GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/27/media-elites-have-no-shame-nor-sense-of-irony/trackback/

  1. Nick,

    Respectfully, I disagree. NBC and Greggory need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It needs to be loud and public. Then the gun control zealots will have to face that they don’t even understand (or care) about the laws on the books. He didn’t break the law in ignorance. He broke it knowingly.

    If he wasn’t David Gregory he’d already be in jail. (From Legal Insurrection.)

    He cheers disarming people while hiding behind armed security, use the laws he supports to throw the book at him.

    Or else, we really do have two classes of people. (Rich) Liberals, and everyone else.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 9:25 am - December 27, 2012

  2. I thought it was a bit silly too until I heard the DC police had already told them that no, it would not be legal to have that magazine in the District. But Gregory et al ignored the law to make their point. So as with any true act of Civil Protest like this, one must be willing to suffer the consequences of their actions and everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (that it is a law the moron is pushing onto the rest of us is just a grand bit of Petard, Hoisting thereof).

    Comment by JP Kalishek — December 27, 2012 @ 10:09 am - December 27, 2012

  3. Wow, Gregory seems to really believe “It’s OK, I’m a journalist.”

    I agree with TL. (BTW Nick, ‘hypocrisy’ is the word for Gregory’s sending his kids to a school with eleven armed guards, more than ‘irony’.) If Washington’s municipal code prohibits possession of “any large capacity ammunition feeding device, regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm,” then Gregory broke the law. If the law is wrong (and it is), then let the ones who suffer from it be the sanctimonious fools who support(ed) the bad law in question. Maybe then they’ll learn something, about when the law should (and shouldn’t) be made.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 27, 2012 @ 10:15 am - December 27, 2012

  4. Agree with all the other commenters.

    These laws and regulations will not stop until the Obama Party and its presstitutes like Gregory start choking on them as well.

    And as we see, when the little preciouses of the Ministry of Propaganda get bitten by their own laws, their hysterical screaming about how special they are, how they should be exempt from the laws they demand, make a mockery of every single time they whine and scream about “equal protection” and “reckless disregard”.

    Conservatives need to be broadcasting this far and wide.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2012 @ 10:35 am - December 27, 2012

  5. Is there any way we can deport David Gregory along with Piers Morgan?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 27, 2012 @ 11:17 am - December 27, 2012

  6. The end always justifies the means for progessives.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 27, 2012 @ 11:24 am - December 27, 2012

  7. I am not a huge fan of the idea of “laws only apply to the little people” when big names violate laws.

    I think it is worse if he was told that it would be a violation and he did violate it anyway on the belief that there are always exceptions for the rich, famous and journalists.

    I do think there is much irony in the fact that the wealthy are happy to hire guys with guns to protect their lives and property but want to deny that right on some scale to those who don’t have the money to hire guys with guns.

    And there is probably good reason that Sidwell Friends has armed guards (lots of wealthy and government mover/shaker’s children there, but I fail to see why those kids are so special that they get protection while it is denied to the average american’s child.

    Comment by Just Me — December 27, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - December 27, 2012

  8. Hypocrisy is believing that laws don’t apply to you because you’re [insert your special reason here].

    And hypocrisy is trying to publicly ridicule someone who supports in armed guards at schools, while you yourself send your kid to a school with eleven armed guards.

    Irony is just the fact that the school in question is Quaker. (officially pacifist)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 27, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - December 27, 2012

  9. I find it frustrating that anyone is saying we should hold journalists above the law. We already have that problem with Politicos (If Reid had been anywhere but the Senate floor when he lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes, he’d be facing libel suits).

    “Dialouge” to the left is like “Compromise.” Both translate as “Shut up and do what I want.” Or if you prefer…

    “Would you stop kicking and screaming? I’m trying to drag you into the future!”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 1:26 pm - December 27, 2012

  10. #2: “So as with any true act of Civil Protest like this, one must be willing to suffer the consequences of their actions and everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (that it is a law the moron is pushing onto the rest of us is just a grand bit of Petard, Hoisting thereof).”

    JP Kalishek,
    David Gregory holding up a high-capacity magazine on TV was NOT a ‘true act of Civil Protest.’ Civil disobedience is the violation of a law that the protester believes is unjust. The expression is used far too often, frequently applied to conduct that is simply unlawful because the protester is perceived by some to have noble intentions. Recently, the expression was constantly misapplied to the actions of the ‘Occupy’ mobs, as if their resentment of Wall Street banks was enough to denominate all of their lawless conduct ‘civil disobedience’ or ‘conscientious acts of civil protest.’ It didn’t apply to them and it doesn’t apply to Gregory either.

    Gregory doesn’t think DC’s ban of high-capacity magazines is unjust. In fact, he wants the ban (and other gun control laws like it) to be national policy. Thus, he doesn’t believe the law is unjust–he just doesn’t think it should be enforced against HIM because he’s a member of the liberal, enlightened, elite media. However, the reality is he’s just a sanctimonious pri*k who broke the law and he should be treated as such.

    I’m glad we agree that the law should be fully enforced against Gregory. I just object to how you’ve characterized his conduct as a ‘true act of Civil Protest.’ It’s not accurate and applying it to Gregory is exactly why the expressions ‘civil disobedience’ and ‘conscientious objection’ have become so diluted and nebulous over the years.

    Comment by Sean A — December 27, 2012 @ 2:44 pm - December 27, 2012

  11. Put me down with everyone else… Gregory and his accomplices should be treated just like everyone else.

    Little people who are no threat to anyone wind up in legal hell for far less than this.

    If justice is served and Gregory is charged, it will be rich if his lawyers have to defend him on Second Amendment grounds… I don’t think the First will do him any good since it doesn’t provide for immunity when laws are broken.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 27, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - December 27, 2012

  12. I guess Mayor Bloomberg’s armed bodyguards are not fair game either? …How about Mr. Buffet’s? …Or Sen. Feinstein’s CCW permit?

    Armed guards in schools is a foolish idea. So is legally-demarcating them as defenseless target-rich environments weapons-free zones.

    And I do wish that Mayor Booker would educate himself on the actual quite-restrictive gun-laws here in our state of NJ before declaring it’s easier to buy a gun than groceries. It can take months to legally be issued a handgun-purchase permit, good for just one handgun…and that’s after waiting months-more for a NJ Firearms possession-permit required for long-guns purchased here in NJ.

    And Federal laws limit my legal out-of-state purchases to long-guns-only sold in states directly adjacent to my home state…even at an out-of-state gun show in PA and NY. And I can’t purchase ANY handgun legally outside of my home state of NJ by Federal law. And there’s no civilian CCW here in NJ either.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 27, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - December 27, 2012

  13. Armed guards in schools is a foolish idea

    …except to the people/schools who already have them.

    Perhaps it is foolish as a practical matter, i.e., the expense; but the Dear Reader could always sell it as a jobs program or something. If government must pay people to do nothing for most of the day (and oh how I wish it didn’t, or believe that it ought *not* to), why not pay them to guard our kids?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 27, 2012 @ 5:24 pm - December 27, 2012

  14. The people like Gregory who imagine themselves as being members of the new ruling class need to be held accountable to the same laws that they wish to impose on us mere peasants. If they are in fact already “above the law”, then the American dream is already dead…

    Comment by Siergen — December 27, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - December 27, 2012

  15. I want legal access to the same weapons/firepower the ruling elite has to protect itself from unlawful attack.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 27, 2012 @ 8:03 pm - December 27, 2012

  16. What kind of impartial “news” person finds a need to brandish props in the face of the person he is interviewing?

    Gregory is an activist “journalist” who struts Progressive. Therefore, he is simply posing as “thoughtful” when he “probes” the minds of those he opposes. Fine, that is called “debate” and it is not journalism in any classical sense. Therefore, the magazine for an automatic firearm is merely a prop and in no meaningful sense a “fact” or supporting argument. It is all tits and feathers.

    Wayne LaPierre is jamming his arm up the anal port of the Progressive Bo-Peeps who run around in circles of hysteria over guns. He knows that schools can protect the kiddies with armed guards any better than keeping honest, thoughtful people from owning guns will deter nut-jobs that shoot up schools. He is illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

    So long as Keith David Olbermann Gregory keeps waving his prop, LaPierre will keep up the charade of the kindergarten assigned protecter Schwarzenegger bodyguard and sharpshooter. (Every sentient idiot knows that the schools will hire off duty meter maids who can’t aim a water pistol.)

    Kudos to LaPierre for treating Gregory as Gregory is treating him.

    I have been involved with our local schools for decades. Those built in the 1950′s and later are “ranch style” facilities where you can not keep track of how many outside doors there actually are. The elementary schools, in particular, often have doors to the outside in each classroom. What the heck is an “armed guard” to do?

    Gregory sends his kids to the enormously prestigious and expensive Sidwell Friends School. The Quaker staff isn’t armed, but the school has hired outsiders to protect the insiders. I’m not sure I blame Gregory for that seeming “hypocrisy.” It comes with the territory. He can afford to have his kids greased on into the Harvard set and come out in the upper middle of the rat race and experience affluent ease through the Progressive high-roller network and self adulation society. They will not end up struggling with a strip mall store in Napoleon, Ohio or hustling cellphone contracts in Bowie, Maryland.

    The Progressives who watch Gregory’s antics are all whoops and hollers over his “in-your-face” antics because it compliments their needs to demagogue. For them, if you aren’t belittling, you aren’t functioning.

    The nut case who killed those kids was not making a political statement against guns or children or Bush or missing flavors in the Jelly Belly line up. He was listening to his demons and we are trying to tune in enough to find out who his demons were. (They are dead because he is dead.)

    So, Keith David Olbermann Gregory has decided to blame magazines for automatic weapons and Wayne LaPierre has decided to issue every kid an armed body guard or two as an alternative. Out in TV-land, real idiots are taking both of them seriously.

    The problem is this: Gregory is absurdly serious. LaPierre is mocking him.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 27, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - December 27, 2012

  17. Hoist him up by his own petard. If Progressives cannot live by the laws they advocate then perhaps they need a painful and personal lesson to knock it off. Gregory should get no special exemption because he supposedly meant well and even if he didn’t know he was breaking the law, too bad. Ignorance is not a valid excuse under the law. If it’s something I and the rest of the “little people” would be prosecuted for, I’m all for nailing him on it.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 28, 2012 @ 12:43 am - December 28, 2012

  18. It’s Progressive law enforcement just like progressive income tax. Law enforcement is inversely proportionate to your position in The Party.

    Comment by Paul — December 28, 2012 @ 1:48 am - December 28, 2012

  19. Some animals are more equal than others.

    More and more, Animal Farm and 1984 are seeming incredibly prescient in regards to the Obama Administration.

    If Gregory DOESN’T go to jail, I wonder how much it will cripple the idea of adding more gun laws, since apparently the Administration can’t be bothered to enforce the ones we have now …

    Comment by Acethepug — December 28, 2012 @ 7:03 am - December 28, 2012

  20. I thought bans on large clips were one of those “Common Sense Gun Restrictions” liberals claim no one could object to. How can they be whining when the policies they support are enforced.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2012 @ 7:17 am - December 28, 2012

  21. Ok, who cast protection from trolls on this thread? :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 8:23 am - December 28, 2012

  22. The CT shooting that prompted all of this discussion is perhaps the most tragic incident of 2012…even more so than the re-election of Obama, and if there was a way to go back and stop it from happening, I would be all for that. However…with that being said, if any silver lining can be found from all this, it is the following:
    Several of my friends…the ones who thought that Obama and his liberal progressive wackos were the best thing ever for our country…have had their eyes opened with all of this gun ban nonsense and are seeing their movement for what it really is….one is even re-posting on Facebook from…..a conservative page. Now, if we can get the TRUE conservatives…the ones with Libertarian leanings, to get people to fully understand what they are all about, perhaps the progressive movement can finally see itself die.

    Comment by Tom — December 28, 2012 @ 10:25 am - December 28, 2012

  23. Armed guards at school is not a serious solution to stopping mass shootings. As Gregory pointed out, there were armed guards at Columbine that exchanged fire with one of the shooters, but guess what? That armed guard didn’t rush into the school like Rambo and take out all the bad guys and save all the innocent children. He waited outside for the SWAT team, which is what you’re supposed to do. Even armed guards with guns aren’t expected to charge into danger with guns blazing.

    Conservatives talk about guns like they’re living in an action movie. Like there are expert marksmen (who never get hit themselves) with nerves of steel ready to leap into action at a moment’s notice, even in dark movie theaters and crowded shopping malls. Recommending armed guards at school might be a good idea if you could expect people to react perfectly, but that’s completely unrealistic. Simply holding a gun doesn’t give people courage to chase after a crazy person that’s executing children. Simply holding a gun doesn’t make people calm and collected when confusion and hysteria is breaking out.

    Saying, “We should put more armed guards in school!” is about as effective as saying, “Gee, let’s just all hope this doesn’t happen again!” Needless to say, armed guards at schools won’t prevent mass shootings at movie theaters like the one in Aurora. There will always be places for lunatics to go and kill lots of innocent people…. so long as they have access to weapons that are designed for killing lots of people in a short amount of time.

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 10:34 am - December 28, 2012

  24. I want to appologize for breaking the protection against trolls circle.

    That armed guard didn’t rush into the school like Rambo and take out all the bad guys and save all the innocent children. He waited outside for the SWAT team, which is what you’re supposed to do. Even armed guards with guns aren’t expected to charge into danger with guns blazing.

    Policy that has changed since Columbine.

    Recommending armed guards at school might be a good idea if you could expect people to react perfectly, but that’s completely unrealistic. Simply holding a gun doesn’t give people courage to chase after a crazy person that’s executing children. Simply holding a gun doesn’t make people calm and collected when confusion and hysteria is breaking out.

    Which is why the school the criminal David Gregory sends his children to doesn’t have armed guards.

    Which is why the school noted gun grabber Rahm Emmanual sends his kids to doesn’t have armed guards.

    Which is why the school noted gun runner Barack Obama sends his kids to doesn’t have armed guards.

    Oh wait they all do.

    Facts. Those little things our fascist can’t answer.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 11:26 am - December 28, 2012

  25. Oh, and as Ann Coulter points out, lots of examples of “Normal people” reacting and saving lives.

    So Levi you’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Now of course since these posts use facts and point out how much of a liar our resident little fascist is, I fully expect the craven coward will not reply. He’s unable to confront the truth, and as a result ignores anyone who exposes him for the racist idiot he is.

    So no, I don’t expect the little coward to be able to muster a reply. He never can, to facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 11:55 am - December 28, 2012

  26. So Levi, are you saying that the children of our elite masters are more worthy of protection than those of the unwashed masses?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 28, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - December 28, 2012

  27. So Levi, are you saying that the children of our elite masters are more worthy of protection than those of the unwashed masses?

    ?????????????

    I have nothing against armed guards at schools. At the two high schools I went to, there was some form of police presence. It makes sense for high school, since high school aged kids commit crimes and are capable of physically overpowering teachers. Still, they aren’t there for stopping a lunatic with a death wish from going on a killing spree, and as Gregory noted, the guards at Columbine were not effective at preventing that shooting.

    More armed guards at school is not a serious solution to the problem of mass shootings because mass shootings happen at places other than schools. It’s a reactive non-solution (since there’s no way to quantify how effective an armed guard will be) that is only chasing after the problem. We put armed guards in all the kindergartens, well that doesn’t help if there’s a shooter at a movie theater. Or a 200-seat lecture hall. There are always going to be places where crazy people can find lots of people gathered together where there are no armed guards.

    So instead of calling for X more armed guards at all locations Y after a shooting like this, there are real ways to fix the problem that don’t hinge on action movie fantasies. And yes, those ways involve limiting access to firearms, and yes, since it’s impossible to screen everyone for mental competency, that means law-abiding gun owners would be affected. Oh well. I agree that humans have a right to self-defense, but that doesn’t mean we all need to be in a secret arms race with each of our neighbors. Other countries are doing so much better at this than we are, and we need to stop wasting time with suggestions that don’t really do anything.

    By the way, who is going to pay for all these guards, fiscal conservatives?

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - December 28, 2012

  28. #23: Shorter Levi: Saying, “We should put more armed guards in school!” is about as effective as saying, “Gee, let’s just all hope this doesn’t happen again!” There will always be places for lunatics to go and kill lots of innocent people, so we should ban guns and say, “Gee, let’s just all hope this doesn’t happen again!”

    So much FAIL.

    Comment by Sean A — December 28, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - December 28, 2012

  29. Armed guards at school is not a serious solution to stopping mass shootings. As Gregory pointed out, there were armed guards at Columbine that exchanged fire with one of the shooters, but guess what? That armed guard didn’t rush into the school like Rambo and take out all the bad guys and save all the innocent children. He waited outside for the SWAT team, which is what you’re supposed to do. Even armed guards with guns aren’t expected to charge into danger with guns blazing.

    Just say for the record, Levi, that you would have preferred that the armed guard was not there; that way, the shooter, instead of being pinned down in the parking lot, would have been able to walk through the school shooting children freely until the SWAT team arrived twenty minutes later.

    In fact, Levi, you and yours scream that armed guards do not prevent violence and in fact cause more violence. So if you truly cared about preventing violence, you would immediately abolish the Secret Service and any protection whatsoever for all governmental agencies and politicians.

    I want you to say this, Levi. Say it. Say that schools are safer when a gunman can walk around unchallenged, unthreatened, and totally unhindered for twenty minutes than when that gunman is pinned down in the parking lot by an armed guard. Say that, since armed guards only cause violence and do nothing to prevent it, that the Secret Service and other protection for politicians and government employees should immediately be abolished.

    And if you won’t say it, you are a liar and a fascist coward.

    Why won’t you answer simple questions, Levi? Are you too stupid? Frightened that your lies are being exposed? Is that why you won’t answer– because conservatives are constantly demonstrating that we have a better grasp of the facts, better common sense, better education, and better morals than pathetic liberal filth like yourself who are trying to use the government to steal from us and who demand that we be disarmed while you walk around with gun-toting bodyguards?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - December 28, 2012

  30. My great reluctance over “armed guards” in schools is that unlike Sidwell who can afford elite-trained Secret Service-type bodyguards, the result of an armed-camp policy would be low-level rent-a-cops roaming the halls…who frankly can’t hit the side of a barn any better than the local police. Unlike trained Dbl-Oh-grade assassins, the average police shooting involves multiple-tens of rounds expended and a barely-wounded suspect. And all those bullets that miss the miscreant have to go somewhere; like the Empire State Bldg. shooting where ALL NINE of the wounded civilians were “friendly fire” victims.

    “Pray and Spray” inside a crowded school-corridor is an invitation to disaster. And school security isn’t very bright either; like the school that panicked and went on lock-down for hours after “someone” saw a student carrying an umbrella over the CCTV.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 28, 2012 @ 1:02 pm - December 28, 2012

  31. I have nothing against armed guards at schools. At the two high schools I went to, there was some form of police presence.

    Yup, white liberal high schools filled with the children of white DC liberals.

    For some reason, these white DC liberals don’t believe that other children deserve the same protection and opportunities as they do.

    Just like how white liberal David Gregory thinks he should be exempt from the gun laws he demanded be passed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - December 28, 2012

  32. #27: ” Other countries are doing so much better at this than we are, and we need to stop wasting time with suggestions that don’t really do anything.”

    What a filthy liar you are.

    Comment by Sean A — December 28, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - December 28, 2012

  33. David Gregory is the tall homely guys at the bay. He comes from money or has a great job. His head is white and battered like the moon. No one wants him. Because of his position, he’s insulting and arrogant. The normal rules don’t apply. The police made it clear: possessing the magazine was illegal. No doubt Gregory already knew.
    Elite journalism teaches press members that they have special rights. The Constitution mentions them by name. This makes them Olympians in their own eyes. We know what they are…commie pigs. Most of the nation doesn’t. Even an incarcerated black would say to let Mr. David go.
    If I were Gregory, I’d argue the Second Amendment. He could take it all the way to the Supreme Court. DC has no right to regulate firearms or ammunition. Like the press, the Constitution makes it clear. As was said, if it were one of us, we’d be in big trouble. Our families could be ruined. Hopefully whatever happens to Gregory is expensive and humiliating. He was visibly absent on Sunday. As if anyone was watching.

    Comment by Gary Cole (exleftist.com) — December 28, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - December 28, 2012

  34. So instead of calling for X more armed guards at all locations Y after a shooting like this, there are real ways to fix the problem that don’t hinge on action movie fantasies. And yes, those ways involve limiting access to firearms, and yes, since it’s impossible to screen everyone for mental competency, that means law-abiding gun owners would be affected.

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 12:56 pm – December 28, 2012

    Nope, sorry.

    Since you and yours scream that promiscuous sex should be government-subsidized and that no one should ever be punished for it, Levi, you’re going to deal with the rest of us owning guns.

    My, what a worthless little fascist you are. You really can’t stand the thought of other people owning something that can stop you from stealing from them, can you, pig?

    And as for this:

    By the way, who is going to pay for all these guards, fiscal conservatives?

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 12:56 pm – December 28, 2012

    That’s easy.

    Which is more important, Levi: protecting children, or perks for multimillionaires?

    Why won’t you answer that, pig? Can’t the fascist explain why shoveling Wagyu into Michelle Obama’s fat mouth is more important than protecting children?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - December 28, 2012

  35. Armed guards at school is not a serious solution to stopping mass shootings.

    I have nothing against armed guards at schools. At the two high schools I went to, there was some form of police presence.

    Must be a bad day for Levi, when he can’t keep his lies straight.

    And yes, those ways involve limiting access to firearms, and yes, since it’s impossible to screen everyone for mental competency, that means law-abiding gun owners would be affected. Oh well.

    And again he shows his true stripes. “Who cares about things like rights and due process! It’s for your own good, proles!”

    there are real ways to fix the problem that don’t hinge on action movie fantasies.

    From that article I linked which, like I said, Levi’s unable to respond to, because it has facts.

    Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

    – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

    – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

    – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

    – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

    – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

    And the Craighead County shooter was stopped by unarmed High School Students who recognized the guns because they had the same kind of firearm and knew he was out.

    Now run away little fascist.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 1:16 pm - December 28, 2012

  36. [Columbo] Oh one more thing [/Columbo]

    Notice how Levi won’t even address the original question of the post. Should David Gregory be above the law?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 28, 2012

  37. Just to put the gun control ‘debate’ in perspective, it should be noted that the same people who fought vigorously to protect the civil rights of innocent Muslims and demanded the application of all protections the Constitution affords to criminal defendants to Kahlid Sheik Mohammad in the wake of 9/11 are the same people who are cavalierly trying to railroad the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of innocent, law-abiding Americans in the wake of the Newtown massacre. Let that sink in. Dems/Libs believe that granting the confessed mastermind of 9/11 (and other atrocities) Constitutional rights is worth fighting for, but the well-established Constitutional rights of fellow Americans are irrelevant, unimportant, and disposable.

    Comment by Sean A — December 28, 2012 @ 1:39 pm - December 28, 2012

  38. @Sean,

    Ouch. I’d missed that little detail. Why do they hate freedom?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - December 28, 2012

  39. #37: The_Livewire, it’s not that they hate freedom, it’s that they hate anyone who disagrees with them politically, and they’re so consumed with blinding hatred that they constantly seek ways to use government power to persecute, punish, and oppress them. Their current gun control hysterics are just one of many examples. Liberals like Levi imagine all gun-owning NRA members to be white, religious (Christian) conservatives and since he spends most of his time despising them, he would like nothing more than for the Obama Administration to ignore their Constitutional rights and confiscate their guns. He insists he is motivated by safety concerns, but he’s a filthy liar. If he (or the Dems) cared about safety, they wouldn’t just brush off Fast and Furious and ignore the rampant gun violence raging every day in ‘gun-free zone’ cities like Chicago, DC, and Detroit. The gun control ‘debate’ is about the same thing that it’s always about: punishing and oppressing conservatives for the crime of rejecting liberalism. If it wasn’t, then the facts and statistics would be relevant, but as we’ve seen with Levi, they won’t even acknowledge them.

    Comment by Sean A — December 28, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - December 28, 2012

  40. I think the best option would be to allow teachers to be armed. Not make them, just allow them to be. Armed guards would be too expensive, in my opinion.

    It is futile to try to come up with some sort of solution or fail-proof preventative measure to this sort of thing, short of becoming a tightly-controlled fascist state. Having said that, there is a lot of room for improvement, none of which involves gun control (for example, most gun violence isn’t involved in mass shootings and results in more deaths. And, much of it occurs in places with strict gun control, like Chicago and Washington, D.C. Why not talk about that? In my opinion, it is more of a problem and something that has a more feasible solution).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 28, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - December 28, 2012

  41. #37: The_Livewire, it’s not that they hate freedom, it’s that they hate anyone who disagrees with them politically, and they’re so consumed with blinding hatred that they constantly seek ways to use government power to persecute, punish, and oppress them. Their current gun control hysterics are just one of many examples. Liberals like Levi imagine all gun-owning NRA members to be white, religious (Christian) conservatives and since he spends most of his time despising them, he would like nothing more than for the Obama Administration to ignore their Constitutional rights and confiscate their guns. He insists he is motivated by safety concerns, but he’s a filthy liar. If he (or the Dems) cared about safety, they wouldn’t just brush off Fast and Furious and ignore the rampant gun violence raging every day in ‘gun-free zone’ cities like Chicago, DC, and Detroit. The gun control ‘debate’ is about the same thing that it’s always about: punishing and oppressing conservatives for the crime of rejecting liberalism. If it wasn’t, then the facts and statistics would be relevant, but as we’ve seen with Levi, they won’t even acknowledge them.

    You accused me of being a ‘filthy liar’ earlier when I said that other countries with far more restrictive gun control laws do a much better job at preventing gun deaths. For example, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia collectively have more people than the U.S. and only 0.05% of gun deaths. If the conservative solution is to further arm the citizenry, then how are these countries achieving such low rates?

    These are statistics. They seem to completely disprove the primary conservative theory about how to resolve this issue. Conservatives love to say that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Maybe, but it also seems to be the case that when guns are outlawed, incidents of gun violence plummet dramatically.

    Comment by Levi — December 28, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - December 28, 2012

  42. For example, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia collectively have more people than the U.S. and only 0.05% of gun deaths.

    And here we catch the liar Levi plagiarizing left-wing talking points.

    Unfortunately, this is also coming from a proven liar who has screamed that US soldiers should be executed and who supports and endorses the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

    No wonder he wants us disarmed. Just like his fellow Code Pink pigs.

    Why Levi thinks quoting a proven liar is going to sway us any, I have no idea. It’s probably because Levi was too stupid to research the statements in advance and was just repeating leftist talking points. We already know that Levi is uneducated and quite incapable of thinking for himself or making rational decisionsl; this is just another example.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - December 28, 2012

  43. You are a filthy liar, Levi, and everyone here knows it, including you.

    Here’s the truth about what happens to a nation when it disarms its people and turns its police into observe/report mall cops: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

    Comment by Sean A — December 28, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - December 28, 2012

  44. You accused me of being a ‘filthy liar’ earlier when I said that other countries with far more restrictive gun control laws do a much better job at preventing gun deaths. For example, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia collectively have more people than the U.S. and only 0.05% of gun deaths. If the conservative solution is to further arm the citizenry, then how are these countries achieving such low rates?

    These are statistics. They seem to completely disprove the primary conservative theory about how to resolve this issue.

    Correlation does not equal causation. And I’m not even sure there is a correlation here. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, and is one of the safest countries in the world. On the other hand, Brazil has a low rate of gun ownership, but a very high homicide (by firearm) rate. And then there are also the matters of Chicago and Washington, D.C. Clearly, there are other factors involved here.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 28, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - December 28, 2012

  45. Levi – I would truly be interested in your take on the following two articles:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336528/questions-gun-controllers-rich-lowry

    Kevin Williamson describes the intent of the 2nd Amendment (and it’s nothing to do with deer season or target shooting). Rich Lowry asks some simple questions on the intent of more gun control.

    I would add that I read an article the other day (location escapes me) that had charts from the Justice Department illustrating that levels of gun crime have fallen over the years despite the fact that there are more people with more guns (not to mention the widespread issuance of concealed-weapon permits).

    Diane Feinstein obtained in CCW permit back in the 90s(?) which even today aren’t easy to get in California due to threats on her and her family. Bully for her – doing what’s needed to protect herself and her family… she’s yet to explain why the rest of us should be on our own.

    I’m not an absolutist… if someone could explain to me how, say, limiting magazines to ten rounds would ensure that no more school shootings would happen then I’d be OK with limiting magazine sizes.

    BTW: why the vitriol directed at Levi? Yes, he can be irritating but it useful to see what the other side thinks.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 28, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - December 28, 2012

  46. $50 says Levi didn’t think armed guards in the schools was a dumb idea when Bill Clinton proposed it.

    You see, here is how Levi forms his arguments:

    1. What is the party line of the Democrat Cult?
    2. What arguments must I put forth to support the party line?

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - December 28, 2012

  47. $50 says Levi didn’t think

    That says it all. Coward is still afraid to face the facts I posted though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 7:43 pm - December 28, 2012

  48. BTW: why the vitriol directed at Levi? Yes, he can be irritating but it useful to see what the other side thinks.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 28, 2012 @ 7:24 pm – December 28, 2012

    Pretty simple answer, actually.

    I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    Add to that his support of conservatives being murdered, such as his spinning for the FRC shooter, and what you see very quickly is that he loathes the thought of any opposition whatsoever to the glorious Barack Obama Party and is willing to kill to get what he wants.

    So yes, in a sense, he is useful in demonstrating nicely the insane hatred, racism, and fascist nature of the Barack Obama cult; however, because he is an insane, hateful, racist bigot who wants us and our families to die for daring to oppose his Messiah Obama, he gets this level of vitriol and disdain.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - December 28, 2012

  49. Robert.

    Levi gets the derision heaped on him because he’s a racist, a liar, a truther, and an advocate of violence used to further his ends, but he can’t stand someone who fights back. He also can’t even answer the simple question raised by Nick’s post. Should David Gregory be prosecuted for breaking the law?

    If Levi had power, he’d be dangerous. Instead he’s reduced to shouting from his mother’s basement that allowing people to work w/o being forced to join a union justifies violence against peaceful protestors, while saying that crushing the rights of people who disagree with him is fine.

    Also, by his own standards, Levi is willing to sacrifice children for his (incorrect) understanding of 2nd amendment rights.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 28, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - December 28, 2012

  50. As the MANY examples of armed guards and/or armed civilians show, they often don’t have to take out the shooter, or even attack him, to be of great help in saving lives. Just their presence (threat) may greatly complicate the shooter’s plan.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - December 28, 2012

  51. Sean A: good points, except one thing: yes, they do hate freedom. That’s why they hate people who reject leftism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - December 28, 2012

  52. BTW: why the vitriol directed at Levi? Yes, he can be irritating but it useful to see what the other side thinks.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 28, 2012 @ 7:24 pm – December 28, 2012

    Because Levi is a willing and nigh-on perfect representative of the Obama-worshiping leftist personality cult that is hell-bent on taking away our every liberty and imposing a socialistic and fascist state on us.

    He is a practice dummy. He will parrot every leftist talking point with the loyalty of a devout Scientologist explaining Dianetics and attacking the psychiatric profession. By smashing his arguments to pieces, we all hone our skills for defeating the rest of the left-wing Free Sh-t Army.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2012 @ 9:32 pm - December 28, 2012

  53. Yeah but why the names? I suspect because it’s fun, as well as earned.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2012 @ 9:42 pm - December 28, 2012

  54. Point taken.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 28, 2012 @ 9:43 pm - December 28, 2012

  55. Levi is the type of person who can exploit children’s deaths to push his political view – as in the bit that TL quoted (Levi telling us “You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment”) – and then, in the next breath, complain bitterly and without shame, about conservatives who dare to accuse him of exploiting children’s deaths to push his political view.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - December 28, 2012

  56. Point taken.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 28, 2012 @ 9:43 pm – December 28, 2012

    Well, point also taken in reverse, Robert; we don’t need to lose the attitude that liberals are misguided, not evil.

    But when ones have proven otherwise, there’s no need to pull punches, either. Unfortunately, this site seems to attract more than its fair share of Levi-esque trolls — I suspect because it engenders roughly the same attitudes among modern Obama Party members as did abolitionist papers among their forbears.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2012 @ 1:02 am - December 29, 2012

  57. As usual, Mark Steyn is not to be missed:

    To Howard Kurtz & Co., it’s “obvious” that Gregory didn’t intend to commit a crime. But, in a land choked with laws, “obviousness” is one of the first casualties — and “obviously” innocent citizens have their “obviously” well-intentioned actions criminalized every minute of the day. Not far away from David Gregory, across the Virginia border, eleven-year-old Skylar Capo made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days. For her pains, a federal Fish & Wildlife gauleiter accompanied by state troopers descended on her house, charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species, issued her a $535 fine, and made her cry. Why is it so “obvious” that David Gregory deserves to be treated more leniently than a sixth grader? Because he’s got a TV show and she hasn’t?

    There’s much more; RTWT.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 29, 2012 @ 2:37 am - December 29, 2012

  58. Armed guards at school is not a serious solution to stopping mass shootings. As Gregory pointed out, there were armed guards at Columbine that exchanged fire with one of the shooters,

    There was ONE armed resource officer. By your logic, there doesn’t seem to be much point in the USSS serving in the capacity to protect the POTUS, does there? The fact of the matter is that most shooters stop when they have a gun pointed at them.

    Comment by TGC — December 29, 2012 @ 3:30 am - December 29, 2012

  59. Thank you for the Mark Steyn article, ILC. Another great one from Mr. Steyn!

    Comment by Cashless — December 29, 2012 @ 8:43 am - December 29, 2012

  60. What is so durably disappointing, and very troubling, about commenters such as Levi is that they never, ever RESPONSIVELY answer OUR questions.

    We all know why: because to do so would require them to cede ground. That they will simply not do. He knows perfectly well what is logical and what is not but he will never, ever admit it, and certainly not here to his foes. There is no actual debate or dialogue, just attack, ridicule, dodge, lie and ask questions meant to shut you down.

    It’s often impossible to resist assailing Levi and ilk point for point because to not do so feels like we’re leaving a turd flecked with gold colored sprinkles, on the floor, uncovered and everything, and that it might attract just enough people who are distracted by the shiny yet who ignore the stink. We all know that not nearly enough of us have even heard of the Socratic Method, nevermind been trained in it, and it’s terrifying.

    Based on what I’ve read thus far, Levi has been around since 2010. Ah. Admirably, GP has not resorted to the cowardly and greedy tactic common at liberal sites known as shadow banning. It does keep GP from turning into an echo chamber which is a good thing.

    Levi is either fully committed to his ideology, like a fundamentalist [fill in any religion here, including atheism] or he is here to keep us diverted from the attack at our flanks.

    Levi is an Alinsky agitator glued to a loop. He has a job that has nothing to do with winning any of us over.

    What I’d like to do is take whatever occasional point that is mentioned in faux, or especially honest, disagreement by whoever that is actually interesting and debate it in earnest with earnest others who exhibit reasoning and reasonableness.

    ILC, TL, V the K and NDT, et al, how about it? It’s just that I so tire of contending with commenters who clearly are not at all interested in saying “Yes, we are guilty of doing X and that should be dealt with by doing Y” or “I see your point. Let me restate it so I’m sure I understand what you mean and let’s delve further.” KWIM?

    I can dream, can’t I?… I don’t dream much anymore, but once in a while, it sneaks in when I read my favorite blogs….

    Comment by ignatius — December 29, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - December 29, 2012

  61. Nick, It would have been pretty damn good if the conversation had gone the way that you’ve described but what would have been spectacular is if LaPierre had called 911 during the interview and stated that he was “watching a man brandishing a high capacity rifle magazine,” and then watch what happened. It would have been the best news footage of the year.

    Comment by FireSarge — December 29, 2012 @ 2:30 pm - December 29, 2012

  62. If Gregory had an ounce of common-sense, he simply could have had the innards of that now-infamous magazine removed and brandished the outer casing. It’s not that difficult to remove the shell-guide and the mainspring, leaving just the hollow steel shell.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 29, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - December 29, 2012

  63. FireSarge, now that I’d've paid to see. The Steyn piece is a delight.

    Comment by ignatius — December 29, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - December 29, 2012

  64. There is dispute now whether or not bullets had to be in the magazine for it to be “illegal”.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 30, 2012 @ 10:40 am - December 30, 2012

  65. I it hasn’t been posted by another commenter (and I don’t have time to run through all 63 comments) here is the actual statute
    in question:

    DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01

    (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

    It doesn’t say anything about the magazine needing to be loaded.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — December 30, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - December 30, 2012

  66. Wow. I go away for a day or so and this thread is still going strong! In case any missed it, they might enjoy the commentary and links provided by Andy @ Ace of Spades today on this very topic:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336115.php

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 30, 2012 @ 9:31 pm - December 30, 2012

  67. I almost forgot, QandO posted this great news video about a home invasion stopped by a 15-year old protecting his younger siblings with an “assault” weapon. Now I wonder what Levi would suggest this young man have done without such a weapon? Hmm…

    http://www.qando.net/?p=14594

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 30, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - December 30, 2012

  68. *sigh* I hate the lack of an edit feature on these comments…

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 30, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - December 30, 2012

  69. It’s often impossible to resist assailing Levi and ilk point for point because to not do so feels like we’re leaving a turd flecked with gold colored sprinkles, on the floor, uncovered and everything, and that it might attract just enough people

    Yes, but another factor is that it can be a useful exercise in getting one’s thoughts together. When refuting a troll, I often put together thoughts in new ways that surprise me.

    What I’d like to do is take whatever occasional point that is mentioned in faux, or especially honest, disagreement by whoever that is actually interesting and debate it in earnest with earnest others who exhibit reasoning and reasonableness. ILC, TL, V the K and NDT, et al, how about it?

    I’d like the same thing, but I’m not sure what you’re asking or proposing, specifically. There are times when I focus on points that Levi happened to make, or at least to imply (since he sometimes doesn’t know what he’s saying) and refute them carefully. There are other times when I may ridicule Levi just for being the ass he is, and still other times when I may ignore him altogether.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 2:34 pm - January 2, 2013

  70. The problem is, if it’s a day that ends in y, Levi’s going to lie and ignore the post or parts of posts that shred his lies.

    @ignatius,

    I’d point out that most of us disagree with Nick’s original post, but were civil in our disagreement.

    The little fascist just receives the same civility he gives.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2013 @ 3:07 pm - January 2, 2013

  71. most of us disagree with Nick’s original post, but were civil in our disagreement

    Exactly. Civil is, as civil does. I have civil differences with people all the time… sometimes even leftists… and, according to my own choice of mood and tactic, sometimes even with a comment of Levi’s. OTOH, not always; if someone comes at me with a bad attitude, I don’t mind giving it back to them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - January 2, 2013

  72. ILC, I agree that Levi can and often is useful to us that way with his idiocy, but, there are times when it feels as if all I’m doing is training them how to detect my presence from 3 meters vs 2.5. What I’m asking is, rather than going round after pointless round with an agitator, that we zero in on whatever it is any of us finds particularly novel and hash it around with each other. When debating with friends, it is much easier to explore all the aspects of a notion because we’re not on shifting sand. If there were signs that Levi was actually receiving any of the wisdom imparted here from those who disagree with him, I’d be doing as you have as well, because it would be productive.

    TL, yes, polite, yet interested disagreement is what WE do. It is the devotees of Alinsky who seek to undermine how we do what we do and use it against us. I never hesitate to give as good as I get but, on the interwebs, without the benefit of all of the other information that we can pick up from our opponent with our other senses, it is impossible to know if we are being earnestly engaged by a true dissenter, being waylaid or being parasitized. We can only go by their history and so far, Levi et al. seem to have a history of being incorrigible. Ok, fine, but then let’s, amongst our friendly selves, continue dissecting the issue without the distraction of a rabid dog chewing on our leg. Take what they offer and then discuss it without talking to them anymore at all. I yearn for productive exchange, rather than the fruitless waste of time swatting at a bitter mosquito.

    I know it can be so very amusing at times to pester the pest. I do it too, though not here much. But, seriously, when I see good, intelligent, smart commenters resort to the same nonsense the pest uses, then I lose interest in the thread. Because it feels like a pissing contest has taken over.

    But I guess the answer to my request is “no” and so, oh well, I tried. Carryon……

    Comment by ignatius — January 2, 2013 @ 10:01 pm - January 2, 2013

  73. *Department of Fruitless Waste Department. *shoves hands in pockets, hunches over toward the exit*

    Comment by ignatius — January 2, 2013 @ 10:41 pm - January 2, 2013

  74. ignatius,

    When it comes to Levi, I’m in the amusing position of him being afraid to confront me, because I bludgeon him with facts and his own words.

    I’d be highly amused if Dan and Bruce simply deleted his off topic rants and lies with the comment [comment removed for slander and off topic]

    I’ll note that there are a few libs who are civil who come by. Pat being the first one who comes to mind. He’s wrong, but at least he can articulate a factual point. :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 3, 2013 @ 7:57 am - January 3, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.361 Powered by Wordpress