MSNBC's Alex Wagner Grouses That Americans Are Too Pro-Gun, As Opposed to 'Intelligent' Brits
Brand new MSNBC host and Second Amendment critic Alex Wagner devoted a segment of her November 15 Now with Alex Wagner program to express her exasperation at the fact that she's far left of the American public on the issue of gun control. Wagner prefaced a panel discussion with footage of an ABC News interview with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was critically injured in a January shooting.
"Support for handguns, or rather support for a handgun ban has gone down," Wagner noted as she opened her panel discussion, entitled onscreen "Out of Control?". "In October of 2011, it was at 26 percent. In 1959, it was at 60 percent."
"Gun violence increases and yet people still believe handgun bans are bad. What's the logic there?" the liberal Center for American Progress alumna demanded [MP3 audio here; video follows page break]:
After Newsmax's Jedediah Bila -- the panel's token conservative -- noted that gun control disarms law abiding citizens and held up Washington, D.C.'s stringent gun laws as evidence thereof, Wagner turned to colleague Martin Bashir to help her out:
WAGNER: Martin, you're from the more intelligent side of the Earth --
[laughter from MARTIN BASHIR]
WAGNER: Where they have different gun control laws and I wonder what you make of America's cultural sort of fixation on --
BASHIR: You shouldn't be asking me, because the attacks that are going to come on Twitter and Facebook are going to be overwhelming.
WAGNER: Oh, come on, that's the whole point of this show!
Bashir went on to praise how his native country, the United Kingdom, has been swift to enact stringent gun control laws following school shootings.
"I feel like the dialogue around gun control is very much dominated by the NRA and the pro-gun lobby," Wagner griped to retired U.S. Army Captain Wes Moore. For his part, Moore blamed "money" and the "size of membership" of the National Rifle Association.
Wagner replied that it "can't just be money" but that gun ownership is "too embedded in the American cultural psyche" but complained that "it's hugely puzzling to me" that "the New York Times" can report on convicted felons who've regained their gun rights and yet there's "no broader conversation" about "who gets to own a gun."
For his part, panelist John Heilemann theorized that a drop in violent crime has made "gun violence" largely "theoretical" to most Americans.
"The urgency around it is leached out because of the fact that there's actually, in a paradoxical way, a very big good news story that's happened with respect to crime in America," Heilemann added, failing to grasp that widespread civilian gun ownership and liberalized concealed carry laws have contributed to a drop in crime.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Newsbusters needs to jump on
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:04pm.
Newsbusters needs to jump on this:
CBS: "Newt can sure talk a lot but is he smart?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57324911/newt-can-sure-talk-a-lot-bu...
Newt must be dumb, because conservatives are dumb, and if one ever sounds intelligent, it must be a hoax!
I never saw anyone in the media question whether Obama was as smart as people thought he was. Even people on Fox News were afraid to question it, flattering his skill as an orator. I always thought his speeches were vacuous and people were overrating his intelligence.
Absurd
Submitted by clintm19 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:09pm.
Because nothing says peace, liberty and freedom like a society in which only police, criminals and the military have guns.
The Brits also have security
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:13pm.
The Brits also have security cameras everywhere on the streets.
A security camera can only
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:16pm.
A security camera can only record a crime in action, not stop a crime in progress.
Forbidding law-abiding civilians from bearing arms is an infringement on their right to self-defense.
My point is that the British
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:24pm.
My point is that the British people, who she's describing as intelligent, have adopted a police state mentality and thats why they also are comfortable with gun control laws.
The result is that a lot of
Submitted by ThatDude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:05pm.
The result is that a lot of people are getting stabbed instead of shot.
I think the British criminals
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:05pm.
are arming themselves with handguns. As they are constant calls for more police to be armed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Subjects not Citizens
Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:31pm.
The British people are "subjects" not "citizens". The difference in terminology is meaningful.
The Brits also have laws
Submitted by celator on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:41pm.
The Brits also have laws against carrying a pocket knife (think Victorinox) in public, on the Tube e.g., or at least that's what I hear on their talk shows. I suppose those who dare to carry a Leatherman in public would get life sentences if caught. ;+}
Alex Wagner smart and beautiful
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:10pm.
Wow! I think I just found my new crush! I was just talking about the same thing yesterday. Great minds must really think a like? Way to go Martin and Alex speak truth to power!
Naivete
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:19pm.
She's incredibly naive. And so are you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Henry is just angling
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:43pm.
for publicity by pushing buttons. As is Ms. Wagner.
Liberals such as Mr. Clay seem firmly stuck at that oh so cute age where they think they can wish themselves out of any situation, and have it be so.
Henry,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:23pm.
A woman who covered Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma in detail doesn't notice that much of the killing was done with clubs and hand made weapons.
I wonder if just once she thought that if the people had a proper means to defend themselves they wouldn't be such easy slaughter material for their governments and neighbors.
Disclaimer - I don't own a gun nor do I have any intention of having one any time soon.
The real world
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:49pm.
I am sure she is aware and disgusted at seeing child soldiers being used in Africa. Do you know in Liberia, they actually kidnap children; then get these babies all doped up on drugs and hand them a Kalashnikov. It is appalling.
I digress, if the NRA had their way they would be doing the same thing to American orphans too; and then when a rational person calls them out they would just say: “Hey, it’s a right to kill people- the Second Amendment says so!”
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:02pm.
You may want to actually READ the Second Amendment.
Also, with that sort of caustic comment, which only shows me you really aren't here for any sort of serious debate - I'd hate to hear what your opinion is of the Cub Scouts...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
History Lesson, Once Again
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:22pm.
Oh I have read the Second Amendment but with my typical Rabelaisian wit; it was far over your head.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The argument that I keep hearing is; we need the second amendment to protect us from ourselves- in other words, a right to kill. Yet, nowhere in the above stated text does it mention anywhere about having the right to kill. No where does it mention the right to defend your property or person with deadly force.
In fact, the Second Amendment is explaining the duty of service in a state militia. You are to keep guns in order to serve in the armed services. You see back when the Bill of Rights was ratified America was not a very rich nation. We owed payments dating back to the war. This country could not afford to keep a standing military. Nor did it want one. The Framers came to the conclusion that state militias would be the main line of defense against foreign invaders. After the war of 1812 and the reality of a professional army invading and fighting against farmers, we then started to really think seriously about keeping a professional army.
You're misunderstanding what
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:52pm.
You're misunderstanding what the militia was and what the purpose of having a militia was.
The militia was organized from the most local level at the city, not the state. There was no police force, there was a volunteer group of people that made up the city's "militia" that helped with law enforcement. This in turn, was then organized by the state, and then led by the federal government in times of war. So there were "state militias", but the fact is that the "militia" referred to every citizen, as an individual, banding together from the grassroots level out of self-defense. The militia was not equivalent to a state-run national guard.
The fact that we now have something similar to a professional army does not overturn the original point of the founders when they argued for a militia. The point was that the only way to prevent the government from being a tyranny was to have everyone armed, and the defense of the country being a matter of individuals grouping together in self-defense, using their own arms :
"MR. JACKSON said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated. Original institutions of this nature are highly important. The Swiss Cantons owed their emancipation to their militia establishment. The English cities rendered themselves formidable to the Barons, by putting arms into the hands of their militia; and when the militia united with the Barons, they extorted Magna Charta from King John. In France, we recently see the same salutary effects from arming the militia. In England, the militia has of late been neglected—the consequence is a standing army. In Ireland, we have seen the good effects of arming the militia, in the noble efforts they have made to emancipate their country. If we neglect the militia, a standing army must be introduced . . . In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils—a standing army."
The debates and proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol. 2, pp.1824—1825
As I mentioned in another comment, the UK has abandoned this line of thinking and a lot of their laws, like street surveillance, seem to be aimed at turnign the country into a police state.
A very thoughtful response
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:03pm.
A very thoughtful response indeed; you can even probably go back to the city-states of Greece and the early Republic of Rome; which was highly influential to our founders. With that being said, what do you think would happen if a small group of armed people got together and killed a pedophile? Would the authorities turn a blind eye to this behavior or would they prosecute to the letter of the law. What you are arguing for is vigilante justice.
Another thing, do you remember way back in grammar-school something called Shays Rebellion?
The Supreme Court
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:30pm.
Has already said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. That being said state's laws are uneven some very strict and some rather 'liberal'. I don't see the framers of the Constitution having 9 individual rights and 1 collective right in the Bill of Rights. BTW does anyone of legal mind know if any of the 1st 10 amendments (aka the Bill of Rights) be amended or are they inviolate?
A typical liberal wants an ala carte menu and be able to pick and choose one's rights. But I am sorry it is a package deal, you get all of them. Inalienable rights such as the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, self-incrimination among others have often been used as safe harbors for the unscrupulous and criminal element to hide behind and work to the detriment of the citizenry. All our rights have their price. Some more immediate and noticeable than others but I wouldn't want it any other way. It is not as if governments have not been known to become irrational, run amok and kill, imprison and torture their own citizenry because of ethnicity, politics and/or religion and to not think it cannot happen here is naive.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
The Tenth Amendment is a
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:52pm.
The Tenth Amendment is a collective right reserved to the states.
I stand corrected.
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:43pm.
I stand corrected on the collective 10th amendment.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
redfish...while I agree with the individual right to bear arms
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:22pm.
under the second amendment, I'm not so sure this particular source assists the argument inasmuch as it proposed a uniform federally regulated militia imposing an obligation upon--rather than merely recognizing the right of--a defined class of the citizenry to bear arms.
Jer
Militia
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:23pm.
means citizens.
Get it right.
Um... way far off...
Submitted by retrocon on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:26pm.
If you actually bother to read history, you would discover that the militia was all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and whatever, that the second does not say "only the militia has the right to bear arms," and the reason for the second amendment is to protect us, first and foremost, from an oppressive central government.
In fact, the framers had very little debate on the second amendment because they knew that the single and only right that protected all the others was that of a right to bear arms. They debated most of the other amendments, but not the second.
Also, if you pay attention to history, the very first right that virtually every oppressive government in history has removed is... yes, you guessed correctly.
Hitler, Mao, the Soviets more recently. Japanese warlords disarmed their populace, Romans often did, you name it.
But the real problem with liberals is their personal instability.
You see, liberals are soooo mentally unstable, as a group, that they fear that "normal people" will behave as they do with firearms, and start shooting people because they cut them off in traffic, or stepped in front them in line at a starbucks.
Basically, most of your crimes are committed by liberals and wanna be liberals (you know, "you are rich, so i'm entitled to your stuff" types?)
Fortunately, most CCW holders are law abiding (and often conservative) citizens, hence, pretty much the least likely demographic for committing violent crime.
Congratulations, retrocon
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:44pm.
By virtue of those final four paragraphs, you have now moved into first place as the author of the most boneheaded post in my 4 1/2 year tenure at NewsBusters.
Jer
CHL holders
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:01pm.
Disagree with the other points all you want, Jer, but the final sentence...he is correct. Have you seen the crime statistics for CHL permit holders in TX? DPS maintains the list online on their website.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...I've seen the statistics compiled by Lott, the FBI,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:31pm.
and a few other studies and they provide a formidable argument in support of CHL and CCW laws.
Jer
The history-deficient history lecturer
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:59pm.
Actually nothing you say you smug, arrogant, elitist Leftist, is over my head. You see yourself as the smartest person on NB when you are just another in a long line of history-deficient, intellectually bankrupt Socialists who make feeble attempts to lecture ME on history.
Before you run around scolding and lecturing people on history, you need to correct your own deep history deficiencies. Any cliche about people who live in glass houses will do. Check that. At least the glass can afford you SOME protection. Methinks your house doesn't even have that.
What you keep" hearing" is a "right to kill" which is nonsense. When I took my DPS-approved course, the instructors taught that, under the law of the State of TX, you use your gun to STOP someone from doing harm to life or property when no other means are available. STOP, NOT kill. And you can in fact use your gun to STOP someone without killing them.
And unfortunately for you, in the State of TX (as well as many other states), I have NO duty to retreat when my life or property is threatened. Meaning that if I am at home for instance, I can defend my life or property if under threat by whatever means I have. No cop in this state will throw me in jail if they determine the guy I just shot broke and entered my home. Indeed, they'll take a statement and go away.
The Supreme Court, according to the Oxford Companion the the Supreme Court of the United States, has only considered the Second Amendment a few times. For much of American history there have been few laws concerning firearms ownership (why, how did our poor nation survive???). The section I quote goes on: "The settlers of colonial America were heirs to the English tradition of distrust of standing armies and professional police forces as dangerous to individual liberty. (italics mine) The English tradition of relying on the armed yeomanry to both enforce laws and protect the realm from external enemies was reinforced in the colonial era. The need to defend settlements against the Native American populations and the settlements of other European powers led to the deputization of the entire white population. Colonial statutes required all white men, with few exceptions, to both keep arms and to bear them in militia formations. (Oh, HC, how did this country SURVIVE such hellish VIOLENCE???) The American Revolution strengthened the traditional suspicion of standing armies and reinforced the view that militias composed of the armed citizenry were the best way to guarantee both security and liberty.
"Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was an attempt to answer the objections of Antifederalists who charged that the new Constitution could be used to deprive the people of rights traditionally considered among the rights of Englishmen. Statements by the amendment's principal author, James Madison, indicate that he saw the amendment as protecting the arms of the population at large." (again, italics mine)
I can't think of a time when a standing army did not exist in the United States. It wasn't that the United States was a poor nation so much as it didn't need that much of a standing army to begin with: you being history deficient, HC, you probably do not realize that at the time, communications and transport were much slower than they are now. It took something like 7-8 weeks for word of the signing of the Declaration of Independence to reach the court of King George III. And oh by the way, in spite of this concern for standing armies, look right in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, where Congress is authorized to establish an Army and a Navy.
Now, sadly for you, because I am armed, this means I don't have to wait on the cops; after all, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. Not to mention our friends in Korea have a saying: "The law is far; the fist is near." It means I don't have to wait on the cops nor do I really need anyone in government to baby me. I know you desperately want government to baby you, and if that means you becoming a helpless waif under the thumb of government, if that means you turn over every single last one of your political and economic freedoms to the government, so be it. You WANT to be a helpless little waif, a serf, a slave. Not me. I like the weird idea of being in control of my own destiny. And I like the idea of being able to own pretty much what I want. Under the laws of this state, the great State of TX, if I am not a felon, the State does not care if I have an arsenal. As long as I do not commit a felony of any sort, the State of TX will continue to not care, and neither will law enforcement, who will take their concerns elsewhere.
If you don't like guns, don't own one. If you can't hack the responsibilities of owning one, you don't have to own one. (Don't go to Switzerland where you are REQUIRED to own one.) But above all, stop waving your finger in my face telling me what I can and cannot own, or what I need or don't need, for you are utterly clueless on that score as you are on history and basic human nature.
When the world runs out of bad people, when evil is extirpated from the earth, I will happily turn in my guns. Til then...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wow… was that a long winded
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:15pm.
Wow… was that a long winded soliloquy.
lol
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:40pm.
You can't say you weren't warned.
Kata put it best, but i'll go further
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:42pm.
I'm a windbag and for once I have no obligations to tend to today.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What I want to know is
Submitted by panzerakc on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:41pm.
"Colonial statutes required all white men, with few exceptions, to both keep arms and to bear them in militia formations. (Oh, HC, how did this country SURVIVE such hellish VIOLENCE???)"
How, Mr. Clay, did this fine country develop the way it did when all the white Colonial males, being required to keep arms, were just sitting around thinking about killing people?
And I'm basing this question on what seems to be your theory that merely owning guns turns people into violent killing machines.
Clay for brains, just exactly which part of...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:16pm.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed are you not getting?
The "only meant for militias" agument is BS and has been shot down so many times it's ridiculous.
BTW, at the time the Constitution was written, militias were under civilian control - not the government's.
_________________________________________________
There is no way we are giving up our guns, comrade, and that goes double when there is a freedom-hating commie (that's right, I said c-o-m-m-i-e) residing in the White House.
Learn it.
Know it.
Live it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
my gun is bigger than yours
Submitted by quipster on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:50am.
Henry Clay you sir are a moron!!!!
The make-believe world
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:15pm.
"...if the NRA had their way they would be doing the same thing to American orphans too; and then when a rational person calls them out they would just say: “Hey, it’s a right to kill people- the Second Amendment says so!”
What a steaming pile of fatuous twaddle. You either are trying to push buttons with such asinine ignorance or worse, you actually are stupid enough to believe what you wrote.
Knowing you to be one of Newsbusters least intelligent trolls I must conclude it is the latter.
Gun Worship
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:38pm.
This is how screwed up this country is when it comes to guns. Do you know in my own home state the geniuses in the State House passed a conceal carry law. Private businesses have to put up signs now prohibiting guns from being brought into their places of commerce. Then when some nut job gets called out on not being allowed to bring a gun into a daycare centre he contacts the NRA, the NRA then sends thugs down to the business and protests the owner. They threaten the owner with lawsuits! This is crazy folks! My own church has to put up a sign prohibiting guns from being brought into a place of worship! I’ve actually had friends refuse to attend church because of this. They rather worship their gun then God.
Henry, The gun Kook, Once again on the losing side. YAWN
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:16pm.
Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.
The gradual, long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990s to 2008 coincided with a decline in the murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to be influenced by politics, namely the Obama administration.
I know lots of people that carry guns, in public. Guess what pal, they aren't going to tell anyone that they are packing....( BTW, not anyone in my deep blue state).
You Didn't Build That.
So under your reasoning, if
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:44pm.
So under your reasoning, if 61% of the population approves of beating up old folks and stealing their clothes it would be all right? Just because something is popular does not make it right.
Non-sequitur, even by your standards Hank.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:54pm.
The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on the meaning of the second amendment, albeit with reasonable restrictions. The same restrictions that are intended to prevent those who are by legal definition incapable of managing their own affairs by virtue of a mental or physical disorder or by felony conviction also apply to multiple other rights defined in the constitution.
The only way to change the supreme court ruling on the subject would be for congress to pass a law taking the issue away from the jurisdiction of the court, which is unlikely to happen. Congress could also pass an amendment to the constitution by a 2/3rds majority and the states would then have to ratify that amendment by a 3/4ths majority--both are very unlikely to happen.
As for your belief in your great wit, you are only half-right.
What is the old saying: The
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:59pm.
What is the old saying: The law is the only profession that records its mistakes; so that when a similar manner arises again, it can make the same mistake twice.
No. It's monologuing trolls can't stop posting.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:03pm.
Corrected your version of the "saying".
You can't worship God
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:24pm.
unless you are free to do so. Gun ownership guarantees freedom. Think, reason, don't just spout the liberal pablum.
Last time I checked Acts of
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:48pm.
Last time I checked Acts of the Apostles, I did not read about Peter, Stephen, or Paul carrying a weapon with them. Only the weak use this as an excuse not to worship. Look at the Reformation, people were locked up but still worshiped. A gun will not save your soul.
Skipped the part about Roman ear loss.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:53pm.
Or this one:
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
You Didn't Build That.
Bible 101
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:12pm.
Was that in Acts? I don't think so; and what did Jesus tell Peter after he cut off the ear, not of a Roman, but of a Sanhedrin bodyguard? That's right you live by the sword you die by the sword.
Fine whatever Live like a lib die as a lib?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:57pm.
"Those who use the sword will die by the sword.
Standard troll and skip the point. Weapons were encouraged.
But how came Peter to have a sword? Judea was at this time so infested with robbers and cut-throats that it was not deemed safe for any person to go unarmed. He probably carried one for his mere personal safety.
You Didn't Build That.
Wow- you actually want to die
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:09pm.
Wow- you actually want to die by the sword? I really do not think you know what you mean when you say that. Seriously, it’s not literal- It’s hell friend. As for Jesus sending his believers out in twos- he told them to take nothing with them. Why, because faith would provide. Those who have faith do not need to rely on man made weapons for safety. Peter lacked faith just like any common man- he denied his lord three times before Christ redeemed him. Acts is when he became a real awesome Christian leader. Read up freind- it's food for the soul!
2000 years later ,firepower has arrived .
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:58pm.
Where a 90 lb. woman can fend off a 220 lb. man.
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.
Are you sure, about the following.....
Those who have faith do not need to rely on man made weapons for safety.
Soo why are you using a computer, a known weapon?
You Didn't Build That.
You do realize
Submitted by panzerakc on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:04am.
that what upcountry was quoting were Jesus' words?
It's Luke 22:36 if you want to check.
"in my own home state..."
Submitted by Rackie on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:05pm.
let me guess. TN
Um, what's your beef with the
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:46pm.
Um, what's your beef with the balance struck here? Businesses and churches can allow or restrict concealed firearms on their premises, so long as they inform people in a sign outside the door. The property rights of the owners and the concealed carry rights of the individual are protected. No one has a right to carry a gun on someone else's property without their consent.
And has it occurred to you some churches may be perfectly fine with concealed carry? You're not forced to worship at them though.
Ken Shepherd
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:38pm.
If you would have read what I wrote with all due respect, the signs were posted and yet these Gun-nuts still try to take their weapons onto private property. When it is discovered by the owners that a weapon is on the property, the perpetrator threatens a protest or a lawsuit. They are not respecting private property rights.
The whole point is that these crazies only care about carrying a gun so they can live some sick childhood fantasy of being Chuck Bronson. To hell with the property owners- we don’t have the lobbyists like the gun industry does.
And as for a church that allows weapons into a house of God; I suppose I won’t judge- but I hate to be that preacher when the Man comes back.
Not impressed
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:46pm.
And you are a "crazy" who thinks that if we simply got rid of all guns, the world would instantly become one big, massive Eden.
Nice try, guy. Here in TX if I were to carry a gun onto property where they are not permitted, I go to jail and cough up the CHL. Maybe you need to go cry to your state legislature if your states' concealed-carry laws bother you so much.
I suspect you are just spewing agitprop because as you have indicated elsewhere, you hate guns and want to deprive anyone else of their ability to own them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
True Story
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:01pm.
Texas sounds more reasonable then my state. The State House just passed a law that allows people to bring guns into a bar! Yeah guns and alcohol really mix well together.
I have a guy who works next to my office. He is a small business owner. He does body work on cars. He has his sign outside his shop and this one wacko came into his business with a gun. My friend asked him to leave and come back without the gun and the stranger handed him a card with his name and the NRA logo on it. He said if he didn’t take down his sign, the stranger would have lawyers involved in the matter because his “Second Amendment” rights were being violated.
I call B.S.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:15pm.
The NRA doesn't try to force guns on private property.
You just don't want to
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:21pm.
You just don't want to believe. It wrecks your whole world view.
No, I'm considering the story.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:56pm.
I will tell you I know a woman who was being raped and her children held at knifepoint. They called 911 when they first heard the intruders, but the police weren't at the house yet. Just as one of the intruders was about to slit the throat of the youngest child her husband burst in with his gun and shot the would be murderer in the head, then the rest of the intruders.
True story. Take my word for it.
Any links to that sad story?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:16pm.
I know a guy who knows a guy whooos rights were being violated.
You Didn't Build That.
I live in the real world. You
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:28pm.
I live in the real world. You know the world where you go to work and talk to your neighbors. Have meaningful conversations. Not everyone runs to the media when their rights are being violated. He told the guy to go to hell and never come back.
My true bar story
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:38pm.
A horse walks into a bar, across the room, up the back wall, across the ceiling, down the front wall and then up to the bar. The bartender gives the horse a beer, he drinks it and leaves. A guy sitting at the bar looks perplexed and asks the bartender "Hey, what's that all about?" The bartender replies, "Don't take it personally, he never says 'Hi' to anyone.
kata
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:54pm.
I find your story a lot more believable.
Nice one, Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:13pm.
Jer
Was that after the bartender
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:13am.
Was that after the bartender asked the horse "Why the long face?"
Seriously?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:40am.
You live in the real world?
Your posts here and on a related thread suggest otherwise...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Perfect dimwit reaction
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:48pm.
Read the law, if you are carrying, you had better be sober, because failure to do so makes a dui look like child's play.
Indeed
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:51pm.
Don't know about other states, but in TX, the law is crystal clear: the legal limit for the road is 0.08, but when you are carrying concealed, it is 0.00.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Agitprop alert
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:32pm.
I suspect you are in VA. They recently removed concealed carry restrictions in bars.
The wonders of federalism. I want to see what VA's experience will be. If VA doesn't experience a sudden jump in crime at bars and other such establishments, I'm going to have to start writing my State Reps and State Sen to see if they can repeal that restriction. If it doesn't work, then Richmond can re-impose the ban.
That second paragraph...like Rad, I'm calling BS...in fact, I'm calling agitprop.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Here's a church
Submitted by panzerakc on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:13am.
that allows weapons. And I'm reasonably sure that a lot of folks are glad she had hers.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/12/shooting_at_new_1.php
Henry Clay the liar
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:55pm.
"Private businesses have to put up signs now prohibiting guns from being brought into their places of commerce."
"My own church has to put up a sign prohibiting guns from being brought into a place of worship!"
Liar. They don't have to do anything of the sort.....they have CHOSEN to post these signs....assuming, of course, that you aren't lying about that as well.
Point?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:11pm.
And TX has such legislation which there are places you are not supposed to carry concealed guns, and you simply have to know where they are (schools, sports venues).
The other places where concealed carry is prohibited are in places with a clearly marked "30.06" sign or a "Red 51%" sign (the latter at establishments where 51% or more of their revenue comes from alcohol sales).
So what the hell is your point?
In October 1991, a Luby's Cafeteria in Waco was shot up by some nutjob. He killed quite a few people. In 1995, TX put its concealed carry law into effect (an issue which paved the way for a Governor named Bush to be elected to office). Ever hear of happenings like that in TX since then?
Don't mention the Ft. Hood shooting to me either - that cowardly Major could have shot up an off-base establishment popular with soldiers, but he didn't - and I suspect the reason was that he knew that if he had, he knew he was taking a chance. On federal property - where guns are prohibited - he knew the soldiers were, for the most part, sitting ducks.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Fellow Texan here, Unsane....
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:45am.
...and me, my wife, and our children know where they can carry and where they cannot. It is very common sense stuff. Liberals seem to have a problem with standard ADL (activities of daily living) logic. If there is no script, they wander around like unprogrammed robots.
True dat, dr -
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:55am.
Got my CHL and my Glock 26 here in the Lone Star State as well. Recently I got the concealed carry holster and some hollow point ammo to complement it as well.
And to complete the policy of deterrence, I'll just obey all laws - as you point out in TX they are quite simple - and follow my own "neither confirm nor deny" policy. Few people, even friends of mine, even know I have a CHL.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wait...
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:47pm.
The NRA sent people down to protest a daycare to allow concealed weapons? What state are you in, I'd like to read that article.
"They rather worship their gun then God".
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:12pm.
No, Hank, they'd rather not be a victim. Ever hear of someone being murdered in a church? Besides, what concern of yours is it, if I carry a gun, which I do.
Guess what else, I'm not bound by no-carry zones, I hope that forces you to remain curled up in mom's basement, wiping the cheeto cheese off your fingers, and playing on mom's computer.
"the NRA then sends thugs down to the business and protests the owner". That sounds more like what the Occuturds do with banks, doesn't it, Hank?
Really I am a wimp because
Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:32pm.
Really I am a wimp because I’m not scared of some imaginary boogie-man? You sound like the one who is scared. Needing to bring a gun with you everyplace you go for fear of being a victim. I’d rather not live my life like that.
Spoken like a true
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:54pm.
Victim. I have several stories of folks who used to believe as you do.
Quit whining already
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:40pm.
Hey, I'd rather not take my gun everywhere with me wherever I go, either. But the deterrent effect of the bad guys knowing that in a crowd, they have NO CLUE who is armed and who isn't is pretty damn amazing. So as they go about trying to pick their victims...they have to consider that they have no idea who is armed and who isn't.
I know human nature well enough that I can never, ever predict when the a**holes of this world are going to come along in a bid to try and ruin my day, so that means I have to be armed. Sad, but it is what it is.
You benefit from that deterrence, but yet, instead of being thankful, you whine endlessly about it.
What boggles my mind is that you behave as if this is Switzerland, where gun ownership by the male population is REQUIRED BY LAW. No such thing here. If you don't want to own a gun, if you want nothing to do with guns, great. Go ahead. I'm not stopping you. But do me a favor and quit whining about my wanting to build up my own little arsenal. That is my business, not yours. As long as I abide by the laws of my state, it will continue to not be your business or the business of law enforcement.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Any unarmed person
Submitted by panzerakc on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:18am.
shot by an armed thug was't facing "an imaginary boogie man".
You are far more genteel than I
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:13pm.
My response to that post was poised to be just two words, starting with the letters "f" and "y."
But that's me. Son of American immigrants who came here to escape from socialism and tyranny.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
"What a steaming pile of fatuous twaddle"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:17am.
LMAO !!!
If that ain't Hank Mud, it is his identical twin brother.
Damn that was good.
You made my day, Model850; thanks.
MD
Yeah, I had already packed that one away for future use,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:40am.
with Model's permission of course.
Jer
oops...edited to add the "r" to "Je"
Je---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:40am.
r.
I promise not to use "What a steaming pile of fatuous twaddle" on you, if you promise not to aim it at one of my posts. :o)
Definitely a keeper, though.
MD
Not copyrighted
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 4:06pm.
You, and anyone else of a mind to, is free to use the phrase at will.
I'm just flattered that you and others liked it enough to want to borrow it!
Thanks, Matthew
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 4:08pm.
I'm glad -- and flattered -- that you liked it.
Isn't that the function of
Submitted by lsudolemite on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:36pm.
Isn't that the function of Obama's civilian defense force?
What a brilliant way to apply his constitutional scholarship. He really is the smartest president ever!!
♫ Trollin', trollin', trollin' on da rivah ♫
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:38pm.
.
And as Cajun would say, "sto-bought"....
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:27pm.
...and a monologuer to boot! The only thing left for Hankie is pull the brain imaging studies or more regurgitated manure from HuffPo.
Alex is merely another MSM wannabee...
Submitted by KyWriter on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:15pm.
...but she is beginning to burn my grits. At least she had Jedidiah on for a counterpoint to the loathsome Martin Bashir.
Yes, at least she did have a
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:17pm.
Yes, at least she did have a conservative on the panel. Hopefully she's have more conservatives on in future editions.
Who the HELL is this stupid bitch?
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:21pm.
2 days shes been on, and Ive read at LEAST 3 articles about her now-is this MessLSDs answer to Norah O'Donnell? I never would have even HEARD of this show if it wasnt for NB, and I dont plan to ever do so. Whats this dumbass broad about, anyways? Where did she come from? Did she take the job Chelsea was supposed to get?
An unarmed person is a
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:30pm.
An unarmed person is a subject. An armed person is a citizen. The Magna Charta made the English citizens. When they were disarmed they became subjects again. The crooks in Great Britain have not turned in their guns.
I don't think all the
Submitted by helomech on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:33pm.
I don't think all the population in the UK is happy about the gun bans/restrictions.
If this chick likes the 'more intelligent' side of the earth, then why don't she just GTFO?!
I don't know who's pissing me off more these days: this dumba$$ woman or than arrogant dicktard Bashir! And who the hell is hiring these liberal foreign a$$hats for yellow journalism jobs anyway? I can see they're helping the economy by hiring foriegners instead of current US citizens-nice double standards they're employing...
[......shakes fist...]
What a mouthpiece
Submitted by Djinn1975 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:39pm.
this Alex Wagner is proving to be. Haven't watched a second of her show but all the reports after day 2 are resounding. Let me offer this cliche some clarity on the matter that seems to be lost on her intelligence.
101 times out of 100 I will choose a loaded firearm as opposed to intellect as the effective means to protect myself and my family and to deter imminent threats.
And a blanket message to all the liberals and everyone else who think Europe is so much better, so much more enlightened: Go ahead and relocate. No one is stopping you. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. To steal a quote from a rock band, 'C'est la vie, adios, good riddance, f!&k you!'
As a reminder, part of the
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:54pm.
As a reminder, part of the argument for the right of every individual to bear arms was an appeal to the history of England,
"MR. JACKSON said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated. Original institutions of this nature are highly important. The Swiss Cantons owed their emancipation to their militia establishment. The English cities rendered themselves formidable to the Barons, by putting arms into the hands of their militia; and when the militia united with the Barons, they extorted Magna Charta from King John. In France, we recently see the same salutary effects from arming the militia. In England, the militia has of late been neglected—the consequence is a standing army. In Ireland, we have seen the good effects of arming the militia, in the noble efforts they have made to emancipate their country. If we neglect the militia, a standing army must be introduced . . . In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils—a standing army."
The debates and proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol. 2, pp.1824—1825
The Congressman's sentiment was widely shared, and seen as an implicit understanding of why the Second Amendment existed. Some people forget their history.
Henry keeps striking out
Submitted by nelman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:06pm.
I guess we need more gun laws like in Chicago or D.C. to help control the gun violence, right Henry? How's that working out?
Well armed and a proud member of the 1%, Sweetie.
Bashir went on to praise how his native country,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:19pm.
the United Kingdom, has been swift to enact stringent gun control laws following school shootings.
Yes where the law breakers now have the guns...
Ok how about this chart...
Leave America, and walk those streets on the more intelligent side of the Earth.
You Didn't Build That.
For the sport in me..................
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:23pm.
This beautty I knew eventually would get a show on this network, she is left of left of left and has been on many of the lie fests.
Just how this network likes itself to be.
Stunned she actually had a GOOD Conservative on.
I don't mind lefties on as long as there is a some balance.
She is easily watched with the sound off and I will pay attention when a conservative is schooling the pretty little thing.
Alex Wagner
Submitted by NewLife56 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:29pm.
Just another Liberal that has her nose up Obama Butt and sniff's all day long
That's hot.
Submitted by Hozeking on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:22pm.
Just sayin'.
Mayor Blooms was supposed to
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:11pm.
Mayor Blooms was supposed to be in DC today testifing for more gun control. 49 of the 57 states have a concealed carry law. Today H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act is supposed to voted on in the House. This would allow any concealed carry holder to carry in any of the 49 states that allow it. Right now Illinois is the only one that I know of that doesn't have a law. .If somebody would tell me who the other 7 are I'll find out if they have a CCW law.
By the way gungrabber McCarthy is fuming over this bill. Too bad you are not in the majority any more. Wagner may just explode her show tomorrow if this passes. I llok for it to pass the House but that is about it. Too many gungrabbers in the Senate
What's really funny...
Submitted by retrocon on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:15pm.
If HR822 passes, i have a prediction:
CA, NY, and other states where they only allow the "privileged" to carry (Feinstein, Stern, any A-list celebrity, basketball players, rappers, liberal politicians, etc... basically, may issue states) will freak out, and they will work to eliminate their permitting. That, in turn, will freak out their overlord class, which will result in all sorts of interesting situations ;-)
As a public service rick, I thought you should be aware
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:19pm.
of this [if not already]:
"There is a common-law offense in NC called "going armed to the terror of the people." Basically what this means is that if someone sees you carrying a firearm and calls the police to report "person with a gun," you can be charged with this offense. It's not often used in rural areas, but has been used in populated areas. If you are an out-of-state visitor who is not here lawfully hunting or engaged in some overt firearms-related event such as a competition, it will be hard to talk your way out of it.
So is open carry legal in NC? In theory, yes. In practice, maybe. It seems to us like a very good way to get arrested."
source.
Jer
Whatever.
Submitted by Hozeking on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:55pm.
She's still cute as hell and harmless as a 10th grade cheerleader.
Makes a good joke...
Submitted by retrocon on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:10pm.
What did the complete moron say to the blithering idiot?
"Martin, you're from the more intelligent side of the Earth..."
badda bing!
I would remind her that it
Submitted by Free Thinker on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:17pm.
I would remind her that it was because of guns that we are not British citizens. This chick is either a lunatic or brilliantly stoking the fantasies of the fringe left that has been secluded in their parents basements since Olbermann's show failed. The fact is hollywood has more to do with gun violence than gun ownership does.
So tired
Submitted by Mike009 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:41pm.
I'm sooo tired of liberals who want to impose their views on the rest of society :).
So what's with the new crop
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:53pm.
So what's with the new crop of pretty bimbos all of a sudden? Do these liberal news organizations think they'll pursuade hormone-heavy males with some Circe-like sirens? Men may do much thinking with their crotches, but not when it comes to politics, otherwise Katy Perry would be president.
I just wonder if she'll crop her hair in a couple of years and announce her lesbianism, like several of the last crop of pretty airheads did?
If gun violence is up, then
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:59pm.
If gun violence is up, then why shouldn't I be able to defend myself? Liberals are idiots.
The right to bear arms
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:11pm.
"when seconds count, the police are only minutes away . . ."
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Alex Wagner: This is the best that Soros has to offer?
Submitted by djwolf12 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:30pm.
Holy crap. This woman is SO FREAKING AWFUL on TV I bet every single one of M.S.S.R.'s (MSLSD) 6 viewers will soon be begging for the good old days of Contessa Brewer's ignorance and idiocy.
relative of mika
Submitted by D'saredumbpeople on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:31pm.
she's as dumb as mika.
Ouch!
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:29pm.
That's-a-gonna-hurt! Good one D's.
I, for one, would be thrilled
Submitted by panzerakc on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:28am.
Nay, overjoyed, to contribute to a fund to purchase a ticket to send Ms. Wagner straight to Heathrow.
the U.K.
Submitted by quipster on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 2:18am.
I don't think much of a country that I could take over with two troops of boy scouts!!!!!
In Conclusion
Submitted by Alpha Tango on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:51am.
In my decades of observation, I have concluded that the dumbest conservative is much smarter than the smartest liberal.
Politically speaking, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are probably the dumbest among we who call ourselves conservative. Charles Shumer and Nancy Pelosi are two of the smartest liberals and they have about half the IQ of John McCain.