DOWNLOADS: (130)

PLAYS: (489)

Embed

National Rifle Association (NRA) President David Keene on Thursday promised that gun owners would do "whatever's necessary" to "get rid of those in public office" that they viewed as working to erode the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Speaking at a rally of about 7,000 people protesting New York gun laws in Albany, Keene promised that the NRA would "soon have five million members" because of a surge of interest after lawmakers passed laws in response to the shooting of 20 elementary school children in Connecticut.

"Because of the fact that we, as believers in the Second Amendment, are willing to do something that most people in this country are not willing to do, which is not just to stand up for our rights, but to support those people who stand with us and work to get rid of those in public office who do not," the NRA president told the crowd.

"So we're with you," Keene added. "We'll help you defeat the politicians that would deprive you of your rights. We'll help you overcome these statutes in court. We'll do whatever's necessary to make certain the Second Amendment rights that we have had passed down to us are are going to be passed down to future generations."

Earlier this year, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law to expand the state's assault weapons ban, ban high-capacity magazines and address gun ownership by those who have mental illnesses.

But if Thursday's demonstration is any indication, some gun owners in New York are going to go along with the new law quietly.

Chants at the rally in Albany included, "Cuomo's got to go" and "We will not comply."

DOWNLOADS: (126)

PLAYS: (668)

Embed

A Texas state representative says that a bill banning the enforcement of any new gun control laws is constitutional because it would only prosecute police and other state officials.

Fox News guest host Peter Johnson Jr. on Monday asked state Rep. Steve Toth (R) why his bill to moot any new federal assault weapons ban would not violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that state laws are trumped by federal laws.

"This is not a nullification bill," Toth insisted. "We target a very specific portion of where the Obama administration's proposed legislation is infringing on our Second Amendment rights, and it only deals with those two things. For example, the size of a magazine and the type of weapon. We're very specific about it, and we're not going after federal officials. We're simply saying state officials within the state of Texas are are not allowed to violate our Second Amendment as it pertains to these two things."

"The way you eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and we're going to start first with state officials that are also dual -- a state official that acts both as a federal and state official," he added. "These are people that are county sheriffs and so on."

"Law enforcement officials in the state of Texas could be charged with a crime themselves if they enforced those federal provisions?" Johnson pressed.

"Correct," Toth agreed.

The Texas lawmaker argued that he had to act to protect law enforcement officials who had vowed not to enforce new gun control legislation because "they would be subject to prosecution" by the Justice Department.

"So, we had to protect them," he said.

A Public Policy Polling survey last month found that 49 percent of Texas voters supported a federal assault weapons ban, while 41 percent opposed it.

Here's your compassionate conservatism on full display, folks. I guess this shouldn't be surprising after the behavior we saw from the crowds at the Republican presidential primary debates. John McCain's recent string of town hall meetings just continues to show the very ugly side of today's Republican party.

Crowd Cheers After McCain Tells Aurora Victim’s Mother She Needs ‘Straight Talk’ (VIDEO):

Constituents at a town hall hosted by Sen. John McCain Wednesday in Phoenix cheered after the Arizona Republican told the mother of an Aurora, Colo. shooting victim that an assault weapons ban could not get through Congress.

Here's more from KTVK:

Border security was not the focus of the majority of questions asked by audience members at the standing-room-only event Wednesday. Instead, gun control became the primary issue.

At one point, the mother of Aurora movie shooting victim Alex Teves took the microphone.

“My 24-year-old son Alex was murdered in a movie theater in Colorado,” Caren Teves said. “These assault rifles allow the shooter to fire many rounds without having to re-load. These weapons do not belong on our streets.”

McCain responded by sympathizing with Teves, then addressing her call for a ban on assault rifles.

“I can tell you right now you need some straight talk. That assault weapons ban will not pass the Congress of the United States,” said Sen. McCain.

McCain said his plan to deal with mass shootings would protect Second Amendment rights.

“We are working together to try to come up with a package that would prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals while at the same time preserving our Second Amendment rights,” he said.

Audience members also asked questions about impeaching President Obama, Benghazi, and immigration reform.

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: (267)

PLAYS: (2963)

Embed

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Sunday asserted that the National Rifle Association (NRA) had been "revealed as an insane organization" that "has this vision that we're living in a Mad Max movie" because it wants to put more guns in schools instead of supporting universal background checks and limits on military-style weapons.

During a panel segment on ABC, former Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said she supported universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines, but "both sides have overplayed" their arguments on gun control after the December massacre of 20 school children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"We've gotten glimpse into the mindset of the pro-gun people," Krugman observed. "And we've seen certainly with [NRA CEO] Wayne LaPierre and some of these others, it's bizarre, they have this vision that we're living in a Mad Max movie and that nothing can be done about it, that America cannot manage unless everybody's prepared to shoot intruders, that the idea that we have a police force that provides public safety is somehow totally impractical, despite the fact that that is in fact the way we live."

"Now the craziness of the pro-gun lobby has been revealed," he added. "And that has got to move the debate and got to move legislation, at least to some degree."

But Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta said that he was comfortable with the NRA's opposition to universal background checks because the idea was a "perfect example of why Washington is broke."

"I know people will get guns no matter what laws we pass, just like the illegal drugs," Barletta argued.

"I just caught you on a false statement there," Krugman interrupted. "Because at least I do believe that guns are the root. There are crazy people everywhere, but mass murders are a lot more common here... I looked at the international differences, and countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer incidents."

"Will banning a spoon stop obesity? Of course not," Barletta quipped.

"There are plenty of gun owners that are fine, but the NRA is now revealed as an insane organization," Krugman pointed out. "And that matters quite a lot."

DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (968)

Embed

National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre on Sunday argued that banning assault weapons limited the 'ability to survive' and that high-capacity magazines should not be outlawed because women need more bullets.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace pointed out to LaPierre that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had written that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment "was not unlimited."

The NRA chief countered that no new laws were necessary because "we already have all kinds of reasonable laws."

"The most basic right is to protect yourself," he asserted. "If you limit the American public's access to [assault weapons] semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive."

"If someone's invading your house, you shouldn't say you only have five or six shots, you ought to have what you need to protect yourself, a woman should," LaPierre added. "Not what some politician thinks is reasonable."

Wallace also asked if the NRA regretted creating an advertisement that attacked the president because his daughters were protected by armed guards.

"It wasn't picking on the president's kids," LaPierre insisted. "The president's kids are safe, and we're all thankful for for it."

"Do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America?" Wallace pressed. "I think it's ridiculous and you know it, sir."

"I think there are parents all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school," LaPierre declared. "It's ridiculous, Chris, for all the elites, for all that powerful and privileged and the titans industry to send their kids to schools where there's armed security, to have access to semi-automatic technology, to have access to [high-capacity] magazines..."

"My children went to the same school that the Obama children went to many years ago, there were no armed security there," Wallace interrupted. "This idea of an elite class is just nonsense, sir."

"Capitol Hill right now, they're all protected by armed security with high-cap magazines, while they sit there and try to limit the average citizen to ten because they think that's reasonable in their opinion," LaPierre replied.

Lawrence O'Donnell pretty well eviscerated the "Independent" Women's Forum's Gayle Trotter, and her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, where she testified that assault weapons should not be outlawed because they were the "weapon of choice" for young mothers who need a "scary-looking gun."

I was glad to see O'Donnell call out her organization for being anything but "independent" because they're not. And apparently attorney Trotter, who also opposes the Violence Against Women Act (go read why), isn't too fond of being called a right-winger. O'Donnell's back-and-forth with her starts about nine minutes into the clip above.

Here's more from O'Donnell's blog at MSNBC: ‘Guns make women safer,’ says Gayle Trotter. Study says, not so:

The use of assault weapons among women emerged as standout topic at Wednesday’s Senate hearing on gun control legislation. Gayle Trotter, a lawyer and senior fellow at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, said women need that type of firearm to level the playing field when confronted by physically stronger male attackers.

The guns rights advocate told lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee that “guns make women safer.” To her, AR-15s are the “weapon of choice” because “they have good handling, they’re light, they’re easy for women to hold.” And the appearance of such a “scary-looking gun” deters violent male criminals during home invasions.

But a recent study conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center disputed those assertions. The study found that women living in states with more accessibility to guns are at a greater risk for violent death. This includes “unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.”

During an interview on The Last Word Wednesday night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell challenged Trotter for not being able to provide one real life example of a case when an assault weapon specifically saved one woman’s life in that kind of a situation. “You don’t go to the Senate to imagine things!” O’Donnell said.

While speaking in front of the senators, Trotter described a hypothetical scene of a “young woman defending her babies in her home” when faced with “three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background” as a reason to own an assault rifle.

“The peace of mind that she has, knowing that she has a scary-looking gun, gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals,” said Trotter, who was the only woman on the five-person panel.

“If we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting these types of women at a great disadvantage–more so than men because they don’t have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pointed out that the woman she referred to in her statement, a young Oklahoma mother who shot an intruder, used a gun that wouldn't be banned by the law.

DOWNLOADS: (227)

PLAYS: (2706)

Embed

A senior fellow from the conservative Independent Women's Forum (IWF) on Wednesday told a Senate committee that assault weapons should not be outlawed because they were the "weapon of choice" for young mothers who need a "scary-looking gun."

At Senate Judiciary Hearing on gun violence, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked IWF's Gayle Trotter, who also writes for The Daily Caller, if it would "disproportionately burden women" to ban assault rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice," Trotter explained. "The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They're light. They're easy for women to hold."

She added: "And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened, violent criminals."

"And if we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle. They're not criminals, they're moms, they're young women. And they're not used to violent confrontations."

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.