Handguns - Latest Reports
PistolsRevolvers
Specialty
Long Guns - Latest Reports
RiflesShotguns
Specialty
Special Purpose Guns - Latest Reports
Home DefenseSurplus/Collectible
Law Enforcement
Concealed Carry
Hunting
Recreational
Competitive
Ammo
Accessories
Gun News
Gun RightsIndustry Notes
New Products
Competitive
People
Special Reports
Replacing Missing Firing PinsDon’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.
Gun Tests Index 2011-1999Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.
Commentary
Media Matters Doesn't Really MatterThe group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.
Video: What to Do During a Traffic StopLethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).
Gun Reports - News
MSNBC analyst Alex Wagner says she thinks the Second Amendment should be removed from the Constitution.
Pillory Seems About Right for MSNBC Analyst
November 8, 2011Printer Friendly | Email |
(GunReports.com) -- MSNBC analyst and soon-to-be host of a daytime television show on the network Alex Wagner is asked by HBO host Bill Maher what she thinks needs to be removed in the Constitution. Wagner says the Second Amendment.
Alex Wagner, Huffington Post: "Well, I'm going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that."
Watch the video on RealClearPolitics.com here.
GunReports.com agrees that Ms. Wagner should be pilloried for this stance. Preferably, an actual pillory.
THIS is just one of the many reasons NOT to view msnbc . Thank you Alex for reminding not to watch that channel.. Ms Wagner, this is earth calling. We miss you. I think DEPORTATION to some third world country would be correct. Ms. Wagner, How do you propose the other rights are to be defended from a government that wants to trample the them. The branch holding the force (Executive) will then control, unfettered, our rights. Well, Ms. Wagner is a good reason herself to revisit the First Amendment. And also a good reason to revisit the old practice of "tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail". But, I suppose every NWO traitor is entitled to their own opinion. I used to be perplexed by people like Ales Wagner. However, I realized that such people would gladly sacrifice a few citizens for, as they see it, benefit the of the whole. They never sacrifice themselves. They will continue to cherry pick the laws that suit themselves, not the whole. Words to remember: While the right to keep and bear arms is embodied in and affirmed by the Second Amendment, it is the First Freedom, upon which all other freedoms rest. It is the lynch-pin of the Bill of Rights. When the Second Amendment falls, all others will be at risk and will soon follow. I just heard today that (over) 300 million law abiding Americans think differently about this Alex... HUMMMM...AND...get this...ALEX....(over) 73.8 million of those ARE WOMEN...ALEX!!!! Kindest Regards.... Un God We Trust...ALEX!!! LOL!!!! I always thought Maher was the biggest POS on the planet; he may have a rival! I always thought Maher was the biggest POS on the planet; he may have a rival! Funny, I didn't realize the Constitution gave us a right to kill as the Aleks suggested.... miss dingbat, do you have security people with you? why? in the grand scheme of things you are no better than any other American, get rid of your security people since you feel so secure. Right......next step, remove weapons from the military and talk it out, yeah right....its guns that keep the Huns away. She can have mine when she can pry my cold dead fingers from it. Right......next step, remove weapons from the military and talk it out, yeah right....its guns that keep the Huns away. She can have mine when she can pry my cold dead fingers from it. ssgtken - Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't get killed over the first gun. I keep the 'papered' guns at home. I'm thinking, in case they want to confiscate, they can have those and then think I'm unarmed. But the ones I have that aren't 'on record' get cached off-site. So even if the UN or Chinese Commies or Zombies take ALL my at-home guns, I'm still armed (and at that point unhappy). And once I'm dead nobody but family or a few close friends knows where those are - and no one person knows where all of them are either so that nobody can get frightened and surrender the entire cache. And it's only folks with a backbone in them who know at all. David b, we may have had a common ancestor somewhere along the line. I have posted several times that I keep a large number of firearms in caches for that very reason when the storm troopers come calling. I maintain volatile records of all of my firearms transactions. In those records I include date of purchase and disposal, price paid, current value, from where purchased, and description of the piece. Those records also indicate whether or not each piece has a paper trail. Keeping records has served me well when my home was once burglarized. Those records provided the basis for collecting insurance claims, and they even provided the basis for reclaiming some pieces that were subsequently located by police. Now, what happens when the government guys come calling to "help"? The obvious records are quickly disposed of, while copies of those records are also maintained in the caches of the "cold" pieces. So, like you, I am willing to give up a few pieces.....sorta like throwing the dogs a bone.....while keeping my caches inviolate. That way, I don't have to depend on somebody having to take my guns from my cold dead hands so early in the battle. It serves none of us individually, nor the purposes of freedom or our gun fraternity, to get killed early and individually. Toss 'em a bone, as you say. Then get ready for the real battle, because if they're collecting guns, it isn't over when you give them up. They'll be back for the guys who used to have them, assessing us as 'threats'. That is when we'll need to fight, as it will be that or rot in some guarded 'emergency camp' like the FEMA pandemic flu emergency camps. Good comments to consider, documented vs non-documented. I read or saw somewhere that Japan had decided in WW2 to not do a land invasion of USA because there were already so many people with guns through out the country. Now if that be true I would think while there is blah, blah about giving up guns the real people would not go along with it....or at least I would hope so. I think the anti-gun types need to spend more time in the city hoods and they will experience how well they can talk their way out of an encounter with a badass with gun. As long as they have someone to protect them, they can shoot their mouths off, remove that and see how much they will keep pushing to turn'em in. Along that line of thinking, ssgtken, I'd read that we won our freedom from England with only about 3% of the population taking up arms - hence the current 'threeper' insignia you'll sometimes see. I wonder sometimes if it would still be that small a percentage of armed citizens? Even so, 3% of 80 million is 2.4 million, on their own turf, and with enough guns to arm about 3 neighbors each if any of those were to be willing to fight too. So I think we could win that war - against whomever. As for the anti's spending time in the ghetto - I don't think they'll go there, and I don't think that's the answer. There are plenty of fearful folk in the ghetto too, and I think fear is the core problem. These people shirk their own responsibility and defer that violent defense capability to the police - and try to take it from us - because they are afraid to stand on their own hind legs and fight for their lives. As long as they live, they will choose to hide their faces and try to get someone else to do their dirty work for them. Patriotic? In my opinion - not a one. Real Americans will fight for freedom, and to defend themselves and their families. The anti-gun crowd only betray us. Except that 3% was of the general population - I believe - which means 3% of 300 million, as opposed to 80 million. Also,I recently read that the latest "self admitting" survey of gun ownership places 47% of the population owning a firearm. Interesting point David about fear in the 'hood. Cowardice certainly contributes to the depth and continuity of the problem, but in ghetto life, how does one make a stand without running afoul of the law and thus becoming part of the problem? P V B - at that time the 'general population' was 'generally' armed, though perhaps not in the middle of New York or Boston. So I chose to consider only the armed citizens of today, limiting it to 3% of 80 million. I'm not sure how much use the unarmed 220 would be - some would certainly want to borrow our spares, some would probably rat us out. So I'm sticking to 2.4 million fighting patriots. But if it turned out to be 3% of 300 million, that's 9 million armed patriots, which is about 11% of gun owners. I prefer to see that and be wrong in my estimate. Just standing up that army would stop ANY offense, including federals. The only nations that can muster an army that big can't afford to send it here and supply it. So we'd win, hands down. (Or 'hands up' to the other side.) As for how anything works in the urban blight areas, I don't know. I'm not even sure I understand your question. Legal weapons for defense shouldn't run afoul of the law. The gangs maybe, but not the law. Vigilantes do have a place in society sometimes (like when LE is paid off or afraid to do it's job), so if the neighborhood wanted to take out the trash, they could do it. DB & PVB, I had enough experience with inner city by way of where I worked and riot duty. For those who live there it is a never ending issue of the bad and some of whom are in their own family. It is a never ending problem. I am able to afford living away from all that and I reinforce my rights with a few pieces. Basically I think bad boys today target old people to victimize and if you are in the city it is easy pickings for those opportunists. My issue is that CCW levels the field and the gun is the only thing some others understand, then you make the call for the authorities to come clean up the mess. Where I live police are very aggressive. I go 20 miles to the urban and if there is not a body, they do not hurry. My philosophy is that I will take care of my security as needed, nobody is going to do it for you. Anybody who wants to strip me of that is the enemy. ssgtken - since I'm 63 and have a small bucket of permanent injuries, I agree entirely and I say "Amen" to your last two sentences. David - understood even the minimum number of "shooters" is significant. Latest survey data says 47% of us own firearms, which means the 80 million we've been using for a while could be as high as 140 million gun owners. Now; if we could get another 5% of gun owners to join the NRA, the battle would essentially be over... 140 million is a much better number, to be sure. And that would represent a majority of the 'adult' population. I think we're still at 2+ kids per family, so that means roughly 150 million kids or even more. So, if we really ARE 140 million strong, then there is a really tiny minority making one hell of a lot of anti-gun noise, because we are close to 100% of adults. Let's see - maybe we could get our pointless Congress-critters to pass a law that adults have to have firearms or training at least - or move to some place sunny and warm - like Pakistan. Whadda ya think? I think firearms training ought to begin in elementary school. If the school has an athletics program, it should include shooting sports. Guys...a thought. Everybody upon reaching 18 does 2 years government (military) service. In todays economy with higher unemployment I'm sure the time would not be a set back. Kick in training basic plus AIT in whatever civy work. Result is early orientation and on track. How many anti gun people are vets? From, essentially, the time when we moved from universal conscription to an all volunteer military force, I have been maintaining that we made a big mistake. In the process of drafting young men and requiring two years of military service, we had a standing pool of trained warriors. We also had young men who were taught how to be men who would be responsible for themselves, who valued life, and who understood our national values. I believe that if we revived the draft of young men.....and women.....we would see a higher quality of young people who would value the ideals of working for what they receive, respect for authority, and love of country. While there would still be some punks out there who seek the easy life at somebody else's expense, the majority of folks who would have served for two years.....followed by a reserve commitment for six years.....would form the basis of a strong, proud, responsible society. ssgtken - I've been a proponent of universal conscription - Swiss style - for about 45 years now. I think every citizen should be trained - those with 'conscience' issues can train as medics. Everyone would be sent home with a rifle, pistol, some basic battle gear and a few hundred rounds of ammo. Re-qualify every so many years. Probably everybody should also have a small unit skill - communications, demo, marksman (or markswoman), heavy equipment, etc. Anticipated results? - Near zero crime. Zero possibility of invasion, ever. Full exposure of everyone to weapons and patriotic indoctrination. More interest by citizens in where and why the nation goes to war - meaning maybe no wars for a few years. It might even mean more responsible corporate and government behavior - given that the police would no longer have a near total monopoly on violence capabilities and would therefore be less likely to serve the bosses, and that the bosses would be less likely to think they could use police authority to ensure their safety. As a 'one off', have you guys noticed that the cops have been called out on the Occupy folks, but never were called out on the Tea Party? Wonder why? I did - until I realized the Tea Party never threatened corporate control and power, they actually pander to big business and militaristic government. Occupy does threaten corporate shenanigans and irresponsibility. You know the Occupy staff is old ACORN people, don't you? Tea Party never got violent. Occupy is, and people that need to go by their "encampments" are getting tired of being harassed. As far as I'm aware, the only people getting harassed are employes of the companies they're protesting. And the Tea Party did do as much as that - in fact they did the same to elected representatives at their home-town meetings (but not corporate officers or bankers because they LIKE them), in a few cases scaring those guys out of the building under police guard. Look it up on YouTube and you'll see the videos. And don't forget that video of the black guy at one of their events with his SMG on a sling. What's the big difference between harassment and implied violence? I'm not sure, myself. And just how many 'old Acorn people' do you think there are, P V B? Not nearly enough to make up the numbers you see, I'm sure. And so what? I can say there are old KKKers and skinheads in the Tea Party - and could probably find a bunch of them in fact if I started digging into folks' pasts. Does that mean they don't have any valid points to make? How many would I find? Probably not enough to discount their message, and I doubt you can find enough voter registration activists (ACORN) to discount the Occupy folks either. You'll have to show me some numbers to convince me. With 2 year service to country I think most are agreed it would be a good thing. I think the group that wanders the streets with not much to do but get in to trouble, would be better directed and get through that period of being led like sheep. Hopefully they would exit the process with productive purpose and goals and motivation. More users of weapons would also result in a better user group, better reports and better weapons. Gee-whiz, a subtle way to get people on track in a good way. How about that. Will not solve all the problems but would be a good dent and turnaround with all that we are presently struggling with. On the article, better to get the anti gun people known and vote them out of office! David - you cannot walk past an Occupy "campsite" without somebody saying something to you, especially if you are female. Commuters and other people with jobs are bearing the brunt of the abuse from the crowds. I do not see Occupy protesting individual companies, just corporations in general. When I refer to the ACORN involvement, I'm not talking about the protesters in the streets; rather, the behind the scenes leadership. This whole Occupy "movement" is an astro-turf event to support Obama's agenda. This started coming to light a few weeks ago. Scroogle, google, etc.... Yes, they have some valid points. Both "movements" do. If we were lucky, our government would be paying attention to their salient points. The Tea Party's initial platform was over-reaching government in dire need of reform; that does not mean they love corporations. I was not a fan of the guy with the AR slung over his shoulder, either.... I wasn't aware the Occupy folks were harassing anyone, but if it's happening, then it's happening. I suppose they're trying to make sure their message is noticed, but it's 'harassed' to the passerby I'm sure. As for the Tea Party's initial platform, you're correct as far as I recall. But today it seems they want to coddle the rich, protect their 'temporary' tax breaks that Bush gave them, and they seem to think that rampant corporate excesses are going to provide jobs somehow. But I'll tell you now that 'trickle down' theory is bogus. The only thing that trickles down from the rich trickles down one of their legs, and I don't think you want any of that. I don't. Basically, they squirrel away their cash and do NOT make jobs with it - else the TARP bucks should have bought us out of the hole by now. Or so I say. But not too long ago the Tea Party representatives were willing to shut down the government to protect the wealthy while they wanted to cut benefits to the working class and retired folks. Not cool in my opinion - but I work for my living so I suppose I'm biased. s'OK P V B. We're cool anyway. We're both gun guys, and just have different ideas about what's going on and how to 'fix' it. THAT part is pure American. As the only identified 'liberal' on this forum, I don't expect to find much agreement on anything - at least on the surface. But we do all agree - as far as I can tell - on the important things. And I like that. LOL! I think the early tea Party movement was well intended, until it got hijacked by the extreme right. Alternatively, it may have been astroturfing, though I haven't heard anything along those lines. I've never trusted Occupy because the various "locations" had cookie cutter agendas (which neatly mirror Obama's) and modus operandi, implying a central authority which they tacitly denied. Now it seems clear it is an attempted covert astroturf movement. Either way, the protesters are having a party which is costing wee taxpayers in police OT, public works clean-up, sanitation, traffic obstruction, etc. I believe however, that the main point from each "movement" is valid, and both need to be addressed promptly. Corruption on "Wall Street" is epidemic and destroying our economy, while over-reaching federal government is destroying the soul of our country. The fundamental problem is a dearth of ethical leadership in both the public and private sectors, and while "it has always been there" to some extent, I will contend the epidemic began when a rather prominent American made a mockery of our justice system by perjuring himself in front of a grand jury. Cause and effect? Perhaps not, but certainly symptomatic of the moral decay. As for the harassment, women are reporting cat calls as well as being groped or fondled as they pass by on their way to work, for instance (so we're on the same page). What still puzzles me is where does all the money come from for these unemployed protesters to eat? You should stop thinking of yourself as a liberal my friend, because you are playing right into the hands of our corrupted political system... ;) Actually, she has a point. The second amendment does not tally on the same level, it is magnitudes above the rest as it is the foundation upon the others rest. Only saving grace is that when the ice cream goes through the fan her brand of propagandizing will be extinct. Maybe she needs a copy of a reminder: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers: Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others. While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion. --Tim Cole To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com
Reader Comments
Publisher, GunReports.Com