MSNBC's Alex Wagner Dismissed By Reporter After She Goes Political on D.C. Shooting

Sep 16, 2013 Full story: NewsBusters.org 247

Second Amendment foe Alex Wagner on Monday predictably attempted to use the tragic shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. to push for gun control.

Full Story
that

Santa Fe, NM

#22 Sep 17, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
A long piece of lumber isn't safe in the hands of a lunatic ... but I wouldn't classify a two-by-four as a "military-style weapon".
would probably result in bruises. Don't play stupid.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#24 Sep 18, 2013
And wrote:
<quoted text>
when your aim is nothing but killing, efficiency counts.
Said the NAMBLA chapter president.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#25 Sep 18, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
High capacity magazines are inherently more efficient. Magazines like Vogue and Elle have so many more pages compared to Glamour or Flaunt and you can spend much more time reading them.
More pages means you don't have to carry so many copies.
I am impressed by your choice of reading material, and the message behind them. I must find someone who can design a holster big enough to allow me to carry several two-by-fours at once.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#26 Sep 18, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
The Navy Yard shooter used a shotgun which ... unless Elmer Fudd becomes Secretary of Defence ... isn't a military-style weapon.
Shot guns have been used in military conflict for over 100 years.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#27 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't either, because it doesn't have a high capacity magazine, which most modern lunatics prefer.
When a magazine can be swapped out in less than a second, capacity is irrelevant.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#28 Sep 18, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Shot guns have been used in military conflict for over 100 years.
Yep. Carried on myself while on duty. But you have to remember, WIMA.....they don't make libtards wet their panties. Well, I guess they would if they had one of those evil pistol grips. We need to ban those./sarc/

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#29 Sep 18, 2013
one
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#30 Sep 18, 2013
Nothing but a na´ve mainstream media agenda pusher. The fact she had to interject politics into a breaking NEWs story shows her bias and lack of professionalism. But that is the lefty agenda network msnbc.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#31 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Carried on myself while on duty. But you have to remember, WIMA.....they don't make libtards wet their panties. Well, I guess they would if they had one of those evil pistol grips. We need to ban those./sarc/
LMAO !

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#32 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
When a magazine can be swapped out in less than a second, capacity is irrelevant.
Good. Then let's ban the high capacity ones.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#33 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Good. Then let's ban the high capacity ones.
Why ?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#34 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Good. Then let's ban the high capacity ones.
If you agree that capacity is irrelevant, for what purpose??

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#35 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Good. Then let's ban the high capacity ones.
I believe the highest speed limit in the country is 80 or 85 mph. Should we ban all cars that can exceed this??? After all, motor vehicle accidents, a lot of which are cause by excessive speed, kill more people every year than firearms.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#36 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If you agree that capacity is irrelevant, for what purpose??
I did not agree that high capacity was irrelevant. You did. I was just taking your idea to its most absurd extreme.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#37 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the highest speed limit in the country is 80 or 85 mph. Should we ban all cars that can exceed this??? After all, motor vehicle accidents, a lot of which are cause by excessive speed, kill more people every year than firearms.
An apt comparison would be to determine how many people a shooter can legally kill with a given time period. Any capacity beyond that would be unlawful.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#38 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I did not agree that high capacity was irrelevant. You did. I was just taking your idea to its most absurd extreme.
When I made the statement that capacity was irrelevant, your response was "Good. Then let's ban the high capacity ones." So you saying "good" isn't in agreement???

And you are correct. Banning anything that is irrelevant is "absurdly extreme".......and unnecessary.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#39 Sep 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>An apt comparison would be to determine how many people a shooter can legally kill with a given time period. Any capacity beyond that would be unlawful.
Meaning, since no one can be LEGALLY killed, we should just ban them altogether??? Except you have just one little problem. It IS LEGAL to kill someone who is putting you in danger/fear of death or great bodily harm.

So sorry, asshat......not going to happen.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Furlong, PA

#40 Sep 18, 2013
I would have to see this story from a legitimate news source not a right wing nutjob blog. Anyone have a link?
Chuck Hays

Colcord, OK

#41 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the highest speed limit in the country is 80 or 85 mph. Should we ban all cars that can exceed this??? After all, motor vehicle accidents, a lot of which are cause by excessive speed, kill more people every year than firearms.
That's a great idea. We should ban cars that can go over 85 mph. It might save lives and gasoline.

We probably would need an exception for emergency vehicles: fire, ambulance, police, etc.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#42 Sep 18, 2013
Chuck Hays wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a great idea. We should ban cars that can go over 85 mph. It might save lives and gasoline.
We probably would need an exception for emergency vehicles: fire, ambulance, police, etc.
LOL.....good luck with that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sharyl Attkisson: Docs indicate ATF was using F... 11 hr Zzznorch 2
Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment 11 hr Zzznorch 11
Eleanor Roosevelt Had a Carry Permit, So Why Ca... 13 hr Here Is One 1
National View: Shoot down the stupid Second Ame... 18 hr Squach 3
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 19 hr Squach 12,136
An Individual Right Rekindled Sat Marauder 1
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Dec 26 Michael S 16
More from around the web