Western Journalism – by Randy DeSoto
“Once again those three things didn’t even intersect with this shooting.”
National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday responding to President Obama and other anti-gun liberals who are calling for gun-control legislation in the wake of Thursday’s campus shooting in Oregon.
In remarks made Thursday night after the shooting, Obama said: “This is something we should politicize,” adding that it is “a political choice that we make to allow [these shootings] to happen every few months in America.”
Cooke responded to these comments made by the President and others like him: “The way they talk is as if they have the answer and there are these recalcitrant forces in the country that say ‘no, no, no,’ even though deep down they know their legislation will work. That’s simply not the case. It’s far more complicated than that.”
In response, Time journalist Mark Halperin said that there must be a “passion to try to come up with solutions.”
After a back and forth with Halperin and Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, Cooke asked the question that quieted both:
“What is it you’re proposing?” [emphasis added.]
Former Vermont governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean jumped into the conversation, suggesting universal background checks and holding gun dealers responsible, if they sell guns to those with a mental illness.
Cooke responded that now the panelists could at least have a debate whether those proposals would actually address the problem of mass shootings.
He continued by critiquing President Obama’s reaction to the shooting: “before any details were known here, before they knew who the shooter was, what gun he used, where he had got the gun, the president came out…and said you know what we need to do? These three things we always talk about. Once again, those three things didn’t even intersect with this shooting.”
h/t: IJReview
Is this the Brit. you spoke about today Henry? I made it to 40 sec. had to turn the accent off.
Made to the point where Dean opened his nasty yap. ugh
No, the Brit I was talking about was the shooter’s dad, as the shooter, his dad, and his mom came from Britain. He wasn’t born here.
I did not make it to 40 seconds before I had to turn off that idiot fest. For God’s sake if ONE man or woman at ANY of the “gun free zones” was armed the conversation would be much different. The conversation would be about bloodthirsty, trigger happy gun owners gunning down poor upset mentally challenged youngsters who were just acting out their rage. The conversations would lean towards “he only got off one shot before he was murdered “by a white supremacist”. We will never know what the child’s REAL intentions were because he fell to another trigger happy moron with a gun that believed he needs a gun to protect himself and those around him! We have “police officers” to protect us! Everybody already knows “the answers” it is just that an openly non-regulated armed populace is EXTREMELY dangerous to an organized criminal gang which the U.S. and ALL state governments are populated with 100%! What criminal wants their prey to be able to hold a gun to the head of the pig on the street when he stops you to rob you of your cash? What criminal wants their prey to be able to hold a gun to the head of the actors sent to arrest you for a victim less act the criminals call a crime? What criminal wants their prey to be able to hold a gun to the head of the thugs sent to your home to take your children based on your lifestyle, religion, eating habits or schooling choice? A more important question is what kind of populace allows themselves to be disarmed or that bows to paying the largest criminal organization in the world in order to be ALLOWED to keep a weapon? Registration is as much an act of cowardice as being unarmed!
Sandy Hoax…where no one died.