Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Joe Scarborough, ‘If you defend assault weapons, you look like a jackass.”
Joe Scarborough has a message for those who are defending assault weapons, “If you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.”
Here is the video:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Transcript from MSNBC:
Lindsey Graham: Would I be a reasonable American to want my family to have the 15-round magazine and a semiautomatic weapon to make sure if there’s two intruders shouldn’t run out of bullets. Am I an unreasonable person for saying that in that situation, the 15-round magazine makes sense? There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here. Six bullets in the hands of a woman trying to defend her children may not be enough.
Gayle Trotter: 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.
Joe Scarborough: And therein –
Brzezinski: Wow!
Scarborough: — lies the problem with having to defend assault weapons. Because if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass. seriously –
Brzezinski: i’m sorry, but that’s true.
Scarborough: Willie– Willie–
Brzezinski: That was Gayle Trotter, a gun advocate for the Independent Women’s Forum.
Scarborough: And before that, Lindsey Graham who said, Am I unreasonable to think that a woman needs a high-capacity magazine? Rambo in the house. to defend — come on. seriously? This is so stupid. and Wayne LaPierre saying, you know, the criminals out there, the criminals out there that aren’t going to abide by background checks, so we should just have no background checks. Well, why do we — Willie, why do we have any laws on the books? there are terrorists that are going to end up –
Brzezinski: Just let it be the wild west.
Scarborough:– in the United States of America. Why do we even try to stop Al Qaeda, right? They say they’re going to attack us again. So why don’t we let down all of our defenses and just give up?
The NRA doesn’t want any laws when it comes to guns. That’s the whole point of their existence. They aren’t defending the average American’s Second Amendment rights. They are a lobbying front for weapons manufacturers. The fewer laws the better. The easier it is to buy a gun, the more profits will grow for the gun industry. That’s is the purpose of what the NRA is doing. While working to make sure that the laws on the books can’t be enforced, the NRA has taken the public stand that the problem is that government isn’t enforcing existing gun laws. What the NRA doesn’t mention is that they are the ones who are lobbying Congress to limit the power to enforce gun laws.
From a public relations point of view, Scarborough nailed it. Anyone who tries to defend assault weapons ends up looking like an uncaring jackass, or someone who is completely out of touch with reality. The flaw in the NRA’s fantasy intruder scenario is that they assume all criminals are armed with guns. (This makes sense when you consider that the NRA’s position is just say no to any and all gun laws.) What if the intruder doesn’t have a gun? If the intruder is not carrying a gun, the woman would only need one bullet. That’s the problem with these survivalist fantasy scenarios. They can be spun in any and all directions.
The NRA is selling a fearmongering fantasy that is making their membership and the Republican members of Congress who mouth their talking points all look like jackasses.
Related Posts :
At 12:15 President Obama will be speaking to the nation about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ...
With the news that Rep. Michele Bachmann's main Democratic challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg would not be taking ...
While doing his Worst Person in the World segment on his MSNBC show tonight, Countdown host Keith Olbermann ...
Comedian Bill Maher was on MSNBC's Hardball tonight, where he offered his unique take on the Sonia Sotomayor ...
On MSNBC's Morning Joe today Mika Brzezinski expressed concerned that the conservative voice wasn't being we ...
27 Responses to Joe Scarborough, ‘If you defend assault weapons, you look like a jackass.”
Public Service Advertisements
Sharin Khosa
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:53 am
“……Six bullets in the hands of a woman trying to defend her children” from the Republicans, NRA and Weapons Manufacturing Industry!!
Reynardine
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:53 am
Fear is actually the business they’re in. I have a couple of checkered shawls that I used to use as light wraps in mild weather or bundled round my ears and under my jacket collar when it’s cold. Now I’m reluctant to wear them because some passing yahoo might gun me down as an Ay-rab. People have been gunned down for “looking like one”. People are afraid to post campaign signs or paste bumper stickers with the faintest hint of port because they’re afraid of armed violence. The folks on the starboard railing have been pumped full of the notion that it’s their *right* to do this. They’re being turned into de facto Brown Shi(r)ts, and, if you look at who is running the NRA, it’s intentional.
fedded-up
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:14 am
Every once in a while, Joe surprises me. Hasn’t anyone told him that the application of common sense is not appropriate on this issue? Arguing that a mother is gonna pull out her fully loaded assault rifle with large clip to defend her children…nope, nothing remotely implausible there. Of course, having that fully loaded gun within reach within seconds…nope, nothing implausible there. Then there’s that little problem of having little kids around loaded, locked, and ready-to-rock guns…nope, nothing implausible there…
Tony G
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:46 am
What an idiot you are! I would protect my family at all cost ….. By the way tell me why this idiot called this woman a jackass… He should look in the mirror.
DownriverDem
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Angry white men like you do not make a majority. You have lost on this issue and as soon as more women are in the government, we will be a much safer peaceful country. We don’t want what you want. All the polls show you are really in denial.
TexasLibertarian
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Maybe if parents actually raised their kids to be respectful and accountable for their own actions we wouldn’t need guns at all. Just saying.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Agreed totally. Discipline in school, at home, dress codes and acting like humans
Albie Y. Pabon (@PabonMatriarch
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:20 am
Scarborough withstanding, the whole argument about the necessity of Assault Weapons is flawed. The whole notion of an amendment to the Constitution as being holy and cannot have regulations against any part of it is flawed.
Justice Scalia, and I am no fan, argues that certain weapons need to be regulated. Was this based on the “well-organized militia” clause? I would be interested in hearing is entire argument.
Scarborough no longer worries about elections to stay in power. He has looked, keep up please, at the data from the latest two Federal elections and sees the GOP has a floundering Part. He, like many of us, see a need for a minimum of two Parties for our Democracy to remain viable.
I personally am happy the Democrats have risen to power once again, but, if only one Part has that power, the Democratic Republic will not survive no matter who controls it.
TexasLibertarian
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Justice Scalia’s opinion in DC v, Heller flies in the face of assault weapons.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Wat does that mean?
Dave
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:33 am
Ever hear the ranting of a brainwashed gun nut sheep? It’s a very scary time in America knowing these idiots have weapons of mass killing.
Tony G
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:51 am
Talk about a sheep …. Look in the mirror…. The scary time in America is the left wing take over of our Ameican Rights. I will not become a Obama drone … As you have
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:54 am
Name when progressives have taken away rights.I dont expect you to answer because with that statement shows you are ignorant
DownriverDem
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 1:25 pm
You lost Tony. We the people find your ideas very lacking. You will live out you life very bitter and die that way too. Get real.
molly malone
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:42 am
“Six bullets in the hands of a woman trying to defend her children may not be enough.”
–Linsey Graham
“…the peace of mind she (imaginary woman) has knowing that she has a scary looking gun gives her more courage when she’s facing (four or five) hardened (imaginary) criminals.”
— Gayle Trotter
Interesting.
So women need assault weapons with high capacity magazines because . . . erm . . . they’re lousy shots? They feel braver with scary looking guns? The packs of (imaginary) hardened criminals ravaging the countryside and ravishing women in their homes never carry assault rifles themselves, but, rather, just wait around to lose the shooting match?
That’s the trouble with Right Wing fantasies — they seldom make much sense. Guess that’s what comes of living in a fact-free bubble of your own making.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:45 am
If the woman couldnt kill the guy with 5 shells in a handgun, what do you expect her to do in a closet with a rifle? More then likely she would just miss him that many more times.
TigerLily
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 2:21 pm
And then accidentaly striking her children…because she’s scared shitless and her hands are shaking because the guy(s) are right in front of her ready to attack but SHE’S THE ONE CRYING …because she’s scared and can hardly hold the HEAVY ASSAULT WEAPON and get it in the right position to shoot the SOB ..then loses her positioning and standing and the assault rifle goes off bullets flying everywhere ..not only striking the attacker but strikes one of her own in the process!…what kind of BS is this? Are you Fn serious!
“…the peace of mind she (imaginary woman) has knowing that she has a scary looking gun gives her more courage when she’s facing (four or five) hardened (imaginary) criminals.” SUCH FRICKEN BS!
— Gayle Trotter <<<SHE STUCK TO HER LIE TALKING POINTS LIKE GLUE…BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE NRA AND THE GOP!
TigerLily
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 2:12 pm
How come not one person on the committee never asked LaPierre or that moronic weak excuse of a woman they had defending their lunacy.. if YOUR child had been one of those 20 kids killed..would you stil be talkin your UNJUSTIFIABLE NONSENSE and trying to protect and defend those assault-riflehappy-white-guys-who-feel powerful–killing innocent children/kids, or people innocently watching a movie, or while innocent studets are at college studyig! How do you even justify your existence thinking like that?
majii
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Neither LaPierre, Gayle Trotter, nor any of the supporters of assault weapons seem capable of having sympathy for the 26 people, 20 of them little kids, who lost their lives at Sandy Hook, TigerLily. I can only surmise that their love of money and media attention permits them to view the victims of gun violence at Sandy Hook and all victims of gun violence as “collateral damage” to the right of gun manufacturers to make billions in profit.
Kapco
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 9:09 am
Another piece of flawed logic by the NRA. If all criminals by their definition don’t follow the laws then why do we even have locks on our doors and windows? By the NRA’s logic more laws would not do anything to curb gun violence therefore using the same logic then more security at a school would do nothing as well. BY their logic all criminals will find ways to get around the system in place designed to protect you, however this logic is severely flawed. More security and new or tighter enforced laws are ways of mitigation and prevention not a way to stop every single offense.
TexasLibertarian
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Firearms were used in 38.9% of home invasions in the US according to the DOJ
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content...
So there is a pretty good chance that an intruder will be packing heat but most criminals will try to rob a home when the occupants are not home. A pistol or shotgun can be more effective in close quarters. Thus, negating the perceived “need” for an “assault style” rifle. A semi automatic pistol is easier to use regardless of gender and holds up to 12 rounds which are more than effective for multiple perps.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 7:38 pm
And yet the experts say letting the invader take what they want and staying quiet saves lives.
Rick Shreiner
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 9:25 pm
But you left out a bunch more VERY SIGNIFICANT statistics:
1) not that many “home invasions” actually occur when someone is at home. And when they do, you have a FAR, FAR greater chance of getting killed yourself when you have a firearm in the house.
2) FAR, FAR more women [including mothers with small children] are killed by spouses, family members, invited guests, or even commit suicide, using firearms than successfully protect themself from intruders.
3) a women with a firearm in the home is FAR, FAR more likely to have her children killed in accidental shootings than killed by intruders
4) many of the firearms used in crimes are STOLEN from homes, and then wind up killing somebody outside the home.
So all in all, the “usefullness” of a firearm in the home must be questioned in realation to how much damage it causes IN REALITY, in other situations, both in the home and outside of it.
You must be a member of Team Slaughter, Apologizing For Mayhem, and I ain’t buying your low-effort thinking.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 9:37 pm
As I said, you are far better off to lock yourself and kids in your bedroom then to go out and try to play rambo. The thought of killing is so appealing to these idiots, that they dont care if its their family
Rick Shreiner
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 9:11 pm
There are a couple of points that need to be made here in response to the NRA A$$WHOLE types that are members of Team Slaughter and are Apologizing For Mayhem:
www.facebook.com/photo.ph...
This information certainly explains a lot ! !
And yet the chief NRA ASSHOLE is himself allowed to own firearms, despite having received a military deferment for a mental disorder.
Do Americans need to be shamed MORE for their ineffectivity and inability to make REASONABLE changes about GUN SAFTETY that will prevent at least some of the 30,000 firearms deaths EVERY YEAR ? ?
Rick Shreiner
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 9:14 pm
And here is the other point that Americans need to think about before just accepting the NRA A$$WHOLE type 2nd Amendment argument:
I saw an interesting story documenting how, when duck hunting with a shot-gun, a hunter is prohibited BY FEDERAL LAW from using a firearm that can be loaded with more than 3 rounds.
Apparently it’s been a law for about 95 years, and yet, when confronted with limiting assault rifles to 10-shot mags, the Team Slaughter “Apologists For Mayhem” think that any limits on
extended clips for assault weapons is an attack on their 2nd Amendment rights.
These Gun Phreaks are OK with protecting ducks, but NOT people.
Quack, quack.
Go figure.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.c...
Anne
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 9:42 pm
They not only look and sound like jackasses. In fact, they ARE jackasses with their selfishness and tunnel vision that won’t allow them to look beyond themselves in order to see the importance of sensible gun control in decreasing the number of senseless gun-related deaths.