Home » Blogs » MSNBC’s O’Donnell Needs To Google “Defensive Gun Use AR-15”

MSNBC’s O’Donnell Needs To Google “Defensive Gun Use AR-15”

Robert Farago - comments No comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbEg4MJtmBU

As does Gayle Trotter, to be fair. If they can’t be bothered, they can click here for an AR-15 defensive gun use from January 24. Dan’s doing one from yesterday. Also, “massacre weapons”? Let’s hope that one doesn’t find purchase in the mainstream media.

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “MSNBC’s O’Donnell Needs To Google “Defensive Gun Use AR-15””

  1. @Kvjavs ‘whom i clicked to reply to but replied to the thread?’
    So…
    You are saying that everyone should be a single issue voter, and also inferring that you cannot be Pro-Gun and Pr0-Human rights simultaneously?
    Blanket statements about entire political parties, races, genders, or sexual orientations DO NOTHING to further our cause. We should be united, we should be tolerant, and we should all share a mutual resolve. In regards to the last election Romney was just as dangerous in regard to gun control & Gary Johnson was a throw away vote.
    Soo… what was your point again? Other than to attempt to divide us and show weakness to our adversary?

    Reply
  2. As other people have said, too bad for fools like this that the majority don’t dictate rights. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that the drooling masses could easily be manipulated into a thugocracy.

    Anyone who quotes the majority as a legitimate reason to change a right is essentially endorsing mob rule. And they can FOAD.

    Reply
  3. So I can pull up a story where a cop successfully subdues a criminal with pepper spray. Clearly, this proves there is no other case in the entire world that a cop would need a gun, so why do they have them?

    Reply
  4. I hope you all take this news serious and react by contacting your Congressional Reps to make sure they know how you feel about this malarchy.

    congress.org has a convenient one click way to email your reps. If you’re REALLY serious call and leave a message at their office.

    The time you spend on this now will far outweigh the struggle to overturn laws- unconstitutional or not.

    Reply
  5. I guess a camo pattern would “enhance the concealability” of a firearm. Or grey on an overcast day, or wood in a paneled room.
    Camel’s nose under the tent? I couldn’t think of a more fitting analogy.

    Reply
  6. I haven’t seen much else from the MSM…certainly no month long coverage like Newtown. Seems like the story will die off quickly, probably because

    A. No white people were involved
    B. Armed security guard (just another wacky gun nut idea, amirite?) stopped the shooting.

    No white folks harmed and gun was used by a good guy, so the MSM doesn’t want it.

    Reply
  7. To me, the psychopathology is clear: Ms. Inside Trader Billionaire is in mortal fear of American citizens being on any SEMBLANCE of an equal footing with invading troops. FROM ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING OURS.

    This is what she’s about, and it’s the ONLY thing she’s about, besides illegally enriching her fat, wrinkly arse.

    Reply
  8. some states are already nullifying Federal laws they disagree with

    And god bless ’em for doing so, but it’s mostly symbolic. If the Feds have a predicate such as the Commerce Clause to support a law, then the Supremacy Clause makes the federal rule the supreme law of the land, and the state law turns into nothing.

    However, states can allocate their scarce resources in ways that they alone see fit. If that means that states refuse to allocate police resources to enforce stupid federal gun laws, then the feds will have to carry the entire burden alone. I don’t think that the ATF and FBI have the resources to deal with massive resistance by hundreds of thousands of gun owners.

    Sure, the feds will create some high profile cases (Ruby Ridge anyone?) and murder a few more innocent women and children, because that’s what they do. Which will turn the tide in our favor.

    Randy Weaver was a nasty little white supremacist pr!ck. The feds murdered his wife, son, infant child and dog (because shooting the dog is rule one in the federal terrorist handbook). In doing so, they turned Weaver into a hero and “brave” agent and admitted baby-killer Lon Horiuchi into a villain. It’s funny how things work out sometimes, ya dig?

    Reply
  9. The term “Gunshow Loophole” is indeed very misleading and poorly named.

    That said there are a large percentage of sales that occur between private citizens. Some put that number at 40% (based on an old survey from 1998?).

    Whatever the number is, there are lots of guns being bought and sold w/out a background check. Clearly, this is one way that criminals get guns.

    I am fine with requiring checks on all gun sales and I have yet to speak (in person) with another gun owner who has a problem with it, and I make a point of it to ask.

    I have doubts that it is within the power (Constitutionally speaking) of Congress to do that (no interstate commerce here) but it seems to be a rational way of preventing guns from being sold unknowingly (because if you know a person is a felon and you are still willing to sell to them, then clearly you don’t care) to a criminal.

    If the Feds wanted to side step the Constitutionality issue, they could start by opening up the NICS system to all callers. Print the number on all boxes of ammo, all firearms packaging and start a public awareness campaign educating people that they CAN call the number (Toll free!) if they have a question about a potential buyer.

    Reply
  10. Tiger by the tail? Who has control over who? If the gun / ammo manufacturers refuse to sell to cities whose mayors are members of MAIG, etc., then it seems that they could create a big problem for these cities.

    Reply
  11. Wow, I’m talking to a United States Marine?? BFD!! This cop needs to be in jail. IF the victim had done that to him, he would’ve been charged.

    Reply
  12. Good good. Especially liked the “racial carnage” term and the slap in the face of weirdo’s who buy into the Gangster rap culture while wringing hands about gun ownership futures.

    Reply

Leave a Comment