DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (853)

Embed

John Howard, the conservative former prime minister of Australia, says that pro-gun advocates in the United States are wrong to oppose an assault weapons ban like the one he pushed for after a 1996 mass shooting because public safety is not a "liberal/conservative issue."

On Sunday, Howard told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that he felt "horror and shock" after a gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania on April 28, 1996.

"I thought to myself -- and many of the people around me -- that we cannot leave a stone unturned in trying to prevent it happening again," he explained. "And that's why I resolved -- and I had only just been elected prime minister -- to use the authority of my new position to bring about change."

"Can I say on the philosophy of it, this is not a left/right -- to use the American terminology -- a liberal/conservative issue," he added. "It's really a public safety, common-sense issue because that is the attitude that most Australians took. And I'm very much on the conservative side of politics, but I just saw this as one of those things that demanded the use of the authority of my office to try and change."

Zakaria pointed out that there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia in the years leading up to the gun control measures, but none had occurred in the decade since.

"Did it change something about the politics?" the CNN host wondered. "Did you find that the people who were on the other side have come around?"

"I think probably some of them have," Howard said, but observed that there would always be people that claimed gun laws "interfered" with freedom.

"Now, I understand and respect that point of view, but the sad fact is that it's the ready availability of guns that results in mass murder," he asserted.

When it came pro-gun advocates' claim that violent video games and the entertainment culture deserved a large portion of the blame for mass shootings, Howard said that he just couldn't buy in to that argument.

"That is not a dominant an issue in my mind as the enduring problem that when people snap and there's a weapon that can kill a lot of people very rapidly available, in many cases, the person will use that weapon," the former prime minister insisted.

DOWNLOADS: (119)

PLAYS: (686)

Embed

Vice President Joe Biden is trying to assure survivalists and those preparing for doomsday that they will still be able to protect themselves in case of disaster even if assault weapons are banned because shotguns are more effective weapons for defense.

During a Google Hangout discussion about gun control, YouTube video blogger Philip DeFranco asked the vice president why an assault weapons ban was necessary if the number of murders had gone down since the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act temporarily banning some military-style rifles expired in 2004.

"So what would you say to the people who say, yes, you are infringing on our rights, not for sporting or for hunting, but in California, everyone talks about the big earthquake or some terrible natural disaster as a last line of defense," DeFranco wondered. "What would you say to those people?"

"A shotgun will keep you a lot safer -- a double-barreled shotgun -- than the assault weapons in somebody's hands that doesn't know how to use it, even one that does know how to use it," Biden advised. "You know, it's hard to use an assault weapon and hit something than it is a shotgun."

"If you want to keep people away in an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells," he added. "I'm must less concerned quite frankly about what you would call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (103)

PLAYS: (536)

Embed

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) suggested that advocates of gun safety proposed measures to curb violence after the December massacre of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut because they are "anti-Second Amendment people" and want to end the right to bear arms.

In an interview before President Barack Obama's second inaugural speech, CNN's John King asked the Iowa tea party-backed congressman if Republicans were "chastened" after losing seats in the House, Senate and the presidency.

"A few of them are, but I'm certainly not," King replied. "And those of us that won the election, we see our constituents as deserving the best representation we can give them. We won elections too. So, this is an interesting day today, this peaceful transfer in a constitutional way of the power envisioned by our founding fathers. And they understood the separation of powers. They knew there was going to be a clash and a confrontation and a struggle between the parties, but we also know we have to run this government."

"So, it's going to be interesting as this unfolds," he added. "This should be a healing day. And then tomorrow morning we can start that harder work."

On the subject of "that harder work," the CNN host wondered how King felt about Obama's proposals for universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

"Those people that want to confiscate guns -- the anti-Second Amendment people -- took an opportunity as soon as the Sandy Hook tragedy took place," the Iowa Republican explained.

King said that he also planned to oppose any efforts by his own party to reform immigration if it meant giving citizenship to immigrants who came to the United States illegally.

"The immigration [reform push] was launched the morning after the election before they actually analyzed the exit polls," he observed. "I think some Republicans overreacted."

"But to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime," he insisted. "Now, if that's what this bill does then it would fit the definition of amnesty."

King predicted that gun safety legislation and immigration reform would be "stretched out over time."

"The prudent things hopefully will come together, and that's the only thing that should get to the president's desk," he asserted.

DOWNLOADS: (145)

PLAYS: (717)

Embed

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is defending the National Rifle Association (NRA) for making a "fundamental point" with an advertisement targeting the President Barack Obama's daughters over the "hypocrisy" of their Secret Service protection, but he says the president exploited the December tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut "within minutes" after 20 children were massacred.

During a Sunday interview on NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Cruz if the NRA had gone over the line by calling the president an "elitist hypocrite" in an advertisement that falsely claimed that armed guards were employed by Sidwell Friends School, where the president's daughters are enrolled.

"Look, I'm going to let people decide to run whatever ads they want," Cruz shrugged. "I do think there is a fundamental point here, and there is a point of hypocrisy when it comes to gun control, that many of the opponents of gun control are very wealthy, live in communities where they can outsource police protection."

The Texas Republican added that gun control advocates didn't seem to care about the Second Amendment rights of "a single woman living in Anacostia who has the misfortune to live next to crack house."

"This is a narrower point about armed guards in schools," Gregory pointed out. "This happened to be an ad that's factually inaccurate. The president's children are protected by the Secret Service, and that's not their own choice. And yet, you're trying to make a broader point, which I understand. But you think this is a constructive part of the debate?"

"What I don't think is constructive is what the president is doing right now," Cruz shot back. "Within minutes of that horrible tragedy in Newtown, the president began trying exploit that tragedy to push a gun control agenda that is designed to appeal to partisans, that is designed to his political partisans."

"Number one, it would have done zero to prevent the crime in Newtown. Number two, many of the provisions are contrary to the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. But number three, they don't work... This is not designed to actually solve the problem of violent crime, this is designed to assuage liberal partisans who want to push gun control."

DOWNLOADS: (4849)

PLAYS: (1367)

Embed

World Net Daily columnist and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday insisted that Americans were entitled to armor-piercing bullets because they are "a right in our country."

The Pennsylvania Republican told an ABC News panel that conservatives "should stick to our guns" and oppose President Barack Obama's efforts to curb gun violence in the wake of the slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"Having a gun and gun ownership is part of how people can feel safer," Santorum explained. "And in my opinion, when you look at the disingenuousness of the [Obama] administration when they met with the NRA, and [Vice President] Joe Biden did. And the NRA brought up the fact that prosecutions for gun crimes and prosecutions for people who lie on their registration forms or gun forms are down under this administration. The vice president responded, 'We don't have time to devote to see whether people fill out a form right!'"

Current TV host Jennifer Granholm pointed out that there had been fewer enforcements because the National Rifle Association (NRA) had pushed Republicans to oppose any effort to confirm a head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

"This is not about taking peoples guns away, this is about a narrow set of proposals that will enable us to help enforce the existing gun laws," Granholm explained. "The ban on assault weapons and a ban on high capacity magazines and even a ban on armor-piercing bullets are overwhelmingly supported by the citizenry. Fifty percent of men, 59 percent of women support an assault weapons ban. Same number for a ban on high capacity magazines."

"What about the president's argument that if it can stop even one of these horrific shootings, it's worth a try?" host George Stephanopolous asked Santorum.

"Well, how many people are you going to deny guns who are going to protect themselves?" the former Pennsylvania senator replied.

"Senator, what about the magazines?" ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts wondered. "Why have a magazine that can riddle a 6 year old into shreds?"

"Here's what I would say about that: 50 years ago, you could go on a catalog and buy a gun," Santorum opined. "There were no restrictions on gun ownership, there were no restrictions on magazines, there were no restrictions on anything and we had a lot less violence in society than we do today. The idea of pointing to the gun instead of pointing to society -- and not one thing the president did dealt with Hollywood and gun violence and video games and all the glorification of violence."

"Armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?" Granholm interrupted.

"Why do you need to protect Hollywood?" Santorum shot back.

"You're deflecting," Granholm observed. "Deer don't wear armor. Why do you need an armor-piercing bullet?"

"But criminals could," Santorum quipped.

"And police officers certainly do," Granholm noted.

"Having the ability to defend yourself is something that is a right in our country," Santorum asserted.

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (1164)

Embed

Conservative host Glenn Beck and "historian" David Barton on Tuesday debuted a new show called "Foundations of Freedom" and suggested that history proved that school shootings could be prevented if all elementary school children were armed.

After pointing out that some areas of the United States required every household to own a gun in the late 1800s, Beck told Barton that "everybody grew up with a gun" and it was "part of school."

Barton noted that guns were only fired in schools at the time to stop criminal activity.

"The great example, in the 1850s you have a school teacher who's teaching," the historian explained. "A guy, he's out in the West, this guy from New England wants to kill him and find him. So, he comes into the school with his gun to shoot the teacher, he decides not to shoot the teacher because all the kids pull their guns out and point it at him and say, 'You kill the teacher, you die.' He says, 'Okay.' The teacher lives. Real simple stuff."

Barton added: "There was no shooting because all the kids -- we're talking in elementary school -- all the kids pull their guns out and says, 'We like our teacher, you shoot our teacher, we'll kill you.'"

"Kids did not shoot each other," Beck insisted.

"No, no," Barton agreed. "Two accidents I have seen in 200 years of everybody having guns. It just didn't happen."

Barton's book, “The Jefferson Lies," was pulled from stores by his publisher last year after it was criticized for grossly misrepresenting President Thomas Jefferson.

(h/t: Right Wing Watch)

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (1198)

Embed

A Kentucky sheriff who refused to enforce any new gun laws that he deemed unconstitutional says that the Second Amendment is "like the Bible" because "you either believe it or you don't."

In a recent interview with The Lexington Herald-Leader, Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman said that he had a "moral obligation" to defy any new executive orders from President Barack Obama or laws passed by Congress if they restricted the Constitutional right to bear arms.

"I swore an oath to the Constitution," Peyman explained to Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "And in the Constitution is the Second Amendment and that's what this country is based upon. How can I rightfully in my own mind and in my heart come in and take guns away from people when that is their protection?"

Susteren asked the sheriff, who is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), how gun laws should be changed to prevent another mass shooting like the one that killed 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"If you take out part -- it's kind of like the Bible -- either you believe it or you don't believe it," he insisted. "The Constitution, either you believe it or you don't. Either you live by it or you don't."

"If the people in the theater [in Aurora, Colorado], if there had been somebody in there or several people in there with a firearm, how many people would have got shot? In the school, how many people would have got shot?"

Susteren pressed Peyman on what he would do "put the lid on some of these incidents" if he were president.

"The Secondment Amendment, the way it was designed was to protect the people," he replied. "In protection, it's just like if I'm a bad guy and I'm going to go kick a door but I know that the guy behind that door has a gun, and I go to this other door where I know a guy doesn't have a gun, that's the door I'm going to kick."

"You're still going to have incidences, you're still going to have violence. You're not going to be able to curb that, but the innocent people are going to be able to protect themselves."

DOWNLOADS: (138)

PLAYS: (1703)

Embed

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

In a press release obtained by Mother Jones on Monday, Georgia Gun Owners said that it would be providing one AR-15 courtesy of Armistead Arms in Alpharetta "to alert, activate and mobilize gun owners in every corner of the state to oppose the Feinstein Gun Ban and others being touted in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere across the country."

An entry form for the giveaway explains that "[f]irearms prize winners must meet all legal requirements and will be subject to a dealer’s background check."

In addition to opposing Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) proposed assault weapons ban, Georgia Gun Owners also recently encouraged its members to support a Georgia bill that would allow gun owners to have a concealed weapon without a permit.

Savannah-Chatham Metro Police Chief Willie Lovett told WTVM that he was "totally opposed" to doing away with concealed-carry permits because it just made things "easier for criminals."

"To confront someone who shouldn't have a weapon at all, yet, not know if they have a permit for that weapon puts us in a bad situation," Lovett explained.

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (1027)

Embed

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Sunday said that gun control laws were not the answer to mass shootings because hatchets, guns, cars and video games all had a role in violent deaths in the United States.

"What I'm hearing is that people want to make certain that -- first of all -- that we protect the Second Amendment and their Second Amendment rights -- protect their freedom and not impede that," Blackburn told CNN's Candy Crowley, adding that the focus should really be on "psychiatric and psychotropic drugs."

"They are also wanting to make certain we get in behind these video games. I watched a couple of these last night in preparation for this segment and, Candy, as a mother and as a grandmother, I was astounded with some of the things I was seeing on 'Call to Duty' [sic]. And, of course, we know the Norway shooter would go in and use that as target practice."

Crowley observed that "the steam for a ban on assault weapons is slowly coming out of the balloon" as time passes after the December mass shooting of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

But New York Times National Political Correspondent Jeff Zeleny pointed out that a defeat of the assault weapons ban would not bring down the entire effort to curb gun violence.

"I think that the president is committed to this," he explained. "Probably background checks, probably the [high-capacity] ammunition clips. But there is going to be another shooting probably, sadly. So, this is going to stay in the consciousness. I don't think this is going to recede."

"But the problem is that it could be a hammer, a hatchet, a car, a gun," Blackburn argued.

"But hammers, hatchets and cars aren't quite as fast as those clips," Crowley noted.

"We're still needing to look at this mental health," Blackburn continued. "And you have to make sure that you're protecting an individual's rights."

DOWNLOADS: (117)

PLAYS: (548)

Embed

Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt on Sunday called for lawmakers to end gun-free zones at schools instead of "wasting out time" with the "false security" of universal background checks.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told host Chris Wallace that the argument that background checks wouldn't help stop mass shootings was "absolutely wrong."

"If we look at the Virginia Tech shooting, that was because we had a faulty background check system that that person wasn't caught," she explained. "He should not have had a gun because he had problems with mental illness... People would be alive today if we had these kinds of things in place."

Pratt, however, said that gun safety advocates were "avoiding the reality that we have been moving in the direction that somehow self defense is not valid, that we can somehow protect ourselves by this background check idea."

"I think it's false security that somehow we're going to stop problems, when there's really no way to spot these problems," he insisted. "Some of the most horrendous mass murders that have happened recently -- including the one in Newtown -- would not have been stopped by a background check."

"We're wasting our time going in that direction when we should be talking about doing away with the gun-free zones, which have been so convenient and such a magnate to those who would come and slaughter lots of people knowing that there's going to be nobody that's legally able to defend themselves in these zones."

Pratt added: "In fact, background checks wouldn't have stopped most of these mass murders that have occurred... We got to face the reality that we've got empower average people, including teachers and other people in schools to be able to defend themselves."