Harry Reid in 2010: “I carried a gun with me everywhere I went”; Update: Feinstein in 1995, too

posted at 11:21 am on December 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How would a politician who argued today that guns “bring us together” and gave personal testimony to using handguns for personal protection be greeted by Democrats like Harry Reid?  Why not ask Reid himself — or at least the 2010 version of Harry Reid, discovered by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski?  Appearing with then-NRA VP Wayne LaPierre at an opening of a shooting park in Clark County, Nevada, Reid fondly recalled the days of sport shooting with his three brothers, and how Reid protected himself against “a lot of bad people” while serving on the Nevada Gaming Commission:

At the time, Reid opposed the renewal of the so-called “assault weapons” ban.  It probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere that year anyway, since Republicans controlled the Senate and George W. Bush was in the White House.  However, Reid’s opposition undercut any serious effort on the part of Democrats that year to keep the law in force.

Now, of course, Reid isevolving on the issue, but Reid’s own personal experiences are just as relevant today as in 2004.

Meanwhile, National Journal reports that there seems to be some bipartisan consensus on restrictions of magazines and background checks that could result in legislation:

In an incredibly divided Congress, it seems ridiculous to assume lawmakers would focus on policy before politics. (For Exhibit A of political gamesmanship, look at the back and forth on a fiscal-cliff deal on Tuesday.) But on guns, it turns out there is a lot of rational agreement among even gun enthusiasts about trying to protect innocent people from being killed by them.

New rules being tossed around by lawmakers include banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time, and tightening up background checks for gun purchases. Existing gun laws could also be enforced with greater regularity, such as compelling or enticing states to do a better job of reporting red flags like drug abuse or domestic violence to a national crime database.

“Obviously that system is only going to be as effective as the completeness of the data,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supports banning high-capacity magazine clips and renewing the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Collins identified the background-check system as one of the ripest areas where Republicans and Democrats and pro-gun and antigun members can find common ground. “That may not be as easy as you think. The issue is, how do you compel states to share the information about mental illness, adjudications, while at the same time being sensitive to the privacy rights of the individuals? So those issues are complicated.”

Typically, background checks include waivers on records privacy.  The HIPAA laws on medical records may complicate this, though, and the push to get better mental-illness reporting might keep more people from seeking help for those afflictions.  Still, the NRA and most other gun groups support background checks as long as they aren’t used to unfairly deny Americans the right to purchase firearms.

The “magazine clips” issue is another story, though.  First, I’ve heard of “magazines” and “clips,” but not “magazine clips.”  Assuming that we’re talking about restrictions on high-capacity magazinesand clips, that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves, even though there isn’t any evidence that restricting sales to 10-round magazines for semiautomatic weapons will reduce the number of victims of madmen, especially if no one is armed when the gunman has to switch magazines.

Lindsey Graham’s response is on point:

“Here’s the temptation of people in my business to react and say we did something. Well, at the end of the day there are some problems that just go beyond the government’s ability to solve,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

An assault-weapons ban? “I don’t feel like that’s going to stop anything,” Graham said. “We live in a dangerous world. It’s always been that way, and you just can’t have the government solve every problem.”

The “assault”-weapons ban didn’t solve the problem when it was in place, and wouldn’t have applied in the Newtown shooting anyway.  Connecticut had its own “assault”-weapons ban in place.  The issue isn’t the guns; it’s the shooter.  Harry Reid would have told you that if you asked him, at least in 2010.

Update: MRC TV has a clip from 1995 in which Reid’s Senate colleague Dianne Feinstein explains why she felt safer with a gun, too:

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

To be fair, though, it sounds as if she was about to argue the opposite as the clip ends in bringing up “terrorism from the far extremist left, and terrorism from the far extremist right.”  Still, both of these Senators felt free to arm themselves when threatened; will they recall that when debating how to disarm the rest of us?

Update II: The Right Newz says he found the video, and in any case, this took place in 2010, not 2004.  I’ve fixed the headline and references within the post.


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

“Guns for me, but not for thee.”

Regards,

Harry Reid

Pale Rider on December 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I hope this videoclip is part of NRA’s press conference later this week.

BuckeyeSam on December 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Reid protected himself against “a lot of bad people”

Translation: a few lawful citizens wanted to string the weasel up from the nearest tree, likely for very good reasons.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Yeah, but you have to understand that Harry Reid is an important public figure and has to protect himself from “a lot of bad people”. You peon masses out there have nothing to fear. You can always call the cops(and BTW, we need to pass another jobs bill to hire more of them).

Doughboy on December 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM

But everything is different now – Dingy Harry can now afford to hire armed security – so that means none of us need our own guns any more either.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM

“banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time”

What?

AcidReflux on December 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Yeah, but you have to understand that Harry Reid is an important public figure and has to protect himself from “a lot of bad people”. You peon masses out there have nothing to fear. You can always call the cops(and BTW, we need to pass another jobs bill to hire more of them).

Doughboy on December 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Well, the basic premise really is that us peons are just not valuable enough to be worth defending – as compared to Harry.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM

He’ll say everything is different now. He’ll say Sandy Hook has changed all of that. The media will love it. The gun grab will go on. Reid will be leading the way.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Silly conservative….guns are for dems and the Government (as long as the government is controlled by dems).

Tim_CA on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Harry Reid in 2004: “I carried a gun with me everywhere I went”

I’d be willing to bet it was a semi-auto too.

Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM

“banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time”

What?

AcidReflux on December 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Would those be the same as loonny Nanzi’s “assault magazines”?

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM

He’ll say everything is different now. He’ll say Sandy Hook has changed all of that. The media will love it. The gun grab will go on. Reid will be leading the way.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I wouldn’t bet on that. The ability to defend yourself is something Mormon’s especially hold dear given their history.

Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM

OT/ Uncle Sam Books 50% Loss As Government Motors Buys Back 200MM Shares From Tim Geithner

A few days after divesting its stake in the firm that started it all, AIG, and at a profit at that (ignoring that the risk has merely been onboarded by the Fed whose DV01 is now $2+ billion as a result), the US Treasury continues to divest of all its bailout stake, this time proceeding to GM, where the channel stuffing firm just announced it would buyback 200MM shares from the US government at a price of $27.50. More importantly, the “Treasury said it intends to sell its other remaining 300.1 million shares through various means in an orderly fashion within the next 12-15 months, subject to market conditions. Treasury intends to begin its disposition of those 300.1 million common shares as soon as January 2013 pursuant to a pre-arranged written trading plan. The manner, amount, and timing of the sales under the plan are dependent upon a number of factors.” Assuming a price in the $27.50 range, this implies a nearly 50% loss on the government’s breakeven price of $54. So much for the “profit” spin. One hopes all those Union votes were well worth the now booked $40+ billion cost to all taxpayers.

One wonders why the US government did not open up this particular buyback to a public tender: after all some taxpayers may still care about the financial mismanagement of Uncle Sam. Then again, perhaps not.
—————————————-

Who expects our government to act in the interests of its citizens? It’s always political. It’s always about their careers and ability to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I wouldn’t bet on that. The ability to defend yourself is something Mormon’s especially hold dear given their history.

Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM

He won’t defy his master.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Ever notice how many of these lefty loons who would snatch our guns away, walk around with a group of bodyguards that are armed?

ChicagoBlues on December 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

it seems ridiculous to assume lawmakers would focus on policy before politics

Hey, dummies! Policy is politics!

GWB on December 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Nancy Reid: Far left demagogic hypocrite.

locomotivebreath1901 on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

“That may not be as easy as you think. The issue is, how do you compel states to share the information about mental illness, adjudications, while at the same time being sensitive to the privacy rights of the individuals? So those issues are complicated.”

So they’ll opt out and choose the simple solution. Ban the gun and the magazine. Problem solved. Until next time.

GarandFan on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves

I think not.

FMCDH

SirGawain on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Ever notice how many of these lefty loons who would snatch our guns away, walk around with a group of bodyguards that are armed?

ChicagoBlues on December 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

ALL of them. If you can’t afford hired (or government provided) armed security you’re not worth defending – or worth being allowed self-defense.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Oh, and on topic…. Reid is a lying POS.

I would like to think this discussion will fade the way they allowed Benghazi and F&F to disappear. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of incentive for the liberals to pursue this….. never let a crisis pass without using it for political gain.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

la la la, i can’t hear you….ban assault weapons now
-lsm

cmsinaz on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Say, when do all the cable channels start running The American President nonstop so that we can see that scene where the president, played by Michael Douglas, says he’s “going to go door to door” if he has to “get the guns”?

BuckeyeSam on December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Who let that zombie hold a press conference?

See, this is why I say we need to train 2 hours every day to prevent this sort of thing.

Gatsu on December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I wouldn’t bet on that. The ability to defend yourself is something Mormon’s especially hold dear given their history.

Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM

dunno….you’re assuming Reid is a devout Mormon.

This is a guy who regularly breaks at least 5 of the 10 commandments.

This sour old hack worships power and position and lacks any true empathy.

Tim_CA on December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Say, when do all the cable channels start running The American President nonstop so that we can see that scene where the president, played by Michael Douglas, says he’s “going to go door to door” if he has to “get the guns”?

BuckeyeSam on December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Does TNT no longer run that movie 10 times a week like they used to? BTW, Michael Douglas says he’s gonna get the guns right after berating his opponent for refusing to defend the Bill of Rights.

Doughboy on December 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I would like to think this discussion will fade the way they allowed Benghazi and F&F to disappear. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of incentive for the liberals to pursue this….. never let a crisis pass without using it for political gain.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The difference between this one and Benghazi or F&F is the Dems themselves are not the ones (directly) caught red handed doing something wrong, and therefore having to play defense. (ya their policies led to this, but that’s not how they see it)
THIS crisis allows the Dems to go on the offensive to force more of their crap policies through.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Only law enforcement are professional enough to carry weapons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmRN00KbCr8

Pale Rider on December 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Celebrities can afford to infringe on your rights. They’ve got it covered as they ask you to surrender yours.

Don’t mess with them.

Share what we talk about here. Repost the links and articles.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:41 AM

New rules being tossed around by lawmakers include banning high-capacity magazine clips

They is no such thing as a ‘high-capacity magazine clip’! They called MAGAZINES! THAT IS IT! A clip holds the ammunition for loading, it was used in the old guns and pushed into the gun to load, but not since they invented something that holds more capacity. The only ‘clips’ that are used today are simply stripper clips that were also used to load older guns. Now, they just load the magazines.

Hey media and congress, learn the difference!

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM

In that 1995 movie “Casino” Dick Smothers played Harry Reid…a lapdog of organized crime.

If Reid were younger, not a member of Congress, lived in South Central, he’d be a gangsta…cultural imperative and all that.

Were it not for the Mob, Reid would be out in Searchlight, Nevada as a gate guard at a local brothel…not in the Senate.

But, the two-faced lying bast*rd Reid has the gall to tell Americans that guns need to be taken off the streets?

OK, Harry, why don’t you go visit Obama’s old neighborhood where Obama got his “community organizer” chops.

Or walk down Balzar Avenue in Vegas, or Mojave Road, unarmed after four in the afternoon.

Uarmed.

You are their Senator, they all love you.

When you recover, and are medically able, get back to us, OK?

As for an “assault weapons” ban, until Congress, the media, and most Americans wrap their small minds around what is actually an assault weapon and what is not…maybe they should concentrate on things they actually know about?

Since doing their Constitutional mandated job hasn’t been a priority for them in quite a while, and there aren’t a lot of new post offices needing to be named,Congress could take a long vacation.

As for the media?

Ever since journalism was replaced by advocacy several decades ago, what news media? It is all televised entertainment, and should be generally viewed as such.

And most Americans?

Well, Obama got elected. Again.

Sorta says it all about that.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Here we go:

Pictured: Astonishing arsenal of guns collected by cops in buyback program in America’s deadliest city

Massive response attributed to Friday’s killings in Newtown, Connecticut
Those who showed up at Camden, New Jersey program were given up to $250 per weapon sold
Camden is known as one of the most violent American city, with a staggering murder and violent crime rate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250233/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Buyback-program-Camden-New-Jersey-collects-record-number-guns.html#ixzz2FW6zhFgg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
——————————————

In a few months we’ll probably hear people expressing regrets for selling their guns.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

dunno….you’re assuming Reid is a devout Mormon.

This is a guy who regularly breaks at least 5 of the 10 commandments.

This sour old hack worships power and position and lacks any true empathy.

Tim_CA on December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM

It’s doesn’t have much to do with religion itself. But their history as a group of people. There are few Mormons who are not recent converts that don’t have a family history of persecution by the government. It’s cultural more than religious.

Rocks on December 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Celebrities can afford to infringe on your rights. They’ve got it covered as they ask you to surrender yours.
Don’t mess with them.
hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Ya – people like Patty LaBelle who regularly have their hired thugs beat up bystanders…. And the other lib hypocrits whining about guns, while their armed guards look on from the back….

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:48 AM

It has to be that he can afford to hire security or is given security by the us because it’s a lead pipe cinch that there are not less bad people. But, in his case, the “bad” people are Republicans and they aren’t likely to do him any physical harm anyway.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Time to locate phone + time to speed dial + time to answer + time to explain the need for help + time to dispatch + travel time + time to size up the situation = one helluva long time. I wonder, how much damage the reason you had to make that phone call could do in that amount of time?

Anyone want to bet that that reason you called wouldn’t have enough time?

Not me.

Limerick on December 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Assuming that we’re talking about restrictions on high-capacity magazinesand clips, that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves

Why should we resign ourselves to anything? This is war. There is nothing involved with the Sandy Hook slayings that would have been different had government been more restrictive on our Second Amendment rights. IMO, it is time to stand up and assert that our Constitutional rights are not meted out by government according the the headlines and whims of a bunch of socialists.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM

WTF is a “high capacity magazine clip”?

After decades of trying to disarm the public, the media still doesn’t know WTF they are talking about.

It’s one or the other, dipsticks.

And I’ve never seen a high cap clip. The ones I’m familiar with are the stripper clips used for loading M4 mags and those only hold ten rounds. The stripper clips I can use for my M1903A3 only hold five rounds.

Most people don’t even know what a ‘clip’ is.

catmman on December 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM

What the f**k is going on here? I know the GOP are quick to touch their toes and get rear-ended by the Liberals. But f**king hell, they don’t have to keep coming back for more.

Can’t believe am about to say this, but Lindsey Graham is the only one who seem to be making sense here.

HerneTheHunter on December 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Those who showed up at Camden, New Jersey program were given up to $250 per weapon sold
Camden is known as one of the most violent American city, with a staggering murder and violent crime rate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250233/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Buyback-program-Camden-New-Jersey-collects-record-number-guns.html#ixzz2FW6zhFgg
In a few months we’ll probably hear people expressing regrets for selling their guns.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

What I see in that photo is a lot of old wooden stock rifles (probably .22, pellet, maybe some other calibers) – and I’ll be nearly all of them are worth less than the $250 they got for turning them in.
I just bought a Marlin semi-auto .22 for $129. I’d be willing to turn it in for $250 – and go buy 2 more to replace the first one.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM

What I see in that photo is a lot of old wooden stock rifles (probably .22, pellet, maybe some other calibers) – and I’ll be nearly all of them are worth less than the $250 they got for turning them in.
I just bought a Marlin semi-auto .22 for $129. I’d be willing to turn it in for $250 – and go buy 2 more to replace the first one.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM

As one commenter on the DM website said they may be turning in those guns in order to upgrade. Makes sense to me.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I hope this videoclip is part of NRA’s press conference later this week.

BuckeyeSam on December 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM

You know what? Not one of the killers in any recent shooting spree was a member of the NRA. The Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt. And the filthy rat-eared bastard may be looking for ways to go after guns but I suspect he is going to find it harder than he thinks as the horror of Sandy Hook ebbs and stupid people stop thinking that government can ensure there are no future shooting sprees by simply restricting access to assault-style weapons (whatever the hell that means).

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM

“a lot of bad people” while serving on the Nevada Gaming Commission:

It appears the Tea Party started in Nevada, and earlier than we thought.

CorporatePiggy on December 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I just bought a Marlin semi-auto .22 for $129. I’d be willing to turn it in for $250 – and go buy 2 more to replace the first one.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM

At least you used the right terminology. If I hear one more gun-hating liberal talk about buy-back programs, I’m going to snap. As if the government sold the weapon to the owner in the first place.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

New rules being tossed around by lawmakers include banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time, and tightening up background checks for gun purchases. Existing gun laws could also be enforced with greater regularity, such as compelling or enticing states to do a better job of reporting red flags like drug abuse or domestic violence to a national crime database.

Just wow, they are aiming to tackle two “problems” that had absolutely nothing to do with Sandy Hook. He didn’t buy the guns, in fact he was denied purchase just days before and he didn’t use a magazine that holds 100 rounds. My god these people are absolute morons. Please Lord Jesus, come quickly. This daily stupidity exhibited by our “leaders” is unbearable.

jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Or they could be lib stupids (oops, redundant) who really think getting rid of their guns will prevent another mass killing.

But I certainly like the upgrade theory better.

mrsknightley on December 19, 2012 at 11:59 AM

As one commenter on the DM website said they may be turning in those guns in order to upgrade. Makes sense to me.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Hell ya – that’s what I’d do. I bought the Marlin because it was cheap. With $250 in had I could buy a better Ruger 10/22 with scope. Or with the $250, I’m halfway to another 9 mm handgun.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Walked into a gun store last night, the store always has a solid supply of everything…

All gone but some antique firearms and measly .22′s…

PatriotRider on December 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

GOP: Senator Reid has evolved on the issue.

Mr. Arrogant on December 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I live about 5 miles from that park. Me and mine are there about once a month.

VegasRick on December 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

At least you used the right terminology. If I hear one more gun-hating liberal talk about buy-back programs, I’m going to snap. As if the government sold the weapon to the owner in the first place.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

They’re nothing more than lib feel-good and tax money redistribution schemes. But if they’re going to waste my tax money like that, I’ll be happy take a piece of the action and sell them some worthless piece of junk so I can upgrade to a better weapon.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM

THEY deserve protection, WE, not so much.

Pork-Chop on December 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Hasn’t anyone told these people that the overall murder rate is down by nearly half from the 1990′s and that there is no increase in incidence of mass shootings since 1976?

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Reid carried a gun back then to protect himself from ‘a lot of bad people’. Today he wants to disarm the citizenry because he has to protect himself from a lot of good people.

ghostwalker1 on December 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Hasn’t anyone told these people that the overall murder rate is down by nearly half from the 1990′s and that there is no increase in incidence of mass shootings since 1976?

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM

And mass shootings did not go down during the last AWB. Columbine was in the middle of the last AWB.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

“It’s different when we do it.”

Good Lt on December 19, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Obama now climbing up on the bodies of dead children to join his fellow gun-banners. Promoting new gun control regs in presser.

novaculus on December 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Whither the trolls?

CurtZHP on December 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM

And mass shootings did not go down during the last AWB. Columbine was in the middle of the last AWB.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

That’s because most mass killings in the US are committed with handguns.

Seven myths of mass murder: http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/seven-myths-of-mass-murder/

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The internet has made it so convenient to catch liberals in their hypocrisy. I’m sure glad Al Gore invented it.

Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Anyone who is watching this press conference would take away this from the Obama administration: “Now that I have a second term, we’re coming for your guns. We’ll propose draconian legislation we know won’t pass, and then I’ll pass gun control by diktat. And my allies in the media, ala Goebbels, will demonize anyone who opposes the seizure we’re planning.”

BigFluffyClouds on December 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Michael Moore on Gun Control.

Michael Moore on Bobyguards.

I don’t really like to talk about it publicly, because I don’t want to encourage, you know, nuts, but eventually, it got up to nine bodyguards on me, three per shift, twenty-four hours a day, living with us.”

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The NRA refused to endorse Angle in the Reid/Angle race of 2010 because of their love affair with Reid. But they knew if they had endorsed Reid their would have been a revolt. Although in hindsight it looks to have been the right move given how the GOP and the Tea Party have failed miserably in their efforts to take back the Senate, even with the numbers in their favor the last two election cycles. Anyways, let’s see what the NRA gets in return for that (non)endorsement.

ncconservative on December 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM

These fools don’t care what’s right, wrong or logical . . . they only care about those things that further their perverted political and personal agendas.

rplat on December 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The internet has made it so convenient to catch liberals in their hypocrisy. I’m sure glad Al Gore invented it.

Bitter Clinger on December 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I didn’t know algore invented hypocrisy….
But I don’t doubt it……

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Normally Dingy Harry can smell the stench from the unelected peons far before they are within any range of doing harm.

Dianne Feinstein’s hair is actually an anti-crime deterrence and umbrella.

trs on December 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

There’s no hope for the rectally challenged.
Gun free equates to “shooting gallery.
They will pass their new laws and regs on guns and be shocked when the next “unexpected” shooting happens.
Bet the first one is in Chicago, Detroit, or NYC….but that’s just population control.
Brevik shot 72 people in the land of no guns….
They confiscated all the guns in Australia…how did that work out?
The UK…another shining example of stupidity.
In places with OPEN CARRY and CONCEALED CARRY there are far fewer shooting events. Seems like the fear of dying restrains all but the most insane from “acting stupidly”.

dirtengineer on December 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Senator Dianne Feinstein on terrorism and self-defence:

“Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. … I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.”

And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, 27 April 1995

Senator Dianne Feinstein on gun control:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”

- Senator Dianne Feinstein, 1994

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

– Senator Dianne Feinstein, 18 November 1993

Evidently, the little people do NOT have a right to self-defence.

Resist We Much on December 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Translation: a few lawful citizens wanted to string the weasel up from the nearest tree, likely for very good reasons.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Alternate Translation: He said whatever he had to say to “save the republic” from Senator Sharron Angle.

JimLennon on December 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

- Senator Joseph Biden, Associated Press, 18 November 1993

OK, Bidumb, you first. Tell your Secret Service detail to turn in their guns.

Resist We Much on December 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM

“But on guns, it turns out there is a lot of rational agreement among even gun enthusiasts about trying to protect innocent people from being killed by them.

New rules being tossed around by lawmakers include banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time…”

Who rights this dreck? ‘Rational’? What’s ‘rational’ about new laws that have been proving *not* to deter gun violence because the people who do these shootings ignore them anyway? How many laws did the CT shooter break to begin with, and more of the same kind of laws are going to suddenly deter folks who dont care about them to begin with? Sorry, that’s utterly IRRATIONAL to think this will help.

And would someone please link me to a high-capacity magazine that literally allows “hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time”, I’d lke to see one. Just one. More than 100 rounds, and “fired at a time”, please. Assuming they don’t mean something like ‘simultaneously fired’, it sounds like an ignorant attempt to explain an *automatic* fire weapon, which is far afield from a description of how a *semi-automatic* weapon works. ‘hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time’; God save us from the ignorance of these irrational people.

Midas on December 19, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Connecticut already has a ban on assault weapons. The rifle used was not considered an assault weapon.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Barack Obama is “Person of the Year” at Time.

Celebrate idiocy by hue. It’s the ultimate form of racism, to expect so little of the first not even half black president.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Statistics say that more people having guns reduces gun violence and that increasing control of guns increases it. If Obama wants to reduce gun violence, maybe every household should be issued an M4 carbine and an M1911 sidearm.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM

These videos need to go viral. They need to be sent to capital hill. FrankenFienstien and Dingy Harry need to own their hypocrisy.

jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein. How many school/mall/theater shootings have we had since then?

RMCS_USN on December 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Barack Obama is “Person of the Year” at Time.

Celebrate idiocy by hue. It’s the ultimate form of racism, to expect so little of the first not even half black president.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I’ve said it before – the Idiocracy is already here.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Statistics say that more people having guns reduces gun violence and that increasing control of guns increases it. If Obama wants to reduce gun violence, maybe every household should be issued an M4 carbine and an M1911 sidearm.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Now there’s a gun control policy I could agree with. I’m happy with my M&P9, but if they want to issue me an M1911 and an M4, I’ll take’em.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Barack Obama is “Person of the Year” at Time.
Celebrate idiocy by hue. It’s the ultimate form of racism, to expect so little of the first not even half black president.
Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I pointed this out to an Obama drone on twitter, the response? Crickets….

jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein.

What’s the matter RMCS? Evidently hypocrisy has a shelf-life? So just HOW did Dear Di get that CCW? What NEED did she have? Because she was “afraid”? So sorry pal, but in Kalfornia, being ‘afraid’ or ‘in a bad neighborhood’ doesn’t qualify for a CCW permit. SO HOW DID DEAR DI RATE ONE? Oh, she’s a SENATOR! Her life is MORE VALUABLE!

BTW, Di’s story has changed over time. Now she’ll tell you she packs because of all the death threats she receives over the Assault Weapons Ban legislation she wrote.

GarandFan on December 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein. How many school/mall/theater shootings have we had since then?
RMCS_USN on December 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

So what? This woman is about as credible on gun violence as Al Gore is on global warming. But lies, demagogues, hysteria and tyranny mean nothin to you libs as long as we the ones on the other end of your tyranny.

jawkneemusic on December 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM

And all the studies, all the reports, and all the math I’ve seen over the decades indicates that this is the only method out there that actually addresses the issue, and works.

Oh, well, only two more days till the Mayan apocalypse…seems the only way to rid mankind of liberals….unless the Mayans had their math wrong. :-)

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein. How many school/mall/theater shootings have we had since then?

RMCS_USN on December 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

And how far back did the Dems go to try to find dirt on Romney, and every other Republican candidate?

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein. How many school/mall/theater shootings have we had since then?
RMCS_USN on December 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

No fewer and no more since 1976. There has been no change in the average frequency or lethality of mass shootings over that time.

Overall gun violence today is lower than it was in 1976, though. Today’s rate of murder with firearms is about what it was in the early 1960′s.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Overall gun violence today is lower than it was in 1976, though. Today’s rate of murder with firearms is about what it was in the early 1960′s.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Exactly the major point that the libtards will try every way to ignore. The plain fact is, more guns = less crime (especially when it’s more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens).
But the libtards just can’t and refuse to understand that.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Wow Ed, you had to go all the way back to 1995 to nail Feinstein. How many school/mall/theater shootings have we had since then?
RMCS_USN on December 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

What’s your point here? What does hypocrisy among filthy Democrats have to do with the number of shootings since 1995?

And for that matter, why just school/mall/theater shootings? What about workplace violence? What about all that minority on minority violence? The fact of the matter is that our gun laws are not the problem no matter how much dirty corrupt liberals are climbing on the top of 20 dead children to further an agenda that they’ve had for decades. It really is pretty sick the way the gun-haters are trying to exploit tragedy for partisan gain. You aren’t one of these gun-hating douchebags, are you?

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 1:03 PM

The plain fact is, more guns = less crime (especially when it’s more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens).
But the libtards just can’t and refuse to understand that.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The left can’t comprehend the idea that individuals can do more for their own protection than government can. Here we are just a few days after the Sandy Hook shooting and we already have meaningless knee-jerk reactions from a whole bevy of left-leaning morons. I hate them all.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM

YOU can add dear joe to this list also on the gun issue and HIS guns!

http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/2012/12/19/flashback-biden-2008-dont-fool-my-beretta
L

letget on December 19, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Harry Reid can now righteously say he doesn’t need to carry a gun any longer since he can afford a heavily-armed security detail 24/7.

“Why can’t Americans just get their own bodyguards like I have?” Reid sniffed.

Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

As a 2nd-Amendment supporter and gun owner, I fully support a serious nonpartisan commission to address what does seem to be an epidemic:

Isolated loner young white misfits shooting up public places and schools.

Instead of approaching it from the pro- or anti-gun mindset, I do agree that it is time to specifically focus on this problem which seems to be growing more common, with an even-handed, scientific approach.

If there’s anything we can do better – to specifically try to catch these folks befre they go off the deep end, I am open to discussion.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Harry Reid can now righteously say he doesn’t need to carry a gun any longer since he can afford a heavily-armed security detail 24/7.

“Why can’t Americans just get their own bodyguards like I have?” Reid sniffed.

Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Dingy Harry can now righteously kiss my @ss….

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

That’s a big assumption that the Dems would actually want to have an open and honest discussion.

Instead of approaching it from the pro- or anti-gun mindset

That’s the big problem with what you propose. The Dems are in fact radically anti-gun (at least for us peons), and they are approaching the entire problem from that mindset – and will not discuss any solution unless it involves gun control – even if an even-handed scientific approach showed clearly that gun control is not the answer.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I did watch 0bama speak at the memorial service.’ I thought he had no place there and should have let it be private. I did catch the dog-whistle words about how he’s goiong to do “something.”

As much as I strongly dislike him as a man and as a president, I grudgingly agree with him that we can do better… that it actually is time to see what we can do, with an honest approach, to do better.

The fact that so many of these shootings are young, white, non-criminal, disaffected males, is as much of a pattern as the fact that most of the shootings in Chicago are committed by young black criminals. It all needs addressing.

Obviously, the approach to the two situations would seem to be very different.

Just as Jimmah Carter proved he wasn’t a total robot when he admitted he looked at Playboy, I will give 0bama some credit for saying that we can do better. I’m pretty sure that we can, as long as we keep the idelogues under control and honestly discuss how folks like Lanza, Loughner and Holmes went nuts without anyone catching it, we might get somewhere.

This ridiculous discussion about clips and magazines won’t get us anywhere.. there are too many of them out there.

We need to focus on the shooter, not the gun.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Liberal hysteria is funny if it wasn’t so dangerous. Interesting thing is, it is already starting to fade. Liberals always like to screech till “something” is done, but they are hitting a brick wall on this issue and already some of the “faithful” are heading for the exit door. To many issues and too much chance of looking stupid, plus even some teachers are saying that “lockdown” is not enough and that hypocritical “Gun Free Zones” are as useful as signs in schools being “Drug Free Zones” (where you can buy any drug).

Already the wind is fading from the sails of “Gun Control”. “A Bridge too Far” as it were.

Bulletchaser on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

…wish Harry Reid had a gun accident!
…there!…I said it!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I think that first, as in the Philippines, we do need to have armed guards at the schools. That’s a sad fact.

Secondly, as a backup, in case the guard is taken out or a shooter times his/her rounds, I would look at a secure gun safe that CCW teachers could access.

We are either going to trust teachers or we’re not. We’re trusting them alone in a room, usually with no camera, with our kids. We do the same with pilots. I am an ex-public-school teacher – and were I still teaching, I would be having a very serious and problematic debate with myself, my principal and my superintendent, about demanding my right to defend myself and my students.

I guarantee that from this day forward I would keep a gun in my car, legal or not.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

We need to focus on the shooter, not the gun.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Except – that’s NOT what the Dems are saying. They are absolutely focusing on the guns. Their answer to this problem will be to disarm the population.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Bottom line – if I am the teacher, trapped like a rat with my students in a room, and I hear the gunshots coming, I want to be able to kill the shooter the second he opens my door.

Period.

End of story.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

If there’s anything we can do better – to specifically try to catch these folks befre they go off the deep end, I am open to discussion.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

How many family members or co-workers of these folks say there were signs in the weeks leading up to the shooting? If it isn’t 100% it is pretty darn close. And many of them had actually been treated for mental illness at some point in their past. In short, I am sure there are things that can be done better but I would suggest that it may be harder to identify what those things might be.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Except – that’s NOT what the Dems are saying. They are absolutely focusing on the guns. Their answer to this problem will be to disarm the population.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

SCREW the Dems.

Adults in this country need to have a serious talk.

Never again should another Miss Soto die like that, with no defense.

Never.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2