MSNBC's Alex Wagner: 'Get Rid of the Second Amendment'
In January 2011 after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, MSNBC's Richard Lui wondered, "Is it time to rethink the Second Amendment?"
His new colleague Alex Wagner doesn't even think there's a question about it.
"I'm going to be pilloried for this," the Now with Alex Wagner host told Bill Maher on the November 4 edition of HBO's Real Time, explaining that she thinks the Constitution should be amended to take out the individual's right to keep and bear arms (h/t Real Clear Politics; video at link):
I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why doesn't she lobby the
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:30pm.
Why doesn't she lobby the Dictator, o'bama, and just get him to say "we can't wait", and poof! -- just make it happen? In our best interests, of course.
I wonder if she has actually read any statistics regarding crime rates when the criminals know the citizens are armed and dangerous? Probably not -- because it doesn't fit the agenda of taking over America.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
If I want to purchase a gun in America...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:32pm.
...I'll just go down to Mexico and buy one...
"I just think in the grand
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:33pm.
"I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights."
Because being able to defend yourself from the government does not tally with being able to criticize the government with speech. Yea...
But hey, if no one owned guns...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:42pm.
we would be that much more dependent on the government. After all, we wouldn't be able to protect ourselves, so we could rely on the government to do it for us.
As we saw when ACORN showed up at the house of the banker last year who's son was home alone, and with the (non)enforcement of laws at the OWS protests, I prefer NOT to trust the government to defend me.
That goes hand in hand with
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:01pm.
That goes hand in hand with the arguments by the founders for the Second Amendment. The whole point of the militia was that the security force of the country be founded on ordinary people acting in self-defense, rather than on an imperious body.
The scary thing is that you have some Constitutional lawyers who don't understand that.
All our rights hinge on the
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:17pm.
All our rights hinge on the 2nd Amendment. Because our government won't guarantee them like the constitution says we have to guarantee them.
If the fools say that we don't have a militia anymore that is a lie. NC still has a defense militia. That is not the National Guard. NC statutes distinguishes between the two.
I wonder if she knows
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:35pm.
what the 3rd Amendment is and how the 2nd prevents that from being a problem. I doubt Obama would quarter troops in private homes, but he wouldn't have a problem with his "civilian security force."
Welcome Alex Wagner...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:36pm.
...The female "Dylan Ratigan"...
Who is this Wagner kid...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:45pm.
...and what qualifies her to be an analyst?
Obviously, it's not her level of Constitutional scholarship.
Perhaps it's her level of obeisance to the current nascent dictatorship?
--Mike
2nd amendment
Submitted by studentofeib on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:38pm.
A "glittering jewel of collossal ignorants"
Huh
Submitted by paragrouper on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:46pm.
You lost me there. Did you mean "a glittering jewel of collossal ignorance?" The 2nd Amendment is?
I think he was talking about
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:32pm.
I think he was talking about Alex Wagner being the glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. Libturds generally are when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Then again libturds are like that all the time.
How's that
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:32pm.
UC Berkeley liberal arts degree workin' out for ya? I see that English wasn't your minor?
SHOCKER: DOESN'T BOTHER ME
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:46pm.
Her opinion is facile, but she's entitled to it. Now, if there were a CALL TO ACTION attached to her opinion, like GO STEAL EVERYBODY'S GUNS, THEN there's an abuse of the privilege she has been given as a broadcaster. With rights come responsibilities. Just because you have the RIGHT to your opinion, does not mean you can be RECKLESS & IRRESPONSIBLE with it and INCITING an ACTION COULD BE deemed to be unlawful. So! Silly? Yup. Worth gettng worked up over? No.
BUT - THE OTHER THING SHE DID: Tweeting with deliberate, demonstrable, slanderous, malicious intent about Herman Cain - THAT bothers me. That was BEYOND THE PALE and SHE SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THAT. That was A DELIBERATIVE SMEAR and WAY outside the bounds of her role, and beyond the scope of "forgivableness" that must be extended to people who talk into a microphone for a living.
If she were my reporter, I'd be ashamed to have her tarnish my brand.
But this is MSNBC we're talking about...
Opportunities abound for her
Submitted by OldBB on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:48pm.
She has huge opportunities to relocate to countries that deplore the citizen ownership of guns.
She should go for it, forsaking her US citizenship along the way.
She would just love a Muslim country.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:28pm.
Guns are illegal there, but of course she would be wearing a burka and would not be allowed to drive, hold anything but a menial job and potentially be her husband's second, third or fourth wife.
Don't forget the...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:19am.
Clitoridectomy, I bet she would love that part of being owned by a Muslim.
I wonder-how many firearms
Submitted by helomech on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:52pm.
I wonder-how many firearms does she own ? For that matter, all those ideological dicktards who oppose the idea of firearm ownership-how many of them own firearms?
She can advocate whatever she wants
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:57pm.
The Founding Fathers deliberately made the Constitutional amendment process cumbersome. If she wants to see the Second Amendment repealed, then she can try to do it lawfully. It ain't gonna happen, but she can try.
the second ensure the first
Submitted by dmacleo on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:05pm.
w/o the second we could not keep the first.
minor correction required...
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:17pm.
"w/o the second we WOULD not keep the first."
the second
Submitted by OldBB on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:19pm.
Bingo. If you notice, the countries without the equivalent of the second, don't even have a first.
Stalin sure felt that way
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:21pm.
"I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights."
Stalin sure felt that way. Most, if not all, tyrants do. Of course, Alex doesn't off a suggestion as to how we're supposed to keep our rights if we surrender our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. What does Alex expect us to do if a tyrant gains control of our government and our rights no long apply? Are we supposed to appeal to the UN?
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.
Message to MSNBC
Submitted by NVRAT on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:22pm.
Get rid of Alex Wagner, then go out of business the world, especially the United States, will be better off.
hmmm....
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:28pm.
based on all the articles on NB popping up with her name on it, i'd say little Alex is trying to become the next Oblubbermann of MSNBC.
She has a show premiering? Of course she does!
i say, maybe if we ignore her, she will go away. Oh, wait, she's on MSNBC, being ignored is sort of a given.
i think, if NB'ers didn't watch that network, they would receive the first "no one is watching" share rating in history.
Does MSNBC have a
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:32pm.
Department of Location of the Utterly Uneducated And/or Ignorant?
Just wondering...
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
The left has already taken away free speech
Submitted by MrLuigi on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:36pm.
The left has eroded the right to free speech, at least if you're a conservative. Who was it that brought america politically correct speech codes. As for the second amendment, they refuse to admit that the most violent people and most likely to use guns illegally are clustered in the innercity and therefore democrats.
she's right
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:52pm.
I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights.
Gun ownership is not the same level as the other two. It's a right that helps guarantee the other two.
What protection then?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:55pm.
I already don't feel protected by the federal government, especially at the airports and the borders. I need something to protect myself from those who would cause me harm, who would steal from me, who would consider me a racist and a terrorist and come after me.
Wagner, buy a clue.
-Jon
If you repeal the Second Amendment, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:08pm.
... you repeal ALL rights!
"God made all men. Sam Colt made all men equal."
What even the SCOTUS
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:22pm.
if you read history, even the SCOTUS has been very wrong on applicability of the BoR.
ONLY the First Amendment was intended NOT to apply to the states. Every other amendment was intended to be blanket rights for everyone in the country.
Ever wonder why "Congress shall make no law..." is stated in the first amendment, and not the second, or others? Do you believe that the framers got "sloppy," and just messed up?
Not one voice that i have ever read about was raised in favor of considering the right to bear arms as anything but an absolute right for ALL people in the country, without infringement, by feds or state.
Five Voices
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:34pm.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OTIS McDONALD, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.
Here's five voices that point out that without the 14th Amendment, the States and Municipalities may have been able to get away with restricting your right to bear arms.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Let's eliminate that pesky
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:50pm.
Let's eliminate that pesky 13th Amendment as well. Maybe the 14th and 15th as well?
Press?
Submitted by stanmo42 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:03pm.
Let's just do away with that "Freedom of the Press" business too.
I say get rid of commie gun-grabbers like comrade Alex Wagner
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:04pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Get Rid......
Submitted by notinstl on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:25pm.
...of Alex Wagner.....MO-RON...
Amendment 2 goes a long way in protecting Amendment 1
Called it.
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:24pm.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before the rabid liberal left started demanding openly what they've been slyly insinuating they wanted for so many decades. They think with their king Obama in charge, they can get all the stuff on their Communist wet dream list.
Guns do not give freedoms but ideas do!
Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:26pm.
Besides being strikingly beautiful this young lady has her head on straight! Why does anyone need a gun? A few years ago I bought one. Now it just sits locked away collecting dust. This whole argument about the second amendment guaranteeing all our other rights is nuts. Do any of you really think that if for some strange reason the 2nd Amendment was repealed that the rest of the constitution would be null and void? This is the 21st century get with the times- change happens in a court of law.
Also, I would like to point out the United Kingdom’s policy on guns. They have very harsh laws and yet I still see them as a free people. Even the cops don’t carry guns anymore! How amazing is that! In Northern Ireland 20 years ago, the police were walking around with machine guns! Now all they carry is a club!
Neon sign
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:51pm.
Do you walk around with a neon sign over your head that says "Naive" or something?
-Jon
Pshaw!
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:08pm.
Did you look at the amount of gun violence in England?
When citizens are unarmed, they are helpless against those that are. If citizens can't own guns, then be very assured that the criminals will. Further, citizens, unarmed and in peril for their lives, cannot count on there being a cop anywhere nearby to save them. Even if the cops carry guns or clubs, they cannot be on every street corner and in every house and business.
More and more English cops are petitioning their commanders to allow them to carry guns. Especially those that patrol high crime districts, ghettos, and slums.
A little more research on your part might open your eyes to the real world.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
On Guns
Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:59pm.
What is a gun? Many take the issue far too lightly. It is an engineered machine death. The whole purpose of a gun is to kill. It is not designed to do anything else. It is a useless machine that has no value in society. What are the negative things you can do with a gun:
Kill, mutilate, rob, threaten, kidnap, rape, fight wars, and commit suicide.
What are the positive things you can do with a gun:
I’m drawing a blank here- perhaps destroy it?
Typical fool lib, Hank,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:14pm.
as you do not see protecting yourself or family members with the security provided by the possession of a handgun as something positive.
You are becoming more of a dork with each additional post you make.
Amazing.
I thought you had reached the epitome of dorkness long ago.
MD
And there he goes*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:13pm.
Hank has proven in one post how liberals suffer from impaired vision. On the issue of guns, like any issue, libs can only "see" one side of the road....
Naivete on parade
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:29pm.
So painfully naive you are.
MANY things can kill. The world will not become a global Mr. Rogers Neighboorhood just because you get rid of EVIL guns. You behave as if all the world's evil began with the invention of firearms. Sorry, not so. People have been killing people since Cain whacked Abel, to make a Biblical reference.
You get rid of guns, and people will kill each other with kitchen knives, golf clubs, baseball bats...all sorts of implements that can quite easily be used for weapons.
The positive things you can do with a gun? Hmmm. Let's see here. Maintain civilization. Keep bad people at bay. Ensure whiny, naive ingrates like you can enjoy the freedoms you have. And once upon a time, and for quite a few people today, having a gun in the household meant (or means) food on the table.
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Smith and Wesson
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:37pm.
The original point and click interface.
What are the positive things you can do with a gun
Submitted by IdahoJim on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:06pm.
1. Kill or deter those who would murder, mutilate, rob, threaten, kidnap, and rape.
2. Defend the country against those that fight wars against it.
3. Hunting, sport shooting, competitive shooting and other non-violent, non-lethal forms of recreation involving guns.
Oh, and anybody who is dead(?) set on killing themselves do not need a gun to do it. It is not the gun's fault somebody stuck it in their own mouth.
Guns are here. Guns are machines of both offense and defense. Guns are a way of projecting power beyond our capabilities or reach. Guns are real, they are never going away, and if you can not deal with that reality as well as the rest of us, mores the pity on you.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Guns are tools.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:25pm.
They may be used for good, or for ill.
It is only the limited intellect that misses such an obvious fact.
--Mike
Anybody heard from HC since?
Submitted by IdahoJim on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 4:05pm.
I was wondering if HC got a clue from all the responses to his posts. Did the post expand HC's knowledge or did HC just write all of us off as idiots.
I'm going to assume the latter. One person I have never met through the decades is an open minded liberal.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Hank Mud, as usual, is full of ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:44pm.
shit.
The English bobbies were unarmed for most of their existence, but now, in dealing with terrorism and it's fallout, are known to carry firearms.
MD
well now I have to ask why...
Submitted by kata on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:46pm.
you spent money buying it, getting the permit, learning how to use it and now it collects dust?
I hate to break your heart,
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:20pm.
I hate to break your heart, but cops in Britain DO in fact carry guns. Or was the blowing away of the Brazilian by the London cops in July 2005 just a figment of my imagination?
Change does not happen in a court of law, my silly, history deficient poster. Nothing beats or trumps the sheer application of force. The only reason a court of law can be effective is the sheer application of force. Period. End of story. But then, your comments indicate here that such things as freedom and the rule of law are simply there for the asking.
So, you naively say that "guns do not give freedoms but ideas do!" This further demonstrates your inability or unwillingness (or both) to study history or to make even the most feeble attempt at understanding human nature. If ideas give freedoms, please explain why it was necessary to bother with silly things like, oh, I don't know, the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War. For starters. See, King George III's response upon receiving word of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in late August 1776 was NOT "Oh, OK."
Why does anyone need a gun? I don't know. I can ask all sorts of questions about things you own and ask "why do YOU need that?" Two things in the case of my guns: one, I need one to practice as part of one of my professions. Two, even if the police department in this town was first-rate staffed with the absolute most professional cops around, they are STILL going to get here in about 4-6 minutes. The ONLY thing cops can do is to investigate crime, when you get right down to it. Other than that they can provide deterrence, but if that was all there was to keeping the bad guys at bay, well, why isn't the crime rate at about zero?
If you don't feel like owning a gun, be my guest. Go without. But don't tell me what I can and cannot have.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Guns are impotent in the face of Ideas
Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:21pm.
You just bit of more than you can chew! Behold the power of my keyboard knave! You speak to me about the American Revolution and the War Between the States. Let us look at the American Revolution. Ideas, words, symbols gave the Colonies there freedom. Yes there was violence with guns and sabers but that violence would have been moot if men like Patrick Henry did not speak up and declare- Give me Liberty or Give me Death! Was there a gun in his hand when he said that? NO I say! He had a quill in his hand! How about John Hancock? The most hunted man of the early revolution. He was sought not for killing the British but for signing his name. Or Thomas Paine who single-handily with his words persuaded the population to think. Did he do it with a gun or did he do it with words.
Now onto The War Between the States which you so ignorantly refer to the Civil War. What was the first thing that Lincoln did when hostiles broke out? He ordered the removal of firearms from the population. Yes, it was illegal to have a gun in America. If you do not believe me, look at Maryland as an excellent example during the War. It is quite the case study. Lincoln disarmed the American population to free the slaves! Ha- the irony to the NRA brainwashed mind. Was it not guns that kept the slaves in bondage; but words from a man, a leader, who freed them with the Emancipation Proclamation?
I can go on but it would be unfair to you. The point is Gandhi brought down an empire with his words and actions without ever having to pick up a gun.
More than Unsane can chew, on history?
Submitted by kata on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:56pm.
You have brought the proverbial knife to the gunfight, dear Sterling. Pun completely intended.
Epic Fail
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:45am.
Hedley Dismay. You are a Neanderthal. Wait no!
Neanderthal`s used weapons. You know like rocks and sticks and 'stuff'.
You would never ever be a Neanderthal because you do not like weapons.
What was used before "guns"? HHHHHMMMMMMM
Maybe weapons?
I have thought about your 'UTOPIA' that most,not all,libs so dream and fantasize about.
Stick with me on this ok?
In a land far far away we have a UTOPIA and no one has "weapons" and everyone thinks exactly the same. We do not argue and fight nor do we have any ANY differing thoughts. It is heaven on earth. We all agree with each other and we never ever see any crime because we all think the same. I love our UTOPIA:). we are finally all the same.
Problem with that is eventually if everyone thinks exactly the same way we,humans, would eventually cease to exist as a race. If everyone thinks and acts and parrots the exact same think , you have no thought. All you have is mind numb DUMBASSITY.
You have no progress all you have is the same DUMBASSITY that gets talked about on a daily basis in UTOPIA.
Linda: Hi John how are you today?
John: Linda i am fabulous!
Linda: Wow so am i. I agree completely i am fabulous as well!
The ugly effectiveness of violence
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:08am.
How you made it to adulthood being this naive I have no idea.
When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death!", the Brits didn't say "Oh, OK." It had to be EARNED and blood had to be spilled. And as for the Civil War ( you need to start citing history around here because I'm not taking your word for about anything), which is called the Civil War, not The War Between The States, The War of Northern Aggression, or the War for Southern Independence...it was propelled by an idea. Last I checked, half a million died for that idea.
More guns equals less crime as well. Is it a coincidence that crime has been falling in TX for years since CHLs were issued to citizens that qualify to carry them? Can you explain to me, if guns are so bad, and so evil, why Switzerland is a place where burglaries are just about unheard of? Or why street crime does not happen in Israel? It isn't because people in those two countries are inherent sweethearts. Both countries are armed to the teeth - with those evil guns you so despise. I would take the crime rate in any of the major cities in TX over that of DC or NYC - what's that? You mean DC and NYC aren't crime-free because of their gun control laws? You mean that crime in DC and NYC is WORSE than in cities that are in states that issue CHLs? Why is that?
If Gandhi was so effective, how come the Brits didn't leave India 15-20 years earlier than they did? Answer: the departure of India by the Brits had as much, if not more, to do with that little war that was waged right before Indian independence that cost about 50 million lives around the world and shattered the empire more than Gandhi could manage. Besides, history is replete with examples where the non-violent protests you so love and admire have failed miserably. Tiananmen Square, anyone? The guy standing in front of the tanks had to eventually be pulled away, you know.
My naive little boy, run off and READ YOUR HISTORY. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, works quite so much as violence and the threat of violence. The only way Germany and Japan were stopped in WWII was extreme, massive violence. The only way the Soviet Union was contained was through the threat of massive, intense violence. And how are people deterred from breaking in my door or visiting physical violence upon me? Why, my capability to counter their violence with violence of my own.
Violence WORKS.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ghandi's "nonviolence"
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:24am.
Ghandi's "nonviolence" approach was only effective because it was used against a government that had a conscience and believed in human rights. That's why they couldn't just slaughter unarmed people.
A totalitarian government without principle would have simply kept mowing them down until they stopped or were all gone.
Tiananmen Square is a good example.
Good point motherbelt!
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:55am.
Another good point. Note another example from 1989: the fall of the Eastern European communist regimes. Yeah, you could say that those regimes fell in nonviolence. But one thing useful idiots like HC willingly forget is that those regimes were unpopular to begin with. The Volkspolizei in Leipzig and East Berlin (for one example) figured out way early in the game in October 1989 that the game was up and no one was coming to save them. Besides that, many of them hated the regime anyway and had no desire to open fire on their people for a cause they themselves did not believe in.
Even so there was STILL violence: note Romania. The Securitate was not about to go away gently into the night - they fought back and many of them were still fighting after Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu got whacked on national TV on Christmas Day 1989 by firing squad.
What naive fools like HC willingly refuse to accept is that ideas are nice, but as history repeatedly shows, ideas are only implemented in many, many cases after much blood is spilled to make the point.
One of my guns is dedicated in many ways to the idea that the Constitution is worth defending. The other is dedicated to the proposition that having life and private property is a fundamental cornerstone to all else and anyone who threatens either must be dealt with very harshly.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There is Something about England
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:57pm.
Oh and by the way, this was the same Government that introduced the idea of concentration camps during the Boer War? Or the same government that sent RAF paratroopers to Northern Ireland and fired on unarmed protestors? Or the same Government that promised a homeland for the Jewish people and then turned around and armed the Palestinians? Or the same government that allowed Rhodesia to be a slave capital of the world because of diamonds? Yeah, the English have a real great tract record of having a conscious.
My history deficient HC...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:16pm.
Actually, concentration camps are the invention of the Spanish, used against the Cubans a few short years before the Boer War.
What the hell is with you, HC? Yeah, the Brits just went into Northern Ireland, guns blazing, for the hell of it. When the IRA kills innocents, you no doubt applaud and cheer. Shahinshah forbid the Brits go on to their own territory and attempt to restore order.
And what of Zimbabwe now? Boy that's a model for governance, isn't it?
Go and read your history before shooting off your mouth.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Guns are for the Uneducated
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:36pm.
Where do I even begin? Do you even know what a civil war is? A civil war is two competing factions vying for control of a government. Examples of a civil war are the English Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, and the Irish Civil War. What happened in the United States was one faction seceding from the government and establishing a new government. It was a war of rebellion, not of taking over an existing government. Do study your history lad.
Secondly, Gandhi showed the world that non-violence is far more effective than waging and armed insurrection against occupying forces. If you studied India you would see that the brave people of India time and time again tried to use violence against the British but failed. Do you know that the word “thug”, comes from a tribe in India called the Thuggies who fought an armed rebellion against the English.
Meanwhile we can today look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as to the impotence of armed insurrection. Israel has time and time again asked for the Palestinians to put down the gun and come to the table. The Palestinians have refused- Can you imagine if a leader arose out of Palestine using non-violence to establish a nation? Overnight the world community and Israel would come to the table and establish a Palestinian nation. Violence begets violence it is a vicious circle. Any true student of history would recognize this.
Keep digging. Go much further and you won't see the sun
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:37pm.
Really? Guns are for the uneducated now? So the degrees I have on the wall behind me are figments of my imagination too huh? Keep digging the hole.
All of my education is not going to make up for the fact that the world we live in is a violent place and that I, as a civilized, educated individual who is firmly grounded in the Real World, have to be prepared to counter violence with violence of my own.
Your being smug, arrogant and thinking yourself to be smarter than the population that inhabit NB cannot conceal the fact that you are a complete failure in studying history and an even bigger failure at knowing and understanding human nature.
Where do I even begin? Do you even know what a civil war is? A civil war is two competing factions vying for control of a government. Examples of a civil war are the English Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, and the Irish Civil War. What happened in the United States was one faction seceding from the government and establishing a new government. It was a war of rebellion, not of taking over an existing government. Do study your history lad. Take your own advice. If you have such a problem with the Civil War being called the Civil War, I suggest you go cry to your nearest grouping or society of American historians that have been calling the Civil War the Civil War from since probably about the end of April 1861. Because they call it the Civil War, and because about a few hundred million other people call it the Civil War, I am going to call it the Civil War. You got that, child?
Just as I know the Caspian Sea is a lake, yet no one calls it Lake Caspian.
But your arguing over semantics only shows me you are losing the central argument big time. Now that I have shot your idiotic contention that "guns are for the uneducated" to hell, and have poured cold water over your attempt to overturn accepted terminology in historical discourse, I shall continue.
Meanwhile we can today look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as to the impotence of armed insurrection. Israel has time and time again asked for the Palestinians to put down the gun and come to the table. The Palestinians have refused- Can you imagine if a leader arose out of Palestine using non-violence to establish a nation? No, because that won't ever happen. Violence will be necessary for such a leader to merely unite the Palestinian side. Overnight the world community and Israel would come to the table and establish a Palestinian nation. It must be fun to live in fantasy land! If it were that apple-pie easy, than why hasn't that happened in over six decades? Violence begets violence it is a vicious circle. Any true student of history would recognize this. Really now? Can you PLEASE explain Europe over the last 60-70 years? Violence settled a LOT of centuries old arguments that way, and not just in WWII. The mass deportation of populations was NOT a stroll in the park; that was EXTREMELY violent but it solved a great deal of issues. There IS no more German question, at the cost of millions of lives. Violence settled that with a finality your little fantasy world will never pull off.
Then we can go back to the 1640s. The diplomatic regime we use to this day was in part born from the Treaty of Wesphalia, which itself was born of the most violent conflict Europe would see until WWII.
And then, as Robert Heinlein put it so succinctly in Starship Troopers, in the form of Mr. Dubois's retort to a silly student who whined in class that violence never solves anything, according to the student's mother, "So? I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell you so? Or why don't you?"
Do me a favor, HC. Go to Richmond and tell the Confederates that violence only begets more violence. Also, try telling that to the Byzantines in Constantinople. Or how about the Aztecs? Or the Incas? Or the Fascists under Mussolini? Or the Romanovs in St. Petersburg? The Bourbons in Paris? I could go on, and on, and on...but I am an actual student of history, not some smug, arrogant Socialist playing the part of one.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Insecurity
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:16pm.
My you sound very insecure. Congratulations on your wall of diplomas professor. Only small minds have to resort to violence to solve one’s problems.
Stupidity. You show with
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:25pm.
Stupidity.
You show with every post your ignorance and stupidity.
So Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin to you are small minded?
We can only hope and pray that you do not infect the gene pool.
Losing, failing, and flailing
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:27pm.
Insecure? You seem to be made insecure by my poking holes the size of a C-5 through your illogical statements. You made a statement that only uneducated people need guns, and I used a ready example to destroy your statement. Now you're just whining because you have gotten called on your stuipidity. Nice try, and thanks for losing the argument.
Only small minds have to resort to violence to solve one’s problems. Violence ALWAYS works. All your smugness and arrogance will never change that. And if you are mugged, carjacked or assaulted at gunpoint, be sure to tell your assailant that. I'm sure he'll just drop his gun and walk away...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
small minds like
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:32pm.
FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon...Obama
You want to talk talk ideas?
Submitted by hern2430 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:53am.
Seems to me that even before guns, wars were waged with bladed weapons going back to the bronze age, and bladed stone weapons before that (think spears, arrows, etc), and clubs and rocks previous to that. And you are trying to tell me that weapons do not win wars? There are many other forms of weaponry man has invented since picking up that first stone or stick that are designed to KILL, and most are still legal to own. Are you going to ban those? They are not guaranteed in the BOR, there is no place that says I have the right to own a knife.
Man is not perfect, and never will be. Unless you can do away with greed, hate, etc, we will always have the "bad apples" to deal with in society. And the best way is to not give them a weapon free zone where they know they can do what they want (think Virgina Tech).
If you like the system in England so much, why don't you do us a favor and move there since you obviously are the minority here in this discussion.
hern2430
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:58am.
you don't have to go back that far - just look in Africa where they are still killing each other with sticks and stones. Often, not always, at the behest of the religion of peace.
See the death in the Sudan
Good morning Agnostic
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:09pm.
Don't worry, Present Obabble will fix it. He brought peace to
egupt, Libya, and the whole world. He wants to bless us all with his religion of peace. When all free men rest in peace he will be happy.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
The Power of the People
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:21pm.
You are missing the point my friend. Wars are unnecessary. If world leaders followed the role of Gandhi and MLK there would be no need for wars. Was it an armed conflict that brought down the Berlin Wall and united a nation? No it was an idea. East Germany saw the freedom that their brothers had in the West. There was no Stassi. There was freedom of religion. There was bread on the shelves. That my friend won the Cold War; not some fake idea of Star Wars Defense. That idea spread to the rest of Central and Eastern Europe right through to Saint Peter’s Square. Not one gun was lifted to free millions of people.
In the case of China, it has been the weakness of the West that allowed the student movement to be slaughtered. Yet, still average everyday people are rebelling against their communist oppressors. They are reading The Bible; they are having large families with the knowledge of being sent away to re-education camps. Why, because the human spirit is a far more powerful weapon than tanks and guns.
Violence: works EVERY time
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:52pm.
Meanwhile, those of us here to do not live in fantasy land realize that the world is ruled by THE USE OF FORCE and the application of VIOLENCE.
Was it an armed conflict that brought down the Berlin Wall and united a nation? No it was an idea. East Germany saw the freedom that their brothers had in the West. There was no Stasi. There was freedom of religion. There was bread on the shelves. That my friend won the Cold War; not some fake idea of Star Wars Defense. That idea spread to the rest of Central and Eastern Europe right through to Saint Peter’s Square. Not one gun was lifted to free millions of people. You FAIL, FAIL, FAIL and FAIL, again and again and again, at basic history. In 1950, there was freedom of religion and bread on the shelves, and East Germans could stroll into West Berlin again and again and again to see this time and time again. Yet the 1953 East Berlin uprising FAILED. The 1956 Hungary uprising FAILED. The 1968 uprising in Czechoslovakia FAILED. The multiple uprisings in Poland FAILED. If just mere ideas were enough, we shouldn't have even HAD a Cold War. Yet it went on until 1989. Why? The application of violence. You need to read, very carefully, The Black Book of Communism. Get out of fantasy land for a change.
The very reason it eventually fell was the fact that the United States did not abandon its allies and made it very clear that if the Soviets intended to go any further west of where they already were, they would be hit with massive, untold, unheard of VIOLENCE. Oh, and did you know that France briefly considered sending troops to Romania in 1989, which was a VIOLENT uprising?
Violence ALWAYS works, and if it isn't, you aren't being violent enough.
In the case of China, it has been the weakness of the West that allowed the student movement to be slaughtered. Yet, still average everyday people are rebelling against their communist oppressors. They are reading The Bible; they are having large families with the knowledge of being sent away to re-education camps. Why, because the human spirit is a far more powerful weapon than tanks and guns. And you being a spoiled, pampered Socialist, you cannot see and refuse to imagine the lengths people can and do go through to quash that spirit. If having human spirit was enough, the Democracy Wall and a bunch of idealists slapping "FREE TIBET" bumper stickers on their care would have been enough for China to become a representative democracy. But it isn't. Why?
VIOLENCE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:14pm.
If I may add a clarification:
It is not just violence - it is the fear of and respect for violence that establishes and maintains ideas in the world. The Cold War was one long example of respecting the fear of violence. The better ideas did not win because they were better but because while both sides were using the weapon of potential violence there were strategic and economic moves made to create a winner and a loser (some bad luck with harvest - not really bad luck just the usual problems created with central planning).
It takes both the ability to do violence and the perceived willingness to do violence to advance ideas. The potential for violence is just as real of a weapon as a gun, tank or bomb and can be just as deadly if the wrong ideas are backed by the threat of violence against nations without the willingness to do violence.
Brevity is the soul of wit
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:29pm.
I may have not mentioned it as eloquently as you have, but I pointed out that the Soviets were deterred by the threat of massive, unheard of violence. But thanks for chiming in though. Your viewpoints are always welcome and you aren't the windbag I am. :o)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
windbag
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:45am.
If you don't think I'm a windbag then you haven't read my posts on economics. Then again you might have and just nodded off somewhere in the middle.
Thank you for your kind words.
One more example for your records - Modern day Islam. 90% of Islam sits back and allows the threat of violence (they have shown the capability and the willingness) to push agendas. The most peaceful Muslim has a stronger voice in the public arena because of the fear of the 10%.
Henry,
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:30pm.
Do you know why you have the luxury of being able to think that way?
It's because other people have been willing to sacrifice their lives so you can have the freedom to be as stunningly naive as you obviously are.
Maybe someday that will dawn on you, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.
Why, Indeed.
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:42pm.
You come home from work to find your wife is being raped. You reach for your phone, to call a judge or the police After all, this is the 21st century, and you are "with the times". Remembering that change happens in a court of law, be sure to remind the rapist that you've notified the authorities. He'll be glad to know that, if he can hear you above your wife's screams.
Or, you could put two in his head. Problem solved. Crude, but quite effective - even for the 21st century.
The real HC response
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:09am.
Actually, since Henry Clay is the epitome of 21st Century civilization, he'll just politely ask the rapist to cease his uncivilized behavior.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Do you really think that if
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:55pm.
Do you really think that if the First Amendment was repealed that the rest of the constitution would be null and void? A lot of countries survive without something with equivalent meaning to the First Amendment. Many European countries have hate speech laws, the UK included. The Netherlands bans political parties they consider bigoted, including parties with anti-immigration rhetoric. Germany bans uses of Nazi imagery. They're all free people, right?
The point is that we need our civic culture to be based on an understanding of the proper role of government, and a right to arms is part of that.
Don't forget that one of the preludes to the Nazi rise to power was the Weimar government creating gun control laws. Most of Europe I think is pretty safe from a dictator taking over, but you have to wonder what'll happen in countries like Greece if a political meltdown occurs.
I guess that depends...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:09am.
on your definition of "free".
One of the (many) reasons I'm leaving The Peoples Demokratic Republik of Kalifornia as soon as I retire (in the next 6 months) is the repressive gun laws.
Henry Clay????
Submitted by gfrrman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:56am.
...I will pay shipping and handling or will come to your house for YOU TO GIVE YOUR GUN AWAY. pm me.......I'm serious!!.......so which will it be? I will come through...and I AM SERIOUS. Pm me.
g
It would require 3/4 of the
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:42pm.
It would require 3/4 of the states to approve the amendment..can the libs battle it out that long? I don't think so..
Guns
Submitted by NewLife56 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:39pm.
Good point jkwtrading but problem is they will pass all kinds of restrictions, and if you've popped a pimple they will try and deny you the right to buy one
Many lives have been saved
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:52pm.
Many lives have been saved because of the right to defend oneself. She is an idiot if she thinks that the shooting of Giffords is the reason we should all lay down our weapons.
Look what's happening in Mexico. Citizens are not allowed to own firearms and they are all now defenseless against the Cartels. Thousands are dead and many police forces are in bed with them. The potential for death especially in a border town is way up.
Ms. Wagner is as stupid as the day is long.
Alex
Submitted by NewLife56 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:38pm.
Well come and get my gun Alex.
not a chance this would ever float..
Submitted by kata on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:51pm.
she's just pushing buttons and getting more name recognition for her new show.
Yawn...
Submitted by Free Thinker on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:14pm.
Another irrelevant talking head from the fringe left on msnbc. They have become so predictable it has lost all shock value. She is kinda cute though.
The second amendment doesn't require you to own a gun, Alex.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
It just says you have the freedom to own one or as many legally available firearms as you can afford. A concept so facile is probably way above your basement liberal IQ.
I am a proud gun owner as are my wife and children. All of us have concealed carry permits. I don't count on the police to be my sole means of protection. With four children and a beautiful wife, those guns and their training means they can defend themselves when the police are not around. If you have a problem with that Alex, tough.
CCW
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:27am.
A friend of mine was asked why he carried a firearm (legal concealed carry weapon).
His reply... "Because a policeman is too heavy".
Cops - good for investigation and not much else
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:00am.
Last week in NC I noted that police in Raleigh were busy...harassing pedestrians and disrupting commutes on foot for residents, business people, and tourists alike, protecting a film shoot. Now, if a few streets over a mugging or a rape was taking place, they would have been of no use, as the city government deemed the film shoot to be a much bigger deal.
Fortunately NC has CHLs and recognizes many from other states. This way the cops could continue to protect the filming, while people could look out for their own safety. After all, when seconds count, the police are truly minutes away.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Second Amendment!
Submitted by GigglingGoogler on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:30am.
If these IDIOTS are successful in repealing the second amendment, the first amendment will not be far behind! There is absolutely NO thoughtfulness among the lefties!
Why stop with the 2nd Amendment?
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:55am.
what these Libs really want to do is be rid of the entire Constitution. I'd sooner we be rid of them.
great with my ak47
Submitted by quipster on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:59am.
every one should at lest own ten guns, cops do not save your life if you have a brake in, always 10 to 15 minutes late!!!!
I'm sure
Submitted by gfrrman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:50am.
this cute?, air-headed---YES, highly educated in the field of firearms(NOT), female has a group of body-guards to escort her out of the bldg.
HYPOCRITE!!!
g
Alex who?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:03am.
Said what?
My corgi is smarter than she is. And cuter!
It is precisely because of this kind of thinking...
Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:08am.
that the Second Amendment exists. Liberalism always eventuates into tyranny and less individual rights because it has its foundations in the atheistic belief of collectivism where government replaces the role of God. Our founding Fathers saw liberalism coming a mile away. They understood human nature. Something atheists never have been able to wrap their little heads around.
RESIST LIBERALISM AT ALL COSTS! It is marxism in disguise.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Second Amendment
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:20am.
You would think the someone who covered Darfur and Burma for the Hollywood elitist Liberals (George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon) would have realized that people don't need guns to kill other people. However, they might need guns to protect themselves from their own government or from the resultant factions developed during the breakdown of the government.
She should have continued covering the music scene in NY.
As STUPID as this chick is...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:55am.
...she may be on to something!
You want REAL change in this country? Just TRY to confiscate the 200 million guns in the hands of US citizens!
Yeah let's take away
Submitted by wiwf on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:52pm.
Yeah let's take away everyone's guns so the criminals who obtain them illegally can have their way!
Liberals want to live in a police state
Submitted by Peter-in-NYC on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:20pm.
This is something I've long tried to understand, but liberals essentially want to live in a police state. I see it time and time again, and FirearmsTruth.com covers this daily. Liberals hate the idea that people have guns.
Consider this statement about marijuana: I don't like it, I don't think people should use, I think children shouldn't be around it, it can destory lives, it can lead to crime and it can destroy neighborhoods. That is honestly how I feel and when I say that liberals jump on me. But then they say this about guns: I don't like them, I don't think people should have then, I think children shouldn't be around them, they can destory lives, they can be used in crime and can destory neighborhoods!
Of course with guns liberals can't get past it. And I also hear how only the police and military should have guns, so this says to me that once again liberals are the real fascists who relish the idea of living in a police state. Never mind that SWAT guns were stolen in Los Angeles, never mind the police officers in NYC who sold criminals guns. Yeah, if only the police have guns say the liberals.
But if only the police had guns, we'd have a police state and criminals would still be armed. What a world it would be.
yet another demonstration of stupidity...
Submitted by wizardjr on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:32pm.
These clowns live in a wonderful alterverse in their heads. In that wonderful place if you write something on a piece of paper then it happens. Out here in the real world we have shown (again and again) that outlaws don't obey the laws. That's why we call them outlaws. duh.
In a life and death situation where seconds count the cops are minutes away.