CNN’s O’Brien Urges Obama to “Track” People and Firearms

gulagbound.com, Cliff Kincaid, 24 hours ago

The Washington Post story, “Media figures on left and right call for new gun-control laws,” hailed Soledad O’Brien of CNN for taking a stand in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Pretending to be an intellectual heavyweight on the subject, she declared on the channel that the problem in society is “access to semiautomatic weapons.”

O’Brien’s embarrassing outburst, which continued for several minutes during an interview with Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), is another indication of why CNN fails to attract many viewers. I turned on CNN the morning after the tragedy occurred to get some basic facts and instead was forced to endure a liberal rant from Soledad O’Brien about what she thought should be done in light of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

In its story about the influence of these “prominent media figures,” the Post failed to note there is nothing sinister about “semiautomatic weapons.” These are weapons protected under the Second Amendment which a person fires one shot at a time. They are used for various purposes, including self-defense.

It appears that O’Brien may have been confusing “semiautomatic weapons” with automatic weapons.

If she did make this mistake, it would not be unusual for media coverage of a tragedy like this. The liberal media frequently jump to conclusions. In this case, they got basic facts wrong early in the story, including the name of the shooter.

We have learned over the period of many years that the media don’t care about the facts because they are pushing a liberal agenda of “gun control.” O’Brien has an agenda and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary. It is a mental state that does not serve the public interest and should not be featured on a channel that claims to provide news to its audience.

It is important for people to actually watch or read the exchange O’Brien had with Rep. Mack to understand the liberal fixation on guns rather than on other problems, such as mental illness, or other possible solutions, such as additional security for those at risk of being shot or killed.

O’Brien quickly labeled Mack a Republican and tried to put her on the defensive: “You support gun rights in this country. You’re a Republican, and I think that’s a position very consistent with most Republicans. What does meaningful action, that actually stops these kinds of shootings, look like to you?”

With this kind of introduction, O’Brien was making it clear that, in her view, Republicans were partly responsible for the tragedy. She was exploiting the tragedy for political gain, in order to bolster President Obama’s call for “meaningful action,” whatever that means.

Mack, a rather moderate Republican, replied, in part, that “the question for me is not just gun rights but mental health…And I think if we’re going to debate as a country, gun control, we need to debate what we can do better on mental, the mental health system.”

That the shooter was mentally deranged seems fairly obvious. Mack’s point was that society should address these mental problems. It was not something O’Brien wanted to dwell on. She granted the point but then quickly said, “But let’s go back to gun control. What do you think could be done to make people safe? I mean, there are people who have said, and I think honestly horribly have said that if people were armed inside the school, they would have been able to shoot the shooter. Do you agree with that?”

Notice the reference to self-defense being something “horrible.” Why was it horrible to consider arming people in the school who could have stopped the carnage? Why would it have been horrible to save some of those young lives?

Mack replied, “Well, yes. I mean, that is one portion of it I guess. You know, I think those of us who fly often know that we feel some sort of consolation or safety knowing that there might be air marshals on board. You want to know sometimes if there’s somebody there who can defend you in a situation.”

It was a perfectly reasonable point. The fact is that airplane hijackings and terrorism have been met with more, not less, arms. Additional firearms in the hands of the right people constitute a deterrent.

For example, what about armed security guards in schools?

O’Brien quickly moved on, saying, “But isn’t part of the issue…easy access? We do know that his mother had five legally obtained guns. She was licensed for five guns. At least one of them is this Bush .223—Bushmaster rifle, right? A semiautomatic weapon. He had easy access to that. So I find it hard when people say, well, you know, if you didn’t have a gun, you could do something else. Is the answer then arming more people? That doesn’t make any sense to me honestly.”

It didn’t make sense to O’Brien because she refuses to consider anything other than liberal legislation to control access to weapons by the law-abiding public. Her fumbling over the name of the weapon probably reflects ignorance about firearms. Perhaps she doesn’t like guns. Perhaps she has never fired them. Perhaps she has never been to a shooting range. Whatever the case, she has no sympathy for those who possess guns for these purposes, or for self-defense.

Eventually, O’Brien came out with her own dubious “solution.” She said, “…I think this conversation at some point has to go to what is the normal amount of guns that people can own and how they’re registered and tracked.”

What is “normal?” O’Brien didn’t say. Who would register and track people with guns? By chance, would it be the Obama Administration?

This is obviously a poorly thought-out “solution” to the violence, but it is typical of a liberal in the media who doesn’t think straight and prefers emotionally-charged rants to a rational treatment of a serious matter.

CNN suffers in the ratings and doesn’t serve the interests of an informed public when it puts a blockhead like Soledad O’Brien on the air to spout nonsense.

Soledad O’Brien is a daily embarrassment to CNN.

Yes she is. However, her thinking is typical of the brain dead left.

More proof positive that the Leftist filth was lying through their teeth when they were up in arms over the Patriot Act in the Bush years. This vacant idiot news reader is very happy with massive Govt' intrusions as long as her Commie Dopes are in charge. If this stupidity is enacted and the GOP wins in '16, watch this mental defective whine to end it because it is racial and economical profiling.

Quote: steph wrote in post #4

---

Yes she is. However, her thinking is typical of the brain dead left.

---

If you read the founders thoughts on natural rights you will notice that many, if not all, the rights they discuss are ones you bring into this world with you... I.E. Life, Liberty and the desire to Pursue Happiness. But there are other 'rights' which they included as Amendments to the Constitution which were meant to protect those natural rights. The 2nd Amendment being the most important, in my humble opinion, because it is the last line of defense for your Liberties.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even with protecting your family from crime. It, instead, is all about defending your Liberty from a tyrannical government. The founders understood from their own experience that without the proper tools (Firearms are tools) they could not defend themselves from the tyrannical King. So in order to help future generations protect their Liberty it was essential that Americans be gun owners. Because if a populace is unarmed and a government isn't, then short of throwing rocks, the populace will have nothing in which to defend themselves against tyranny.

It is not only your right as an American to own a firearm, it is your duty. Because a "Well Regulated Militia" is not the Federal Army or even the National Guard. It is you, your neighbors, your town and your state.

Knowing all of this Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"When governments fear the people, there is Liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government. "


And I'm pretty sure a government isn't going to be afraid of a populace armed with rocks and sticks or even just shot guns and revolvers, do you?

So when Progressives push for more gun control they are not actually trying to make you safer from crime but make you more susceptible to tyranny from the government.

Which ironically.... works in their favor.

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #7

---

If you read the founders thoughts on natural rights you will notice that many, if not all, the rights they discuss are ones you bring into this world with you... I.E. Life, Liberty and the desire to Pursue Happiness. But there are other 'rights' which they included as Amendments to the Constitution which were meant to protect those natural rights. The 2nd Amendment being the most important, in my humble opinion, because it is the last line of defense for your Liberties.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even with protecting your family from crime. It, instead, is all about defending your Liberty from a tyrannical government. The founders understood from their own experience that without the proper tools (Firearms are tools) they could not defend themselves from the tyrannical King. So in order to help future generations protect their Liberty it was essential that Americans be gun owners. Because if a populace is unarmed and a government isn't, then short of throwing rocks, the populace will have nothing in which to defend themselves against tyranny.

It is not only your right as an American to own a firearm, it is your duty. Because a "Well Regulated Militia" is not the Federal Army or even the National Guard. It is you, your neighbors, your town and your state.

Knowing all of this Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"When governments fear the people, there is Liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government. "


And I'm pretty sure a government isn't going to be afraid of a populace armed with rocks and sticks or even just shot guns and revolvers, do you?

So when Progressives push for more gun control they are not actually trying to make you safer from crime but make you more susceptible to tyranny from the government.

Which ironically.... works in their favor.

---

Zitat

---

Natural rights aren't available for the taking, not without a struggle that will end with many dead.

---

Sadly FP their are those in government this would be an acceptable outcome to achieve it's purpose

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #9

---

Zitat

---

Natural rights aren't available for the taking, not without a struggle that will end with many dead.

---

Sadly FP their are those in government this would be an acceptable outcome to achieve it's purpose

---

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

I think whenever we write about some folks. . . like OBrien . . . or talk of them to others . . . we'd do right to put in front of their names . . .

"Globalist stooge OBrien . . . " or
"Globalist sock-puppet OBrien . . . " or
"Globalist robot OBrien . . . " or
"Globalist mouthpiece OBrien . . . " or
"Tyranny's stooge OBrien . . . " or
"The new Gestapo's OBrien . . . " or
. . .

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #7

---

If you read the founders thoughts on natural rights you will notice that many, if not all, the rights they discuss are ones you bring into this world with you... I.E. Life, Liberty and the desire to Pursue Happiness. But there are other 'rights' which they included as Amendments to the Constitution which were meant to protect those natural rights. The 2nd Amendment being the most important, in my humble opinion, because it is the last line of defense for your Liberties.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even with protecting your family from crime. It, instead, is all about defending your Liberty from a tyrannical government. The founders understood from their own experience that without the proper tools (Firearms are tools) they could not defend themselves from the tyrannical King. So in order to help future generations protect their Liberty it was essential that Americans be gun owners. Because if a populace is unarmed and a government isn't, then short of throwing rocks, the populace will have nothing in which to defend themselves against tyranny.

It is not only your right as an American to own a firearm, it is your duty. Because a "Well Regulated Militia" is not the Federal Army or even the National Guard. It is you, your neighbors, your town and your state.

Knowing all of this Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"When governments fear the people, there is Liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government. "


And I'm pretty sure a government isn't going to be afraid of a populace armed with rocks and sticks or even just shot guns and revolvers, do you?

So when Progressives push for more gun control they are not actually trying to make you safer from crime but make you more susceptible to tyranny from the government.

Which ironically.... works in their favor.

---