Video: Eisner says it’s time to get the public “emotional” about gun control
posted at 3:09 pm on April 18, 2007 by Ian
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Appeals to reason are so passe. Or so suggested the former Disney CEO during his appearance this afternoon on CNBC’s “Power Lunch,” in which he called explicitly for the abolition of handguns in America. We’re happy to see such a prominent media figure as excited as we are about online video and its political possibilities, not so happy to see him declaring his intention to demagogue this issue through “emotional” narratives and referring to politicians who support the Second Amendment as “co-conspirators.”
If Eisner’s thinking this way, what must big media be thinking?
Transcript (thanks to AP):
“I’ve always wanted to do position through story on the ridiculousness of having guns and automatic weapons in our society. And it’s been very much obviously in the news, sadly, sadly. But when you’re in a public company and you’re in Washington — I was just saying “Don’t fight the NRA” — or you’re in a big company where your major constituencies are middle Americans, and where you don’t own the company, you’re working for your shareholders, you’ve got to be very careful. And we pushed through same-sex health insurance, some very advanced things… But we never could do the kind of material that I can now do because nobody can tell me I can’t do it. So I think the solution is to get the public, in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons. Because politicians are almost co-conspirators in this bloodshed. They are chickens, I was even a little chicken at Disney. Nobody will take on what I consider the imbecilic arguments of arming America.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
He never got over Bambi’s Mom getting her brains blown out.
moc23 on April 18, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Piss-off Eisnerdead.
davy on April 18, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I sure he walked about with several armed guards during his career as head of a major studio company - a luxury 99% of Americans cannot enjoy….
jimwesty on April 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM
All Liberal arguments are designed to appeal to emotions, not reason.
TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Moron.
Viper1 on April 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Yeah, I’m gonna rely on a total washout assclown CEO like Eisner for sound advice on anything. HA!
Bad Candy on April 18, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Wasn’t he fired by the Mouse?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 18, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Brilliant! We should just tell the criminals that it is ridiculous to have guns and automatic weapons, and we should put up big bins for them to deposit them at the gates of Disneyland. I can’t believe no one’s thought of that before.
JustTruth101 on April 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM
The stink of failure and cluelessness just wafts around this guy.
The only people that have automatic weapons are a handful of rich mofos and collectors, cops, and crooks. Ignorant prick.
Bad Candy on April 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yeah, he was a total failure, and got booted.
Bad Candy on April 18, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I’m not an Eisner fan by any stretch, but “stink of failure”? Care to hazard a guess as to his net worth?
honora on April 18, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I posted this on another forum in response to someone arguing that Americans don’t need automatic weapons for self-defense or for hunting.
Lehosh on April 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Heh. As Rush so often says, I love when liberals screw up and say what they’re thinking out loud.
We can now cross Michael the Nitwit Liberal Eisner off the list of people whose opinions matter on anything.
Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM
And now we know why the Disney BoD did everything they could to get rid of him.
amerpundit on April 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM
This from the same man who pushed Roy Disney out from his uncle’s company.
amerpundit on April 18, 2007 at 3:24 PM
This is just the guy to solve the epidemic of stabbings in the UK.
Death is a terrible thing; let’s pass a law against it.
fluffy on April 18, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Yeah, when we were watching Bambi 2 with the kids the other day, I told them: “Nothing wrong with hunting deer. Them’s good eatin. Also, they’d eat you if they could.”
Still, who cares what Eisner has to say about gun control? When did he become a gun expert?
meep on April 18, 2007 at 3:27 PM
How about the violence and racial stereotyping by Big-Hollywood, Mike?
Valiant on April 18, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Pot and cocaine are illegal, damn good thing no one kind find those drugs in America
Capitalist Infidel on April 18, 2007 at 3:30 PM
While we’re at it, let’s disable every home protection system in the country. We shall not offend people just because they may want to rob us and do us harm.
What an idiot.
JammieWearingFool on April 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
We don’t need the 2nd Amendment. Heck, we can get rid of lots of the Amendments.
Eisner=Idiot!
Oxybeles on April 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
The man’s reality check has bounced.
looking4statesmen on April 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM
His net worth is irrelevant. I consider John Kerry, Soros and the Kennedys worthless sacks of crap too. There are plenty of people worth millions or billions who I consider worthless oxygen thieves.
I’m not about to demand their money be taken through anticapitalist actions like leftists, of course, the leftist elite would make sure they kept their opulent lifestyle through loopholes, they just make a built in aristocracy, and keep new moneymakers down.
As for his stink of failure, ask Disney stockholders about it, they’ll tell you.
Bad Candy on April 18, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Isn’t this the same brain trust that founded homosexual day at Disneyland?
I’m waiting for the Hollywooders that make a living killing people in the movies with guns to come out swinging against the right to own a firearm.
Hening on April 18, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Hehe, “Crime is ridiculous and it needs to be stopped. Let’s outlaw it!” Oh wait…
Lehosh on April 18, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Shocka! The libtard thinking like a capitalist. Care to hazard a guess as to what kind of failure the stink refers to? Because as a part of the sophisticated illuminati you know there is more than one kind of failure, right????
Eh, who am I kidding. No, you don’t.
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I think it’s time to ban Mike Eisner from television. His harmful liberal social theories have killed thousands, if not millions, of innocent people. Certainly anyone who cares about other folks’ well being will support this ban.
jaleach on April 18, 2007 at 3:47 PM
What Eisner said:
What Einser meant:
jdpaz on April 18, 2007 at 3:49 PM
He’s right–people do need to get emotional about gun control. They need to take a hard look at the senseless carnage that took place on Monday, get angry, and then repeal the gun control laws that enabled it. You couldn’t ask for a more perfect example of the sheer lunacy that is gun control than a massacre that takes place in a “gun-free” zone. Liberals got everything exactly the way they wanted it on the Virginia Tech campus–unfortunately for the victims of Monday’s massacre, liberalism is just as effective in dealing with armed criminals as it is in dealing with terrorists. How many more innocent Americans have to be sacrificed on the altar of liberal idiocy before we get fed up and take back our constitutional rights?
ReubenJCogburn on April 18, 2007 at 3:55 PM
He screwed Disney and now he wants to screw us.
I love it when guys with private security tell the rest of us that we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves.
Iblis on April 18, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Like Rosie.
Bad Candy on April 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM
You would think someone that made millions of dollars as a result of the first ammendment would have some respect for the second.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 18, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I get your point, meep, but the man is/was the head poobah at one of the truly important communications companies. What this clueless elitist thinks and does is important because he can shape public opinion.
thegreatbeast on April 18, 2007 at 4:01 PM
How’s this for some emotion Mike?
Screw you. Who cares what you think.
It’s the 2nd Amendment. It’s in the United States Constitution.
Deal with it.
BacaDog on April 18, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Yo, Big E, Any idea how many people have been butchered in Africa by gangs armed only with machetes?
Total.Asshat.Moron.
bbz123 on April 18, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Well said Lehosh
This has little to do with hunting or defending ones home from intruders. It is about the liberty of man in the face of oppressive governments.
This is much more appropriate to apply the quote of surrendering essential libery for perceived security (paraphrased) than the silliness espoused by Eisner and others of his ilk on international wire taps of suspected terrorist.
MarkB on April 18, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Beast - I was typing while you posted.
Right. Folks like Eisner can and do shape public opinion due to their access to broadcast and print media.
Still, I don’t give a crap what he thinks.
BacaDog on April 18, 2007 at 4:06 PM
We should send Eisner, Rosie and the gun control lobby et al a nice thank you card.
The membership rolls at the NRA will be soaring.
Speakup on April 18, 2007 at 4:09 PM
“If Eisner’s thinking this way, what must big media be thinking?”
Ans: What they’ve been thinking for decades.
Here’s a blast from the past, a form letter response from Time Magazine’s editors sent to people who complained about Time’s biased coverage of gun control back in 1989:
Don’t bother to debate the issue with Time or the MSM. Their mind is made up and they don’t want to be confused with the facts.
georgej on April 18, 2007 at 4:10 PM
The very people who want us to surrender to the terrorists are the same ones who want to take away our guns and leave us defenseless when Al Qaeda packs up their tents in Baghdad and start showing up in our neighborhoods.
Eisner, and others like him, are clueless about the dangerous world we live in and what is necessary to survive.
fogw on April 18, 2007 at 4:19 PM
He’s a good guy to turn for advice on how to run a country. He did such a bang-up job with Disney!
Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Reuben: excellent point.
JustTruth101 on April 18, 2007 at 4:22 PM
So let’s say it happens Mr. Isner…..the law is passed. Bingo… handguns are illegal. What do you propose is going to make the millions and millions of handguns in America suddenly appear in a smelter? Lemme guess……the threat of prison. That’ll work. I’ll take my number and get in line.
Limerick on April 18, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I find it interesting that the people most prone to saying that we live in a fascist police state under Bush tend to be the same people prone to saying that we should outlaw the very tools that enable us to overthrow a fascist police state.
If Bush is the new Hitler, don’t we need our guns to overthrow him?
Lehosh on April 18, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Did this “legend in his own mind” just basically call 40 million gun owning Americans “imbecilic”???
Maybe there ought to be 40 million “imbecils” boycotting “Prom Queen”, his latest project that is on online video and V-Cast.
Catseye on April 18, 2007 at 4:27 PM
You know, if we had a way to ask those kids who were murdered the day before yesterday if would they have defended themselves had they been allowed to (which they were not)I’m confident they would all answer, yes.
Speakup on April 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Can we say Michael “Moore” Eisner??
Catseye on April 18, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Renewed mine this morning. Going to buy another
semi 40 tonight. This time it’s a Smith
Texyank on April 18, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Gun prices spiking. Supply and demand baby. There is the poll I trust.
Limerick on April 18, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Funny, I always took him for a conservative — I guess because his rules at Disney were so infamously strict (no facial hair, no hair past the collar, etc). What a letdown.
Tanya on April 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Cool, you, me and a whole bunch of people are doing the same thing.
Speakup on April 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM
It’s the 2nd amendment. Google it.
BirdEye on April 18, 2007 at 4:44 PM
IF GUNS CAUSE CRIME, MINE MUST BE DEFECTIVE.
I won’t put quotes around that because Ted Nugent said something to that effect already…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LIBERALS = EMOTION (why so many stupid, ignorant womyn watch Rosie)
CONSERVATIVES = REASON (why so many enlightened free thinking women would rather take a sharp stick in the eye.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hey Mikey, your mouse ears are WAAAAAAAAAY too tight, there dude.
seejanemom on April 18, 2007 at 4:47 PM
“Did this “legend in his own mind” just basically call 40 million gun owning Americans “imbecilic”???”
Actually, it’s closer to 90 million Americans.
georgej on April 18, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Everyone knew this was coming, so I do hope the Bush administration, Republicans, and conservative Democrats are ready to counter the upcoming nonstop MSM anti-gun propaganda.
They need to hammer home the fact that the killer at Appalachian State was stopped by guns carried by students.
januarius on April 18, 2007 at 4:53 PM
The Crazies will find a way to kill.
If Timothy McVeigh had done his deed with a gun, there would have been fewer (much fewer) casualties.
stenwin77 on April 18, 2007 at 4:56 PM
… behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons.
Because we all know that criminals and murderers will abide by this law.
Good grief. I am not a big gun person, but how can anyone believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will stop the criminals from getting them? It makes no sense.
Rightwingsparkle on April 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I will add this via PW from Glenn Reynolds, in the NY Daily News:
In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school’s vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In February’s Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.
Does any more need to be said?? We all know that if any of the professors at VT had been carrying, most of the kids would be alive today.
Rightwingsparkle on April 18, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Ya know, maybe Eisner is right. maybe if we got emotional and did something like declare Bahgdad a bomb-free zone it would stop the insurgents.
opusrex on April 18, 2007 at 5:01 PM
In looking at the legislative debates that produced the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, who opposed having a standing Federal army. What’s interesting is that if you look at the arguments of the Federalists, who didn’t think the Bill of Rights was necessary, they assumed that the united populace would always be better armed than any federal army and thus be able to fend off a despotic regime. The anti-Federalists wanted that assumption enshrined in law. Both parties would have laughed at the current gun-control advocates because they both would have assumed that the right to self defense arms was a given.
rokemronnie on April 18, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Lots of people seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the government in check. I also think its there to keep public enemy #1 in check, the MSM. They are the ones screaming the loudest about gun control which tells me that they have the most to fear from us the people.
Just got my 1st 40 S&W about a month ago, after the events on Monday I ordered 1000 rounds before they make that against the law.
bubbadog89 on April 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Because some of the earliest terrorist atrocities were directed at Israeli schools, almost all schools in Israel have armed guards. In addition, a fair number of Israeli teachers are armed as well. At the college level, since most Israelis attend college after army service, I’d assume some of the students are armed as well.
rokemronnie on April 18, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Funny coming from someone whose co-religionists were disarmed then slaughtered during his lifetime.
ScottG on April 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’m a huge Disneyholic…hated this idiot when he was at Disney. Worked to get him out. Got him out, thanks to the wonderful shareholders (not the Board, Folks…the SHAREHOLDERS - 2/3 vote.) Why the F$ck we should listen to ANYTHING he has to say, I don’t know.
He’d F$ck us, just like he did Mickey.
Mickey, we’re sorry. ;)
tickleddragon on April 18, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Can anyone cite
any totalitarian, tyranical, despotic, etc; regime, that ever allowed the governed to own firearms?
k2comp on April 18, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Well I know what libtard means–it means the person using such ridiculous language is experiencing a profound kind of failure: failure to articulate without falling back on this childish rhetoric. I bet people just line up to sit next to you at dinner parties, such a conversationalist. LOL
honora on April 18, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Let’s listen to the guy who drove Disney up onto the rocks. What a fool this guy is.
PRCalDude on April 18, 2007 at 6:23 PM
If I were mean spirited, I’d suggest that Eisner should be stabbed to death with a sharpened pencil, or scissors. Or forced to drink sour milk and rat poison. Or just photoshop and distribute pictures of him desecrating a Quran, until the fatwa is carried out. If I were mean spirited.
USA, all the way!
ValhallaMike on April 18, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I thought you were gonna ignore me. You can’t because I struck a nerve. B*tch. Nice try though, almost a whole, what, 2 months?
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Whoa. Take that over to the DU, dude.
PRCalDude on April 18, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I would be so easy to debate against this guy’s Mickey Mouse ideas.
Time for someone to remake Red Dawn. 2nd thought, not with the directors we have today. BTW, there are Ex Soviet Generals who will tell you that they spoke against a U.S. invation for this very reason. They were not afraid of our military as much as little old grandmothers with shotguns in Kentucky.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 18, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Another outstanding argument from the liberal thought leaders:
DOWN with reason! UP with mindless emotionalism!
UP with terrible stories about criminals killing innocent people!
DOWN with heroic stories about citizens using their guns to fend off criminals!
After all, what chance do the enemies of the Second Ammendment have if they rely on facts and logic to make their case for disarming law-abiding citizens? To grab those guns, the lefties MUST make an end run around reason. It all makes a crazy kind of sense when you look at it from the far left.
Tantor on April 18, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Theres only one thing more frightening than a maniacal killer with a loaded gun, and that’s a country where only the government has guns.
rplat on April 18, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Somebody frisk Andy for a manifesto.
nico on April 18, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Mr. Eisner, it’s not that your side doesn’t argue. You aregue all the time.
You just lose because you’re idiots.
So instead, you make appeals to power, emotion, anything you can, because your reason failed you long ago.
Merovign on April 18, 2007 at 7:11 PM
only from my cold dead hands.
MikeG on April 18, 2007 at 8:49 PM
So you want to stir up the fires of political passion in the breast of the body politic? As though emotions are NOT NOW running a little high, after the shootings at VT? You want to enflame the hearts of the right wing conservatives, who are armed to the teeth, and mad as hell over 9/11, and the traitorous sabotage of efforts to defend this country?
You want leftist demonstrators in the streets, you want to set lynch mobs on Republicans?
What are you trying to do, start a civil war? Hell, we’re at war NOW you fool!
Well, I say BRINGIT!! Lite that fuse, let’s see whatcha got!
rockhauler on April 18, 2007 at 8:51 PM
“Nobody will take on what I consider the imbecilic arguments of arming America.”
So, Eisner would call the Second Amendment “imbecelic,” huh? The second amendment - and the entire bill of rights as well as the rest of the constitution - was written by some of the most intellegent, articulate people of history.
Yeah… I guess he means those imbiciles. Fah.
psrch on April 18, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Fear of violent death is one of the most important restraints on the great, such as Michael Eisner. Their acceptance, such as it is, of mere political equality with others, depends on their understanding and sometimes being reminded that they are about as easily killed as any of us. I can well imagine that their pride is deeply offended by such equality in death, but as long as that condition is maintained, they will go on consenting, more or less, to equal protection of the laws. However, let them come to believe, not just that they themselves are insulated by their wealth and the protections they can buy with it, but that they are also protected by the disarmed helplessness of “the many.” With such a gulf between themselves and the rest, men like Eisner–and I do especially mean men like Eisner–will become arrogant, beastly tyrants.
Apart from the particular application to Eisner, I think I’m just serving you the political philosophers, straight up: Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and just about anyone with two IQ points to rub together. I wouldn’t think of comparing the philosophers’ authority to that of Eisner; fvck his authority and theirs. I’m saying that despite their numerous disagreements, they agree generally on the literal decisiveness of the armed classes in regard to the regime. Aristotle, I think, speaks for all of them when he says, “The armed are those who have a say as to whether the regime will continue.” It seems quite obvious, once it’s put that way, doesn’t it?
Kralizec on April 18, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I can distill that to a bumper sticker:
Free men carry weapons, slaves don’t.
AZ_Redneck on April 18, 2007 at 10:38 PM
http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm
AZ_Redneck on April 18, 2007 at 10:41 PM
This could be a slippery slope Mr. Eisner, next they will be banning movies.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/updates-on-virginia-tech/
bloggless on April 18, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Eisner, you ignoramus, it has been a long time since the average private citizen had access to “automatic weapons!”
tommy1 on April 19, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Eisner is a typical arrogant liberal fool. This is the man who, along with his demented friends on the Disney board, turned the whole Disney operation into “gay days”. Walt would have beaten Eisner to a bloody pulp.
lynnv on April 19, 2007 at 8:11 AM
I think we should pass a law that identifies crazies and prevents them from getting guns. Since most of the left are insane, we could insure that when the right takes back this country, the moonbats would be denied the ability to get guns and kill off all the conservatives.
Of course I am speaking tounge in cheek, but when we read the vile hate-speak from the creeps at kos and the loons at huffpo, I wonder just how far away those people are from picking up arms? Up to this point I have always felt they were just kooks living in their parents basement and wouldn’t have the courage to speak that way to anyone face to face, but after this VT massecre (the guys was obviously a liberal…look at how he tried to destroy ideals he erroneously percieved to be threatening him compared to the liberals ongoing attempts to destroy ideals that they are completely misguided about. This is not the thinking process of the conservative idealolgy.) it is conceivable that the crazy left will soon resort to armed violence.
The silver liining is that if they ever were to get their hands on guns, they would probably end up shooting themselves first!
The typical huffpo or kos crazy….”Duuuuuurrrrr, what does this do?”
BLAMMMMMOOOO!!!
hahaha
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Another comparison to those at kos and huffpo et al, and this murderer at VT.
This coward didn’t attacked an armed group like a battalion at Fort Campbell. Naw, he attacked an unarmed group of people who had no abilty to defend themselves.
Sounds just like those who live in their parents basement crowd. Always attacking from a position of cowardice. IE hiding behind their computer.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 8:46 AM
Let’s just ask all the kooks and criminals to turn in their guns. That’s all it will take. You know they are just waiting for us to ask!
Once that happens, the issue is resolved and we can all live happily ever after in never-neverland.
Libs…ya gotta love em!
Golfer_75093 on April 19, 2007 at 8:50 AM
I think the MSM has a dog in this hunt. If there were no gun laws the criminals wouldn’t stand a chance. Then what would the MSM have to report on? might be some jobs lost.
They have a lot more to report on when unarmed people get executed, this will keep them talking for months!
Not much of a story when a thief turns tail and runs.
Gooch on April 19, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Why are liberals so deluded? They think you can sway terrorists by being nice to them - talking to them, reasoning with them, giving them cupcakes and hobbits in Guantanamo, and they think criminals will actually obey the law.
foxforce91 on April 19, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Someone mentioned the murders in Africa carried out by machete wielding thugs. Good point; if you want an even better predictor of a gun free America, look at the UK right now. They have a pretty comprehensive gun ban over there that went into effect not long ago and several types of violent crime have skyrocketed, including home invasian, rapes, and various kinds of assaults. Criminals don’t care about gun laws; that’s why they’re criminals. The only people you’re hurting are the ones cowering in a corner in their own home praying the police will come sometime soon. Funny how the biggest proponents of gun free societys seem to be the people that have personal security forces. Jerks.
austinnelly on April 19, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I used to think (pre ‘94) that one rifle, one shotgun, and one pistol were sufficient. I don’t think that anymore. If buying another firearm will piss off the liberals and increase the stats on gun sales, I will gladly bear that burden. Don’t weep for me, I’m just doing what’s right for the country. /modesty
PS why does everyone want a .40cal handgun? It’s an answer to a question no one asked. Get yourself a couple or three 1911’s in .45 and be done with it. John Browning, peace be upon him, designed it nearly a century ago and it’s still the most popular semi-auto handgun in America.
Barntender on April 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Although what you said is absolutely true, this issue will hit the streets big-time in a short while.
If no one recalls, there have been several massacres like this throughout the 20th Century, in other countries. Dunblane Scotland, Port Arthur Australia… to name a couple. Both of those incidents resulted in nearly an immediate ban on ALL guns. Canada, the UK, South Africa have all banned guns.
The US is next, the liberals are coming for them, sooner or later. We’ve seen it coming for years, but they are going to start in earnest soon enough, and those of us who own them are going to eventually have to stand up to them.
So, emotions will most like get hot on both sides of the issue.
Rick Donaldson on April 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
There are enough gun laws on the books.
How about enforcing some of them.
Kini on April 19, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »