Meltdown: MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell goes into attack mode against Arizona GOP congressman

Daily Caller ^ | 1/19/11 | Jeff Poor

[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?”

[IMissPresidentReagan]

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.

[Sooth2222]

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.

[LoneStarGI]

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.

[tweakDU]

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.

[Peet]

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."

[chooseascreennamepat]

“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.