Tom Brokaw “The Fudd” Does Gun Control
BY Herschel Smith6 years, 5 months ago
Tom Brokaw at NBC:
I am a gun owner and have been since I was 12, growing up in South Dakota. I still have an assortment of shotguns and rifles, all used for sporting purposes.
My son-in-law, a New Yorker, loves to come to our Montana ranch and with Doug (our expert marksman manager) target shoot a variety of legal weapons.
During the hunting season Doug provides a wide variety of game for the ranch menus.
But, in recent years, my favorite gun store in Big Timber, Montana, began stockpiling the ever-more-popular military-inspired weapons alongside those used to hunt game and defend livestock. They sell the AR-15, modeled on the military version — except that it is configured for semi-, not full, automatic fire.
But Google “convert AR-15 to automatic” and you’ll find all kinds of ways of altering a semi-automatic weapon to fire more rapidly — and it appears that’s exactly what Stephen Paddock did in Las Vegas by purchasing and using “bump-stock” devices.
And while Congress is now considering whether to make bump-stocks illegal, it’s not enough to make the conversion illegal. Who will catch the change artists?
The larger question we need to be asking ourselves is: Why do we have all-but-military-grade weaponry available to civilians in the first place?
Yeah, Yeah: The Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms you please. Fully automatic weapons have long been illegal to buy, as have bazookas and artillery pieces our troops take to war.
All of our rights have conditions. That’s how we maintain a civil society.
I am a journalist, protected by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law,” it says, except that all journalists know they cannot, among other acts, deliberately libel a person or falsely shout fire in a crowded theater without legal consequences.
It is time for civility to reign — and madness to be snuffed out.
It isn’t enough for these statists to go after bump stocks, which action I oppose, by the way (i.e., making them illegal). They have to go after “military grade” weapons as well, meaning modern sporting rifles.
Did you catch the reference to “sporting,” and hunting, and supporting the second amendment with limitations? The only thing he left out was being a life NRA member.
How disconnected can these guys get? Doesn’t he know that the gun rights folks will lampoon his idiotic essay as written by a Fudd? Instead of Googling “convert AR-15 to automatic,” why don’t you Google “Fudd,” Tom.
And you can come after our modern sporting rifles and all-but-military-grade weaponry whenever you feel froggy. I’m waiting. We’ll see how civil your society is when you try that.
On October 11, 2017 at 5:35 am, DAN III said:
ALCON,
Of course Brokaw had to throw in the mandatory 2A doesn’t guarantee “the right to bear any arms you please.” !
As politicians, the media and the judiciary have bastardized the Constitution into near meaningless, Brokaw can ignore 2A’s “….shall not be infringed.”, as the aforementioned have done for nearly 200 years.
I have long believed the literal wording of the US Constitution to mean exactly as written. However, I have through personal experience as a plaintiff against government in a jury trial, come to sadly understand, that the common folk cannot assume laws, words, as written, mean what they say. Definitions of law is what .gov weasels determine it to be. NOT what Websters or Sister Mary in 2nd grade defined it as.
Truly, until traditional Americans rise up in violence against the continuing tyranny of those we call government, what little remains of Freedom and Liberty will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Verify your zero and make peace with your God. Time is ever nearer.
On October 11, 2017 at 7:56 am, Heywood said:
Another fossil that needs to go away. Do the world a favor, Tommy….crawl into a cave and die.
On October 11, 2017 at 8:25 am, Fred said:
“All of our rights have conditions. That’s how we maintain a civil society.”
Yes, we’ll see how civil indeed. I had the same thought. He doesn’t understand the inverse reaction to placing conditions on God’s rights given to men, that leads to the opposite of a civil society. Chicago and Venezuela recently but many more historically.
On October 11, 2017 at 3:24 pm, Randolph Scott said:
The other day I read this on the WRSA site –
TL Davis: “The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people…”
I would also state that I DO NOT need the 2nd A to own a weapon to defend myself with either. My right to keep and bear Arms to defend myself and my family is God given, I don’t need any government person telling me it’s ‘okay’.
On October 11, 2017 at 5:13 pm, Paul P said:
“I am a journalist, protected by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law,” it says, except that all journalists know they cannot, among other acts, deliberately libel a person or falsely shout fire in a crowded theater without legal consequences.”
I guess he is not to bright . He has the right , as long as he causes no harm to others with it . Libel is damage to a person . He CAN say his opinion is such and such , but cannot falsely state as fact an non truth . And fire in a theater? Well that is easy . You are telling a lie that creates panic and maybe injury or death . In both cases he still has the right to free speech , but there are consequences to the misuse of it that causes harm to others.
The 2A recognizes the right to arms . Then there are laws to punish you if you misuse that right . This is what he does not understand . Or maybe he does but chooses to restrict your right by using his .