Thom Hartman is as virulently anti-gun rights as anyone. If not more. In the clip (not magazine) above, the liberal talk show host interviews Tim Macy, Chairman of the Board of Gun Owner’s of America. When Hartman asks Macy to defend the absence of an assault weapons ban, Macy stumbles a bit but finally counters that the bans are ineffective. After that, Hartman doesn’t let Macy get a word in edge-wise, throwing out enough misinformation to delight an old school Politburo member. At 7:23, Macy finally counters Hartman’s anti-gun agitprop with the Second Amendment. Bottom line: Macy is overwhelmed and outmaneuvered.

Recommended For You

56 Responses to Liberal Talk Show Host Thom Hartman “Debates” Gun Owners of America’s Tim Macy

  1. Thom Hartman is still absolutely incredulous that anyone has ever “hunted with an AR-15”. (“C’mon, you need an AR-15 to -shoot a deer-?”) The guy says it repeatedly in his diatribes, and he’s also fully aware that the political definition of “assault weapons” are semi-auto only.

    He knows what he’s doing. This isn’t out of ignorance. He’s fully behind a ban for the “cosmetic” set of features, knows exactly what he’s saying about it and always goes back to “Well they’re weapons of war!” — they should be removed because they *look* similar to “militaristic weapons”.

    To him this is a valid rationale for a ban.

    Absolutely shows how substance doesn’t matter, only feelings, cosmetics, and “marketing” does. After all, he’s “reasonable” and “moderate”: Thom only wants to take your “scary looking” guns; your wood and blued metal ones can stay.

    For now.

    Until they need to go, too.

    • Absolutely shows how substance doesn’t matter,

      My point all along. Pro-gun supporters do not know how to deal with this, and, fortunately refuses to learn. However, diatribes like the one in the video gets in the way of improving actual gun safety. Fanatical idiots of both sides make reducing negligent, irresponsible gun handling and ownership more difficult, and keeps the death toll running at 500 per year.

      • 500 per 325,000,000 (1:650,000). That’s just not significant. Something like 1000 people a year are struck by lightning. If you want to have a bigger impact on American survival you need to start with lightning avoidance programs.

        • “500 per 325,000,000 (1:650,000). That’s just not significant. ”

          I know. Who the hell cares about 500 people you don’t know and wouldn’t cross the street to comfort?

        • “I know. Who the hell cares about 500 people you don’t know and wouldn’t cross the street to comfort?”

          So, it’s about reducing serious injuries and deaths?

          Is that the whole point?

        • @2Asux: nice try. I could be among those 500. You realize that, right? Facing odds of 1 in 650,000 of being killed in any given year in order to live my life free of busybody statists pushing me around. I’ll take that.

        • I am glad you are as cavalier with your life as with 500 others. Amazing how little interest there is here about improving on gun safety. “Well, we are down to 500 poor slobs who just amount to ‘an insignificant statistic’, so what is the big deal? 500 negligent deaths is nothing to anyone, given the millions of guns and owners. We have enough safety. 500 dead, and their progeny deprived or never born costs too much to even consider saving a one of them.”

          Did I get it right?
          Don’t start with the “shall not be infringed”, “mandates” and “government control”. None of that is germane. We are talking about private individual and industry taking the initiative and responsibility, not tax payers.

        • [Reducing injuries & death]

          “It is my whole point in a series of articles lately.”

          Excellent! Now we can make real progress in reducing deaths.

          Make the national speed limit 35 MPH, *strictly* enforced. There is no *need* to drive 60 MPH +.

          Deaths will drop an easy 10,000 per year.

          For an object that is specifically designed *not* to kill, motor vehicles slaughter tens of thousands yearly. There is much we can do to reduce those deaths. Vehicle bodies made of ‘Nerf’ foam materials will cut fatality rates even more.

          *wink*

          DUI is a major factor in fatal accidents, we must make DUI convictions carry a mandatory 10 year sentence, none of that probation or ‘hardship’ bullshit.

          Or are you perfectly fine with the blood-bath on our public roads? 🙂

        • I have no interest in any other cause of accidental death or injury for this blog. It is about guns. Nothing else.

          But because you people are so fond of deflection (thinking you are so intellectually superior), let’s turn this around: when you get negligent, irresponsible gun death and injury down to less than 100 per year, then I will help you address – world hunger, cancer, PTSD, mental illness, automobiles, plastic laundry bags, swimming pools, lawn mowers, electrical shock, power tools, obesity, AIDS, west nile fever, Ebola. zits, heartbreak of psoriasis, neuritis, neuralgia, ED, and whatever else. But first, you must discuss voluntary measures to reduce below 100 the negligent, irresponsible death and injury resulting from gunfire.

      • @2Asux,
        If you want to address how to reduce negligent discharges then how about firearm safety training in public schools. You can’t hope hiding people from something will be enough to protect them from it. We don’t just try to ignore AIDS and pretend that keeps us safe. We teach about why AIDS are bad, how its contracted, and how to avoid it. Now mandatory firearms safety and handling starting in elementary school would help greatly in preventing NDs.

        • Firearms training in school would be a government-driven effort; anathema to POTG. My call for better gun safety training is focused on voluntary, individual and industry efforts to establish programs that confer a mark of accomplishment on trainees, is recurring, and publicized as something attractive and meaningful to participate in.

          If a school board, at the behest of parents, decided to initiate firearms training (without any political content), that would be an excellent thing.

      • Firstly, this 500 number you are throwing out there. Do we know that this number is even accurate? Are these ND’s from legal gun owners or criminals or children? Or a mixture of all three? I am 100% for reducing injuries or deaths from improper firearms handling but we need to correctly identify the numbers when it comes to legal gun owners. If criminal or prohibited persons’ ND’s are included in this count then it is skewed from the start. Those folks deserve their own discussion imho.

        • The 500 negligent deaths have been reported in a number of places, even on this blog. It seems to be an accepted figure. I do not have independent data to refer to. As to the “mix” of ND demographic groups, I have seen nothing to identify those groups. Gangbangers and other criminals may be included in the stats, but I suspect that the fact the number of negligent injuries and deaths stays around 500 means that criminals are not included (crime and gang war rise and fall due to factors unrelated to gun safety).

        • The only ND injuries or deaths we should concern ourselves with are those where it is not the shooter who is injured or killed, since there is no way, otherwise, to be sure you are dealing with an accident rather than a suicide/attempt. I doubt you will find 100 in that event, so 2Asux’ job is done, nothing to see here, move along.

        • The 100 figure you mention is not listed in anything I have seen. A guess is a guess. I would really be interested in finding data that breaks down the negligent, irresponsible deaths from firearms into criminal/non-criminal, self vs. others. That information would be useful.

      • How about this, you slimy little control freak? You can whine and cry and pontificate all you want. You can play little smart-mouth games. You can attempt shaming. Fact is that I’m flat not going to disarm, and there isn’t jack you can do about it.

        • Bravo ! Now you can collect your brownie points from your buds.

          I would not propose to have you disarm. I will rely on legal and political measures to secure that outcome. It would be a result you and yours have earned. If you re-read my comment, you will find there is more than what is displayed on the page. Right in the middle is something you would little expect.

  2. I will never understand how gun people agree to go on these shows without knowing their shit. Do they not know they’re going to be attacked?

    • The real lesson, if you didn’t already know this, is to avoid this sort of exposure, always. No one that regularly listens to that kind tripe has any interest in what a real 2nd Amendment supporter has to say. Since the format and microphone are controlled by a left wing loon you have as much chance for a rational dialog as Christian alone in the middle of an ISIS encampment.

      • Avoid any non-safe venue for discussing gun rights. We are too inarticulate to accomplish anything more than our own embarrassment.

        • If ambushed on the street, OTOH, simply keep laughing and repeating “You are a moron!”, the clip will never see the light of day.

        • “If ambushed on the street, OTOH, simply keep laughing and repeating “You are a moron!”, the clip will never see the light of day.”

          Yep.

        • We who? I want a tank!
          It would come in really handy a few days each winter with a plow attachment; hopefully I won’t have any need for the 105mm main gun, those shells are really expensive.
          People ‘of the gun’ keep getting stuck when anti-safety advocates use the word “need” in context of the 2A, when no such word is used or implied. It’s a RIGHT.

  3. Saw a great T-shirt that is a perfect reply to Hartman, nobody needs an AR15 and nobody needs a whiny bitch, but here you.

  4. Has anyone in the U.S. Ever been shot with a .50 bmg by a criminal? Why was no one armed to to stop Gabby Giffords shooter before he had to reload? Is anyone advocating for legal ownership of shoulder fired explosives?

    • There was at least one armed person at the Gifford’s shooting. He held fire because by the time he determined the threat the guy had already been tackled and disarmed.

  5. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by an irrational loon shouting nonsense.
    Outmaneuvered? Nah. That would imply tactic, strategy, reason.
    The anti’s have none of that. Just a barrage of slogans and feels.

    You’d have a more productive debate with a six year old over the benefits and risks of nuclear energy.

  6. Should I have the right to own a sholder fired rocket launcher? Yes if you can afford one. Should I be able to own a 50 caliber? Yes, especially seeing as you already can stupid.

    • If you pay your NFA tax and have the required storage requirements for high explosives I am sure you could own on.

    • Exactly! That is just what I was thinking. If you are going to argue, don’t talk like you have an IV drip of Valium going into your arm. Ben Shapiro would have chewed Thom Hartman up for breakfast and spit him out.

    • You know if you stumble over the question of why people should be allowed to have an AR15 you’re really not doing your job.

      Simple answer EVERYBODY can relate to.

      1) Look at every hostage scene played out on TV. Dozens of police or SWAT members armed with 30 round AR15’s

      2) All those people made a decision that an AR15 was the weapon of choice to maximize their odds of survival and they also usually outnumber the bad guy 20 to 1.

      3) Now if I’m woken up in the middle of the night to the sounds of my door being kicked by an unknown number of bad guys why can’t I defend myself with a similar weapon? Is my life and my family worth less than a policeman?

  7. Thom Hartman

    ” Again I don’t see why you need a Mac10 or AR-14 even in semiautomatic mode to defended yourself ”

    If you are going to make an argument against guns fine but you should at least know what you are talking about instead drawing you own conclusions from YouTube and the A-Team.

  8. He might not see the reasoning, but that alone isn’t reason for legislation. The choice of tool for self-defense is up to the individual, not Thom Hartman, or the government. If I feel I need a select-fire rifle for self-defense, that’s up to me.

    Actually, if I want a select-fire rifle just to have, that should be up to me.

  9. The small bit I listened to was really painful. If someone asked me to “defend the lack of an assault-weapons ban”, the first thing I would ask is, “how much time do you have, because this is gonna take awhile” and proceed with, in no particular order, the facts that “assault weapon” is a made-up term with essentially no meaning, that true “weapons of war” are already highly regulated, that all rifles, including what you are pleased to call “assault weapons” account for fewer homicides than bare knuckles, that the actual experience is that “assault weapons bans” had no discernible effect on crime, and in the latest “study” touted by the news media, were actually correlated with an INCREASE in gun crime (hell, I know the “study” was bogus, but I would throw that part back at them anyway)…am I out of time yet??

  10. He keeps asking “Why do you need this?” and the answer is simple. “Because it’s a free country and nobody can come up with a good reason why I shouldn’t have it.” But it’s clear that this guy will just pull out the liberal propaganda “research” and call it conclusive and shut down any argument you give. There is the question of whether he wants to ban or restrict or license anything that can cause deaths, including alcohol and cell phones.

  11. Then there is the argument that an “assault weapons” ban is the most unconstitutional ban possible because weapons of war is exactly what the second amendment protects, since it mentions it in the context of a well regulated militia. The weapons most useful for a revolution or war are exactly the ones that the founders intended the people to have.

    • ^ This!
      We need to say this more often!

      As a member of the militia, I’ll be damned if I’m going to defend my country, my state, my community or my family with a bolt action elk gun!

      • Yeah, great. But where are your heavy weapons? Oh, the government you are going to contain has been allowed to prevent the public from amassing those weapons? How nice. The government to be controlled by the people gets to tell the people just how much firepower they may employ in effecting control over the government. Sweet.

        • I think more than government regulations stand between me and a $250 million F-22. I am not even interested in owning a tank. As proven every day in cesspools all over the world, all a man needs is a rifle.

        • When was the last successful insurgency against a determined powerful, professional standing army?

          **Vietnam was not a war to put down an insurgency, it was a war to send a message that armed revolution (followed by reinforcements from a standing army) was too costly to pursue. The audience was not North Vietnam, but China and USSR. The US had no stomach for a victory (afraid of China and Russia), but hoped to get by on the cheap, with all sorts of good intentions. Today, in other parts of the world, insurgents are not facing determined, capable, professional state armies.

          Federal forces put an end to the Bundy insurgencies, the Branch Davidian insurgency, and the Ruby Ridge insurgency. There was no general uprising to defeat a central government that had exceeded its constitutional role.

          Isn’t it interesting how all the folks here who are convinced they are going to bear arms against an illegitimate government think of themselves as a militia of one (“I am not even interested in owning a tank.”)? Why is there no talk of an organized militia, where planning, logistics and weaponry for that militia are obtained and stored? What I see are a bunch of people setting themselves apart from any others, claiming to be on the verge of rebellion. I think that shouts that armed revolution is not a serious option. We should concentrate our efforts on influencing legislation, and stop this self-congratulatory drivel about being armed so as to stop a rogue government. We are backing ourselves into the corner, where armed revolt would be the only course available, knowing we will never actually rebel. We are losing too much time on fantasy when there is so much to be done to establish an overwhelming majority of the populace supportive of gun rights.

  12. Then, after that. Ask why there is so much attention on “assault rifles” if the proponents are so interested in saving lives? Scary looking black rifles of death? Well, if you’re really interested in saving lives then you should not care about assault rifles because rifles in total kill far fewer people than handguns. The attention should be on handguns. But maybe saving lives isn’t the agenda.

  13. Thom Hartman is a joke. Literally, his interviews are actually “skits” and he will argue one side or the other just to piss people off. You’ve been had. Again. Still.

  14. I’m thinking Tim Macy, Chairman of the Board of Gun Owner’s of America expected to be allowed to do a slide show detailing pro-gun arguments, or he expected to be allowed to simply repeat the usual suspects (talking points) with little or no interruption. His expectation was either totally incompetent (and he should be replaced) or, more likely, he was promised time and space to layout pro-gun positions…and was ambushed.

    • What you don’t listen to previous shows to understand what the MO of the host is? That’s purdy dumb.

      • If the venue is just comedy, then Macy, and his entire organization, forfeited any respect they tried to amass. Let that gaggle die out.

  15. Macy is naive and incompetent if he thought this was going to a fair and rational debate interview with balanced editing and playing field. These things turn into Soviet Show Trials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *