So the results are in. Pat McNamara appeared on a recent Primary and Secondary Modcast in which he answered direct questions about what was and wasn’t said. Put down the pitch forks, put out the fires, and stop calling the man names. We’ve said before, we have no reason not to believe McNamara and every reason not to believe Comedy Central. McNamara says the video is indeed heavily edited. So let’s address those two inflammatory quotes. It’s all covered in the P&S video if you want to check it out. Warning, it’s the better part of 4 hours long. But we’ll give you the short summary after the jump.
McNamara said in no uncertain terms he does not support universal background checks or waiting periods. He is adamant about his support for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. What happened, and we’re paraphrasing here, is McNamara was asked one question and then another. Klepper basically switches things up, asking the same question in different ways or asking nuanced but related questions. The editing takes McNamara’s answer to one question as his answer to another. For example. Klepper ask, “What do you think about universal background checks?” McNamara replied, “…what do you mean?” Klepper then rephrased the question to ,”What do you think about people who believe in universal background checks?” McNamara says, in response to that second question, “I don’t have a problem with them…,” Que the Comedy Central cut that suggests McNamara supports univeral background checks. So it appears the McNamara is, as many of us suspected, the victim of selective editing from a show by liberal media with a liberal agenda to “prove” that gun owners and liberals aren’t really in disagreement with each other.
One could argue McNamara should have known better. But McNamara, to his credit, went into this with his eyes open. What he tried to do was represent gun owners in the best possible light. To represent us as the professional that he, more than most, has been for over twenty years. He admits to making mistakes and at one point, being “lazy.” But, who among us is perfect? At the end of the day, one of the problems highlighted by this whole mess is the collective tendency of people to eat their own when we find the slightest hunt of disagreement/theological impurity among our perceived brethren. Fact is, we’re not all going to agree on every single pro-gun talking point. We’ve got to figure out how to live with each other on those issues if we’re going to have any chance or preserving the fundamental rights we all claim to want to protect.
We posted the Comedy Central clip and, predictably, that video has ignited a little bit of a firestorm everywhere it’s been posted. To be fair to McNamara, we should say we suspect the video is heavily edited. McNamara has said much and that he went on record with Comedy Central about his support for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. We have no reason to doubt McNamara. We have every reason to be suspicious of Comedy Central’s editing and representation of McNamara as well as gun owners as a whole.
Even if McNamara did say he supported background checks and waiting periods, we’d willing to accept that, disagree with him, and move on. Why? Because we’re not all going to agree on every issue. Some of us think felons should regain their rights after serving their sentence, others disagree. Some of us think the entire NFA should go away and that we should be able to buy full-auto and short-barreled firearms without restrictions, others disagree. The point being, if we let a video like this be a reason to tear a man down, especially one who has never publicly done anything but support and defend the 2nd Amendment, we’re screwed. So, slow your roll. Hear the man out. We’re going to make an effort to get word directly from him on this issue and let the chips fall where they may.
Comedy Central has posted a video clip featuring non-other than Pat McNamara. You can see that clip here. Here’s the important part that is causing folks to ask McNamara for clarification. Toward the end, McNamara is asked about universal background checks. His answer? “I don’t see any issue with it.” And waiting periods…Is three days too long? “Nope…” Yeah, those answers were a little bit of a shocker to us too.
It took a while for the authors to stop beating around the bush and get to the point but, to their credit, the New York Times is finally being honest…They want an all out ban on guns. Actually, they are only being half honest. They don’t go so far as to state a total ban on ALL guns but, “large categories” therein. Certainly, any modern firearm meant for serious defensive purposes. Let’s be honest…This really shouldn’t be “news.” Objectivity in the media has been a myth since before Walter Cronkite signed off for the last time from South Vietnam.
What is interesting is that in building up to the singular point of the editorial, they admit that all the bans and other legislation they desire has utterly failed to prevent tragedies like San Bernadino from happening throughout Europe. Whether it be the recent events in Paris, today’s stabbing in London, or suicide bombings, these incidents still happen. While I am not among those who would say, “Oh well, nothing we can do…” I am not willing to be vilified, made scapegoat, and stripped of the right to self-defense or the means I choose to effect said self-defense.
“…It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Walmart has emerged victorious in a court battle against one of the country’s oldest churches over the retailer’s sale of assault weapons.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling that would have required Walmart to let its shareholders vote on a proposal for tighter oversight of firearm sales at this June’s annual meeting.
New York City’s Trinity Church — a Walmart shareholder — had taken issue with the big-box giant’s sale of guns with high-capacity magazines of the sort used in mass killings.As Trinity’s recently retired rector Rev. Dr. James Cooper explained to Forbes in February, the church wasn’t seeking a ban on the sale of assault weapons at Walmart.
Rather, their shareholder proposal sought to require Walmart’s board to oversee the sale of “products that especially endanger public safety and well-being, risk impairing the company’s reputation, or offend the family and community values integral to the company’s brand,” as the document first filed with the Security and Exchange Commission last year read.