Video: Scarborough and Tim Huelskamp bicker over gun control for five minutes
posted at 6:01 pm on December 21, 2012 by Allahpundit
Via Mediaite, a small window onto the futility of the gun “debate.” On one side you’ve got Huelskamp, who’s eager to replace the argument over guns with an argument over video games even though the link between gaming and violence is dubious, and not just in the U.S. On the other side you’ve got the new Republican leader of the Do Something brigade, who’s not only onboard with scrutinizing video games but who seems unperturbed by Huelskamp’s point that Connecticut’s assault weapons ban didn’t stop Lanza. They’re not debating guns here, ultimately, they’re debating motives. It’s unwatchable but illuminating as an unusually prominent example of the sort of dreck repartee you see between the two sides when they engage on this topic on Twitter.
Speaking of guns and futility, read Drew’s riposte to that NRA presser this morning. There may be good reasons to spend $5 billion we don’t have on another 100,000 cops, but installing them at schools across the country on the odd chance that a rampage killer might show up someday in the distant future isn’t one of them. My hunch is that, while it would improve security, most of the improvement would lie in deterring garden-variety criminal behavior on school grounds, not mass shootings. Meanwhile, some studies show that stationing armed guards nearby makes kids feel less safe, not more, which is bad for learning. And as always in matters involving lunatics, it’s hard to predict how the average nut would respond to the new policy. Having security guards on campus may well have helped reduce the death toll at Columbine, but a single cop isn’t much of an obstacle to an ambush attack. The new rule for suicidal school shooters will simply be to shoot the cop first. If you want real security, you should have at least two on school grounds, and maybe more. Everyone okay with $10 billion a year for that, before benefits? It is the most popular option in the policy toolbox right now. And as recently as three days ago the Times was taking it very seriously, although that’ll quickly change now that Wayne LaPierre’s endorsed it and thereby made it, for leftist purposes, officially Bad and Wrong.
But then, we’re missing the point here. Whether feasible or not, the cop-in-every-school proposal is useful to the NRA simply as a conversation-changer at a moment when Obama’s trying to focus the public on regulating guns. For all the grumbling online about LaPierre’s presser being rambling and “tone deaf,” there was a good reason he was all over the map. The more we’re talking about cops in schools and video games and mental-health spending and media sensationalism, the less we’re talking about an assault weapons ban. (Huelskamp is keenly aware of this too, of course.) Expect lots more of that in the new year as a counter to the big Democratic gun-control push in Congress.
Update: Congressional Democrats react to LaPierre’s attempt to change the subject as you’d expect.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Sigh: Indiana man faces possible jail time for nursing bald eagle back to health
GOP: Yeah, about that “relatively minor” and completely underhanded carbon-rule change…
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
perhaps La Pierre is the smartest guy in the room, talk about bullshit, muddy the waters, and wait.
rob verdi on December 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM
sanctimony…
equanimous on December 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Don’t you mean Congressional Communists ?
I cringe at the thought of thousands of more cops on city payrolls. Really.
Mr. Arrogant on December 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Yes, that many cops is impractical. But once you’ve got the other side to admit that, yes, if you could afford it, the cop would make things safer, then they’ve admitted that more guns could be a benefit. This opens the door to talk about removing gun-free-schools restrictions and having training for armed administrators and teachers.
Besides, is the money we’d have to spend to bring our nation’s defunct mental health system up to the point where it would make a dent in these incidents any less? I don’t know the answer, and it may not be answerable, but I’ll bet it’s also in the billions.
Socratease on December 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM
…from the Left
catmman on December 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Low info leftists are just so freaking stupid. Funny though!
Bmore on December 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM
I propose a new rule for HOTAIR No Joe Scarborough
KBird on December 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Sadly so, suppressive fire.
the_nile on December 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM
The “no dead woman in office left behind” rule.
the_nile on December 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM
And yes, Joe.
You and every other statist, lefty (you’re hardly a Conservative) has been using the slain from Newtown as humans shields to cover your crap. For a week now and you’ll continue to as long as it serves your needs you preening, sanctimonious d-bag.
catmman on December 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Yes, but, in .40 S&W is the Speed Gold Dot, in 155 gr., better than the Hornady Zombie Max?
M240H on December 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Huh? Ya mean to tell me, Allah, that a new AWB is all we’re gonna get out of Barry and Sheriff Joe?
Nothing about changing reporting requirements on those with “issues”? Nothing about gratuitous violence on the airwaves and movies?
Guess it pays to be Hollyweed and donate to the Obamassiah. Or as they say in Chicago, “Ya want protection, ya gotta PAY for protection.”
The irony of it all is THIS administration doing something about who has guns. Didn’t bother them with Fast and Furious. 200+ dead Mexican citizens didn’t bother them.
GarandFan on December 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Agreed…
Seven Percent Solution on December 21, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Ask the hundred of millions who have died at the hands of their own governments why they would have needed an “assault weapon!”
JellyToast on December 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Media mouthpieces needs to be reminded of Obamas race war against Mexicans.
the_nile on December 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Sanctimonious ass.
NeoKong on December 21, 2012 at 6:24 PM
The truth hurts, doesn’t it Scabby?
besser tot als rot on December 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Even Joe looks smart next to Mika
What does she care anyway? Her greatest fear is Dominoes Pizza
Slade73 on December 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Hollywood hypocrites: Celebs ‘demand’ plan to end gun violence.
RedRobin145 on December 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM
I disagree on this. We spend billions a year already have security guards and police protecting all sorts of things like water treatment plants, government buildings, etc. with the same odd chance that a rampage killer or jihadist might attack them. Now there are different ways to handle this and not all are at the federal level.
Personally I think the federal government should require local school districts to have at least two security guards per school OR allow some of the school staff be armed. Let the locals find the money for it. That may mean cutting back on useless school staff or forcing teachers unions to give back to pay for security. God knows there is plenty of money being wasted throughout government even at the local level. If they don’t want two school security officers they can always allow some of the staff to be armed, which of course would be cheaper…so let the locals decide.
As for most of the studies showing that armed guards makes kids feel less safe…most of those are leftist studies which are used to justify gun free zones and banning guns. I would not be pushing them as a justification for not having armed guards at schools.
William Eaton on December 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Hoo boy, I watched it this a.m. Their first subject, the fiscal cliff, had Joe Scarborough soft-soaping Tim Huelskamp, agreeing with him for the most part, but trying to subtly nudge the Congressman toward compromise on a tax increase for people making $1 mil-plus per year (equal to John Boener’s ‘Plan B). Mr. Huelskamp didn’t budge. No. No to even a penny on anyone of any tax bracket.
You could feel the tension and knew the interview was already going sideways when Mika cut in to talk guns. The rest, I guess, is on Allahpundit’s video.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Who does Joe represent now..?
d1carter on December 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Seven Percent Solution on December 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Ten billion dollars in a budget of 3.2 trillion is nothing to worry about. I’m sure we could squeeze a few hundred million from each of other programs, right?
It’s for the children!
Or, better, arm certain teachers with weapons along with a small bonus. Of course the background checks and other criteria would have to be strict, with psych-evals and weapons proficiency tests twice a year. The cost would be relatively small, and a possible shooter would have no way of knowing who and how many might be armed. The kids don’t have to know, either. If we’re going to rely on police only, who says they have to be uniform with their weapons visible?
For every complaint of why the idea should be ignored, there’s a workable solution.
Liam on December 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
I demand a plan to end celebs
Slade73 on December 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM
My take as well.
Irritable Pundit on December 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM
How much does Israel spend to have guards everywhere, including in their schools? I suppose in this case you at least consider it as an option, though simply allowing teachers or certain teachers to be armed would be far cheaper and less visibly intrusive.
Bishop on December 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM
You won’t believe the TV commercial I just watched: The WORX powered semi-automatic screwdriver (that’s what they called it!). You can lock and load interchangeable bits in seconds, and the couple in the commercial are sliding and bouncing all over the house fixing things like secret agents.
What’s that lib whine about the NRA ‘gun culture’?
Liam on December 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM
let’s make a mutual agreement. Just a handshake thing.
you take my gun, I’ll shoot you with my other one
Slade73 on December 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM
53 million post Roe V Wade unborns unavailable for comment.
hillsoftx on December 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Yes, Joe. Many in the Congress politicized 9/11, to make some terrible policy changes in the wake of that tragedy. Many of whom you claim are good policymakers…
JohnGalt23 on December 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM
It’s been an amazing journey watching ol Joe change his “principles” over the years.
Almost like the his ideology changed when the people who wrote his pay checks changed.
JellyToast on December 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM
You should read Eugene Volkoh’s little thought experiment…
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/a-thought-experiment-related-to-school-shootings
The Associated Press seems to be leading with the meme that this is “police officers”.. Isn’t it neat how a little word change can help to destroy an idea?
BTW: Anyone who believes in either “gun control” or the Associated Press must have severe cognation problems.
CrazyGene on December 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM
Yes, Joe, you’re playing politics – you’d rather be sanctimonious than effective.
BD57 on December 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM
agree with the ban on all further Scarbrough coverage on HotGas– the attention whoring idiot probably loves the attention. It’s why he continues to choose to be the token “conservative” on the most disgusting network on TV
and La Pierre was fantastic, given the circumstances– the culture war begins now
Shine a bright, unyielding light on the Left and their institutions from here on out
Want to debate gun violence? OK let’s talk about Hollywood and the video game industry, and all the billions they make on slaughter porn
Not that I think they are the scapegoat, but it puts the Left back on the defensive
thurman on December 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Whoa…..Allah
since when is scarborough a republican anything. Is reducing the death toll at columbine a bad thing? Does it cost anything to the economy to put federal cartridge, Remington, ruger etc, etc out of business?
Are you being serious here? Do you think Lanza would have chosen the port authority?
C’mon.
WryTrvllr on December 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Homicide and crime rates going down, hire 100,000 more police. Sure, makes a lot of sense.
How about we arm those already in the school. I bet there is at least one teacher/vet per school who would be willing to take on the duty as the “hidden protector”. But I am also sure there are lots of teachers who wouldn’t “feel good” about that, and of course that is what is important, not the safety of our children forced daily into government mandated killing zones.
djtnt on December 21, 2012 at 6:54 PM
So, it’s $5 or %10 billion. What will their alternatives cost? I ban and confiscation of semi-automatics could pay for those police for 5 years, at least, more than enough time for the slow evolution to school employee carry. And surely you can start to knock out Utah’s schools because they are already protected by firearms. Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and others will likely move in that direction, too, thus reducing the yearly cost.
And what kind of people would be populating the rolls due to spending with these proposals? I’d rather have police, who’ll be more likely to be in the respect gun rights camp, than a bunch of pencil pushing gun-grabbers that their proposals would unleash upon society.
Dusty on December 21, 2012 at 6:59 PM
Joe, how do the fine people of Cuba, Venezula, or China feel about control?
It’s aclear lack of understanding the 2nd Amendment that is the problem on the Left.
Tater Salad on December 21, 2012 at 7:07 PM
I wish La Pierre would have framed this as an argument for Fedalism. Repeal these stupid ‘gun free zones’ and let the state legislators decide how best to protect these kids. Blaming the government for its stupid policies is fine but when you start blaming games and movies you’re getting into the weeds. And armed guard is wrong. There are other ways to do this. The person armed can be an anonymous(to the kidsvolunteer from the school staff and the firearm can be concealed to protect the kids from worry.
Man, I am sick to my stomach of liberals and a$$holes like this faux conservative Scarborough driving the narrative but I’m losing my patience for people on our side who can’t seem to say the right things. I commend La Pierre for trying but the focus needs to be squarely on liberals and their failed policies and not distractions like games.
jawkneemusic on December 21, 2012 at 7:08 PM
scarborough, total idiot…
cmsinaz on December 21, 2012 at 7:12 PM
Why, yes, actually.
Solaratov on December 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM
heh
cmsinaz on December 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM
How about training staff, teachers and/or principals to obtain a CCW permit. Utah does it and some school districts in TX are doing it. We place the safety of our kids under the care of teachers, so why not vet and train them to defend our kids from evil. As with citizen CCWs no one needs to know who is permitted, just that someone is armed; no more gun free schools to tempt killers looking for a place in history. And the cost would be minimal and they would be volunteers. A Florida CCW permit costs about $105 plus about $10 for finger printing and the cost for training.
Such a program is included in this long post on the do’s and don’t of gun regulation. And the author trained school officials on firearms safety and handling for free.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
amr on December 21, 2012 at 7:16 PM
How dare you tell expose me, Tim!
bazil9 on December 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Hugh Hewitt had this jacka$$ on not too long ago to defend his ‘principles’. This dude needs to go the way of Charlie Crist.
jawkneemusic on December 21, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Meanwhile……………..
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/israleiteacher.jpg
Most of the security in Israeli schools is provided by teachers and administrators.
Solaratov on December 21, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Mika always looks and is stupid.
What a prop!
Schadenfreude on December 21, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Connecticut has an “assault rifle” ban already. The law describes assault rifles by that name. Of course what the press and legislators call “assault weapons” aren’t. The Connecticut law states by brandname, model and configuration what semi-automatic rifles are assault weapons
The decades old definition of an “assault rifle” however is a rifle capable of firing full auto. They were weapons originally designed to lay down a good amount of firepower when their users were storming a position
The Ruger Mini-14 is NOT an assault rifle according to the State of Connecticut if it has a conventional wooden stock. It IS an assault rifle if it has a folding stock that makes it look like a military weapon.
Both versions use the same bullets, have the same fire selections, and the same magazineoptions, apparently the appearance of lethality is the criterion.
The whole idea is to cater to the ignorant. The whole idea is to cater to perceptions not substance.
I’ve lost count of how many times Lanza is described as using an assault rifle. Not by Connecticut’s definition, not by any definition of the knowing. Just another use of “emotionally charged phrases.”
Limpet6 on December 21, 2012 at 7:34 PM
I agree with banning Morning JOe from Hot Air and no that doesn’t violate his freedom of speech. My issue with him is that he uses his status as a former republican congressman and self-described conservative to get more credibility in hammering conservatives.
I think he is much harder on repbulican and conservative guest and goes from conservative to big govt. liberal type depending on what will generate the most press for him.
At least Chris Matthews really believes what he says, even if he is just barely composed. JOe is all about getting noticed, so let’s not notice him any more.
Frankly, this was all over Newsbusters and Twitter way before it came on here so I don’t see JOe generating a lot of hits for Hot Gas either.
earlgrey133 on December 21, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Yes, dumba$$ – invite *me* on, I’ll “dare” tell you that’s *exactly* what you’re doing – and you f*cking know it.
Midas on December 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Correct.
Which is why this isn’t the answer – but rather the answer lies in requiring all schools have at least X% or a minimum fixed number of teachers/admin/janitors/etc be trained and certified to carry concealed.
Perps will not know how many, or which persons they are, but will be assured of knowing that say 10+ people in that building at any given time *are* carrying and *will* gladly put your a$$ down if you try anything.
Of course, this is predicated on the presumption that people actually want to *end* this kind of violence, rather than simply trying to advance their own political agenda instead, regardless of whether it would have an impact on gun violence or not.
Midas on December 21, 2012 at 9:02 PM
For anybody working at MSNBC to get their knickers in a wad protesting the idea that they would ever politicize something is just too much. All that faux outrage was just to block the effect of what Huelskamp was saying. Anybody that relies on MSNBC for news is incapable of intelligent discernment.
Charm on December 21, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Does Fox and Friends still have FIVE TIMES the audience of this schlock?
Marcus on December 21, 2012 at 9:07 PM
School admins should be trained and packing. Give them hazard pay.
John the Libertarian on December 21, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Got an idea…
Within 50 miles of a city of 500k population or greater, no citizen is permitted to posses any type of firearm. Looking at the recent election exit poling by county maps, it appears that most libtards live with in these areas.
If the libtards think the government is going to protect them, then I suggest that they review the court rulings that state that the police have no, repeat NO!, obligation to protect anyone.
Cops carry guns to protect themselves. The courts have said so. But the politicos don’t want you armed. Why in the world would that be their thinking?
WestTexasBirdDog on December 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
― Sammy “the Bull” Gravano
can_con on December 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Again…we disagree.
But to each their own…
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Touched a nerve, the congressman did! Joe is a pompa$$ pile of putrifide self indulgence.
wepeople on December 21, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Personally, I can see housing the mentally unstable as a more legitimate government function than trying to prevent me from owning weapons with plastic window-dressing (aka, “assault weapons”).
This morning I saw a woman debating John Lott on the issue, and she kept calling them things like “military-style super-killers”.
hawksruleva on December 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM
If it makes you any happier, Joe does too. They deserve each other to perfection.
Schadenfreude on December 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM
As usual, Israel, which is under the constant threat of annihilation from their enemies which surround, and outnumber them, have the correct answer!
Arming the adults in the school, from the teachers with AK47′s,to the Janitors, the Principals, the Medical Staff, to the Food service people, in essence every responsible adult person with firearms! It wouldn’t cost that much, not paying $200 -$300 an hour for Police or armed guards. Just, simply, have every responsible adult armed and trained. Sure, you’d have to pay more for background and psychological checks, not to mention a little more for arms training, and purchasing the arms and ammunition. But, all in all, it’s still less expensive, and a lot more effective than one or even two armed guards. Not to mention, the effect that knowing, or not knowing who may turn that corner and take you out would have on the potential murderers. Think that they wouldn’t choose a much softer target? Think that this wouldn’t almost completely stop any type of potential assault on our children ( no matter how innocent, or not that they may be! Think that this wouldn’t even stop the idiotic school kid violence???) Think again! Statistics prove that in concealed carry states, violent crime drops, almost immediately, upon those laws going into effect.
Simply, if it didn’t work so well in Israel, they would not be doing it!
Now, for the argument about children feeling less safe, well, just look at Israel’s educational system, which is much safer ( ever hear of Israeli teachers afraid to work in inner city school districts, where they have to be paid much more?) I guarantee you that they have much less violence in their schools than we here in our major, inner city schools do!)
chefwes on December 22, 2012 at 1:20 AM
It would be refreshing (but not anticipated) if the responses to Newtown could have some actual relevance to Newtown.
Lanza lived in an affluent household. His mother had all the money she needed and more. His father insisted on paying more in spousal support than he was required to, far more, including giving her the house. She did not need the government to provide mental health assistance. A mental health clinic on every corner in Newtown would not have prevented what happened. And, while I would like to blame her for being blind to her child’s potential for violence, most parents are and, unfortunately, there is no known test for what Adam Lanza did. No parent, even the most vigilant, could have imagined anyone on earth, much less their own child, was capable of slaughtering school children in a psychotic rampage. Every odd, quirky kid in school does not become a mass murderer.
Authorities are even planning to study Lanza’s DNA to see if they can detect anything that might allow them to speculate about what condition might have caused this blatantly insane act. This is simply not simple. The urge is to believe we can do something. We can do something. We can harden targets where we can. Whatever one might think of the NRA, the saying is largely true, only a good guy with a gun (or a club, a knife, a baseball bat, some weapon capable of being delivered against the shooter) stops these freaks. Lanza apparently shot himself when he heard the sirens coming. The good guys with the guns were coming. They shoot themselves or someone does it for them.
Walking the streets looking for odd looking people who might snap and morph into agents of mass slaughter is simply wishful thinking. And wishes will not stop a determined assassin.
Nor would an assault weapon ban. Connecticut has an assault weapon ban that is comprehensive (Sec. 53-202c Connecticut Code).
And, finally, these things do happen in other countries, whether or not we want to believe it. Evil like this is pervasive throughout the world. And it has a face. We just don’t know which face until after the fact.
IndieDogg on December 22, 2012 at 6:34 AM
Joe Schmoe, like Barry….always evolving.
skilletlicker on December 22, 2012 at 7:08 AM
AP – Wow buddy did you get it wrong about the NRA presser. Wayne went on the attack, this fired up the base, and put the media on the defensive. He also ran the map to take away argument points. No mental health – check
Glorifying violence – check, heck he even mentioned Kindergarten Killer, the name of a video game
Complicit media – check
He then made the point that a bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun, taking the gun out of the equation, and putting the motives of the person as the determining factor.
Wayne even took away the media’s ability to make some snarky headline when he pointed out what they would say. If they did try and twist his words it would only validate his point that the media not reporting, it is opining.
For a week gun owners were on the defensive, Wayne’s call to action has changed that.
.
And if we keeping pointing out that the Dems are trying to take guns we will have a change in Washington.
LincolntheHun on December 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Well Schmo is using the violent death of 20 6 and 7 year old kids to score political points. A pox on his house, the self-righteous little turd burglar.
CorporatePiggy on December 22, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Go Blow Joe!
Lib-tards are easy to spot. They act impulsively with emotion rather than logic.
If we removed gun deaths related to gang violence and drugs what would the numbers be?
Also, in a report (circa 2006) The United State’s murder rate per capita was still below below most european/developed nations. Finland (12*), Sweden (16), Belgium (17), Australia (18), Portugal (19), Switzerland (20), Italy (21), Denmark (24), Netherlands (25), Luxembourg, (26), France (27), Austria (28), New Zealand (29), Ireland (30), Norway (31), Iceland (33), Germany (35). Spain (37**).
* 32.73 per million
** .781 per million
P.S. The USA actually dropped. In a 2004 report we were 37th on the murder rate by capita list.
Remember too that 3rd world countries are not reliable in their reporting murders and we already know that their rates are above us in the developed nations. War regions also do not score their kills as murders
kregg on December 22, 2012 at 8:06 AM
You are. Your show is a political news show. You have called for gun control “using the slaughter of 20 little six- and seven-year-old children.”
Resist We Much on December 22, 2012 at 8:56 AM
An excellent read by someone (unlike the media/politicians) who knows what he’s talking about:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
MissMagnolia on December 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Or you should use just a fraction of that money to train volunteers from the teaching and administrative staffs.
Schools that need security guards because of the amount of low-level security issues probably already have them. That is a different issue.
School security would be vastly improved if just 5% of teachers and administrators were armed. It would be simple and cost effective. That is exactly why the gun banners hate the idea.
novaculus on December 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM
A great link, which I read after I posted. (Really!)
novaculus on December 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I heard the best argument against gun control… There was a caller that had a private conversation with a reporter. The Reporter says that we have to have “Reasonable restrictions on guns and ammo.” The caller pointed out that the media reported these stories to death and that the government should step in and regulate the content and duration of each story so there won’t be the inevitable copycat shooting.
The reporter immediately gets angry and says that the first amendment guarantees the right to free press, and the government has absolutely no authority to tell the media what they can report… The caller says “Exactly!”
We as conservatives have to take the liberal arguments and throw them back in their faces. We have to keep the narrative, but we need to change how we present it, and we need to do it in their house. Preaching to the choir isn’t working. We need to make them think about what they are saying, and we need to do it in a way that they can’t argue with.
webdemon on December 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Who needs an AR-15 to defend themselves? Let’s ask the Korean store owners that were the target of the looters and rioters during the Watts riots… They were on the roof tops defending themselves and their businesses… police control completely broke down and they had to take it upon themselves to defend their property. That is why we need to keep semi-automatic assault style weapons.
I actually heard a liberal argue that the pistol grip allows the shooter the accuracy to keep the weapon on target… So, instead having a situation where the shooter defending himself, stays on target and can take a precise shot, he would rather the shooter take aim and and accidentally hit a by-stander… That makes much more sense.
webdemon on December 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM
P.S. The shooter in this case broke 45 laws in the commission of this shooting… It seems to me that the law really isn’t a factor here, and creating more laws would only effect the law abiding. Criminals that want to create carnage really don’t care about the law… That’s why they call them “Criminals.”
webdemon on December 22, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Scarborough needs to crawl back up obama’s azz, and shut his lib-cake hole.
Pork-Chop on December 22, 2012 at 6:23 PM
It’s not the violent video games.
It’s WHO’S playing them.
It’s not the guns.
It’s WHO’S using them.
Young teens taking anti-depressants make up over 90% of these school killers. Get these kids off these anti-depressants and the amount of these kinds of shootings will go down. But as it is today, as the amount of prescriptions go up – so do the shootings. These kinds of drugs are being seriously over-prescribed and turning good kids into cold-blooded killers.
fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM
We’ve lost. The gun grabbers will have their day just as the big spenders, taxaholics and greenies. That’s it folks. Maybe in a few years we can hope to recover a little of the ground that we’ve lost, but America is a different place now and will indeed “fundamentally transform.” Welcome to France.
MJBrutus on December 23, 2012 at 5:56 AM
Joe Scarbrough was, is and every shall remain an idiot. He was an idiot when he was in Congress. He works for an idiot organization now. Ratings and left liberal pandering is more important that an intelligent disucssion of the issues. Chicken Little was right you know.
georgeofthedesert on December 24, 2012 at 9:42 AM