and movie Westerns, questioned Wentworth if he thought it was okay for college students to bring guns "into saloons" to which the state senator had to notify Matthews that bars weren't even allowed on Texas campuses.
(video, audio and transcript after the jump)
MATTHEWS: You know, back in the old days, we all watched, you and I watched television probably at the same age. We watched old movies and we would know what it was like in the Old West. They apparently had a, put their guns at the city limits, they couldn't carry them into saloons with them and places like that. Do you think it's okay for a 21-year-old kid or a 22-year-old grad student to be walking into a campus bar or something and, and when you got alcohol involved, there are guys and girls together with the usual kind of competition that goes on there, social competition, with booze, and guns? You think that's a healthy combination?
Wentworth who had to repeatedly correct a confused Matthews told the Hardball host: "That's a misrepresentation of the fact. You cannot go [to a bar] in Texas legally with a concealed carry license with a gun" adding, "We don't have bars on campus in Texas."
Then Matthews, who perhaps has seen too many late night cable viewings of the Bruce Willis film The Last Boy Scout, worried about football players bringing guns to the field:
MATTHEWS: Okay so, so but you would bring them, you would let them play, how about kids who want to play football? Would they be allowed to carry a gun during the game or what? Not during the game?
Again Wentworth had to dissuade Matthews from his false assumptions as he explained: "No, actually the, the law does not allow, currently, and this law would not change it for athletic contests, they're not permitted."
Finally, Matthews feared that a Texas student who received a poor grade from his or her professor may resort to violence:
MATTHEWS: Do you think it's gonna be weird for a student to get his grades from a professor while he's armed? Senator?...Well you imagine a meeting between - it just seems odd that if I were a professor and had a student who was armed when we're having our tutorial, we're talking about the grades or anything, it just seems odd to know that you're looking into a classroom and you're seeing men and women with guns in the classroom. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
It was then that Wentworth pointed out to Matthews that in the Lone Star state average citizens, aged 21 and over, carry concealed weapons during daily routines such as grocery shopping and theater going without incident, which led Matthews to reveal his personal bias: "I don't know. It's a strange world you're getting us into Senator. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's cowboys and Indians. I live in a city, I think it's strange."
The following is a transcript of the entire segment as it was aired on the February 22 edition of Hardball:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Would having more guns on college campuses make them safer places to take, to study? A long list of lawmakers down in Texas says the answer is yes. And with a big Republican majority in the state capitol it looks like it might just happen. Republican state senator Jeff Wentworth is the sponsor of a bill that would allow people with concealed handgun licenses to take handguns into college dorms and to other buildings and to classrooms. Colin Goddard, of course is with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He's a survivor, by the way, of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting. He was shot in that four times, in fact, in that horrible incident. He's featured in a new documentary about the tragedy at Virginia Tech called Living for 22. Senator, thank you for joining us.
STATE SENATOR JEFF WENTWORTH: For sure.
MATTHEWS: Just make your case. Why do you think students, why colleges, should be basically required to allow students to have concealed weapon carry with licenses?
WENTWORTH: Well, in the first place Chris, I'd like to change the characterization. It' not college kids carrying concealed weapons on campus. In Texas the law requires you to be at least 21-years of age to have a license. So if you're a traditional freshman, sophomore, junior, you're 17, 18, 19, 200-years old, so you're not eligible for a concealed carry license. It's mainly members of the faculty, staff, graduate students and a few seniors. And it's purely for self-defense.
MATTHEWS: Well most seniors turn, I mean I was the youngest kid in my class and I was 21 in my senior year.
WENTWORTH: Me too. I was 21 in my senior year. So-
MATTHEWS: So I mean I don't think...
WENTWORTH: But we're not talking, we're not talking about freshmen, sophomores and juniors though.
MATTHEWS: We're talking about seniors being allowed - I know. We're talking about seniors carrying guns on campus. And my question to you is tell me how that makes it safer for those students, for anybody?
WENTWORTH: Well, if I'm in a class and a deranged madman comes on campus in Texas, as he did at Virginia Tech, and starts shooting, and everybody is unarmed and defenseless and vulnerable, we're all dead. If somebody in that class has a license and has been through a significant period - I mean, in order to get a license in Texas, you have to go through a 10-hour class, you have to pass a test, you have to go on a shooting range and pass. You pass a criminal background check, you give up your fingerprints, photographs, pay a not insignificant fee of over $100.
MATTHEWS: Yeah?
WENTWORTH: It takes several weeks. It's not something you just go down and plunk down a $10 bill and get a card for it.
MATTHEWS: You know, back in the old days, we all watched, you and I watched television probably at the same age. We watched old movies and we would know what it was like in the Old West. They apparently had a, put their guns at the city limits, they couldn't carry them into saloons with them and places like that. Do you think it's okay for a 21-year-old kid or a 22-year-old grad student to be walking into a campus bar or something and, and when you got alcohol involved, there are guys and girls together with the usual kind of competition that goes on there, social competition, with booze, and guns? You think that's a healthy combination?
WENTWORTH: Well, that hypothetical you gave doesn't happen in-
MATTHEWS: It's not a hypothetical at all, sir!
WENTWORTH: Yes, yes-
MATTHEWS: You can walk into a bar with a gun, under your law.
WENTWORTH: No, you cannot. That's not, that's a misrepresentation of the fact. You cannot go in Texas legally with a concealed carry license with a gun. Now people do it illegally all the time. But this bill would not allow that.
MATTHEWS: No, but a campus - you said, but you said campuses would be allowed to have kids carrying guns. What about a bar on campus?
WENTWORTH: We don't have bars on campus in Texas.
MATTHEWS: You don't?!
WENTWORTH: It's against, it's against the law in Texas. That's exactly right.
MATTHEWS: It is?!
WENTWORTH: Yes, sir. No alcohol allowed-
MATTHEWS: You can't have a bar - on private college campuses you can't have a bar?
WENTWORTH: No you, now you flipped it. We're talking about public-
MATTHEWS: Well I didn't flip it. I'm...
WENTWORTH: We're talking about public universities. We're not talking about private universities.
MATTHEWS: Okay. Okay, where I went to college and a lot of colleges I know they have campus bars. They have them right on campus.
WENTWORTH: Well they don't in Texas, they don't in Texas.
MATTHEWS: Okay so-
WENTWORTH: We're talking about Texas.
MATTHEWS: Okay so, so but you would bring them, you would let them play, how about kids who want to play football? Would they be allowed to carry a gun during the game or what? Not during the game?
WENTWORTH: No, actually the, the law does not allow, currently, and this law would not change it for athletic contests, they're not permitted.
MATTHEWS: Okay but you would be allowed to take it to the contest or not?
WENTWORTH: No.
MATTHEWS: No. So you can't take it to contests, you can't take it to a, to a, any kind of bar scene or anything like that? But you can walk around campus-
WENTWORTH: That's correct.
MATTHEWS: Okay now we got it straight.
MATTHEWS: Let's go to Colin with the other point of view. What is your view about this? Guns on campus?
COLIN GODDARD, VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING SURVIVOR: Right, well what the senator fails to mention, also in the Texas public schools there are hospitals, there are daycare centers. What about a judicial referral, what about a tenure hearing? These are all places that you're allowed to be, allowed to be bringing a gun. You know, unfortunately people who support this idea have a very narrow focus on the problem. It's multi-dimensional. They look at it as, "Hey, someone's about to come shoot you, do you want a gun or not?" And when you look at it like that, you miss the ideas and the concepts of the fact that 93 percent of student violence victimization happens off-campus where concealed carry is already allowed. You miss the fact that police officers will no longer be allowed to respond effectively. The cops that pulled me out of Norris Hall said that the first man they would have saw with a gun they would have, they would have shot him. And they need to be able to respond that way. This would totally change their dynamic. And also the, the senator needs to know that there's currently a lawsuit, that was filed in Lubbock that would dropped the minimum age of a concealed carry licensee in Texas from, from 21 to 18.
MATTHEWS: Senator, your response?
WENTWORTH: Well, there's no, no bill that I know of that's dropping the age and I would object to that and oppose it. I think 21 is the, the correct age. As for law enforcement, law enforcement when they arrive on a scene like he's describing, they're instructed in their training, before they're certified as peace officers, when they show up and they're not sure what's going on, they say, "Everybody put their guns down, everybody put that their guns down." The good guys, that are law abiding, will. The only ones that won't are these mentally deranged people that are, that are the law breakers in the first place.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it's gonna be weird for a student to get his grades from a professor while he's armed? Senator?
WENTWORTH: Well, they're posted usually on a bulletin board in the hall. I mean you don't walk back to your professor...
MATTHEWS: Well you imagine a meeting between - it just seems odd that if I were a professor and had a student who was armed when we're having our tutorial, we're talking about the grades or anything, it just seems odd to know that you're looking into a classroom and you're seeing men and women with guns in the classroom. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
WENTWORTH: No, no you're not. In Texas you cannot display your weapon.
MATTHEWS: Okay you got guns in your pocket.
WENTWORTH: That's why they call it the concealed...
MATTHEWS: Doesn't that seem odd? That a student comes to study philosophy, theology, English, whatever and he's armed? Doesn't that seem odd to you?
WENTWORTH: Chris, right now in Texas, if you go shopping at a grocery store, a drugstore-
MATTHEWS: Yeah?
WENTWORTH: -go to a movie theater, a shopping mall, there are kids - you call them kids -
MATTHEWS: Okay, we gotta go.
WENTWORTH -21 or 22, they're walking around with concealed carry weapons legally.
MATTHEWS: I don't know. It's a strange world you're getting us into Senator. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's cowboys and Indians. I live in a city, I think it's strange. Any way thank you State Senator, I appreciate the way you've carried yourself. You made your points well tonight, Senator.
WENTWORTH: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Senator Jeff Wentworth of Texas, thank you. And Colin Goddard, this is a fight that's going on. I think it's - well I know where I stand.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
- Geoffrey Dickens's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ignorant he is.
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:02pm.
So when do we get permission slips in order to exercise the First Amendment?
None of the three folks there argued Second Amendment rights very well, even if Chris had to have a two on one scenario.
The one from V-tech was making the "interest balancing approach" argument, right along with Mathews. Guess what little indians? Both of you were arguing a point that has zero merit, according the Supreme Court, in the discussion.
Mathews must think that rights are different for people in the city than they are for people in the country. After all, that is thew position he was taking.
Look here Tingles, it doesn't matter how you feel about me exercising my rights. It doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable, it doesn't matter if you feel strange tingles, it doesn't matter if you quake with fear or pee your pants. You see Panama Tingles, the exercise of my rights does not depend on your approval. See that yet? You sir, do nothave to like it, you just have to accept it. Call it "tolerance".
Mathews has left no doubt with this interview that he has absolutely no clue what the Second Amendment means and even less respect for the Constitution itself.
Do you forfeit your right to speech because someone is uncomfortable by your exercise of that right, Chrissy? Hmmmm?
Guns and Noses
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 3:59am.
I'm not sure which documents and judicial decisions have informed your perspective so as to induce such sweeping statements--here and elsewhere-- concerning the ostensibly infinite reach of the individual rights of free speech and bearing arms guaranteed under the First and Second Amendments respectively. But your source material apparently includes neither the U.S. Constitution nor the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. For if it is otherwise, then, especially in the latter instance, Justice Scalia would no doubt be deeply troubled by the extraordinary liberties you have taken with the clearly enunciated parameters of his majority opinion.
The following are his words, not mine::
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the first Amendment's right of free speech was not....Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....For example, the majority of the 19th century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues....Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope to the Second amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms....We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons.... [my emphasis in italics]
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country....The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns...."
[source]
So (you ask) when do we get permission slips in order to exercise the First [and Second] Amendments? Since the founding of the republic and the ensuing two+ cemturies during which the enjoyment of the rights secured by those amendments requires compliance with reasonable regulations which may be imposed by the government.
Jer
You Just Keep On Trying to Think, Jer. It's Funny to Watch.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 6:53am.
You failed to address his point of "getting permission slips" to utilize first amendment rights. I guess you had to, because you know that would make you look like the censorious leftist that you really are.
Visions and Principles blog
Poor Tenebrous. Still at the shallow end of the pool I see...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:08am.
...splashing aimlessly and demonstrating yet again that mere attendance at a politcial website doesn't ensure even a modest improvement in reading comprehension skills. It's rather sad to watch.
The point was specifically addressed in my closing paragraph--perhaps not to your satisfaction--but addressed nevertheless. And if you were capable of anything beyond the most rudimentary form of analysis and deduction, you would understand Scalia also scattered intellectual clues for the more sophisticated thinkers on the subject throughout his opinion. Perhaps after about the ninth reading you will pick up on one or two.
Jer
The question of permits was
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 2:02pm.
The question of permits was not part of the Heller case (and neither was carrying in government buildings or public schools); the justices did not rule on the Constitutionality of permits. Permits are clearly unconstitutional since they constitute an infringement upon the individual, as does prohibiting carry in government buildings.. What Scalia and you don't mention is that concealed weapons may have been prohibited because open carry was the norm and people who concealed were viewed with suspicion.Satchmo...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 4:35pm.
Having now read the entirety of Scalia's majority opinion in Heller twice, and portions of the decision on still other occasions, I'm reasonably familiar with the principal holding of the case. And, having likewise read numerous posts of Ashrak addressing perhaps his favorite topic, I am fairly well-acquainted with his views on the Second Amendment right to bear arms..
In a nutshell, Ashrak has officially declared gun control "dead" and Second Amendment rights to be absolute and unfettered. He is, of course, mistaken. While Heller did indeed dispose of the notion that firearms are inextricably connected with militia membersip and deemed the possession and use of same to be an enumerated individual right with respect to which a ban on handguns in one's home [as well as trigger lock requirements] failed to pass constitutional muster, it was also made clear that reasonable regulations--including type and geographical limitations--would most likely be upheld. At the very least, there was nothing in the the decision which would summarily impede their implementation.
True, it wasn't necessary to rule on permits in Heller, but the suggestion they are now in all instances outside the purview of federal, state or municipal authority stands Scalia's rationale on its head.. And your contention that prohibiting firearm possession in government buildings would be an impermissable intrusion on an individual's Second Amendment right is, to put it mildly, absolutely ludicrous.
Jer
Why do you feel that's
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 8:27pm.
Why do you feel that's ludicrous? Gun-free zones only disarm the law-abiding, leaving them unable to use the threat of lethal force if endangered.Satchmo...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:43pm.
Unless I misunderstood your earlier post, your position is that a law prohibiting the carrying of firearms by an individual into a courtroom, for example, is an unconstitutional infringement on that individual's Second amendment right to bear arms and would be declared as such by the Supreme Court. That is ludicrous.
Jer
No, I was actually thinking
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:56am.
No, I was actually thinking of Post Offices and other governmental buildings. A courtroom is but one room in a courthouse, and I would agree that firearms be restricted from certain courtrooms. Obviously firearms are allowed in courthouses...it's just that the government agents are the ones wearing them. And some state courthouses provide, by law, lockers for those carrying.
feed your head
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:21pm.
I would posit that the Liberals love of illegal herbs and potions puts the college kids at greater risk than concealed carry ever will.
not just the liberals
Submitted by michiganruth on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:06pm.
it's not just the liberals who love the locoweed these days. some of us libertarian types think that should be a personal decision. however, I'll take a stoned Republican over a sober Matthews any day!
like, OK
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:29pm.
Yeah I wasn't too specific. I was refering to the Liberals political/social position that illegal substances should be made legal. As witness their crusade against substances like salt and fat but making weed (and thereby making it's use socially aceptable) legal or at least minimally criminalized.
However your position as a Libertarian may have merits for Libertarians but you have to keep in mind not everyone is a Libertarian. In order to be a Libertarian you have to have a certain amount of rational control over mind and body. That is not the case for everyone. A Libertarian having a toke at the end of the day is not the same as a stoner with children in the house who is not taking care of himself let alone the children.
It's still a personal
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 2:06pm.
It's still a personal decision that doesn't infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, regardless of one's political ideology or even if one is apolitical. Libertarian isn't the barometer for using or not using drugs. One isn't required to be a libertarian to recognize matters of personal choice.Incestmo ratchets it up yet again...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 2:16pm.
A-OK for potheads to (possibly) burn down the house with the children home. Now that's freedom, baby.
PREEMPTIVE: Now go ahead and say "I didn't say that."
You implied it, as anyone reading your response to Mid's post would surmise.
Freak.
Using a gas stove introduces
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 2:25pm.
Using a gas stove introduces the possibility to burn down the house. Smoking a cigarette on the couch could possibly burn down the house. A fire in the fireplace could possibly burn down he house. Christmas tree lights, or a space heater, or faulty wiring could burn down the house. Should gas stoves, cigarettes, fireplaces, space heaters, Christmas lights, and all wiring be banned? The "think of the children" argument is the logical fallacy known as appeal to emotion. I guess you have to resort to fallacies because you lack any intellectual capacity to debate the points of an opposing view.Yes, Incestmo, I do recommend banning all electrical wiring,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 5:12pm.
starting in your house.
And like you, I will fall on my sword defending a (hypothetical) stay-at-home pothead's (potential) negligent behavior. That was the original hypothetical example you responded to if you recall.
But everything is hypothetical until one actually carries through with it, correct? Up to and including all the whackjob theories you float around here...Casa de Incestmo must be some wild place.
I just wish I had 1/10th of your intellectual capacity.
Yes, that the individual has
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 7:27pm.
Yes, that the individual has the right to make his own decisions affecting his own life is truly a "whackjob" theory. What do people think this is anyway, a free country?Society
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:59am.
It just fills you with rage that you are part of something called "society", doesn't it?
Here's a thought. Maybe you can go to a desert island or someplace deep in "the bush" in AK where you can behave as if you were raised by wolves with total impunity.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Mathews vs. Williams
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:53pm.
At least Juan Williams can carry on a reasonable discussion and can posit an interesting veiwpoint and occasionally, even comes to the right conclusion despite his liberalism. I can listen to him even when I don't agree with him.
Matthews on the other hand, always comes across as a shrill, angry harpy, dragging out every shopworn talking point from the Left. He is a tired, whiney hack and tedious to listen to. I'd rather listen to fingernails on a chalk board.
I agree.....to a point.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:27pm.
Juan can carry on a reasonable discussion and can posit an interesting veiwpoint. He just does it so infrequently.
It doesn't seem odd to me.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:54pm.
"That a student comes to study philosophy, theology, English, whatever and he's armed? Doesn't that seem odd to you?"
Hay, idiot, a gun is just another tool, just like a PDA. It's meaningless until used. If you don't find it odd that people carry a PDA in their pocket while, say, at a dinner theater when it's not likely to be used, then why do you think it's odd when people carry a gun in their pocket to a University? People carry seemingly unnecessary items with them all the time. Ever see the inside of a woman's purse?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Talk about clueless!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 10:11pm.
"You miss the fact that police officers will no longer be allowed to respond effectively."
Hay, idiot, has it ever occurred to you that the Police are allowed to carry guns EVERYWHERE, even when they're off-duty? According to your logic, it's ok for a small segment of the population to carry guns everywhere just because of the position they hold in our society. That's elitism, plain and simple. It's that elitism that we, as a society, are trying to eliminate altogether, remember? You can't forgo a privilege for a large segment of the population and call it "equality," or even "progress." I though you liberals stood for equality? Well, do you or do you not?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The law is far, the fist is near.
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:15pm.
Hmmm. Interesting. Cops won't be allowed to respond effectively? They already don't; cops have no power of teleportation. They can't be everywhere at once.
And this is kind of surprising to me. When I took my CHL course, a good chunk of it dealt with how to interact with cops when issued the license. In fact, one thing they recommended to us was that if we are pulled over by a cop, that we should hand the cop the CHL AND the DL, even if not armed. Why? Because the CHL will show up when the DL is run, and this will prevent any potential misunderstandings.
Absolute BS on the part of that joker. Remember, the Koreans have a saying: "The law is far, the fist is near".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Cobra
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 8:13am.
You left out another category of folks that carry concealed all the time. The bad guys do it. I've had libs tell me that they wouldn't feel comfortable sitting down in a restaurant where people can carry concealed. When I tell them that chances are there are some less than legal types that are already doing it WITHOUT a permit, they look like I'd just told them about gravity.
Tingles should really consider a career change to something he'd be good at. I wonder if there are any openings for towel boy at the public bath houses in SF?
Misplaced faith in cops
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:10pm.
Chrissy and this survivor of the VA Tech shootings continue to have misplaced faith in cops.
They exist as a deterrent. They investigate crime. That's it.
I'd rather use my CHL and a firearm to defend myself in a matter of seconds over waiting for the cops to show up in four minutes...at the end of which time they might be laying down a chalk outline.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
When Seconds Count...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 6:56am.
....the cops are just minutes away. Besides that, trusting in police officers necessarily requires an awful lot of them, i.e. a police state.
Visions and Principles blog
Gun and Students
Submitted by desertphreak on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:12pm.
I remember clearly going to High School with guns on the campus. A fair number of pickups with guns racks occupied by what must have been non-sentient guns. All I can guess is that somewhere along the line guns have become sentient. As the left purports, guns are the problem, not the morals and character of the gun owners.
Matthews should have his
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:13am.
Matthews should have his middle name legally changed to "Confounded". That would soooo fit! His reaction to the top 10 presidents poll was classic confounded Matthews. LOL!!
Well, since libs are
Submitted by ant on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:36am.
Well, since libs are determined to send us back to the days of trains, horses and candles in order to be green. They should just accept the whole time period, we already got armed banditos and there are no jobs anyway, so maybe gold prospecting and bounty hunting should make a comeback, too.
The equilizer
Submitted by Chandran on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:42am.
Hey Chris:
Washington strong man Barak Obama has his union thugs.
We believe in the 2nd amendment !!!
An easily answered question
Submitted by Clemenza on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:47am.
How would you like to be in combat and have your life resting in someone else's hands?
Let's see, Eugene Sledge, Bill Guarnere, . . . . . . . Chris Matthews.
Your honor, . . the prosecution rests.
Indians?
Submitted by libfail on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:49am.
Thought it was Native American? Not very politically correct by Matthews. What kind of liberal is he?
Hey Christine,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 1:27am.
guns are an American thing, you wouldn't understand, at all.
Odd
Submitted by Mike F on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:10am.
It is odd to Me that this MSNBC host is unfamiliar with the Supreme court's recent ruling concerning the second Amendment.
I often wonder what depth is the pool of his ignorance and if knowledge could ever be a life preserver he would grasp as his only means to intellectual significance.
Easily remedied
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 3:46am.
Fasten onto him a 50 megagauss magnet in the shape of a wrist bracelet stamped BHO supporter... Then heave in a 400 lb steel anvil into the bottom of the pool.
Magnetism of both kinds will solve the problem.
NVCon
Chris Matthew's Tenuous Grasp on Reality
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 6:57am.
I thought the turning point of the conversation was when Matthews tried to argue that what he'd seen in movies was in fact reality and not a hypothetical. If I was the senator, I would have said, "Sir, we obviously do not inhabit the same reality. I leave it to you to come up with an effective Godzilla containment strategy."
Visions and Principles blog
Inasmuch as Matthews was correct
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 4:46pm.
...it would appear that you have a very tenuous grasp of history.
Jer
jer
Submitted by Mike F on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:07pm.
I find your proposition interesting, will you please expand on your thought that the MSNBC host was correct?
With respect, will you please focus on the piece Mr. Dickens laid forth for us to contemplate. after watching the event and reading the transcript I have failed to comprehend how the MSNBC host made any point as the facts were laid out.
Texas has the right, backed up by the recent supreme court ruling, to indead, pass law allowing 21 year olds to carry a concealed weapon.
When Texas passes this law, are you saying the supreme court will strick it down as unconstitutional? Again with respect, please give me your insight on the MSNBC hosts accurateness during this debate.
Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:31pm.
My comment was not intended to be an opinion on the accuracy of each and every assertion made by Matthews, or on the constitutionality of the proposed Texas law you mention. I was simply responding to the previous post by Tenebrous and addressing his specfic objection to the claim by Matthews concerning the ordinances in western "cow towns" which prohibited the carrying of firearms within the municipality or at least inside of certain establishments. Matthews alluded to movies he had seen reflecting that policy and was ridiculed by Tenebrous for doing so. However, at least on that point, Matthews was correct.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Mike F on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:54pm.
Thank-you for the clarification and I apologize for misunderstanding your premise.
Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:59pm.
You are quite welcome. No apology necessary.
Jer
Gawd....
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:18am.
is chrissy actually going to achieve a negative IQ.
roflmao
Chris should have just asked the Senator
Submitted by GW on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:32am.
"Could they carry in a box? Could they carry with a fox? Could they carry on a train? Could they carry in the rain? Where could they carry? Please explain!"
Matthews must also think the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:40am.
Matthews must also think the Constitution is a "strange" document of which he cannot fully grasp.
Oh, Christine! You big silly girl!!
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 10:54am.
Of course you don't understand. You're from the city! For all of the education that elitist liberals are continuously touting, why is it that they refuse to learn anything about firearms?
Stupid people fear what they do not understand.
Intellectuals strive to learn about what they do not understand.
Get Richard Maddow to take you to the range. He's manly enough.
Again I say, I should be
Submitted by hatuk on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 11:10am.
Again I say, I should be allowed by law, to carry my handgun everywhere the criminal is allowed to carry his! As a Texas CHL holder I have taken 10 hours of instruction, from licensed instructors, on the Texas CHL laws, passed the written test on those laws, and have shown proficiency using a handgun by shooting a passing score. I must take a renewal training course and show proficiency using a handgun every five years to keep my CHL. I have never been charged with a felony, never been convicted of a crime, never been charged with a class A misdemeanor, I am not in arrears on my taxes, not in arrears on child support (as that may apply) and never been adjuged mentally ill in order to be issued my CHL. What do you know about all those students that do not hold a CHL sitting in class or walking around the campus next to you? Could that person be a nut case and be carrying? No wait, its against the law for him to carry so you're safe right? Nobody would walk into that " gun free" zone with a gun and risk breaking that law. Yeah right, just ask them at Virginia Tech or the University of Texas to name a couple of places where that "gun free" zone worked so well!
Who was it that said ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 11:27am.
"... I carry a gun with me because cops are too heavy."
That's why I have my 'permission slip" to carry concealed. So far, I haven't gone crazy and shot anyone!
Here in Virginia, we have
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 11:56am.
Here in Virginia, we have concealed carry permits on demand thanks to Governor George Allen. The liberal editor of our town newspaper got his lace panties all in a bunch over that. About every other editorial was how Allen was going to turn Virginia into Dodge City (His words, not mine). Well, folks, that just did not happen. In fact, violent crime has actually gone down in Virginia since concealed carry became legal. And our liberal editor? He was demoted to columnist and eventually fled to Florida to a news paper more to his liking.
Which Florida newspaper? I'd
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:01pm.
Which Florida newspaper? I'd like to know if it's one close to Tallahassee.
I dont remember the name of
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:07pm.
I dont remember the name of the paper, in fact, I'm not sure he gave one in his final column. However, his name is Larry Evans.
We get everyone's nutty rejects in Florida
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:08pm.
It's just a sad fact of life.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yeah, but some great jewels
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:11pm.
Yeah, but some great jewels come from Florida...Marco Rubio for instance?
BTW
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:06pm.
And by the way, Virginia is a open carry state. You can carry your handgun openly for all to see without a permit.
Chrissy would surely wet his lace drawers in Virginia.
by the time the cops arrive....
Submitted by ph250 on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 12:41pm.
and they dont know which person with a gun is the perp, the perp will already be dead!!!!!!
And more idiocy from
Submitted by uhohshortsonthe... on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:30am.
Mr. Tinglepants. He should do a little research before he brings in a Texas resident and starts with the incredulous questions. Anywhere you go in Texas, any establishment that serves alcohol (bar, restaurant, club, bowling alley, etc) there are signs clearly posted stated that the carrying of firearms is strictly forbidden. Since he is a "journalist" and probably majored in journalism, he probably spent a lot of time in those "on campus" bars he refers to. I really hate his condescending attitude towards people like the senator.
That would be...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 12:46am.
...the "Red 51".
That, or a 30.06 sign, prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms, licensed or not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)