Gun control: Piers Morgan vs. Marine who wrote that open letter to Dianne Feinstein

posted at 9:34 pm on January 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, even a grandstander as pompous as Morgan knows better than to sneer at a vet the way he routinely does at other gun-rights activists. Boston, the author of the letter read ’round the blogosphere, does well for himself but I always come away from these debates wondering why the two sides end up dancing around crime stats and the minutiae of what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon. That’s fine, but that’s not what’s at the heart of this. The heart of it is that gun owners don’t trust gun-grabbers’ motives. Right? It’s nothing as grandiose (to me, at least) as fearing that the government’s going to enact martial law or something. It’s the belief that, despite their professions of “reasonable” regulation, people like Morgan or Joe Biden would keep pushing until they’d banned private ownership of firearms completely if they could. (Morgan might admit as much, Biden wouldn’t.) The failure of their own policies practically compels them to do that: Columbine took place during the last assault-weapons ban, but supposedly that just proves that the ban wasn’t strict enough so we need to make it more onerous this time. There’ll be more mass shootings even if a new ban is enacted, and those will be cited as proof that the new ban needs to be stricter still. Realistically, there’s no scenario where they decide that they’ve gone far enough. Once you’ve reached that point, where you can’t trust your opponent to volunteer and abide by a limit to his own regulatory ambition, what’s left to debate? Where good faith is lacking, there’s nothing to discuss.

Having said all that, I do think Weigel’s right that people are overreacting to the prospect of The One issuing some sort of executive order on guns. For one thing, it’d be uncharacteristic of him to risk his own political capital by acting unilaterally on something as controversial as that. He wants Congress to take the lead on this (as usual) so that he bears as little responsibility as possible if it fails or even if it succeeds and there’s a major backlash. He may issue an order but it’ll deal with marginal stuff. If he did issue one that was more ambitious, there’d be so much outcry and so many lawsuits that his second term would be tangled up in this for months or years. And he doesn’t want that. When push comes to shove, I don’t think he cares much about guns. He’d be happy to ban them, I’m sure, but my sense is that it’s not the sort of thing that drives him. What drives him is the “fairness” that comes with raising taxes by four or five percent on rich people and then doing jack about entitlements while the treasury slowly melts down from unfunded obligations. That’s the sort of thing of which great presidential legacies are made.


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

She’s from Chicago and doesnt want a gun around?…wow bro…

hillsoftx on January 9, 2013 at 10:41 PM

errr..Wut??

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:13 PM

‘THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’

Seven Percent Solution on January 9, 2013 at 11:15 PM

She will not even entertain the idea of having one in the house…

You can’t even discuss it with these people…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM

http://ielmira.com/uploads/gallery/album_146/gallery_1_146_10685.jpeg

Wow, what a coincidence. My Chicago wife won’t allow one in the house either so all mine are at my parents’ home in rural MN.

Nutstuyu on January 9, 2013 at 11:04 PM

http://ielmira.com/uploads/gallery/album_146/gallery_1_146_10685.jpeg

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Ok, that’s dog#hit. If I’da had em with me in the first place, this never woulda happened….

I might not be married….BUT IT NEVER WOULDA HAPPENED!!

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:19 PM

The problem with the liberals that run this site is they have an inexhaustible and impenetrable ability to factor only the information that fits their preconceptions. Doesn’t matter how many times you point out the countervailing proofs or history, they still spin pollyanna-ish claptrap that goes no more than halfway towards grasping the motivations and goals of the opposition. I say opposition because they can’t / won’t even entertain the word-concept ‘enemy’ when it comes to the marxicrats.

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 11:22 PM

She will not even entertain the idea of having one in the house…

You can’t even discuss it with these people…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM

And how long have you been married? I mean that’s a major difference in ideas. Married couples disagree on things and reach compromises. IMO what you have isn’t a compromise.

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Together for about 7…married for 4.

Now let’s get this straight…this is not something that comes up in daily conversation..

Just when it does….gah….

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Communists have a long history of controlling arms and then killing millions of innocent people and subjecting millions more to horrific oppression. Of course Obama cares about guns. The statists in our government need to disarm us before they start helping themselves to what’s left of our liberty and property. Let’s keep our guns and let’s take it very seriously when Marxists start making gun grabs. It’s practically impossible to overreact.

Cara C on January 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM

” I do think Weigel’s right that people are overreacting to the prospect of The One issuing some sort of executive order on guns. For one thing, it’d be uncharacteristic of him to risk his own political capital by acting unilaterally on something as controversial as that.”

pay no attention to his 1st EO out of the gate being an order to close Gitmo.
Union labor for all federal contracts.
Unfettering Embryo use in Stem Cell research
Granting Interpol power of arrest on US Soil

Those are just his EOs that stick in my mind. I’m sure that there are other egregious examples in the 100++ he’s issued to date.

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Now let’s get this straight…this is not something that comes up in daily conversation..

Just when it does….gah….

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Hey honey…guess what I got you for your birthday?

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Just when it does….gah….

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM

So guns, hunting, etc. weren’t a big part of your life anyway? It’s just that they were/are for me so I can’t imagine living with someone who hated them.

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:36 PM

And another thing…she grew up in the South Side of Chicago..(go Jim Croce)..I grew up in a spot in the road in Wyoming and I had a fully stocked gun rack in my bedroom right from the get go…

Next time we go back to the BigWyo…My cousins got a couple of those Chinese SKs..we’ll go out and fire off some rounds….

Maybe she’ll figure out that a gun won’t fall off the wall and kill everyone in a 1000 yard radius….

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Who killed this man?

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

how about 10 clips per lib?

Fighton03 on January 9, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Overkill.

Solaratov on January 9, 2013 at 11:39 PM

So guns, hunting, etc. weren’t a big part of your life anyway? It’s just that they were/are for me so I can’t imagine living with someone who hated them.

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:36 PM

I don’t think it’s ‘Hate’. It’s just typical ignorance.

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:40 PM

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Can’t argue, though calling our hosts ‘liberal’ seems a bit much.

wolfsDad on January 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM

I don’t think it’s ‘Hate’. It’s just typical ignorance.

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:40 PM

Why don’t you take her to a gun range that lets you shoot their weapons? That way it stays at the gun range, and she slowly gets the idea that guns are not an evil spirit waiting to snatch away her life.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM

You think that’s what makes you a man? Really?

cam2 on January 9, 2013 at 11:44 PM

And another thing…she grew up in the South Side of Chicago..(go Jim Croce)..I grew up in a spot in the road in Wyoming and I had a fully stocked gun rack in my bedroom right from the get go…

Next time we go back to the BigWyo…My cousins got a couple of those Chinese SKs..we’ll go out and fire off some rounds

Maybe she’ll figure out that a gun won’t fall off the wall and kill everyone in a 1000 yard radius….

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Well I spent time in South Chicago, worked there, was in Detroit during the riots, lived through Chicago 1968, Selma, and other “peaceful” events. So I’m not sure what that has to do with it. But I guess my point is that personally I would feel like they disliked something about me and didn’t respect me. I’m pretty old, been there done that, so maybe I’m less inclined to put up with as much. Life’s too short, trust me on that. Have a good night.

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:45 PM

You think that’s what makes you a man? Really?

cam2 on January 9, 2013 at 11:44 PM

You mean it doesn’t?

What are you saying? /

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Why are we giving Piers Morgan so much oxygen?

V7_Sport on January 9, 2013 at 11:46 PM

“Where does that lead America to,” he exclaimed, “other than utter Wild West hell?”

Two quick points…

One: The Wild West is associated with Single Action Revolvers and Lever Action Rifles. (Semi-automatic firearms did appear in the tail end of the period.)

Two: The Wild West has strict gun control. h/t Adam Winkler.

Ok one more point Piers Morgan has no idea what he is talking about.

mad saint jack on January 9, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Why don’t you take her to a gun range that lets you shoot their weapons? That way it stays at the gun range, and she slowly gets the idea that guns are not an evil spirit waiting to snatch away her life.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Now see..I have entertained that thought…But see my post upthread…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Well I spent time in South Chicago, worked there, was in Detroit during the riots, lived through Chicago 1968, Selma, and other “peaceful” events. So I’m not sure what that has to do with it. But I guess my point is that personally I would feel like they disliked something about me and didn’t respect me. I’m pretty old, been there done that, so maybe I’m less inclined to put up with as much. Life’s too short, trust me on that. Have a good night.

Deanna on January 9, 2013 at 11:45 PM

So yer basically looking to start a fight with me???

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM

General McChrystal is an idiot. The .223 is not as deadly a round as the .30-06 round fired by the Garand from World War Two, or the rounds fired by many hunting rifles.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

What do you expect from one of the “perfumed princes” who spent his entire career in SpecOps, rose to the rank of general…and never saw any combat? Never. Ever.

I keep wondering how someone does that.

He does, of course, send other men (operators) out to fight…but he stays in the rear.

Solaratov on January 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Now see..I have entertained that thought…But see my post upthread…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM

The SKS is a good weapon, I have one myself (evil 30-round mag) so she should have fun if she lets herself. I have taken some women out shooting and it’s odd the ones who take to it, and the ones who don’t. Not always who you would think.

Hope it works out.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:55 PM

I keep wondering how someone does that.

Carefully I would imagine. They always seem to see combat at divisional HQ or Corp level as a staff officer.

He does, of course, send other men (operators) out to fight…but he stays in the rear.

Solaratov on January 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM

The officer corp is slowly becoming something that is less and less trustworthy. For liberals that is a feature of course.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:57 PM

Hope it works out.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Funny thing is..she LOVES the shoot em’ up games…way back to Battlefield 2…now it’s COD…Killing Floor…

BigWyo on January 10, 2013 at 12:04 AM

People are murdered in a gun free zone school and Morgan argues that children should be able to got to school without worrying about being murdered. I agree children should be able to go to school without worrying about being murdered that is why teachers and the rest of the staff should be required to carry and be proficient with with a weapon with a maximum range of not less than 50 feet. It does not have to be guns crossbows, sherkin, well thrown bricks it does not matter as long as it will take down a man at 50 feet or less.

Slowburn on January 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM

Having said all that, I do think Weigel’s right that people are overreacting to the prospect of The One issuing some sort of executive order on guns. For one thing, it’d be uncharacteristic of him to risk his own political capital by acting unilaterally on something as controversial as that.

Never trust a serial dog-eating Communist from Chicago who is an electoral lame duck. Using this as a way to punish his political opponents would be a wet dream for Obama. Plus his electorate would be more interested in what the Kardashians do; they are that mentally bereft.

Myron Falwell on January 10, 2013 at 12:11 AM

http://ielmira.com/uploads/gallery/album_146/gallery_1_146_10685.jpeg

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM

That happened to me when I admitted to being a fan of Bryan Adams.

Myron Falwell on January 10, 2013 at 12:16 AM

That happened to me when I admitted to being a fan of Bryan Adams.

Myron Falwell on January 10, 2013 at 12:16 AM

We all carry our secrets. It’s just not something you talk about in public.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 12:22 AM

General McChrystal is an idiot.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Gee, patriotic General versus “let America collapse”, MOBY web troll…

V7_Sport on January 10, 2013 at 12:33 AM

FACT: Piers Morgan is a sissy…

elihu on January 10, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Gee, patriotic General…

V7_Sport on January 10, 2013 at 12:33 AM

A ‘patriot’ who doesn’t understand the second amendment, wants to ban guns, and broke the oath he took to defend the constitution by pushing this garbage.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 12:40 AM

Gee, patriotic General versus “let America collapse”, MOBY web troll…

V7_Sport on January 10, 2013 at 12:33 AM

See ‘Wesley Clark’…

BigWyo on January 10, 2013 at 12:42 AM

See ‘Wesley Clark’…

BigWyo on January 10, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Nope, there’s a big difference.

V7_Sport on January 10, 2013 at 12:46 AM

Good point in the first paragraph; I had not thought of that.

Nice to see paragraphs in a blog, or any article for that matter, on-line and off-line.

John Kettlewell on January 10, 2013 at 12:46 AM

General McChrystal is an idiot.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

And worse. McChrystal is a deluded islamophile who doesn’t know jack about anything. Here’s what the moron had to say in one of his COIN reports:

“whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS from the vast majority of the Afghan population.”

LOL. Though it’s beyond pathetic, really. McChrystal thought that islamic insurgents were “anti-islamic” and that their indiscriminate use of violence was somehow at odds with the koran and afghan history. “cultural and religious violations” …. ROFLMAO! McChrystal has never cracked a book on history and has certainly never actually read the koran. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerously stupid.

McChrystal hasn’t got room to speak about anything. He’s a stone-cold idiot who was happy to lick the boots of the islamists while he served. Now, he likes licking the boots of the Indonesian raised as a muslim while out of service. No surprise, just pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Any EO or legislation infringing on the 2nd starts a war.
It won’t be an immediate, bang, bang, shootemup war; but one that happens in odd places at odd times in odd ways.
Insurgent warfare has no schedule.
Who/where is the enemy?
Who/what are targets?
I fear we are about to find out.
God save the Republic and the Constitution.
III/0317

dirtengineer on January 10, 2013 at 1:24 AM

LOL. Though it’s beyond pathetic, really. McChrystal thought that islamic insurgents were “anti-islamic” and that their indiscriminate use of violence was somehow at odds with the koran and afghan history. “cultural and religious violations” …. ROFLMAO! McChrystal has never cracked a book on history and has certainly never actually read the koran. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerously stupid.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM

How do you fight a war in Afghanistan and know nothing of Islam, the British experience during their colonial days, or what happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan? Seriously it sounds like this idiot thinks that if we are just nice enough and explain all the mean and nasty things the insurgents are doing that the people will change allegiance? Fools.

They keep repeating the same failed Vietnam playbook with the same results. Islam has a similar militant nature to it that Marxism does, and they understand that control of the people is essential. The Vietcong were absolutely brutal towards the peasants and villages and it worked.

A general that doesn’t understand the nature of power.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM

Alex Jones is the main person I’ve seen standing up to these Fascist clowns.

Surely many fantasize about maybe Rand Paul, Rubio or some other con heart throb doing so, but it simply ain’t happening.

Slowly but surely our Liberties are being eroded and we’ll be sold out by those who talk a good game, including the NRA. And, how exactly is the NRA any different than any large union? Same thing. Run by those seeking what is in their personal best interests.

These Socialists nibble away, a little at a time…we get upset, the weekend comes, the bread and circuses come and go, we forget about it, and then down the line it’s something new.

Slowly but surely we are learning to be comfortable in our cages.

Embrace the suck.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 10, 2013 at 1:41 AM

John Lott isn’t nearly in the optimistic camp

The resources for these organizations will swamp those of the NRA. The studies that they fund and the ads that they finance will also be much more openly received by the media. Bringing these foundations together may be the biggest advance towards gun control in my lifetime. Imagine the resourcees of 50 Joyce Foundations.

but, then of course, Lott knows obama

John Lott: And that is when he made the statement about believe that people shouldn’t be able to own guns, I said, “Well, maybe we can get together for lunch and we can talk about it.”

John Lott: And because I knew he was also supportive of the Chicago suit against the gun makers.

John Lott: He just grimaced and turned around and walked away and that was the end of the conversation. And that’s the way many conversations went that I had with him and I believe just in general he really disliked talking to people that he regarded as conservatives.

Dave Bose: He didn’t even say goodbye? He just grimaced and turned around?

John Lott: Right.

Dave Bose: Or, did he say no thanks?

John Lott: No, he just turned around and walked away.

Dave Bose: Not even the usually polite, “Yeah, we’ll do that sometime?”

John Lott: No. I mean, and there were cases in later years where I would reach out to shake his hand and he would just refuse my hand.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116714/posts

r keller on January 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM

They deserve to be subjected by the moon worshipping mohammedians.

tom daschle concerned on January 9, 2013 at 10:01 PM

You keep acting like there is some difference between the idiots in Britain and idiotic Americans.

yubley on January 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM

Any EO or legislation infringing on the 2nd starts a war.
It won’t be an immediate, bang, bang, shootemup war; but one that happens in odd places at odd times in odd ways.
Insurgent warfare has no schedule.
Who/where is the enemy?
Who/what are targets?
I fear we are about to find out.
God save the Republic and the Constitution.
III/0317

dirtengineer on January 10, 2013 at 1:24 AM

God doesn’t bless tyrannies. Plain and simple.

Myron Falwell on January 10, 2013 at 2:28 AM

Joshua Boston did an excellent job, easily defeating Piers Morgan on every point and doing it with style.

FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America was on Piers Morgan’s show tonight as well and also did a great job.

FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 4:07 AM

Communists have a long history of controlling arms and then killing millions of innocent people and subjecting millions more to horrific oppression. Of course Obama cares about guns. The statists in our government need to disarm us before they start helping themselves to what’s left of our liberty and property. Let’s keep our guns and let’s take it very seriously when Marxists start making gun grabs. It’s practically impossible to overreact.

Cara C on January 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Your point is not lost on some of us. The dancing around this topic is enough to make a person ill. One of the problems we face is the historical deficient the majority of the population operates. The United State indoctrination system, read, public education has done an outstanding job of dumbing down the general population, and redefining the historical records of communists/socialist tyrants. Only the people who take the time to self-educate or have the fortunate opportunity of private education and homeschooling recognize the historical significance of gun bans and what generally follows.

Another problem is awakening those who took the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They tend to confuse the second part of the oath where they swear to follow the orders of those appointed above them.

The Oath is written in the order of significance one applies when confronted with a choice. The first obligation is to protect the Consitition, not follow illegal orders. Our forefather’s recognized there might be a time when the enemies become domestic and the population would need the wherewithal to defend themselves and fight tyranny. This is the crux of the 2nd Amendment and the Oath we all swore.

Thomas Jefferson told us,

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

The whimsical assumption this could never happen in our country foolish at best and deadly at worst. History is replete with government who face upheaval because of usurpation of power and disregard for the population. It is the height of hubris to believe we are exempt.

I hope the time never comes to pass when we, as Constitutional oath bound citizens are forced to make a choice but it looks very gloomy at this time in our country.

We owe our children and grandchildren more than platitudes about freedom.

We owe them freedom.

usarmyretired on January 10, 2013 at 4:31 AM

I think he would have happily ignored this issue if Newtown hadn’t forced his hand. Now he has to deliver something to his base and he knows nothing serious will pass Congress. So I do think he’s going to issue an order — he has to — but I think Weigel’s right that it’ll be marginal. If he tried something more expansive, like an executive order banning assault weapons, it’d probably be torpedoed in court. And the House would immediately pass something overriding it, which would put Senate Democrats in a terrible spot politically ahead of the midterms.

Allahpundit on January 9, 2013 at 10:02 PM

What in the hell do you think Fast & Furious was about / for, you willful idiot?
OBama’s ONLY bill as a Senator was a call for the US to adopt the UN Milleninial Goals protocol, which had high amongst its goals the complete disarmament of civilian populations.
Obama THE MARXIST – and the team that surrounds him – have disarmament of the US population as a chief goal. It’s the only thing standing between them and their glorious marxist revolution.

rayra on January 10, 2013 at 5:38 AM

Piers was smart inviting Alex Jones on. He got the spotlight off his own stupid comments for a few days.

For me the heart of the 2nd amendment is the right of the common man. Do we have the same rights as anyone else? The right to self defense.

JellyToast on January 10, 2013 at 6:50 AM

It’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. My take.

kingsjester on January 10, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Realistically, there’s no scenario where they decide that they’ve gone far enough. Once you’ve reached that point, where you can’t trust your opponent to volunteer and abide by a limit to his own regulatory ambition, what’s left to debate? Where good faith is lacking, there’s nothing to discuss.

Which pretty much describes the current Congress and WHite House negotiations on just about any subject since 2008……..

Tenwheeler on January 10, 2013 at 7:16 AM

…there’d be so much outcry and so many lawsuits that his second term would be tangled up in this for months or years. And he doesn’t want that.

What?!! Someone didn’t pay attention to the Grifter-in-Chief’s first term.

WordsMatter on January 10, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Maybe we should settle one thing about Zero, and that is he doesn’t do anything on his own. There is ALWAYS somebody pulling his strings. He’s the most obvious example evah that presidents are nothing but puppets. It seems that now is the time to start disarming the people, and those who are the players in our police state will simply go along or lose their jobs/positions and be disarmed themselves. Our policeman and deputies have been having too much time playing SWAT to give all that up. Lock and load, people (those who have the b*alls to actually stand up for all this freedom and liberty crap we’ve been espousing over the years; the rest of you slink aside).

HiJack on January 10, 2013 at 7:37 AM

Notice how Piers tries to equate him with an American Marine, saying he understands how he felt because he has family that could have served in Iran of Afghanistan. Then tries to paint the picture of a Theater full of patrons with an M-16 on their back.

Typical lib, who do not understand, the difference between (automatic and semi automatic), and try to convince everyone an M-16 and AR-15 are the same weapon. They aren’t, M-16 is fully automatic (Pull the trigger once and weapon continues to fire, an AR 15 is only capable of firing one round with one pull of the rigger.

The bottom line is that libs don’t like weapons, but watch them when the Government begins to dictate vice govern.

MSGTAS on January 10, 2013 at 7:45 AM

First off, Pierce Morgan did not grandstand in any of his gun control related interviews.

Secondly, as an anti-gun person, while I think Alex Jones and all his listeners belong in the zoo, this goateed ex-Marine is very eloquent, calm, likable, doesn’t talk in talkingpointsese and actually has points that make sense. My favourite thing about him is that he’s not frothing at the mouth.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 7:55 AM

I think Allah is being too confident that Obama will not use executive order to ban guns. Why? Because he thinks he has changed the rules, for one. As for his legacy, his true legacy is to change America irreversably, and his only roadblock was being reelected in the first place, which he was. I think Obama truly believes that America is on the verge of becoming a true Socialist State, and that retaining antiquated Constitutional rights for those who believe in “God and Guns” is a silly notion.

Obama also knows that surely he will get the chance to replace at least one of the more Conservative SCOTUS Justices (if not two) in the next 4 years, which will mean he will have his chance to make such changes permanent. Once the SCOTUS leans Left–it is all but over, they can simply reexamine the individual right to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment and say it is not an individual right. This is how you make the Constitution into the document that the Left wants–via INTERPRETATION (Remember that John Roberts did exactly that in making the compelling of individuals to buy a product a “tax”).

darkmetal on January 10, 2013 at 7:57 AM

Let’s keep our guns and let’s take it very seriously when Marxists start making gun grabs. It’s practically impossible to overreact.

Cara C on January 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM

And it’s practically impossible to say this too often. Spot on.

DrMagnolias on January 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Allahpundit, you completely underestimate Obama’s totalitarian impulse. And he has gone “full rogue unconstitutional” before. People are NOT overreacting to Biden’s statement yesterday.

WannabeAnglican on January 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM

I do think Weigel’s right that people are overreacting to the prospect of The One issuing some sort of executive order on guns.

Well, then you’re a bigger fool then I thought.

Look at the way Mr. Obama has let the DoJ run. He will do his best to keep fingerprints off whatever he’s done. The President was also somewhat restrained prior to this election. That will not be the case over his next term.

It’s very nice that you’ve agreed anyone thinking the President will issues Executive Orders on this is now a “Right Wing Wingnut”. But I’ll bet you a bottle of 23 year old Pappy Van Winkle it happens.

Marcus Traianus on January 10, 2013 at 8:37 AM

AGAIN….what the H@LL is this recent ‘llove’ for Morgan & interest in everything he has to say? Didn’t he ‘flee’ to the U.S. to avoid that whole ‘wiretapping’ scandal he was in the middle of back in London?!

Here’s a list of topics by people you don’t want to hear from:

o Advice on U.S. immigration coming from an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT…

o Gun / U.S. Constitutional Advice coming from a FOREIGNER…

o Health Care being discussed by a Politician who the best health care our tax dollars can afford…

o ‘There is NO SPENDING PROBLEM’ coming from a President who has averaged spending $1.7 TRILLION more than we actually have every year, who has set records for ‘Monthly’, ‘Annual’, & ‘Total’ deficit-spending, who has added more to the U.S. Debt than almost every U.S. President COMBINED, who called George Bush ‘UN-AMERICAN’ for adding $4 Trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years but who himself added over $6 Trillion in only 4 (FOUR) years…

easyt65 on January 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Watch for them to lean on Big Gun Retail the way they did on Big Oil(pipeline), Big Pharma, Big Car, Big Health Insurance. Nice company you got there Cabelas be a shame if something happened to it. It’s hard to resist the full force of the fed govt. Something we all may find out sooner or later. If congress includes gun grabbing in a tax bill will Roberts find a way to ok it? There’s our other problem.

Kissmygrits on January 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Mark Levin (as usual) had a great comment on these latest gun-grab tactics. Where is the Republican leadership in all this? Biden and his commie friends are strong-arming retail giant Walmart and lining up all the necessary sympathizers and quislings in the media and elsewhere. What are Boehner and McConnell doing? Where are the hundreds of people who were able to protect themselves and others due to their access to firearms? Why isn’t Republican leadership screaming to every media channel who will listen about the horrific murder rates in cities like Detroit and Chicago where these stringent, liberally-supported gun controls already exist?

Pathetic.

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Secondly, as an anti-gun person, while I think Alex Jones and all his listeners belong in the zoo, this goateed ex-Marine is very eloquent, calm, likable, doesn’t talk in talkingpointsese and actually has points that make sense. My favourite thing about him is that he’s not frothing at the mouth.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 7:55 AM

Do me a favor. Read ‘The Diary of Anne Frank.’ You probably read it before, in school, as a child, but try reading it again as an adult. If you wonder why people are apt to ‘foam at the mouth’ when the libs get all gun-grabby, it’s because our Second Ammendment provides our last, best bastion against government abuse. Take this away, and the people lose any means to self determination. And before you say, “Different place, different time,” I’m sure there were thousands of German Jews that felt the same way. They lived in a cultured, civilized world as well… At least for a while.

When I think about my kind-hearted mom, or beautiful teen-aged daughter being dragged away, and me having no way to fight back, I despise, absolutely despise everyone on the other side whose actions and inactions could one day make this nightmare scenario a reality.

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Since and because of her founding, America is the home of the free and the brave: a lawfully armed citizenry=freedom and liberty from tyrannical government. Now, however, this principle is being challenged because of the proliferation of an unlawfully armed citizenry (ghetto-gangsters), and the use of military grade weapons by criminals both sane and insane.
The correct and logical response would be threefold:
1. to confiscate the unlawfully held weapons, 2. severely prosecute gun crimes, and 3. curtail the liberty of mentally ill persons who are a danger to themselves and others.
But when it comes to guns, logic and politics are only vaguely aware of each other, so prepare for this: posturing and grandstanding by both sides with little or no attempt to confiscate criminal armament, writing new laws to criminalize the ownership of certain weapons by law-abiding citizens, and marginal attempts to prosecute violent gun crime by criminals both sane or insane.
Meanwhile the culture of violence and death will continue to flourish in our media and in our cities and towns. Nothing but a nation-wide change of heart, or divine intervention will solve the real cause of gun violence in America.

Randy

williars on January 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Do me a favor. Read ‘The Diary of Anne Frank.’

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Not only did I read her diary, in Hebrew, I also visited the apartment in Amsterdam where she hid with her family.

Nothing would have saved Jews from the Nazis. When you’ve got most of the government and country against you, with the entire apparatus of the state (police, military, judicial, press, etc.) hunting you down, marginalizing you… with all their superior weapons and training and other tools, a few armed citizens, including women, children and elderly, most of which were anti violence in general, would not have made a dent in anything.

There were armed resistance groups in Europe by the way. They were called “partisans” (partisani), and they didn’t need no legal approval to carry weapons in order to obtain, train and use them.

Furthermore, I’m not for banning all private ownership of guns. I’m for a very limited private ownership of guns, especially since the private citizen will NEVER be able to catch up with the government when it comes to the military organization, training, type of weapons, etc.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Slowly but surely we are learning to be comfortable in our cages.

Embrace the suck.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 10, 2013 at 1:41 AM

I couldn’t agree more, you get it.

aceinstall on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

blink on January 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM

I don’t know, but not because Hitler was afraid of Swiss weapons. Hitler wasn’t afraid to pick a fight with USSR, so what would Switzerland have been to him? A walk in the park.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

She will not even entertain the idea of having one in the house…

You can’t even discuss it with these people…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM

.
Why isn’t SHE writing the below statements on some blog?

“He will not even entertain the idea of living without one in the house…. You can’t even discuss it with these people…”

Why is SHE the one that gets her own way?

blink
on January 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM

.
Hey BigWyo, … maybe she could tolerate the new pistol by Ruger, commemorating our Senators and Representatives in DC.

It’s called “The Congressman”.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Nothing would have saved Jews from the Nazis. When you’ve got most of the government and country against you, with the entire apparatus of the state (police, military, judicial, press, etc.) hunting you down, marginalizing you… with all their superior weapons and training and other tools, a few armed citizens, including women, children and elderly, most of which were anti violence in general, would not have made a dent in anything.
Alex B

Doesn’t the above seem eerily similar to what’s going on right now in our very own country? Isn’t the ‘apparatus of the state,’ the media, and a sizeable number of our fellow citizens taking the first, tottering steps toward that very thing?

Furthermore, I’m not for banning all private ownership of guns. I’m for a very limited private ownership of guns, especially since the private citizen will NEVER be able to catch up with the government when it comes to the military organization, training, type of weapons, etc.
AlexB

I’ll refer you to our own American Revolution…

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

She will not even entertain the idea of having one in the house…

You can’t even discuss it with these people…

BigWyo on January 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Why would a man even marry a woman like that?
I sure didn’t.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

blink on January 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM

.
I don’t know, but not because Hitler was afraid of Swiss weapons. Hitler wasn’t afraid to pick a fight with USSR, so what would Switzerland have been to him? A walk in the park.

AlexB
on January 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

.
The Alps protect Switzerland, blink.

But that didn’t stop the Swiss government from requiring ALL able-bodied young men from serving in the military. Also, all Swiss active military personnell are REQUIRED to keep their military weapon inside the home !

In 2007, the Swiss government reduced that requirement “slightly”, by disallowing the requirement for ammunition to be kept inside the home with the weapon.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Doesn’t the above seem eerily similar to what’s going on right now in our very own country? Isn’t the ‘apparatus of the state,’ the media, and a sizeable number of our fellow citizens taking the first, tottering steps toward that very thing?

What thing exactly? Americans are some of the most vocal and organized government-petitioners on the planet, with some very outspoken rightists and leftists. I don’t see Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Bill Maher, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter or Dennis Miller getting arrested.

What I see is the SecDef and a bunch of generals personally calling Terry Jones and begging him to change his behaviour. That’s the extreme opposite of what you’re suggesting is happening.

I’ll refer you to our own American Revolution…

There was no “Second Amendment” in place in 1776, was there?

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Nothing would have saved Jews from the Nazis.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM

-
Go lay down and roll over… Nothing can save you.

RalphyBoy on January 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

That’s cool.

But that shouldn’t be cited as the reason why Hitler didn’t attack the Swiss.

Btw, Hitler attacked the USSR in the winter. He made his infantry march 30+ miles every single day in sub-zero temperatures with poor rations and clothes for weeks and weeks and weeks. He was not scared of the Swiss in any way shape or form.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Go lay down and roll over… Nothing can save you.

RalphyBoy on January 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

You know, Israel gets cited very often by pro-gun advocates. You should do some research of what’s legal and what’s illegal in Israel in terms of gun ownership, what the rules are, who gets to own weapons, and which ones.

Only those on active military duty are supposed to carry weapons. Those in private security as well. If a civilian wants to get a weapon he has to go through months of hoop-jumping before he gets to own anything, and it’ll be either a primitive rifle or a simple handgun which as far as I know cannot be concealed.

If the Nazi Holocaust is brought into this debate (which I loathe to do, but ok…) then go ahead and examine how the people who were its victim treat weapons, and the lessons they took from it. Even in the crazy terrorist environment in Israel private citizens by and large don’t own weapons. The VAST majority of weapons owners are those in the service of the state.

There you have it.

Now, let’s continue this debate without citing Hitler or Jews, thanks.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM

There was no “Second Amendment” in place in 1776, was there?

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Actually, not true. The 1688 Bill of Rights states that no Protestant shall be debarred the use of arms.

mabryb1 on January 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Actually, I did marry a woman like that. Then three armed thugs started robbing cars at a gas station two blocks away from our house, her car got vandalized, someone broke into our shed and stole some tools, and other facts of life. Nowadays, she wants me to hurry up and get my revolver fixed at the gunsmith.

mabryb1 on January 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM

There was no “Second Amendment” in place in 1776, was there?

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

No, the second Amendment simply codified what had already been a long established American custom of private gun ownership. And you can’t just shake the liberal wand and keep Hitler or the Jews from entering the dialog because for many of us, their story remains the penultimate cautionary tale. But go ahead, toss on Cuba, or Russia, or Red China, or any number of others because they all tell the same story. The first step to eventual enslavement is the systematic disarmament of the civilian populace. Take that away, and everything you have left and everything else in our Bill of Rights is just words.

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

.
That’s cool.

But that shouldn’t be cited as the reason why Hitler didn’t attack the Swiss.

Btw, Hitler attacked the USSR in the winter. He made his infantry march 30+ miles every single day in sub-zero temperatures with poor rations and clothes for weeks and weeks and weeks. He was not scared of the Swiss in any way shape or form.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

.
I’m pretty sure the first line of my comment was:

“The Alps protect Switzerland, blink.”

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 12:09 PM

it’d be uncharacteristic of him to risk his own political capital

Many seem to assume he has the country’s best interests in mind and that he cares about his political capital.

I believe neither is true. I believe he’s wants to dismantle this country. I barely recognize it today. I fear it will get worse.

I am angry with myself because in my impotence, I do nothing about it, nor feel there’s anything I can do. I sit and type my meaningless opinions here.

freedomfirst on January 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I am angry with myself because in my impotence, I do nothing about it, nor feel there’s anything I can do. I sit and type my meaningless opinions here.

freedomfirst on January 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

One of the most honest statements I’ve ever read here, and a sentiment I’m sure is shared by many…

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM

If the Nazi Holocaust is brought into this debate (which I loathe to do, but ok…) then go ahead and examine how the people who were its victim treat weapons, and the lessons they took from it. Even in the crazy terrorist environment in Israel private citizens by and large don’t own weapons. The VAST majority of weapons owners are those in the service of the state.

There you have it.

Now, let’s continue this debate without citing Hitler or Jews, thanks.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM

.
Those weapons kept inside the homes of active Israeli military sevice personnell, have ammunition very close by, if not inside the weapon itself, at all times.

The documented histories of any modern tyrants (since the invention of the “repeating” rifle using brass cartridges), are “open game” for examples of edicts disarming the citizenry.

You’re never going to separate Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin from this debate.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I do think Weigel’s right

And that’s when i stopped taking Allahpundit seriously.

clearbluesky on January 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM

toss on Cuba, or Russia, or Red China, or any number of others because they all tell the same story. The first step to eventual enslavement is the systematic disarmament of the civilian populace. Take that away, and everything you have left and everything else in our Bill of Rights is just words.

CaptFlood on January 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM

In Arab culture everybody owns guns, and yet it never prevented tyrants from coming to and keeping power.

Those weapons kept inside the homes of active Israeli military sevice personnell, have ammunition very close by, if not inside the weapon itself, at all times.
listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM

While they’re on weekend leave which lasts for 1 day (just the Saturday). It’s not at all as if they have the gun at home all the time. And the young soldiers you see in the cities with M16s, they’re on their way to or from the base.

In Israel there are 2 types of violent criminals: the street thugs, and the professional mafia types. Given that there are no street guns in Israel, and a very limited private ownership of them (I don’t count the ones carried by active military / security company people), the former type’s preferred weapon is knives and clubs. The latter use guns or very sophisticated means of killing the rare time it happens.

I am scared to imagine what would happen if the hot headed street thugs got their hands on guns, legal or illegal.

———————————-

So which is it, the fear of Stalin in America, the historical cultural thing of “we have to have guns because we always have”, or fear of violent criminals?

Neither of these 3 core propositions of pro-gun advocates makes sense when they don’t want to go along with assault-weapons and high capacity clip bans.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

In Arab culture everybody owns guns, and yet it never prevented tyrants from coming to and keeping power.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

That has more to do with Arab culture than anything else. Freedom is something you have to actually want before having guns will help you keep it.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM

That has more to do with Arab culture than anything else. Freedom is something you have to actually want before having guns will help you keep it.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Exactly.

The restriction on private gun ownership is not what will enable a dictatorship to emerge, and not what will prevent an insurrection if a dictatorship does emerge. Hence “we gotta keep the government honest with our privately owned guns” is not a valid argument.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The restriction on private gun ownership is not what will enable a dictatorship to emerge, and not what will prevent an insurrection if a dictatorship does emerge.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Yes it will keep the government in check, which is why such governments immediately move towards gun control. Weapons are a tool and can be used as they are in Arab cultures, or they can be used as they were in the American Revolution. Reserving guns for the men in power will just make certain that the average person is powerless, and that what they want doesn’t need to be taken into account when their elites consider legislation.

Power corrupts the hearts of men and trusting that only angelic creatures will walk the halls of power is insane.

sharrukin on January 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM

In Arab culture everybody owns guns, and yet it never prevented tyrants from coming to and keeping power.

AlexB

.
Bad example. Everyone’s a “tyrant” in Islamic countries.

Some are worse than others, but I defy you to show me a “non-tyrant” Arab World leader.
The best one I can think of is the former (now deceased) King Hussein of Jordan. The current Jordanian leader hasn’t had enough journalist coverage, for me to speak on.

———————————-———————————-———————————-

In Israel there are 2 types of violent criminals: the street thugs, and the professional mafia types. Given that there are no street guns in Israel, and a very limited private ownership of them (I don’t count the ones carried by active military / security company people), the former type’s preferred weapon is knives and clubs. The latter use guns or very sophisticated means of killing the rare time it happens.

I am scared to imagine what would happen if the hot headed street thugs got their hands on guns, legal or illegal.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

.
If I’m understanding the preceding lines correctly, you’re stating that Israel currently has the kind of “gun-control” that Obama/Biden would like to institute, here.

Your going to have to prove that.
The premise that there are very few “privately owned” firearms in today’s Israel doesn’t jive, at all.

———————————-———————————-———————————-

So which is it, the fear of Stalin in America, the historical cultural thing of “we have to have guns because we always have”, or fear of violent criminals?

Neither of these 3 core propositions of pro-gun advocates makes sense when they don’t want to go along with assault-weapons and high capacity clip bans.

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

.
In order as you sequenced them above, numbers one and three.

NOT number two.

I can’t think of anyone who gives any thought to; “we have to have guns because we always have”.
I’m wondering where you even came up with that.

The number one reason for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to keep our Governments (plural, because it includes Federal, State, and Local) from exercising DOMINION over the common citizens. All other uses of firearms come after that.

The “civilian, semi-auto versions” of military light weapons (read: Assault Rifles) are currently the best firearm of choice for this purpose.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM

He wants Congress to take the lead on this (as usual) so that he bears as little responsibility as possible if it fails or even if it succeeds and there’s a major backlash.

You can substitute Rice/Clinton/Bush/Recalcitrant Republicans, anyone you wish, in this sentence. Obama can’t and won’t take responsiblity for anything, the MSM will ensure he doesn’t have to answer for anything, and the LIV that voted for him won’t hold him accountable for anything.

TulsAmerican on January 10, 2013 at 5:55 PM

There was no “Second Amendment” in place in 1776, was there?

AlexB on January 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Nope. But then again…why were british soldiers in lexington and concord again?

Fighton03 on January 11, 2013 at 2:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2