Stick to the narrative, no matter what

Chuck Todd

Chuck Todd: “Uh oh, is that a fact I see approaching?”

A reporter named Chuck Todd (I’ve never heard of him, but then, I don’t watch TV) “explains” why we need more gun control laws

“There are strict laws in a California, but there are not strict laws in a Wisconsin, and isn’t that far from Chicago. There aren’t strict laws in an Arizona that is bordering on a state in California. So the point being, you know, unless you deal with this on national basis, then actually the local laws are pointless but we do need to get the facts.”

Of course, the facts are that the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased in California, not Arizona, so the nation’s strictest gun control laws failed to prevent the massacre. Even a Chuck Todd can figure this out, so his call for national laws as strict a California’s is really nothing more than a lead-up to total confiscation.

What will these people do when they discover that there are still more guns out there, especially in Muslim countries and Eastern Europe? Pass more laws? Declare the world a “gun-free zone”?


Filed under Uncategorized

54 responses to “Stick to the narrative, no matter what

  1. Maitre d'Oyer et Terminer

    “Declare the world a “gun-free zone”?”

    Yes! I think they should. It worked so well at Sandy Hook and in the Aurora Movie Theatre and who can forget the Navy Yard Massacre in Washingtoon DC???? But that was a black psychotic so I guess it doesn’t count in their tally.

    Oh, by the way, Chuck Todd is Obama’s #227th Fellatist.

    • Take a number he'll be with you shortly

      I was wondering if there was an official list or something. Instead of everybody just showing up all at once.

  2. Cos Cobber

    Of course the media is shamefully ignore and naive on realities of gun control. However, I due think the fact that we live in a time when most future wars will be fought by guerrilla groups who basically can move about freely within enemy lands thanks to modern transportation and porous borders changes the conversation. Under current laws, ISIS can come here build a 100,000 army (‘the army next door’) and then commit a grand attack. While a national gun registration not stop would not prevent many crimes, it will prevent some and moreover, give our national security some clues on what is lurking. .

  3. Anonymous

    The Islamic radicals in San Bernardino also had pipe bombs – had they not been able to get access to automatic weapons I’m sure they would’ve used those pipe bombs. The whole gun control discussion is a waste if time. Focus on the perpetrators and their motives.

    • Cos Cobber

      Sure, terrorists will always find some way of creating chaos, but why make is so damn easy. The enemy is here already now and more are coming tomorrow. This is nothing like anytime prior in US history. We are not talking about the usual suspects for gun deaths; the mentally ill, drug crimes or organized crime.

      • There’s nothing in California law that makes it easy to acquire a gun – quite the contrary.
        You want to give citizens a fighting chance – literally – make gun laws easier, and encourage citizens to train in their use.

        • Cos Cobber

          I am for both. I don’t see the problem with a more robust gun registration program, nor do I see a problem with issuing more carry permits.

    • Anonymous

      access to automatic weapons? where do you idiots come from?

    • Cobra

      Anonymous–the Slums in San Bernardino did not have “automatic” weapons. They used AR-15’s, purchased legally, which are semi-automatic. “Automatic” weapons have been illegal nationwide in the USA since the mid-1930’s. To purchase an automatic weapon today requires that the purchaser (and the retailer) qualifies for a FFL and “Class 3” license, which involve multi-step processes. Alternatively, of course, a perp can smuggle one into the US or steal one from a licensed owner, facing very stiff penalties if caught just for possession.

  4. Duke Nukem

    My friend owns a gun store in Florida and he can’t keep enough guns in stock to satisfy the demand. It’s going to be a bloody war.

  5. HG

    When John Parker stood up his men on Lexington Green in April 1775, they came as free men carrying the long guns from their own homes. They did not ask anyone’s permission to buy, keep or carry their pieces. That is why the framers included the Second Amendment and why, no matter how much they squirm, the “liberals” who love centralized power cannot gut the Second Amendment without breaking America. Patrick Henry said that nothing will preserve Liberty but “downright force; when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

  6. Dollar Bill

    It wasn’t that many years ago when politicians talked about reducing highway and traffic deaths, and the sensible solutions include imposing seatbelt requirements and guardrails and the like, no faux libertarian yelled at the time “they’re coming to confiscate our cars!” But when the discussion turns to sensible ways to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of terrorists, and reducing rates of gun violence, our current right wing yahoos scream “they’re coming to confiscate our weapons,” because freedom! Gun rights fetishists like CF really are very logical people, aren’t they?

    • Cos Cobber

      We wouldn’t be having this conversation if we had real border control and a real immigration policy.

    • Walt

      Mr. Bill – Please name me one gun law that would keeps guns away from terrorists. Or criminals. Just one. If ignorance is indeed bliss, you must be a very happy guy. But you always seem so angry. Does being wrong 100% of the time cause that? Or were you born retarded?

      • housecat

        One of his fishnets is probably twisted. Wearing a tourniquet really puts a damper on your mood.

        • Cobra

          And, housecat, such a tourniquet restricts blood flow to the brain, which explains 3$B’s bizarro rants.

      • Cos Cobber

        Pretty much impossible to prove a negative. I suppose I could troll the ISIS boards to look for posts about frustrated gun buyers. I know its hard to believe, but when you make something more difficult, people in fact do less of it.

        On capital hill I would tie this together with my revamped voter registration bill. Real registration for guns and real registration for voters. Now both parties have make a deal.

        • I need someone to change my diaper.

          You are an idiot. People don’t do less of something when you make it more difficult, they move it underground where it is out of sight and unmeasureable. I would give a gun for each voter registration. I too know both parties have make a deal.

        • Cos Cobber

          You are an idiot ( see what I did there – I established your idiocy upfront – like the third grader you are and mirrored all your prior posts).

          We have entered an unprecedented age for this continent. The enemy is here in plain clothes and will enjoy using our second amendment against us. There is tough talk about all of learning to pack heat. That sounds nice – but there will remain plenty of soft targets even if 50% of us carry.

          All reasonable efforts to make gun acquisitions in the legitimate world should be considered. It’s too easy to land at jfk and commit San Bernardino like crimes within 72 hrs.

          I was flip when I suggested Capitol Hill consider a trade off bill- gun registration for real voter registration, but after more thought the two issues compliment well as both are constitutional and both sides have strong interest to see something happen.

    • Anonymous

      Why should the government tell me I have to wear a seatbelt? It really is none of their business. Do your own research, make your own decision. (I wear seat belts, and make my children ride safely). Big government is extremely inefficient–won’t you ever understand that? Stop deciding what is best for the people.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Dullard: Driving a vehicle is not a constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT. Owning and keeping a firearm IS a RIGHT. That you are too dense to grasp the difference is unsurprising.

  7. Tokenekebozo

    As a rule I’m conservative, but as the saying goes, there is always the exception that proves the rule. My exception is gun control. We need more. A little, not a lot. If you want a shotgun or rifle for hunting, fine. If you want a handgun for protection, that’s fine too. But there is no reason why we should allow high powered, rapid fire weapons with expanded ammo clips to be so freely available. They have only one purpose, to perpetrate the sort of mayhem that we saw in San Bernardino. Spare me the “its the first step to confiscating all our weapons” paranoia. It’s bullshit. Just NRA brainwashing. Let’s try it again. I fear we won’t get anywhere. If Sandy Hook wasn’t enough to change poeples minds, then the gun nuts have probably won the day, but WTF, let’s try.

    • Walt

      As the old saying goes, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In a perfect world, no one would disagree with you. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need any guns. But very few things in life are perfect. Turkey Hill Chocolate Cookie Dough Ice Cream, this girl:

      Boobs are underrated. The North Face three pocket….wait…you know this already.

      I am not a “gun nut”. I have never owned a gun. But guns ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!! The amount of crimes committed by law abiding citizens, WITH ANY TYPE OF WEAPON, is minuscule.

      No law, short of total confiscation, would have stopped Sandy Hook. And without guns, he would have used something else. So I do think ANY further regulation leads to total confiscation. History shows that. Enforce the laws we currently have. Try that first.

      “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Shirley Temple

      Our current government is IN DENIAL. Islamic Muslim Fundamentalists have declared war against us. Our POTUS denies they even exist. So now is the time to ask people to rely on them to protect us? Please.

      You are 100% focused on the wrong problem. Which is OK. And so is the POTUS, which is not.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      They have only one purpose, to perpetrate the sort of mayhem that we saw in San Bernardino.

      Truly astonishing drivel that.

      The rifles you complain of were used by CRIMINALS in fewer than 1% of all firearm murders in the United States. CF has posted the stats here NUMEROUS times in the past. A favorite example of his is swimming pools kill more people annually than do semiautomatic rifles.

  8. HG

    Tokeneke, you are basing your opinion on flashy news stories rather than data. Only about 350 people are killed in the us each year with rifles of any kind, including assault style rifles. Many more people drown in home pools each year but there is no outcry because you value pools and do not value guns. What is true is that assault style rifles have received a lot of attention in mass shootings like Sandy Hook. In fact, you have been brainwashed by an anti gun lobby…a lobby that has abandoned real analysis because their desire IS to closely regulate gun ownership and long ago decided that “assault” rifles were the easiest first type of gun to closely regulate. Thank god the framers anticipated the busybodies who were to come along.

  9. Dollar Bill

    Walt, you moron, if Adam Lanza had not had access to automatic weapons, he would not have inflicted the lethal damage he did to scores of innocent kids, in such a short period of time. You can’t plausibly argue otherwise. And to say no laws can help mitigate this situation is just flat out wrong. As I wrote earlier, when the feds passed legislation decades ago mandating seatbelts and other sensible legislation in order to lower highway fatalities, it worked! Fatalities went down. And, you fool, no one’s cars were taken away! It is just beyond belief how you hayseed gun fetishists always hysterically moan and groan about the govt taking away your precious killing machines, and offer no other solutions to this public safety crisis. None. In the face of massive gun-related carnage years ago, Australia came together and passed strict gun control legislation. Problem solved. Who says laws don’t work? They did in Australia. They can here too, but only if you right wing bubbleheads stop electing brain-dead Republicans beholden to the NRA and their profitable killing machines. One thing is for sure: you mud people would be singing a different tune if it were one of your children or family members on the receiving end of this violence.


      You are comparing speed limits with gun control? You are a bigger moron than I thought.

    • Walt

      Mr. Bill. You ignorant douche bag. And I mean that fondly. I am not a “hayseed gun fetishists”. I have many fetishes, to this I admit, but guns are not one of them. Hayseed? I don’t think so. So as usual, your assessment is 100% wrong. You have neither the mental capacity, or the internal fortitude, to think independently. You swallow liberal “Progressive” Pablum, regurgitate it AD NAUSEA, and then poop yourself. And you are very good at it. So congratulations to you. You think you are entitled to take away the God given liberties of others? I disagree.

      Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have since been FLAT seeing only a small spike after the ban, and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers.

      Plain and simple. Gun control had no significant impact on murder rates. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the government of any nation want a disarmed populace? The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

      So the problem IS NOT GUNS. It is people. People like you, Little Bill. are the problem. Sandy Hook? Many other means are available for a mad man to kill. Go ask Adolph, you moron.

      The problem Is drugs. It is mental illness. It is gangs and inner city crime. It is all the problems you wish to ignore, because that is the Liberal voting base. And you don’t have the backbone, or the character to deal with these issues. You weak little “man”.

      And that is the truth. But you don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and shove it up your scrawny “progressive” little ass.

      Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

      JACK DUDE!! And Mr. Bill, you really are a pathetic…human being?..nope..person?..nope..CRETIN!! That works!!

    • There you go again, DB. “Mud People” is just another term for “nigger”, which I guess even a racist like yourself can’t use in a public forum.
      What is it with you? You call your political opponents fags, scrotum suckers, Jews (excuse me -“Zionists”), house niggers, Big House whores and now, mud people”. You really have some deep seated problems going on in there, Bill – I think even your Democratic friends must be worried.
      You don’t own any guns, do you?

      • Walt

        I thought “mud people” was a reference to the Cos Cob wops. Of which he thought I was one. THE HORROR!! So I just ignored it. But learn something every day!!

      • housecat

        That was so charming of you, ¢Bob. Thank you so much for all of your insightful contributions to this forum. Now, why don’t you grab your pink pony costume and find a nice big stallion to party with. Don’t forget the blow!

    • housecat

      Where else can you be called a white racist and a “mud person” on the same day?

  10. Walt

    Another factoid for you to choke on Mr. Bill. Biggest mass killing in US History. Involved no guns:

    Guns are not the problem. “Progressive” dogma is.
    IBID!! IPSO FACTO!! Voir dire!!

  11. AJ

    Cold blooded murder — Cops execute man in the street: graphic video.

  12. Walt

    Dude –

    The naïveté of these “progressives” would be almost amusing, if it wasn’t so dangerous.

    More laws, less freedom, more big government deciding what is best, is always the right answer. Individual freedom, personal accountability, are burdens too big for us to handle. We NEED someone to tell us what to do. Because we are incompetent, pants shitting, retarded morons. So let’s recognize that accordingly. I really hope they are wrong. And if they are right, what does that say about how we see ourselves as a race? WE ARE ALL NATURAL BORN LOSERS? I REFUSE to accept that for myself, and more importantly, for my children. Surrender is the strategy? The desired outcome? Only for losers.

    NO GUN LAWS would have stopped Sandy Hook. NO GUN Laws would have stopped what happened in San Bernardino. We have porous borders, which Barry refuses to enforce. You can buy ANYTHING on the black market that you want. They banned alcohol, and how did that work out?

    I can get you ANYTHING YOU WANT on the black market, Dude. You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with nail polish. These fucking amateurs… they think more government rules are the problem? PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM!! PROGRESSIVE DOGMA IS THE PROBLEM!! FAILURE TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THE PROBLEM!! Guns are not the problem.


    Your Pal,

  13. Tokenekebozo

    Holy shit. I have ended up on the same side of a discussion as DB. Interesting how his initials capture both his name and his character, buI I digress as a certain visitor to this board is wont to say.

    Every time, EVERY f***ing time, we have had a mass killing it has come about from the confluence of two things-1) a nutbag who should not have been running around loose 2) gaining access to big firepower. We are going to see a second scenario, 1) nihilistic degenerate Islamic terrorists 2) gaining access to big firepower. We need to get the nuts back inside, keep the Islamofascists out (or just kill them which would be better) and clamp down on the availablity of high powered, rapid fire weapons. I agree that guns (themselves) are not the problem. Certain guns in the hands of the wrong people are the problem. If it means limiting those guns, well then I don’t think that is a huge infringement of my personal freedom. If Mrs Lanza had not been able to buy her deviant spawn automatic weapons things may have not turned out quite so bad. Remember he didn’t take all his guns to school. He left the bolt action guns at home. He knew what would kill the most kids the quickest. Bolt action single shot rifles-fine. Semi-auto, not fine. Only 350 people were killed with firearms last year? Small comfort to the families of those 350. And I can’t remember the last time I heard of someone using a home pool to kill someone. Don’t see the connection there.

    Boobs are not underrrated and the quote is by Ben Franklin, not Shirley Temple, although she was sometimes mistaken for him. Particularly in her later years.

    Mud people? Leonard? Leonard Jefferies? Dat you out ‘dere, Bro? Distinguished professor at CUNY? Thought you’d retired.

    • Walt

      If I believed FOR A SECOND that they would stop after they banned assault weapons, I would agree with you. But they won’t. It is the start down the slippery slope to total confiscation.

      So you want to start to change things, and get people like me to see it your way? Then let’s deal with the root issues. The REAL CAUSE off these problems. Which we never do. Let’s fix the government. YES THAT’S RIGHT!! It has a 12% approval rating. TWELVE PERCENT!! More than 12% of the population has sex with FURRIES!! Sorry Dude, I didn’t mean to make this personal, but this is important. The government as it stands today DESERVES NO TRUST!!

      No sane person should trust our government to do the right thing, or protect us. It has grown into a political machine, meant to serve itself, and benefit those that control it. Not the people it was designed to serve and protect.

      We need term limits. First and foremost. We need Congress to pass no law which doesn’t include themselves. We need government to work for us, not the other way around. We need health care to cover free breast implants. We need to abolish public unions. We need cap’s on election spending, and voter ID’s. We need to secure our borders. I have plenty more, but this would be a good start.

      Start doing this stuff, WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE HERE, and then come and see me about giving up my God given rights. Until then….I SAID UNTIL THEN they can shove it where the sun don’t shine.

      And I am pretty sure it was Shirley Temple.

      • Tokenekebozo

        I don’t agree. There would be an armed insurrection before we would allow ourselves to be totally disarmed. Not to say Hillary isn’t going to try it. And start getting used to the idea that Pianolegs is going to be our next CIC.

        I support all of your other ideas. Move breast implants to the top of the list for expedited treatment.

        “I don’t drink water. The fish piss in it.” – WC Fields. Or maybe that was Shirley.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      If Mrs Lanza had not been able to buy her deviant spawn automatic weapons things may have not turned out quite so bad. Remember he didn’t take all his guns to school. He left the bolt action guns at home. He knew what would kill the most kids the quickest.

      Both right and wrong. What you may not know is that in the days before his rampage Lanza tried tried twice to purchase firearms at two different FFL licensed dealers. Both efforts resulted in rejections. After the second effort, Lanza certainly knew that he could not purchase one legally in Connecticut as he was considered a prohibited person for an as yet undisclosed reason. It was likely at that point that he decided to go to his “plan B”, kill mom, get the keys to the gun closet and unleash HIS rage on those least able to protect themselves and in A GUN FREE ZONE to boot where he knew that he would be able to operate without opposition until police finally arrived. When they did, he offed himself. In the following days the investigators discovered a very detailed spreadsheet in 10 point font that would print out to a four foot wide by eight foot long document of all mass murders in U.S. history. If I recall correctly, one investigator called Lanza’s effort on the spreadsheet “graduate level research.” Yet, smart as he was he was also murderously CRAZY but definitely not within the legal definition of insanity. Lanza wanted to be INFAMOUS. He killed his own mother to get access to the firearms and then stole them to do his perverse work at Sandy Hook Elementary.

      • Tokenekebozo

        It is stupefying that Lanza was not judged legally insane and a likely danger to himself and others. Chalk up another antisocial stupidity courtesy of DB and his ilk that makes it extraordinarily hard to have nut cases involuntarily committed. Have to respect their rights, you know, and if they wander off the reservation, well, that’s the price you pay for a free society, right? Change the laws back and get them back inside. The deinstitutionalizing experiment has failed. Miserably.

        I think you have inadvertently helped me make my point about the availability of semiauto/rapidfire/high capacity weaponry. Bravo for CT that the background check worked and they wouldn’t let Lanza buy weapons. If his mother had not been able to buy such guns in the first place, they would not have been around for him to get his hands on.

        • Libertarian Advocate

          She’d locked them up in gun closet apparently. I seem to remember reading that after killing that he broke open the closet. Many people use gun closets. I wouldn’t. IMO, hard gun safes bolted into the floor are the ONLY safe way to store firearm(s) not within an arms length of its owner.

  14. Anonymous

    Of course Professor Sahar F. Aziz ignores the fact that millions, perhaps hundreds of millions worldwide, of Muslims endorse the terrorist killings by Islamic Extremists in California. I am glad that she can independently report that is was a clandestine event, since at this time law enforcement is still trying to connect the dots. Sahara F. Aziz obviously has an agenda, and it is not about getting to the facts. She is a disgrace to the legal profession. Go Texas A&M, another school you may want to think twice about before sending your child there. Of course CNN airs this dribble.

    CNN)—When news broke Wednesday that 14 people were killed and 21 wounded in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Americans were rightfully outraged. After all, it was yet another in a string of mass shootings in the United States. And Americans are also justified in wanting to know the motives behind such senseless violence.

    But as we search for answers, we should not lose sight of the fundamental American principle of individual responsibility for wrongdoing, something that applies to all Americans, regardless of their religious background.

    Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik — not the other 5 million Muslims in America — committed this horrendous crime. And they appear to have planned it without the knowledge of their religious leaders or community’s mosque. So, whether the couple’s motives were an act of terrorism or otherwise, Muslims in their own community, much less across America, cannot collectively be deemed responsible for the crime.

    Like many mass shooters, Farook and Malik were clandestine in planning their attack. Neither their families nor friends seem to have had any idea that they obtained more than 4,500 rounds of ammunition, put together explosives and possessed semi-automatic weapons. Indeed, family members expressed the same bewilderment as the rest of us over what could have caused Farook and Malik to commit such an awful crime. Farook’s mother, who was caring for the couple’s 6-month-old child during the shooting, was told they were going to a doctor’s appointment. Saira Khan, Farook’s sister, stated: “I can never imagine my brother or my sister-in-law doing something like this. … It’s just mind-boggling why they would do something like this.”

    When is a mass shooting terrorism?

    Related Article: When is a mass shooting terrorism?

    Similarly, those who attended a Riverside mosque, which he reportedly stopped attending two years ago, say they never saw any indication Farook was falling prey to violent extremist ideology or associating with suspicious people. One congregant commented: “We were all shocked … that that kind of nice person would do something like this. … If you had told me that he had killed a bird, I would say, ‘No way.'”

    Yet despite these facts, politicians have rushed to exploit the opportunity to instill mass fear among Americans that Muslims are a disloyal fifth column.

    Seeking to score political points at the expense of millions of innocent Americans, presidential candidate Chris Christie declared the next world war is afoot. Ted Cruz declared our enemies were at war with our nation. Not to be outflanked in this partisan political theater, as the Los Angeles Times noted, Donald Trump on Thursday announced that Barack Obama’s “refusal to use the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ indicates that ‘there is something going on with him that we don’t know about.'” His inference is clear.

    What few seem to be saying amid all this is that the motives of two criminals who are Muslims should not be imputed to millions of other Americans who happen to have the same religious faith. The same applies to pro-life advocates in the wake of the attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and anti-affirmative action advocates after the killing of nine African Americans in a South Carolina church. Accused church shooter Dylann Roof faces federal hate crime charges related to murder or attempted murder on the basis of race or color….