Shuster: Is right wing rhetoric helping to push violence in America?
(h/t Heather)
On the heels of C&L's reporting on the Poplawski case, David Shuster filled in for Chris Matthews on Hardball Monday and did a very important segment asking the question: "Is the angry rhetoric emanating from the right winger talkers infecting the hard right of the GOP? And are they being turned into militias?"
I'm not against guns, but would like more restrictions and all assault weapons banned. The gun manufacturers just want to turn profits so they have their minions activated to pounce on any mention of a "gun" in a negative light. Charles Blow came on and explained this:
“New York Times” columnist Charles M. Blow wanted a better sense of the mind and mood of the country of the right, and so he immersed himself in conservative media. He wrote in Saturday‘s “New York Times”: “My read: They're apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their leaders seem to be trying to mold them into militias.”
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was on to defend those who are worried President Obama wants to take away their guns and leave them unarmed, or something. They just need those assault weapons or they won't feel safe at night. You can see what we're up against here, with people like Gottlieb carrying the water for the gun-toting, anti-Obama crowd, which spreads a very dangerous message of fear that is resonating far and wide to a very unhappy segment of our population.
BLOW: But I think what's happening in that echo chamber is very dangerous, because it only takes a couple of people — or one person — to do something that — with a gun that is very irresponsible, that leads to something like this. And I feel like, if you are going to let these people ramble on, and if they feel like that's a responsible way to use the platform that they have, then that's very unfortunate.
GOTTLIEB: I'm not saying confront that fear with guns, but that doesn't mean you can't own one. And if you think the government might take your rights away from you, then you want to exercise before that happens. It's a normal reaction. Everybody does it, left or right. In fact, a lot of the people buying guns, first time gun owners, happen to be liberal Democrats.
BLOW: A lot of people buying guns are also not liberal Democrats. Across the spectrum people are buying guns. People have written this story in newspapers across the country. When they ask people why they're buying guns, they‘re afraid the government will infringe on that right. That is a dangerous situation.
The best part is that Gottlieb can't ever name an actual statement by Obama suggesting he'd like to take away people's guns, let alone any serious initiative by either Obama or the Democrats to even pass gun-control legislation.
Full transcript is here.
GOTTLIEB: It is a dangerous situation. It‘s dangerous because the government shouldn‘t be doing it. It‘s a legitimate fear that Americans have, based on statements made by elected public officials.
SHUSTER: Name one statement. Just so we‘re clear, name one statement that is not a statement from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. What statement from President Obama has given what you call people a legitimate fear?
GOTTLIEB: President Obama has tried to duck the issue a lot. It‘s the spokesman for his administration.
SHUSTER: We‘re just trying to be specific.
GOTTLIEB: Hillary Clinton, Blaming—blaming Americans owning guns for crime happening in Mexico, which is totally absurd. I mean, things of that nature.
SHUSTER: She didn‘t say that, Alan. Alan, that‘s not what she said. Try again.
GOTTLIEB: Oh, yes. She did say that. I‘m sorry. I have the quotes.
SHUSTER: Alan, you‘re not entitled to your own facts. I think that‘s part of the problem with this entire debate, is when the right wing echo chamber comes up with their own facts, their own analogies, and says that fascism is on the march, and that FEMA is creating concentration camps. You get these nut cases that will take matters into their own hands.
GOTTLIEB: I didn‘t say FEMA was doing concentration camps.
SHUSTER: You just supported the argument.
SHUSTER: That‘s the right way to do it. I can‘t understand why so many people don‘t understand that.
GOTTLIEB: We have every right to organize our people and get them active and energized so they know what‘s happening.
SHUSTER: Right. You don‘t have every right to essentially inspire some of the crazies out there to do something violent because they think fascism is on the march. Alan Gottlieb, thanks for coming on. Charles Blow, from the “New York Times,” we appreciate it as always.
Even Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs is dumbfounded by FOX News using Judge Napolitano on their new live streaming show.
saw this the other night and Shuster did a good job parrying this guys BS facts. This guy came on and just made stuff up. I never really followed Shuster all that much, but this makes the second or third time that I've seen him go after these guys for out and out lies and fear mongering lately. I'll have to start watching him more now. Is he pretty decent? Anyone know?
Shuster knows his facts. I like him especially because he's not afraid to express just how absurd the opinions and tactics of the right wingnuts are.
I used to not give Shuster much notice because he only did single story reporting, but I've been watching him more since he has sat in to host shows on MSNBC and to tell the truth I think HE should be doing "Hardball" instead of Tweety. Tweety gives these rightwing nut bags too much credence with their bullshit. Shuster doesn't let them get away with it and calls them on it every time. These nut jobs need someone to throw the bullshit flag every time they open their mouth.
That was kind of my reason too. I have liked his stuff lately though.
I like Schuster a lot. He not only points out the craziness of his guests; he does so in a calm manner, not yelling and screaming over them, like Tweety sometimes does.
this was what struck me about him as well. He's does it in a way that makes his points come across even stronger, IMHO.
would be better on Hardball than what's-his-face :-)
NOBODY 2012
instead of telling Gottlieb he's making up his own facts, he might have done better to restate that an assault gun ban doesn't equal taking away guns (Gottlieb's only concrete "evidence") and ask him again for some concrete statements rather than just reapeating that, or quoting vague and indirectly-related statements by unrelated politicians like Clinton (even though HRC's linking Mexican violence to US guns is correct unless you take what Wayne LaPierre says at face value).
Still he's a big improvement over Mathews, hopefully the latter will start showing some spine or be replaced by Shuster.
seems like a man who is frightened of his own shadow.
Yeah, they really got their people "energized."
It's absolutely true that Reslugs do inspire their own Wing-NutO party to commit and spread violence.
commenter on Kos earlier said that Alan Gottlieb sounded like Timmy from South Park, he does. lol TIMMY!
I think you mean Jimmy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyyylwUGUaU
Timmy is kind of pre-verbal.
JIMMY! GOTTLIEB!
Thanks for the correction.
But he looks alot like that gay S/M school teacher. Definitely a South Park kind of guy!
"I'm not against guns, but would like more restrictions and all assault weapons banned. "
What are assault weapons?
If you go by the definition of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the weapons used by Jiverly Wong in New York would still have been legal. The rifle used in Pennsylvania would still be legal assuming the bayonnet mount was filed off.
I've found that at least 95% percent of the time the people who are the most vocal about banning "assault weapons" can not define what an "assault weapon" is.
I'd like to know what exactly makes a semi-automatic "assault weapon" in a smaller caliber more lethal than a semi-automatic hunting rifle in a far more powerful caliber.
I'd also like to know why people are so intent on banning a class of weapons that accounts for less than 1% of gun crimes.
Let see an Assault Weapon would be a military grade weapon either meant to fire lots of rounds to kill someone in body armor either by passing through it or causing it to hammer the person inside the body armor so they die of blunt force trauma. Why would someone need a gun whose rounds can travel through several buildings indiscrimently? Why would someone want weapons that can go through a tank or down an airplane or helicopter?
1% of those crimes could easily kill thousands of people in a single act such as bringing down a plane or shoting at a gas pipeline at a natural gas storage facility. Also these 1% are the standoffs in which the police have to go to a frigging gun shop to get better weapons. Why would the police in a society need to have a gun shop donate weapons to them? Every other society has managed to have civilians overcome superior military forces by virture of using improvised weapons not having better guns then the police or occupying military force. Only criminals would want better weapons in order to take on the police.
"The rifle used in Pennsylvania would still be legal assuming the bayonnet mount was filed off."
That of course was a loophole put in by the NRA to allow people to buy the weapons because they know that criminals and milita nuts would be the ones lining up to get them and said lining up people don't want the goverment to know they are getting their hands on the weapons.
Are you serious? Am I really supposed to respond to this?
I would advise you to look up the ACTUAL definition of "assault weapon" (as per the 1994 ban legislation) and kindly explain to us how such a firearm can "travel through several buildings" or "go through a tank" or "bring down a plane."
Really. It'll be a hoot.
I think that some people are under the impression that the assault weapons ban in 1994 is what banned automatic weapons and not the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The salient differences (those that make it much more deadly when used against humans) between an assault rifle and a semi-auto rifle designed for hunting are essentially three:
First, assault rifles have pistol grips so they can be used one-handed. This is not an insignificant difference, especially if the other hand has another assault rifle in it.
Second, assualt rifles have commercially-made magazines that can hold up to 100 rounds, though 20-30 is common. But if the weight's not a problem, you can carry 300-400 rounds of ammo on you and fire it simultaneously through an assault rifle in either hand. Not likely, but possible, and even one is more than enough lethality to be leagues beyond a semi-auto hunting rifle like a Browning BAR with 3-5 rounds in the magazine. And while you could conceivably get someone to manufacture a 30-round magazine for your hunting rifle, you better hope he's got CNC machinery in the basement or you might have any one of a number of problems getting reliable feeding--that's the weak point of a semi-auto rifle so this commercial availability is a major advantage.
Third, aside from the magazine and grip differences, assault rifles are lighter (completely function over form), and can have all kinds of accessories attached, or parts changed, like collapsible butt stocks, forearms with rails on them, etc, that significantly increase their lethality.
Whether the more lethal form or semi-auto factor is more important is debatable (personally I'd rather have an average-shooting GI shooting an M16 than an M14 at me at stand-off distance, though a big no thanks to either), magazine capacity is probably the main difference (even the smaller-caliber M16 is much more lethal than a .30-06 semi-autohunting rifle--4-5 shots vs. 30, 8-10 vs. 60 with a magazine change, see how bad the odds get). The semi-auto M1 Garand provided a definite advantage to American troops in WWII vs. the Germans' bolt-action rifle and we're very lucky to have had that advantage but it indicates how important that is.
And that leaves out the fact that a sufficiently determined individual can convert a semi-auto assault rifle with factory-made parts even if they're not legal (i.e. stolen, or made by professional criminals). You can't turn that Browning BAR into full auto and if you could you couldn't control it. Rambo-style full-auto AR15s x2 is possible however.
While I'm at it, while caliber is a big factor in lethality (.308 2-3 times more powerful than .223 at 80-90% of the velocity) high-power essentially refers to velocity, so even the small .223 caliber M16 is a high-powered weapon. The 250% difference between a .22 long rifle and the .223 the M16 shoots (yes it's actually a 5.56x45mm) is, to quote Ahnold, "Hee-yooch," not just .001 inch difference. Hope that clears up some mis/lack of understanding.
Use this information to amaze your Right-wing/gun-loving relatives and THEN, and only then, will they listen to any argument you have for banning certain kinds of guns. And give up on banning all of them, you might as well try banning alcohol and tobacco (it's no mistake a gun-lover joke is "alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, hmm, that sounds like a fun-filled Saturday afternoon").
You lost me when you said it's possible to wield an assault rifle in each hand "Rambo style." Sorry, pistol grips do not facilitate that in any way.
you re absolutely right. can t say more that that except "Sierra Matt" needs a prescription for anxiety or something.
"Have you ever noticed that..."
1) Wingers only horde guns during Demovratic administrations? Even if the Demovrat affirms gun ownership rights(Clinton)?
2) Wingers think that Free speech should be "Zoned" but carrying armour piercing bullets for fully automatic weapons should be allowed in bars?
3) Rights only belong to other wingers, like themselves?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I have in fact noticed that
the law already prohibits psychotics from owning guns. so, when a psychotic possesses a gun he is violating the law. so why does one think a sane law abiding person should be as restricted as a psychotic from owning a gun?? why would another law restricting gun ownership prohibit a psychotic from owning or possessing what he already is prohibited from possessing?? will yet more laws accomplish what existing laws have not?
you should know i voted very happily for president Obama and i can't wait to vote for him again. you should also know that banning guns is just not practical. the F.B.I. has shown that about 99% of guns used in crime are STOLEN, not purchased. it seems we do have laws against theft too.
Uh...stolen from whom?
Other people who owned guns.
Nice try, though.
Dead wrong. The vast majority of guns that wound up in the hands of criminals were in fact sold by gun stores. Gun stores that violated the law.
They cannot be shut down due to the NRA limiting the powers of the ATF to go after corrupt gun dealers since these corrupt gun dealers pay the NRA a lot of money in order to keep their illegal livehood alive.
actually they are guns bought from gun stores and then stolen from rightfull owners. i still have a gun floating around out there since 1987 when my house burglarized.
find info on this anywhere. Could you post a link please. :)
"the F.B.I. has shown that about 99% of guns used in crime are STOLEN, not purchased"
Until they're not.
Not every psychotic starts out in life as a psychotic. In the most recent example, Poplawski was a responsible, law abiding gun owner until at some point he snapped and killed several police officers.
In the little 'fact', those 99% of stolen guns had to be stolen from somewhere - law abiding gun owners. So, by you're own facts, controlling guns to the general, law abiding citizenry will also limit the availability of guns to be stolen by criminals & reduce gun related crime.
The real issue is the need for guns in a civilised society at all. Most western democracies have significant control of them and seem to do pretty well.
And don't doubt the influence US guns have abroad. Mexico has already be used and I can tell you for a fact, that most of the illegal handguns found in Australia originate from the U.S.
just ask any right wing nut job.
I'm not sure that's right - particularly when "liberals" are buying guns. I suspect it's more the case that they're simply worried that the whole house o' cards is coming down and there's a WHOLE lot of folks out there who already have guns and there's no point in being the only one who is unarmed - or underarmed.
house of cards is that?
Seriously, the country has faced far worse threats and managed to maintain its civility. Furthermore, if the whole house of cards comes down, do you really think the difference between a rifle and semi-automatic will be what is going to stop the rampaging hordes of suddenly uncivilised people?
I don't see how these guys equate restrictions with "taking guns away". Restrictions are just common sense seeing how guns kill people and all. But then they always have their "automobile kill people too, should we restrict them" meme to fall back on. There was a good segment at The Young Turks about this earlier.
over the Brady Bill where people had to wait (GASP!) two days to get their guns. It was the slippery slope to no more guns for anyone.
We simply cannot have any sort of intelligent and honest discussion about guns. The nutjobs have a lock on keeping us from doing so.
Post an anti gun article and watch the NRA folks hit that post like stink on shit. They have quite the organized blog effort going.
Where you're mistaken is that you assume all pro-gun people are "right-wing NRA nutjob" types. There are people in every segment of the political spectrum who support gun ownership rights, that's why their response to anti-gun rhetoric seems so "organized."
I am referring to the NRA LaPierre types who ARE right-wing nutjobs who do now allow any type of intellectually honest discussion about gun ownership.
Why does someone need to own an AK-47, for example?
That's my question too. Same with the waiting period, what's so bad about that?
I had no idea that the government was in the business of telling us what we "need" to own. I guess no one "needs" to own Corvettes, big houses, big TVs or swimming pools either.
cause so many deaths are caused each year by Corvettes, big houses, TVs and swimming pools. Come on, think before you comment. If you want to debate this fine, but let's not be silly.
Furthermore, my question was "why does someone need an AK" and "What is so bad about a waiting period."
ur right it is silly. silly to think we can ban guns or corvettes. or ban abortion rights. so go get ur backgrond check and by a firearm u can feel ok with and kill paper targets like the majority of us. breath, relax, aim, stop, squeeze. learned this in the marine corps now pull up ur short pants and grow up pilgrim.
I'm not saying ban there "pilgrim". I actually own guns myself. One more time, the keyword is restriction, not ban. You want I should send you an audio file, since you apparently cannot read what is in my posts?
you know, first they restrict machine guns, next thing you know they'll be banning rocket launchers. /sarcasm
So do the NRA types support no restrictions on machine gun ownership?
But rocket launchers don't kill, people do!
Didn't you get the talking points?
from your post below
it sounds like you don't mind restrictions either, so why tell me to "pull up my pants and grow up"? I'm just saying that a lot, not all, gun lovers are adamantly opposed to restrictions, and I do not understand why. Corvettes, big houses, swimming pools, and TVs are not designed to kill people so they should not be restricted, guns should.
don't like restrict either. ur having a 22 or a shotgun is commendable but i want a corvette even if i have a mustang. we already have enuf laws that restrict so if you want more restrict urself i don't need more. sorry i should never called ya pilgrim when i'm from Massachusetts my self.
more laws won't make you feel better if you're not happy with the ones we have now like banning cell phones while driving. i'm supposed to enforce that one too but i don't because it's stupid. i let other knuckle heads write tickets for that dumb law.
sorry i called ya pilgrim or short pants.
So you're a cop who doesn't enforce the laws of your state? What other laws don't you enforce simply because you don't agree with them?
YOU are the reason people don't trust the police: a cop who thinks he MAKES the law, rather than enforcing it.
Guess you would have LOVED being in the south in the 1950s - all them damn coloreds to beat up 'cos they think they're equal!
ok if you want a stupid ticket for cell phone use i can help you with that but you'll have to insist because i won t want to. you re stretching prety far with the coloreds south bad cop thing though. you need that paper bag to re breath a while. your freaking urself out dude. whoa dude are you ok?
matt are you ok?
somebody call medics!!! matt are you ok??
but we all are at least interested in affairs.
:)
we keep the guns out of the hands of idiots, nutjobs and extremists? You don't need an assault rifle to go hunting. You're not hunting bears and deer, you're hunting people.
We do need more or tougher gun laws. We also need to increase the penalties for gun violence.
NOBODY 2012
the much hated assault rifle is never used on bear as it is way too small and seldom on deer as it is not truelly adequate for that either. your statement makes good rhetoric for those who would like to think so though.
it is exemplary for hunting people though only at short ranges. my scoped ak type carbine cannot shoot as accurately as my 1888 german army 5 shot bolt action rifle.
come down to the club i'll show you interesting facts about guns you seem not to know as of yet.
just a little debating. I completely understand where your coming from too. I just read a while back, and I'm looking for it again now, that after the assault weapons ban in 1994 that murders with firearms went down like 11%. That's a lot of sons, daughters, friends, etc. when you consider the overall number of deaths by firearms each year.
read again. basicaly there are virtually no crimes committed w/so called assault weapons. people are shot w/hand guns because they fit in ur pocket unlike a rifle. and besides the crime rate is still going down after the ban was overturned. look it up.
You can't reason with a right wing NRA gun nut.
is intended to be a factual statement
Finally I understand: Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze, Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze, Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze, Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze, Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze, Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze,Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze
...
Nice!
yeah i own a ford mustang. i wanna ban corvettes? i want guns and abortion rights too. if u wanna ban something then don't do it ur own damn self and leave people alone eh??
It's not Banning, it's Restricting.
Huge difference.
If I want to own a nuclear device that should be my right. The government shouldn't have any business telling me I can't own one.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Bringing up nuclear weapons is kind of the Godwin's Law of gun debates.
Just thought I'd let you know.
When people argue that gun ownership rights should have no restrictions it rather obviously shows that there should be limitations. The next question is what those restrictions should be. However if that one is too much for you how about: incarcerated convicts are still citizens and should have the right to bear arms too shouldn't they? What right has the government to say they shouldn't? There are plenty of reasons for the government to control access to certain types of weapons. You don't like the argument because it makes your corvette analogy seem ridiculous.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
you already own a radioactive device.
:P
mean the new-clear weapons that King George spoke of?
He never spoke of new-clear weapons...
He did, however, speak of nukular weapons quite a bit.
C,mon, MsJoanne, shouldn't we all be allowed to own a bazooka?
i don't, but i do. it's really a poor shooting inaccurate piece of highly dependable junk machinery. but i do own one and i make no apologies. i own a lot of military collectable firearms that aren't straight shooters or useful for hunting. does this make me a bad person?
it's not the gun, it's the gun toting criminal, remember?
Kyo, the right wing nut jobs are keeping the criminals better armed than the cops.
Thanks for that!
I know a lot of Democrats that own guns and will defend that right ferociously. What about better restrictions though. Why the fight against that?
A car's primary function isn't to kill and/or injure whatever it is pointed at.
Duh!!! Do ya think?
Apparently we need guns because the government is going to provide us healthcare!
GOTTLIEB: It‘s nationalizing industries. It‘s going to control people‘s health care. It‘s infringing on gun rights in lots of different ways, with executive orders and things the administration is doing behind the scenes. Believe me, there‘s a lot of fear out there. It‘s being propagated by the administration. All they have to do is say we‘re not going to do these things and life would be fine.
There's no way you can make a better joke out of it!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I saw that, it had me scratching my head. Oh nos, here comes the government to give me free healthcare, I better get me an assault rifle. Ain't no body gonna give me free healthcare.
Some hippie commie offers me health care I'm gonna shoot'em before they take gun.
is intended to be a factual statement
He didn't sound very sharp for a conspiracy nut.
I've always found that the best cure for a broken leg is to shoot myself in the foot, myself. There's nothing that a well-placed bullet won't cure. That said, my boyfriend is terrified to cut himself shaving when I'm around. Can't imagine why....
on with wolfe and johhny king at cnn, so he can call them on every bullshit question they ask trying to help repubs with their talking points. See: cheney interview.
I beginning to like Shuster more than I do Olbermann. Reason being, Shuster has these clowns on his show, and slaps them down. Case in point is the lie about what Hilary Clinton said. She talked about thugs fighting the drug war against the Mexican government, buying their guns from guns shows in America.
Usually Democratic pundits allow the slime on the right to get away with outright lies, Shuster immeidately slaps it down.
Who is this guy, he looks and sounds like a combination of Daffy duck and Elmer Fudd. And he sounds even worse. Ssshhhhh be verwy verwy quwiet we hunting wabbits....
is intended to be a factual statement
Another snivelling, lying, filibustering, scaredy-cate righty dropping lies into his rants and keeping up the endless stream of spittle-flecked nonsense in an attempt to keep anyone (Shuster in this case) from refuting his crap. Pathetic.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
I'm all for gun control. My definition is five shots within a 1" grouping......
Gun jokes when we're talking about the possibility that the hate spread by the right lead to the deaths of three of Pittsburgh finest. Haha, funny, not.
is intended to be a factual statement
What do you mean, gun joke???
Where did they find this homunculus? If MSNBC is going to book third rate losers as guests solely for entertainment purposes then they should let Shuster take the gloves off and eviscerate the stuttering dolt. Either bring in someone semi-cogent to legitimately try and defend the gun lobby or drop the nice-guy routine - nobody wants to watch Mike Tyson spar with a teletubby for ten rounds - I either want to see blood or legitimate debate...
A little advice to all you gun-hugging maniacs out there: if you're really worried about people taking your guns away from you, try steering away from the murderous shooting sprees. It's not helping your position.
be crazy enough to work.
NOBODY 2012
This is just a marketing campaign financed by arms manufacturers to sell guns.
Gun manufacturer's stock has soared in the last six months.
Take away farmers' shotguns.
Take away all .22s.
Take them all away.
Just trust in the government.
I agree.... after all it worked in 1939, didn't it???
Place your trust in government is my plea.
We don't need guns. All we need to do is trust government.
Five shots within a 1" group? Jesus.
Ban guns. Make America better.
Whoa, now, I thought you were being sarcastic before. My apologies.
While I don't agree with banning ALL guns (some people do depend on them to put meat on the table) I think all handguns should be banned.
I was being sarcastic.
You were right the first time.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Shoulda known!
ok i agree you shouldn't own a handgun. why do you think me or some one else shouldn't own a handgun.??? ban urself n leave law abiding people alone will ya. think of the jerks that want to ban your right to abortion and we'll discuss banning guns....
"This gun of the hand, has but one purpose. The taking of human life."
I agree with Sierra Matt. It's the handguns that are the threat. An AK-47 is just a cool looking hunting rifle. Fires the same way. However a kit can be found to convert it to an automatic, which is illegal.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
Oh yeah.... and the world will be so much better as we practice peace, love and understanding. Sure, that works. Look around you.....
And when exactly have we seen an example of it?
Dude, are you ALWAYS so shrill? Every one of your posts goes right for the absolute negative.
Take a chill pill.....
n/t
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
some people say 90% of firearms taken from mexican narco-terrs are from the u.s. actually 90% of REGISTERED guns taken are from the u.s. but about 83% of all their guns are not from the u.s. this is perfectly evident as these are guns that are simply not available in any shape or form here in america. most narco mexican firearms are from the last 30 years worth of indigenous civil wars taking place in south and central america.
isn't it just so convenient for anti-gunners to repeatedly recite this 90% horse crap for their constituents??
it's not the gun but the gun toting criminal. get it?
Yep, and if we had speed limits on the roads, only lawbreakers would speed!
Therefore (using NRA's logic) we should abolish all speed limits.
Oh, yes, and atom bombs don't kill, people do. So atom bombs should be legal for us all!
come on catch your breath and breath into that paper bag and calm urself. the nra comes off a bit right wing for me too but you don't have to reciprocate by falling way left. a little solace w/a target .22 may calm yourself down, assuming you"ve passed the backgrounds check??
What....afraid of a little logic?
BTW, when I was younger I was an avid hunter, and got trained in hunter safety through the NRA. That's one good thing they did. However, they've gone absolutely batshit crazy since then. Can't remember who the interviewer was, but Wayne LaPierre was once asked to state one firearm - ANY firearm - that should be restricted.
He refused to name one, not even obvious ones like bazookas.
It's sad that you need a gun for "a little solace." I prefer a nice hike in the woods. Maybe you should put the gun down and try it.....
Quote: "but about 83% of all their guns are not from the u.s."
How can this be proven?
isn't it. I'm surprised he didn't get more specific and say 82.47% That 83% statistic sounds like it came from thin air.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
don't have serial numbers.Nobody knows where they come from but they aare copies of guns of known origins
83% comes from the types of weapons confiscated in mexico that are not even available for sale in this country. simple really. i'd send you the site but i'm not as p.c. literate as most on this crooks n liars site. hell cant u tell i cant even type?? now dont show ur age biases and crap on me for that. aarp can u hear me?
That is what I heard,Evidently some goverment is supplying them
Because:
Says to me that 99% of the weapons confiscated might be of the 17% of types of weapons that are sold in this country.
But whether that's a mistake in your transcription or memory, or if it's something you copied and pasted, I'd like the link.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
As far as Mexico goes. I didn't know that they manufactured their own weaponry.
Now, They must make some of there own ships on other things. But every time I've been down there. It's always US military issue. For their military. For the civilian population? It's illegal for civilians to own firearms unless it's for hunting. And you have to jump through some major hoops to get those permits.
So? Where does all this weaponry come from? Central America?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Their Army Airforce still flys P41's prop jobs.
They like to buzz ya.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
are made in USA http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion...
The rest don't have serial numbers
I don't even think we're talking about weapons made in the US, either. There are a lot of weapons sold, legally, in the US that aren't made here.
Just setting some perameters here.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
This place is the weapons bazaar of the planet.
If it's a gun. You can get it here.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
That doesn't have serial numbers? I don't think so
Yes but they do have serial numbers
Like it was in Iraq all the weapons that didn't have serial numbers (git it?)
A link would be cool :)
It doesn't surprise me that most of the guns come from elsewhere. I have to imagine if you are going to smuggle guns that going through Central America or by sea would be way more profitable for the gun smugglers.
It has become painfully obvious that you can never convince a person with hard core right wing beliefs when you base your argument on facts and real life information based on research and electronic proof.
I am constantly amazed at the pure pride in ignorance that is highlighted by Shuster when he debates a person with hard core right wing beliefs. In this case, he did not have to work too hard.
some arguments based on facts and real life information based on research. See if you can handle it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh-ttsYcWb8&fe...
Fear is the right wing stock and trade. Fear kills more people than all the guns, alcohol, and other weapons in the entire world. Win the war on terror. Stop being afraid. Think. Stop listening to all the lies, because they are just lies.
Yep. I noticed in the Chicago Sun Times that 83 people were admitted into emergency rooms last night because of fear. Unknown as to how many survived....
Behold the face of evil in all its self-righteous sputtering banality. I went to the Second Amendment Foundation website. In the wake of gun shootings they role out ad campaigns promoting hysteria among gunowners.
Ambulance chaser.
Yes, the right-wing rhetoric has definitely increased gun violence!!!
Do tell???? Examples, please???
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/93013/hate...
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/was-p...
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_kil...
The second amendment states that "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."
So why are the gun advocates always advocating against regulation? I think guns should be registered, and a test firing done and placed on file so that, if the gun is used in a crime, then the bullets can be identified. I would even be in favor of strict restrictions on sales of bullets, and of records kept as to bullets fired, just like the police have to do with their own weapons.
i believe your guns should be registered and you should have to account for your bullets too. i don't think i should have to though...that's all i got to say about that........
Sorry, but that wouldn't work for all of us. You see, reloading would be more prominent in overall picture and there would be no way to control that. Advantage..... criminals.
I agree that reloads would prevent bullet counting, and most crackhead convenience store robbers keep reload equipment in their houses, but a bullet database would still help track which weapons were being used, and use or possession of an unregistered weapon should be restricted.
false security dude. i won't even divulge how to defeat bullet tracking from "ballistic printing" of weapons. but dude you hafta be a gun owner to know how easy it is to defeat this sort of thing. fbi stats are conclusive that 99% of criminal firearms are stolen so what is your solution? registering criminals and giving them state homes in state prisons is a great registration method that will work for us all. registering those of us never in state prison seems kinda stupid.
True, but I doubt that gun-toting crackheads are up on the latest ways to defeat bullet tracking. And how many guns are "stolen" and never reported? If guns were tracked, then at least someone who had a habit of getting guns "stolen" could be prevented from continuing to add guns to the general population.
i agree. i have dillon 550 reloading press and counting all the ammunition i can manufacture just is not practical. now if one of you "restricter" types wants to buy me a counter device i will accept your generous offer. i'll accept this much gun control in my lawful life.
Reloaded bullets still have the rifling marks from the weapon they are fired from. And honestly, do you actually produce more bullets than you can count? I can probably find you an abacus on e-bay.
Save your money on the abacus - fingers and toes are too high tech for him.......
you say naughty about right wingers not listening to you and you're guilty of more of the same. i too believe the truth has a liberal bias and if you were a liberal you would allow me to have my guns unmolested by your biases.
I have no problem with your owning guns, as long as you are required to be responsible for their responsible use. But there are people supplying guns to criminals, and that just fuels the violence.
we've always had laws prohibiting guns and crims' wat else of a feel good nature do u want? more laws ain't gonna make u happy. only crims' in prison can do that.
I would like the existing laws not to be completely de-fanged and rendered moot. I would like existing regulations enforced, and restrictions put into place which would allow better tracking of where weapons are ending up.
you say naughty about right wingers not listening to you and you're guilty of more of the same.
Just what are you talking about?!? I can't recall ever "saying naughty about right wingers not listening to me."
I think you naughty for no understand me not say thing.
Naughty naughty right wingers
and naughty left wingers too. i like lefters more than righters though. even if they want to make me feel naughty about my guns.
You don't sound like someone whose gun ownership I would disagree with. But there are people who get around the law by buying weapons through gun shows or other grey-market means, then selling them to people whose gun ownership I absolutely disagree with.
Comments are closed on this entry