Aurora victim’s brother to MSNBC host: Why, no, I don’t want to talk about gun control

posted at 6:42 pm on July 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, we’re late to this but it’s still a must-post, simply because it’s one of the great narrative derailments you’ll ever see on cable. If ever there was a dynamic primed for a gun control cri de coeur, it’s DNC TV nudging a relative of one of the shooting victims while he’s still grieving. No one would have faulted him for responding emotionally; instead, he came back at them with this. His composure and insistence on sticking to principle under the circumstances are remarkable.

HuffPo is wondering when/whether The One might follow his M.O. on gay marriage and “evolve” on gun control by re-embracing a position he held in the mid-90s. In a sense, that’d be in keeping with his overall campaign strategy: He’s given up on white working-class voters, more or less, and is playing chiefly to his liberal base now, so why not throw them some invigorating red meat by calling for a new assault-weapons ban or whatever? The difference between this and SSM, I think, is that when he “evolved” on gay marriage, he was falling into line with virtually the entirety of his party. If he “evolved” now on gun control, by contrast, he’d be cross-wise with all sorts of purple-state Dems, and then the storyline would quickly shift from “Obama pushes new gun regulations” to “Democrats abandoning WH on new gun push.” Even Chuck Schumer, who once chaired the DSCC, is going around telling the media that new gun-control measures are a nonstarter. O cares about Michigan and Pennsylvania and Virginia, not MSNBC, and he knows that liberals will forgive him for this in the name of victory (just as they would have if he had kept up his embarrassing SSM charade). Gun control, like his trip to Israel, is something that can wait for his second term, if only as a rhetorical bludgeon against a Republican Congress.

Exit question: Why have gun sales soared in Colorado over the last few days? It’s tempting to think that people are scrambling to protect themselves from the James Holmeses of the world, but I think Mark Hemingway’s explanation is far more likely.

Update: You don’t say.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

If U.S. government did decide to attack its own people, I am quite confident that facing the armed populace wouldn’t be their only concern. I would think many people in the U.S. Military would quit and defect to the populace and take as much guns and ammo as they could before leaving.

Conservative Samizdat on July 25, 2012 at 12:24 AM

No, the best weapon is an armed populace. Relying on someone else’s goodwill in all situations isn’t a weapon – it’s stupidity.

blink on July 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I just don’t believe they would turn against their own countrymen and slaughter millions.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I’ll take my ar over your incredulity any day of the week.

tom daschle concerned on July 25, 2012 at 12:17 AM

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons. But like I said, this is a hypothetical situation, so really its hard to prove anything. Have a good night.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Can’t we all just get a little body amour?

Kenosha Kid on July 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM

I picked up a Para 1911 in March. Holding it in my hands felt right so I bought it.

Eprider on July 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I remember when they first came out: I was still carrying a 220 for some assignments while for others I used my 1911A1.

Now I love them both, but being limited to less than 10 rounds, even when i used extended magazines, was a pain in the butt. But man, when Para came out with a double stack AND in .45 pistol that wasn’t overpriced? Hell Yeah!

But i still have my Colt & Sig…I may get the Para someday soon, but I’m more looking forward to saving for a good general rifle with a few aftermarket goodies thrown in….hehehehe

BlaxPac on July 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM

With extra Slip2000 please!

Kenosha Kid on July 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM

HA happens to pick the one misguided guy amongst 10 others who strongly disagree with his opinion. While we are at it, why don’t we start selling guns to repeated bank robbers? Why don’t we sell them to the mentally ill? Hell we should sell them to know drug dealers too.

Uppereastside on July 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM

the overlapping post titles under ‘latest’ look phenomenal. the screaming dude had to go for this?

sesquipedalian on July 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Indecent azzes, both of you!

Schadenfreude on July 25, 2012 at 12:50 AM

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons. But like I said, this is a hypothetical situation, so really its hard to prove anything. Have a good night.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Now you have gone beyond silly to just plain desperate.

Its true that small arms won’t help with a nuclear blast but as Mad Max showed us, it really helps in the aftermath of those nuclear fires, particularly when the Lord Humungus, the warrior of the wasteland, the ayatollah of rock-and-rollah tries to take your fuel.

sharrukin on July 25, 2012 at 12:54 AM

What happened to all the ever loving trolls that are proclaiming our gun days are numbered? Shouldn’t they be here describing how the disarming of America is going to occur?

hawkdriver on July 24, 2012 at 9:01 PM

All the two faced liberal dolts will lead by example, starting with Feinstein (CC permit) and Hollywood communists (Spielberg, Katzenberg, DiCaprio, etc., you know, all the anti-gun people) will publicly surrender their guns and CC permits and then commit group sepuku, televised by MSLSD.

Oh wait, MS didn’t want anything to do with the balanced reporting on MSLSD, so it will be just LSD network televising the proceedings.

riddick on July 25, 2012 at 12:56 AM

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons. But like I said, this is a hypothetical situation, so really its hard to prove anything. Have a good night.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Why are you assuming that Manchurian will even be given a chance to get near the briefcase? Even Secret Service is not that stupid.

riddick on July 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Are you talking about the SPAS-12 or 15, Roger?…
 
BlaxPac on July 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

 
Ah, thanks. I’d forgotten the name/acronym. Looks like the 12. I never heard about the 15, so I’m going to tuck that away for future reading.

rogerb on July 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM

While we are at it, why don’t we start selling guns to repeated bank robbers? Why don’t we sell them to the mentally ill? Hell we should sell them to know drug dealers too.

Uppereastside on July 24, 2012 at 6:57 PM

And idiot liberals are at it again having absolutely no idea on the subject of liberals and guns.

Giffords shooter? Registered DEMOCRAT.

CO shooter? Registered DEMOCRAT.

BTW, do you know THE most famous bank robber in history? Yep, a fine example of that progressive liberal arm of Communist Party, Josef Dzhugashviili himself. Nice career move, quick progression from robbing banks for a living to ordering mass slaughter of 43 MILLION people, not counting another 23 MILLION who died due to his “belief” in Hitler. Just in USSR alone.

But who’s counting, what’s 65 MILLION lives between friends…

One hugely major difference between conservatives buying guns and liberals? First group buys guns to protect themselves, latter to assault others.

riddick on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 AM

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons. But like I said, this is a hypothetical situation, so really its hard to prove anything. Have a good night.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Staggering…

tom daschle concerned on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 AM

I also reject the argument of gun owners needing semi auto weapons… A pistol or shotgun works just fine as a deterrent and last resort weapon.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

 

Good for you for sticking with your position anyway.

Obama 2012!!/!

rogerb on July 24, 2012 at 9:57 PM

 

if you don’t know what semi-automatic means, you can’t make an effective argument.

Rusty Allen on July 24, 2012 at 9:46 PM

 
Fair enough…

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM

 
And then:
 

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

 
For the win. Hilarious.
 
Again, good for you for sticking to your position while having
1) two completely contradictory positions and
2) little to no knowledge of a topic.
 
That the discussion seemed to have done nothing to trigger self-reflection on a rigidly-held ideology?
 
Obama 2012!!/!

rogerb on July 25, 2012 at 6:09 AM

Aurora victim’s brother to MSNBC host: Why, no, I don’t want to talk about gun control

SLAM JAM !!

At least this MSNBC talking-head (have no clue who he is, don’t care) didn’t pursue the matter of “gun control” after he was slam-jammed and totally out-intellectually-classed by the Aurora victim’s brother.

MSNBC Blockhead “Crazy” Ed Schultz probably would have had a meltdown tantrum and swung at the guy…

BigSven on July 25, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I also reject the argument of gun owners needing semi auto weapons… A pistol or shotgun works just fine as a deterrent and last resort weapon.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Just a wild-ass guess here, Ric, but I’m thinking you’d let the government decide the definition of “need”.

Extrafishy on July 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM

AP, Could you play more of the clip so we can here about his sister? That was the point of his response. Thanks.

dddave on July 25, 2012 at 7:55 AM

I also reject the argument of gun owners needing semi auto weapons… A pistol or shotgun works just fine as a deterrent and last resort weapon.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Ric,

Don’t you worry. Just call 911 if someone’s breaking in your house and f*&%s your daughter in front of you. They respond quicky… that is if they aren’t at a union meeting, they aren’t on break, they aren’t on security detail for our one of our ruling elite or they are out writing traffic tickets. Obviously those duties take precendence over your safety but surely you can understand that?

Kind of like why obamacare is so great. However, it does exempt mein fuhrer, michelle, congress, senators and all their families.

You are the type of bufoon chump that lived outside Auschwitz and “never had an inkling” that people were being killed. You would have thought it was just a homeless shelter just like the government elite told you. You’ve learned you government school lessons less. You and uppereastside are the perfect lemming.

acyl72 on July 25, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Again, good for you for sticking to your position while having
1) two completely contradictory positions and
2) little to no knowledge of a topic.

That the discussion seemed to have done nothing to trigger self-reflection on a rigidly-held ideology?

Obama 2012!!/!

rogerb on July 25, 2012 at 6:09 AM

There is a distinct difference between a war against a sovereign power and quelling an insurgency as the sovereign power. After several weeks the US military smashed Iraq’s military and became the controlling power. Then spent several years rebuilding Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. Although the insurgency was costly in terms of lives and money, there was never any hope of military victory for the rebels. The insurgents arsenal of IEDs and small arms were ineffective against the U.S. military. I will concede that writing small arms would be totally ineffective was inaccurate. It would be more accurate to write that small arms would just be ineffective.

Going back to the hypothetical scenario of a military coup in the US. In a country as vast as ours there would be pockets of resistance that would hold out for several months or longer after the US military took control, but they would be ineffective.How would gun owners, most with no military training, no central hierarchy or command, no navy, no airforce, no communications, no manufacturing, possibly hope to achieve victory against the greatest military force in the history of the world? Its just not realistic.

You said “conquer” not obliterate.

Here’s what you wrote:

As for all of the arguments that the U.S. military couldn’t conquer America I’m afraid where just going to have to agree to disagree.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM

You seem to forgot that America conquered Japan and didn’t obliterate it during world war II with the use of nuclear weapons.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Are you advocating that the Federal Government seize the weapons of law-abiding citizens, or place laws so restrictive that it will be inplossible to own one?

You do know what the word “outlaw” means, don’t you?

kingsjester on July 25, 2012 at 8:44 AM

So that the government will always live in fear of the outrage of its own people.

sharrukin on July 24, 2012 at 7:03 PM

This

Nathan_OH on July 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Regarding the need of semi automatic weapons for Government Tyranny. Totally ineffective. A well ordered militia might have been a somewhat effect deterrent in the later 1700′s and early 1800′s but in today modern era small arms would be almost useless resisting the modern military. A hastily gathered militia could not stands against tanks, artillery, planes, air craft carriers ect.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Wrong. Google “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”.
Also, see “Army Rangers + Somalia” (But I’ll admit the scumbags had alot of help from the United Nations)

I also reject the argument of gun owners needing semi auto weapons to defend themselves against criminals. A pistol or shotgun works just fine as a deterrent and last resort weapon.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

And I reject your argument that ownership of certain types of firearms is based on “need” rather than my having the legal and Constitutional Right to own them. My Bushmaster AR-15 is a shooting sport weapon, not that it’s any of your g-damn business.

As for hunting animals, there unarmed. If your not skilled enough to protect yourself from an animal your hunting with a shotgun, pistol, or rifle you shouldn’t be hunting.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM

It’s not legal to hunt animals with an AR-15, therefore hunters have no choice but to hunt and protect themselves with shotguns, pistols, or rifles. Silly boy.

Pale Rider on July 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Memo to fat, condescending, kind of black, liberal talking head, who believes conservatives use ‘racial code words’ that don’t exist….

NEVER interview someone who is far smarter and adept than YOU claim to be!

It reveals to the world what a bigoted a$$hole you are.

Jack Deth on July 25, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I was watching this great series on HBO called THE NEWSROOM and I think in the episode before last the fictional journalist was calling out the right wing media for constantly pushin a memo that “Obama wants to take your guns” while highlighting Obamas actual record and showing how Obama hasnt once tried to restrict gun rights. It was a interesting scene.

It’s sad when fictional T.V. is more accurate then people who call themselves real life journalist.

-__-

Politricks on July 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

rogerb on July 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM

I owned a SPAS-12 once. It was just too much for a shotgun. I loved the switchability between semi-auto and manual. But it was just this huge monstrosity and weighed a ton. Mossberg pump 12ga now. Much quicker into action, if necessary, though a little less scary when confronting someone in the light. ;)

GWB on July 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I was watching this great series on HBO called THE NEWSROOM and I think in the episode before last the fictional journalist was calling out the right wing media for constantly pushin a memo that “Obama wants to take your guns” while highlighting Obamas actual record and showing how Obama hasnt once tried to restrict gun rights. It was a interesting scene.

Politricks on July 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Yes, yes, very interesting indeed. In fact, I would venture to say that Obama is so pro-gun that he’s been totally cool with Mexican drug cartels purchasing weapons in the United States in bulk and using them to commit over 300 murders.

The idea that someone thinks Obama is a gun-grabber is absolutely preposterous!

[Monacle falls out of eye, breaks on the floor]

Damn, that’s the third monacle this week…

Pale Rider on July 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM

No, the best weapon is an armed populace. Relying on someone else’s goodwill in all situations isn’t a weapon – it’s stupidity.

blink on July 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I just don’t believe they would turn against their own countrymen and slaughter millions.

Ric on July 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I’ll take my ar over your incredulity any day of the week.

tom daschle concerned on July 25, 2012 at 12:17 AM

An armed populace could do precious little against nuclear weapons. But like I said, this is a hypothetical situation, so really its hard to prove anything. Have a good night.

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Kent State: May 4, 1970

jaydee_007 on July 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Damn, that’s the third monacle this week…

Pale Rider on July 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM

You’ve got way more tolerance than most, I started laughing as soon as I got to “HBO”…

riddick on July 25, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Politricks on July 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Oh to be 21 again…

tom daschle concerned on July 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Sure looks like this guy sure dunked that liberal asshole commentator into the crapper. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer jackass.

logicman_1998 on July 25, 2012 at 5:38 PM

That was the best backhanded slap I’ve ever seen against the MSM and their need to sensationalize (and these days, to politicize) tragedies like Aurora. Well done, Mr. Ghawi, and condolences for your terrible loss.

RebeccaH on July 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM

That was the best backhanded slap I’ve ever seen against the MSM and their need to sensationalize (and these days, to politicize) tragedies like Aurora. Well done, Mr. Ghawi, and condolences for your terrible loss.

RebeccaH on July 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I agree…..best I have seen since Rocky Balboa knocked out Clubber Lang in Rocky III

logicman_1998 on July 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM

A water truck and a vinegar truck hit. The sound?

DOUCHE!

MSNBC needs to break out the mopps and buckets after that interview.

Well said sir, and blessings of peace upon you, your family, and friends of your sister.

Molonlabe2004 on July 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Errr… I know your sister hasn’t been buried yet – but hey – let’s politicize this tragedy!!!

Nail meets hammer.

Hill60 on July 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Ric on July 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

 
Wow. That sure is a lot of explaining. Reminds me a bit of a specific current event, really.
 
First rule of holes, btw.
 
Old/busted:
 

more bloodshed in the longterm if the US stayed in the region… It wasn’t unreasonable for opponents of the war to be skeptical that Iraq was going to turn around if given more time.
 
Ric on October 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM

 
New hotness:
 

The insurgents arsenal of IEDs and small arms were ineffective against the U.S. military…
 
Ric on July 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

 
you didn’t build that
 

It’s just not realistic
 
Ric on July 25, 2012 at 8:40 AM

rogerb on July 25, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3