NRA head Wayne LaPierre talks a lot about freedom in his speeches. But what does freedom have to do with the ability to shoot 100 bullets without reloading? MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explained in the latest Rewrite.
Rewriting the NRA's take on ‘freedom’
-
Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:34 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Lawrence, you totally nailed it, as you often do. You explain perfectly why the NRA excuses for Assault weapons are completely ridiculous. And how by simply reducing the clip size to ten bullets it would prevent this weapon from being as deadly, if even used at all in future mass murders.
Larry, when they say you nailed it they mean you took Senator Johnson's argument and made it stronger. After you took his quote and totally took it out of context you started talking about a shoe bomb and how a ridiculous law was made that now affects all of us. That was the exact point he was making that making more laws only affects the people that are law abiding citizens. You have no substance to anything you say. That must be why your the lowest rated host on the lowest rated network new program. I do enjoy the entertainment value thought.
this is a big "hmmm???" post or comment (john plantagenet's comment)...
I'm not really sure if he's being sarcastic or not.
Your argument is air tight. SO what the heck is Obama waiting for to move on the issue of sane gun control? This should be a central campaign NOW while it is still a fresh reminder. The Democratic party has CAVED on this issue and you cant say it is political or fear of the NRA. Look at their unpopular stand on Gay marriage bucking the majority or on imigration. I really think I am going to give up on trying to figure my party out. It is certainly demotivating.
@Reality hurts-5580694, RE:
Obama is realist enough to know that there won't be any bills coming from Congress, so the most he has to work with is better enforcement of the existing laws, along with what little more could possibly be achieved with an Executive Order.
RE:
Yes, fear of the NRA finding primary competition from candidates amenable to the NRA's fear-mongering is still in play - even for something as inconsequential as the House vote to find Holder in Contempt of Congress for the aftermath of the Fast 'N Furious Fiasco - which only happened because there is no law against being a straw purchaser in Arizona, which the narco-terrorists gladly took advantage of by paying 18 year-olds with clean records to buy the guns for them (even if the straw purchaser was on welfare, the US Attorney's Office deemed it impossible to charge much less convict). Although Arizona is gun-happy enough that the NRA doesn't have to twist many arms to get its way.
Rep. Maloney (D-NY) is the only person in Congress who I've heard say that she didn't care what the NRA thought about her votes in Congress, as she has sufficient awareness to realize that the NRA is firmly against her regardless how she votes. Moreover, given that the motivating factor which first induced her to run for Congress was the fact her husband was murdered and she started her time in Congress in favor of more gun control to start with.
To the contrary, there is no equivalent pro-life/anti-abortion PAC with anywhere near the clout the NRA has. All it would take for Congress to lose its collective fear of the NRA would be for the constituent members to have no fear of the NRA and care more for doing right by their constituents than for making the NRA happy. At least for me, being a proactive, not a reactive, Representative member of Congress goes much further towards earning my vote towards getting reelected. On the other hand, if all my Representative does after election is work on being reelected, then he or she is of absolutely no use to me.
One thing that I firmly believe must be done is to make online sales of guns, clips or magazines, and ammo illegal. Moreover, that those selling weapons and ammo should be licensed, and purchaser must between purchase and receipt of guns, clips or magazines, or ammo have passed background check and have waited at least 10 days, to minimize possibility of committing a crime of passion.
As to the #theatergoers in Aurora, the 12 dead and 50 wounded were denied there respective freedoms to be alive and un-wounded because of people like Wayne LaPierre erroneously believe that forcing someone to reload their weapon more often deprives them of the freedom to commit more murders and/or attempted murders! Had Mr. LaPierre (and those who share his misguided beliefs) engaged in any critical analyses of his (their) beliefs, vis-a-vis gun control, he (they) would see how incredulous his (their) belief(s) are be on the logically sound side of the issue.
Hi Lawrence,
When talking about high capacity "Magazines" please don't call them clips, there is a difference and you lose credibility when you say clips.
Sean
No he doesn't loose credibility.
You got the point despite using the wrong name for the modification kit.
Hey, Sean Mc-Genius (like that....bet you've heard that before) It doesn't matter. You get the point being made. Unless, of course the misuse of the word negates every other point he established.
Lawrence...YES! You did nail this....Thanks for speaking about our Right to Freedom for a better chance of survival when one of our own goes insane. When our fore Fathers gave us the right to bear arms, they had muzzle loaders! I am all for the right to bear arms but why do we need deadly Assault weapons with 100 bullet magazines?! I like the idea of lowering the magazine size to 10 bullets. I would take my shoes off for that!
When I was in the Army, we had 9-round magazines for M-16s. That should be more than sufficient. Thank you, Lawrence, for all you do. Keep speaking truth to power.
Great to hear from our soldiers! Thank you very much for your service!
my curiousity again is running... i know that our fore fathers had muzzle loaders back then when they gave us the right to bear arms, that is because they fought government and people that also had muzzle loaders, if you apply that on today, shouldn't we also allowed to have or own an assault rifle. Note, "assault rifles" are not only machine guns, just like in california, if you have a rifle that have a 10 round magazine on it is an assault rifle, if you can take out the magazine without using a tool, it's an assault rifle, and if you add a collapsible stock, it's an assault rifle.
-PL Szymeczek, thank you for your service, although i never heard of a 9-round magazine, the question to that part is the rifle, is that magazine easily comes off the rifle with just a push of a release button, if it is then it's an assault rifle.
- I guess where i'm really curious in is that, banning all "assault rifle" as correctly defined, will that only leave criminals and corrupt government and LE with assault rifles? Or reducing the mag capacity to 10 rounds and you have to use a tool to reload. so what happened if they turned on the good citizen because let's say they wanted more power, for example, a control of vote ballot boxes. How will you face a corrupt government and LE with an assault rifle(correctly defined)?
just curious. so what happen if clip size is reduced to 10, but the psychopath bought a 30 or 100 round magazine illegally somewhere because he is preparing for the crime?
Also curious, can you explain the 2nd amendment? Because the way I understand it is that, I have the right keep and bear arms. I've heard this so many times tonight, "what is the purpose of assault rifles?". For me, first of is that I enjoy sport shooting, hunting, and I am also in the military. And if we talk about rights, the way I understand it, I put the assault rifle with the 2nd amendment for this reason: if a government gets corrupted or something goes wrong and it goes after the citizen, I will have that same weapon or close to what that corrupt government have. I don't know if I will be able to do anything with a handgun when they have high caliber rifles. Maybe not as much as me having a rifle.
Anyway, it's just me, I don't like to blame an organization when something goes wrong. I'm not a big NRA fan, but I don't dislike them as much as I see you go after them. You pretty much say they support criminals... Really? I don't know about that.
Oh well... just curious.
IMO, the government is corrupted, but the US Military is not their weapon of choice against it's citizens.
Although I am not a hunter, where I live, it's how a lot of people put food on the table during the fall and winter, and I can really respect that. However, I think you only have to look as far as the name of the weapon "assault rifle" to determine the purpose, which is to kill and maim other human beings. The Supreme Court parsed the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" many years ago. I personally do not agree, but the law is the law.
The US is the most violent industrialized country in the world. States who have lax gun control statistically have higher homicide and suicide rates, even after factoring in other means of suicide and murder.
I find the NRA'a power over our elected officials obscene. Please note I did not say the NRA is obscene...their control in the business of government is. Oh, and the shooter bought mass quantities of ammo over the internet.
Stay curious - that's a good thing.
-but i wasn't just only talking about the military though. When i said government, i mean all the way to the smalles part, like mayors, governors and even corrupted cops. They can do all of these and use those weapons against us.
-but "assault weapons" doesn't just mean automatic guns(machine guns). Just like california, if you have a rifle that have more than 10 rounds magazine, it's an assault rifle, if you can take out the magazine without using a tool, it's an assault rifle, if you have collapsible stock, it's an assault rifle.
-If we blame NRA for having power over elected officials, shouldn't we also look at these officials and not just look at NRA?
Yes, we should look at those officials. They freak out when the NRA starts "grading" them on their votes. I admit I do not know much about firearms and tend to use the term "assault weapon" generically. I certainly don't have the answers, or know what lines to draw where. But there must be a place of compromise, or balance, respecting both 2nd Amendment rights and public safety. I appreciate your response.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more. That is exactly what they need to do. I like my guns, and I enjoy sports shooting and etc... but they need to come into the middle where it benefits both sides.
Kudos to you and the segment producer(s) for this edition of "The Rewrite." You crafted a brilliant exposure of the ludicrous NRA "freedom" argument in a logical, methodical, succinct, and extremely compelling manner. I've shared this link on my Facebook page, and will also share it as a comment on The White House page. Sadly, it's doubtful that any meaningful legislation to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines and "no questions asked" internet sales, etc. will be considered until after the general election. It's imperative that responsible gun owners and non-gun owners alike exert more pressure on our legislators than is exerted by the NRA, which is not nearly as powerful as its board thinks it is.
The NRA should be the last organization to try to "fight for freedom", when it was the NRA that fought for and got passed laws that stripped African-Americans their rights under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Some of the first persons to die for freedom in this country were African-American, and to have an organization like the NRA always waving the "constitution" to further their agenda is really disgusting. Gun laws can be sensible and not interfere with 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA would be the last organization the founding fathers would want to interpret the constitution concerning peoples basic rights. Anytime an organization like the NRA becomes so powerful that it can threaten "elected officials", and force them to govern in their best interest, regardless of what the citizens want "elected officials" to do, that IS the true threat to FREEDOM in this country!!
Lawrence, you know the old saying you do not wish harm on anybody but LaPierre is one person that need a shock of reality. When you think of 9/11, you would think LaPierre approved of those actions too because after all those terrorists had guns but they were definitely not Americans but if you believe LaPierre they had second amendments rights. What LaPierre need is someone doing harm to him or someone he loves by the way of the gun, then maybe and I say again maybe he will understand the problem of guns. If that happens to LaPierre the gunman can always tell LaPierre he has second amendment rights.
Gladys, the 9/11 terrorists had common, ordinary box cutters as their weapons, not guns. Of course, their ultimate weapon that killed over 3,000 in the Twin Towers common, ordianry airliners they commandered with those box cutters in hand.
Terrorists will always find a tool to use, and while it would be an improvement to limit the capacity of clips for ammunition that can be fed into semi-automatic firearms for civilian use in the US of A, limiting the tool itself is not very feasible or necessary. Getting to the ability to identify and take restricting action against the terrorists, rather political or simply insane, is what we need to strive for.
Hey Grandpa,
Riddle me this (and a honk of my horn to the Batman of my youth):
Using your logic, why should this country try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapongs? I mean they've already got guns, tanks, and airplanes, right?
Fewer guns on the streets means fewer opportunities for gun violence; it's a matter of simple statistics and cause-and-effect... It's way harder to kill a person with a golf club or baseball bat than with a Glock...
More logic and reality for the reality-challenged, I know, but I'll keep trying...
What, are you nuts, Cab Driver.
We have Federal Laws that highly restrict the use of full automatic weapons, like the same semi-auto AR 15 that the Colorado shooter used that does come in a full automatic configuration. In order to obtain and possess a full automatic version of the AR-15 (or any of a number of popular weapons, often seen in movies land, like the Mac10s and Uzis, or in days of old the Thompson Machine Gun) one has to pass a background check much more stringent than the common check on purchase of a semi-auotmatic rifle or shotgun or pistol. And pay a tax also for the possession of the kind of weapon.
Some states and municipalities have tried to restrict the rights of purschase and ownership of firearms over and above what the Federal Government has established, and the Supreme Court has ruled that those governments have to recognize the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment and can not be overly restrictive in their laws or ordinances, therefore.
Got it?
There goes Grandpa with that honorarium again...
And please don't try to obfuscate things with a lesson on firearms history, seriously. My old man's an "NRA lifer," and my grandfather whom I got my "historian tendencies" from once owned one of the finest handgun collections in the state. True story: in his 60's when he was selling off some of his guns, a fellow stopped into town and purchased several of them. My grandfather commented on how the gentleman "looked familiar," and finally asked him his name...
"Clayton Moore," was the reply...
Now when the Second Amendment was written, the state-of-the-art in firearms consisted of muzzle loading rifles, muskets, and pistols. Rifles were generally avoided for military purposes because they were more difficult to load.
In the right court, it would be legal child's play to point to the "original intent' of the Constitution as not intending to condone the horror we saw in Colorado (again). All that is required is a shift of a few seats on the Supreme Court, and the right wingnuts know that. The "law" is essentially what the court determines it to be (excepting Constitutional Amendments), as the Citizen's United decision demonstrated. So the NRA continues to terrorize people with "slippery slope' claims about how registration will ultimately lead to confiscation.
BTW, what the Court ruled was that the District of Columbia couldn't outlaw handguns. There's still room for some sanity in constructing laws that would require restrictions and training for carrying concealed weapons. Sadly, the NRA has dropped the ball on that one, and they may well reap the consequences of their own foolishness and rigidity.
Supreme Court to Cab Driver: Restrictions must be reasonable.
Your ranting last night about the NRA made me sick. You of course have a right to express your opinion but your characterization of NRA members as being "simple-minded" is hurtful and just plain wrong. I certainly don't consider myself simple-minded and I am a member of NRA. There are others I know who are members and I don't consider them to be simple-minded. Not all NRA members hang on every word and action of Wayne LaPierre. I didn't join NRA because of it's politics. The NRA supports many worthwhile gun safety and hunter safety programs which I believe are far more important and far more useful in making society safe. Your statements last night are not helpful and only serve to stir up those who, like yourself, want to see more controls put on gun and ammunition sales. Why not more controls on switchblades, or baseball bats, or chemicals used to make homemade explosives? What if that piece of crap James Holmes had walked into the theatre, sprayed the first couple of rows of people with gasoline and set them on fire? Would we be considering more controls on gas pumps? The point is this, AN INDIVIDUAL DID THIS AND HIS TOOLS WERE SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS. Deal with the individual.
Oh boy. The typical NRA argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people." What a crock. There are controls on switchblades. baseball bats aren't DESIGNED to kill. They're designed to hit a ball. Gasoline isn't designed to kill. Its designed to power vehicles. Chemicals used to make homemade explosives are controlled. Gun control wouldn't stop RESPONSIBLE people buying guns...but it might stop nutjobs/irrational/crazy people buying. I simply don't understand how anyone can not see that simple point. Guns are designed for one thing, and one thing only. To TAKE A LIFE. Whether it is an animals or a humans. They are made exclusively to kill. If you can't see that simple point...maybe Lawrence's description of NRA as simple minded really does fit the bill. Deal with the individual? How? How does "dealing with the individual" prevent another such massacre unless you STOP such a person ******* well buying a weapon. NRA logic=No logic.
You are an idiot. Do you think bats can't be used to kill people? It is true guns can be, and are used to kill animals, and people. But guns are also used for recreational purposes, something you obviously wouldn't understand. There are no easy answers to stopping another incident like the Aurora shooting and I don't pretend to know all the answers, but my friend neither do you. And your hero O'donnell ranting about the NRA isn't solving anything, and putting more controls on purchasing guns won't solve anything either.
Just an amazing segment. I was mezmerized. The bluntly articute scathing attack of O'Donnell's was relentless. It is absurd to defend a 100 round drum on the grounds of freedom. As Lawrence so eloquently put it, we can make people take off their shoes boarding an airplane but can't keep them from buying 100 round drums. Our freedom is taken away in small ways all the time. We can't speed, we can't smoke where we want, we have to take our shoes off when we board an airplane - after one single failed terrorist threat - yet we can have guns that 100 round drums after all these mass killings. Those drums are aren't for hunting, they're not for self defense. They're for killing as many people as you can as fast as you can.
Amazing segment. Lawrence at his best.
another one that runs my curiosity...
so are you saying I shouldn't buy 100 round drum? Or 100 round magazine (there's actually some out there)? Because they are only made to kill as many people as you can as fast as you can? So, I'm into sport shooting and I like to hunt(overused) and I enjoy a weekend out with my co-military friends in the country/desert and shoot without reloading. So because I buy a 100 round drum, or even 30 round magazine, I will be killing as many people as I can as fast as I can? hmmm??? interesting. So, if I stay with a 10 round magazine, I will be okay, right? So what happens if a gang or a group of criminals or just one criminal intend to kill me and they have these 30-100 round magazines that they got illegally from who knows where, while I'm stuck with a 10 round magazine? I won't be able to reload fast too, because a rifle that have a release button that you can just push with a finger and releases the mag is considered an assault rifle, even if it's a semi-auto rifle. So what do I do, cops cannot get there quick enough. Or if a small town mayor or congressman decides to have more power over the public and start committing a crime, controls the law enforcement(it happens), how do me and my fellow citizen act our 2nd amendment, when we're stuck with our rifle that only holds 10 rounds and cannot reload fast, or just my handgun? When the corrupt town government have their high powered high capacity rifles, controls law enforcement meaning cops are on you as well, pretty much controls everything, and our help takes awhile to get there?
I guess if I buy one of those magazines or drums, I already intend to kill. I guess, basing on these comments, is that 2nd amendment means I can only have muzzle loaders(used by fore fathers) or handguns to defend myself against criminals who can get their nice high powered high capacity rifles from somewhere, or government that are power hungry.
Hmmm... just curious.
Hi, it's me again. I'm still curious, because I didn't get any comment or reply about the 2nd amendment. Like i said, you put laws against assault rifles (includes semi-auto rifles), then the only one with them left are criminals and the government. Well, isn't that what the 2nd amendment is all about? If the government becomes corrupt or power hungry and goes after the law abiding citizens, they will have assault rifles. So how do you fight that? Back then when the founding fathers came up with that right, they had muzzle loaders, well that's because thats what the government had back then and those they fought had them. Now a days, you won't fight a terrorist or bad government with muzzle loaders, or just a handgun. Anyway, I hope I made sense. Like i said, i'm not a big NRA fan, but I own some rifles, I mainly use them for sport shooting, hunting, and also because I like to have my own when something like I explained happens. I am also in the military by the way.
And also nobody replied to my comment about the limited magazine capacity. What if you limit it to 10, just like in california? If somebody wants to kill or use high capacity rounds, they will get it or make it. If you think of it, in california, who have high capacity magazines? the criminals and government. So if criminals come to you with their rifles, what do you have? Or government decide to turn around and go after law abiding citizen, they will come with their assault rifles and high cap magazines, then again, what would you have?
Oh well, i'm just looking for answers. Out of curiousity, since you all talk way so bad about pro-guns and the NRA. I would willingly give up my 2nd amendment if you can guarantee that things will "never" happen, just like government and criminals will never do those.
If the govt goes bad they'll be coming at us with attack drones, just like in Yemen. So why can't I buy my own attack drone just in case? Or at least a good heat-seeking missile to take the attack-drones out with. This is an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights! ;)
In all seriousness, do we really want to live in a society where we have to be concerned about the possibility of an arms race with the local thugs much less the government? That's what the society you describe sounds like to me. Bad enough that the police find themselves in such an arms race over the war on drugs, etc...
Personally, I draw the line at what is needed for personal defense and survival through hunting, not assault.
good point. But isn't the line have to be drawn a little higher than rifles? For example, battle of athens ((1946)), when local gov't tried to cheat the voting ballots. Local citizen had to arm theirselves. I'm pretty sure local town gov't will not have that access to drones, or if they do, just like the Battle of Athens where the local town gov't had access to national guard, it took awhile for the national guards to get there, and the armed citizen with their rifles against the local town gov't's rifles, they corrected the wrong. The comment about drones are pretty much over exagerating. Draw the line where it should be, not way up there.
Hmmm, what do you think of this?
Should this be readily available? I know it's a spoof, but follow your reasoning to its logical outcome.
@mmmmm
It is paranoid of you to actually think the federal government is going try to shoot you the way Syria has shot its own people. It has never happened in 256 years of its existence and it never will. There is too much over site, too many factions with the freedom to protest. Could you imagine the national protests that would occur if the federal goverment started shooting Americans? What are they going to do to the protesters then? Water them down protesters like they did in Iran? This is freaking America man. When it goes wrong, people can criticize it in a very big way. Elections happen every two years. Just because someone could buy or build a large magazine illegally doesn’t make it a good idea to make them legal. (I find it hard to believe they are easy to make.) I want to make it as hard as I can to make those large magazines available to mass murderers. It is much more likely that America will fall victim to another mass killing in the next two years, then it is to be attacked by its government. Because of guys like you, this country has more guns per 100 people than any other country on the planet. It has more guns per 100 people then even Yemen. And Yemen is the largest terrorist country in the planet. You don’t need large magazines to hunt or defend yourself. Go out and walk around. Go out and play some golf. The US military – the army you belong to - is not outside your door waiting to shoot you.
I don't even know how to answer your non-sense comment. Do you really believe it won't happen? Or can't happen? And you said people like me? I don't even know what you mean there. So you're saying I can't join any sport shooting. So you're saying incident in 1946 can't happen or didn't happen? And gov't don't cover up any illegal things that they did? Or that they never cover up anything. How do America criticize or protest about something that was covered up? You tell me that "this is America man", then yes, this is America and I don't need to explain that to you. And it's not Yemen.
I watched it again and it is poetry. Not only does that paranoid sheister of the NRA scare people, he is full of fear himself. And his fear makes him buy more guns.
And as Lawrence so eloquently states, California has a 10 round limit on magazines to force a mass murder to reload. Because if he has to reload, he will be attacked himself and hopefully, prevented from killing innocent people.
Because our country is armed to the gills in guns, and because of all the fear that is behind all those guns, you can be sure there will be an American mass killings every two or three years. That is truely something to fear.
another one of my hmmm???s
so if a mass murderer in california, who is by law can only have 10 round magazine, decides to kill alot of people. Don't you think that this mass murderer will plan it first and modify the magazine to hold more, or even worse, buy a high capacity magazine from an illegal or underground source? Or just like this guy in Aurora shooting, he planned it for months. If this happened in california, do you think he'll show up with a 10 round magazine so he have to stop and reload every time? He can't buy 30-100 round magazine from a legal store in california, so he'll have to buy it somewhere illegally.
I know it sounds like i'm being a smartass with my questions, but i'm really just curious with what goes on with your minds... just like Lawrence, to say NRA are "the devil" or something like that.
It's just a big "hmmm???" to me.
An especially brilliant piece of writing and orating. I watched and listened last night with complete admiration. Just shared it on Facebook.
@mmmmmmm
I don't even know how to answer your non-sense comment. Do you really believe it won't happen? Or can't happen? Yes. I really believe no American President will turn on his own people and start shooting them the way they have in Seria.
And you said people like me (are paranoid?) I don't even know what you mean there. I’m not a shrink, but I your kind is full of irrational fear. You really think you’re going to be attacked by the US government with enough power that requires you to own a 100 hundred round drum to defend yourself. And your irrational fear makes you dangerous. It also makes you blind to the real danger of mass killers and their ammunition.
So you're saying I can't join any sport shooting. Never said that. Never said you couldn’t own a gun for recreation or to defend yourself as long as you’re not crazy or a felon.
So you're saying incident in 1946 can't happen or didn't happen? What 1946 incident are you referring to?
And gov't don't cover up any illegal things that they did? Or that they never cover up anything. Yes, the government has covered up some illegal things it did. Some times they do illegal things like the Iraq war and don’t try to cover them up at all.
How do America criticize or protest about something that was covered up?They find out. It’s a big smart country with a lot of over site including the media and the people. Then they organize and put pressure on their representatives. People knew that Nixon secretly bombed Vietman. There were CIA protests in the 60’s over it.
And it's not Yemen. No but America’s civilians are armed more heavily than Yemen’s, the terrorist capital of the world.
-so you're only talking about the president. How 'bout smaller politicians who are power hungry, they are government too. And I will be referring to an incident and will be explaining it here in a little bit.
-I'm not into 100 round drum, but I'm not against it. I like 30 rounds, maybe I will have to use that much when "a possible" time when government turns on us or criminals and gangs go after me with more fire power that they acquired illegally through the black market.
-Incidents like 1946 when a city/town government tried to cheat election and use their power over civilian citizen such as veterans. It is a perfect example of the 2nd amendment. How do you fight a power hungry town government that have assault rifles and controls the law enforcement? With just small firearms? There's more to it, but I don't think i need to explain it, you can google the incident if you want.
-So you're saying that all "cover ups" are found, and that the media and people will always know it? hmmm??? Again, are you saying these things will never or can't happen in America?
Lastly, can you elaborate as well, out of my curiousity, why you and "your people" call other people(pro-guns and NRA) "the devil"?
I am with you on that one Steve.
Excellent Analysis and Brilliant Observation! Thanks Lawrence. I emailed this rewrite to my children. I hope enough people will feel moved by this to force our government to change the gun & ammunition laws.
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS & BRILLIANT OBSERVATION! Thanks Lawrence. I emailed this rewrite to my children. I hope enough people will see it and be moved to force our government to change the gun and ammunition laws.
Very well done presentation on the gun control issue and in particular the hypocrisy of those who claim to be defenders of freedom yet ignore the stupidity and loss of freedom associated with the TSA shoe removal requirement. Clearly our government imposes restrictions and controls on our freedoms for numerous reasons; gun control is one small area and one that is reasonable. Even if one were to ignore the 2nd Amendment's focus on a "well regulated militia" such as each state's National Guard, and interpret it to apply to individuals, even a true strict constitutional constructionist must realize that the fastest an experienced Revolutionary Army soldier could reload and shoot a flintlock musket was 14 seconds. Given that, does anyone actually beleive that the founding fathers envisioned weapons with today's firepower? I would like to own an M1A1 battle tank, but the government says no; it is perfectly reasonable for the govt to say I can't also own an assault rifle. Why can't we all just agree on a 10 round mag limit for all semi-auto rifles and pistols and registration/background checks for all gun and ammo purchases or transfers public or private? Let's do it and move on. It will take the NRA and the Brady folks out of the lobbying business and back into safety and education where they belong.
Mr Lawrence a hunter might encounter a big heard of deer. If that happens, the hunter can take out all of the deer if he has an automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.
Barry: You do know that there are limits to how many deer you can kill?
The very predictable ranting about gun control that follows a spectacularly grievous shooting incident like the Colorado murderous cold blooded killing of 12 people and wounding of nearly 60 more has a very predictable outcome. There is in the grieving state of Colorado a 43% increase of citizens going to their local gun shops to buy their firearms before they get banned, or highly restricted by the "gun control" advocacy.
So keep it up, O'Donnell...I have stock in several firearm manufacturers, and I'm reaping the benefits as the market takes notice, and the stock price rises! Your helping out my retirement fund, and I'm already thinking what I might do with the capital gains I will surely receive if a sell some shares now...thinking a Glock Model 21 in 9mm semi auto pistol might be a something to invest in, along with several high capacity clips and, say, 1,000 rounds of ammo. When the new laws get passed (if Obama is reelected, you can believe just as he told the Premier of Russia with that open mike capturing the whispered "This is my last election...after that I can be more FLEXIBLE!"), as the value of that firearm and the clips will surely climb higher.
Lawrence everything you said was simply good common sense for politicians in both parties as well as independents. As you showed so well, banning automatic assault weapons has nothing to do with loss of freedom but this is simply a ruse by the gun lobby. Banning would be for the safety of the public.
Al-Qaeda terrorist sympathizers wouldn 't need explosives to cripple or shut down the commerce of this country. All they would need is 10 to 20 people in major cities armed with assault weapons in a timed, coordinated attack on large malls,trains, subways or buses and the country would be reeling, complements of the NRA and their Congressional servants. Then, perhaps those of us without assault weapons would rise up and make "common sense" the law of the land!
another hmmm??? moment for me...
first off, assault weapons are not only automatic weapons. But just something about automatic weapons(aka machine guns), it is strictly regulated, but not illegal to get one, it is not the same as buying a regular gun. From tax payment, cost of it, background check, filling out forms that goes to either fbi or atf, and then you have to wait until those agency sends it back which takes months and also sometimes you'll get denied and they won't tell you why or they will tell you something else.
I agree with your comment about terrorists. But then again, how will you blame the so called NRA about that, if these terrorists got their weapons from somewhere illegally. Hmm? so let's say NRA gets thrown out, assault rifles(semi-auto with release button that doesn't require a tool to release) gets banned(just like california), and these terrorists that you described visit your neighborhood, being smart as you described, they cutoff all communication(its not hard to do that just needs a simple small gadget), so you can't call cops, then they take out their illegally acquired assault weapons, and start their killing. How do you fight those with your handguns, and/or limited to 10 round rifles?
I know it sounds like I'm too scared of "what if" scenarios. But again, it's just a hmmm?? moment for me. I think the "common sense" to these is that why are we blaming these things, when the blame should be on the criminals buying illegal guns from illegal source. Not because a psycho killed people with a legally purchased assault rifle(semi-auto), we will start looking at the weapon. Because, let's say that assault rifle was banned before the crime(in Aurora), what would stop this guy(specially he planned it) to buy that assault rifle(semi-auto) from an illegal source? So we banned it, but didn't stop it, who are we blaming then?
Again, just my curiosity from all these comments, no need to be angry, just asking.
The police in every city and town of this country designate the 12 gauge shotgun as their assault weapon of choice!
Kudos, Lawrence. Freedom is a word that conservatives like to tout, but in too many cases it really translates to lawlessness. There needs to be a balance of freedom between different interests, instead of unlimited freedom for one group. How about protection of the unarmed innocent?
No, we can't legislate away evil. That's a 'straw man'. As long as evil exists, there will be illegal acts, regardless of laws. But, like fences, laws can help prevent or reduce evil acts.
That argument really doesn't carry through. Criminals by nature are going to disobey laws. The laws only affect the law abiding citizen.
By laws, I include law enforcement. Just because there are law breakers, that doesn't mean laws are useless. Just because there will be people that break in to property, that doesn't mean locks and fences don't do their job. Their purpose, if not to stop criminals, is to at least slow them down. Why does one want to lock their car if theives will break the windows anyway?
You see, you are using faulty logic. Crime prevention measures are not perfect, but they cut down and discourage crime. They make it harder for criminals to do their thing. Law abiding citizens are protected by reducing crime through these measures.
here we ago we again! msnbc the proganda arm of left wing socialist are trying
use this tragic event as a platform to takeway your second amenment rights given to
us by our founding. fathers. Don't listen to bloomberg, the brady antigunners and
the left wing socialist on msnc, we must fight and resist any control laws they will try
to push thru and vote for only pro gun canidates. These people don't want any guns at all if they have it there way. Don't beleive the lies and distotortions of these socialist radicals. Stand up and defend your second amendment rights.
Taking off your shoes at the airport has been protested since it was instituted. The TSA is constantly under fire. The idea of a 100 round magazine being xcessive is BS. These have a higher jamming rate than the smaller lower capacity magazines. That he shot the rounds he did without failure is surprising. Holmes would have used something else if he hadn't used a firearm. He would hve used a bob, gasoline or something. The man is mentally deranged. So get off the kick of gun cotrol.