Lawrence O'Donnell Yells at Arizona Congressman for Not Agreeing With Him on Gun Control
In a fine example of the new civility at MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell on Tuesday actually yelled at an Arizona Congressman who didn't agree with him about the need for gun control following the shootings in Tucson.
The discussion on "The Last Word" really got heated after the host made the case to Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) that additional security at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-Ariz.) Congress on Your Corner event wouldn't have mattered because "The overwhelming majority of bullets fired by police officers always miss their target" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, HOST: Joining me now, Republican congressman from Arizona, Trent Franks. Thank you very much for joining me tonight, Congressman Franks.
REP. TRENT FRANKS (R), ARIZONA: Lawrence, thanks for having me on.
O’DONNELL: Congressman, don’t you wish Jared Loughner had a smaller capacity ammunition clip when he went to Gabby Giffords’ event in Tucson?
FRANKS: Lawrence, I wish that Jared Loughner had the capacity to have a moral impulse towards fellow human beings and a commitment to protect them as children of God. That’s the real issue here.
You know, from the very first hours of this tragedy, Lawrence, I have listened to the left try to politicize this while people are making funeral arrangements for lost loved ones. And I have to tell you, I think that when the left says, well, it’s the rhetoric or, well, it’s the Tea Party or, well, it’s Sarah Palin -- you know, I guess, first of all, I’d like to say if every person on the earth had the respect for innocent human life that Sarah Palin does, we wouldn’t have violence anywhere on any corner of the globe.
And I’m just frustrated that in this tragedy, that people have tried to politicize this and have tried to make everything but a crazed killer the problem. The real problem here is that whatever statement this lunatic was trying to make, he was willing to kill innocent children of God to do it. He had no respect for innocent human life, and that is the great challenge of society. If we can’t put that forward as the central focus here, then, I think we missed the boat on all counts.
Nice thoughtful response, yes? Not as far as O'Donnell was concerned:
O’DONNELL: Congressman Franks, I’ll try again. Do you wish that his gun held 10 bullets instead of 31 bullets?
FRANKS: I wish he had not had a gun and he shouldn’t have a gun at all. He was, I think, mentally ill, and we have laws against that in many places. And I think to focus on the clip is like saying that, you know, we’ll combat drunk driving by limiting the size of fuel tanks.
The bottom line is that the real focus here should be on the killer and not the gun. The gun was essentially the same type of gun that police officers use in across Europe and in many places here and perhaps, you know, you mentioned a quote that I made earlier. You didn’t mention the context of the quote. If perhaps a police officer or someone there was responsible, maybe very few people would have had to die. Maybe the gunman would have been stopped before he started. We don’t know.
But I do know this: it wasn’t the gun that was the problem. It wasn’t Sarah Palin that was a problem. And it wasn’t the rhetoric that was the problem. It wasn’t the Tea Party that was a problem.
It was a crazed lunatic without regard for innocent human life. That was the problem.
O’DONNELL: Well, you did entertain the hypothetical that you wished there was someone else there with a gun who could have --
FRANKS: You left out the last -- you left out the second part of the quote.
O’DONNELL: Go ahead.
FRANKS: I was responding to when people were saying it was the gun, it was the gun, it was the gun. And I said, well, perhaps, if someone -- an additional gun has been there in responsible hands, I said in responsible hands. We have the -- you know, the truth is very few people would advocate taking guns out of the hands police officers. They think police officers should have guns to be able to stand against those who have no regard for innocent human life, and I agree with that.
But the real argument is then that it’s not the gun, it’s whose hands its in that’s the issue. And my quote was in responsible hands, and again, it was in response in an effort by the left to say that the gun was the problem. That wasn’t the focus of my comments here in the media here at all. I’ve been trying to essentially make the case.
And again tonight, I make the case that the real challenge in our society is to see each other as children of God, as fellow human beings. And if we did that, the rhetoric would be transformed, the debate itself would have a whole new emphasis, and maybe we could se this last best hope of mankind extended for future generations a little longer.
Now watch as O'Donnell starts getting angrier and angrier:
O’DONNELL: OK. Your actual quote was, "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person."
FRANKS: Yes, in response -- in response to people who were saying that the gun was the problem.
O’DONNELL: A responsible person -- a responsible, Congressman, would have been a police officer, let’s say a very well-trained in firearms New York City police officers. You are aware, aren’t you, sir, that most of the bullets fired by American police officers miss their target. The overwhelming majority of bullets fired by police officers always miss their target.
O'Donnell might have been referring to a December 9, 2007, article in the New York Times dealing with the issue of police officer marksmanship. What Lawrence potentially missed was the intention of the piece was to address how difficult it is for cops to shoot to wound:
While popular culture has embedded both extremes — the hardened mantra of “shoot to kill” and the benevolent private eye (think Barnaby Jones) who expertly inflicts only a flesh wound — the truth is that neither practice is a staple of police guidelines. In fact, the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely. So an officer could no sooner shoot to wound than shoot to kill with any rate of success. In life-or-death situations that play out in lightning speed — such precision marksmanship is unrealistic.
The article did address statistics showing that in New York City and Los Angeles, police officers do typically miss their targets. However, the Times pointed out this data is misleading:
Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.
“When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that’s a high hit rate,” said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. “The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables.”
Indeed. Yet O'Donnell on Tuesday seemed to be suggesting that as a result of these statistics, those killed and wounded in Tucson wouldn't have been better served by additional security at the Giffords event:
O'DONNELL: So, what the hypothetical you’re entertaining is an extremely reckless one in which bullets would be fired, very likely miss their target, according to law enforcement records on how handguns are used there.
I’m asking you to entertain another hypothetical, and that hypothetical is, imagine this event occurred in 2003 when Jared Loughner, by federal law enacted by the Democrats, 10 years earlier, would not have been allowed to get his hands on a magazine that held 30 bullets. He only would have been able to fire 10. Then he would have had to reload, and those heroes who stopped him when he tried to reload would have stopped him after firing 10 and more citizens of Arizona would be alive today in your state if that magazine held only 10 bullets.
I’ll ask you again -- do you wish Jared Loughner’s magazine only held 10 bullets instead of the 31 that he fired?
FRANKS: And I will tell you again, sir, that I wish he had not had a gun at all.
O’DONNELL: So, you’re not going to answer that question about the magazine? Will you answer the question about the magazine?
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKS: I will on one basis, on one basis. Will you answer the question -- you said that the police officers miss all the time -- will you say that you’re glad there were no police officers there that day?
O’DONNELL: No, I will not say that.
FRANKS: All right. And I will not say, I will not say that --
(CROSSTALK)
O’DONNELL: -- entertain your hypothetical. Your hypothetical might have been helpful, might not have been not helpful. But now, consider my hypothetical, it’s 2003. He can only fire 10 bullets. Arizona would have been better off, right? Your constituents in Arizona would have been better off if Jared Loughner, by law, could only fire 10 bullets?
FRANKS: See, I think that that presupposes he couldn’t have changed clips or all kinds of things.
O’DONNELL: He couldn’t change clips because the colonel was there to stop him, because those heroes in that parking lot were there to stop him. We saw him try to change clips, and he couldn’t do it. That’s what stopped him.
FRANKS: Well, I give every credit to those who stopped him. But I will say to you again to blame the gun rather than the individual is why we continue to have these problems.
O’DONNELL: I blame the individual for the first 10 bullets. I blame the law for the next 21 bullets that he fired.
FRANKS: Well, you know, you’re suggesting that there wouldn’t be other ways that he could have done that. What if he brought a bomb and all kinds of things?
O’DONNELL: W know what happened, we know what stopped him. When he had to reload, it was over. We know the facts, Congressman. We know exactly how it ended.
Don’t pretend that you don’t know how it ended and who ended it. He couldn’t reload, and the heroes there on the scene stopped him.
FRANKS: He shot -- according to what you’re saying, he shot 31 times, and there was no one there to stop him that could have. That was the basis of my comment. The fact is that we need to try our best to see each other as children of God and to point the finger at the lack of respect for innocent human life, which is essentially the biggest challenge in all of society. And we need to make sure that crazed lunatics don’t get weapons and we need to make sure that if they do, that we can stop them if necessary.
O’DONNELL: There was a lack of respect for human life in the federal government in 2004 when the ban on those magazines was allowed to expire.
FRANKS: Let’s just take --
O’DONNELL: Congressman Trent Franks, we got to cut it there. We’re out of time.
FRANKS: Yes, let’s take the guns away from everyone, our police officers, everyone. That will solve the problem, right?
O’DONNELL: Don’t be silly. Congressman Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Actually, Franks wasn't being at all silly. It was O'Donnell who demonstrated some pretty pathetic interview skills by not only bringing up the police accuracy issue, but also screaming at his guest when he didn't agree.
And these folks on MSNBC have the nerve to lecture America about the hostile tone on Fox News and conservative talk radio.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Good grief
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:55am.
And those wackos accused Conservatives and Tea Party members of rhetoric??
O'Donnell is the kind of loon you have to watch out for, for pity's sake, after something like that!
-Jon
What?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 10:56am.
O’DONNELL: I blame the individual for the first 10 bullets. I blame the law for the next 21 bullets that he fired.
How do you shift blame in mid-massacre? Either:
Rhetoric is persuasive speech. But for it to be persuasive, it has to be believable. O'Donnell's loose associations are just accusations in search of a logic. They're still searching.
Lawrence O'Socialist...
Submitted by adamsmith on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:44am.
This tool makes the same "30 round clip" argument that the Dem memo that got passed around to bring people around to banning guns. Here's a hypothetical for you genius.....Say they narrow it down to five rounds and the maniac had six guns on his person a la Colombine, that still makes 30 bullets, right Larry? No reloading necessary with six pistols. I have a Glock and can switch clips in less than ten seconds. The clip argument is anti-Second Amendment hogwash.
It amazes me that there are something like 90,000 incidents in this country a year where someone uses a gun sucessfully for self protection and the media says squat about it. One lunatic kills and injures in one instance and it's time to ban clips and guns and Constitutional rights. That's why the left suck, have always sucked, and will always suck. They only thing they accomplish is getting people to buy more guns. The week after anti-gun Obama was elected the gun shops couldn't keep enough people on hand to sell them all. Every American city where there are draconian gun control laws has the most gun violence. New York, Chicago, Detroit, the list goes on and on. People with common sense know that an armed society is a polite society. An armed citizenry is key to Democracy.
So anyone out there who gives talking points to the Conservative side: Mention multiple guns when confronted with the "bigger than 10 clip" argument. Give Progressive Statists an inch and they'll take the yard. It' s all about taking away our rights by degrees........
the clip argument is where they start
Submitted by armedcitizen on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:43pm.
Then of course along with that, ban assault-type weapons because they just look nasty and mean.
How about this, ban democrats from owning guns, period. Leftists shall not own any weapons ever. THAT would have made a difference in Arizona...... THAT, my friend, would have stopped that demented lunatic. Communists, Socialists, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, what ever they decide to call themselves, should not ever own any weapons. They just don't have a good track record.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Can you imagine if in their "10 clip" fantasy world
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 6:20pm.
Loughner had been crack shot and had murdered 10 instead of 6 people! They would then be screaming for 5 clip magazines. There's no end to their insanity.
First of all
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:01am.
If that piece of crap spoke to me in that tone, I'd bitch slap him and ask him who does he think he's talking to?
How does he know if the nut had a 10 round magazine, that it would have jammed on the reload? Doesn't the larger magazine have a greater likelihood of jamming?
Larry is an angry, angry man.
Submitted by kg on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:01pm.
Larry is an angry, angry man. He makes Fuller look mild.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Yes, the slapping would have
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:42pm.
Yes, the slapping would have to commence, along with a stern lecture on civility and courtesy.
Having been a firearms instructor, I can assure you that magazine capacity has no effect on functionality. However, all magazine fed firearms are dependent on magazine fuctionality for the firearm to function as expected. In other words, if the magazine is broke, the firearm won't work properly. I have fired 30 round magazines out of several semi automatic pistols and found them to be as reliable as 10, 15 or 20 round magazines. Quality is the key.
High capacity magazines become moot with training. A well trained and practiced individual can reload a pistol in less than 2 seconds. In the case of the Glock 17, that's 35 rounds in two magazines, plus one round in the chamber. Semantics.
More Socialistic News By Commies [MSNBC]
Submitted by SnapTie on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:01am.
Larry you are one dumb SOB.Were do you and Michael Moore go for your talking points? About the cops missing,not very often.
Unfortunately, that part is
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:49pm.
Unfortunately, that part is true. Cops miss more often than they hit. Stress, lighting conditions, fear, physical condition, distance, there are a number of factors as to why they miss. Most police gun fights happen within 21 feet of the threat, (bad guy) in poor lighting and don't last more than a few shots. Also, police are usually responding to a threat such as an already drawn and presented weapon and must identify it, overcome panic and respond appropriately. It's not easy.
What if he had two or three
Submitted by Free Thinker on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:03am.
What if he had two or three guns Lawrence? What difference does the gun or the magazine make? Lawrence O'Donnell totally misses the point.
Who is this guy? I think I just read another post below with this same imbecil. His argument is so weak and foolish I have to applaud the Congressman for exposing it. The quote about drunk driving and limiting fuel tank capacity is brilliant by the way. This is the problem with the libs on msnbc, they can't debate and end up yelling like 4 year olds that don't get their way. What an embarrassment.
And believe me, I and many of my friends do not miss most of our targets so to say that most people miss is a broad generalization that has no merit as an argument.
2 or 3 guns. You mad a great point.
Submitted by Lipton on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:05pm.
I'd almost be tempted to email that to the congressman's office in case he gets any follow-up questions on this.
2 or 3 guns? Just like the
Submitted by rwesley2.0 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:53pm.
2 or 3 guns? Just like the VA Tech shooter? Naw, that could never happen. Lawrence expects us to believe that people only buy one gun, with one clip. That somehow, whackos who go on shooting sprees select one firearm only.
Our favorite Socialist, Crazy Larry
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:04am.
needs to be in a good place where the doctors will take good care of him. A nice bed (with shackles) and a nice room, a white padded room will work wonders for him. Who am I kidding? Just for laughs, I am going out on a limb and guess that Crazy Larry's FAVORETE SONG EVER WRITTEN is BACK IN THE U.S.S.R. BY THE BEATLES.
Ewwww!
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:12am.
To contemplate Crazy Larry's favorite song would require an attempt to look inside his mind. I have to pass; there are far too many snakes and spiders in there for me.
Larry is just upset about
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:07am.
Larry is just upset about those extended clips because he carries his glock conceled in his ass, that longer lenghth wreaking havic on his prostate, causing his ' Depends ' to leak.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Hypothetical
Submitted by jdlybrand on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:12am.
Well Larry, If the moon was in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligned with mars, then maybe peace would guide the planet, and love would fill the stars.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Chester
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:42am.
Chester,
All together now:
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius.
Aquarius. Aquarius.
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystals revelations
And the minds true liberation.
Aquarius. Aquarius.
Don't you all feel better?
ns
Oh Geez, I feel like I am
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:11pm.
Oh Geez, I feel like I am traveling in another dimension.
Yes, The Fifth Dimension!!!!
Now, back to reality.
Lawrence is an idiot. Nuff said.
OJ'Donnell's Faulty Assumption
Submitted by The Grooter on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:13am.
Franks did great, but he could have pointed out that O'Donnell is assuming that if it were against the law for Loughner to have a 31-round clip, Loughner wouldn't have had one. If he wanted one, he could have gotten one, or made one.
O'Donnell also assumes that the folks that tackled Loughner would have had the same reaction after 10 rounds that they had after 31 rounds. This is unlikely as well.
Seems to me O'Donnell has his own special brand of egoistic lunacy going.
Had he had a smaller capacity
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:20am.
Had he had a smaller capacity magazine, he would have been set to reload sooner. About half again as soon. The persons that stoped him would not have been where they were, would not have been there to stop him at that time. He would have fired the second magazine before they had reached him.
So a smaller magazine would have mad little diffrence.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
little larry 'schultz-for-brains' o'donnell seems to make a lot
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:27am.
of assumptions.
Maybe he thinks that his imagination is what would have really happened if he had been the shooter?
Perhaps little larry probably should submit to psychological testing?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Do the math, Larry.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:28am.
If the shooter had "only" ten shots, and he could actually shoot straight, he probably would have still done approximately the same amount of damage.
The first few shots, unexpected by the "targets," will do considerable damage before everyone starts diving for cover. After that you may just be spraying the area and not even aiming at stationary targets anymore.
So yeah, Larry, with "only" ten shots he may not have been able to hit as many people, but I bet it would have been close.
You're a moron.
Today marks day 11 of the
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:31am.
Today marks post-shooting day 11 of the liberals on MSDNC making total fools of themselves. Lets all do our part in helping them go a little longer.
From Morning Joke in the wee hours thru Widerump Brewer, Android Mitchell, Motormouth Ratigan, Manlove Matthews, ShortBus Eddie, more Manlove Matthews, Keith TheHead Oddberman, Mr. Madcow and finally Scary Larry we have a smorgasborg of mindless morons providing great insight of the liberal mindset.
What an embarassment to broadcasting.
Actually, Captain,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:43am.
your last sentence should read, "What an embarassment to broadcasting this should be". These morons, like lefty Larry, have no shame, hence no embarassment.
For the most part this crew
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:49am.
For the most part this crew of morons is somewhat harmless (other than to their families), but with Larry's obvious emotional, stability and anger management issues, and his proximity to people in power, we might consider new laws limiting the clip size of his show segments.
The best course
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:53am.
of action would be to still show Larry, but duck tape his mouth, so he can't spew his hatred. Who knows, mayhaps MessNBC's ratings would go up in that time slot?
MSNBC, the place to go to
Submitted by marpel on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:41am.
MSNBC, the place to go to hear the mentally ill. I'll tell you one thing, I think Lawrence O'donnell's mental health is on par w/ that nutjob that shot in Tucson...Larry is so mentally ill, it's frightening....
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Just In - Obma Has Worms
Submitted by im41 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:44am.
WHY OBAMA IS SCARY SKINNY - HE HAS WORMS
http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-obama-is-scary-...
Why is Obama so skinny, well the National Enquirer thinks "he's secretly battling stomach parasites!'
Worms?
Submitted by pat_henry on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 9:10pm.
Nah...he's just nauseous from all that bowing...
Laws
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:45am.
If only they made it a law not to kill somebody, then Jared would not have killed anybody. So stupid
Killers can carry MORE THAN ONE GUN.
Submitted by ekslib on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:46am.
Loughner might have killed more people if he had carried an extra gun (or two) instead of an extra magazine.
why bother to go on MSNBC ?
Submitted by john t on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:47am.
I doi not understand why any republican / conservative would go on any MSNBC show. Rand Paul learned this from the Rachel Madcow show, and it is on display nightly on the matthew's show. please stay away from these traps as they are only trying to get a gotcha moment for their liberal base and up their ratings.
the fine folks in Australia had their guns taken from them-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:52am.
only the bad guys did not turn in their guns.
The bad guys had a field day. Home invasions grew, with the bad guys knowing these dumb ass home owners gave up their weapons.
Is that what the liberals want? Make it easier for wealth distribution?
No matter what happens do not turn in your weapons. Keep your family safe if BHO will not.
What a Friggin Moron!
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:04pm.
I am so godamned sick and tired of this particular leftie talking point. "...in 2003 when Jared Loughner, by federal law enacted by the Democrats, 10 years earlier, would not have been allowed to get his hands on a magazine that held 30 bullets." Yes, LAWRENCE, he still could have gotten his hands on a high capacity MAGAZINE (not "clip), since existing ones WERE NOT BANNED! Additionally, he was bent on committing mass murder, which, last time I checked, was illegal. So, in your tiny little mind, since such magazines were banned, hence illegal, Loughner wouldn't have used one if it was available? Loughner: "Oh, I want to go and murder a bunch of people, but, dammit, those high capacity magazines (that I either already have or can easily get) are illegal! So I'll just have to use that skimpy little 10-round magazine and probably not kill as many people. Oh well..."
Also, as I've mentioned in previous posts, in O'Donnell's world, Loughner would have fired off 10 rounds in X-amount of time, then had to reload. Instead he fired off 31(?) rounds in Z-amount of time, allowing several bystanders to get to him and disarm him. Who's to say that the time it would have taken him to fire 10 rounds, reload, fire 10 more rounds, and perhaps reload once again, isn't the same amount of time it took these bystanders to get to him anyway while he was firing from the higher capacity mag? Essentially, magazine capacity might not have mattered anyway. O'Donnell makes it sound as if the rock-solid fact it that he was taken down while reloading, and ONLY because he was reloading, also not factoring in that if Loughner was limited to 10 round mags,what was to stop him from packing more than one weapon, (which, apparently in O'Donnell's world, would have precluded the bystanders from approaching him, since he wouldn't have had to reload)?
It's also of note that O'Donnell neglected to mention that at least one of those "heroes" (not denigrading them at all) who stopped Loughner was himself legally carrying a firearm. Wonder what he would say if his "hero" also had a high capacity magazine at the time. But then, he probably doesn't even know this upstanding, law-abiding, concealed weapons permit-carrying citizen was even armed, otherwise he most probably wouldn't have called him a hero...
Law means nothing
Submitted by wingnut55 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:35pm.
I agree, the law means nothing to a guy like the shooter. If he could buy only a 10 round clip legally then he would have found another way to get a bigger clip. The Law means nothing to a criminal.
Really Larry???
Submitted by TruthMatters on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:05pm.
O’DONNELL: There was a lack of respect for human life in the federal government in 2004 when the ban on those magazines was allowed to expire.
Larry...was there a lack of respect for human life in the federal government in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided?
I Blame The Constitution
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:22pm.
If the Constitution wouldn't allow people to peaceably assemble and redress their government then Loughner wouldn't of had a target to shoot........ RIGHT LARRY!
roflmao
I blame the Sun
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:26pm.
If it would of been dark. The shooter wouldn't of been able to see the people he wanted to shoot.... RIGHT LARRY
roflmao
It's the citys fault.
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:28pm.
They issued the building permit that made possible the parking lot for the shooting to take place.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
I Blame the Taxi Driver
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:29pm.
If the Driver of the Taxi wouldn't of drove Loughner to the Safeway, those people would still be alive........ RIGHT LARRY!
roflmao
A GUN IN THE RIGHT PLACE
Submitted by baseballdoc on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:32pm.
If a holstered trooper had been standing along side the Congresswoman then the killer might not have gotten off the first shot ...
Sheriff dip stick didn't do his job and now tries to place the blame on Palin and talk radio ...typical Liberal tactic of mis direction.
Illegal doesn't equal unobtainable
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:42pm.
The argument for making high capacity magazines illegal is nonsense on its face. Just because something is banned by law doesn't mean it cannot be obtained (as other posters have already pointed out here).
Illegal = unobtainable? Ask law enforcement about that concerning illegal drugs. QED.
The angry left
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:54pm.
I'm not surprized at O'Donnell's rage. Anyone whose ever been on the receiving end of a "liberal" outburst knows it well. Its characteristics include: screaming, blowing through the mouth, gritting of the teeth, and the spewing of ignorant,illogical, immature cliches and phrases which are meant to hurt. Never is there a searching for the truth, but always an unresonable,close-minded need to "win" the argument ( epecially when they are losing it ). Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Hay with a little practice one can reload as fast as this guy.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:06pm.
Well almost...
Oh no! Now the greenies will want to Ban large gasoline tanks...
You Didn't Build That.
Hmmmm.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:54pm.
"The overwhelming majority of bullets fired by police officers always miss their target."
There's a saying amongst professional hunters who specialize in dangerous game: "There's always hope when there's lead in the air".
Wouldn't it have been better...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:56pm.
Since we're dealing with the hypothetical here: Wouldn't it have been better if people were allowed to carry swords? That way the man could have been stabbed, or decapitated, by someone in the crowd before he could have shot more than a few rounds. It takes less time to draw and wield a sword than it takes to finish firing a 10 round clip.
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.
Where's Duncan McLeod
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:31pm.
...when you need him?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I have something to say...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:51pm.
It is better to burn out than to fade away! Yea!
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.
WHO was there first?
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:02pm.
A cop with a gun?
Or a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN with a gun that could have stopped it THEN if needed instead of waiting 30 minutes for the cops to show up?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
"When seconds count,
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:39pm.
the police are only moments away!"
Learn to defend yourself, you can't trust anyone else to do it for you.
"TIME OUT, TIMEOUT!!!"
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:11pm.
"You there, Crazy Guy with a Glock! You do realize that you must stop shooting after 10 rounds because liberal lawmakers were sucessful in limiting the size of magazines. If you fire more then 10, well then, you're breaking the law!"
Why are we watching this clown?
Submitted by Morganfrost on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:27pm.
Why not insist on guns that only hold one bullet? Why not insist on muzzle-loading flintlock rifles? Why not insist on limiting the second amendment to slingshots loaded with nothing more than moderate-sized marshmallows? Why not limit the first amendment to make sure nobody says anything that gets anybody else angry? Why not limit the fourth amendment so police can go and look for guns without having to worry about warrants and technicalities like probable cause?
Whatever happened to journalism in this country? O'Donnell is a fool who is interested in nothing but an agenda, and any guest he (or any of his colleagues on MSNBC) has on is for no purpose besides yelling at them about his own views. What's the point of that?
hello Morgan
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:34pm.
You remember when Bush started "taking away our freedom" after 9/11 and liberals said the terrorists had won? And you remember their "persecution complex" when they whined that they were being treated as "traitors" just for protecting the first amendment right to dissent? Isn't dissent the highest form of patriotism???
If the anti-President
Submitted by Hunter12 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:26pm.
If the anti-President Bush screed hadn't echoed in Loghner's ears for 12 years( candidate, President, Ex-president), he might not have killed anyone. If you want to talk rhetoric of hate, let's talk turkey. "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush" Gee, leftist morons, maybe you can explain how your continued rant that President Bush was the root of all evil didn't drive this guy to act. Hanging your hat on the fact that he shot a Democrat doesn't cut it. The woman he shot was a former Republican turned Blue-Dog Democrat that frequently voted for conservative issues and had recently voting against Pelosi continuing to be leader of the new minority. She was against open borders. She was "targeted" by the liberals in her primary in 2008. Maybe the moron was looking through old posts and thought "I'll get her for you Kos".
I would like to point out that I believe Loughner is solely responsible for his actions and rhetoric from either side should not be blamed, but if leftist loons are going to continue to push that meme, they need to answer for their own actions in light of what we now know.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Hunter12...
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:42pm.
Right on. Hate-filled rhetoric was ginned up a thousand-fold immediately after the 2000 election was "stolen" from a dull-witted v.p. who has since gone on to fool the public into giving him multi-millions based on nothing but scare-tactics and junk science. The lefties in the media simply couldn't accept the will of the people in 2000 and have been pouting and ranting and raving ever since. But they never look in the mirror when making their outrageous charges. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"(progressive)
If Gore had demonstrated what
Submitted by Hunter12 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:24pm.
If Gore had demonstrated what a savy business man he was during the campaign, he might have won in 2000. Think about it, he's made billions on "hot air" since then. Get some co-conspirators, shell out a few college research grants, give away a couple of billion in tax payer money and you too can become a billionaire trading a fabricated commodity on a world market. It's better than bottled mountain air.
The media will never take credit for any of their words. Their hate-filled speech never germinated anywhere. It was only a often-duplicated map with some crosshairs graphics that could incite an insane fool to act. I can't wait to see the new graphic that SarahPac comes up with next. With her power via pictures we should see her in a position of power in 2012, either president or king-maker extraordinaire. I hope she continues to use her powers for good. Just think, if she put out a "CBS" with the circle-slash over it, we would lose one of our big three broadcast networks overnight and I like NCIS*.
*At least I used too, before every terrorist became some kook from a local PTA or gun club.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
I am sure it's cold comfort
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:31pm.
for the first 10 victims to know their particular injuries did not, repeat not, come from faulty gun laws. Perhaps when Mrs. Giffords gets out of the hospital Larry can be sure to explain that to her, it will make her feel better.
The Idiocy goes on endlessly.
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:41pm.
"The overwhelming majority of bullets fired by police officers always miss their target"
This line is often offered from the same folks who will, at other times, tell us that ONLY police officers should be "allowed" to carry firearms. That State administered "training" is a must for "permission" to carry or own be "granted" when a "need" is adjudicated.
When he went on the rant about the magazine, I would have pointed to the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter had more than one firearm. This demonstrates that the size of the magazine makes no difference whatsoever. The gun, the magazine, they are both irreleveant. The real reason for this magazine push is this - Gun grabbers want more "mental defective" control (think PTSD) and they tout the magazine ban request as something to offer up as "compromise" when they drop it. Their game is transparent and we should call it what it is openly.
Now, I recall an admission made not long ago by this self-admitted socialist.
"I don't pretend that my views, which would ban all guns in America....have any chance of happening in the federal government." - Lawrence O'donnell
I guess he forgot his own declaration of lack of pretense.
Larry O
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:43pm.
Didn't Larry used to play :Larry with his brother Daryl and his other brother Daryl"?
Abortion
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:09pm.
According to your logic, O'Donnell, great "respect for human life" would be gained by a law banning abortion and millions of lives would be saved each year. But you lefties don't want that,do you---Duh!
BTW---I lived on Long Island at the time of the LIRR massacre. Most people with common sense knew that if even one other person had had a gun, lives would have been saved.--Duh!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"(progressive)
Congressman Franks ate this
Submitted by RealVet on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:05pm.
Congressman Franks ate this moron's lunch. You can play the "what if" game all day. What if the kid had 2 or 3 guns like the Columbine whackos? What if he had a bomb?
What if ALL Republicans and Conservatives would do the right thing and not EVER appear on this garbage channel ever again?
Interesting hypothetical
Submitted by Deskpilot on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:07pm.
If Mostly Sociopaths Nothing But Crap hadn't hired O'Donnell, Madcow, Shutlz, and Olbermann back when it did, might they have higher ratings? Or would they simply have looked for more contenteous personalities instead, and still be scraping the ratings barrell.
Lately, I've been making the venture to their website, just to know which advertizers to stay away from. I've even written those sponsors to let them know that I CHOOSE not to spend what few prescious dollars I have to spare on their products or services.
Well Done.
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:37pm.
That is the ticket DeskPilot! Many take great care of their votes in November but fail to do so all year long with their federal reserve notes. Organized boycotts make some headway sometimes, moreso the threat of them when media plays it up, but they but they always end up losing steam.
I believe that to be the result because it is not so genuine when itis organized like a temporary special interest. Beck pointed, this morning, to the real deal. We must each look to ourselves, we each must lead ourselves in our own actions, for solution.
I am proud to stand beside you in this particular individual effort. Maybe my notes next to yours have little to no tangible affect on the big picture, but you know what? When the day finally arrives that millions upon millions of people decide, for themselves, to do the same thing, to pay attention to their own actions and what results, America will stand tall again as she once did.
My hat is off to you not only for your service in the military, but so too is it tipped because you demonstrate the very thing this country needs a great deal more of - Personal Responsibility. Thanks!
Lie down with pigs....
Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:21pm.
....wake up dirty. You go on MessNBC, and you are in the room with lunatics.
The problem I had with
Submitted by sar1 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:44pm.
The problem I had with this interview is, whatever point O'Donnell was trying to make is completely overshadowed by his uncivil and vulgar behavior.
O'Donnell called a congressman, his guest, - a liar and silly, so why should anybody go on his show again?
O'Donnell is acting as if he has no education or debating skills whatsoever, what criteria must you have for hosting a TV program on a major network? Apparently on MSNBC the criteria is anger, hostility and no tolerance for another point of view.
MSNBC repeats this angle 24/7, that conservatives and the Republican party spew this angry , hateful rhetoric and that's why the politics of this country is a mess, but I haven't seen politicians change much over the years it's MSNBC that has moved to the far left and become hateful attack dogs.
When people ask me if I'm a Democrat, I'll proudly say "yes, but not an MSNBC Democrat."
You know, Mr. O'Donnell....
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:50pm.
You know, Mr. O'Donnell, (since you want to blame politicians for this) if the Congresswoman herself hadn't have been there pressing palms, she, and the others, most likely wouldn't have been shot. Had she been in DC, where she belonged, those people would still be alive. But, of course, she's not at fault, so no one else, other than the assailant himself, is at fault ether.
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.
Time to rename the show "The
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 2:49pm.
Time to rename the show "The Last Nerve" because apparently that's what the show grates upon.
Think again, Lawrence O'Dumba**
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:35pm.
"O’DONNELL: There was a lack of respect for human life in the federal government in 2004 when the ban on those magazines was allowed to expire."
Apparently not, considering murders are DOWN since the ban expired.
"O’DONNELL: I blame the individual for the first 10 bullets. I blame the law for the next 21 bullets that he fired."
And that's just one more reason why you're a complete imbecile.
Larry O is a self-described communist...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:57pm.
...(yeah, I know he uses the less "sinister" term socialist - as if there was a difference), and it is little wonder he is so agitated here.
The gun-grabbers aren't getting anywhere with this latest effort to use yet another nationally reported shooting to further infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, and it is really getting to them.
That is a good thing.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Waco and Ruby Ridge revisited
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 3:57pm.
Waco and Ruby Ridge revisited larry?
"O’DONNELL: There was a lack of respect for human life in the federal government in 2004 when the ban on those magazines was allowed to expire."
Certainly a lack of respect for human life in those two places wasn't there larry?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Hey Larry
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:12pm.
too bad Loghner wasn's a cop.... where the overwhelming majority of their shots miss the target. Cause the way I figure it, Loghner (the crazy shooter) wounded 13 and killed 6. That's 19 hits out of 31 shots fired. And that appears to be an overwhelming majority of hits. Of course I couldn't find anywhere how many people may have received multiple wounds cause that doesn't seem to be reported. Guess that would require a JOURNALIST.
roflmao
Poor Crazy Larry is mad
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 4:18pm.
cause there's not a 10 bag limit on killers.
roflmao
So should I wish
Submitted by GregE on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 11:57pm.
.....that highway speed limits were 20 MPH? That would save tens of thousands of lives every year.
Franks answered well. But he could have very easily answered that yes, he wished that gun only held 10 in the hand of someone like Loughner. Then he could have stil said what he said, and disarmed Larry, who would have had to ask new questions instead of having his entire interview remain on that one question. Franks did him a favor, but to me, Franks could have easily answered it and should have.
hypothetical idiocy
Submitted by TomJoe on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 2:29am.
O'donnell is an idiot. If you want to engage in hypotheticals, in 2004, The shooter would have been too young to purchase the gun or the magazines or the ammo.
If Odey wants to do hypotheticals specify the details correctly. Dealing with "IF's" is for children.
A good friend of mine used to say " if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle".
I was a witness for the defense once.
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 3:11am.
The DA asked me during his cross examination "what if..."
"Are you really sue you want to play 'what if' games with me? Because I'll make you look like the dumbest moron in the State."
He dropped the whole idea.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?