MSNBC's Richard Lui: 'Is It Time to Rethink the 2nd Amendment?'
By Ken Shepherd | January 11, 2011 | 14:35
"Is it time to rethink the Second Amendment?" MSNBC anchor Richard Lui asked viewers of the January 11 "Jansing & Co." on the way to commercial break around 10:15 a.m. EST.
[Video after page break; MP3 audio available here]
Lui was teasing an upcoming segment in which MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing would interview House Intelligence Committee chairman and former FBI agent Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) about what measures Congress could or should take to explore greater security measures for congressmen and/or gun control legislation.
"Every recent gun control law has passed after a high-profile shooting," Jansing noted before starting her interview with Rogers later that hour.
Unlike Lui, Jansing did not suggest the Second Amendment should be "rethought" but asked Rogers if he would support a specific piece of legislation cosponsored by two pro-gun control Democrats aiming to ban high-capacity magazines for handguns.
"No, actually I think this serves the wrong purpose in this particular event, and I argue these are folks trying to take advantage for their political gain," Rogers replied, arguing that if anything the tragedy highlights that shooting suspect Jared Loughner "needed mental health services or legal intervention earlier in his cycle towards violence."
MSNBC continued its push for new gun control laws in the following hour as frequent "Morning Joe" contributor and former ABC News reporter Jami Floyd suggested among other things that states like Arizona should repeal their concealed carry laws.
"I think people would be surprised, Chris, to learn, that there are only three laws in the country at the federal level, three sets of laws, that deal with guns," Floyd complained.
"The Brady Bill only goes to background checks, and unless you've been adjudicated mentally ill, in other words, put in some mental institution or found by a court of law to have been found mentally ill at some point in your past, the Brady Bill won't catch you," Floyd explained. Jared Loughner then "is entitled under Arizona law or law in any other state to a firearm," she added.
Of course, Floyd failed to explain that the adjudication requirement is to safeguard the individual's right to keep and bear arms from being deprived without due process of law.
Later in the interview, Floyd, who helped draft gun control laws during the Clinton administration, laid out three areas on her gun control wish list:
I think we need to target, and I use that word very deliberately, the high-capacity magazines, perhaps the carry, the concealed-carry laws. I don't know that you need to carry a concealed weapon in any state. And Arizona is one of those that permits that. And I think we need a centralized database for information. Those are three areas that don't require targeting the guns themselves that I think we can all come together on.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"Is it time to rethink the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:44pm.
"Is it time to rethink the Second Amendment?"
No.
Next question?
Return question to Richard Liu:
Is it time to rethink the First Amendment specifically to the issue of freedom of the press?
Demonstrating the absurd by presenting the absurd.
Why stop there
Submitted by StarAZ on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:25pm.
Sure, the Second Amendment, selling ammo at Walmart (for some reason this was of note at the WSJ--where have you people been all these years?), skull altars in your yard, grammar books, all cable shows, radio shows except leftward leaning ones (NPR, you're safe), talking to English speaking people in Spanish, going shopping on Saturday morning, letting rambling weirdos into junior college, selling fiery inciters like the Communist Manifesto, etc etc.
Don't stop--you are on a roll!
Absolutely RE-THINK the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution
Submitted by thesavagenation on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:01pm.
The rulers have been chipping away at, distorting, and perverting the Constitution for decades, and probably longer.
ALL gun laws need to be abolished because there is NO ambiguity in the words:
"...shall not be infringed."
And the politicians are jumping on the "Federal Law trumps State Law" band wagon so when it comes to the constitution we'll definitely hold them to that.
Darn . . .
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:43pm.
These "rights" things are so inconvenient. People want to be able to say what they think, to defend themselves, to get together in a group . . . We should check with Mr. Chavez to see how he handles these things.
Democrats think a law against
Submitted by Saint Zero on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:43pm.
Democrats think a law against carrying a weapon will stop someone intent on murder?
It's not the criminals the commie gun-grabbers are worried about
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:54pm.
It's us.
-Dave
Murder is already a crime.
Submitted by ajkrik on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:12pm.
They're just fanatics. Let's outlaw drinking and driving. Oh, that's right.
Let's outlaw freedom of the press.
They're fools who don't understand the most basic idea of WHY we have rights.
Guns kill like a fork may
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:15pm.
Guns kill like a fork may Rosie O'Donnell fat.
rick, are you sure Rosie O eats with a fork?
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:51pm.
LOL- For some reason I was thinking shovel.
-Dave
DUI/ 2nd Amendment
Submitted by sarge329 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:25pm.
If DUIs were actually pursued and punished, then E.M. Kennedy, D-MA ( dec. ) would have gone to jail long ago. Crimes in this country are punished, to some extent, in relation to the parties in question and who they know. Congress is full of thieves who steal our money, use it for their own purposes, and then claim that they are simply doing so " for the folks back home " . When you take something that is not yours, it is stealing. On the 2nd Amendment front, if you load a pistol, set the safety on ' FIRE ' , and set it down, it becomes a paperweight. A firearm, in and of itself, can do absolutely NOTHING. It takes an individual with will and volition to pick it up and do something. Look at the gun control laws and crime rates in England and Australia. Private ownership of firearms there is illegal. Did crime drop as a result? Ummm ...., no. Crime rates skyrocketed. Alexandria, WV used to publish a weekly list of all those who applied for a CCP. This was just those who applied, not those whose applications were approved. SInce no one knew who was carrying, it became more hazardous for a potential mugger, burglar, or other miscreant. " When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns " could not be more accu-rate. If gun ownership becomes illegal, only those who break the law will have guns. After all, they've already broken the law. What's one more. right?
Dems don't understand the term "unalienable"...
Submitted by DaveInNM on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:35pm.
"FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And “Large” Magazine Sales Soar Tuesday, December 29, 2009 Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. "
http://tinyurl.com/46njnc9
Amazing how that works, ain't it? That the Founding Father's knew what they were doing when they recognized that an armed population is a safer population is something that just blows past the PC left crowd who want to blame anything and anyone except the perpetrators of evil.
Dems don't understand the term "unalienable"...
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:46pm.
Sure they do, they think it has to do with Immigration.
They knew something
Submitted by Toesies on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:51pm.
They just didn't know how fast technology would surpass their ancient writ.
Ya.......ban all guns!!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:55pm.
England did that, and their gun crime is now through the ceiling you moron. These people just dont THINK!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Time and time again they
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:03pm.
Time and time again they (anti-gun libs) esouse an emotional response over an intelligent response.
begrunt
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:44pm.
Here's a link to some statistics about gun crimes in the UK. Oddly, it seems that, after the crackdown in 1997, gun crimes went up -- then, years later, they went down again (though not down to where they had started). Of course, it's always hard to interpret such data, because, in addition to gun control legislation, lots of other things happen that might affect the crime rate (e.g., immigration, terrorism, recession).
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
I'll say
Submitted by Toesies on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:01pm.
Lower capacity ammo mags? That just means the shooter needs to carry additional weapons.
Chris Rock said it best. We need to price bullets at $10,000 a pop. You'd really have to think - is this person worth it? - about squeeze off that $10,000 round.
And what would stop 'em from
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:08pm.
And what would stop 'em from stealing those $10K a pop rounds?
Hey
Submitted by Toesies on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:15pm.
I didn't say it was a GREAT idea.
Just an idea.
Communists are terrified of an armed citizenry...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:07pm.
...as an armed citizenry has a nasty little habbit of opening fire when the totalitarians become too totalitarian.
Lui and his lefty compadres know this, which is why one of the very first things they do is take away the guns, just like they have been trying to do in this country for over 100 years.
-Dave
I hope this Republican
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:06pm.
I hope this Republican controlled House has enough sense to nip this stuff, gun control and free speech control, in the bud.
Isn't it time to rethink abortion?
Submitted by ajkrik on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:08pm.
These control freaks well never stop. It's a sign of self-righteousness and fanaticism.
Isn't it time to rethink
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:11pm.
Isn't it time to rethink rethinking?
I am confused
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:12pm.
didn't liberals protest about homeland security because "the terrorists have won." what is the difference now.
looking in all the wrong places..
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:15pm.
So let's say that congress removes the second amendment right to bear arms. No one can legally own a gun. Will public officials be any less likely to be attacked by guns? Nope. The threat will be just the same.
gun grabbing
Submitted by stan25 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:16pm.
Wasn't there recent SCOTUS ruling that stated banning firearms is unconstitutional? Seems like the left is hellbent on violationg the court order that was so recently affirmed.
With many libs, especially
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:23pm.
With many libs, especially the radical ones, the Constitution is just a silly piece of paper which is meaningless when it comes to those whom they oppose but they hold it up as a shield, metaphorically, whenever they feel their rights are being threatened. Just another liberal double-standard.
Not just that one
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:23pm.
but any court order that goes against their agenda.
A true sign of tyrants, not beholden to anyone but themselves.
-Jon
You could surely make the case
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:16pm.
That PSMNBC should be taken off the air in a rethink of the First Amendment. or at least the people on the show should where a face muzzle.
Tyrants always want the citizens unarmed, makes their jobs easier. Ask Maoists how it works.
Tyrants want citizens to comply.
Submitted by ajkrik on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:25pm.
There's only so much you can to with guns against a tyrant. The real goal is to brainwash everyone into thinking that self-reliance is BAD and anti-social. This is how the tyrants will end up controlling the masses. (But of course the tyrants will still have guns themselves.)
CO2 is bad. Religion is bad. Guns are bad. Conservative thought and speech are bad.
Collectivism is good. Medical treatments that destroy life are good.
Brad Sherman on Fox News now
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:28pm.
Saying we should outlaw suggestive speech even if no one can prove speech influenced Loughner. It makes my brain hurt to follow the logic of these people.
Sherman is my Rep.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:36pm.
And we have known he is brain dead for years.....a bumbling buffoon!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
My sympathies go out to you.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:51pm.
My sympathies go out to you.
BEG, Since we're talking about banning things that are offensive
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:09pm.
...maybe we should push for a ban on constitutionally ignorant congress-critters.
The fact that they even exist offends me to no end.
-Dave
Maybe licensing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:15pm.
Maybe licensing congresscritters after they pass rigorous testing is in order?
Bb,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:36pm.
Only if me and Uns get to write the test.
LOL - That would keep 'em out of the halls of power forever.
-Dave
I agree Dave.....
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:17pm.
There is a youtube video of this dolt floating around somewhere, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the man is a moron.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Liberals always want to restrict the people
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:38pm.
It is alsways the "Government" who gets the "special privelidges in their world view. And of course special "freinds" of the Government.
The people have a RIGHT to say anything that they feel like - It's in the Constitution as the 1st amendment. Liberals want to restrict what people can say based on their ideas and determinations.
The people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms - it's in the Constitution as the 2nd amendment. Liberals want to take that away and only have government officials and employees be able to keep and bear arms.
Arizona allows the people to carry concealed arms (so the criminals never know who is carrying). Liberals want to take that away.
The founders wanted the people to have the maximum amount of liberty with the minimum amount of government. Liberals want the minimum amount of liberty with the maximum amount of government.
Part time Congress with term limits! - No more professional politicians. Let's start rebuilding the Republic!
Richard Lui
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:47pm.
NO. It is time though for all to rethink Lui here and MSNBC.
Better yet...
Submitted by onewiseguy on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:52pm.
MSNBC's Richard Lui: 'Is It Time to Rethink the 2nd Amendment?'
or maybe more appropriately:
"Is it time to reconsider allowing Democrats/Liberals anywhere near elected office?"
An armed society is a polite society!
Submitted by ripper58 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:01pm.
Politico website had a poll
Submitted by ant on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 4:49pm.
Politico website had a poll up asking if it was time for more gun control laws. Last I checked, the majority voted NO. If they want to rethink gun laws, they should be forced to go by way of a Constitutional amendment and, personally, I don't think they'd get the votes needed. Interesting that in the very same paragraph they talk about additional protections for legislators they talk about disarming the public.
It's a fact that we have criminal foreigners walking right into the US, many groups that identify with anti- American communist ideals, known Jihadist groups meeting in US mosques and camps, revolutionary Black Panther types, and so on. How long would these people lurk in the background when it became known the peoples own representatives took their right to arm themselves?
Stupid libs are stupid
Submitted by USAmerican on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:15pm.
Guns don't kill people!
People WITH guns kill people.
We shouldn't control guns, we should control people and what they think. That way they won't think about shooting people.
That's what Glenn Beck does
USCanadian
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:22am.
You mean like this?
Rep John Dingell (D); "It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put legislation together to control the people."
I'd like to add there are an
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:36am.
I'd like to add there are an about 52,000,000 households (that's 52million for those of you in rio linda) in possession of 260,000,000 legally owned guns in the US. If people WITH guns kill people, like your wisdom dictates, that's a hell of a lot of deaths every year; don't you think? Why, that would probably make the mass genocide by abortion look small.
HELLO!? ... hello?
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:46pm.
HELLO!? ... hello? USAmerican?... It's been near 24 hours now.. more than enough time to find evidence of conservatives trying to control how people think.. helloo? Who sponsors 'Fairness doctrines?' ,Who tried to ban records back in the 80's/90's to protect our values? Gore's wife? The one who's husband was trying to get a quickie from various young women? What party has worked to suppress Christmas celebrations/ war memorials (excluding religion of peace celebrations, of course)? Who wants to punish "misinformation" about the Obamacare monstrosity? Which party thinks military veterans are a threat to public safety but foreign immigrants with criminal records are contributing to American society? Where are ya, punk? Nobody has told you your proper response yet? You non-thinking, "progressive" lemming, ass! When you have to work for a living, you get back to me.
All I can say is....
Submitted by gvik on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:52pm.
.....good luck with that. There's a lot of straw that has been piled on the camel's back in the past few years. This tragedy and the attaempt to place blame within minutes of it happening, while working so hard to avoid the M word with a man that shoots up a military base while screaming Allahu Akbar at the top of his lungs is a fine example of just how far the lame stream media has gotten so far out of hand, and quite clearly a huge contributor to the very problem they complain is being created by the right leaning people and media.
It's quite scary to say, but we are heading down a very dangerous road. One of these days, the final straw will drop and we will be plunged into something we truly do not need. Unfortunately, the sudden rush to yet again legislate away the 2nd Amendment could very well be that straw. And I find that rather ironic. One, because the tragedy of another civil war in this country would be incomprehensible, and two, let's face it, the liberal buffoons pushing their agenda yet again will fair poorly in such a fight for obvious reasons.
I would shudder at the thought of ever having to live through something like that. And I am just amazed every time some idiot says that we need to rethink the 2nd Amendment, or that the founders would have written a far more restrictive version had they known about machine guns or whatnot. Let's face it, it was written to ensure that the power in this country would ultimately remain with the people, not in the hands of a bunch elitists residing in their taxpayer funded marble halls. I have always hated when people respond to that by saying "Do you actually think that could happen in this day and age?". I usually remark "Can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it never will happen?". And the more I watch our government bloat, with power grabs from nearly every branch and organization, elected or appointed, I really am beginning to see that it is very possible in this day and age. And that's very sad.
Andrew McCarthy article
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:54pm.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256883/re-thank-you-not-packing-heat-andrew-c-mccarthy
But let’s bear in mind four things. First, in our system, gun possession is constitutionally protected activity. Second, the vast majority of gun-owners in our country are law-abiding American citizens, and there is abundant reason to think that they actually make things safer.
<snip>The suggestion is that law-abiding Americans should be put to a choice between their right to petition government and their right to bear arms. In any other context but the Second Amendment, I daresay that requiring Americans to forfeit one right in order to exercise another would be rejected out of hand as unconstitutional.
Fourth, and finally, the people who would be a threat to our political representatives, like the people who might be a threat to me, are not law-abiding Americans. They are enemy operatives, criminals, or the mentally disturbed. As to the former, once you have crossed the Rubicon of plotting murder, you are not going to be backed up by a law that criminalizes carrying a weapon within a certain distance of your target. For the latter, the laws don’t matter.
<snip>As Christina Green’s courageous grieving father observed, we are blessed to live in a free society, and the risk of terrible acts by bad or disturbed people is the price we pay.
Who said this?
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:20am.
"I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful servitude." I for one agree with this, but I wonder why Mr. Jefferson felt it necessary to say this? Is living in a free society a dangerous undertaking? He also penned the words " pursuit of happiness", are these two thoughts related. In a society of freedom do we have to take these kind of "chances" that Ms. Giffords and Judge Roll took to meet the public in the way they did. After all the judge had many death threats yet he chose to go out and meet the public as did Ms. Giffords. They made the choice to stand for what they believed in. I personally did not agree with many of the things they believed in but I have to respect the fact they stood tall. We all should thake this challenge and stand tall for what we believe in in spite of what the liberal media would have us to believe. That we should just sit down and shut up. This is what I will carry away from this tragic event.
One concept that excapes guin control advocates
Submitted by va5thdistrict on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:31am.
is that more gun cotrol laws will only affect those who abey the law. The criminal or in Loughner's case the insane will not obey those laws. If Arizona did not have concealed carry permits I doubt that would have stopped Laughner from taking a gun to this event. The left will use this tragedy to try and pass more burdensome laws that are uninforceable.
http://va5thdistrict.blogspot.com/2011/01/over-reaction-begins.html
I guess they're just too
Submitted by ant on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:45am.
I guess they're just too smart to comprehend that little fact,va5th. I remember someone actually proposed the idea that to prevent future bank robberies, they should make it illegal to wear a baseball cap and sunglasses when entering a bank. As if someone intent on pulling off one crime would be detered if he had to violate a "sunglasses ordinance" as well. Pure genius!
We can rethink the second
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:49am.
We can rethink the second amendment if you like, Richard. We can go back to the original intent. The founders wanted the population as well armed as the goverment. This was to balance the power and keep the goverment at bay. Now, I'm not sure that I have enough room in the back yard for a nuclear weapon, but I do have some property at the lake I think I can fit one on.
Besides, Arizona has open carry. One of the guys that tackled the gunman was packing and never drew his weapon. By the time he had a shot, the shooter was in the process of reloading. The man showed proper restraint and physicaly subdued the shooter.
I would have shot him out of hand at that point. But hey, thats just me.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
After an attack of somekind
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:22am.
There is always a drive by communists in this govt to attempt further gun control.........every time it happens, it strikes me that its to this govts advantage to get involved in a conspiracy to CAUSE these types of incidents! Idiotic politicians, screw over people, steal taxpayers money, waste $$ on B.S. projects that serve one purpose ...to get them votes....and then they scream and holler, run and hide when something like this happens...just shows....they are so stupid, they didn't see it coming! Any normal person knows there are repercussions.....a "reaction to any action" Stop your corruption....put God back in business, govt, schools etc and see the country turn around.....!!
OK, scratch the second!
Submitted by Morganfrost on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:56pm.
Any other fundamental freedoms we should ask the government to take away from us?
I've noted that quite a few of the people who seem to object to our right to own guns tend to believe that our experiment in self-government has gone terribly awry. Maybe we should restrict suffrage to people who can prove to the NY Times editorial board that they'd exercise the franchise wisely?
Then there's always the whole freedom of speech issue... certain types (mostly talk radio personalities) say a number of things which, although factually correct and persuasive, tend to lead people to think in ways that are antithetical to their best interests. Probably the first amendment should hit the ash-heap of history along with the second.
In the end, we might as well just chuck the whole Constitution, except for the good parts (you know, affirmative action and abortion), and place our trust in our betters.