[UPDATE] RF to Appear on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper at 4pm EST to Discuss Guns & Ammo-gate

Robert Farago gets to grip with an AI rifle (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

[UPDATE] Just got word from the producer at CNN that the segment has been canceled due to the breaking news out of the Philippines about the Super Typhoon…

The phone rings and who should be on the other end of the line but Joe Nocera. The New York Times’ resident civilian disarmament agitprop propagator. The writer responsible for the contextless anti-gun feature called The Gun Report, which recently represented American gun owners with a picture of an armed Ku Klux Klansman. Before the appearance of an Aussie “study” linking gun ownership to racism (debunked here) which Joe also promoted on his Report. Anyway, my “fellow Rhode Islander” called the blogger who’s ripped him a new asshole at every opportunity because he’s looking to chase down former Guns & Ammo Technical Editor Dick Metcalf. Obviously. As The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence proved . . .

the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex loves them some Metcalf. Any why not? A Guns & Ammo writer supporting gun control? What’s not to love? Anyway, Nocera’s call sniffing around for a direct line to the gone-to-ground gun writer followed a similar enquiry from CBS.

Quick aside: Dan and I discussed Mr. Metcalf’s media/PR options. We reckon the pensioned pistol pro should appear in the mainstream media. Dick should have apologized to The People of The Gun (quickly) and jumped straight into pro-gun rights mode. Redeemed! Right? Anyway . . .

After playing Where’s Dick? with the same success as its peers, CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper emailed looking for someone to discuss Guns & Ammo-gate. After making sure I was media friendly (i.e. that I’m the gun rights droid they’re looking for) I’ve been booked to appear today at 4pm EST.

My plan is simple enough: assert that the Second Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating firearms or firearms training. After that, fend off the insinuation that I’m an extremist gun nut. (That’s MR. extremist gun nut!) Any suggestions below would be most appreciated, although the adrenalin dump that accompanies debating on live TV with a guy who does it for a living pretty much guarantees I’ll be winging it as best I can.

Thanks for watching. Or not. Oh, and I’ll ping Joe, whom I’ve invited to Austin for some serious trigger time. As if.


  1. avatar Craig says:

    Go forth and kick ass!

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Yes, this ^

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Kicking ass is ineffective. I prefer a punch to the throat followed by a stomp to the back of the skull.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Grab ’em by the nose and then kick ’em in the ass!” – George S. Patton, General, U.S. Army.

      Where have all the leaders gone?

  2. avatar DrVino says:

    Take a Xanax, a Deep breath and take on a kind grandfatherly demeanor. A la Larry Potterfield.

  3. avatar Danny says:

    If they try to say that the firing violated his 1st Amendment rights, tell them that free speech isn’t designed to stop you from being fired, it’s supposed to keep you out of jail.

    Maybe even throw in some pro gun facts that the FBI and the CDC have provided that they never talk about on these shows.

    I do wonder if you should address if the publishment was just a way for G&A to test the waters of the public to see if anyone was in favor of any compromise (the answer was obviously a unanimous no).

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      I am sure Metcalf is resident of a right to work state . . . . . and the employer has a right to fire you for expressing your views if they run counter to the employer’s changed views after getting their asses kicked.

    2. avatar WildWest says:

      The First Amendment does not say that you have a right to voice your opinion without any recourse or ramifications to what you do or say. It says that government shall not use its might or power to hinder your speech through laws or regulations. You don’t need a license to have artistic license (so to speak).

      You are not granted freedom of speech to come to a private home or to use a printing press and not face the wrath of the population. You are granted freedom of speech such that the government shall not regulate your speech unless your speech leads to the harm of others through your negligence or your intent (fire in a crowded theater example).

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The first paragraph looks good but then you drop into the ‘granted rights’ trap in the second paragraph. Also, speech isn’t actually restricted. One can ***falsely*** yell fire in a crowded theater. That is not punished. However, any negligent act that causes harm is actionable under civil and criminal laws. The concept that it was speech doesn’t actually play into it. You were very close in your description though. There were some good links posted on TTAG comments and I have a few more that discuss the myth surrounding the yelling fire in a crowded theater deflection.

  4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    1) make clear that “well-regulated” means practice not reguation

    2) make clear that there is federal and state law about what a militia is, and that is all of us who are NOT military or national guard

    3) make clear that if all of the antis who keep trying to change the 2A or limit it would appreciate if computers, websites, and cell phone were shut down or limited in the same fashion or always attacked for “reasonable regulations”. … think Tiannamen Square, the Arab Spring or current Chinese practice to limit the Internet as why freedom requires a free exchange and the constituion is CLEAR

    4) Ask if I can get a dinner date with Shannon Watts(TM) – my treat.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      No shameless plug there, hey Dirk? I chuckled reading #4..”where is it, where is it, Oh Look it’s there, #4.”

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        BTW – Shannon Watts(TM) (aka SUNSHINE) would only say yes so she can identify who to file the restraining order against. Just saying . . . . my hopes are not high for a positive response.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          A Restraining Order is just a piece of paper.

          See if she can get one printed on a six to eight inch long piece of Latex.

        2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          uuughhh. . . I am gonna let that one slide

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      If someone other than RF mentions #4 on air, I’ll fall out of my seat laughing. That would be too much! 😀 Be careful, Dirk Diggler. She might just say yes.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        Hey – if she did take me up on the offer, that would be great. A little wine, a little Barry White, who knows? 🙂 Although, maybe I can call her Sunshine??



  5. avatar Gregolas says:

    Only the State can violate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, not your employer. (Unless,of course, the State got him to act on their behalf)

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Do tell.

      An indvidual can suspend your rights? Because he says so? LIfe, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property, To defend the former (carry/use arms)? Were did that selfevident/creator bit go?

      You. You and your neighbors. And your employer. Andyour gov’t organization can NOT sieze these rights.

      1. avatar Alpo says:

        “An indvidual can suspend your rights? Because he says so?”

        Yeah, actually. Because we’re talking about the Bill of Rights, not general “rights”.

        Just using employers as an example…
        1. A Catholic school can refuse to hire Hindu religion teachers.
        A Republican newspaper can reject your pro-Marx editorial
        Any job can tell you where you can and can’t “assemble” as a group.

        2. You job can forbid you to carry or possess on their property
        3. N/A
        4. A retail employer can reserve the right to search your packages at the end of your shift without a warrant.
        5-10 N/A

        1. avatar Adam says:

          I think it’s important to note that as free individuals we have all have the right to ask others to abide by our rules on our property (this counts for an employer as well). But as free individuals we also have the right to ignore others people rules/requests. (Its not polite or very respectful to do so though.) If you choose to ignore the requests of property owners, then be prepared to deal with the consequences, i.e. trespassing, fired, shot, you know all the things an individual has the right to do when you violate thier property rights.

      2. I believe what Mr. Gregolas is trying to say is that Metcalf’s 1st ammendment rights were not violated because the 1st ammendment protects him against the government, not against his employer, who can fire him for saying stupid sh*t (assuming there is no other law that protects him, woohoo right to work).

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          The first amendment gives you the right to speak your mind. It doesn’t give you the right to do so with someone else’s pulpit, lectern, microphone, or printing press. In point of fact being able to demand such and get it would be a violation of the owner’s rights. G&A was in fact exercising its 1A rights by refusing to publish any more of this guy’s crap.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          The problem here is that G&A did not censor Metcalf’s editorial in any way, they published it. He was not fired for what he said, he was fired for the shit storm it brought down on G&A after they allowed him to say it.

          This has nothing to do with any portion of the Bill of Rights, it is simply a business decision that an employee, for whatever reason you determine, is no longer an asset to your business.

  6. avatar Keithco says:

    I’d make it about credibility and motive. Their motive is to get a good story that is provocative to maintain viewers. Your motive is to distill fact from spin to help people make informed decisions. If they’re actually interested in the truth (about guns) they need to approach with an open mind and willingness to invest the time and brain power to understand and that can’t be done in about 30 minute live interview with somebody who is trained to illicit sound bytes that drive ratings.

    Call him out calmly for what he’s really trying to do and volunteer to work as a subject matter expert in a true investigative piece where you maintain 50% of the editorial rights on the end product and full access to all data and interviews. Have him commit on camera, else he’s proven to be what we we think he is…and agitator in it for the ratings and will take the side leading to more views.

  7. avatar Tyler Kee says:

    Do not. I repeat do not go all Alex Jones. I know you won’t, but this is a nice opportunity to be a rational human and show a human side to the whole thing.

    Also speak slowly, and if you get interrupted speak up immediately.

  8. avatar George Ebinger says:

    Perhaps the notable decrease in violent crime in comparison to the increase of gun ownership, the increase of woman gun owners concerned about protection and the fact that all budgets being cut leaves the civilian population on the forefront of protecting themselves much akin to the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place. There certainly are a segment of “gun nuts” out there and there will always be someone to kill someone with something not just guns but the important point is that we as gun owners are a second line of defense for our neighbors and we are everyday citizens who happen to like guns, for hunting, target shooting, collecting and of course for protection of one’s home and body.

    1. avatar Matt in IL says:

      Holy run-on sentences.

  9. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …pay attention to your garb:
    no cammo
    no hats
    go “professional”

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Robert doesn’t have a whole lot of camo in his wardrobe.

      1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

        and THAT is a damn shame. Personally, I think its cause hes from RI, hopefully a little more of TX will seep in and we may see a camo hat wearing RF in a range picture in the near future 🙂 small hopes right

  10. avatar SentMKG says:

    Just try to stay calm as possible and don’t start with any libtards this libtards that. This is a decent chance to where we could try and stay calm so as to not seem nearly combative and idiotic as Nugget has in the past with greater idiot CNN about-to-get-fired Morgan. Disagree intelligently the throw in some good Southern tact and you will own the discussion. It’s generally how I have managed to move many of my friends and family from being for broad gun control to understanding and appreciating gun rights.

    Present facts, figures, and strong stories showing we are in fact more reasonable than the media tries so hard to show us as the opposite. Think LA Riots with good strong background of how the government abandoned the people in Korea Town. Or how in Katrina firearms were confiscated en mass by the police.

  11. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    I expect a “what’s wrong with a little compromise?” angle. If you really want to get them on the defensive, drill them on the compromises that have already been made (I.e., existing laws), and how nonsensical they are. Bring up David Gregory’s 30 round magazine of an example of how easy it is to unknowingly, unwittingly commit a felony that no reasonable person would believe is a harmful transgression.

    Also, wouldn’t it be a reasonable “compromise” to promote the 4 Rules of gun safety to *everyone*, including people who don’t own guns and aren’t normally around them? Why does “compromise” take the form of tighter restrictions, new regulations, and more hoops for gun owners to jump through to demonstrate good faith?

    1. avatar Matt in Idaho says:

      Regarding compromise. This is a human right to self preservation issue, not a compromise issue.

      3/5’s voting rights was a human rights ‘compromise’ and that’s f’ing sickening.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “3/5′s voting rights was a human rights ‘compromise’”

        You say this in a way that makes me wonder if you think slaves were given 3/5ths of a vote. They didn’t have any vote and they were slaves–that was the real problem. The 3/5ths bit was how much they were counted as population for congressional apportionment. It is actually a good thing they weren’t counted as one person apiece, because that *reduced* the numbers of congresscritters from the southern (slave) states. Without that reduction there probably would have been no restrictions whatsoever on the “peculiar institution” before the civil war and the world would be a worse place today. In fact it’s possible Lincoln could never have been elected since the slave states would have had significantly more electoral votes.

        The real problem was the slavery. 3/5 counting for apportionment purposes helped end it.

        1. avatar BStacks says:

          Nobody that throws that 3/5th thing out there gets it that 3/5ths instead of a whole was a win for the anti-slavery side.

      2. avatar SpeleoFool says:

        Regarding compromise. This is a human right to self preservation issue, not a compromise issue.

        I agree, but… 🙂

        I had originally written something to that effect (that guns are, when they’re finally needed, a life and death issue & compromise in that area is a dangerous game), but this is also a televised “debate.” The format is about simple back-and-forth banter, so it would be too easy to take any direct comment against the wisdom of compromise and trap the discussion as “gun control advocates believe in compromise; gun rights advocates do not.” The debate game isn’t about who’s right or wrong, but who can frame the discussion in simple terms that are easy to sell.

        Putting the onus on the other side to recognize and accurately describe “compromises already made” neatly avoids the “gun people don’t compromise” trap while framing the discussion around an area I guarantee Robert has much greater expertise (i.e., the details of common firearms laws). If they can’t accurately describe firearms laws then they look stupid, and if they can then they acknowledge compromises already made. It’s kind of a win-win.

        That said, this is the comments section, and I agree with your comment wholeheartedly. More “compromise” is not appropriate and won’t accomplish anything positive.

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      Just thought it was worth mentioning that Gregory intentionally brought in the 30-rd magazine, despite having previously contacted DC police regarding his intentions, who responded that he would be committing a felony. He did it any way. Prosecutor refused to file any charges despite obvious video evidence broadcast on national TV of having committed a crime.

      Within the same time frame of several months in DC, a veteran was arrested for having several loose 9mm rounds in a backpack traveling through DC. A federal marshal was also arrested for having a pistol unloaded and secured in his trunk.

      DC practices selective enforcement.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      RF’s comment, and his direction, is that the Second Amendment was not written for and does not include any room for compromise! We must state this categorically, over and over, whether or not they want to hear it. Every “gun control” law on the books in America today is prima facie unconstitutional for one and only one reason, the Second Amendment states: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” And then it stops. There is no more, there is no “,but…” or “except for…”

      To compromise away or stand for even a tiny bit of regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is to concede that the RKBA is NOT a natural, civil and Constitutionally protect right that the government has no authority to regulate and hand it to the government as yet another privilege that we must beg permission and license to enjoy.

      Hang tough, Robert! Toe the hard line and let them choke on it!

  12. avatar Roll says:

    Wear a TTAG shirt!

  13. avatar The Original Brad says:

    What’s worked for me in the past in dealing with someone like this who’s mind will not be changed by any rational thought or debate, is to let them talk when it doesn’t matter or the topic is pointless to argue. Even when the question is on you, turn it around quickly by asking clarification. They love this, they get empowered by it thinking they are holding the upper hand. This usually gets them talking too much and then they reveal their true motives. That’s when you take it back over by saying something. Like,”now hold on a second Joe I have something important to say/add/explain here.” Now you d set the stage, they are cornered into giving out the spotlight. If they interupt, you can say, “Joe, I’ve been letting you talk pretty much the whole time. Now it’s my turn to respond for a minute.” They hate that, cause now you trapped them into shutting up when you need it the most, and they are the most vulnerable. If they can’t stand it anymore and interupt again, then you can shut them down once more and say, ” you keep interrupting me Joe, it’s obvious you didn’t bring me here to hear my side, you just wanted to have an opportunity to state your opinions without really opening up to a debate. So I’ll let you have your show back and you can continue with your monologue.” He either shuts up again at that point and lets you finish, or doesn’t. Either way you expose him for being disingenuous for inviting you on the show, or ideally you get a few minutes to actually inject some reason into what is ordinarily a closed minded audience.

    Good luck.

  14. avatar Matt in Idaho says:

    Some of the best RKBA arguments I ever hear, and you are so good at these rf, are the ones that just sweep the legs out from under the disarmarment ideas as they have nothing to do with actually protecting people. (ie, banning ar’s vs handguns, universal bg checks that are voluntary, etc.)

    Remember, we’re the people of the gun because we TRUST the people around us to be able to use firearms for good. We TRUST our neighbors, teachers, military personel on bases, and we trust the residents of cities like Chicago, New York, and the state of CA. We are the one’s that trust and believe in people.

  15. avatar TraderRLH says:

    Tapper is one of the (rare) “good guys” in the MSM – fair, professional, and a huge supporter of the troops. I’m not surprised he sought out a good representative of the gun community.

    If you get the chance, mention that the 2nd Amendment is inexorably linked to the 1st. Media has gotten nervous recently about 1A violations. If government ever removes our 2A right to self defense then 1A doesn’t stand a chance.

  16. avatar Jason says:

    Most of their audience isn’t going to care about constitutionality; they’re going to care about results.

    Take a copy of the 1993-2011 FBI crime report along with gun ownership stats and CCW issue stats that shows gun ownership up and crime down.

    Take a copy of the Harvard Study and the CDC study that Obama pushed for after Sandy Hook that show no link between gun ownership and crime.

    Also, prepare for the common rebuttals:
    We license cars & drivers. There was a great take down of that argument on here yesterday.
    Nobody needs an “assault rifle”. Provide the stat that they’re not used in crimes much.
    A gun owner is more likely to get killed by his own gun. That study was debunked, take a copy of the debunker study.
    40% of criminals get their guns at gunshows. That study was pre-NICS, and is completely moot at this point. Find the more recent convict survey that showed they get them from burglary and straw man family/friends. And point out the miniscule prosecution rate of NICS violators.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Most of their audience isn’t going to care about constitutionality;”

      Jason, this is exactly the problem. RF’s job in this, and the reason they are inviting him, is to discuss the fallout from the G&A/Metcalf editorial hinting that we must “compromise” regarding the Second Amendment. Constitutionality is the crux of the argument. What Robert MUST do is to MAKE their audience care about Constitutionality. The entire “gun control” argument centers on this very point.

      The Second Amendment is pure and plain. Just like you cannot be “a little bit pregnant,” the Second Amendment cannot be “a little bit infringed.” If it is infringed, even a little bit, we’re all fvcked.

  17. avatar dwb says:

    1. ignore the actual questions and/or bring them back to your own talking points. Thats what the best ones do.

    2. hone your message to a handful of easily digestible fact-filled talking points that you can squeeze in while someone else is trying to drown you out. I would not go ideological, this is CNN, they want to paint you as an ideologue. I would go with something like in the states that have unrestricted carry, like Vermont, crime and homicide is significantly lower. Crime/homicide committed by CCW holders is negligible and of the 500+ homicides in Chicago, not 1 had a FOID or carry permit.

    3. put them in a box when they say “reasonable common sense” the brady campaign and VPC called an outright handgun ban in DC reasonable and common sense 5 years ago. a super majority of americans do not support a handgun ban. make it clear all the laws in NY that are unreasonable to most americans and are intended to be de facto bans. play offense not defense and do not let them frame the debate.

    4. when they bring up background checks, make them stick to facts about who is actually in NICS. 51% are unlawful immigrants. another 20% or so are nonviolent drug crimes like marijuana. only a small minority are violent offenders or mental health issues. Make them play defense on this. are they discriminatory? will illegals get their gun rights back under the DREAM act? how about states that decriminalize drugs?

    good luck! oh, wear your flak jacket you are the target.

  18. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    question why if the feds are so interested in controlling gun crimes, and liberal states are so in agreement, how come no one was fired for Fast&Furious and no one on the left criticizes the obvious phuck up?? this will lead to pointing out that the allegedly “reasonable” restriction crowd is just looking to confiscate. . . . .

  19. avatar 505markf says:

    Don’t pick your nose when the red light is on and do your best to ignore the fact your underwear is ever so slowly creeping up your butt crack.

    You’ll do fine, hefe. Just keep it real.

  20. avatar Dave357 says:

    Aside from the Constitutionality issues, to me one of the strong arguments again “sensible” regualtion is the proven track record of States that went that route to end up with draconian laws, regulations, and procedures.

    There seems to be no magic way for “reasonable” regulations to remain that way, and until it is found, all regulation has to be resisted.

  21. avatar gloomhound says:

    Good luck, God bless, give em hell.

  22. avatar Mighty Mo says:

    While I love what Alex Jones did to Pierce Morgan let’s stay away from that. Actually that is probably what they are looking for. Someone who comes across as a nut. Best of luck RF. I plan to be screaming at my TV (in support) more than a rabid Super Bowl fan in heat! Go kick his ass!

  23. “My plan is simple enough: assert that the Second Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating firearms or firearms training.”

    Your plan is flawed at the outset because your opponent simply has to look at your record on the subject to know you are FOS.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      You’re just pissed because RF wouldn’t post your bail.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:


      I’m not sure what you’re smoking, but you better not drive while its still in your system.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      Leonard, it is possible for reasonable people, engaged in rational discussions of the issues, which this blog generally does, to come to new conclusions as to their stand on certain subjects. I believe that RF has come to the realization, as have many of us who frequent this establishment, that there can be NO MORE COMPROMISE on the subject of the Second Amendment and RKBA. He has stated as much in this post. As we all understand that the real purpose of the civilian disarmament groups is to take away ALL of our gun rights we must take the equally hard line, and Constitutionally protected, position that they have no legal authority to take away or even regulate ANY of our gun rights. If we do not take that stand then we have already compromised and they have already won.

  24. avatar David says:

    Please please please mention something about the hypocrisy of a government w/ the greatest weapons the world has ever seen, bought & paid for w/ tax dollars, telling average Joes they cannot have inferior weapons . . . sometimes the same weapons that designed and/or used by said government at some point in time. If governments around the world really wanted to fight weapons proliferation they should stop making and buying so many of them.

  25. avatar Shire-man says:

    Jake Tapper is a good porn star name.

  26. avatar ST says:

    What I would do in your shoes.

    Offer no talking points about concealed carry or being pro rights yourself ,and ignore any reference to those attributes.Any mention of the 2nd Amendment will only tell the gun control fans to raise shields.Those concepts only have meaning to the choir, as it were.

    Two:undermine “common sense gun control”.Show the world the Emporor has no clothes.Let them state why they want more gun laws,and then bring up real life examples like the Navy Yard incident and Virginia Tech, where the shooters passed their background checks.At this point they’ll insist that we need more stringent Federal regulations-and I’d counter by saying we need social solutions to social problems. Mention how we reduced tobacco smoking not by banning cigarettes and registering each carton,but by community education and getting parents involved in the well being of our children.Close by saying the law isn’t a solution to social problems like violent kids and city gangs.

    Were I in your shoes, in any event.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I’m with you in principle, but cigs are bad mojo here.

      First, part of the decline in use probably comes from taxing the hell out of tobacco products. Simple principle: want less, tax it more. They are doing that with guns and ammo, and every round of gun control proposals tries to ratchet that up. Of course, the same principle applies to taxing industry, productivity, and entrepreneurship, but they don’t let themselves get hung up on that.

      Second, they already are going full tilt on doing to guns what they did to smoking: Trying to make it seem uncool to own guns. We would suggest public awareness for firearms safety and responsibility, and they would pay lip service to this idea. However, they are already going full bore on the PR approach they want. Of course, they are ignoring an important difference between cigarettes and guns, which brings us to…

      Point three. Though cigarettes can be pleasurable (and I think any adult that wants to smoke, knowing the risks, should be allowed to), there is no denying that they entail an inherent risk. They have little or no practical benefit for healthy people (though a few conditions actually seem to be helped by smoking), but they put you at serious risk of health problems. Guns do have practical benefits (protection) as well as recreational value. However, unlike cigarettes, if they are handled properly they can be enjoyed safely.

      So, I would suggest that arguing for any kind of equivalence between guns and cigarettes might be both inaccurate and politically unwise.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      …undermine “common sense gun control”.

      ST, I have advised to RF, elsewhere, not published, that we need to take back the language. We need to avoid using their terminology since we know it’s phony. There is no “gun control”, no “common sense gun laws”, no “gun violence legislation.” They are not trying to control GUNS, they’re trying to control US by taking away our guns. What they are actually promoting is “Second Amendment control”, “Common sense anti-Second Amendment laws”, and “Second Amendment restriction legislation.”

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ll ping Joe, whom I’ve invited to Austin for some serious trigger time.

    I would prefer to ping a traditional steel target, but to each his own.

  28. avatar Albaniaaa says:

    Bring a sheet of relevant statistics. DGU stats vs firearm deaths. The stats on how many legal gun owners actually commit crime to show that illegal gun owners commit the most. That shows that laws do nothing. Rifle… even machine gun crime vs handgun crime and the hypocrisy of focusing on the ones that kill very few. How the crime rate is actually down. Statistics showing that the UK and Australia’s firearms restrictions didn’t have much of an effect on crime. Their crime rates fell at the same rate as they always have and less so than the US has. If suicide is brought up just mention that Japan has a much higher rate with extreme restrictions on firearms to show that firearms have little to do with suicide.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      There is only ONE relevant statistic: How many representatives refused to agree to the new Constitution of the United States of America until a comprehensive Bill of Rights was attached, including a thoroughly debated and carefully worded Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”?

      One other statistic does come to mind: How many of the legislatures of the 37 states who have joined the union since the Constitution was written have agreed, by accepting statehood, to abide by that very Constitution and its Bill of Rights?

      Past those, all other statistics are irrelevant unless you are discussing repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:


        “Past those, all other statistics are irrelevant unless you are discussing repealing or amending the Second Amendment.”

        We need our side to really understand this truth. Some of those other statistics matter if one is arguing in favor of privileges but not for 2A protections. When “shall not be infringed” is respected, there isn’t a need for those privileges; at least on the federal level.

  29. avatar Rokurota says:

    Why is this even a story? “Guns&AmmoGate?’ Are they kidding? The NYT is just trying to highlight every disagreement on “the other side” so they can feel smug about how “fractured” we are (as opposed to thinking individuals). And also to highlight the rare “gun guru” who agrees with their nonsense, as if they are the mainstream and we 99% of restriction haters are the outliers.

    This isn’t news. It’s gleeful hand-rubbing. Don’t feed the troll.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Regardless of any ulterior motives they may have in conducting this interview, they have invited Robert to participate and they are unlikely to change very many minds on either side. What they will accomplish is to make Robert Farago a nationally recognized expert on the subject and expose many dozens of people (their ratings suck), even POTG who are not yet aware, to the URL thetruthaboutguns.com. Whatever else comes out of this interview, assuming RF does an even moderately competent job of presenting his (our) position, WINNING!

  30. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    You know they’re going to go down the road of comparing 1st and 2nd amendment “restrictions” (Fire in the theatre is the most cited example.) Make sure you hammer the point that we don’t muzzle people to prevent inciting panic, we simply allow them to be held liable for the results of inciting such a panic. IE, you can yell whatever you want in a theatre, but if the SHTF because of your exclamation you’re going to be in trouble. Comparing this to gun control, which limits our access to firearms before we ever commit any crime, is a huge step beyond so-called “restrictions” on the 1st Amendment.

    It is like having government panels to license journalists or authors to give them “permission” to publish. This actually was the case in Germany before/during WWII, and you could have publishing rights revoked based on the opinion of a publishing board. Yes, we have laws against libel and slander, but once again those only hold people liable for damages caused to another party based on falsehoods published or broadcast with the intent to harm. We don’t restrict speech to attempt to prevent harmful speech, we simply prosecute those who harm through the use thereof. The same should apply to guns.

  31. avatar Sam Spade says:

    Wear your own clothes. Don’t wear your Ted Nugent suit or your Larry Pratt suit. Be comfortable in your own skin–it got you this far.

  32. avatar BillC says:

    Good luck. I’m glad that somebody who is capable is going up to bat for the people of the gun. Careful to everybody else about giving great advice, I’m sure they are trolling the website (or have been for a while) to counter our counter-arguments. While it isn’t a bad thing to share the truth, at this moment it could just be used against us with their purposeful misinformation. Email RF, and we will play our cards at the table.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Good point and wise to consider, but need not be a problem. As long as you are up on the facts, you win in the arena of ideas. The facts are on our side.

  33. avatar Kenneth Kish says:

    They will bring up that our founding fathers didnt have assault weapons in mind for our 2nd ammd and we should only be allowed muskets. Well they didnt see the internet or tv giving free speech either. So should it all be outlawed?


  34. avatar dwb says:

    By the way this whole mess, getting fired because he posted some gun control editorial, needs to be put in perspective.

    If someone is the Brady Campaign came out said hand gun bans and licenses are unconstitutional, theyd be fired too. Any member of the Brady Campaign staff own a gun? I bet they do. and if they said so in public, theyd be fired.

    This is mostly about the Brady Campaign calling attention to itself. dont play that game.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “… getting fired because he posted some gun control editorial, needs to be put in perspective.”

      Metcalf did not “post” a gun control editorial, he submitted that editorial to his editor, who approved it and published it. Metcalf was fired because his foolish editorial and the stupid decision of the editor to publish it created a PR shit-storm for G&A. This is NOT a First Amendment issue.

  35. avatar MichaelB says:

    You still on? Your pal Shannon doesn’t think so. And just in case others aren’t aware:
    @shannonrwatts tweets:
    [email protected] Your scheduled CNN guest, Robert Farago, bullies & threatens @MomsDemand – why are you allowing this hatred on your show today?

    1. avatar Hal says:

      RF threatens? Bullshit. He’s practically the most respectful RKBA advocate around. He won’t even let us flame trolls. I find her claim hard to believe. There should be a TTAG post debunking this outright lie.

    2. avatar Hal says:

      I especially love the “bullies” part. Have to use the negative buzz-word of the day I suppose. What a duplicitous bunch of nobodies they are.

  36. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I was looking forward to seeing this, but sadly we’ve just been informed by the producer that the segment has been pulled due to the breaking news out of the Philippines about the super typhoon.

    1. avatar MichaelB says:

      Cover-up. It’s because of Shannon Watt’s twitter crusade.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Yeah, I dunno. I definitely saw the Twitter crusade by MDA and CGSV. I think it’s interesting that Tapper is disavowing all knowledge of him being on the show. I’ve seen the emails, there were 7 total, between the producer and RF. Her > him, reply, Her > him, reply, Her > him, reply, and then the final one about the cancellation. How there could have been that much talk of a segment without Tapper knowing about it is interesting to me. But I know precisely jack about modern media, so my ignorance is somewhat overwhelming.

        1. avatar jerry says:

          Tapper may not have known RF was scheduled. I Checked out the twitter exchange between Tapper and Ms. Watt’s minions, and he states he wanted an editor or writer for a segment on the Guns and Ammo editorial. The producer may not have informed him who was coming on.

      2. avatar Jeff says:

        Shannon Watts IS THE HURRICANE

        1. avatar MichaelB says:

          Typhoon in Pacific, Hurricane in Atlantic. 😉

  37. avatar JustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

    just rambling all the things that you may need to be able to counter: sorry for the lack of formating

    Get the mass shooting stats, that they have been consistent through out the years.
    Get the stats that rifles are used less then hammers.
    Get the true crime stats from england and how they don’t report crime stats unless there is someone charged.
    Get the latest obama requested studies that more guns don’t increase gun deaths. and the other studies which undermine the guncontol arguments.
    get the stats that suicide stats do not change during gun bans, just the means, not the death toll
    get the stats on how little of the cwp carriers commit violent crime.
    get the stats that civi defensive gun use causes less colateral damage then LEO gun use.
    get the stats for the actual back ground checks which get denied, are actually turn out to be criminals trying to buy guns and hence get prosecuted, that most are just clerical errors or common names, etc.

    the 1st is only restricted when it is going to cause imminent harm, just like the 2nd, you can’t murder or injure someone with a gun. We prosecute the people that yell fire in a full theater, not the ones that yell fire in their car, that think fire, that know the word fire, that can speak or force them to duct tape everyone mouths when going to a theater.

    the 40% of guns bought without background checks was from a survey which was done partially in the year before NICS was put in place. so the 40% is useless statistic.

    Open NICS up to civis, so we can use it, for free when they do private transactions. gun owners don’t want to sell guns to criminals. Just give us the tools and we will use them.

    There is also a database of stolen firearms that anyone can check before they agree to the private sale.

    FBI research of where criminals buy guns, it is not gunshows.

    Many states already have laws on the books that make it a crime to leave unlock guns around minors in their home.

  38. avatar MichaelB says:

    Robert- You were NOT cancelled because of the typhoon. It’s a convenient excuse. You were cancelled because of Shannon Watt’s Twitter crusade.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      Funny, I like to think of her entire cause as “Shannon Twat’s twat crusade.”

  39. avatar jerry says:

    Just went over to the twitter page, boy they really didn’t want RF on the show. Easier to try to shut someone up than debate issues I guess.

    1. avatar MichaelB says:

      Yup. And the way “they” did it crossed a line. RF should have a properly drawn up letter, as Shannon willfully attacked RF’s credibility with false accusations, resulting in the cancellation. Typhoon be damned.

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        This is seriously pathetic. As much I dislike outfits like the Brady Center, I can’t recall them ever making such a pathetically unprofessional impression on me. My opinion of Ms Watts as an opponent worthy of any respect has just taken a major nosedive.

        1. avatar AFIraqVet says:


          She’s already torpedoed that on her own. Just look at this exchange with a Navy Petty Officer who was trying to engage in respectful dialogue with her.



  40. avatar Ralph says:

    Shannon Watts should debate the typhoon, just to see which is the bigger windbag.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      I would say Shannon Watts should debat Mr. Diggler’s business end.

  41. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Ask them to give their interpretation of “shall not be infringed”. Then ask them again, every 30 seconds, when they try to evade the question.

    And go to the NRA-ILA web site and call up the article “Secretary General of Interpol Suggests an Armed Citizenry to Combat Terrorist Violence”.[The guy is an ex-Clinton appointee that headed ATF!]

  42. avatar Hal says:

    I am not saying you should hammer them with a monologue. However, when I discuss the RKBA with vapid, liberty-hating drones people on the fence, this is what I try to convey:

    Ethics change with time, values do not. While ethics are affected by popular opinion and the fashionable causes of the day, values are not. As a diverse culture, Americans’ only set of universal values is our bill of rights. When we erode it, we destroy the only bond that we share as a people. Some would argue that that is progress. Is it truly? If so, progress for whom? At this moment, we stand as one of the most liberated societies on Earth. In fact, I would argue that our (semi-intact) RKBA makes us the freest nation in existence. It distinguishes us as a people who truly govern themselves. Why is it advantageous to harm our liberty by eroding this critical human right? Who benefits?

    Other nations casually stuff their constitutions with feel-good rights such as free healthcare, food, housing and social security. These are not “rights;” they are entitlements masquerading as liberties. The constitutional equivalent of junk-food, they are a sham that breeds dependency and reduces individual liberty. Platitudes of the worst kind. A true right can only be defined as a freedom from government in some way. Everything in our bill of rights passes that litmus test. This was by design. Any solution to a problem entailing taxpayer funding and government programs is a reduction in liberty. Such laws must always be viewed with the utmost skepticism and disdain, along with the politicians supporting them.

    Our bill of rights represents our rejection of the European tyranny we chose to flee. It is a codification of our American values. We mustn’t discard our values for light and transient causes. Rights surrendered are seldom ever returned.

    Beyond that, do not let them shout over you. They will try. Shout back and don’t stop until you have silenced them. Good luck Robert.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      FML, canceled? Cowards.

    2. avatar jerry says:

      This sir, is a an excellent post. Very well stated.

  43. avatar MichaelB says:

    Can’t wait to see the eventual blog post for this backpedal by CNN.

  44. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Btw, CGSV is losing their collective minds about this: https://twitter.com/CSGV/status/398868262693265408

  45. avatar Julian says:

    I don’t know if this will be of any particular benefit, but for anyone who claims that the “individual right” theory is a modern right wing concoction, here is a list of RKBA in state constitutions older than 100 years:


    1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;
    1790: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    1776: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;

    1780: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

    1777: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

    1796: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

    1792: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    1802: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State;

    1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    1817: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

    1818: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

    1819: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

    1820: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.

    1836: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic.

    1835: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

    1842: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1859: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security

    1857: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State

    1865: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    1868: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

    1876: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question

    1889: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

    1889: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

    1889: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

    1889: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    1889: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

    1907: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

    1912: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    1912: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Twenty nine state constitutions. The breakdown:

      The People 14 times
      Citizens 11 times
      Freemen 1 time
      Person(s) 3 times.

      I think there is a consensus that this is an individual right. Only in Georgia, which copies the Second Amendment word for word (but leaves out the extra comma) does the prefatory clause “well regulated militia” appear.

  46. I say, is “regulated militia” doesn’t mean well maintained as from the language of a few hundred years ago… then it means the state should pay for 1-2 weeks of firearm training to train civilians in how to handle firearms.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      We say, Don’t give them and inch!” You just gave them a few miles.

  47. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Ok, I just gots to know when TTAG is gonna open its own broadcast quality studio in Texas? I mean I would love to see you on these TV shows show up with a dual shoulder rig and some big iron, chest scabbard and big knife, and tiger stripe VN era camo and green facepaint. (I am guessing that any other TV studio would be objecting to such a display and stop you at the front door LOL) THEN THEY CAN CALL YOU A GUN NUT !

  48. avatar C says:

    Super typhoon? Sounds like another Obummer conspiracy to me.

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