Lawrence O'Donnell Takes Apart NRA Gun Lobbyist Wayne LaPierre

Not the first time I looked but I do now.

So we have to pay people to not be criminals?

What a joke.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion not stated. What I read is IF we had a more level playing field, crime would diminish. It has nothing to do with paying people to not be criminals.

It's an idea worth exploring and discussion based on some empirical evidence, whether causal or correlated yet undetermined.

Did you read the article?

Yes I did and what I saw as the great answer was tax the rich and give the money the poor.

Good. Has it occurred to you that perhaps sometimes the poor commit crimes because they feel hopeless, without options and can think of no other way to survive? This of course would not be the motive in all cases but the elimination of poverty might eliminate that type of crime. I guarantee that if you were hungry, you would steal to feed yourself or your family. With a full stomach, most people would deny that but people will do what is necessary to survive.

Greed of course is also a motive yet we seem to punish the weak among us, the poor if you will, for relatively petty crimes without much hesitation yet the monied interests often get away with grand theft or at least are able to minimize their punishment [Club Fed for the affluent and connected]. The system seems rigged toward wealth and the question is should it be?

We must decide who we really are. Do we believe in "justice for all" or justice for those that can pay for it? Do we believe in an egalitarian society or one of social darwinism? It could be argued that democracy is about equality yet our economic system is really about unfair competition. Even Adam Smith recognized that democracy and pure capitalism were incompatible.

I don't believe that a banker works harder than a sanitation worker, and you probably do not either. So why does one get paid in the millions and the other barely a living wage? There is social justice in requiring the wealthy, who benefit greatly in our imbalanced system, to pay more to rectify our built in bias for the rich, many of whom have done little to earn their advantage from birth or good luck [I give you the Koch Brothers who are Trust Fund babies in my home town.]

Paraphrasing Gandhi, if you take more than you need, you are a thief.

Oh... that's a painfully sad and distressing photo.

i feel bad for people in general whenever i see one kill a being infinitely more human and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be

just by the relatively simple act of killing that bear, that man has once and for all definitively proved beyond a shadow of an unreasonable doubt that the bear he killed was infinitely more intelligent and human than he could ever hope to be in his wildest imaginings
and he has my deepest and most profound condolences, as he has, by his actions, just given away his right to live on this beautiful blue-green marble jewel of a planet we call the Earth
I feel sorry that he appears to look so very proud (avarice is one of the seven deadly sins for a very good reason) of the atrocity against nature, and against life itself, that he has just committed

You have no right to attempt to re work the constitution.

That photo sucks. I do not understand hunting for the sake of killing. Should we outlaw bow and arrows too?

Or we can change it to it's modern meaning... Carry.

So, when a person is going to commit a crime the will obey the law to not conceal a gun. Makes perfect sense!

No, but to conceal a rifle would be far more difficult. We wouldn't have people making rash decisions to shoot at each other in night clubs and it would be easier for law enforcement to spot armed individuals. The right to conceal and carry is an idea that should have disappeared with the wild west. As for the right to own weapons for the defense of ones home, I'd take a double barrel 12 gauge over a 9MM any day of the week.

So you think a guy that's going to shoot up a club with a concealed weapon cares if it is legal or not to conceal that weapon. Wow

I guess you carry.

So, when your around me and someone is threatening innocent people with a gun, (carried unconcealed of course because it would be illegal for them to conceal it before they break the law) you can rest assured we will have an advantage, rather than a disadvantage.

Dude, leave the gun at home, especially if we're going out drinking. The only thing worse than a drunk with a gun is two drunks with guns.

bear: (verb) to carry
bare (adj.) without covering
The right to_______ .... fill in the noun.

LOL

Great jarb.

They have to plea bargain for real crimes because our jails are filled up with petty stoners so we have to give reduced sentences for real criminals who WILL hurt law abiding citizens.
I also believe if it hadn't taken over a minute to reload a weapon and we could fire 30 or 60 rounds in a minute when the framers wrote we"'have the right to bear arms" it would have read a little different(my two cents on that)

Absolutely agree that the drug laws should be changed as they ARE clogging up the courts and the jails.

As far as the 2nd amendment..

When it was written the government had the same weapons as the people.

Since the 2nd was written in order to give the people the weapons necessary to protect themselves from the government It seems obvious to me that they would want us to have the same arms as our own Army.

I've heard this point, Im no anti-gun activist or anything I own guns myself. The week point here is nobody would agree with some Joe schmo walking around with a rocket launcher or driving around in a m1 tank or flying around in a loaded f-22 or a black hawk so doesn't an ak-47 or m16 seem kind of useless?

I used to think the same thing but then I look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Not exactly the best armed adversaries yet nine years later and we, With all our tanks and planes still haven't beaten them.

BTW: I'm pretty sure joe schmo, If he can pass the background checks and has the money, CAN buy that RPG legally.

I agree, 51% of prisoners are incarcerated on drug charges.

An example of one and you imply all gun laws not being enforced. This is a hasty generalization and you provide no proof other than your "expertise" that is must be happening everywhere.

This seems like a Red Herring argument. What is the rest of the story? Plea bargained away the gun charges but not the murders perhaps? You have only part of the story here. Were all charges dismissed or just the gun charges? These guys may have gotten life instead of the death penalty due to the plea bargain; it is not clear in your post.

You are assuming that the accused are guilty. Perhaps the DA does not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and therefor offered a plea bargain to make sure some justice is done rather than dismissing the charges due to lack of evidence or a jury verdict of not-guilty.

Bottom line is justice may not have been served here in this particular case [without induction to every case] but we can not determine that with what evidence you presented.

That was not one example, It was six examples over two years.
I did the research because I lived in philly at the time.

All six, Like I said had their gun charges plea bargained away and pled guilty to lesser charges.

These were not murder or manslaughter cases, the gun charges went along with other charges. There were a couple robberies, some drug charges and a couple assault charges also.

I never claimed "expertise" only my own bit of research into what was happening in philly at the time.

I DO suspect this is happening elsewhere as I have stated but if you want to know the truth about where you live it's out there for you to find.

You have to remember most of gun whacks have really small guns, and when there is any talk about guns they take it very personnel!

single shot hand guns?

Yes, and maybe once a month!

That makes no sense at all.

No but gun control does take guns out of the hands of innocent people.

Perhaps as a reasonable way to allow responsible citizens to keep their privately owned guns, and to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be trusted with such weapons. It is not an "all or nothing" question. Certain measures can and should be taken.

the only thing, in my experience, that separates a law-abiding citizen with a gun from a homicidal criminal committing a gun crime is an often simpletonistic motivation and the opportunity to use the said gun
That's all
that's the only difference
and it's a disturbingly subtle distinction at that
the transformation from law-abiding citizen to murderous criminal can quite literally take place in the split fraction of an instant, in the blink of an eye
the only variable left at that point, the one that will determine how many people wake up dead in the local municipal morgue the next following morning, is whether or not the person in question is armed, perhaps just as importantly, what it is that they are armed with
are they carrying a purse or a briefcase, and maybe a pen or pencil? (in which case the worst that is going to result is some cuts and bruises)
or are they packing a concealed military-issue high-powered fully-automatic sidearm sniper assault rifle (such as the type used by Special Operations Forces for Political Assassinations of Foreign leader and dignitaries, [or, on some hunting "sports" television programs i've seen, to kill deer]) or Russian-manufactured Avtomat Kalashnikova (AK-47) firing 600 rounds per minute?
(in that case, you'll be fortunate if there is anyone left alive to tell the tale)

All the guns you have mentioned are very heavily federally regulated. The criminals I speak of are the ones committing crimes with the guns that they illegally obtain. This is generally the gun wielding individuals we should fear. The few and far between cases of mentally ill individuals killing innocent people in shooting sprees do not outweigh the crimes committed that you do not see in news. There are people being shot, robbed, raped, and who knows what else at gun point by felons who can not legally own a gun in the first place.

I grew up in North Central Wisconsin
There were four big cities within an hours drive, a hundred miles, of where i lived
there was a violent gun crime in one of those cities on the local news every single weekend for as far back as i can remember
and you could pretty much count on there being at least one shooting death in any given one of those cities at least once a month, every single month
NONE of the guns involved in any of those crimes were EVER stolen or smuggled
ALL of them, every single last one, was purchased LEGALLY at the annual yearly local NRA Gun shows
literally tens of thousands of people were killed in just my part of my home state, just in the several years that i was growing up there

your wholly, entirely arbitrary argument that most gun crimes are committed with illegally-obtained weapons
(the fact that the truth is diametrically the opposite notwithstanding)
will not be true until ALL guns are made illegal
because as long as ANY guns are legal, then the vast majority of people with guns will own them legally
and if most people who own guns have them legally, then you can bet that the vast majority of people committing gun crimes will be doing so with their legally-owned guns
the vast majority of all people who commit gun crimes are never formally diagnosed as mentally ill, and even those who are are often not recognized as such until just before, or even AFTER they commit their violent killings
if there is one thing i learned growing up within twenty miles of dozens of violent gun killings each and every year, its that mental illness in no way, by no means, any sort of prerequisite in order to commit a shooting crime
and the vast majority of people who are diagnosed with mental illness never commit any sort of crimes
when a suspect is arrested and convicted in a violent shooting killing, it is more often than not because the local municipal law enforcement police force was capable to match the bullets fired and found in the victims to the gun that they were fired from, and to match that gun to the owner that purchased it LEGALLY at a gun show or firearm and ammunition store
THAT is why gun proper registration is so very important,
and even more vitally crucial is the proper registration of firearm ammunition (bullets)
if for no other reason
because the police should ALWAYS be able to directly trace every single bullet they find directly back to the person who fired it.
automatic weapons with clips that hold multiple dozens of rounds only ever serve to make that job of theirs harder, and therefore to prevent that many more violent and dangerous criminals from being brought to justice, tried and prosecuted.
that, if nothing else, is what makes the selling of 30-round ammunition clips so very dangerous and a threat to the security everyone, everywhere

the vast majority of the people who committed the violent shooting killings in the cities around the area where i grew up had never before committed so much as a felony or misdemeanor before in their entire lives
the simple fact is that they were not criminals in any sense of the term until the very moment that they pulled the trigger on their entirely fully legally and legitimately purchased and owned firearm
at first glance, they were, as you put, "law-abiding citizens"
and then, mere split fractions of a moment later, they were killer criminals
That;s all it takes
and NONE of them would have ever become killers had they not owned a gun
because they would had nothing with which to commit their violent crimes
the ready access that they had to their guns MADE them from just very angry or emotionally upset, but still legally-innocent people,
into murderous killers
a transformation that, i admit may or may not have taken place eventually someday with or without a gun
but not at the very least not in that moment
The simple facts of the matter are that, had the people in my home state not had access to deadly firearms, literally tens of thousands of my fellow Wisconsin citizens would not be anywhere nearly quite so dead as they are today

I'm sure you've gone through all those cases in your area and found legally purchased guns in all cases. I'm saying that f you outlaw guns gun crimes will still happen. Requiring me to get a concealed weapons permit doesn't stop a guy robbing a store from hiding his gun. Its simple. Anyone who is going to kill someone does not care how they obtain the gun.

it should at the very least be a deterrent to the more pragmatically-minded people
knowing that every bullet you fire can be traced in mere seconds directly back to your purchase of your gun
even if i were hell-bent (pardon the pun) on committing an armed gun-related crime, just the knowledge of that one relatively simple fact would at the very least force me to take a moment's pause before i took an irrevocable action that would end with turning the police's investigation of an armed robbery into the case of a homicide detective.
Also, as it stands today, someone who shoots someone, even if they don't kill them, or even if they missed their target, can only be tried for the injury, if any, that they caused the person they were aiming at.
on the other hand, were we to outlaw guns altogether, or limit them exclusively to those used for the "sport" of "hunting" and killing helpless and defenseless animals in yearly annual seasons of mass-slaughter
(this seems to me, for my very own personal self, to be the far more well-reasoned and practical approach to controlling the ludicrous proliferation of weapons of mass-death)
It would, once again, add that much more of an extra deterrent to those people NOT pre-disposed by some deep-seated neurotic psychosis to violent killings, against pulling out their firearm, if they knew, in addition to any damage or harm done, in the case of injury, that they could and would also be tried and prosecuted just for the simple conduct of merely CARRYING the gun itself.

More importantly, perhaps, even than that, if for no other reason the because its effectiveness would be far more significant in the prevention of lethal shootings,
were we, also, in addition, to regulate the supply of firearm AMMUNITION, as well as the weapons themselves,
then just from a practical pragmatic standpoint, it would make far LESS sense to kill someone by firing a bullet (or two, or three, or ten) at them, if for each and very round of ammunition you purchased you not only had to pay a genuinely exorbitant and quite very possibly prohibitively expensive fee charge, but then also were forced by legally binding obligation to be responsible for filling out dozens of pages of licensing and registration documentation
Not only am i proposing that 30-round clip magazines for automatic firearms no longer be permitted to be sold, but i am advocating that gun and ammunition retail stores sell each and every single bullet individually, individually priced,
and the legally-binding licensing and registration be properly processed for each and every single last round of ammunition ever sold anywhere.

because i know of no rational, reasonable, logical person who would, in their right mind, spray not just one, but indeed two 30-round magazines into a crowd from their automatic firearm, as Jared Laughner was readily, willing, and capable to do during his assassination attempt on the life of Arizona Representative Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords last month in Tucson
if, for each and every last bullet fired, there was prohibitively expensive prices and time-consumingly monotonous paperwork
as you so-called "Conservative" quote-en-quote "Republicans" are so very fond of repeating ad nausea:

"Let us just let the "free market" economy take care of the problem."

It just would not make economic financial sense to even purchase a 30-round clip magazine, providing they were even still available, if you were obliged to then purchase all thirty bullets for your gun one by one at a time, individually, paying expensive prices for each one

the simple fact is that any gun has just one singular sole possible intended purpose, and only one: To kill,
and to kill quickly, effectively, and efficiently
in my opinion, and this holds true for anything you might ever want to kill, if you need more than one bullet to hit whatever target you are aiming at, then you don't know how to handle a gun well enough to justify owning one

the whole entire purpose of automatic weapons and 30-round clip magazines is so that people who do not know enough to be capable to shoot straight or use a gun properly can still have the capability to kill multiple living targets in a very brief span of time
and i honestly do not believe that even the quote-en-quote "Second Amendment" so-called "advocates" and/or even the wack-job nutter zealots at the NRA, including yourself, could possibly come up with a good reason to in any way justify why someone so incompetent such as that should ever be empowered with a deadly weapon, and with it, the capability to kill

How are you going to protect yourself if your gun is at home?

Good shit, you hit it in the head on that last line

Not everyone sees it like that, but they should because thats the truth

How about that! I agree.
A debate? That's absolutely laughable.
Every "debate" with a conservative that O'donnell has becomes nothing less than a platform for him to spew out his liberal partisan tirades - which he does without fail.

stfu.
people kill people, no matter who they are

Yes they do ...but I don't think our laws should make it easier. I have read many postings here that make an argument for both sides. What I do not see is a reasonable position for having these clips that hold so many bullets. Whatever your position in this debate may be...common sense should prevail.

The person who needs a gun with them 24/7 is the person being robbed at gunpoint.

Oh yeah, the police carry guns 24/7. Go figure.

Do you trust that we the people will never have to take a stand against any government ever?

That is ridiculous and doesn't prove one single point. Grow up.

No sir, it is an organization that is devoted to selling guns. Ad hominem statements make your argument fallacious. Claiming that someone is a fascist or opposed to freedom, both of which you show no evidence of, does not mean their argument is wrong. Your argument is nothing more than name calling and emotional reaction and offers to evidence of your point.

On the other hand, there is plenty of empirical evidence that the more lax guns laws are, the more violent crime are committed, Texas being the prime example. five minutes on Google will help you find that proof.

The Constitution only guarantees the right to bear arms and if you read the entire Amendment, it attaches the caveat of a well regulated militia. You do not have the right to all arms, in all circumstances, or the right to be judge and jury and cut down anyone YOU think is a criminal about to shoot someone.

Go back and study some more Paratus and come back with a more reasoned argument.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment, owning firearms, etc. is fine, but there has to be some common sense measures to promote gun safety. We do not need the 30 or so magazines, we do not need the uzzis, for hunting or for protection. Problem with NRA is that they pounce on absolutely ANY movement wanting gun SAFETY. Sanity should be encouraged.

That was well said!

You do not use an Uzi tohunt. It is a 9mm subgun. IT IS a jim dandy protection piece however. The problem is who defines what we "need" and actually, what does "need" have to do with anything? As far as I am concerned the NRA is not strident enough in the protection of our Second Amendment rights. The organization does a huge amount of gun safety programs with their Eddie Eagle program for schools as well as firearm instruction classes. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I did not hear anyone say we should be "unarmed". The need for 30 round magazines for handguns is a legitimate issue. I for one do not see the point other than to kill as many people as possible. We need to look at this issue responsibly.

O'Donnell, fascist, that's a stretch.

fascist
noun
he was branded a fascist: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, extreme right-winger, rightist; Nazi, blackshirt; nationalist, xenophobe, racist, anti-Semite, jingoist; neofascist, neo-Nazi. ANTONYMS liberal.

Methinks you are a bit off with your label of fascist for Mr O'Donnell. This seems to be an ongoing thing with conservatives. Get your definitions correct, otherwise you make yourself look rather lame.

That definition fits more conservatives than it does liberals.

Paratus --

It is apparent you have no idea whatsoever what a fascist is. You should read up on fascism in its rare historical examples. I find no source that say if you argue for gun control you are an out and out fascist - proof in and of itself. Ad hominem again -- perhaps you should look that up and figure out why you keep using that flawed logical argument. it is a fallacy of relevance. With a name like Paratus, you should have no problem with a little Latin.

Your dismissal of empirical evidence is typical of an emotional appeal. In my experience it is mostly white males who have this irrational obsession with guns; why is that? Perhaps they are compensating for something they lack in their life? Perhaps they are filled with fear that they must have a gun to boost their self-image? Maybe you could tell us all why we all must have guns?

Your argument that "the people" are the militia referred to is interesting. You left out the well regulated part of the subordinate clause you mentioned. "Well regulated" does not mean banned, does it? No one is saying take away all guns -- except in your mind; an irrational fear that most gun advocates have, that somehow without their guns, bad thing will happen to them. There is that fear theme again.

Your counter example of the marijuana issues is what in logic is called a "straw man argument." It has nothing to do with the discussion and I made no inference that it does. If fact, IF I did, I might point out that marijuana it not an instrument for killing as a gun is. It is the principal purpose of a gun to kill and by that very purpose must be thought of in a different light than marijuana. Target practice, or sport shooting is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun are for killing!

I can find isolated proof of anything so your reference to Prince George County MD and Kennesaw Ga are cherry-picking the evidence that supports your pre-conceived notion. This is a faulty statistic error -- a hasty generalization of the evidence [Dicto Simpliciter in Latin]. Look at the big picture over time and what do you find?

Your insistence that guns guarantee freedom is another flawed argument. Most people in this country live their entire lives in freedom without ever seeing a real gun. How do you explain that?

That is correct sir.

I just checked your claim of more gun violence in Prince George County Maryland and Afghanistan. It was from the 13 Jan 2011 Washington Examiner. PG county had 13 murders in 13 days while there were only 12 in Afghanistan IS THE SAME PERIOD -- 11 days. Talk about skewed data. Lets look at PG county over the entire year and then we still can not claim that looser guns laws would change the situation.

This is not evidence of anything sir. You haven't provide proof of anything, just screaming at the top of your lungs.

By the way ... you other reference ... you should read the disclaimer on Jeff Rense's site. It says they make no claim to the accuracy of ANYTHING. So much for your argument.

Touché.

...and the President shall be the Commander and Chief of the milita....

Fascism is about control. In my experience it fits liberals more than anyone else. You may disagree but that is your right

What I said was that this firearms thing is about freedom. It does not guarantee it. Fascism has many definitions and characteristics associated with it as a political policy. Spo many, in fact, that the description as fascist to describe a government or act can be argued against due to the plurality of requirements. Authoritarianism and control are two but surely not the only two. We can lump it with other political philosophies such as socialism, communism and the most recent reincarnation of the previous two, statism. This is not to say that all these forms of government are the same but they do share similar characteristics in that there is less individual freedom and more government control than we would normally find within a republican form of government. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of how it is defined. None are desirable but all have one thing in common; control of the people and their disarmament.
The comparison with marijuana is to demonstrate that it is a poor mechanic who blames the tool. It would not be the fault of the pot in a crime against persons just as it would not be the fault of the gun in the same situation. Kennesaw, GA is an example of a counter argument. I cannot help it if you wish to consider all examples counter to your position a "straw-man" argument but if that is what it takes to make you feel bigger then go for it.
The 2A is not about target practice, hunting or anything of the like. As I stated, it is about freedom. This is my belief and I stand by it. People who wish to remove our firearm rights, or limit them, call it what you will, are any negative. If you notice I am discounting completely your defense about taking away guns and how no one mentioned it. Freedom is a funny thing. You are either free or not. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
You and I are not going to agree on this. That is not a problem for me. I am not trying to convince anyone to abandon their principles. In this I am most certainly not a liberal. My problem is that if you attempt to impose limits you are trying to impose your beliefs on me. My other problem is the condescending attitude I get from liberals. Frankly I am getting a little tired of this tactic. Your incorrect belief that you are better than the rest of us is totally wrong. Firearms are a civil right. Shall not be infringed means exactly that. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. That is just a fact of life. Deal with it. NOw you guys are free to name call, and belittle all you want. What you don't do well is tolerate opposing views.

The rest of that clause goes,"when called into actual service of the United States". The Constitution further states in Article I, Section 8 that Congress shall, "....provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.....".
Read the entire thing.

Lawrence also tore a hole through Trent Franks.

Just about every liberal I know owns at least 1, it's become a wedge issue to sell more guns and blur the lines. First thing i heard from a right wing talker when Obama was elected "he's going to take your guns" I couldn't believe the idiots that believed that crap.

I agree Kenny. The problem is there are millions and millions and millions of idiots that believe this bull about Obama taking their guns.

Crap huh?

From Obamas transition page.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. "

I guess you are the one who is full of crap.

Which part of any of that is "going to take your guns"? I must have missed it.

not wanting kids to get guns?! my word Obama is the master of deception we cant trust that muslim gun hater.

Sarcasm^^^^^

People are paid good money to keep them stupid on the radio and TV!

Has he taken anyones guns? Why are you frightened by this kind of rhetoric?

Exactly how can any of that statement be construed as taking away anyones guns? It sounds like a common sense approach to me. I want anyone who wants a gun to own a gun. Assault weapons and 30 round hand gun clips serve only one purpose, TO KILL MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE! PERIOD!

No, He hasn't taken anyone's guns. He backed away from the gun issue when he realized how politically toxic it is.

How can THIS statement
"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. "

Be construed as wanting to take away anyone's guns?

Gee, I wonder.