Skip to comments.S.E. Cupp Goes Off on Eric Holder for Wanting to Shame Gun Owners: ‘It Makes My Blood Boil’
Posted on 01/12/2013 9:25:05 AM PST by Mozilla
Attorney General Eric Holder made headlines this week after it was discovered that he once said gun owners should be shamed into giving up their firearms.
And The Blazes S.E. Cupp was not impressed with his remarks.
I cannot tell you how offended I am to hear Eric Holder, or anyone, talking about shaming gun owners, Cupp said during a Thursday broadcast of Real News on Blaze TV. I feel it inside. It makes my blood boil, because it so fundamentally misunderstands the Second Amendment.
The idea that he would paint me with the same brush as some criminal that hes talking about is so offensive, but that is so common because most people who talk about gun control dont distinguish, she added.
They are making law abiding gun owners defend their rights, which are already on the books.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
H0lder IS a criminal for his involvement in the government’s gun law riots at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Eric Holder is going to try to “shame” somebody. LOL!
I’m not defending Holder, but these remarks were made in the 90s at the height of the gangbangerr culture in cities. These were the days when a kid was being killed or wounded in NYC every few days (before Rudy). Having a “9” was a symbol of success and power in the hood. So people like Holder believed they had to change that image and make guns less attractive to the teen males in cities. It was not, at the time, aimed at the guy who’d take his mini14 to the range or the fields twice a week and fire off ahundred rounds. It probably is today, but when a person’s words from 18 years ago are used to argue against them today context matters and in this case Cupp got the context, if not Holder’s beliefs, wrong.
Good job. Would recommend editing for word count. Photomemes are best with the fewest words.
Er, Ruby Ridge happened in 1992, during the GWH Bush administration. I doubt Holder had anything to do with it.
“The Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge trial get underway in April 1993. (the one where Gerry Spence made the DOJ his bitch) Spinning & neutralizing the grotesque facts that came out in that trial would have been job #1 for the FBI & DOJ, and Clintons/Renos chief fixer Holder. “
Hilarious—The Left effectively eliminated shame as a societal/cultural guardrail decades ago. The tactic now is to bully opponents into submission using the media strong-arm.
What gun haters are learning is that law-abiding gun owners won’t bend over like RINO politicians, and it’s driving them crazy.
” In both Ruby Ridge and Waco, Eric Holder was heavily involved (he wrote the rules of engagement for Ruby Ridge while on the plane traveling there) and in both cases, innocent people died. His career should have been over at that point. When Obama hired him I figured it was only a matter of time until he caused more deaths. “
So was Lon Horiuchi (pos).
He was speaking of the shaming of cigarette smokers as to what should be done to gun owners.
H0lder continues to carry on.
Should we assume that holder wants the guns delivered to his office so that he can personally escort them to Mexico into the hands of the peaceful, gun-hating cartels?
Which begs the question: How much money has holder received from Mexican drug cartels, where is it, and has he paid his fair share based on that income?
As of this date, neither have been prosecuted for murder.
Some animals are more equal than others...
I know this is about S.E. Cupp, not the NRA, but this reminds me of something important.
I believe if this thing turns into Civil War, the birth of a police state or even just a few Waco-like incidents, historians will look back and lay some of the blame on prominent conservatives for refusing to talk about the elephant in the room.
To be more specific, the NRA issued a statement this week about how disappointed they were that the President is going back to the same old playbook. Well, that’s fine, but what they should have done is walked out of the meeting and told the President they would be back to discuss gun violence when the guy who got two U.S. Border agents and 14 innocent Mexican high school kids killed had been given his walking papers. Then they should have added that having a discussion on gun violence with Eric Holder in the room makes about as much sense as discussing it with Adam Lanza.
Yeah, the press would have howled, but everyone would have been talking about Fast & Furious again for a couple of days, and the dead would have been honored instead of forgotten.
Holder's fundamental proposition is that gun owners should be shamed. If we accept the argument that in context this means 'urban teens murdering other teens' as you suppose, we are still left with the original question: Why did Holder believe that a person who is not "shamed" by the murder of another human being would be "shamed" by the ownership of the weapon by which this was accomplished? For those who had not committed a crime, why did Holder believe that a person illegally possessing a handgun would be "shamed" by the ownership of a specific weapon if he was not "shamed" by the illegality of owning it to begin with?
There are two answers, and neither makes your case. First, that Holder is attempting to deliberately confuse the rampant illegality in black culture with the lawful possession of firearms. This allows "his people" to continue to refuse to take responsibility for the violence of their inner city culture, and lays the blame at the feet of his political enemies: law abiding citizens who do not belong to that culture, but who coincidentally own guns, and who are blamed (not, coincidentally) as racists for every other problem in that culture.
In other words, whether in 1995 or 2013 or 2050, the excuse is the same: Law-abiding people are to blame for the problems of the black inner city, and it is always somebody else's fault.
The second reason is a much more cynical one. Holder knows perfectly well that this will not solve the problem of inner city violence, but he also knows there are enough stupid people in the country who can be fooled into thinking it will if the lie that the gun is at fault for the evil it facilitates is repeated over and over again. Sandy Hook is a different kind of opportunity, because it involves white children. But it is the same political game as ever: use stupid, primarily emotion driven people to acquire political power in pursuit of a "problem" which politics cannot solve.