Liberal Forum

I would love to see some gun enthuisiasts speak out about people like this who don't keep their guns secured so children can't get hold of them. It's irresponsible gun owners like this who give gun owners a bad name. This is hardly an isolated incident. A Google search brings up incident after incident just like this one. That and whatever string of isolated incidents you want to pull up does not paint the full picture of gun ownership in the US. There are literally MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. Most of which who go their entire lives without 1 single incident associated with that firearm(s). And you want to take a select few, probably way, way, way fewer than 1% of all owners and paint them with the same paintbrush. Have it your way. I guarentee you for every horror story you can pull up I'll bring up a story where an armed citizen saved his/her life or those he/she loves and cares about or twarted an attack from a would be perpetrator of a felony. -NW

That and whatever string of isolated incidents you want to pull up does not paint the full picture of gun ownership in the US.There are literally MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. Most of which who go their entire lives without 1 single incident associated with that firearm(s).I'm sure there are, and then there are pinheads like these who leave their guns where a 3 year old can get hold of them.I guarentee you for every horror story you can pull up I'll bring up a story where an armed citizen saved his/her life or those he/she loves and cares about or twarted an attack from a would be perpetrator of a felony.I'm sure the parents of the dead child are comforted to know that.

So why are the Michigan state capital and the legislator's offices still gun free zones? If it's good enough for schools and churches, why not for them? Are they really gun free zones when they're occupied by armed agents of the state?

MistyBlue, on 15 Dec 2012 - 17:12, said:So why are the Michigan state capital and the legislator's offices still gun free zones?If it's good enough for schools and churches, why not for them?Are they really gun free zones when they're occupied by armed agents of the state?Are private citizens allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights there?Whenever people talk about allowing guns in a school zone, they are talking about anyone being allowed to carry a gun onto a campus, not just security personnel.I say if it's good enough for schools, then it's good enough for lawmakers.They're a bunch of hypocrites who don't want armed citizens in their offices.

National Review Writer Doubts the Power of the Bushmaster AR-15If you, like many red-blooded Americans, plan on joining the gun shopping spree that mass shootings usually inspire, you might find yourself wondering about the Bushmaster AR-15 that Adam Lanza used in Friday's massacre. The fact that he successfully killed 27 women and children with only one target escaping with an injury certainly suggests that the gun does what it was designed to do: kill a whole bunch of people in a short period of time. The manufacturers of the gun certainly would like you to believe that it's just the ticket for fulfilling your power fantasies, as evidenced by this ad found in Maxim by Mother Jones.But before you rush to give Bushmaster your hard-earned dollars, let me present a second opinion on the gun's manhood-bolstering capabilities from Robert VerBruggen, courtesy of the National Review Online, who argues that Lanza's weapon is too weak to bother banning:I am doubtful that these reforms would do much to curb gun violence. An assault weapon fires at the same rate as an ordinary semiautomatic rifle, and the .223-caliber ammo in Lanzas rifle is banned for deer hunting in some states on the grounds that its too weak. High-capacity magazines sometimes stop shootings by jamming, and shooters are often (though not always) able to change magazines without incident.Ah yes, the ammo is too weak. (Never mind that an adult deer weighs around 250 pounds and a child around 40.) Given the strength of Obama's speech at last night's memorial service, we can expect more of these airtight arguments from our nation's finest gun loving commentators. As your brain reels, just keep in mind the Bushmaster motto: "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you."Professional killers I guess.

NBC News Correspondent Richard Engle Missing in SyriaTurkish news is reporting that NBC News Senior Correspondent Richard Engel has been missing in Syria since Thursday. Turkish journalist Aziz Akyavaş is also missing.Engel has been one of the few western journalists reporting from within Syria. NBC is not commenting at this time.As Alexander Abad-Santos notes at The Atlantic Wire, Twitter has pretty much rendered the news blackouts previously observed by news agencies when journalists went missing a thing of the past.Edit 12/18:Richard Engel Freed In Syria After Kidnapping (VIDEO)

Murdoch Calls For Gun Reform While Fox News Demonizes Gun Reform Two recent gun tragedies produced instant reaction within the world of Fox News. The fact that they were diametrically opposed suggests an internal conflict may be looming. Either that, or Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has no idea what's being broadcast on his all-news channel in America. In the wake of the Newtown, CT school massacre, the News Corp. chairman used his Twitter account to belittle politicians for their inaction on the issue of gun control and demanded to know when they will "find [the] courage to ban automatic weapons." On Saturday, Murdoch took a swipe at the president: "Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy, but how about some bold leadership action?" The irony here is that if Murdoch didn't own Fox News, Fox News hosts would denounce him for trying to "politicize" the Newtown shooting. That's what Murdoch's team did two weeks ago after NBC sportscaster Bob Costas spoke for 60 seconds during the halftime of an NFL game and addressed America's "gun culture" in the wake of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher killing his girlfriend and then driving to the local football stadium and shooting himself in front of his coach. The morning after his comments, Fox targeted Costas for a full-on barrage of criticism, denouncing him for having the audacity to broach the topic of gun violence. Costas was "kind of a coward" in the way he made his comments, which were possibly fueled by his own "political ambitions," according to Fox. The message from Fox to Costas was unmistakable: Sit down and shut up about guns. But now, as Newtown prepares to bury 26 victims, Murdoch's lashing out at "politicians" and the "POTUS" for failing to lead on gun reform? By going on Twitter and demanding Obama take action while Murdoch's highest profile property in the United States actively tries to silence debate about gun reform, the media baron either revealed himself to be a hypocrite of historic proportions, or clueless about Fox News' content. It's content that seems specifically designed to interfere with any attempt to have a rational conversation about guns. (Just ask Costas.) Note to Murdoch: By all measures, your cable channel operates as an appendage to the National Rifle Association. Fox News has done more in the last four years to embrace and echo the NRA's paranoid, anti-Obama gun fantasies than any other national media outlet in America, such as Bill O'Reilly calling gun control advocates "totalitarians," Glenn Beck warning about a looming "ban on guns," and Dick Morrisfeeding right-wing fears about "back-door gun control" in America. Here's a test of leadership for Rupert Murdoch: If you're truly concerned about gun violence in your adopted home country, then you should demand Fox News stop demonizing gun reform and stop championing fanatical, pro-gun paranoia. If Murdoch wants to lead on the topic of gun reform, he has the media tools to do so. The question is, does he really care about America's crisis at hand? Update: New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman reported on Monday that top Fox News executives explicitly barred people from discussing the topic. According to Sherman, the edict came from David Clark, the man in charge of weekend coverage, as well as Michael Clemente, the powerful vice president for news, who backed Clark's ruling that it was too soon to talk about guns. "We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control," one source said.

Are private citizens allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights there? Whenever people talk about allowing guns in a school zone, they are talking about anyone being allowed to carry a gun onto a campus, not just security personnel. I say if it's good enough for schools, then it's good enough for lawmakers. They're a bunch of hypocrites who don't want armed citizens in their offices. And I agree with you. Put me in office and you can have a meeting with me in my office armed to the teeth. Of course, I would be armed to the teeth as well. For the most part, the reason why politicians prohibit guns on capital grounds is because they're afraid of retaliation for their affronts on freedom and liberty.

Professional killers I guess. Strange how whoever made that Maxim ad seems to believe that feelings of juvenile machismo would inspire a man to buy a gun. They'd be much better off suggesting that it would help one to take over our tyrannical government in order to protect our freedoms. Surprised if the company is still in business.

Strange how whoever made that Maxim ad seems to believe that feelings of juvenile machismo would inspire a man to buy a gun. They'd be much better off suggesting that it would help one to take over our tyrannical government in order to protect our freedoms. Surprised if the company is still in business. ROFL....you really think you could ever arm yourself enough to take over our tyrannical government? That, to me is the most ridiculous argument one could use as a reason for owning a gun. What do you have in your arsenal that could go up against a tank? And what are you gonna use against a bunker busting missile? Say you want to own guns for self protection, or for hunting or target shooting, or just because you like guns. That's fine. But to say that they are touse against thegovernment is laughable.

Murdoch Calls For Gun Reform While Fox News Demonizes Gun Reform Two recent gun tragedies produced instant reaction within the world of Fox News. The fact that they were diametrically opposed suggests an internal conflict may be looming. Either that, or Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has no idea what's being broadcast on his all-news channel in America. In the wake of the Newtown, CT school massacre, the News Corp. chairman used his Twitter account to belittle politicians for their inaction on the issue of gun control and demanded to know when they will "find [the] courage to ban automatic weapons." On Saturday, Murdoch took a swipe at the president: "Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy, but how about some bold leadership action?" The irony here is that if Murdoch didn't own Fox News, Fox News hosts would denounce him for trying to "politicize" the Newtown shooting. That's what Murdoch's team did two weeks ago after NBC sportscaster Bob Costas spoke for 60 seconds during the halftime of an NFL game and addressed America's "gun culture" in the wake of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher killing his girlfriend and then driving to the local football stadium and shooting himself in front of his coach. The morning after his comments, Fox targeted Costas for a full-on barrage of criticism, denouncing him for having the audacity to broach the topic of gun violence. Costas was "kind of a coward" in the way he made his comments, which were possibly fueled by his own "political ambitions," according to Fox. The message from Fox to Costas was unmistakable: Sit down and shut up about guns. But now, as Newtown prepares to bury 26 victims, Murdoch's lashing out at "politicians" and the "POTUS" for failing to lead on gun reform? By going on Twitter and demanding Obama take action while Murdoch's highest profile property in the United States actively tries to silence debate about gun reform, the media baron either revealed himself to be a hypocrite of historic proportions, or clueless about Fox News' content. It's content that seems specifically designed to interfere with any attempt to have a rational conversation about guns. (Just ask Costas.) Note to Murdoch: By all measures, your cable channel operates as an appendage to the National Rifle Association. Fox News has done more in the last four years to embrace and echo the NRA's paranoid, anti-Obama gun fantasies than any other national media outlet in America, such as Bill O'Reilly calling gun control advocates "totalitarians," Glenn Beck warning about a looming "ban on guns," and Dick Morrisfeeding right-wing fears about "back-door gun control" in America. Here's a test of leadership for Rupert Murdoch: If you're truly concerned about gun violence in your adopted home country, then you should demand Fox News stop demonizing gun reform and stop championing fanatical, pro-gun paranoia. If Murdoch wants to lead on the topic of gun reform, he has the media tools to do so. The question is, does he really care about America's crisis at hand? Update: New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman reported on Monday that top Fox News executives explicitly barred people from discussing the topic. According to Sherman, the edict came from David Clark, the man in charge of weekend coverage, as well as Michael Clemente, the powerful vice president for news, who backed Clark's ruling that it was too soon to talk about guns. "We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control," one source said. murdoch is a clinton supporting liberal. he's always been a liberal. his networks have been convincing conservatives to choose the most weak, non-conservative gop candidates for a decade. that is not a coincidence.

murdoch is a clinton supporting liberal. he's always been a liberal. his networks have been convincing conservatives tochoose the most weak, non-conservative gop candidates for a decade. that is not a coincidence.Murdoch is a liberal. lolYou have 100 % accuracy for always being wrong....and not even close. dead wrong.You're a joke.

Murdoch is a liberal. lol You have 100 % accuracy for always being wrong....and not even close. dead wrong. You're a joke. lol. you're the joke, b*tch. look up about the fundraisers murdoch threw for hillary clinton yourself, dumb ***. it was even written about in the huffington posts. seems like you would have known about it, being a fan of that liberal rag.

ROFL....you really think you could ever arm yourself enough to take over our tyrannical government? That, to me is the most ridiculous argument one could use as a reason for owning a gun. What do you have in your arsenal that could go up against a tank? And what are you gonna use against a bunker busting missile? Say you want to own guns for self protection, or for hunting or target shooting, or just because you like guns. That's fine. But to say that they are touse against thegovernment is laughable. I'm hardly the only one who had made this argument. I would refer you to my old, wrinkly friend: the Constitution.

I'm hardly the only one who had made this argument. I would refer you to my old, wrinkly friend: the Constitution. When the Constitution was writteneveryone used Muskets. C'mon....tell me what you have in your arsenal that is going to allow you to 'take over our tyrannical government'. Whatcha got to go up against the largest military in the world?

When the Constitution was writteneveryone used Muskets. C'mon....tell me what you have in your arsenal that is going to allow you to 'take over our tyrannical government'. Whatcha got to go up against the largest military in the world? I have to say, I think you are making a foolish assumption that the military would all take the same side.

When the Constitution was writteneveryone used Muskets. C'mon....tell me what you have in your arsenal that is going to allow you to 'take over our tyrannical government'. Whatcha got to go up against the largest military in the world? the primitive afghanis kicked the *** of the soviet empire with inferior weapons.

I have to say, I think you are making a foolish assumption that the military would all take the same side. I don't think I'm the one making the foolish assumption.

When the Constitution was writteneveryone used Muskets. C'mon....tell me what you have in your arsenal that is going to allow you to 'take over our tyrannical government'. Whatcha got to go up against the largest military in the world? Me personally? I could always throw a bookshelf at it--perhaps jab at it with a standing lamp. I don't think I'm the one making the foolish assumption. I'm sure you're not.

ROFL....you really think you could ever arm yourself enough to take over our tyrannical government?That, to me is the most ridiculous argument one could use as a reason for owning a gun.What do you have in your arsenal that could go up against a tank?And what are you gonna use against a bunker busting missile?Say you want to own guns for self protection, or for hunting or target shooting, or just because you like guns.That's fine.But to say that they are touse against thegovernment is laughable.And yet we can't defeat a bunch of goat farmers throwing rocks, go figure.