Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meltdown: MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell goes into attack mode against Arizona GOP congressman
Daily Caller ^ | 1/19/11 | Jeff Poor

Posted on 01/19/2011 5:53:05 AM PST by markomalley

Remember all the talk about turning down the volume in our political discourse?  How about the idea that in the wake of the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, there were going to be efforts to hold a more civil dialogue going forth? Perhaps those rules only apply if you hold a particular point of view.

On Tuesday’s airing of MSNBC’s The Last Word, host Lawrence O’Donnell badgered Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks over answering a hypothetical question about gun laws and whether, if tougher ones were in place, less blood might have been shed earlier this month in Arizona.

“I’m asking you to entertain another hypothetical, and that hypothetical is, imagine this event occurred in 2003 when Jared Loughner, by federal law enacted by the Democrats 10 years earlier, would not have been allowed to get his hands on a magazine that held 30 bullets,” O’Donnell said dramatically. “He only would have been able to fire 10. Then he would have had to reload, and those heroes who stopped him when he tried to reload would have stopped him after firing 10, and more citizens of Arizona would be alive today in your state if that magazine held only 10 bullets. I’ll ask you again, do you wish Jared Loughner’s magazine only held 10 bullets instead of the 31 that he fired?”

That led to the start of the tense exchange between the MSNBC host and the Arizona Republican, showing that the so-called “volume” hasn’t found its way down yet.

FRANKS: And I will tell you again, sir, that I wish he had not had a gun at all.

O’DONNELL: So, you’re not going to answer that question about the magazine? Will you answer the question about the magazine?

FRANKS: I will on one basis, on one basis. Will you answer the question — you said that the police officers miss all the time — will you say that you’re glad there were no police officers there that day?

O’DONNELL: No, I will not say that.

FRANKS: All right. And I will not say, I will not say that –

Franks didn’t answer the question to O’Donnell’s satisfaction, so he made another run at it.

“I will not entertain your hypothetical,” O’Donnell shouted. “Your hypothetical might have been helpful, might not have been not helpful. But now, consider my hypothetical – it’s 2003. He can only fire 10 bullets. Arizona would have been better off, right? Your constituents in Arizona would have been better off if Jared Loughner, by law, could only fire 10 bullets?”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: giffords
video at link
1 posted on 01/19/2011 5:53:07 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Did he call him a slimy liar?
2 posted on 01/19/2011 5:55:50 AM PST by ladyvet ( I would rather have Incitatus then the asses that are in congress today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Lawrence O'Donnell - another example of the diversity you'll find at MSNBC.


3 posted on 01/19/2011 5:55:59 AM PST by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
O’Donnell is a bag man for the DNC in the 1980's and 90's. Very White guilt ridden person.

He hates America

He reminds me of a sleeper Russian agent from the cold war.

4 posted on 01/19/2011 5:56:53 AM PST by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Republicans need to go into these interviews with full expectation that they will, at some point, have to say, “Your incivility is poisoning this discussion. It’s people in the media like you that make rational discussion impossible.”


5 posted on 01/19/2011 5:59:39 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

That’s okay. Nobody saw it............


6 posted on 01/19/2011 6:00:46 AM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I’m wondering if COMCAST will jerk these peoples’ collectivist chains when they take over..............


7 posted on 01/19/2011 6:01:55 AM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I heard somewhere that O’Donnell’s show has already been cancelled.


8 posted on 01/19/2011 6:02:37 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

He’s just another tv star who tries to make news, not report anything worthwhile. The older they get the worse they get, trying to keep their face before the public.


9 posted on 01/19/2011 6:03:08 AM PST by tillacum (The American military keeps us free, not the politicians or media. Praise Be for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

By law Larry, you blithering idiot, Loughner should never have had a gun, much less a magazine. The premise stinks from the get go.


10 posted on 01/19/2011 6:03:09 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes, it would have been better if Loughner’s magazine only held 10 rpunds. And it would have been even better if Loughner’s magazine only held 4 rounds. Or as the Congressman pointed out, if Loughner did not have a firearm at all. Where do these hypotheticals contrary to actual facts take us?


11 posted on 01/19/2011 6:04:56 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The 94 Assault Weapons Ban banned the new manufature and import of magazines over 10 rounds. It did not ban possession of hi-cap mags already in the marketplace or any that were made prior to 94.

The 94 AWB would have done nothing to stop Loughner from getting a hi-cap mag.

I can think of no laws that would stop a criminal or lunatic. Gun control laws are primarily directed at law abaiding citizens.


12 posted on 01/19/2011 6:06:18 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Representative Franks had the right answer. What a stupid dumb ass question. I’ll tell you I am so freakin sick of these people.

His hypothetical is ridiculous on its face. So it is more acceptable if only 10 people were shot? 6 out of 10 dead. What an ass.

What is the matter with these people?


13 posted on 01/19/2011 6:08:30 AM PST by waxer1 ("The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Just ask O’Donnell if he would be calling for an end to “large capacity aircraft” if Loughner had flown a jet aircraft into a high rise and killed thousands.


14 posted on 01/19/2011 6:11:20 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I’m wondering if COMCAST will jerk these peoples’ collectivist chains when they take over..............

Maybe word is they'll start to compete for the middle against Fox and that explains Fox News' current rush to RINO land.


15 posted on 01/19/2011 6:14:06 AM PST by paulycy (Just be truthful and accurate. Let civility take care of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
if Jared Loughner, by law, could only fire 10 bullets?”

So... it's OK if he fires 10 bullets into a crowd, but not 31?

If these kooks would follow the law, then maybe we should have a law against shooting people?

Oh, wait...

16 posted on 01/19/2011 6:14:53 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
But now, consider my hypothetical – it’s 2003.

How many new hiv carriers are there since 2003?

Why don't we register them, and give them a little card to carry with their picture on it.
17 posted on 01/19/2011 6:15:50 AM PST by greedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyvet

Did you see that MSNBC show just before the election in 2004 where O’Donnell kept calling the swift boat veteran a liar. For 30 minutes, O’Donnell kept at it.


18 posted on 01/19/2011 6:16:02 AM PST by MustKnowHistory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: umgud
The 94 Assault Weapons Ban banned the new manufature and import of magazines over 10 rounds

In 2003 I had several magazines with more than 10 round capacity - you could always see "pre-ban" weapons and magazines for sale.

19 posted on 01/19/2011 6:18:16 AM PST by JD91
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Demanding that one answer a hypothetical is not logical, in the classical sense of the word. If you go into “what if” land in this case, then you must allow that more people could be packing, Loughner would have known that, and wouldn’t have been inclined to do the crime in the first place. That’s a very simple example for a rebuttal — but I say again that the whole exchange would be just two guys pretending his guess is the better one.


20 posted on 01/19/2011 6:28:17 AM PST by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Why do Republicans bother going on that channel? Honestly; the Dims wouldn’t let Fox host a debate. Republicans should stay away from the lunacy of MSLSD.


21 posted on 01/19/2011 6:32:19 AM PST by IMissPresidentReagan (A kid like Prescott & still pro-life all the days of his life. President Reagan was truly a saint!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
But now, consider my hypothetical – it’s 2003. He can only fire 10 bullets. Arizona would have been better off, right? Your constituents in Arizona would have been better off if Jared Loughner, by law, could only fire 10 bullets?”

Larry, Larry -- you need to read about the "Law of Unintended Consequences"!

The AWB limit on over 10-round newly-manufactured magazines (there were literally tons of pre-ban high capacity magazines around) directly lead to the resurgence of interest in larger caliber autoloaders, like the .45 ACP and lead to today's popularity of the .357 Sig and .40 S&W.

Would Congresswoman Giffords be better off today if she had suffered a head wound from a .45 ACP or .357 Sig round? I think the answer should be obvious, Larry.

22 posted on 01/19/2011 6:43:22 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I had a liberal ask me the exact same ‘hypothetical question’ the other day. He said it would have been better if he only had 9 bullets instead of 31. I responded, ‘that’s not a big comfort for the first 9 people who get shot’. My point being that it was a liberally-inspired PC environment that refused to deal with a man that had a clearly defined record of mental instability who should have never even gotten to that rally in the first place. I said, ‘go ahead, reduce the magazine capacity, then the next time we have a mentally unstable man shoot up a group of people with a gun fitted with a ‘diminished-capacity federally sanctioned magazine’, we’ll be right back here again arguing.


23 posted on 01/19/2011 7:10:46 AM PST by LoneStarGI (Vegetarian: Old Indian word for "BAD HUNTER.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I don’t have time to go into it, but I watched the whole thing. You should really watch the video - you’ll see lib logic at its best. OD really does it when he press O’Malley on the 31 shot clip vs. a 10 round clip...so many hypotheticals...when OM comes back with his hypothetical, OD goes nuts. Really. Listen to this guy and learn what you’re up against.


24 posted on 01/19/2011 8:05:13 AM PST by tweakDU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
Demanding that one answer a hypothetical is not logical, in the classical sense of the word.

It is so absurd, that I like to answer with "If your aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart."
25 posted on 01/19/2011 8:32:40 AM PST by Peet (Leftists think personal liberty is so important it must be carefully rationed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
“Your constituents in Arizona would have been better off if Jared Loughner, by law, could only fire 10 bullets?””

As I understand it, the first shot went into Giffords’ head. 10 shot clip, 30 shot clip or NO clip (one in the chamber), it wouldn't have helped her one bit.

26 posted on 01/19/2011 10:21:39 AM PST by chooseascreennamepat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson