You know, I wasn't anticipating Mike Wallace versus one of those crooked politicians down in the south on 60 Minutes, but I didn't expect to see David Gregory play footsie with NRA head Wayne LaPierre either.
It was Groundhog Day on Meet the Press Sunday.
Same old words. A clearly frustrated and flustered host too. I'll give Gregory credit for maintaining some sort of sanity, whatever that is, but too bad he didn't let the NRA guy know how he really felt. David ? Really now.
Like this, for example, "Sir, with all due respect, do you really believe all the utter bull---- you espouse?" It would have been better than trying to talk to a tone-deaf LaPierre who must have thought at one point he was getting Larry King treatment as opposed to Dave Gregory. Bonus time.
Meet the Press, Sunday. Really, just Groundhog Day. Wonder how they felt in Newtown.
*Follow me on Twitter
When Mr LaPierre stated a solution to mass shootings would be for every school in this country to have armed guards, I was reminded of the All In The Family episode when Archie Bunker appeared on local TV for a citizen response segment. His answer to stop the increasing number of airline hijackings was to arm all the passengers.
ReplyDelete"Hand them out as they come on board and collect them when they leave."
Looks like we have another meathead.
good one! very true. also, has does Mr. NRA think that just one armed guard / volunteer / etc will be on one side of a bulding filled with 600 kids or more, and get from, say, a second floor to the other side of a building as a forced entry intruder takes out a class or two before himself before the guard arrives? Only Christine knows. maybe should should be a security czar.
DeleteFucking liberals have no answers except ban guns. Check out what happened in the home invasion robbery in Sacramento last night. Bad guys invaded house full of family and kids staying over. Home owner shot and killed one and wounded a couple of others. What would have happened had this man not been armed? Think about it..Think about it!!
ReplyDeletethat's right...except your conflation of gun ownership with political leanings is too easy and isn't true.
DeleteI'm one of those "fucking" liberals, and I'm a gun owner, not a progressive( a liberal scared to be called a liberal)and good for the fellow who killed and wounded the invaders. He was also injured, but not critically and at least had a chance..a good thing in my liberal view.
As long as someone isn't "critically injured" makes life just dandy, Christine? Talk about be wired wrong, liberat bitch or not. You are clueless. I agree that guns don't just shoot themselves, it takes someone or something to make it go off. On the other hand, it's not all certifiable wack jobs like you who have great paranoia who go out an shoot people as gun owners. So, what's YOUR gun do for you? Ever killed someone Christine? Ever shot anyone critically? You think hiding your gun under your skirt keeps you safe? You'll never know when it's your turn. "Excuse me, mister invader, let me whip my Glock out here from under my skirt while you patiently point your AR15 at me and let's be fair. Now, count to three and let's see who goes down first." it doesn't work that way Christine. You feel good about self protection? Good for you. Don't, however, ego blast yourself as being any safer than anyone else with or without a gun. You haven't earned your right to kill anyone, period. Shame you aren't a parent with a kid you had to bury this week. You might change your tune with your snotty ego based on bullshit.
DeleteWhere did I say that "guns don't shoot themselves"? Perhaps you are confused about who you are calling a "liberal bitch". Maybe it's one of the other women in your life that get your undies in a bunch.I have neither any plastic guns,nor AR-15's under my skirts. Aren't you projecting,just a little?
DeleteHere's a little primer for you. You can only use deadly force when you reasonably fear grave bodily injury or death. You can't use deadly force to stop property crimes, only to protect your life or in the defense of others.
I choose for very good reasons to believe that my household members would be justified in shooting to kill anyone who reasonably threatened to do us grave bodily harm or kill us. I think it's wise to look around your property for escape routes, good fencing, whatever you feel gives you some edge against surprise.Did you think I didn't know that?
Finally your sweet wish that I had a dead child to bury this week speaks to your black heart. shame,indeed.
OMG, please Chrissy... Take up bingo or join a bridge club. Everybody is getting pissed because we all have to scroll past all your rants to get to some serious posts. Thanks Sugartits.
DeleteThe word on the street is that the Dickies aren't too pleased with Ms. Lazy eye and her off air activities.
DeleteNo, what Mr LaPierre said was right on. Do you REALLY think that if we toughen gun laws, that we will be safer? What will happen is that the regular people will not have guns, but only the criminals will. Yeah, that will make us feel safer...
ReplyDeleteLook at the drug situation. We toughened drug laws; have we eliminated the drug problem? No, it only got worse. Look at the recent gun buybacks that were held by various police departments in the wake of Newtown. Did you see ANY criminals turning in their guns? Of course not. They are laughing their criminal heads off about now, because they still have their guns. Let's face it, just because it may not be "politically correct" to advocate guns in a protective mode right now, that doesn't mean that it isn't a viable and sound argument. Look at the Principal of the school in Newtown; she actually confronted the shooter, who was armed with an assault rifle, without any protection whatsoever! Now, as someone in the media said in the immediacy after the shooting, if at least ONE person in that school, such as the principal, janitor, or an armed security guard, had had a gun, then at least SOME of the victims would have been saved. By the way, isn't it ironic that the President can be protected with guys with FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, but the "politically correct" talk is about banning guns altogether? Let's get real people, and stop with all the political correctness crap.
do they have armed guards at NBC??
ReplyDeleteNo. They have rent-a-cop security without weapons in fact.
Deletethat's unwise. When I worked at CBS Broadcast Center in the late seventies..our security was armed. Some pretty interesting people walked through those doors,Walter Cronkite and Muhammed Ali among them.
DeleteChristine Craft,
ReplyDeleteYou have repeatedly advocated that people arm themselves to insure their own safety and brag about arming yourself with semi-automatic weapons. Somehow you fail to notice that's exactly what Nancy Lanza, crazy Adam's mother did.
Nancy Lanza followed your advice and as a result, she is dead, her crazy son Adam is dead, and twenty-six other innocent young children and teachers are dead.
Now you are saying we need even more guns? Considering how your recommendation worked for Nancy Lanza, why would anyone pay any attention to your crazy advice.
big clue for you fair: No one can "insure" their own safety. You can only give yourself a chance. Shouting the obvious in capital letters doesn't assist your argument.
ReplyDeleteYes, glad you finally acknowledge the obvious.
DeleteThere are twenty seven dead bodies buried in Newtown CT, because a foolish woman, just like Christine Craft, surrounded herself with weapons in a misguided effort to defend herself against her own paranoia.
Nor does your arrogant and clueless thinking either, Christine. There is no right answer to this problem. The cow was let out of the barn long ago to do anything about keeping weapons out of the wrong hands and putting them in the hands of idiots who thing that ownership is protection. Not! Jefferson said the Constitution should be rewritten every 12 years and he didn't say that the same rules apply to today's high tech weapons. Maybe you can conceal and carry an RPG or another WMD in your cozy confines in Sacramento, but you're equally as dangerous just carrying a .22 handgun "for protection" with your liberal thinking. You've got the understanding of a housefly.
DeleteI don't carry a .22 handgun .It is abundantly obvious that there is no "right" or perfect answer to this problem. You want to utterly eliminate any chance of at least fighting back directly. I don't.Did you think I was unaware that guns are out there and in the hands of millions and millions and millions of Americans? The man who shot and killed an intruder in Sacramento last night is still alive today, because he had a weapon "for protection" in the "cozy confines of Sacramento". See Sacbee.com.
DeleteJefferson also screwed and impregnated his slaves. Would you please point to the 12-year rule you apparently believe is the law? I doubt if Jefferson said anything about high tech anything. YOu will also not find in the constitution any fundamental right to privacy in the original document. No right to use contraception,have oral sex etc. If you were black, you were counted as 3/5ths of a person, thus Jefferson's view of black women. SCOTUS's opinions determine whether something is constitutional or not in the present times. There is a body of 2nd amendment law you might want to research.
You want to eliminate one of the enumerated rights. You'll never succeed.
" Jefferson also screwed and impregnated his slaves" blah, blah, blah...
DeleteChristine, is there no end to your extraneous, senseless arguments? We get it. You are an obnoxious person who insists upon getting the final word in just because you must be heard. It's all about you. It really has nothing to do with guns.
I am Christine hear me roar!
Great post Fair and Balanced.
ReplyDeleteGrey is a pinhead looking for ratings,Nothing new there. Having a gun lobbyist argue his points, and only HIS points, is an inflammatory spin on a complex issue. LaPierre is a moron unwilling to budge an inch, knowing the libs will take a mile. Were the lobbyists for violent games/movies not invited? Where were the mental health experts? Plenty of blame to be shared for what is basically an unsolvable problem...but meet the press viewers don't want the problem framed that way...they want black and white with cookie cutter solutions.
ReplyDeleteBoth are predictable , both devisive, both represent the us politic scene, each representing the extreme views of either the far right or far left. The majority, the independents, have too few politicians or journalist worthy of support and are left out in the cold.
Grey is no Tim Russert, more like Jim Grey.
Grey, costas, Al Michaels... I see a pattern at NBC.
ReplyDeleteThousands of Americans are killed each year by drunk drivers... that is, human beings + automobiles + the influence of intoxicants. Three components; remove one and no one dies.
ReplyDeleteGun + medicated lunatic + liberty. Three components; subtract one and no one dies. Just as there is a price to pay for the protections in the 2nd Amendment, so too is there a price to pay for allowing drug-addled lunatics to enjoy all the freedoms of the rest of us.
I refer you to a webpage documenting the connection between mass murder and our reckless dependence on pharmacology in the treatment of the mentally ill.
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?sort=where&p=school
Those who use the car analogy when it comes to guns and killing are lazy, sophomoric, and intellectually void.
ReplyDeleteA car can kill, BUT its MAIN purpose is transportation...yes some even collect them.
BUT, a gun's MAIN purpose is to injure, maim, and kill....yes some like to collect them as well.
I am tired of gun people (who likely are the same folks who claim support for the Tea Party and tell everyone else to be "self reliant" and "responsible"..."hands off my medicare") blaming everyone else telling them it is their fault and responsibility for getting shot...I mean if those shot had guns...you should be able to dodge bullets, hell you are 6 years old!
Blaming video games and the unarmed for this kind of crap is cowardice at its core...and the NRA is just that.
And, if the NRA thinks it is mental illness and was serious about the mentality ill, then why did folks like the NRA oppose the ACA, which would help those who need mental services? I am calling bull shit on all of you!
If you are an NRA member and say this is not true, then you are guilty of letting douche bags like LaPierre and congress people like Louie Gommert "Pyle" be your microphone and your poster people. Guilt by association.
I am not buying what your are selling.
You are correct: a car's main purpose is transportation -- invented because it is the nature of humans to move about. But you are wrong about the main purpose of firearms, unless you believe there exists no correlation between actual use and purpose. Less than 1 out of every 100 firearms in America is ever used to harm anyone. The vast majority of firearms are used by their owners to deter those who would "injure, maim, and kill" them. You see, injuring, maiming, and killing others has always been a significant component of human nature, as has self-protection. It is not our nature to ignore reality; it is unnatural to be defenseless.
DeleteThe day you or anyone else can make a good case for the disarming of Americans is the day you can establish that those same Americans can adequately defend themselves in their homes using kitchen knives and gardening implements. But that day will never come, because as long as the criminal element -- both in and out of government, remains armed, Americans will continue to find a way to own firearms.
You say he's wrong..and then prove he's right. Nobody ever needed a gun to do anything but kill,maim,threaten. It IS what guns are for.
DeleteChristine...okay now I'll say "fucking progressives" if it makes you feel better, these pukes rip you apart because you advocate protecting yourself. I want one of you panty waists to tell me how you would protect yourself like the man in Sacramento without a weapon? Answer it! No,cowering and begging won't do it, fact is you would likely haul ass to save your own ass than your family.
ReplyDeleteArming even more people to remedy the epidemic of gun violence is absurd. That's not a solution, it's the problem. The NRA and Christine Craft aren't curing the problem, they are spreading the disease.
ReplyDeleteCritical thinking is lacking so much in our culture. Known liars (i.e. Government Media Complex) speak of a fanciful notion that a boy that must have been carrying near half his body weight in gear, was able to carry off an action requiring expert marksmen control in the midst of overcharged adrenals such amateur shots rarely, IF EVER, can handle properly.
ReplyDeleteNary a critical question against an ever-changing elusive official story and the lot of you take it in as fact beyond question.
Dangerous times indeed.
I missed the show...But hilarious to read NY is investigating "Meet the Press" because they showed on air a 30 round clip. Those are illegal to own..even if not in a gun. Like showing Heroin or Meth at show and tell with get you in trouble at school.
ReplyDeleteI wonder with all the real carnage in the news,why would NY law would embarrass themselves like this?
David Gregory's children attend a school with armed guards. He tells Wayne LaPierre that having armed guards at school is cuckoo.
DeleteThere was an armed guard at Colombine. He made no difference.
Deleteit's Columbine. So because an armed guard fails to stop a massacre in one situation, the result would always be the same?
DeleteSee 1211,your among the hopeless. You got what you wanted..an armed guard school,and it didn't work. Lets try my idea..ban guns,confiscate them all across the land. I say the gun murders go way down-you think?
DeleteRich why do you censor comments on this blog?
ReplyDeleteWhat are you hiding from? Man up.