Rachel Maddow Spouts Anti-Gun Nonsense While at NRA Convention With Meghan McCain
Ever notice how liberals trot out pseudo-profundities when talking about guns?
Latest example -- MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on her show Friday night, hanging out with Meghan McCain at the NRA convention in Pittsburgh.
NRA member McCain said that as a young woman and daughter of a prominent politician, she owns a gun to protect herself from those seeking harm (video linked here) --
MCCAIN: I like the idea that a gun equalizes things for women if I'm attacked. You know, my father's a well-known politician, it makes me feel safer. So ...
MADDOW: Do you think there's a risk to having a gun in your home though?
MCCAIN: Not if you take courses and you educate yourself and you train yourself. I'm a complete proponent for taking the right safety course as well.
MADDOW: Just introducing a gun into a dangerous situation doesn't guarantee it's going to be pointed at the right person.
Right -- just ask bin Laden.
In other words, guns are useless when it comes to protecting yourself, so why should anybody have one? Why arm police for that matter? That's what's actually being said here by Maddow, but typical of liberals, she eschews straightforward language in favor of embroidery.
Maddow is entitled to her grandiose opinions, but this line of thought can have deadly consequences, and I'll cite a specific example when this occurred. As with bin Laden's demise, it involved the sudden violent death of another person known around the world -- former Beatle John Lennon.
I remember reading an article in which Yoko Ono was asked why the couple did not have a bodguard, at a time when crime in New York City was much worse than today. As I recall, Ono said she suggested this to her husband, who rejected the idea and cited the death of Italian prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978. Red Brigade terrorists killed all five of Moro's bodyguards, kidnapped him, and murdered Moro two months later. What's the point of bodyguards, Lennon reportedly told Ono, if we all end up dead? Which certainly sounds like him.
Whether that was the couple's rationale for not hiring a bodyguard, one thing is beyond dispute -- they were not accompanied by one when they returned home on the night of Dec. 8, 1980. And while there are few guarantees when it comes to guns, or anything else in life (though Maddow glossed over that part of the equation), any bodyguard worth his or her salt would have immediately sensed trouble from Mark David Chapman. Lennon signed an autograph for the young man earlier in the evening -- yet here he still was, several hours later, hanging out with nothing better to do.
Yes, there aren't many certainties beyond death and taxes, but I can guarantee this -- introducing a second gun that night, wielded by a bodyguard, would have meant that more than just a predator was armed outside the Dakota. And Lennon may well have been spared being gunned down from behind, while his wife watched in horror, and the couple's 5-year-old son awakened to learn his daddy was gone.
Imagine -- John Lennon living decades longer and singing "In My Life" with a briefly reunited Beatles at his son's wedding.
To tweak the title of another Lennon song, happiness is a bodyguard with a warm gun. Then again, happiness isn't quite the situation you'd expect in this situation. More like immense relief -- guaranteed.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Guns
Submitted by Eagle101 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:02pm.
It's better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it.
--Woodrow F. Call
But...
Submitted by paragrouper on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:08pm.
It's even better to have more."
--Paragrouper
Answer in a Box
Submitted by LSBeene on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:06pm.
I swear - as night follows day - ask a Liberal like Maddow about guns, and the answers are advocacy driven and one sided.
Does she work in a building where the guards have guns?
Does she live in a building with a consierge? Is he armed?
When she attends an event, is there security with guns?
And she ignores the FACT that for most of American history, most families had firearms in the home, that respect for their use, and penalty for their misuse was taught - and that in-the-bad-old-days-of-yesteryear there were fewer firearm fatalities per capita than now.
So - what changed? More powerful guns and firepower? Sure - but what really changed what the "do what you feel, there is no moral right and wrong" attitudes spouted by liberals.
Raise kids w/out a stable family. Raise kids to be indoctrinated by gov't and not family and church.
Defer growing up and extend childhood: the whole concept of "teenager" is new post-1950's concept that the Boomers experienced, we exported, and have passed along: and it's not a good concept. We basically delay devlopment for an extended childhood of privledge, and think punishment is "bad" or "abusive" - whereas before by your early / late teens and early 20's you had ESTABLISHED yourself in the adult world. Established by example, by your work, education, and everyone in town knew of your deeds.
***********
And another thing - if Maddow is "objective" then where is her same "devil's advocate" fervor when she talks to anti-gun advocates?
Where are her examples of gun owners using their firearms in legal ways to protect themselves.
The stories are certainly dramatic enough for the news .... if there wasn't a CLEAR political objective to be advocated.
I sincerely would love to make her live in the very world she advocates for - IMO - she'd hate it - if she was one of "the masses" and not one of the elite.
And, yes, I could live in the world I want to creat - as one of the masses - left alone and told to make my own way.
I guess that's a key difference.
protection for Lennon?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:24pm.
A bodyguard could have 'Baracked' Chapman right through the head.
Why do Liberals hate private firearms?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:43pm.
It's soooo obvious. The whole Liberal agenda is to weaken the individual. A firearm for one makes that individual stronger but firearms in the hands of millions make a formidable force. This force is especially intimidating to Liberals since they are a definite minority and must rule by deceit and by the acquisition of the power of government.
Precisely!
Submitted by Fenwick on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:07am.
>> The whole Liberal agenda is to weaken the individual. <<
That really explains it in a nutshell. They think that the common man is stupid, inept and in need of the care and protection of a big government run by "smart" people like themselves - and there is nothing that frustrates them more than people who reject that notion. It all boils down to individualism vs. collectivism.
I don't own a gun. I have no
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:13pm.
I don't own a gun. I have no interest in guns. I don't like guns. I don't even understand some people's fascination with guns. But, unlike the many liberals, I support the absolute right of any law abiding citizen to keep a legal gun or guns if they they so choose. No, ifs ands, or buts. I guess this is what constitutional rights are all about. I think for many liberals, guns are like other things they're against and sneer at - like NASCAR, WalMart, McDonald's, and SUVs - because they have pretenses to being snobby elitists.
Chris
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:23pm.
The reason Maddow and so many other liberals think that the gun may not be aimed at the right person is because they've only seen one model.
http://www.ramchargervideos.com/SW180D.jpg
Phil,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:32pm.
Hah! And I'd probably fire the thing! :)
So in other words...
Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:22pm.
...what Maddow just told the nation is that you can just walk into her house with a baseball bat and take what you want because she's unarmed. I can totally understand people not wanting to own guns, but I don't understand people who go on the air and announce to the whole world that they're unarmed. That's just inviting disaster.
Double Standard Rosie
Submitted by Utherpend on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:44am.
I think you will find Maddow as unhypocritcal as Rosie Odonnell who is a rapid anti gun proponent, except for her body guard who carries more than one. I would bet that the Madcow has someone tailing her at times who is well armed and paid to stay out of sight.
But times have changed...
Submitted by Right of Rush on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:38pm.
since the Constitution was written. Back then there was no organized Police Force, no 911 to call, and the United States had just gotten done winning it's independance from Great Britian. So normal, everyday citizens had guns to protect themselves against wild animals, indians, etc., and if there was an emergency they just pulled out their gun. Now we live in a much different world. Now we live in a world with police (that take 17 minutes to get to your house), robbers who will break in your door just because it's the wrong color, gang members who will steal your wife's handbag while you walk next to her, and take your money while you pull it straight from the ATM. Or, as the case is here in Dallas, rob you from their bicycle with their 9mm, and as you peacefully give them your cash so as not to get shot, they turn and shoot at you while pedaling away. (That individual actually got shot twice by the victim, who had a licensed concealed weapon). So yes, we live in a MUCH different world now. One where guns are more affordable to people making good money. So go out and get two. Or three. One for each car, one for each bedside table. Hell, one for each hand, I say. That's what I have.
A gun is only a tool .
Submitted by Bobbygn on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:48pm.
It is not a weapon until it is used in a crime. The same as other things in your home. eg. baseball bats, knifes, axes etc. Maddow asks "what about a gun that is pointed at the wrong person. "
Good point, but in her case I would hide the hammer too .. She might hit herself on the head.
Bobby,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:02pm.
You mean she hasn't already? There goes that excuse for her opinions... :)
Guarantees
Submitted by paragrouper on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:37pm.
One thing I can guarantee, If you are gun-less in a gun fight--you are screwed. When someone chooses not take responsibility for their own defense and entrust it to others, they are following the same strategy cattle employ.
Think about that next time you have a burger.
Ugh... Those last three
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:40pm.
Ugh... Those last three paragraphs are almost unreadable.
So Maddow can't make the point that a gun might not make a situation better, but you can say that there may have been a different outcome that day? Seems like 6 in one, half-dozen in the othernn
The same no-guarantees view of guns cost Lennon his life
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:14am.
Are you unwilling or unable to see the parallel here?
I see the parallel, but
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:35am.
I see the parallel, but you're making the exact same no guarantee point, just on the other side.
Liberals are slow...wow! If
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:14pm.
Liberals are slow...wow!
If guns do not make a situation better then every single Liberal needs to answer the question why do policemen need guns?
Dare I ask then, what is the point of the Secret Service of the United States to carry gun while protecting our President?
I mean seriously, do these Liberal think beyond their talking points? WOW
The fact remains, and most Liberals turn a blind eye to the FACTS and STATISTICS about guns. States that permit gun ownership, whether conceal and carry or open and carry have lower crime rates than the States which forbid, unconstitutionally, the carrying of guns.
But we all know that Liberals do not allow FACTS to get on the way of their wacked out ideology.
Oops
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:44am.
Why use a condom? The condom might break, so it is essentially useless. Oh, wait, Maddow has no use for a condom. sorry.
They will never take away our
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:32am.
They will never take away our guns. They can't take what they can't find. Oh, they may find a few, We need our guns, more today than ever before.
That poor young man is never
Submitted by eolon on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:33am.
That poor young man is never going to find a wife with an attitude like that.
Oh, I don't know...
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:09am.
Rosie O'Donnell managed to get married and start a family, and I dare say that she's manlier than Richard Maddow, "smart guy" glasses or not.
Well said
Submitted by GW on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:54am.
"typical of liberals, she eschews straightforward language in favor of embroidery."
I like that line.
Richard Maddow
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:21am.
transfers the responsibility of how the gun is used from the human to the inanimate object. She should read what Freud says about the fear of inanimate objects. A personal hand held weapon can hurt nobody unless it is wielded. Guns do not jump up and kill people.
Maddow remains completely and
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:51am.
Maddow remains completely and utterly clueless and dishonest at the same time. Quite the accomplishment.
Rachel has the choice to bring a microphone to a gun fight and see how it goes.
Why the Left hates guns...
Submitted by habbyguy on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:35am.
The Lib Elite realize that it's a lot more difficult to rob the masses blind when they're capable of self-defense, and not placid cows to be herded (as is Ms. Maddow, apparently). The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that a well-armed population is the best defense against government overreach... look at the history of pre-WWII Germany for a good example of why "gun control" was the worst possible thing that could happen.
There is virtually no down side to legal gun ownership for the general public. Any criminal who wants a gun is going to have one, but the thought that the victims might be capable of robust self-defense will be enough to cause a lot of violent criminals to find a different line of work. This is demonstrable by the fact that the states with the highest legal gun ownership tend to have the lowest gun crime rates. An armed citizen could have made a big difference at any number of situations like Columbine, Ft. Hood, or even at the Giffords shooting site.
"There is virtually no down
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:35am.
"There is virtually no down side to legal gun ownership for the general public."
Really? Look, I don't mind people owning hand guns, but... really?
You don't MIND!?
Submitted by LSBeene on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:09pm.
You don't MIND!?
Like we need your permission?
I don't MIND if you agrue against PC policies, but hey, we'll make "free speech zones" so that you have to stand in some never-used courtyard, off away from 90% of the public, and only at approved times, to speak.
What happened during Katrina when the state made a blanket "Take all legally owned guns from gun owners" decision. - was overturned by the Supreme Court. Did those gun owners get their guns back?
SOME did - and often in bad condition. Many did not. The police (and I love our various police forces, btw) were in such a rush, and it was done so haphazardly, that few records were kept in a methodical manner, and almost no receipts were given out.
And do realize that our very revolution, the "shot heard round the world" - was over the British coming to take the guns from the people - not taxes. And, of course, that is often not taught in our schools, lest the unwashed masses get an idea into their heads.
The REASON for the 2nd Amendment was protection against gov't tyranny, not hunting or recreation.
Hope that helps.
I didn't say "I don't mind"
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:41pm.
I didn't say "I don't mind" as if you need my permission. I was just commenting that it doesn't bother me, I'm not against it.
Other than that, you didn't address anything in my post.
Really? Really! Look at the
Submitted by MikeB on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:36pm.
Really?
Really!
Look at the crime statistics and crime rates in states like Florida and Texas as compared to states like Illinois and New York. Compare same for cities like Kennesaw, Ga and Washington, D.C.
Then compare suicide rates in the various states. The availability of firearms does not have much, if any, effect in suicide rates. People who are going to kill themselves will kill themselves whether they have access to firearms or not. Bal, do you advocate the banning of razor blades or prescription drugs to prevent suicide? I thought not.
The facts are that in every state that issued "shall issue" concealed carry permits, the rates for rape, murder, robbery, etc., went way down, even before their laws took effect.
So, really, "there is virtually no down side to legal gun ownership for the general public." And, push comes to shove, I'd remove the word "virtually" from the quote.
It's very short-sighted to
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:42pm.
It's very short-sighted to claim there's no down side.
No, it is very short-sighted
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:32pm.
No, it is very short-sighted to claim that there is a down side to owning a gun.
I like how Balboa repeated his claim without addressing the facts. LOL
The fact remains that cities, States which allow gun ownership have less crime than cities who do not allow gun ownership.
Furthermore, statistics show that a person has a bigger chance of slipping in the bathroom after a shower, cracking their heads open and dying.
Shoot, I guess it is short-sighted to claim that there is no down side to owning a bathroom.
Do Liberals think beyond the rhetoric which they have been brainwashed to spew?
I know that there are plenty
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:04pm.
I know that there are plenty of positives. I never disputed those facts (though I wouldn't mind some documentation), if you would pay attention.