While I certainly understand Lawrence O'Donnell's frustration with this lunatic I kind of wish he had come off as more calm while interrogating her, as this will simply be spun as another liberal attack on a strong conservative woman by the Right Wing radio folks and Fox News.
As for Ms. Trotter apparently her adamant support of a woman's right to be safe in their homes seems to ONLY extend to their right to possess dangerous weaponry.
This courtesy of TPM:
Gayle Trotter, the conservative activist who became the breakout star of Wednesday’s gun violence hearing in the Senate with her adamant cry that women need assault rifles to defend themselves, wrote last year that she opposed the Violence Against Women Act.
The reason, she said at the time, was the law would create the prospect of “false accusers” stealing taxpayer money by using shelters and legal aid.
“VAWA now touches hot button immigration issues, which have the potential to encourage immigration fraud, false allegations of abuse, and denial of a rebuttal by the accused spouse, whether male or female,” she wrote.
So to Lawrence's question about whether she was an "independent woman" or a "Right Wing Republican" I think we have our answer.
While it is perfectly reasonable to allow young women, with small children in their homes, access to military style assault weapons for the purpose of self defense, it is UNREASONABLE to support legislation designed to protect them from that very same assault in cases where they did not have the opportunity to blow their attacker away? So much for consistency.
By the way, for those kind of freaked out about that whole "home invasion" thing, perhaps visiting this website will provide a little reality check for you.
At the end of the day this is how I see it. The pro-gun rights, anti-assault gun ban people, can HAVE Gayle Trotter and Wayne LaPierre make up statistics and lie to the American people all they want in order to minimize the facts about gun violence in this country. Because on OUR side we have the unstoppable Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly.
Palin shows up in orange clothing, five, four, three…
ReplyDeleteHey look! Sarah's buttboy!
ReplyDeleteJoe Miller Re-emerges
...Recent polling on Miller is scant, but data collected by Alaska pollster Ivan Moore reveals how much the candidate’s reputation had suffered by the end of 2010. In a poll of registered state voters conducted in September of that year, 35 percent had a positive view of Miller, 37 percent a negative one, 12 percent a neutral view; 16 percent said they did not know enough about him to have an opinion. Three months later, just 24 percent of Alaskans in Moore’s survey had a positive impression, while 66 percent had a negative view.
“He came out of that election with the perception of a seriously scary dude,” Moore said. “Joe Miller’s credibility, or lack of it, as a candidate is not a problem for him until he gets out of the primary. Within the Republican primary, they love him. But once the unwashed masses come into the room for the general, he’s toast, because literally every one of them views him as a loon, and they would vote for anyone to prevent him from getting into office.”
Miller is expected to declare his Senate intentions in the coming weeks and would likely face a crowded field of GOP opponents.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/31/joe_miller_re-emerges_good_news_for_alaska_dems_116859.html
I particularly enjoyed Wayne the Peter's flip flop and twisted logic on the topic of universal background checks (he was for them a few years back). Apparently, since the current (non-universal) background check system (which has been crippled by NRA lobbying) isn't effective, we shouldn't "tinker" with it.
ReplyDeleteTo which I respond, "You're right Wayne, background checks are not enough, we need to have something more effective, more stringent, like a national registration database and a ban on rapid-fire military grade firearms and hollow-point ammunition."
“Therein lies the problem,” Scarborough lamented, “with having to defend assault weapons. Because if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.”
ReplyDelete“I’m sorry, but that’s true,” Brzezinski chimed in.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-laments-nobody-listened-to-me-defending-assault-weapons-makes-you-look-like-a-jackass/
O’Donnell Confronts Female Gun Rights Advocate Over Testimony: You Don’t Go To Senate To ‘Imagine Things!’
ReplyDelete“You do not go to the Senate to imagine things! You go to the Senate to report things. You go to the Senate to help them with facts for how they should construct their legislation. And you went in there… imagining something that’s never happened.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/odonnell-confronts-female-gun-rights-advocate-over-testimony-you-dont-go-to-senate-to-imagine-things/
I trained martial arts about 25 years ago with a man who worked on the Metro-Dade SWAT team. His advice: the best weapon for home defense was a shotgun. Everyone knows the sound of a shell being jacked into the chamber, and often that's all they need to hear to make them retreat. And if you do need to fire the weapon, a shotgun is far more forgiving when it comes to accuracy.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I still don't own one.
Gayle Trotter is wrong about women, violence and guns
ReplyDelete...“Guns make women safer,” she testified. “Using a firearm with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, a woman would have a fighting chance even against multiple attackers.”
But Trotter is wrong about women and guns, dangerously so. Far from making women safer, the presence of firearms in situations of domestic violence (which occur far more frequently than any other crime in the United States, Trotter’s “stranger danger” scenarios be damned) dramatically increases the likelihood a woman will be killed by her abuser. As Amanda Marcotte reported for Slate, the Violence Policy Center conducted research to quantify this point and found that 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense.
Trotter added that, “Scary-looking” guns give women “more courage” when “fighting hardened violent criminals.” Here is something else that “scary-looking” guns do to women: Coerce, threaten and intimidate them into remaining in abusive, often deadly, relationships.
According to a recent study on firearms and intimate partner violence, “Even when guns are not fired at women directly, they are often used as a tool of intimidation to facilitate other types of physical and psychological violence,” with many women reporting that their abusers would “clean” their guns during arguments.
Paradoxically, Trotter’s tough talk on women’s safety dominated her testimony yesterday, but she has been a longtime opponent of the Violence Against Women Act. In an April 2012 editorial she wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/gayle_trotter_is_wrong_about_women_violence_and_guns/
Yes...I feel much safer with a Barbie pink assault rifle in my home and I know that when the inevitable assailant comes to get me he'll be cowering at first sight of my awesome pink gun.
DeleteSheesh
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
ReplyDeletehttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Ultimately, the gun clingers are cowards at heart who live in constant fear. They need a killing machine to feel "safe" in case they need to "defend themselves". The cretins think they will be heroes like in the movies when in reality they would be wetting themselves while curled up in the corner in the fetal position if any "home invasion" ever happened to them. Or the really insane ones think (hope) they will have to fight our government some day. It's a very primitive right wing neanderthal mindset and I feel sorry for the gun lovers. They just aren't as smart as me.
ReplyDeleteO'Donnell in some respects was no different that how O'Reilly, rabid Mulkin, Coulter and a whole list of wingers do it to Dems with one glaring different -- O'Donnell did it with facts.
ReplyDeleteThat stupid bitch got her ass handed to her in the hearings and I wish O'Donnell had played the clip. She did not make reference to the specific firearm in her testimony and one of the senators did identify it and she could not confirm it.
To have a firearm like those on the list to be banned, if a mother has that 'sitting around' in order to protect herself -- not only should her kids be permanently removed -- she should be cooling her ass in jail. Add the fact when one of her kids plays with it and kills someone, whether a brother, sister or a friend's kid -- the stunned, stupid bitch of a mother would be the first one crying victim like all the mentally moron rethug baggers do. It's the only thing in life they excel in -- Victimhood. Brains -- you can't even say 'not so much' as they're devoid of all brain matter.
Joe Scarborough, ‘If you defend assault weapons, you look like a jackass.”
ReplyDelete...From a public relations point of view, Scarborough nailed it. Anyone who tries to defend assault weapons ends up looking like an uncaring jackass, or someone who is completely out of touch with reality. The flaw in the NRA’s fantasy intruder scenario is that they assume all criminals are armed with guns. (This makes sense when you consider that the NRA’s position is just say no to any and all gun laws.) What if the intruder doesn’t have a gun? If the intruder is not carrying a gun, the woman would only need one bullet. That’s the problem with these survivalist fantasy scenarios. They can be spun in any and all directions.
The NRA is selling a fearmongering fantasy that is making their membership and the Republican members of Congress who mouth their talking points all look like jackasses.
http://www.politicususa.com/scarborough-assault-weapons-jackass.html
I sat and watched this woman's testimony yesterday. I didn't know who she really, was, as she seemed a little too over the top. Found out She was a big supporter of Paul Ryan's VP campaign, and also she spoke out, a lot, against the Affordable Care Act.
ReplyDeleteShe was also against the VAWA when it's vote failed last year.
DeleteI'd call the massive contradictory. Wish someone had asked her that yesterday.
O/T
DeleteIn her final address as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will deliver remarks on American leadership at the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday at 2pm ET on c-span
O/T
ReplyDeleteMcCain is still that same asshole he's shown himself to be. Don't buy into this crap he's for immigration because he cares about the people. It's purely political for votes.
His first question to Hagel is about the surge. Why? Because he wants Hagel to admit to McCain that the surge worked. McCain's ego and his arrogance on display for all to see.
Only reason why the "Surge" calmed the reigon was the bribes paid to the Sunni's and other warloads. 7:07 is right....McCain's broken record cry "The Surge..The Surge" during his pathetic run for the White House was all he had. Now this pathetic cry for vindecation. Hate 'em all...any of them...all of 'em.
DeleteShe is an idiot. An AR15 as a home defense firearm? 12ga shotgun is deadly at close range and you really don't have to aim .... just point. Also an AR15 fires a .223 round at over 3000 ft/sec. this round will go through many walls and probably kill one of your sleeping neighbors. Shotgun ..... if the intruder is missed, will damage your drywall but your neighbors will be safe. Stupid argument for assault rifles.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is ... an atom bomb.
ReplyDeleteAll citizens need to be allowed to buy atom bombs .. then the world will be safer!
The following statement was signed by more than fifty of the nation's most distinguished constitutional law professors. The statement refutes unfounded claims that the Second Amendment precludes Congress from enacting legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States. Although these scholars hold widely divergent views on constitutional interpretation, and often fiercely disagree on a broad range of constitutional issues, they all agree on this question. The statement was submitted today to Congress in anticipation of the beginning of hearings on the proposed legislation.
ReplyDeleteStatement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation
Several proposed reforms to the nation's gun laws, including universal background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons, are now pending before Congress. Concerns have been raised that these measures might violate the Second Amendment. We, the undersigned professors with expertise in constitutional law, write to address those concerns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-second-amendment_b_2581625.html
Gayle Trotter, a tax attorney and only woman on a five-member panel at a gun violence hearing in the Senate this afternoon, argued women need guns to physically defend themselves from larger, stronger male criminals.
ReplyDelete“For women, the ability to arm ourselves for our protection is even more consequential than for men because guns are the great equalizer in a violent confrontation,” Trotter said. “As a result, we protect women by safeguarding our Second Amendment rights. Every woman deserves a fighting chance.”
A fighting chance, yes, but not a chance to fight.
In June, Trotter published an op-ed that at face value was about attacking the idea of allowing women to fight in combat, but was really taking issue with a woman’s role in the military in general.
“There are real reasons to avoid putting women in combat. Many young single women are specifically recruited to serve in our military,” Trotter wrote. ”When you mix young women with fit young men, pregnancies are to be expected.”
Trotter went on to argue that a woman’s role as a mother was more important than a position in the military.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/gayle-trotter-argued-against-women-in-combat/
The gun nuts are really doubly down on stupid with this one. A gun in the hands of every teacher played so well, let's escalate. After giving birth a woman should be handed an assault rifle to take home with her new baby: blue for a boy, pink for a girl, and for twins--a bonus high capacity magazine.
ReplyDeleteIf Trotter is the best that the gun lobby can find to support its case, I think they're on the run.
LO'D is the biased MSM that the right wax on about, but he doesn't try and sell himself as a neutral reporter, he is a progressive commentator.
ReplyDeleteIf conservatives have the guts to appear outside their protective RW talk radio and Fox News bubble, that's an example of expanding your voice in the national discussion (talking to you Sarah Palin, you incoherent pussy) and this woman, as fucked up as her reasoning is, has to guts to stand by her hypocritical principles.
If you are a member of a gang of strangers breaking into her home, watch out, but if you are her abusive husband or boyfriend - you are safe from her rifle.
I wish when someone say like Scarborough talks about LaPierre and his defence of assault weapons would also add to the conversation that not only is LaPierre defending the wingnuts but he is defending the increased militias over the past 4 years because of Obama being in office.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, at the hearing, Al Franken was the adult in the room.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned she was against the volence against women act. I was watching O'Donnell last night and this woman said because men are so violent. 4-5 men breaking into your house with her all of children screaming in the background, a young woman would feel impowered that she can handle the situation. I don't think so- most of the time you would be caught off guard. It's such a shock, you don't have time to think and with a bunch of children screaming, trying to reassure them, but you have to be Rambo now. Women will have to keep a gun close and make sure none of those children could ever get it she just doesn't have enough on her mind! If she ever goes out of the house will a babysitter play with it, or will the kids or neighbors? who will be responsible if something happens? These same ppl who want no reg on guns make it so hard to get even a min paying job of6/ 7 dollars an hr.,or unemployment. Hoops like background checks, drug tests. I just think it should be just as hard to get a gun as they have made getting a job!!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's why I purchased a double-barrelled 12ga shotgun when there was a nut running around in the neighborhood attacking women in their homes. I eliminated handguns as too easy to steal and too hard to use accurately. Any rifle as too dangerous to my neighbors. A shotgun is much better as a "home protection" weapon, especially since I have a small house and I don't need to shoot at someone more than 15 or so feet from me. Even a light load in a shotgun is pretty damaging at that distance.
ReplyDeleteGabby is one courageous woman. I saw where that slime Michele Malkin was making a big deal about the fact that Gabby did not write her own notes. Typical conservative asshole just like her buddy, Palin.
ReplyDeleteDidn't write her own notes? Wow, we're lucky she survived. It's no small wonder that she's able to speak at all. Would Michele Malkin preferred that she died?
DeleteI bet if Michele Malkin was shot in the head and suffered the long rehabilitation process she'd wouldn't be writing her notes either.
OT: Wow, this guy doesn't have a clue why Sarah Palin hasn't been an advocate for special needs children and thinks she should reboot her image by becoming one. Can't wait for the comments to get started.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2013/01/31/sarah-palin-comeback-stay-true/
Gayle Trotter Opposed Law To Protect Women Before Testifying On Guns For Moms
ReplyDelete...Trotter based her defense of gun rights on the need for women to defend themselves against those who would commit violent acts against them. Back in 2012, she was not as supportive of the federal government’s efforts to protect women with VAWA. The law, she wrote on the website of the Independent Women’s Forum, could promote false accusations of domestic violence.
Trotter opposed VAWA, she wrote last year, because it opened the door to false accusers wasting taxpayer funds.
“Americans all want to deter violence, but we also need to protect that foundational principle of the presumption of innocence,” said her April 2012 post. “Needed resources like shelters and legal aid can be taken by false accusers, denying real victims of abuse access to these supports. That result runs directly counter to the VAWA’s spirit.”
Trotter was also skeptical of the law for other reasons cited by the Republicans in Congress who kept it from being renewed last year, including provisions allowing illegal immigrants victimized by domestic violence to seek temporary visas.
“VAWA now touches hot button immigration issues, which have the potential to encourage immigration fraud, false allegations of abuse, and denial of a rebuttal by the accused spouse, whether male or female,” she wrote.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/gayle-trotter-violence-women-guns.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
It seems Michele Bachmann has a twin sister who is also too a tax attorney.
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain is an embarrassment to this country!
ReplyDeleteThere’s simply no elevating it. Sen. McCain’s (R-AZ) entire game here is about score settling and holding on to what is arguably the only thing he was right about in the last 20 years. The ‘surge’ McCain may have been right about. There’s a decent argument. But, of course, this is one move in the larger Iraq story which is undeniably one of the biggest foreign policy catastrophes in modern American history – and one which John McCain is one of the great authors of. What a sad little man.
The country is still paying a great cost for the ego bruise that Sen. McCain suffered in 2008. Even more than that, he’s stung by the mountains of criticism tied to his original advocacy of the Iraq War and all the lies that brought the country into it. It stings. Thus the endless flogging of the surge. This is payback. Nothing more.
Wake me up when McCain tells Hagel to get off his lawn.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/score_settling.php?ref=fpblg
That got to me as well
DeleteI noticed that Mark said that both he and Gabby had guns and they would never give up their guns. So where do you start? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point! They're responsible gun owners who defend the right to own guns. The difference is that the assault weapon and high capacity clip fetishists "believe" falsely, that all their guns will be taken away.
DeleteThanks for commenting!
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, arrived for his hearing on Capitol Hill in the organization’s trademark fashion: violently.
ReplyDeleteWhen he and his colleagues stepped off the elevator in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday morning and found TV cameras waiting in the hallway, LaPierre’s bodyguards swung into action. One of them, in blatant violation of congressional rules, bumped and body-checked journalists out of the way so they couldn’t film LaPierre or question him as he walked.
“You don’t have jurisdiction here!” a cameraman protested as an NRA goon pushed him against a wall. After the melee, congressional officials informed the NRA officials that, in the halls of Congress, they had to follow congressional procedures — which prohibit manhandling.
This must have come as a surprise to the gun lobbyists, whose swagger seems to suggest that they are, in fact, in control of Congress. In their world, nothing trumps the Second Amendment — not even the First Amendment.
From beginning to end, LaPierre’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was a study in vainglory. The written testimony he submitted to Congress came with a biography describing him as a “Renaissance man,” a “skilled hunter,” and an “acclaimed speaker and political force of nature” as he preserved freedom. “There has been no better leader of this great cause than Wayne LaPierre!” the bio boasted.
After his decades with the group, LaPierre is the public face of the NRA, and the man gun-control advocates most love to hate. His unsmiling manner, his snarling statements and even his memorable name are from villainy central casting.
Usually, LaPierre comes out the victor in these tangles, and on Wednesday he was so confident of another win that he boldly declared that the NRA would oppose the most innocuous of proposals to reduce gun violence: criminal background checks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-at-hill-hearing-wayne-lapierre-tries-to-manhandle-facts-and-logic/2013/01/30/e31a305e-6b2e-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_story.html
Lawrence's two other guests sat there looking rather embarrassed as Lawrence tore into Gayle going over the top as he usually does. So regardless of your position on the whole thing, you couldn't help but feel sorry for Gayle and how she was bullied. Still, she held up well.
ReplyDeleteWhat were you watching? Gayle was fabricating a story for her own benefit. She is a LIAR. She was skirting the question and trying to speechify instead of answering. She acted just like Palin and Bachman.
DeleteAnon 8:55 - You must have watched something different than I did. Not the Police representative, but the other -- he had what I would call a smirk on his fact -- as in delight that someone was taking that lying know nothing bitch down for her pure bullshit as it certainly was not fact based. She wouldn't know a 'fact' if it smacked her up side the head -- in fact -- she should be disbarred for stupidity alone along with many other issues. She won't be long in the legal field.
DeleteI certainly don't feel sorry for Gayle. She deserved what she got and more. She did not hold up well at all but I doubt she realized that fact.
DeleteShe made up stuff, she is wrong, wrong, wrong. Why anyone ever let her speak to a congressional group is a total mystery. She doesn't speak for this woman and probably not many others. I really despise people like her.
More than nine in 10 voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania support some form of background check on gun buyers, according to three separate Quinnipiac polls taken during the month of January, with roughly equal support among gun owners and all voters.
ReplyDeleteOverwhelming majorities of voters -- 92 percent in Virginia and 95 percent in New Jersey -- favor requiring background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows, Quinnipiac found, with support for the proposal also topping 90 percent among gun owners.
Pennsylvania voters, who were instead asked about a broader universal background check on gun buyers, gave that measure 95 percent support, as did the state's gun owners.
The issue of gun control remains highly partisan, with Democrats more than twice as likely as Republicans to say they're dissatisfied with current gun laws. But background checks have shown the potential to transcend that divide. In Virginia, Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to support background checks, according to Quinnipiac, while in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the gap between the groups stood at a mere 2 percentage points.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks_n_2590495.html
You want to see anti gun lunacy, watch this from Tacoma, Washington. Toy guns seized......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y2sWiZ8BizI
I watched the beginning of this exchange last night, and was rooting for him. It is a shame he went off on that rant, but I can understand how he felt. It's frustrating to deal with the ignorant gun fetishists.
ReplyDeleteI think when the heat on both sides simmers down, more people will be swayed to support gun control.
The gun fetish folks have to realize, eventually, that no one's taking away all their guns. It didn't happen under Saint Ronald's administration, and it won't happen now.
"To now see this organization that I thought stood on biblical principles about to give in to the politically correct thing is very disappointing.”
ReplyDeleteRight. It would be totally wrong to evolve or change in any way.Certainly kindness isn't something we want to promote or acceptance. (snark)
I would NEVER allow a son of mine to be involved in such a disgustingly bigoted organization. At least the Girl Scouts got it right. Which just go to show that women are superior to men. LOL
Oh crap! 404 error
ReplyDeleteI posted my last thing on the wrong thread; although, most of it applies here too.
If Sarah Palin wasn't so darn busy answering Josh Painter's request to speak out about guns and the NRA you know she would be an expert on the McCain/Hagel latest.
ReplyDeleteMcCain and then-Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.) were two of the most prominent voices debating the war at the time, with McCain backing the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies and Hagel part of the growing movement of dissent. And one of McCain's favorite parts of the Bush strategy was the surge, which sent 20,000 additional troops into Iraq. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/chuck-hagel-john-mccain-iraq_n_2591001.html
1/31/2013 news: assistant district attorney shot outside courthouse in TX
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/kaufman-county-courthouse_n_2590637.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
Middle school shooting in Atlanta, several injured
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/kaufman-county-courthouse_n_2590637.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
the alabama standoff with an armed gunman holding kids hostage on a bus is STILL going on
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/alabama-school-bus-hostage-situation_n_2587501.html
She's a right-wing layabout with a big mouth. Sort of like the Big Wind from Wasilla. No way does her performance say I carefully researched this and am giving a reasoned argument.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest question is who is she related to? Or who thinks she's cute?
- 1 bunch bok choy washed and chopped. 15 on Wednesdays,
ReplyDeleteFridays, Saturdays and Sundays. If you like peacoats
but don't like that price, try Delias.
Here is my homepage: ao khoac