Video: Matthews engages in thoughtful, nuanced discussion of 2nd Amendment limits
posted at 10:12 am on April 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Psyche! Chris Matthews speaks to a guest protesting the Washington DC handgun near-ban and decides to conduct a reductio ad absurdum argument to make Skip Coryell look like a nutcase. Unfortunately, Coryell doesn’t take the bait, leaving Matthews to rail about bazookas and the danger of citizens, er, protecting themselves. Jim Vicevich captures the moment:
As Jim says, Coryell would carry a cop instead of a gun, but a cop is rather heavy. Seriously, though, several states have now passed must-issue concealed-carry laws that require the approval of permits unless the applicant has a disqualifying event in his or her background. Minnesota is one of those states. Violent crime has not increased as a result of that legislation, and even Chris Matthews managed to survive the Twin Cities in 2008 during the Republican National Convention in the midst of armed citizenry.
Guns aren’t the problem; the problem is that criminals have guns while the government disarms law-abiding citizens. No one needs a bazooka, but those law-abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun for their protection should be allowed to do so — and our founders clearly felt the same way.
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: « Previous 1 2
“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.”
Adams wanted the ‘militia’ language to make the point that he was not guaranteeing the right for criminal gangs or violent mobs to operate their own armies in opposition to the free State freely created by a free people.
A free State trusts the free people.
Noel on April 20, 2010 at 11:41 AM
That’s either puerile idealism or you are one shockingly naive adult.
flyfisher on April 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM
A perfect example of liberal logic at work. Let ‘em carry guns and of course the next step is bazooka’s.
Jaynie59 on April 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM
I’d pay the slip fees by renting my new parking lot to Jay Leno.
Ash on April 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Remember the Hollywood Bank of America robbery in the mid-90s? Body armor and AKs. The police had to raid a nearby gun store to combat them. If some nut decides to operate any weapon irresponsibly, you have a major problem. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood. All with weapons you seem to think are fine and dandy. Your argument is baseless because anyone with determination to cause mass murder can do it without the heavy weaponry you think citizens should not have access to. Your fears are illogical and irrational.
So you believe every soldier in the United States Armed Forces will fire on civilians if ordered to so do? You’re rather deluded.
I’ll say none of your business to those questions, but I will say that I own at least one rifle and at least one handgun. I will also say that as to a sympathetic population, it depends on where you live. You clearly think that sentiment towards the government is exactly the same in every part of every state in the Union. Again, you’re speaking from a very narrow-minded perspective, with little indication that you realize just how many people feel in this country.
It’s not necessary to own a hummer. It may become necessary if events require that you need something with its capabilities. So goes the same for heavy weaponry. Your myopia about the potential of governments doesn’t mean much. It’s happened time and time again throughout history, so if you want to ignore the past, that’s your call.
Joe Biden owns three shotguns, and is in favor of all gun control laws. Just because you own one doesn’t mean you have the right attitude about them.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM
You know if I had an aircraft carrier and the whole support group (destroyers and cruisers (I’ve never been in the Navy) and maybe a nuke submarine) I would sail down to Venuzuela and tell Hugo “That is some nice air space you have there. Too bad if something were to happen to it”. Then he would bluster about me being inside his coastal waters and I would say “Yeah you’re right. What are you going to do about it?”
Enough of my daydreaming. Back to the thread.
Mirimichi on April 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Hey, the last time I was in DC I witnessed an armed robbery of a jewelry store right across the street from where I was running. The robber blew the store front window out with a gun shot. I was entirely defenseless and could have used a pistol in such a situation to protect myself.
The DC police? Oh, they were parked in front of a donut and coffee shop a half block away.
Captain America on April 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM
He should have ask Chris Matthews if he had any firearms in his house, or if he ever had armed bodyguards hired to protect him.
DarthBrooks on April 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM
There are a myriad of instances to prove this assertion wrong:
a) James Wakasa was killed by a soldier at Topaz Relocation Camp after coming too close to the perimeter wire.
b) Kent State
Then there is this anecdotal story. Comment 9 is interesting: From the results of the survey, at least 26% and possibly up to 38% of soldiers would fire on civilian armed resisters to the government were the government to declare certain firearms illegal and demand their confiscation, resulting in armed confrontation.
I assume we are not talking about bazookas and nukes here, or even machine guns and hand grenades.
unclesmrgol on April 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM
He once worked as a police office with the DC Capitol Police. He would have carried a weapon then. I wonder if he was as much of a belligerent bully then.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I would try to underbid you by offering Leno all sorts of freebies.
unclesmrgol on April 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM
And by the way, SVDs and AK47s are legal in this country, jack. The semi-autos you can buy like any other weapon, and pretty cheaply. Full-autos depend on state law as to whether you can get a stamp from the ATF to get a full auto sear. Way to demonstrate your severe lack of knowledge about weaponry and the laws of the US governing it.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM
My favorite show credits are the ones in BVS where little Willow, in corduroy overalls and pigtails, is carrying a ground to air missile and ends with a power shot of B. holding a battle ax and looking all mean-like.
Blake on April 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM
jeeeze… Matthews is such a moron. That over the top questioning and that smug grin, makes me want to just slap him.
JamesLee on April 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Ha. While this may be true, with heavier weapons such as an rocket launchers, the capability to create mass murder is much easier and far more deadly. If I could purchase such a weapon legally at “R&L Archery”, then likely someone could purchase one illegally just as easily in Queensbridge. How does one police when under the threat of such weapons? Do the police purchase Bradleys and Strykers? Think about the ramifications.
If the order was lawful, most certainly. Besides, our soldiers don’t just shoot civilians. If their lives were in danger, under the ROE, they would have every right to defend themselves. I’m deluded? You’re funny.
I clearly think that? Thank you for clarifying my thoughts Madame Psychic! I understand that people are pissed off in this country. I’m pissed off. I plan on VOTING in November like most people. However, no one in their right mind is advocating a violent overthrow of the government.
Yes, a Hummer and a SMAW…such an apt comparison. Let’s return to crux of the matter. If you operate a Hummer irresponsibly, you can’t kill hundreds of people. The same cannot be said of individuals armed with heavy weapons. There might be a time when such weapons are necessary (when Bill Pullman is elected president, and we are attacked by aliens, and Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum are our only hope). However, that time is clearly not now. These rights are not absolute. The ramifications of legally allowing citizens to carry heavy weapons is something you clearly do not comprehend.
I completely agree! Look in the mirror.
That is just a small portion of the arsenal that insurgents operate. You should’ve mentioned the Lee Enfield along with those. What about RPG-7s, RPKs, DSHKs, and a whole host of EFPs, IED, VBIEDs and now HBIEDs? It is possible to argue in a civil manner by the way. I’m well aware of the SKS and Semi Auto AKs. I’m aware they can be modified. However unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, everybody and their uncle doesn’t carry one in the U.S.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Bazookas aren’t all that accurate, anyway.
mojo on April 20, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Pardon me for being more worried about being blown up on the subway then how to arm myself for Shays’ Rebellion. I guess I’m shockingly naive!
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 12:58 PM
It sure would be fun firing one though! :D
bikermailman on April 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Bazooka? A stinger missile or two might have come in handy in Matthews’ neighborhood a few years ago, you know that if another 911 were to happen F-16s would shoot down American airliners.
An Abrams fighting machine sitting in your front yard isn’t such a bad thing if its used at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner, to save American lives.
That’s why the 2nd amendment does not end by saying: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear, a straw and a pea, shall not be infringed.
Speakup on April 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM
The weapons used at the school and Fort Hood shootings could be had for a few hundred dollars. The items you’re talking about would be incredibly cost-prohibitive, so no, they’re actually far less of a threat from any nut who wants to wreak some havoc.
So wait, you think soldiers would shoot civilians if ordered, but they wouldn’t? I’m confused. Your sheltered bubble reality isn’t very consistent.
No one is suggesting that, either. We’re talking about a theoretical event where the government exerts total martial law and revokes the Constitution. It has happened in other countries very easily. I’m sure there were people like you around then, too.
Um…what? Tell that to someone driving a Hummer down a busy city street who decides to drive on the sidewalk. It’s amazing how you think of regular firearms and oversized vehicles as somehow harmless recreational items. Despite the fact that pistols have been used in massacres, you’re more afraid of someone owning a bazooka. How much do the rounds for that cost, hm? How much do 9mm rounds cost? Which could wreak more havoc, an RPG shell that costs a few hundred bucks, or a Winchester White Box Value Pack of 100 rounds that is on sale for 25 dollars? Get a clue.
Ah. Baseless, vague insults. Now we’re cookin’.
Hey, that’s one of them that I own! Cool!
If they’re not used in an illegal manner, what’s the problem?
Then don’t tell people to look in the mirror.
People carry them in Israel all the time. What if people did carry them here? Millions of people carry handguns in the US every day(it’s called concealed carry, so stop before you claim you never see them). If people carried rifles, it would only be different in that people would be aware others are armed, as opposed to the way concealed carry works. People get used to it. You’re talking to a guy who lives in Madison, Wisconsin, and open carries due to it being the only legal way to carry in Wisconsin. People are getting used to it. You’re living in the dream world where there mere presence of guns kills children and puppies. Open your eyes.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Mathews is not very bright to begin with and knows less about the Constitution or the intent of the founders than almost anyone at the average Tea party so his performance was not a surprise…
JIMV on April 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM
You are indeed naive if you believe “such a tyrannical regime” can’t exist, particularly given that we’re marching headlong toward tyranny day by day in front of your very eyes. Spend some time studying history and you will soon learn that Americans are history’s great exception for throughout recorded history, most men have lived under some level of tyranny. Given the evil that lurks in the hearts of men, tyranny is the norm. Tyranny isn’t only possible, absent a significant opposing force, it’s probable.
But don’t worry, while people like you are complying with your orders, armed people like me will be out there trying to protect your liberty.
flyfisher on April 20, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Thugs who purchase illegal weapons aren’t exactly broke. Besides, if it were possible to get their hands on weapons such as those, every thug would sell his dubs and pick up an RPG in a heartbeat.
Let me clarify since you don’t understand. Soldiers would shoot civilians if it were a lawful order. This depends upon the rules of engagement however. You are knowledgable enough to know what that would possibly entail.
Pardon? When did I say that? You’ve made it abundantly clear that you are going to draw false conclusions, so allow me to clarify. Yes, a Hummer, Ford Festiva, “SmartCar” has the potential use a weapon. It could in fact be very deadly if one decided to operate it as such. However, a rocket launcher in the wrong hands is significantly more dangerous. Think about all of the crazy things one or two nutjobs could do? You mentioned 9mm vs. an RPG. I live in New York City. A nutcase in NYC could do more damage with an RPG-7 than 100 9mm rounds. I have a clue thank you.
But you started it! I’m telling on you!
How does one use a VBIED or a HBIED or an EFP in a lawful manner?
Dude, I spent 19 years living in rural Vermont. I know how to operate a weapon. I don’t think that everyone with a weapon is a liability/dangerous. Hell I had friends who brought weapons to school (they went hunting before class) and I felt comfortable. That being said, I’ve lived in rough areas. Boston, Washington D.C. and New York. I’ve seen the effects of an irresponsible operator. Still, I have no problems with our current gun laws. However, I do have a problem with an individuals owning heavy weapons. The damage that would be caused by a machine gun, bomb, RPG or whatever in a major urban environment is frightening. Use your imagination. A gangbanger, jihadist, or disgruntled postal worker with a heavy weapon is a scary situation. The lives that would be lost by legalizing such weapons in my opinion is not worth the “freedom” that would be gained by legalizing it.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Exactly. While we have politicians who constantly attempt to expand the powers of their office, Americans are intelligent enough to realize this, and they take lawful means to limit that power (vote them out of office and elect individuals who abide by the laws…for the most part).
Don’t worry about me. I’m heading off to BCT in less than 90 days so I’ll be ready to continue the tradition of fighting for liberty.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 2:05 PM
What is wrong with what Matthews asks? Any Second Amendment defender MUST be able to answer the question: “Which arms do you think you have the right to bear?”
If you cannot define your rights then you ought not be talking about them.
SlimyBill on April 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM
I don’t have a problem with a citizen owning a tank…as with anything the weapon is a tool. Just because they own it doesn’t mean they are Dr Evil.
Conservative Voice on April 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM
SlimyBill on April 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Matthews can certainly ask whatever question he wishes, its his show…but most people will see that the quest wasn’t talking about bazooka’s, he was talking about a simple handgun. Why is Matthews talking about limits, when a baseline freedom is not even being met?
Conservative Voice on April 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM
To the kid who stole Chris Matthews’ lollipop all those years ago…see what you did?
ronsfi on April 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Any debate in which Matthews is a participant is a waste of time.
Dopenstrange on April 20, 2010 at 2:44 PM
I wonder if you could find a jacket big enough to “conceal” iit?
kringeesmom on April 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Um, they already can get their hands on all manner of black market weaponry, including RPGs. Yet, they haven’t. Funny, that.
You know that video you ignored? Watch it. Suppose those being disarmed had resisted en masse. Guess what would have happened? Ireland, Bloody Sunday, just a few decades ago. Kent State, just a few decades ago. These things are not imaginary. Your denial, on the other hand, is very real.
Both are dangerous. One is easier to get into a crowded area, and it’s not the rocket launcher. Wasn’t it a Ryder Van that blew up Oklahoma City? I suppose you want those outlawed, right?
The Fort Hood shooter did pretty well. So did the Virginia Tech shooter. So did the Columbine killers. Are you in favor of outlawing all those types of weapons and bullets? You’re incredibly inconsistent, and fearful of weapons which, so far, have a 0% chance of harming you.
Never using it unless a situation were to arise that called for such a thing.
Machine guns can be legally owned. Despite this, machine guns are not the weapons that have been used to cause mass murder. Semi-automatic weapons, bombs made from propane tanks, and Ryder trucks full of fertilizer have. You have no evidence upon which to determine that crimes would be committed with these weapons. You’re operating off of the exact same argument people use in Illinois and Wisconsin to prevent the adoption of concealed carry laws, claiming there will be gunfights in the streets. 48 states have concealed carry laws, and there are no shootouts in the streets. People throughout the US own fully automatic weapons, and they haven’t been used in any mass killings. Your prediction is entirely unfounded in reality.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 3:05 PM
In an article in the 1983 Michigan Law Review, Don B. Kates, Jr. addressed the point Matthews is trying to make. Professor Kates proposed a triple test to determine whether a weapon can faily be considered one that the Second Amendment encompasses. Such a weapon must be 1) of the knd in common use among law-abiding people today; 2) useful and appropriate not just for military purposes, but also for law enforcement and individual self-defense, and 3) lineally descended for the kinds of weaponry known to the Founders. By such analysis, Kates notes, brass knuckles, switchblade knives, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. are excluded, that is, the government may prohibit these without running afoul of the Second Amendment. But the kind of arm Skip Coryell desires clearly IS protected from blanket prohibition by the Second Amendment.
radjah shelduck on April 20, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Additionally, jihadists already have access to bombs. People have made bombs in this country for years, despite their being illegal. Again, you’re ignoring history. That’s not a sufficient argument against the owning of heavy weapons or ordnance by the citizens any more than it’s a sufficient argument against the owning of small arms by citizens.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM
I would rather be free than safe.
The first ten Amendments enumerate a bill (or list) of rights, freedoms and liberties – not promises of government-provided safety or security.
And Matthews is a woman trapped in a man’s body and a Beta male of the highest order.
He has no concept of protecting himself and his family, but instead thinks that his money permits him to co-opt these responsibilities out.
Good for him, but I prefer to handle these obligations myself.
Ditto for making a living and providing for my health care and retirement.
And what is an SVD? What caliber of ammo does it shoot? Who manufactures them? Do they lend themselves to being tricked out? Are they fun to shoot?
I will be on the lookout for one, if it’s legal, at the next gun show.
molonlabe28 on April 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Anytime you read of or hear of a “poll” or “survey” or “questionnaire” of active duty military personnel I’d tack that with about a 10lb bag of salt.
Active duty military personnel are not allowed to be polled on anything that could be seen as political.
It’s that whole “Apolitical” thing.
DSchoen on April 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM
It’s a Russian made sniper rifle. It shoots 7.62. I’m not sure if they’re legal, but I doubt it.
Heralder on April 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Yes, they are. They’re only illegal to import. You can still buy, sell, and own them.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 3:32 PM
That’s interesting. Not to get off the subject, but if they are legal to own but not to import, does that mean that if you buy it abroad and take it back with you that it’s ok?
Heralder on April 20, 2010 at 3:39 PM
What a tool.
From the Obamalogic handbook:
I almost feel sorry for people who actually allow their brains to process such statements as principled and consistent.
Almost.
Bruce in NH on April 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Because these weapons are not legal, they are not easily accessible. Weapons dealers in the U.S. who sell weapons illegally cannot acquire these. Moreover the ATFE does a superb job monitoring and preventing such sales. Plain and simple, if you legalize such weapons, it won’t be such a hassle to obtain them. I don’t see what you don’t understand.
If only they had rocket launchers! Did you really just cite Kent State? The protestors who did not follow legal orders to disperse the crowd and attacked national guardsmen? If you disobey legal orders, and then attack municipal, state or federal authorities, you’re taking your life into your own hands.
Actually it wasn’t just the “Ryder Van” that blew up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building…it was mainly the ammonium nitrate mix that created the explosion and destruction. Exactly like a VBIED, a device/means you believe is legal to defend ourselves from tyranny. Civilians shouldn’t have bombs!
I’m not in favor of outlawing these weapons. I’m not inconsistent either. I believe Americans who meet certain criteria (i.e. mentally stable, no violent offenses, etc.) should be allowed to carry firearms. However, one does not need an RPG to protect oneself from a home invasion by a criminal. One does not need an RPG to remove an elected official who they deem “tyranical”…just vote! That being said, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to realize the potential danger it could cause if such a weapon were made legal. If these weapons are not needed by civilians, and they possess a potential threat (i.e. use by terrorists in the U.S.) why legalize them?
Exactly, because these weapons are not legal and not readily accessible thankfully. However to deny the possibility that these attacks would happen is ridiculous. Because they are illegal, they are not easy to obtain in the U.S. Let’s keep it that way. I have no problem with allowing individuals in cities to carry concealed firearms such as pistols. However, a rocket launcher? That’s a little insane.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 3:57 PM
These “thugs” you refer to…aren’t most of them felons? Funny how they still get ahold of automatic weaponry, seized in raids on a regular basis. It’s amazing what the inventories of many LAPD evidence rooms are like. Again, you’re ignoring the fact that they have access to all the weaponry they like regardless of its legality because they operate outside of the law, on the black market. You’re falling into the same trap, over and over, claiming that their being illegal prevents their misuse. The fact of the matter is that people who are going to create havoc already do, with whatever is at hand. If heavy weapons were legalized, they still wouldn’t use them any more than they use rifles to shoot up schools and military bases.
Unarmed students. You just defended United States Armed Forces shooting at unarmed students. Utterly unbelievable. You are nothing but a spoon-fed sycophant.
…which is legal. Fertilizer is legal. According to your logic, it should be outlawed. Waiting for you to follow through, pal.
Define mentally stable. Now you get to prevent people defending themselves if they’re on antidepressants? If they’ve been diagnosed as having bipolar syndrome? Wow. You really are in the authoritarian’s pocket.
For the tenth time, the Second Amendment clearly states that civilians do need these weapons in order to secure a free state. That amendment really bothers you, doesn’t it?
You’re making paranoid conclusions about what would happen if you arm the populace more. Those exact conclusions are used by anti-gun zealots time and again to argue for more gun control.
Anti-gun zealots regularly say that if you allow citizens to carry pistols, that cities will become war zones and shootouts will happen in the streets. Citizens carry pistols, cities are not war zones, and shootouts aren’t happening in the streets(well, except in Chicago, where guns are banned). You’re apparently against open carry as well, and against the carrying of long guns. You are in favor of your owning guns, and afraid of everyone else owning them. You are not pro-gun, sir. You are pro-you.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 4:09 PM
old trooper2 on April 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Listen buddy, let’s get a few things clear.
I said if you disobey lawful orders by municipal, state and federal authorities and attack then attack these authorities, you take your life into your own hands. That’s acting stupidly. Now I’m not saying what they did was right. However, I’m not going to pull an armchair general and make a judgment. I wouldn’t do it soldiers in Iraq/Afghansitan, and I won’t do it retroactively. Unless you were in those soldiers’ shoes, you resist the temptation to make a judgment. Spoon-fed sycophant? Ha.
There is nothing wrong with a fertilzer and nothing wrong with a van. However if you have a couple of truck bombs saved up for the day when you feel “government tyranny” has gone to far, then there is a problem with that.
I apologize if the fact that a “Schizo” with a firearm leaves me unsettled. Maybe you should wait for clarification before you jump to conclusions.
If that’s your interpretation of what the Second Amendment clearly states, why didn’t the Supreme Court make a ruling on the assault weapons ban during the 90s? As you are probably aware, the ban expired and was not declared unconstitutional.
I’m afraid of people owning RPGs, call me crazy. An RPG is not a pistol or a shotgun or a rifle or an assault rifle.
Anyway, this discussion has gone far enough. Good day to you.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Strawman much? Chris looks and acts like the nut he’s looking to find.
Sultry Beauty on April 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM
My father served in the military for over 25 years before he passed away. Although I’m assuming you don’t believe me, I’m not a complete fool regarding the proper “etiquette.” If you screw up, the proper response is “no excuse sir.” No explanation required. That being said, this is not a military forum. If this were, I would’ve just shut up and listened.
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Yes. Liberals hate people owning guns… until its their lives on the line.
The most common time this becomes obvious is when a woman makes an enemy of a crazy person.
The police can’t arrest a person just because they’re evil and are probably going to kill a victim.
So it’s a rude awakening when the potential victim learns that her options are:
1. Build a fortress that will delay “crazy man” until the police can arrive.
This option is usually not viable, as the woman is generally single, or has children, and can not afford to turn her rowhome into a fortress for $40,000
2. Move next door to a police station. This is possible, but unlikely due to the fact that most pwople need months to execute a realestate transfer.
3. Go into hiding. There is an opportunity to hide at an undisclosed location, however this is easy to oversome if the “crazy man” is patient and simply keeps an eye on her place of work.
4. Hire a bodyguard: Like building a fortress: $$$$
5. Purchase a $400 handgun and ammunition, and protect yourself.
Finally, the last, the ONLY legitimate option that the woman has. That is usually the turning point for the average liberal attorney or college girl who hated guns until it became the only protection she can afford.
My sister has a beautiful Smith & Wesson 7 shot .357/.38 revolver that should anyone break in her house… is gonna wish they hadn’t.
When you deny people firearms, then they are left to the force of their arms.
Do you want a nation where every person has an equal right and capability to protect themselves, or do you want a country where only the strong prevail?
A Country where a 4’7″ 125 pound single mother can fend off a rapist with her firearm, or a country where the 6′ 250 pound rapist has his way with an unarmed victim.
Jones Zemkophill on April 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM
So you’re saying the students at Kent State were asking to get shot. That’s marvelous. Again, glad to see you have all faith in the government never to be tyrannical, that you think all soldiers will obey any order given to them, and that grass is red. I love our soldiers, but there’s always the occasional talking robot. I remember one such that I talked with back in the mid-90s, who got angry that I would dare dispute his claim that everyone at Waco who died was killed by David Koresh, and that he set the fire, and that the government did nothing wrong. I get the feeling the two of you would get along swimmingly.
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Madison Conservative –
Is the SVD the sniper rifle which is commonly known as the Dragunov and which shoots the 7.62 x 54 and comes with the nice scope?
The Roumanian ones sell for around $750 – $800 and look quite attractive.
Can I infer from your nom de guerre that you are a member of the Federalist Society (as I am)?
molonlabe28 on April 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Dude. I never said of the things you just listed. Those are all ridiculous things. I said I wouldn’t judge them because I wasn’t there, and it wasn’t my life that was in danger. I also said that it was stupid to attack authorities who are carrying out lawful orders (i.e. crowd dispersal). Please stop drawing false conclusions. One cannot have a civil discussion under such conditions. That being said, I’m not some government automaton and I’m not a “government apologist.”
Shock the Monkey on April 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM
The word “Dragunov” has actually been applied to a number of weapons in the modern market, but the original was the SVD 7.62 Soviet Sniper, yes. Was the replacement for the Mosin-Nagant, and I can’t imagine the kick was any worse.
You can infer from my name that I live in Madison, Wisconsin, yet am a conservative. Common mistake. ;)
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Never would have guessed.
Rightwingguy on April 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Actually after having fired the Mosin-Nagant, I had to nurse my battered shoulder back to health for a couple of days.
Rightwingguy on April 20, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Chris Matthews is scum of course, but objectively looking at the video, he comes off as a total douchebag by his interrogation of an ordinary citizen. And it doesn’t seem to bother Matthews. I would propose his actions to be the penultimate elistist behavior.
WordsMatter on April 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM
How do you know? Are you a psychic that knows for a fact what type of weapon I may need to defend my family in the future?
I’m just busting your chops Ed, but the point is that I have a constitutional guarantee that the government cannot take that choice away from me. PERIOD.
I have enough weaponry and ammunition in my home right now that could take out an entire single family home, but for some reason all the homes around me are still standing. If I had a bazooka and a tank, they would still be standing.
csdeven on April 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM
The poll was done at 29 Palms (Marines) by an Navy officer in support of his Master’s Thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School. The name of the officer is given in the comment I reference. Perhaps the question was not seen as political by the base commander.
unclesmrgol on April 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM
I’m sure not for any lack of trying.
unclesmrgol on April 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM
csdeven and MadisonConservative have to be my favorite posters :)
Conservative Voice on April 20, 2010 at 6:46 PM
I’ll keep that in mind whenever there’s any question about the limits of the First Amendment.
You’re missing the point (either naively or purposely). Instead of asking him why he feels his rights are being violated by being restricted to ANY possession of a firearm, he goes straight to the extreme. A disingenuous argument if there ever was one that does not attempt to provoke any real discussion.
ajsleepy on April 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM
A proponent of the right to bear arms ought to be able to explain what that right means. We’re only discussing this because the fellow being interviewed couldn’t even state his position. Matthews asked what he did for slanted reasons but it’s a perfectly fine question.
SlimyBill on April 20, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Matthew’s question about “a million people in Washington, all armed” implies that he feels that Mr. Coryell should be afraid of that scenario. But only a person who believed that those people, if given a weapon, would spontaneously begin shooting each other, would be afraid in that situation.
By asking the question, Matthews shows his contempt and extremely low opinion of the citizens of Washington.
29Victor on April 21, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Thanks, Ed. The right to keep and bear arms is the power that secures all other rights.
And if D’rats disagree, try and come get them. You have done so well with actual criminals and other illegal gun owners that I have no fear you can find a peaceful owner. Incompetence is your name.
Caststeel on April 21, 2010 at 1:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2