NBC News: Kavanaugh Will Give Guns to Abusive Husbands

courtesy The Washingtonian

“Newer laws that take guns away from abusive husbands or partners, and from distraught or mentally disturbed individuals, could be overturned. Laws that regulate access to assault-style weapons — far more lethal than anything our Founding Fathers could have imagined — are also at risk.

“Kavanaugh’s extreme take on the Second Amendment would undermine other constitutional rights as well. Everyone has the right to attend church and peacefully protest against hate groups without risk they will be shot. But Kavanaugh’s interpretation prioritizes the rights of gun owners and carriers over the rights of the many more Americans who have been threatened and traumatized by gun violence, domestic abuse and rampage shootings.

“In fact, Trump’s nomination reflects his own deep ties to the NRA, which wields great influence over the administration and its policies. It’s time for Americans to reject this influence and demand a Supreme Court nominee who will respect that gun rights go hand-in-hand with the responsibility to follow the law — including the reasonable regulations that the majority of Americans and gun owners support.”  – Hannah Shearer in Brett Kavanaugh’s Extreme Beliefs on Gun Control Ignore the Concerns of Most Americans

comments

  1. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    “Supporting the Constitution will undermine the Constitution.”

    That’s some impressive doublespeak there, comrade.

    1. avatar burley says:

      Succinctly put.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      Kavanaugh’s interpretation prioritizes the rights of gun owners and carriers over the rights of the many more Americans who have been threatened and traumatized by gun violence, domestic abuse and rampage shootings.

      Really? Over 100 million folks have been threatened and traumatized? Gotta take issue with your math.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        No, he prioritizes precedent set by the KKK over gun owners.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I know I’m going to regret this. But what are you on about, now?

          And shouldn’t you be at the hearing and earning your 30 pieces of silver from the bloomberg/soros crowd?

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Tell me more about how NBC is not a terrorist organization.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      NBC is not a terrorist organization. It’s a totalitarian propaganda mill. Get it straight, man!

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    I heard from a DNC mailer that if he gets the seat women will be immediately shackled to radiators and kept perpetually pregnant. Those who refuse to submit will be executed in the village square.

    Between the guys caught paying protestors, the nonsensical “steady state” letter and seeing all the out of state funding going to local candidates I can’t help but think nothing is real and nobody really cares about anything but money and power.

    1. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher"they think we're making pizza'," Oberst von Burn says:

      Money buys power, “they” like power

  4. avatar Just Sayin says:

    Me thinks that Ms. Shearer doth speaketh out of her ass.

  5. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Ms. Shearer is confused on what rights actually are and ignorant of laws in this country.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      She’s a staff lawyer for the anti gun group set up by gabby giffords. NBC knew what they were getting from the start.

      1. She is no more credible than staff lawyers for pro-segregation groups.

  6. avatar tracy says:

    No surprise here. Currently, one of many LEFTist attorneys drafting laws restricting 2nd amendment rights.

    Hannah Shearer, staff attorney for Giffords Law Center.

  7. avatar chris. says:

    Gotta love the phrasing too: “give guns to XXXXXXX”.

    So where do I sign up to be “given” a gun?

    1. avatar David N says:

      Me too. I tried one of those “Gun Free” zones, but they always run out by the time I get there.

      1. avatar David J says:

        Bang up joke, eh bloke?
        Really good “Bad Puns” must be some kind of “David” thing.

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…without risk they will be shot.’

    Collin Kapperdick says it’s not us, it’s the coppers you gotta worry about.

  9. avatar Draven says:

    Well, he flat out told DiFi that semi-automatic rifles are in common use, of course they are going to have fits… he’s likely to encroach on their liberal enclaves’ precious ‘assault weapon’ bans. Of course they have to start on him now.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Just lke in 2004, when those laws disappear and nothing happens, people are going to realize that restrictive laws don’t make them safe. Those people are then going to realise the libs have been lying to them the whole time…

      California passed prop 47 a few years ago which basically decriminalized drug use and minor property crime. It was meant as “procedural justice” measure to address the “racist” laws that disproportionately send the poor and minorities to prison. The libs were blowing their horns about their victory when it passed, but now that crime has sky rocketted and its an election year, they’re all backing away from it.

      1. avatar burley says:

        With all due respect, friend; obviously there is a segment of “The People” who will NEVER realize that restrictive laws don’t make them safer.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          The stupid part is that they are already safe. Sure, they may not *feel* safe but in modern America, you are about as safe as any human in the history of the world. I think, to an extent, that all the pearl-clutching going on is a non-intuitive outgrowth of this safety. When all the normal things (weather, disease, runaway teams of horses) are no longer killing people, some people search high and low for a bogey man to blame for their woes. A century ago, no one worried about being shot because they were too busy being worried about polio, drought and fire.

    2. avatar Nanashi says:

      He also flat out said, with no prompting or relevance, purely by his volition, machine guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That question has never reached the SCOTUS, if he had to actually address it his decision might be different. But his leanings are obvious. Somebody is gonna have to belly up to the legal bar, and produce and sell a machine gun, here I am, let’s go to court. After one more conservative replacing RBG, check back with me, I may be ready.

        1. avatar Sabrina Gray says:

          Or Breyer, as soon as one of them goes, it’s going to get real. If that happens, I have a feeling the NFA will be going away like PwRSerge says.

  10. avatar Mr Lizard says:

    Probably beats his old lady too…I mean he hasn’t denied it right?

  11. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    “It’s time for Americans to reject this influence and demand a Supreme Court nominee who will respect that gun rights go hand-in-hand with the responsibility to follow the law — including the reasonable regulations that the majority of Americans and gun owners support.”.
    So in other words, mob rule as opposed to the rule of law? Typical position for the filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™️, aka democrat voters.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Translation: “It’s time for Americans to stamp their feet and demand a nominee who will pretend that the drafters of the Constition wrote something other than what they actually did.”

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      TrueBornSon,

      The situation is even worse than “mob rule as opposed to the rule of law” because the mob can redefine “law” any way they want. For example, the mob could claim that keeping men sexually frustrated is abhorrent and a crime — and therefore criminalize women who refuse to “help relieve” such men of their frustration. In other words the mob could legalize rape. And yet that would not make it right to rape women.

      This is the inherent danger when the working definition of “right/wrong” and “justice/injustice” are unmoored from a timeless, transcendent standard.

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    National Broadcast Communists put up an ignorant lying Lawyer’s propaganda…how is THAT any surprise?

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Nuclear Biological Chemical is already an established initialism, just use that.

  13. avatar John Boch says:

    Just who in the hell is Hannah Shearer? A hair stylist? A sheep fleecer?

    Why should I care what Shearer thinks about President DJT, SCOTUS or the price of tea in China?

    So she’s part of NBC’s “HOT TAKE” team apparently. Hot air is more like it. If I want hot air, I’ll stand in front of my GSD after he’s been running. His hot air doesn’t smell like Trump Derangement Syndrome, otherwise known as steaming dog crap.

    John

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      He never someone starts off with “in fact” in a statement you can bet it’s mostly bullshit.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “Just who in the hell is Hannah Shearer? A hair stylist? A sheep fleecer?”

      Tracy above notes :

      “Hannah Shearer, staff attorney for Giffords Law Center.”

  14. avatar Wally1 says:

    The leftists will stop at nothing. What is great is that they are exposing who they really are, unhinged communists. This can only help in 2020. “Kavanaugh”s extreme view of the second amendment? Really?, You mean extreme like actually following the law and not supporting ERPO (extreme risk protection orders) based only on a complaint, taking away a persons firearms without any due process. I hope he makes it through the confirmation process.

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    I understand he’ll even buy them for abusive husbands too.

  16. avatar little horn says:

    “Everyone has the right to attend church and peacefully protest against hate groups without risk they will be shot.”
    what the fuck kind of idiot even has a thought like this? it just blows my mind that they actually think laws will stop every and any thing bad.
    The Domestic Violence act is retarded. Murderers can get their gun rights back but a man who slapped his wife and admitted it was wrong, can not. fucking idiotic. but it got him votes.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      It’s the feelz. And the control.

      If anyone has the perception of a right or a belief that they are unsafe because of a choice I make (e.g., to own a gun), then they have the right to demand a change in my behavior (i.e., not to own a gun).

    2. avatar el Possum ect. says:

      Or you don’t even have to slap her, all she has to say is you slapped her, happened to me, x wife used cops for her “Big Stick” , thank goodness she didn’t show up for court. Do I get my three days in jail back, No. Do I get lost wages back? No. Does the newspaper print a retraction of the arrest? No.

      1. avatar You are full of it says:

        Cops arrested you with no probable cause, “he slapped me” that’s allegations period. Did witness said you touched her? If and when she called 911 (it’s recorded and can be used by cops and the Court) is she yelling “don’t hurt me” or something like that? Did you say something stupid when the cops showed up? Another thing, 3 days in jail for a domestic with a (alleged) face slapping which is a misdemeanor? I cannot think of any state that’ll keep you 3 days in the jail for that, did you have to wait in line in the booking area for 2 days? Or did you get lost on the way out? I love coming on TTAG reading all the stories about the imaginary friend, event, experience…lot of imagination from some folks, you guys should write novels!

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Nah, man. Looks like you’ve staked out fiction for yourself. We wouldn’t want to infringe.

    3. Are you implying that a pardon does not restore rights?

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Kavanaugh Kavanaugh he’s our man! Imagine following the constitution😄

  18. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    What What What
    What a bunch of lying crying Bullshit.

  19. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

    Lying out her ass to fear monger is what a typical dumb ass liberal female writer does! There is no credibility with any reporter out of any of the liberal media. Next she would have us believe Judge Kavanaugh would completely rewrite the Constitution and Bill of Rights on his own to implement a draconian legislature under the supreme command of President Trump! We see her kind in the daily childish tantrums at the confirmation hearing! Screaming nonsense and ranting at the top of their lungs the world is ending. Really paints a clear and definitive picture of the mental inadequacies and derangement of democrats and liberals. And they would want us to believe they are the only ones fit for office?

  20. avatar I can buy all the semi auto “assaut” AR 15 I want and I can shoot them in full semi auto! says:

    Supporting the Second Amendment undermines the…Constitution. Holly cow! Again, the left is speculating and using opinions as “facts”. I am not aware Mr Kavanaugh wants to authorize convicted felons to own and carry firearms. The Marxists are once again putting fear in people’s mind, and as someone else wrote they “doublethink” (1984, Orwell) pretty darn well. They are at risk of being shot when “protesting hate”? You mean the antifa thugs may get shot when they assault other Americans at protests? Again, DOUBLETHINK, they “protest hate”? The left is constantly using the race card, they have an obsession with minorities (they need their votes and support), you disagree with them you are no longer an uneducated redneck but a “nazi”! There is a reason these people are triggered and worried.

  21. avatar I can buy all the semi auto “assaut” AR 15 I want and I can shoot them in full semi auto! says:

    The establishment left is losing it. Between the rise of American Patriots on one side, and younger leftards worshiping communism and anarchy on the other, the DNC has become so “yes we coulda shoulda…” 2008, they are a fossil. Not that they usually made sense before, but now it is a flew over the cuckoo’s nest every time they open their mouth!

    1. avatar Sian says:

      When trump gets re-elected in 2020, they well get even more unhinged and more violent. Count on it.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I am not completely convinced they will survive November 2018.

        1. avatar Bob in Calif says:

          Gotta agree with you on that Larry.

  22. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher"they think we're making pizza'," Oberst von Burn says:

    The loss of guns for life because you slapped a co habitator is bullshit. That DV was/is a Clinton era gun grab. It was a decent law when first implemented, however like all laws they become twisted and contorted used to subject the peasants to more restrictions. Loss of guns-FOR LIFE- on a misdemeanor charge just isn’t right.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      An interesting aside:

      Back in ’96, prior to the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment, Illinois was contemplating a similar law barring convicted domestic abusers from owning or possessing firearms. It was set to fairly fly through the legislature… until the Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police discovered that cops WEREN’T exempted. It was as if Rue Paul had driven a herd of swine through the middle of the Hajj, in drag, swigging from a bottle of Wild Turkey. The union went INSANE.

      They went on National Public Radio to DEMAND that wife beaters be allowed to carry guns… but ONLY if they also carried BADGES. Their “argument” was three-fold:

      1. You can’t take the gun from a wife beating cop because it’s his “tool of the trade”. Being NPR, nobody thought to ask the union spokesman if that applied to Sammy “the Bull” Gravano as well, since his suppressed .22 was HIS “tool of the trade”.
      2. Taking the gun from an angry, violent cop will only make him even MORE angry and violent. Again, nobody asked how Sammy would feel about being disarmed.
      3. You can trust a wife beating cop with a gun because he’ll be “closely supervised”… just not closely enough supervised to keep him from kicking his wife’s teeth down her throat.

      I wasn’t sure if I was listening to American cops or the Taliban. In fact, it was the second most bizarre story I’ve EVER heard on NPR, topped only by (ironically) their pre-9/11 interview of the “roving ambassador” for the Taliban who declared that women in Taliban ruled Afghanistan “had more rights than American women” because “At least they didn’t have to dance naked in Las Vegas.”

      As with every other leftist crusade, when it comes to gun control, “some animals are more equal than the others”…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      At what point do you suppose they will show us the results of those changes in the law? I mean, for such a blatant infringement of a basic human right, surely the results are dramatic and obvious, right?

  23. avatar Stuart K says:

    They don’t even know which amendment that concerns.

    Idiots. Using their freedom to lobby to end their freedom.

    1. avatar el Possum ect. says:

      Freedumb

      1. avatar Moltar says:

        We all USED to laugh at Idiocracy and at how stupid the premise was. Now we watch and weep as we see our nation slide ever closer to the world portrayed in that film. Remember, stock up on Brawndo it’s got electrolytes.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          It’s what plants need.

  24. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    And dogs and cats living together. Mass Hysteria!

  25. avatar Ogre says:

    Well, this comes from one of NBC’s flunkies, so that’s strike three right there. NBC is in the same progressive leftist league as MSNBC, CNN and the other major news purveyors. Propagandists, one and all.

  26. avatar DaveL says:

    Does anybody fall for this double-talk? Surely Ms. Shearer would agree I have the right to protest or worship without being punched – but without the risk of being punched? As in, having the government bind the arms of anyone who disagrees with me? Of course there isno such right. While anybody may demand justice from the government for an attack against their person, they surely don’t have the right to compel the government to aggress against political rivals in order to remove a potential future harm. It isn’t there, not in the plain text, and not in the penumbras or emanations. It couldn’t possibly be so in an egalitarian society.

    Turn there’s this nonsense about rights coming with the responsibility to bow to whatever limits it might please the majority to place on those rights. That’s just so self- evidently stupid it deserves nothing more than mockery.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I have the right to protest or worship without being punched – but without the risk of being punched? As in, having the government bind the arms of anyone who disagrees with me? Of course there is no such right.

      You, sir, have just posted the best comment on the Intertubez this year!

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Agreed, DaveL is spot on. I don’t know why it is so difficult for some to comprehend that one’s rights extend to the point that someone else’s rights are infringed. You can demand that I not harm you but you cannot demand that I be incapable of harming anyone because someone might try to harm me and I need to be able to fight back.

  27. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Well, since “The Administration Press (AP)” doesn’t fit when you’re the #resistance, I suppose NBC had to take up the slack.

  28. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I read her column, specifically seeking the facts upon which she based her hysterical conclusions. Not once in her hit piece did she mention the word “precedent.”

    Seriously? A Yale undergrad and Stanford law grad and she still doesn’t understand a fundamental principle of law like stare decisis? Or else she does and she’s just a lying fanatic mowing down the facts for political expediency. Deeply shameful either way.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Either way, it’s worse than shameful; it’s treacherous. Traitorous.

      As someone pointed out below, this woman’s specific job is to litigate against the Bill of Rights. She’s fighting to destroy the very thing that created this country.

  29. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    “NBC, Corporate News Media companies, ARE the Enemy of The USA/ U.S. Constitutional-Bill of Rights/and The 1st Amendment…Where news is no longer reported…But, made up, and used to direct public opinion to except surrender of THEIR very Liberty 🗽 and Freedoms….These companies do not represent me, or the millions of American [email protected] supporters….”

  30. avatar General Zod says:

    It’s not the Second Amendment that’s the basis for opposing “Extreme Risk Protection Orders”, it’s the Fifth. That pesky guarantee of due process…

    How odd that she doesn’t mention that.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Perhaps she hasn’t a clue,as civics are not taught in government education centers any longer.

  31. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Kavanaughs extreme beliefs gun control ignore concerns most Communist Americans,FIFH.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I’m sure it concerns Nazi Americans too, since Nazism and communism are just opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin.

  32. avatar CZJay says:

    Someone needs her gun rights restricted due to being delusional. She can’t be trusted to not go crazy.

  33. avatar The Rookie says:

    “Hannah Shearer is the Second Amendment litigation director at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.”

    Well, that pretty much sums it up, yes?

  34. avatar JD says:

    The hysterical rants coming from the left do nothing but confirm he is the best pick for the job. The pendulum always swings back and hopefully some of the damage they have caused to our rights will be struck down.

  35. avatar Daniel says:

    I want the government to give me a gun too. I’ll be right back after I go abuse my wife.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      For these progs “abuse” would include looking at a woman. So pretty much anything should pass muster. A random discussion regarding your teenager would certainly be golden.

      I’d like to request a DD5V2 please with a bunch of “high capacity” PMAGs

  36. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Like de jure racial segregation and anti-sodomy laws, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 have passed their expiration dates.

    One more appointment, just one more…

    1. Did criminal homicide rates increase or decrease after the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act?

  37. avatar Gralnok says:

    No way, this can’t be true. I mean, yeah NBC is a left leaning publication, but surely even they wouldn’t publish such drivel, right?
    *checks link*
    Well, there goes yet more of my faith in journalistic integrity. The article NBC put out is almost as bad as some N.Korean state media! The only difference is that NBC doesn’t openly denounce Western leaders and ideology.
    The article references WashPo studies and something from Slate? I’ve never even heard of Slate! However, from skimming the Slate article that NBC references, you’d think that Charlottesville involved open warfare! Open conflict involving rocks and bottles! Oh my! Well, if both sides were armed with weapons that were superior to those held by the police, I’d say it would be proof that an armed society is a polite society. One death, and that was from some nut job driving a car. The truth is, nobody wants to fire the first shot. Even today, I doubt antifa, despite their idiocy, would open fire because it would rally everyone against them. However, I do hope that some nut job on their side fires first. I’d love to start counting bodies of antifa insurgents.
    That all said, I’ll admit I’m being a keyboard commando. Antifa doesn’t have a strong presence where I live. At least, not to my knowledge.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Boy, would they stand out in my neighborhood! For a short while. Citizens wouldn’t have to get into it, cops would escort them out of town. Far enough out that it would take several hours in the hot sun to walk back.

  38. avatar common sense says:

    Wow, he believes that the suspension of fundamental rights for a lifetime is not Constitutional. Kavanaugh must be a tyrant. 😉

  39. avatar Dmitri says:

    Oh, this is an article written by a hysterical woman, it doesn’t count.

  40. avatar Marty says:

    I read the article and many of the replies. What is this, a Liberal Democrat hate forum? Where is the response from those “delightful” ladies on The View? This could have been Joy He had saying all this.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email