Bill Kristol: I don’t think people have a right to ‘semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time’

Bill Kristol said this morning that he is OK with more gun control as long as it doesn’t cross over into handguns and hunting rifles because he believes people don’t have a right to ‘semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time’.

Watch below:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

264 thoughts on “Bill Kristol: I don’t think people have a right to ‘semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time’

  1. Murder is already illegal. Does Bill Kristol believe that a criminal who is willing to KILL will obey a mere weapon ban?

    Knee-jerk reactions to tragedies are typical, but really Mr Kristol… think before you write.

  2. If any class of firearm is to be protected by the Bill of Rights, it wouldn’t be a “hunting” gun.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” never mentions the word “hunting” anywhere.

    Plenty of people on the abdication side of the debate choose to ignore that “regulated” means the quality of their marksmanship training, choosing to instead believe that burdening the militia (unorganized and otherwise) with all manners of excessive administrative codes was an effective way to prepare an army to properly load, aim, fire and hit a designated target with repeatable accuracy and precision, in order to wage and win wars.

    Currently, there really isn’t another kind of rifle would better fulfill the intended use of the 2nd amendment but an AR-15/M4 type, in exactly the configuration, and with all of the accouterments, as used by servicemen in their duties and in qualification, and civilian Service Rifle competitors at Camp Perry.

  3. Bill Kristol busy showing off his total ignorance of weaponry and proving that we can’t trust certain people with protecting our rights because these people will always condition us to death in small duck bites.

  4. The 2nd amendment was given to insure the people ability to revolt against their GIVERMENT… NOT for target practice or plinking..

  5. I want to see a picture of the man that’s strong enough to carry a 100 barrel gun that can “fire 100 bullets at a time”! It’s obvious Kristol doesn’t own a gun and seems to have fallen for the ban the gun mantra!

  6. so little Billy doesn’t understand that the 2nd was designed to allow us to protect ourselves from an over bearing central government? too bad but that is the reason why the 2nd was added to the Constitution and it also means we should be allowed to own whatever the government owns,

    1. It is only recently that I have begun to understand this.
      I never understood what a well regulated militia had to do with me.
      It was a slow process but the creeping socialism / Marxism has shown me.
      We need to protect ourselves from an overreaching government that
      threatens our liberty. I understand now. Our present government
      with it’s lapdog, corrupt, and devious press is frightening and dangerous.

  7. The old cold dead hand thing comes to mind.

    First they came for the so-called “automatic assault weapons” and I did nothing because I didn’t own one.
    Then they came for the high-capacity “assault weapon” and I did nothing because I didn’t own one.
    Then they came for my handgun and there were no gun owners left to defend me.
    Now I am no longer a Free Citizen, I am an unarmed subject of the government.

    BTW, all guns are assault weapons. If a criminal used a hammer to attack someone that would also be an assault weapon. Heck a toothpick could be an assault weapon in the right hands. The media hyping this “assault weapon” is code for “this gun should be banned!” They never say the truth: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

  8. Lord, I really hate the inside the beltway mind set. It’s time to drive ALL of them out. I don’t care if the initial is (R) or (D) after their name, it’s time to clean house in every aspect. From elected officials to the so called media – they all need to be knocked off their ivory towers. very glad I went off the grid over the weekend. I think I would have stroked out if I had to read/listen/process all this crap. The guy is an insane, evil SOB who needs to hang at the end of a noose. Period.

  9. No one on any of these talk show formats ever, ever, ever discuss why people buy high powered arms. Having said that, if I hear another lib say “why does anyone need a 100 shot cylinder, high capacity clip, etc ….?” as justification for their comment, I am going to pop a vessel in my frontal lobe. Govt (local and state) can make laws to punish an act of violence. Beyond that:


  10. I detest Bill Kristol. Everytime I hear him I cringe….he is hurting the Republican cause and needs to get off of his high horse!

  11. We should not be distracted. Kristol is again going down the path of trying to define the mythical “assault weapon”. A path that even the subversive California politicos have failed miserably at.

    Instead we should pay attention to the new attack the media is leading. Nearly all of the news stories subtly mention that the shooter got his ammo from “the internet”. That he was getting “one package” delivered after another.

    They plan to to use this to control sales of ammo, magazines, and gun equipment over the internet. A double attack on us! Internet and guns!

  12. 12 people (likely illegal immigrants) killed in one truck today.
    ban trucks.
    we see how banning illegal immigrants has not worked so lets ban trucks.

    better yet, if that damned tree had not been there everyone would be ok.

    ban trees.

    1. excellent point you are making.

      This is yet another example of total and absolute failure of the all that the statists have told us only they can solve.

      Create a crisis and they tell America we must turn over more power and money to them to turn it into yet another crisis.

      Time to ban them and their propaganda media.

    2. The Left loves to “ban” things, and they hate “freeing” things. If it were up to the Left, everything under the Sun would be banned, until you had no idea what’s banned and what’s not banned, and so end up becoming a criminal by default – at which point the Left have you by the balls because they’ll exploit your sense of guilt, and can imprison you at will.

  13. Kristol is a fine example of the following:

    II Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 3:4 Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 3:7

  14. As long as you’re not violating the individual rights of others, then you have a right to buy/own/use ANY gun you want. Even if your only reason is that they’re “fun” to shoot, you’re pursuing your happiness, and so therefore government should leave you free to do that.

  15. Kristol is obviously not a gun owner. And lets be honest, the shooter in CO could have done a lot worse with what he was carrying. If he would have had just a pistol he could have killed the exact number of people, maybe not have wounded as many, maybe he would have killed more. It wasn’t the “assault” rifle that killed people or the large capacity magazine that killed people it was that idiot. He did it. What if he had driven a car with homemade explosives through the front of the theater?? I mean to blame guns is again ridiculous and a knee jerk reaction by people who don’t understand guns.

    Their ignorance is frustrating. It doesn’t matter if you have a high capacity magazine or not. You can just have a bunch of regular magazines (30 rd) for the rifle and still blaze away in great speed. We don’t carry hundred round drums overseas we carry 30 rd magazines and can shoot just as fast as our fingers can move. Drop the mag, slap another one in and continue. You can change magazines in maybe a second or 2.

    Where’s GB Way to back me up on this?

    Edit: and no gun shoots “100 bullets at a time”. Even machine guns take a few seconds to get to 100 bullets you idiot, Bill.

  16. I think Kristol was, in his ignorance of firearms, refering to 100 round magazines. I never liked him because of the way he sneers at the others on these panels, especially Jaun Williams. And I’m no fan of Williams either. Like K-Bob said, limits are an infringement. George Washington specifically stated that the second amendment was to prevent another tyrannical government like the one we had just gotten out from under. If Big 0 or another socialist like him takes over, the honest citizens of this great country are going to be wishing for something a lot bigger than “a gun that shoots a hundred bullets at a time.”

    1. agree, and if the citizens ever have to oust the government here, hopefully they’ll have the military on their side, but they will need bigger guns.

  17. United States Constitution: Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 


    It does not say- except for semi-automatic weapons..

    Gun control does not prevent deranged criminal people from getting guns, it prevents the law biding citizens from getting guns.

    This is one of the reasons why we have the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, ie; the right of the American people to have guns/ bear arms, to allow the citizenry to be armed as individuals, and to assemble as needed against govt tyrants, criminals, and anyone else who becomes a real clear and present threat and danger to their families and freedom.

  18. Guns are guns. I can kill you with an automatic weapon or I can kill you with a nine millimeter. Question you have to ask yourself is, why would I want to, if you are minding your own business and I am minding mine? Why this very basic thought never seems to enter into the dialogue, amazes me. Okay, I will give you the fact that for every ten or twenty normal people in America, there is one crazy person. So, the rest of us have to live under laws based on that one crazy person in twenty? Give me a Goddamned break. Electrify the sonofabitch. Send him to Heaven or Hell or whatever he deserves, but don’t punish the rest of us for one or two crazy bastards who happen to inhabit the planet alongside the rest of us. Forgive me Lord, but these people make no sense, that I can see.

  19. What is he talking about? The Aurora murderer [I will not repeat his name] had an AR-15 and a big drum magazine for it… but he still had to pull the trigger to fire each round. It was a semi-auto.

    Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the gangsters during Prohibition used them to such dramatic effect. Nowadays, of course, you don’t see Thompson submachine guns, you see UZI and MAC-11 machine pistols, that fire even more rounds per minute than the old Tommie Gun. They are nice weapons: the Secret Service uses them to protect the President.

    The Aurora shooter was not a professional criminal: all his weapons were purchased legally during the two months before the massacre. He passed the background check: he’s never been committed. He’s a weirdo, but really, this is the US, and he’s from California: how weird does one have to be to warrant being reported to authorities as a danger to oneself and/or others?

    He’s the right age to have suffered a sudden schizophrenic episode; these cannot be predicted. Dropping out of school, wiring his apartment to explode, buying guns and a costume to suit carrying them (apparently none of it was Kevlar; it just looked cool)… all apparently well within the capabilities of a previously-normal person…

    Colorado has the death penalty, but I doubt it will apply in this case. Life without parole, locked in a small concrete box for the next 50 years or so, sounds like a fate worse than death to me.

    1. “He’s the right age to have suffered a sudden schizophrenic episode; these cannot be predicted.”

      A friend of mine mentioned that to me the other day. But after much thought, it made a lot of sense. Most parents keep their children in check trying to teach them proper behavior and control. But once they get out on their own, who can predict what direction they will take?

        1. I’m with you. It doesn’t give him an excuse. He did it and got caught, I don’t care WHY he did it. My point was, people can do evil things that cannot be predicted like so many of the shrink talking heads are saying. Someone else isn’t to blame for his actions, only he can be held accountable.

          1. Agreed. I heard someone say that him being a bat-man freak wanting to act out his fantasies could have been a red flag. Are they kidding me? Lots of people are weird like that and almost none of them are killers.

    2. Death penalty would be good revenge, of course. But I don’t want to pay for all his appeals on MY dime, and lawyers get rich. Nah….. just give him life without the possibility of parole and put him in the prison “general population”. I’m sure the inmates would be more than happy to take care of it.

      1. Especially since he killed a child. Being so, they will probably put him in isolation. Other prisoners will burn him alive or cut him up with a make-shift knife.

    3. “Life without parole, locked in a small concrete box for the next 50 years or so, sounds like a fate worse than death to me.”

      That’s probably true, but I hate how prisoners are babied now. Take away their weight stations and cable t.v. and put them on a chain gang doing hard labor….for free. All prison does is make better criminals. I want them to be afraid to go back. This guy will never get out of prison, but I would rather see him get the death penalty. Screw the 20 years at a million dollars a year holding them, just take him to the back room and put a bullet in his head. All the crap we go through to put someone to death is nonsense… least in cases where we are 100% sure we got the right man (such is the case here).

    4. Life without parole, locked in a small concrete box for the next 50 years or so, sounds like a fate worse than death to me.

      only if you don’t believe in Hell. Where this guy is going he will wish for that small room.

    5. actually fully automatic weapons are legal to own. You just have to apply for a Class III FFL and the ATF can come check on it when they want and there are certain rules that apply towards it so it’s a pain in the ass to legally own one but it is possible.

      1. Depends. The Ron Paul supporters have labelled pretty much everyone on the right a neocon lately. Nevermind that the original “neocons” made up the term themselves and described their philosophy clearly enough.

        Real neocons are anti-socialist, non-originalist (on the Constitution), large-ish-government-supporting Republicans who like the notion of the US flexing it’s muscle in international situations. They tend to support Israel, and many are Jewish. Thus, to a lot of crazies, the term “neocon” is pretty much a substitute for “Jew.”

        After the outcome in Iraq, I’m guessing a lot of neocons have done some thinking about that muscle-flexing. However, the one thing you can count on from those guys is that they believe, as Reagan did, and Allen West does, in “peace through strength.” They just need to be more careful about what that actually means.

        1. Thanks for the description. Personally I do not like big government, AKA the present administration. Secondly, I believe the Constitution means what it says, not what the “living document” crowd believe.

          1. Same here, with the tweak that I also favor a more forward-operating foreign policy. I don’t want the US to be the world’s police force—I just don’t believe in giving up logistical superiority.

            1. Agree, the best way to insure peace is with a strong military. something the democrats, sines the late 60’s have not understood.

  20. Another thing the AR15 is a semi-automatic and referring to it as shooting off 100 rounds at once is is flat out ignorant. I haven’t heard how many rounds he got off with the AR15 but what is being reported is that gun jammed so I would assume at this point most of the damage done was with the shot-gun and 9MM Glocks he had with him. Just because an AR15 is at the scene of the crime all these Nancy boys get their little knickers in a wad. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous.

  21. Progressivism is like dry rot in the heart of a tree. The tree looks OK from the out-side until a wind storm hits causing the tree trunk to shatter and the tree crashes into your livingroom. Kristol is full of rot.

  22. Time to stop referring to Bill Krystal as conservative. He’s evolved and should get full recognition for his milestone.

  23. Yes, you pompous azzwipe, we do have the RIGHT to own weapons capable of shooting off quick rounds. Reason being… Nimrod… is because we possess God given 2’nd Amendment rights that our Founding Father’s knew we would need in the event we ever needed to defend ourselves against a tyrranical government.

    Good Lord, who shall I listen too? This Nancy Boy Kristol or our Founding Father’s?

    1. Additionally, banning more guns or making more laws won’t stop a single slaughter. They always go where there’s no guns allowed, and they will always get whatever guns they want on the black market. In my view, the only way to counter them is to allow everyone else to carry in all places. Any outburst will be stopped dead in it’s tracks.

  24. So you think that shooting 100 bullets at a time is necessary for self-defense? This kind of a weapon isn’t even used for self-defense! It isn’t even a weapon that you can carry around everywhere you go in the very rare case that you will need to use it for self defense.

    If you support people shooting 100 bullets at a time with a semi-automatic rifle, do you also support murder?

    1. If you’re up against an invading army, a group of terrorists that went active, or a despot sends his goons against a community, being able to take as many of the “bad guys” down as possible in the littlest time frame can mean the difference between life or death, freedom, or being held hostage.

      If we give someone the right to tell us we can only have 10 bullets in round, soon it will go to 7, then 5, then 3, then 1, then none. Then you’re defending yourself with an expensive paper weight.

      1. Yep, if I lived with 99 friends with single shot, I probably wouldn’t mind, but since it’s usually just me, I prefer the 100 shots, thank you very much.

      2. Yep, and they already tried to ban bullets. They will keep trying to find backdoor ways to destroy the second amendment.

    2. There are no weapons with 100 round magazines or clips.2 exceptions, sort of, are machine guns and possibly a Thompson sub-machine gun, both of which are illegal to own and were not used in this massacre.

      That 100 round nonsense was a Liberal talking point this morning on the Sunday talk shows. “You know you don’t have to have a weapons that fires a 100 rounds to kill a deer. So why don’t we ban them?”

      Total nonsense. A total lie. Sorry you believed the lie.

      1. The second amendment is not about deer hunting. It is the same old song and dance from the usual suspects.

        1. No, it’s for something much more important. So we can protect ourselves from tyrrany and stop an out of control communist government. Libs deny it but it’s 100% true.

          1. To be perfectly honest I don’t believe his is a communist. However, I am thoroughly convinced that he is a confirmed socialist. And has every intention of making this country a copy of socialist Europe, only worse.

            1. Lol, I actually wasn’t referring to Obama. I was referring to the general reason of why we are given the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Libs deny that’s why we have the right to bear arms.

              Speaking of Obama, some of the things he does are communist (IMO)…or totalitarian. The left has attempted to go after right wing radio programs and shut them down. He has bypassed Congress on mulitple occasions. I believe if he could kick the Republican party out of government he would do it tomorrow.

              But you are right. He is one helluva socialist (and social justice pusher) mostly.

              1. Communism is a group movement. I honestly believe that Obama sees himself as the savior, bring the people what he knows, as the elitist he is, what is best for them. If they want it or not.

                1. Yeah, I agree. Obama knows best.

                  The left is moving that way in general, too. Banning salt, banning large soft drinks, and etc. They want to be the parents and control our behaviors for the better of society.

    3. Yes and no. Your argument does not make sense. Please go take away someone elses freedom somewhere else.

    4. Libs will not stop until they get full control or a complete ban. You can ban those types of guns but anyone who wants one will still be able to get it on the black market. No matter the law, they will always be available. So, that considered, it’s impossible to stop someone from getting these types of guns to slaughter large groups of people. When you have anti-gun laws and no guns allowed in certain places, that’s where these people will go to…..and have repeatedly. They don’t want resistance. Criminals have been interviewed and have stated that they target places where they know there’s no guns allowed, that way they always have the upper hand. If other people were carrying, I doubt this freak of nature would have had the balls to enter that theater and attempt what he did. But if he did, he wouldn’t live long enough to hit 72 people.

  25. Just another establishment liberal republican but we all knew that. I never listen to him anyway.

  26. Kristol is the perfect example of the ‘Inside the Beltway’ Ivory Tower, Privledged Silver Spoon Snot Nosed Pissant Pundit who has no clue how the rest of America even exists.

    I despise these types, because they would be the first to cry for someone to defend them with deadly force against a criminal trying to hurt his family.

  27. Mr. Kristol, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t tell us what type of firearm or rounds we may or may not own and use. The 2nd Amendment is there to remind the government we have a right to protect ourselves against criminals and despots, as well as an invading army. Against an invading army or a despot, or against a criminal with an illegally obtained firearm, having an equal or better weapon can be most decisive – as a method of intimidation as well as using its business end.

    1. …and guns most definitely deter crime. These psychos always go to gun-free zones because they don’t want resistance. You won’t see them go into areas they know other people are packing, and if they do they won’t last long before they are face down in the pavement in a pool of their own blood.

  28. The 2nd amendment is all that protects us from the likes of Kristol, Bloomberg, Feinstein, et. al. They need to look at banning botox and hair dye, because I think every one of them has brain damage from their over use.

    Meantime, where on earth did this nut case get the money to buy the arsenal he amassed? He had to be using credit cards to buy it online. If he didn’t have a real job, then he must’ve been using mom and dad’s or a friend’s cards. Unbelievable no one questioned his expenditures or his behavior.

  29. Kristol is quickly being put on Philo’s idiot list

    How about restricting the patrons from wearing costumes?

    He wants gun control? Thanks to gun control, the cinema management didn’t let any conceal carry permit holders bring into the theatre their weapons. If they did, the massacre may have been less tragic.


    I hope we don’t have any conservatives pundits taking this position.

    1. Many would call him a conservative pundit. I’d call him liberal redundant after that.

      Besides, it rhymes, and a rhyme is sublime.

    2. He should be ashamed that the Democrat congressman at the desk took a more conservative position than he did.

  31. Bill Kristol is your typical beltway Republican. You see, he doesn’t want to catch hell at the private cocktail parties so he sacrifices his principles to be liked behind the scenes.


  32. Yesterday within hours after the Colorado shooting, Democrats in Washington began calling for gun bans and new gun control laws.Today, they doubled down and picked up some more support.Sen. Dianne Feinstein now joins the chorus.But their thinking is highly flawed. Details .

    Our CIA, NSA, FBI and law enforcement agencies are still 85% good America loving patriots. It’s the infiltration by Communists that are the problem. This article raises some legit points. It mistakenly asserts that the FBI is behind this weird and tragic event instead of stipulating that it would only require a handful of bad apples to outfit a broke college boy with 20 K in equipment. The New World Order and Obama’s puppet masters have a lot riding on disarming us. They can not take over with millions of armed citizens and militias. It’s articles like this that make Americans not trust their government— which may be at the heart of it. They want us to turn against our law enforcement. The UN is going to vote on this and this may have been a concocted bad idea to help get tougher gun controls. Of course that would mean that Obama’s admin are evil –so that is hard for some people to accept. The thing is, survivors from the incident have said that the guy was let into the theater. He sat down after the chaos and waited to be arrested like a good little “Manchurian Candidate” zombie would. The cops also responded unusually fast. Tipped off? Odd.

    1. Cops were already on the scene, expecting problems due to the large volume of people, and hoping to help with traffic control.

  33. First Britt Hume goes squishy, lately its been Kristol. Must be something about that end chair..

  34. To refresh memories, here is what the Poll question asks: Should semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines be banned?

    No offense to whomever put the poll up, but that sounds like Bill Kristol might have written the question. It is not about the specific semi-automatic rifle, nor would it be about semi-automatic pistols. All rifles or pistols that are magazine fed can typically accept magazines of differing capacities. For example, a Glock 26 (9mm semi auto hand gun) has a standard magazine that holds 10 rounds. But you can also use magazines that hold 12,15,17,19 or 33 rounds. Several states already have high capacity magazine bans. The question as asked “should semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines be banned” would be more accurately stated “should high capacity magazines be banned”…. While incrementalism in restricting items related to the 2nd amendment is never good…. I would rather lose high capacity magazines than also all the rifles and hand guns that would be included in “with high capacity” magazines. The question, as asked does not make clear how magazine capacity is related to weapons. It isn’t about the weapon in other words.

    Goes without saying that this whole discussion of guns, capacity of magazines, etc is incredibly ridiculous. Google “states banning high capacity magazines” and check out some of the entries…. it will make Bill Kristol look like a genius ( yes, I know that is a tall order, but relatively speaking….)

    For all that are interested, here is one of the best fact sources available about gun control myths… well researched and documented..a handy resource to correct false assertions which are put forth whenever calls for more gun control erupt:

  35. There’s that slippery slope again. Is there a rash of semi-automatic weapon murders going on that I am unaware of? Besides down here on the border, that is. Yes, what happened in CO was terrible. It isn’t, however, indicative of our country as a whole. There aren’t mass murders occurring every other day. If there were, this one wouldn’t be news, now would it. Everybody needs to just calm down and chill and shut pie holes for a little bit. Banning this and banning that would do NOTHING to stop a person like the shooter in Tucson or Colorado. Crazies and criminals don’t follow the law. How many different times do we have to keep hearing the same damn argument?

  36. The Second Amendment guarantee’s us that right Kristol. Your illegal gun laws are the reason a coward can walk into a theater or a campus and pick off unarmed people. Do you honestly think he would walk into a police station and start shooting? By the same token, if he knew even half the people in that theater were exercising their Second Amendment right, and were armed, he wouldn’t have gone there.

    I’ll bet he thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to own a motorcycle that can go 200MPH too.

  37. Bill, your statement has provided the left with a talking point.

    What was your reason for making such a gesture?

  38. So how does this make Bill any more respectful of the right to have guns than Nanny Mike? Bill just has a farther goal post that Bloomberg.

  39. Kristol and these gun control freaks are clueless. What criminal is going to abide by any gun control law?

    Kristol, if you really believe criminals will de-arm themselves, feel free to publish your home address. And leave your front door unlocked.

  40. The amendment give us the right to bare arms. ARMS. If I cannot buy weopons that at least match an agressor, then my rights are being infringed upon. For example, the US government has anti aircraft missles and I can’t get one. Etc. Etc.

    1. It’s like the powers that be think the second amendment give us the right to wear tank tops. I’d just as soon wear a tube top.

      It’s the right to keep and bear arms 🙂

        1. That is actually not the case. Individually armed civilians fighting for our freedom are what tyrants fear most. That is why step one is always disarmng us.

      1. It worries me that only 82% see through this blatant attempt to strip us of our rights by a Progressive Republican.

    1. First – You’re dyslexic.

      Second – We are not in lock step on everything, that’s liberals. (Refer to first).

      Third – This site is open to everybody, and some people will invite their friends to skew results.

  41. Holmes is a spineless wimp. He wore all of the body armor he could get his hands on to shoot defenseless moviegoers but did not challenge the police. If he thought there was even one person in the theater with a gun he wouldn’t have done it. He was found hiding behind the theater.

    The call for gun control by elitist “Republican” Bill Kristol is meant to empower all of the elitists to take our guns. Gun control is government control of our whole beings. He might have put limitations on it but he will not speak up when they come for all of the guns. Kristol is a traitor to the Constitution just as obama, pelosi, reid, and all of the rest of gun grabbers.

    The 2nd amendment guarantees us the right to arms to protect ourselves from just these people. Follow the Boy Scout motto – Be Prepared.

  42. Bill Kristol’s opinion does not change the fact that the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights, and among those rights is one which shall not be infringed.

    1. Yet it has been “infringed”, all over the place…in spades.

      The left is now going to be quoting Billy K. to conservatives on every show and in every forum they can. The proper response should be, “Bill who? I don’t recognize folks who don’t recognize, honor and respect our Constitution. His opinion will perish with him. Our Constitution is forever.”

      Hey Bill! Amend this!

  43. The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. The courts have ruled that you, my friend, are your own first responder … your first line of defense. You have a responsibility as a good citizen, is to get armed/licensed with a concealed weapon and become proficient with it and carry with you at all times. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it.

    We must turn back the bad policy of barring concealed carry that has extended to our post offices, government buildings, public K-12 schools, and to the majority of our college campuses. And yes even to the local movie theater. What our progressive liberal Democrat politicians have created is “Gun-Free Zones” across America that are target rich environments.

    We must impress upon our progressive liberal Democrat politicians and their compliances in the media that America won’t tolerate more gun control, the banning curtain types of guns, or taking away any more gun rights because a gun may look and feel bad to the uninformed progressive liberal?

    What can we do? We can start by doing a few things that would begin to have big impact on the conduct of the discussion. Start, by stop sending campaign contributions to those politicians who will run to the nearest microphone/camera to proclaim their adherence to people having the right to have a gun for self-protection, but have a permit themselves to carry concealed weapon. We can all stop watching news shows or reading the articles of those commentators who insist on advocating the banning your second amendment rights and choose not to support your god given right for self-defense.

    Obama has said that he wants to transform our country. Our goals should just as simple. We should be striving to make each of our states and the District of Columbia become more like Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country.

    In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union.

    1. And that’s exactly how it should be. The bad guys will easily get guns, so why shouldn’t citizens be able to easily protect themselves against the bad guys?

  44. If the killer had driven a semi truck through the front glass windows of the theater would Bill be demanding that all of us drive Volkswagens?

    Is that it?

  45. I don’t know the difference between an AR or an AK but nor do I care. I think they have infringed already on so many of our rights, I wouldn’t mind if the farmers and ranchers had some how powered weapons that had the capability to shoot some EPA or DOI drones out of the sky!

    And when did they impose gun registration? How the heck did that happen? How about it’s none of their business?

    1. On the other hand, if you wanted to shoot some EPA or DOI drones out of their chairs, AK-47…

  46. somebody please explain how this kid can even AFFORD these guns and 6000 rounds and kevlar and whatnot. Something elementary does not add up. And if Bill Kristol can not get his mind wrapped around that, then maybe he has an agenda too.

    1. I read somewhere he was getting his advanced degree on a fed government grant, so I guess that means you & me and all of the federal tax payers. I’m not sure how the grants work, if they just cut a check to him or what. I’ll try to find the article and post a link if I can. He also got some kind of a “genius” award because he was so darned smart, which he was. Too bad he had to waste it away and take so many innocent people along with his demise. None of us know what changes a person with so much potential into this evil person.

      It will be interesting to follow the story as more details come out.

  47. Fox news has changed!

    Its time conservatives realize it and stop watching. Then maybe they will realize.

    The man does not even know what he is talking about! I honestly don’t think he even knows what semi-automatic means if he is talking about 100 bullets at a time? lol

    We should ban fertilizer as well. It can be used to make a bomb that can kill way more people than any gun! lol Good grief these people on TV are stupid.

    1. Fox News and Beck are still the only news that can be relied upon to at least give the facts more than opinion. Beck’s, Hannity’s & O’Reilly’s show are opinion. The lame stream media that is supposed to report the news, gives their opinion that is always slanted towards Obama and mute on the crap that he does. Bill Kristol is a progressive. There are many in both parties, news channels and society. Recognize that individuals have individual views and do not represent the views of the channel necessarily but is offered up for us to make our own minds up. I do not believe in censorship nor bad mouthing the only station that has tried to at least be fair and balanced —even if right leaning. Even Hillary said that Fox was the fairest to her in 2008.

      The country is center right still but with all the illegal socialists flocking in, it will go Left if Obama remains in office. Kristol is a progressive commentator. He is the same dipstick that said the Arab Spring would be great and mocked Beck for saying it would end in disaster with Muslim Brotherhood in control. He is not Fox News.

    2. Bombs can be made out of simple household products so they should be banned too.

      As to Fox News, I went from having it on from 5 pm til 11 pm to less than 15 minutes per day.

    3. I am beginning to believe that FOX is a socialist news source and that the regular staff are actors, emulating conservative talk and that the paid “liberal” consultants are the actual staff with the true FAUX message.

  48. Bill Kristol seems to ahve forgotten that the Founding Father’s wanted the citizenry to have weapons so they could overthrow their government if necessary. On those grounds alone I think we have a right to the weaponry.

    1. My read is that the founding fathers understood that if you could not quickly, efficiently and “en mass,” kill tyrants and their agents and sycophants, you would live as slaves regardless of your intentions.

      When the hoards of obamanites, currently honing their skills of organization in surprise, pseudo attacks at convenience stores and Walmart’s, decide to swarm neighborhoods, every man defending his own home will guarantee slavery for us all. The only defense against tyranny is offense, complete, mortal and merciless.

      The enemy loves for you to await his arrival. George Bush, bless him for this one thing, took the war and the destruction and death to the neighborhoods, towns, cities and mosques of the enemy. Within weeks, their toilets didn’t flush and the lights didn’t come on and the supermarkets didn’t open. Our enemies are enjoying our delay at this moment. Laughing as we defend ourselves against their petty lies and stand up for every principle.

      When it is time, we must force the enemy to defend it’s own home where we must thereafter bury it.

  49. So, Bill, you want to take that type of gun from the law-biding so that the lawless will have them. It will be the Brian Terry standard…the bad guys have the high powered guns that shoot bullets and the good guys will have guns that shoot…bean bags!!!

  50. The issue isn’t about the type of gun.

    The issue is whether we do or do not have the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    If we do, then we can own ANY gun we want.

    If we don’t, then we can’t have any guns.

    There is NO middle ground between having individual rights and not having individual rights. Don’t let these bastards fool you into thinking there is one. This is a very simple issue when you stick to the fundamental moral principle of unalienable individual rights.

  51. The AR didn’t shoot 100 bullets at time. In fact, we know that the AR jammed. We also know that he used a shotgun and a handgun too. Should those be banned too? What about the 30 bombs he had?

  52. We don’t have a gun problem. We have a people problem. If someone can find an instance where a gun just went off without any human intervention, then let me know.

  53. Bill: “I’m just being helpful…”

    He’s helping himself right out of credibility imo.

    1. Left the building?, or has gone to the left wing Of the building? He certainly sounded totally goof-ball this morning, not knowing what he was talking about!!

      1. I was trying to be cute… you caught the gist of my meaning though.

        I’m concerned about him because last weekend it was: “Romney release your tax returns”, now it this. Before all of this he made other questionable comments. What he’s been saying lately is not in the same vein as the conservative things he used to say.

        1. Agreed! Makes one wonder, why?, or who? got to him? or if he is just showing what has been his real thoughts all along, huh?

  54. What an idiot! The guy didn’t have a Phalanx, or maybe he means no 12 gauge with birdshot, counting each pellet as a bullet?

    I am not aware of any weapon that fires 100 rounds simultaneously, so what is the proposed limit, on rate of fire? I’ve seen revolver shooters launch 12+ rounds downrange faster than I can fire 7 from my 1911. What is an acceptable cyclic rate?

    This is why I don’t like or trust DC insiders. They have no idea what they are talking about. I doubt Kristol has ever held a gun or fired one. He doesn’t understand anything about them, and obviously doesn’t understand the Constitution either.

    Kristol could just as easily be a liberal, except he already has time invested in being a DC ‘conservative.’ He is ambivalent about the actual policies or philosophy behind them. That is why he gave us John McCain as a presidential candidate.

    The lunatic made bombs, booby-trapped his apartment, and then cranked his music up. He violated scores of laws already on the books. What proposed law would prevent this? In six months of planning this, Kristol doesn’t think the phD candidate who home-brewed explosives couldn’t have figured out how to build a high capacity magazine?

    This is the real reason why our federal government is out of control: they expect a response to every event. Gun shooting, more gun control. A sick person, more health laws. An auto accident, more rules regulating cars and insurance companies. Somebody was given a job, more regs on manufacturing, more environmental regs, and new laws favoring unions. Somebody lost a job, more laws on businesses and still more laws favoring unions. An electron moved, time to regulate computers, the internet, and everything else.


  55. Every-time there is a tragedy people get all wee-weed up about Gun control. Always trying to find someone to blame. While every life is precious and the loss of even one life is incomprehensibly, the fact is that there are nearly 400 million people in the USA out of which over 250 million are gun owners. We have an average of two of those massacres a year, and while even two is a lot, considering it’s people’s lives we’re dealing with. Two evil people out of 250 million is a pretty good statistic.

    The fact is that there are evil people out there, some people tow horrible things and no law will stop those lunatics from doing harm. You can have every law on the book, but evil people don’t exactly follow the law. introducing strict gun controls will only effect the law abiding people it wont make any difference on the criminals who are by definition “criminals” “People who BRAKE the law”.

    People should keep the victims and their prayers, people should reflect on the events and people should take some time to focus on what’s important to them. But we don’t ban air travel after every air crash and we don’t ban driving after every car accident. life is unfair, and in life tragedy happens. This was a sad sad tragedy, but don’t go and blame and punish the rest of us because of one evil man’s bad behaviour.

    1. What would the headlines had been had an off-duty police man dropped the little mama’s boy from San Diego wearing the GI Joe costume, the minute he tossed the first cannister?

      “12 People Not murdered and 78 people not injured in Aurora CO!”

      Why didn’t the headlines for the Internet Cafe Story read something like:


      Here’s the one I want to see”


      If we stop therm now, every minute, every breath, who knows how many lives will be saved?

  56. I knew as soon as the incident happened in Aurora, the anti-gun libturds would come out. It didn’t take 24 hours for it to start. I am concerned that the Small Arms Treaty is coming up soon, and people like this will add fuel to that.

    All folks have to do is look the crime rate in places where they have tight (almost impossible) anti-gun laws. Chicago is a great example. How’s that working out for you Rahm? Only the criminals have guns. Great….. When did citizens turn over their 2nd amendment rights to city councils?

    As I recall, there was a Mayor (Montana ?) that practically mandated all households to own guns (they provided proper licensing and training). Their crime rate went down tremendously.

    There is an important point to be made as well regarding the Aurora situation. Even if Holmes didn’t have guns, he actually could have done more damage by setting off a bomb (chemical or otherwise) in the theater . He certainly had the smarts to do that.

    Unfortunately, you can’t legislate against evil intentions.

    1. So what about this?:

      “After Supreme Court ruling, will gun-control laws be under siege?

      A Supreme Court decision Monday threw doubt on a Chicago handgun ban. The ruling could lead to a spate of legal challenges against gun-control laws nationwide.

      By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / June 28, 2010

      A Supreme Court ruling Monday linked to a Chicago handgun ban echoed a similar one two years ago, when gun-rights protesters crowded the steps of the Supreme Court (pictured here) to learn that the high court had struck down a handgun ban in Washington. Chicago may now revise its gun-control laws as Washington did.

      Tim Sloan/AFP/Newscom/File


      Gun-rights advocates say that a US Supreme Court ruling today will embolden them to challenge gun-control laws in cities across the country.

      The ruling says that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every jurisdiction in the country – throwing doubt on a Chicago law that bans handguns in the home…” (Christian Science Monitor)

      1. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruling was a win, but just a tiny win. As I understood it, states and municipalities could no longer “BAN” handguns, but allowed them the ability to establish licensing requirements and fees to do so. So the cities established ridiculous regulations. Like the following:

        You need to obtain safety certification from a licensed Gun Range, but yet won’t give permits to ranges within their city.

        They set the fees so high, that most regular folks can’t afford to apply for a permit.

        They make the process so burdensome it takes forever to go through their red tape.

        Hopefully, Mark Levin will discuss this topic next week for clarification.

  57. Someone should ask Kristol whether he would give waivers to the Muslim Brotherhood, since they are only a ‘secular’ organization and merely a ‘peaceful’ group of people.

    Bill got one thing right when he said, “I’m a squish on gun control“. Yeah, he’s a squish alright.

    And then the more accurate comment from one of the others, at the end – “Good luck with that, Bill“. That one I agree with.

    1. Wow!!!… You could protect yourself against several hundred attackers at once with that little jewel.

      “And as always, have a nice day :-)”

      1. What if they all had huntin’ rifles and such? I mean, hey, that’s all we’re supposed to have according to some idiots. Ipso-Fatso that would clearly be enough to tackle this little beauty.

        Well, that, plus a good huntin’ knife.

        It’s all about the huntin’ and fishin’ to Billy K.

    2. That was some serious fishing, right there. He caught, gutted, filleted, and diced his sushi all in one swell foop!

  58. Well, if you ban them, then you have to live with the results of your decision. I still think that assault rifles are not the issue. What would have happened if there was someone in the audience in the theater that was carrying a gun? Could he or she have put down the shooter shortly after the bullets started to fly? People were going to die given how heavily armed the shooter was. But someone in the audience with a concealed weapon could have dropped the shooter a lot sooner and perhaps saved a number of lives. There is a lot to be said for self-defense. The gun control fanatics out there should be forced to answer this question first before demanding more (and unnecessary) gun laws.

  59. Does Bill Kristol consider himself to be a conservative? He’s a RINO. He continues to come down on the wrong side of any issue he speaks about.

    I wonder if he is on Soros’ payroll.

    1. I would say no to being on the payroll but he’s clueless never the less. Spouting off in this manner makes him appear sensitive and smart to his left leaning colleagues.

  60. I like Bill but do not agree with him on this topic. I do own guns and hunt. However I don’t own a semi auto rifle. Can’t afford one and someone coming to my house will be met with a 12 gauge. My truck has a .357 in reach. Until Obama buys me an AR-15, I guess buck shot will do quite nicely. Clean up will suck.

    1. My last deer kill was with an AR-15. With a nine power scope, a heart shot is spot on within 200 yards. That deer jumped one time and hit the ground dead. I share your sentiment concerning the 12 guage. There is no better home defense weapon, although the Glock 21 with a lazer is a pretty good one.

  61. Rights? Since when does a conservative take the side of limiting rights?

    The man is a closet commie, a coward and a weakling. These cocktail conservatives from the Middle Eastern Seaboard are traitors and secret allies with Democracks and Muslims. They are inflected with the same strain of swine flu as the rest of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

    Cede these infested swamps to British socialist Canada and be done with them!

    Ignore them and concentrate of defeating the foul degenerate Obama and the slobbering hoardes in November.

    1. Love ya, words, but Canada isn’t socialist (right now!) and we don’t want them any more than you do. Still cleaning up the messes from long years of socialism/marxism up here. Thanks anyway.

    2. Republicans have been voting to diminish our rights for a long time, right along with the Dems. “Conservative” is relative. The day will soon come when the Libertarians are going to start looking real good to many “conservatives”.

      1. Yeah, I hear it got down to about 212 degrees in Hell today too! Nice try though, lb.

  62. So stupid. I’m not okay with any gun control. Period. The idea that less guns makes us safe is proven wrong time after time.

    The purpose of our second amendment is to protect from tyranny. I don’t think handguns and hunting rifles will protect us from a tyrant.

  63. What a shame, these people are so anxious to accommodate totally ridiculous new gun legislation, their rush to get their lips flapping on the issue overrides their ability to concentrate on what they are saying. I want to see a semi-automatic, gas operated, shoulder weapon with 100 barrels.

    1. These “conservative” pundits are globalists who follow the agenda to shut down this country and disolve the sovereignty of the citizens and their rights.

  64. a stiff gun ban worked to prevent Norway’s massacre, so obviously we should implement one in the US of A

  65. We have the right to bear arms, granted in the second amendment of the Constitution. There wasn’t any language attached as to what type of weapon, or how many rounds, or arrows, or rocks, one could use!
    One hundred rounds per minute? YES! But that would be a fully automatic weapon, not a semi.

    1. Virginia, I agree in principle and I don’t mean to nitpick but the language we use must be spot on. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it merely recognizes them and gives authority to government to protect them. God gives us our rights. This is the defining difference between the Left and Right and something that Bill Kristol does not understand.


    2. yes – the type depends on the threat. If the enemy is using drones, I want to keep and bear Stinger Missiles.

  66. What about 99 bullets? 98? 97? 96? In your infinite wisdom compared to mine, oh great and elite leader, let me know how many I can keep. When your done, let me know how many words I’m allowed to speak as well. Let me know where I can go and with whom I’m allowed to associate.

    I want an AUTOMATIC rifle with 100,000 rounds, Bill. All without the extortion and regulation associated with automatic weapons. I want hand grenades, too. I want a tank. Why? Because the power rests in the people and liberty happens when the government fears us, not the other way around.

    Don’t Tread On Me

  67. I don’t think Bill has a right to free speech either. Take the Constitution as it is, second amendment included, or forfeit the rest of your rights along with it. Forfeiting your second amendment first will guarantee you the loss of the others.

    I want to cuss him now, but I won’t.

    1. Kristol didn’t say anything in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment. He still supports people’s rights to own guns, just not “semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time.” The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that there can’t be limits to what kind of guns you can own.

      1. If one cannot speak of a subject with background then he needs to shut up. He and others like him are clueless. Remember, it was those like him that thought Iraq was to be a cake walk, open arms flower pedals etc…. They were wrong then and are wrong now. Liberals, RINOS, DemonRats and of course neocons are all ill-equipped to render logic in their decision making process.

      2. “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. To “bear” means to “carry”. How many cities have banned this? If you believe in gun regulation, then you would give government the right to regulate guns to the point of being useless to the individual, which “infringes” on our rights.

  68. Didnt OccuTards give us all the reason in the world for our 2nd amend rights.

    If all hell breaks loose, and a mob surrounds my house (or biz) and tries to kill me and my kids…..shoot us, burn us down what ever…. I’m pulling out the semi, no doubt!

    you’ll have to pry it from my dead cold hands! period AMEN

    1. I once saw a news report about this guy who had his house surrounded by 20 gang members threatening to kill him and rape his wife. He shot into the yard to scare them off. The cops arrested him and took his guns because they had a city ordinance banning shooting.

      Where were the cops when the thugs surrounded his house? They cannot protect you.

  69. Bill Kristol obviously doesn’t know a trained gunman could kill a lot more people with a semi auto handgun and six magazines in his pockets than this farkwit clown did with his fancy crap.

    STFU and let the experts talk, Bill.

    1. Anyone who is reasonably proficient with a Glock 9mm could hit someone with every round in a movie theatre full of people. A tactical vest with a few extra mag pockets could easily carry 100 rounds of quickly available ammo.

      What we need is a public who is not scared of the sight of a gun, and who would be willing to carry their guns wherever they go. I open carried this weekend in a convenience store. I forgot that I even had it on, and in retrospect found that people in the store were more friendly than normal. One guy even backed up in the eisle saying “excuse me sir”. Why would he act that way? Maybe he thought that I was a cop, but the bottom line is that he feared that gun. It is a sad thing.

  70. Hey Billy Boy, I hate to break it to you, but a semi-auto is a semi-auto, it shoots one bullet every time that you pull the trigger. Buy a friggin clue why don’t you.

    1. Beat me to it, LOL.

      Addendum: the only weapon system I’m familiar with that is capable of firing that many rounds at a time is “Metal Storm” an experimental electrically fired box full of barrels. Oddly, I believe it is a Canadian invention, nor is it a system available to the public.

      1. No probs. My expertise in weapons is mostly military. But I’ve handled many a civilian weapon as well…. And Bill Kristol needs to retire.

          1. Sorry, I thought everyone could sprechen Deutch. Just the first one but like most of the German innovations it was to late in the war to make much difference.

      1. A rock is a potential assault weapon. So is my index finger if I wanted to use it as such. I think that we need to ban fingers and rocks.

    2. Great point, 911.

      I was going to ask, “Exactly where do you get a rifle that can shoot a hundred bullets at a time?” But, I just chuckled to myself instead…..

      1. This threat would seem to have a misleading title. I continue to argue against letting people shoot 100 bullets at a time–because that’s what the title of the article says–but now some people are saying that the gun in reference can’t really shoot that many bullets at a time.

        1. Out of idiocy or deception they are only scare people and use the crisis fo gun control. Kristol is both an idiot and a gun control advocate.

          “Assault weapon” was a made up term by the American marxists trying to take away our gins – all of them. Kristol is trying to make thing sup too/ It is all vey simple.

          Any gun you can buy legally fires one round each time you pull the trigger. Some are semi automatic in that they use one shot to automatically load the next round and (depending on the type) cock the hammer for the next shot. I still have to pull the trigger again.

          Automatic weapons also only fire one round at a time but once you pull the trigger it will keep loading and firing the next round automatically. This are not legal for sale.

          So what exactly what type of firearm do you want to ban? Semi automatic weapons? If so you will be banning nearly all the guns in America.

          1. Many opponents of the 2nd amendment won’t be happy till we have been whittled down to one single bullet, in our shirt pocket (much like Barney Fife) – and then the pocket has to be duct-taped down.

            After they get that, they will want blunt-force weapons banned, because that’s all a gun will be.

        2. The title is a quote from a technologically challenged individual. A semi-automatic weapon, in this case the AR-15 and the Glock 19 (handgun used), can only fire ONE round for every ONE pull of the weapon’s trigger. The action of the weapon uses the pressure from the discharged round, to load a second round from the magazine into the chamber, to fire the second round requires the operator to pull the trigger a second time. The weapons are only mechanically capable of putting a single projectile downrange at a time as they only have a single barrel.

        3. The headline is what it is because Kristol doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and those are his words. Something you both seem to have in common.

      2. Thanks. And did you catch the comments by Diane Frankenfeinstein? The goofy twit actually thinks that the AR-15 is a “close combat” weapon. Close combat involves close combat. Close combat weapons include grenades, combatatives, the .45, a bayonet or a k-bar or the old military riot shotgun and a number of other weapons. But the AR-15 is a damn varmint gun. Great for plinking (when it doesn’t jam) and killing varmints. If she’s referring to assault rifles then she is also mistakn. The M-16A1/A2, the AK, and any automatic rifles are “assault weapons”. Style of weapon does not equal the same firepower as an actual assault rifle. These weapons that she and the other ignoramouses are referring to are “semi-auto” for a reason. They are made for sport, not combat.

  71. True colors shown. Piss off, squish, and let your betters do their job in securing liberty for all.

      1. I assume you’re referring to inanimate objects that will indefinitely gather dust without someone behind the trigger? I’ll take your lead, and just blame your keyboard for such a stupid response.

    1. Kristol doesn’t support large scale gun control. He’s a conservative. He was just suggesting one small move to stop semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time, not a large scale gun control agenda.

      1. Kristol is an uneducated idiot when it comes to firearms. The only thing that could fire that fast is a M134 mini-gun and I don’t think there are to many who cold handle it nor have the money to buy one without permission for your benevolent government.

          1. Personally, I don’t see this thing being anything other than a defensive weapon for may be the Navy against inbound missiles as it’s going to require radar or laser guide.
            Besides we have munitions that already do similar things. Of course, I’m not in the business of designing and selling such things.

      2. He’s not a Conservative, he’s a RePUBICican. Yeeeessss, semi-auto, so why is everyone everywhere labeling the weapon as an “assault rifle”? It fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like any handgun.

    1. I bet this squishy jerk is fine with arming Syrian rebels against Assad. But what absolutely boggles my mind is that these jackasses hate for US citizens to be armed?

      So what exactly are they ‘ok’ with arming the rebels with? Slingshots? Spit wads? I’m going to take a leap here and guess,,,,,,semi-automatic weapons!!!

      The hypocrisy by these mental giants is unbelievable!

    2. I agree.

      Do they honestly believe that if you ban something then it will cease to exist and that someone won’t get their hands on it?

      I’m not one to ever own such a weapon but I’m not afraid of law-abiding citizens to have one or 50 if they want them..

      1. There are lots of cases when banning something causes it to decrease. Haven’t you heard of how “When you tax something you get less of it?” There are multiple countries that have banned guns and subsequently there haven’t been guns. There are multiple states that have banned fireworks, and the amount of fireworks used in those states has heavily decreased. Do you support bans on cocaine and heroine? The amount of people who use illegal drugs like cocaine, heroine, and marijuana would be significantly higher if they weren’t banned. You obviously have no idea how laws work if you think that laws can’t decrease the possibility of someone being able to get hands on something.

        1. You are confusing “someone” with law-abiding citizens. The point you keep missing is that criminals, even in your frequently-touted gun-banning countries, STILL have guns. Always will. And they know the innocent folks don’t have them, which makes it worse.

        2. If the dollar does indeed collapse our government will also. Calling 911 won’t be an option anymore and the police will be gone. I want the ability to defend my family and my home with every option available including automatic weapons with large capacity magazines.

          All these critics live in a fantasy land where government is the answer to all their problems. Governments do cease to exist but they just don’t get it.

          Every day this Government gets bigger and bigger and the spending spins further out of control. While they talk about taking away our freedoms and rights they could care less about a balanced budget. I think our government is criminally negligent for not meeting their constitutional requirement to propose and present a balanced budget.

          We are one crisis away from collapse, be ready my friends.

          Making something illegal only takes it away from those that abide by the law. The evil people still have the illegal weapons and will still use them for evil deeds. This is just a step towards taking away our right to bear arms. A liberal democrat’s wet dream.

        3. There are hundreds of millions of guns here. What a moronic statement. We have God given, and Constitutionally protected rights to owning weapons for self defense. Not hunting, not competition, but personal defense. Against everything from crack heads to a tyrannical government. Get that through your thick skulls. The founders of this nation locked that shit down immediately. It is the second amendment and is a fundamental building block of this nation. If you dont like it, leave. It IS America.

      2. I’m also not afraid of law-abiding citizens owning semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time (even though law-abiding citizens would have no use for them). Nor am I afraid, for that matter, of criminals owning that kind of gun, because murder is actually relatively unlikely in America, even though it is more likely than in most developed nations. But I think the point of the whole thing is that no one is afraid of law-abiding citizens owning guns. People are afraid of criminals owning guns. Such as Jim Holmes.

        1. And how do you go after criminals, before they are identified as such? Their is a price for freedom, we have to be willing to recognize it.

        2. I’m not sure of why your replying. My original post stated that banning something won’t make it cease to exist and your reply is to inform me that a ban will cause it to decrease?? I do know that but it won’t stop those that really want them from getting their hands on them whether to go shoot beer cans or for reasons that always lead to this debate.

          You surely know that banning this weapon or clip or whatever will lead to more arms being banned in the future. If not, you have no idea how American progressives work:)

        3. So, how many cops patrol your streets? Do you have a full time armed protector at your house? The law cannot protect you. How do you read the second amendment? The founders wrote about their purpose for the second amendment. One of the more prevelent reasons for it was to keep government in check. If we give up our guns, there will be no check. You should check your history for how that works out for people in disarmed countries.

          As our society colllapses, you will be faced with two types of armed people. One will be government bearing down on the citizens. The others will be the criminals who will take your life for food, clothing, whatever.

          Prohibition of drugs is an absolute failure. Government funds the drug trade through welfare. People who have to work for a living can’t afford to be adicts. The abolition of welfare and the legalization of drugs is how you restore liberty and become a safe society.

          Those who would give up their essential rights for temporary safety deserve neither.

        1. Exactly, and this kind of ban would simply create a whole new class of criminals. When ordinary citizens are treated like criminals, they may just turn into criminals.

    3. I agree completely! We don’t need mouth pieces like Bill Krystol!

      My husband and I have purchased another gun to add our household since this ordeal happened. I fear that guns will be banned and ones we have will be taken from us.

        1. Let me ask you something? Are you ok with the US arming the Syrian rebels or any other faction that intends to take down a “Dictator”? Because if the US government does this, in a sense, as a taxpayer, I technically own that gun. Now if the intent is to just remove Assad, does the US government intend to register each of these rebels? Aren’t guns outlawed to citizens in these countries? So we could possibly have an unregistered citizen of another country carrying around a gun owned by the US taxpayer? If they only want to remove Assad using those weapons, as a taxpayer and owner, I’m gunna want that gun back. You know so that no ‘crazy’ guy will go into a mosque or a village in these countries and kill innocent people. One man’s ‘democracy’ is just another man’s ‘tyrant/terrorist’. Don’t you think?

          So if you feel ‘gun control’ is the answer to the kinds of events that happened in Colorado, I would think you would want some kind of ‘gun control’ over the weapons the US government hands out to other countries? Afterall, many of those guns, if not all, are indeed semi-automatic rifles!!!

          That’s not paranoia, that’s just knowing how reality works when bueracrats make decisions for others.

          1. Arming terrorists in the Syrian civil war is obviously a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with gun control or gun violence. According to your logic, do you think that giving Syrians weapons decreases the amount of weapons in America? Do you think Syrians will somehow use the weapons to kill Americans?

            The reason some politicians–more Republicans than Democrats–think we should arm rebels is because American politicians, including Republican President George W. Bush, support “democracy” at all costs–even if the democracy they are preaching about isn’t a real democracy (witness Obama supporting extremists in Egypt and Libya under the pretense of democracy). Furthermore, some conservatives as well as liberals have made the case that Assad’s regime is anti-American as well as tyrannical.

            In any case, Syria is a foreign policy question. Gun control and the response to the Aurora shooting is a domestic question entirely unrelated to Syria.

            I guess you just say the word “gun” in both articles and thought they were related.

            1. Guess what the reason the rebels have to be armed is because Syria had gun control over its citizens. Enabling the dictator to come to power in the first place. Those that what gun control laws in America have no idea why we have the 2nd amendment. A disarmed population is easily controled by the dictators out there. The founding fathers knew that.

            2. I personally don’t think we should arm any group wanting to change their OWN government. And I don’t believe our government should be in the ‘business’ of picking winners or losers when they have no real background in what they believe.

              As to the statement of a foreign policy vs domestic policy on guns, the UN is taking up a treaty to control ALL guns for ALL nations.


        2. Whoa, whoa! Sounds like you thought I want to ban guns or something! No, no no!
          I believe in FREEDOM!! Following the laws of our Constitution – free speech and the right to bear arms – both of which are in jepardy by those who sit in the highest office of our country.

        3. Paranoia is what allows for the survival of a people. Foolishness is ignoring a long trend that clearly points to our politicians taking our rights and going after our guns. Trusting government to protect you is the epitome of foolish.

      1. Why would guns be banned? You’re crazy. First of all, no one is arguing for guns to be banned. Secondly, in Congress, there isn’t much support for even lax gun control measures. Measure like banning semi-automatic riffles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time. Did your husband purchase that kind of weapon? I would think not, because he obviously has no use for that can of weapon.

        1. There are no firearms available to civilians, semi-automatic or otherwise capable of firing 100 rounds at a time. The only weapons system in the world capable of this is an experimental system called Metal Storm.

          1. Thank you so much for finally bringing up the erroneous assertion of 100 rounds at a time. I think the M-4 can manage what 450-500 rounds per minute or perhaps that’s to many, I cannot remember. That’s on fully automatic, on semi-auto, you have to squeeze that trigger repeatedly to fire each round.

            The first rifle I fired as a child was a .22 cal semi-auto. The magazine was 10. Just made it easier to stay on target.

            You want to stop crap like this from happening, get out you magic wand and your pixie dust, it ain’t gonna happen. If and only if others are armed can you put a measure of doubt in the minds of the criminals in that they might not be able to carry out their plan without getting blown away. People are ultimately responsible for their safety, it’s their duty to protect themselves and then we have the government telling us all to relax, they’ll take care of that. The police were just a few seconds to late. The business was ultimately responsible for the safety because they set the rules and guess what?

            I can understand the left’s instant reaction towards this event but as usual, they never, ever think past step one. What will be the consequences? Where in history has the government disarmed the population and then abused them? To many to list right?
            Liberal/progressives are child like in their behavior, their thought process which is why our government is now 16 Trillion in the red. All their programs of feel good caused to much pain to the fiscal health of the country but they had to try it despite the overwhelming evidence against.

            End rant. Back to your regularly scheduled nightmare.

            1. In full auto mode a M-4 carbine is capable of a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute (depending on the variant) although the largest magazine you can get is a 100 round betamag (freaking heavy), the weapons are commonly used with the standard 30 round magazine. So even in full auto the weapon would not actually be putting that number of rounds downrange. considering as well that 950 rounds would be almost 32 full 30 round magazines.

              1. Thanks, I thought I was on the low side and didn’t want to research it further that late, east coast bedtime. The 100 magazine is useful for added weight when rapid fire situations occur helping to keep the barrel down. Either way, short bursts are more useful in battle situations. Now if you have a secure mount well, that’s different.

            2. I’m still curious as to how this guy got into the theatre in the first place. Did he walk in through the front door? If not, then did someone let him in the back alley? Not a peep or word have I seen.

              1. Obama’s half sister, Maya, let him in the back door. You didn’t hear or read that?

                There be some serious speculation ’bout that. Jimmy boy clammed up so it doesn’t look like he’s going to rat anyone out thus far. Need to bring in the secret weapon for interrogation, HRC and Rosanne Barr.

          2. Technically, if you have only one barrel, then you can only fire one round at a time. Though I have seen the bullets that are triggered by an electronic pulse, which makes it very fast. A person can aquire a 100 round magazine, but without a federal firearms license, they can only shoot one round per trigger pull, unless you have a bump stock, which is a bit awkward.

            1. Even the General Electric’s XM-214 or Dillon Aero’s M-134 (aka mini-guns) cannot fire more than one bullet at a time even though their rate of fire is in the 100 rounds a second range. The Metal Storm system is unique, picture a box on a tripod, contained in the box are 100 barrels stacked in neat rows and columns. Inside each barrel are stacked approximately 10 caseless bullets. The system can selectively ignite the propellent of the top bullet in each of the 100 barrels simultaneously, effectively discharging all 100 projectiles at the same time, and repeat the process a split second later, over and over until all the rounds are expended.
              Meet the Metal Storm System;

              1. That Metal Storm video was fascinating! Ought to have that in Afghanistan now. That feature that the guns don’t even have to be manned is awesome. Great sentries.

              2. My goodness Ken, what an apt name, Metal Storm. I don’t get impressed to easily but this is amazing, beyond amazing. Holy Toledo!!!

    4. Look at the healthy balance of power that the founding fathers intended between the individual citizens and the government in 1776, designed to protect against tyranny (excessive governement). Time for the 2nd Amendment rights and freedom to be rejuvenated to ensure another 250 years of freedom and liberty.

      Kristol needs to look at the overall context of the powerbalance in terms of the founder’s intentions. Citizens do not have drones, tanks, ICBMs. He needs to show more reason,courage, and faith in freedom.

Comments are closed.