MSNBC's 'Now' Panel Pushes Firearm Microstamping, Whines About Power of Gun Rights Lobby
MSNBC host Alex Wagner has made no secret of her disdain for the Second Amendment, telling Bill Maher last November that if it were up to her, she'd repeal the amendment which enshrines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, saying the right to own firearms is not "in the grand scheme" of things as important as the rights to speech and assembly. Back in February, Wagner seized on a tragic school shooting to complain about the lack of new gun control legislation.
So it's no surprise that, when turning again to the topic of gun control and gun rights today, Wagner would stack the deck in favor of the former and dismiss concerns about the latter. Regarding legislation in New York State that would require "microstamping" of firearms, Wagner brought on Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence president Dan Gross, who insisted the legislation in question was "a simple case of right versus wrong" that should face no legitimate criticism from gun rights advocates.
It's "just about catching the bad guys" and saving lives, Gross insisted, adding "I put the question back to the gun lobby or anybody who wants to represent them to say, how could this possibly be bad?"
At that point, Wagner sought conservative columnist and gun owner S.E. Cupp's rebuttal, which she readily gave. She was predictably met, of course, with strong disagreement by Gross and The Nation's Ari Melber.
"Any effort to in any way touch the issue of weaponry, guns in this country, is always met extreme resistance from the NRA," Wagner groused. It's hard to imagine a conservative saying such a comment about say the ACLU and its legislative and courtroom advocacy on First and Fourth Amendment rights and protections and for Wagner to let such a statement go unanswered.
Echoing Wagner, Heather McGhee of the liberal Demos think tank sought to make the bogeyman the NRA and other organizations that comprise the "gun lobby," complaining about their power as a lobbying organization.
"This is the problem with the professionalization of lobbying and advocacy in this country. There are thousands of people whose only job it is is to make hysteria about guns," McGhee groused, ironically oblivious to the fact that the Brady Campaign's pro-gun control fixation is part and parcel of that "professionalization of lobbying."
"They don't get paid unless there is something for them to go to Washington and state houses to go and yell at state legislators and congress people about," McGhee added, sitting just feet away from a professional lobbyist who yells at legislators to "do something" about the scourge of "gun violence."
"Well, I'm not a professional lobbyist and I don't get paid to raise hysteria. I'm a gun owner, and I deeply care about these issues and this is part of this slow creep into our rights as gun owners," Cupp retorted.
"You're representing the point of view of the gun industry," Gross huffed at Cupp, adding that it's an industry that "at all costs wants to protect its profits... at the cost of human lives," effectively charging Cupp as being a corporate shill with blood on her hands.
Wagner then chimed back in, complaining to Cupp that the gun rights lobby had their defenses on a "hair trigger" against even the smallest intrusions into gun rights:
For people who want to be reasonable about the Second Amendment, who want to be reasonable with gun rights, it seems like there is absolutely no room to debate, to make incremental changes to the law, to create, to, to, to strengthen public safety.
Of course, back when Wagner and the rest of her network was furiously flogging Republicans for their "war on women," MSNBC had absolutely no concerns that it was promoting the interests of narrow-minded, single-issue professional lobbyists who were incapable of compromising to reach a sensible middle ground.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
the right to own firearms is
Submitted by Snappy on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:12pm.
the right to own firearms is not "in the grand scheme" of things as important as the rights to speech and assembly.
Really? it seems to me that if the second amendment were not in place then little things like the rights to speech and assembly would not be either.
it seems like there is absolutely no room to debate, to make incremental changes to the law,
That is correct.... why would we want or need to incrementally change the right to bear arms
The 2nd Amendment guarantees
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:40pm.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the first. And I am grateful it's not up to morons like those on MSNBC to "guarantee" our rights.
Funny how criminals and policitians don't want us to have guns and funny how there is only a thin line between them.
Ignorance, I guess, to some, is bliss.
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:01pm.
Doesn't this toady for the left realize that without the Second Amendment there would be no First Amendment? Has she ever read, or came close to understanding, our founding documents? I doubt it.......I also doubt if she ever had an original thought in her life. She "Gets the talking points e--mail" every day, and regurgitates them on command. Yes. Journalism, I mean REAL journalism is dead. What we have today is propaganda. I suggest all read about the policies of Goebbels - they are surely in use today.
Micro Stamping
Submitted by Russian55 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:26pm.
Does the fact that the microstamping wears out quickly bother these people?
Of course not, because it isn't about crime, it's about raising the costs of guns to make them less accessible.
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
It's not even necessary.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:20pm.
Micro-stamping a gun isn't even necessary. The ammunition you buy for that guy is already "stamped" with things called "taggants" which are tiny little pieces of plastic, nearly invisible amongst the "gun powder," printed with an unique id number that identifies any round in a given lot which was produced by a given manufacturer on a given date. It doesn't take much to track down the people who bought any ammo with that unique taggant. All you have to do is cross reference the taggant with the stores which sold that ammo (since you need an id to buy that ammo, the storesknows who bought it), do some good old fashioned police work, like actually checking on the possible suspect the taggant list provides, and, voila, you have your perp.
It only takes one taggant to id the ammo, and the purchaser. As not all of the taggants will be destroyed when you fire any gun, the powder is never completely consumed, there will always be at least a few intact enough to be used for identity purposes. The gun, itself, doesn't even need to be found to help track down a suspect, just the taggant. Heck, they don't even need the bullet, so micro-stamping isn't necessary!
Those taggants are used in any explosives like gun powder, commercial explosives, and even fireworks, as long as they are manufactured in the US. I think it''s a good idea because it doesn't require people to register their ammo purchase with the federal government, which maintains the privacy of ordinary citizens, while still allowing the police to track down a suspect rather easily. It's a win/win for everyone.
Th use of taggants has been going on for years, since the early 90's at the very least. It was how the feds tracked where the ammonium nitrate that was used in the Murrah Federal Building attack had been purchased, and buy whom. It was what led the feds to McVay's buddy (of course, they didn't tell anyone about it back then, understandably). The ammonium nitrate, just like all the ammonium nitrate for sale in the US, contained taggants. And why does it contain taggants? Because it's a known explosive. (By the way, that's a good example as to how tough those tiny little pieces of plastic really are. Not even an explosion like what happen in Oklahoma could destroy all of them.)
I learned all of that on the Science Channel. Don't these people ever watch TV?
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.
I thought the taggant/ammo proposals had thus far been
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 12:59am.
successfully thwarted by the NRA and other opponents. No?
See, for example, discussion here [2004]:
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-96570.html&&
Jer
Successfully thwarted?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 3:06pm.
Successfully thwarted? I don't know about that. A "discussion" in 2004 has no relevance in 2012. Especially since the only post that mentions how the NRA "successfully thwarted" the proposal also mentioned that the proposal in question was submitted "several years ago." So, you're supplying me with an 8 year discussion about an earlier proposal which occurred several years prior to that, which would make it about, what, 1998? Got anything a little more, ahh, current? No?
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.
Okay, Cobra...I'll be more direct.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 8:51pm.
You're the one who is making the claim that ammo currently sold contains taggants. Source it, please. Something you saw once upon a time on the Science Channel doesn't quite cut it.
Jer
After watching the interview
Submitted by Snappy on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:28am.
After watching the interview the nagging question that comes to mind was........ have any of these people ever heard of ballistics? They act as if there is currently no method to determine any facts about a gun crime.
You need the gun...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 3:08pm.
You do actually need the gun for a ballistic comparison to work. Most people don't drop the gun after using it to shoot someone. It defeats the purpose of arming yourself.
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.
Well...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:35pm.
Everyone seems to be making the same point (with which i am in total agreement, BTW), that without the second amendment, there would be no first amendment, so we assume that these media losers should take heed.
What we must remember, however, is that these so-called journalists on the left are really the propagandists of the government.
So, once free speech is gone, they will still be uttering the same rhetoric, because they are already the mouthpieces of our oppressors.
Don't for a minute think that they care about the first amendment, they have no great love for it, and don't need it, since they are parrots of the regime. They consider opposing opinions "hate speech" and would happily do away with it.
It is because of the rights of free men
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:35pm.
to bear arms, that British has-beens like her are not ruling this country. Unlike the countries that we left behind, Americans are citizens and not subjects. It is by exercising our God given rights that we remain so.
My God Given Primary Natural Rights
Submitted by wotsizname on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:30pm.
The Declaration of Independence takes note that,"... ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS." No one on earth has the ability to remove these rights from me. They are mine, God given,(by my Creator) whether you like it or not. If you don't like that, go argue it with my Creator. Thinking that you're God and that there is no authority or power greater than you is a fool's quest. My rights are no threat to you, anyway. Further, your right to use the first amendment has been bought for you at unbearable price by people who would rather see you have it than to escape giving their lives against unjust attackers. The "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," includes every male citizen from 16 to 60 who may be called upon in an emergency to bring his personal arms and volunteer for service to the community. At age 16, with my own rifle, I answered the governor's call while in high school in 1942. I enlisted in the Oregon State (not national) Guard, the home defense militia. Yes, it exists......for you.
How about we microstamp her
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 7:00pm.
How about we microstamp her IUD, make sure it's on a national registry, and when the government determines its in their best interest to affect your fertility, they'll confiscate it...
I won't post what I would like to see happen to this communist,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 7:59pm.
...gun-grabbing b*tch, as we are much too close to November for Dave to get banned from NB.
But I can promise you it isn't even remotely pleasant. :-D
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I'm straining to hear them whining
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 9:22pm.
over the thousands of assault rifles the DOJ gave to Mexican Cartels.
Excellent Point HB
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 7:21am.
Although, the ultimate goal of Fast & Furious was to provide "justification" for gun bans in the US.
"For people who want to be reasonable about the Second Amendment, who want to be reasonable with gun rights, it seems like there is absolutely no room to debate, to make incremental changes to the law, to create, to, to, to strengthen public safety."
"Reasonable" to idiots like her means one thing - gun ban. Period. And I would like her to explain exactly how microstamping "strengthens public safety". There's already a brand-new science called BALLISTICS. If you microstamp a gun to tag the bullets it has fired, it raises the cost exponentially. There's no additional benefit, except to gun banners. Ballistics do the exact same thing and don't raise the cost of the weapon. Microstamping would put the cost above the means of many Americans, which is the entire goal. It's also unproven technology that had been discredited several times. But when has that ever mattered to a banner?
It's not eh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 9:23pm.
"she'd repeal the amendment which enshrines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, saying the right to own firearms is not "in the grand scheme" of things as important as the rights to speech and assembly."
So, what would you do if the government came to take away your right to free speech and free assembly? Will you gather together a bunch of your friends and stand there screaming at the government forces as they bundled you all off and shipped you away?
Yea, let me know how that works out for you.
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.
Speaking of micro-stamping...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 9:27pm.
Speaking of micro-stamping, I think the government should micro-stamp every single communication sent or received in America so that, if any communication is ever used in a crime, it can be traced back to the owner.
What say, ye, Miss Freedom of Speech. Does that sound reasonable to you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The law is misrepresented
Submitted by ExNuke on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 12:26pm.
This proposed law does not require manufacturers to do anything. It criminalizes the sale, trade or delivery of a newly made semi-automatic firearm without the micro-stamping "feature". The idea is to outlaw the sale of any semi-automatic firearm (except to police and politicians) and put existing firearm dealers out of business. Like CoBIS, it is only to make purchase and ownership more expensive and was never expected to actually be of any use in solving crime. Only new firearms would be so marked, not the 400,000,000 that already exist. Only those few manufactured for New York and the PRC would be marked and a criminal is already prohibited from buying a gun from the Lawful dealers who would have these firearms for sale, maybe, someday there will be some.
Great plan huh?