From this week's Fox News Sunday, Bloody Bill Kristol tells host Chris Wallace that "everything should be on the table" and we need some "serious hearings" on gun control in the United States after this tragic shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut this week, as long as that doesn't include anything different than what the Republicans support already. He's right there with the more guns will keep us safer crowd here, no matter how he's trying to spin this.
They can have all the hearings they want, but if our politicians are going to continue to be beholden to the nut job running the NRA right now, nothing's going to change and Kristol knows it. That didn't stop him from trying to pretend like he thinks the Republicans should make some meaningful compromises on the issue of gun control as he did here:
WALLACE: Bill, let’s look at this from the Republican point of view. Will Republicans -- should Republicans change or modify their strong opposition to gun control, especially -- not the right to bear arms but, especially on the question of these weapons of mass destruction? You know, as I say, the handgun that could fire five bullets in a second, the magazines 100 rounds. Should Republicans consider giving on that issue?
KRISTOL: I think Republicans and everyone else should take a serious look at what might work. And I think the speaker could well ask the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but hold serious hearings, about what would work. Don’t do something symbolic like the assault weapons ban, which did no good and made everyone feel good and ended up evaporating and couldn’t be sustained even in a Democratic -- wasn’t restored when the Democrats controlled everything in 2009, 2010.
So I’m totally open to having serious -- and there’s a lot of social science research on gun control. I don’t think it’s very favorable to most efforts of gun control, and I think -- but everything has to be on the table, too. Is it sensible to have gun- free zones? Maybe elementary -- maybe the money would be better spent having security guards than having, you know, new background checks in a case where this -- the purchase of the guns in this case passed background checks.
Connecticut’s a pretty liberal state. I believe the Democratic Party controls all the branches of government in Connecticut. They chose not to ban the things we’re talking about, I guess, right? They could have, couldn’t they?
EASTON: State laws are useless. I mean, you can order things online now. I mean, it’s, sort of...
WALLACE: He did buy them in the state...
KRISTOL: I’m just saying, let’s have an honest debate. Let’s have a debate about privacy laws and mental health. But I do think the Republican Party shouldn’t be in the position of saying you can’t even discuss this, and I think the speaker could easily ask, since they control one house of Congress -- Senator Reid could do this on the other side, and so they’d have serious hearings about the legal issues and the public policy issues.
More like this
- Brad Blog
- 43 Ideas Per Minute
- Average Bro
- bob harris
- Talk Left
- The Immoral Minority (Alaska)
- Pour Me Coffee
- A Tiny Revolution
- bart cop
- Juan Cole/Informed Comment
- The Huffington Post
- Mock, Paper, Scissors
- The Aristocrats
- Ezra Klein
- daily howler
- The Moderate Voice