News

‘In the spirit of Holy Week’: Fox’s Laura Ingraham apologizes to Dav …

In this combination photo, Fox News personality Laura Ingraham speaks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 20, 2016, left, and David Hogg, a student survivor from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., speaks at a rally for gun legislation in Livingston, N.J., on Feb. 25, 2018. Some big-name advertisers are dropping Ingraham after she publicly criticized Hogg on social media. The online home goods store Wayfair, travel website TripAdvisor and Rachel Ray's dog food Nutrish all said they are removing their support from Ingraham. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, left, and Rich Schultz)

(USA Today) — Fox News host Laura Ingraham apologized Thursday (March 29) for calling Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg a whiny high school kid less than 24 hours after the student activist had mounted an ad boycott of her program and began scoring victories.

Nestle, Joseph A. Banks, Expedia, Hulu, Johnson & Johnson, Nutrish pet foods, TripAdvisor and Wayfair all announced they would pull their ads from “The Ingraham Angle” in the wake of Hogg’s appeal to his 595,000 Twitter followers.

Nutrish said “the comments she has made are not consistent with how we feel people should be treated.”

TripAdvisor, through a spokesperson, said the company does not “condone the inappropriate comments made by this broadcaster,” CNBC reports.

“In our view, these statements, focused on a high school student, cross the line of decency. As such, we have made a decision to stop advertising on that program,” the spokesperson said.

Hogg, 17, is one of a half-dozen students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Fla., who helped build a national movement for gun control after the killing of 17 people by a  former student armed with an AR-15-style rifle on Valentine’s Day. Hogg was also a prominent speaker at a weekend march in Washington, calling for tightening gun laws.

Ingraham, who hosts a nightly show on Fox News, sought to cut him down with a tweet after he told TMZ that his bid to get into one of the four campuses of the University of California system was turned down, despite a 4.2 grade average and 1,270 SAT score.

“It’s not been too great for me and some of the other members of the movement,” he said, blaming the “tsunami” of applications to college each year that makes it hard for an individual student to stand out.

Acknowledging that he was “absolutely disappointed,” Hogg noted that students such as him are already changing the world. “If colleges want to support us in that, great, if they don’t it doesn’t matter, we’re still going to change the world,” he said.

In response, Ingraham thumped Hogg on Wednesday with a tweet: “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it.”

That, in turn, prompted Hogg to issue his boycott appeal, listing 12 of her sponsors, incuding Sleep Number, Wayfair, Arbys and Liberty Mutual. 

Barely 16 hours later, Ingraham folded.

“Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111,” she tweeted. “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David… immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how ‘poised’ he was given the tragedy. As always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion.

Hogg tweeted back, however, that “an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough.”

“I will only accept your apology only if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight,” he tweeted. “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.”

Earlier, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., had also weighed in with her own tweet: “I have to ask — @IngrahamAngle — honestly, what kind of a mother bullies a HS student who survived a school shooting and a massacre? These kids know more about grace and class than you’ll ever understand.”

The bid was reminiscent of ad boycotts of other Fox news hosts, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.  After Hannity reported a conspiracy theory involving a slain staffer for the Democratic National Committee, he lost at least five advertisers, according to Fortune. At least 44 companies also pulled ads from O’Reilly’s show after allegations of sexual harassment. Fox eventually dropped the show entirely.

Hogg, an articulate, aspiring television journalist, spoke up early after the shooting and had even taped real-time reactions from fellow students inside barricaded classrooms during the shooting.  He quickly became a target of conservative pundits, who noted darkly that his father had been an FBI agent.

Other charges included false claims that he was part of a group of young actors who show up at the scene of shootings to go on camera, pretending to be a student. Some bloggers also questioned whether he was actually at the school at the time of the shooting, a claimed dismissed by Politifact.

As for his college options, Hogg said he was accepted at Florida Atlantic University, Cal Poly and Cal State San Marcos.

Meanwhile, Hogg and his fellow activists are trying to organize town hall meetings between young people and members of Congress in every congressional district to raise gun issues.

About the author

Doug Stanglin / USA Today

151 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Phew!–we are so fortunate that it’s Holy Week. Otherwise, the advertisers backing out might have caused all of this (and that would just be SO unfair…).

  • Laura Ingraham should have followed Sen. Marco Rubio’s excellent example. When he was viciously attacked by Hogg and other Parkland students, Rubio stayed cool and took the high road, taking all their heat in person, on camera, without striking back and with full respect and a couple concessions.

    I know Hogg and the other Parklanders have been through real tragedy. People lash out at such times.

    But I just wanna see the televised look on Hogg’s face when a first-class, conscientious US Senator like Marco Rubio gets re-elected by Florida voters. It will be a good learning gig for Hogg.

  • It is so sad that she cannot try to actually live like a Christian the other 51 weeks of the year. Also, I bet Jesus knows she only apologized because she wants money…

  • ” “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

    And this is the falseness, right here.

    “I’m sorry that I…” is an apology.

    “I’m sorry that YOU…” is an evasion, a lack of integrity, a lack of responsibility. And “in the spirit of Holy Week”? How about “in the spirit of greed”?!?!?!?!?

    Oh wait. She’s Fox News. Carry on!

  • No, for floydlee and his pestiferous ilk, good Christians like him and Ingraham are always, ALWAYS the Victims.

    No one else.

  • No, Hogg started the entire show by mindlessly, viciously attacking Sen. Rubio.
    He **lost** a lot of bipartisan influence right there, that he could have otherwise employed to much advantage.

  • Was it a vicious attack on Senator Rubio or simply speaking truth to power. When you are in the wrong and someone calls you on it, I’m sure it can feel like an attack. But you are still wrong.

  • Criticizing a politician is not ‘viciously’ attacking him. Well, it is when trump does his childish crap. Reasonable people (ie non fox viewers lol) still support Hogg. He is smarter and more well spoken than any propagandist on Fox!

  • Hogg needs to be careful with his stardom. If he opens his yap too wide, and forgets that he’s not the only American who has seen big tragedy, he’s going to lose.

    Example: Today Sen. John McCain, a war hero, POW camp survivor, and a man dying of glioblastoma, tweeted about how some big Arizona river project would benefit his state, a normal tweet.

    But suddenly outta the blue, for no known reason, here comes David Hogg with a totally unrelated tweet, “Why do you take so much money from the NRA?”

    The boy’s gun-control gig just lost most of Arizona today. Not smart, David.

  • Do you get that upset when your President Dennison insults Senator McCain? I mean, he says a heck of a lot worse things than Hogg did, that’s for sure!!

  • But I do agree that that was not the place to criticize the Senator for the NRA money. It was unrelated.

  • McCain effectively won that battle with Trump, at least in the halls of Congress when it counted.

    So if Hogg ever wants to see Congress even halfway sign up for his gun control gig, he better figure out real soon that McCain simply ain’t the one to play games with.

    He’s seriously got to dial down that stridency of his — or else his little current stardom will NOT translate into any significant national-level results.

  • That makes sense about Hogg and the best style. We can only hope that the twitler will lose his momentum and the McCain’s will win out – so far it is not happening. McCain didn’t win any battle against trump yet.

  • Did McCain have an answer for that question? Do you?

    Didn’t think so.

    Your last sentence is a good exemplar of what is wrong with America today. Guns, guns, and more guns.

  • Hogg is an arrogant little you-know-what for responding to Ingrahm’s comment with a call to boycott.

  • We now know that Laura Ingraham is an ardent supporter of the NRA’s primary goal of the unrestricted increase in the number of gun owners. Clearly, there is only one purpose for the existence of guns, and that is to cause death. But, without the slightest doubt, Laura Ingraham would zealously claim to be “pro-life.” She is a hypocrite and a liar. In reality, she is much closer to being “pro-death.” You cannot be a supporter of the NRA’s goal without viewing the increase in gun deaths as entirely acceptable . . . or maybe as simply an inconvenience that must be accepted by everyone to protect the so-called freedoms imagined after reading the Second Amendment.

  • The kid has every right to go on all twitter feeds of members of Congress to push buttons on the issue. I like McCain but his history doesn’t give him a pass on NRA campaign money.

  • Agree totally with Tom. The senator finally played it smart by realizing he actually had to listen and leave his talking points behind. And as a politician of 20 years experience, he should have been well versed in how to manage angry constituents.

    Unfortunately, Ingraham’s comment does not stand alone as to public comments made by a number of Conservative politicians – actual and wannabees – as well as commentators. The NRA has also thrown its nastiness into the ring. as well. So, any backlash you anticipate may be equaled out by backlash against that backlash.

  • She didn’t apologize, Jim. It was a faux, or fox apology.

    I’m sorry that i….
    is an apology.

    I’m sorry that you…
    Is not.

  • That “little you-know-what” will dance on your grave Johnson – as well as Ingraham’s.
    You’re both mentally calcified – but may still be around to witness the dance.
    And you still won’t have a clue….

  • A boycott over a personal insult is not justified and is an abuse of power – regardless of whether its from the Left or the Right. I dislike Ingrahm’s politics and she was a fool for making it personal.

  • The boycott call was an abuse of power and vindictive. He needed to stay on the high road and let these right-wing goons hang themselves. I am getting so disgusted with the conduct of the Right and the Left these days.

  • You are welcome to feel that way, if you want to. But David Hogg messed himself up badly. He better scratch off Arizona right now. They are seriously okay with their senator’s donors.

    Like it or not, politicians have the right to accept money from the NRA just like from the HRC. Hogg will learn his lesson — the hard way.

  • Yes, if they weren’t Christianists they’d realize it’s you and your friends who are always, ALWAYS the Victims.

  • If we ever document a gun shooting anyone by itself, you might be able to make the case that “(g)uns, guns, and more guns” is what is wrong with America today.

  • The NRA does not have a goal, let alone a primary goal, “of an unrestricted increase in the number of gun owners”.

    With over a third of a billion firearms in private hands, were it true that “there is only one purpose for the existence of guns, and that is to cause death”, bodies would be stacked up like cord wood waiting for burial.

    You cannot be an opponent of the NRA without considering self-defense, target shooting, and hunting as abominations.

    It doesn’t take a huge imagination after reading the Second Amendment to suppose that it protects a right of the people to keep and bear arms.

  • What snowflake BS is this??! Who has the power here — a bimbo reporter from a huge propagandist fake news organization, or Mr. Hogg, a high school senior?

  • Hogg’s point is already more-than-well made.
    There’s no such thing as BAD publicity !

  • Marco Rubio has earned a heck of a lot worse things to be said about his career in Congress. If he can’t take a little heat from a teenager, he has no business in public office.

  • It helps that Fundies just can’t play nice with anybody.

    Your comment is a lot like when racists complain about others “playing the race card”. It doesn’t refute the label or the accusations. It just shows the person on the receiving end is whiny and spineless.

  • If a politician is so affected by a “vicious verbal attack” by a teenager, then they are too spineless for the role of public servant.

  • Oh, like you and the LBGTQ-to Z crowd do?

    No, your playing the race card is not like racists complaining about others playing the race card.

  • LOL! You are such a victim of the mean old gays, minorities and people who don’t want to be murdered. 🙂

  • Now that Holy Week has ended, can we just tell the truth? Hogg is still a whiny, little bleeding heart liberal crybaby.

  • After seeing some of your comments on a few other RNS articles, I quickly dismissed you as an Aggressively Sanctimonious Simpleton Habitually Oozing Loathsome Excretion.

  • If a nationally known adult television personality mocking a child survivor of a school shooting isn’t grounds for a boycott of said television personality, what is? Or rather, how liberal does the commentator need to be before personally attacking a child is wrong?

  • What nonsense, this “spirit of Holy Week.” She lives off whining and catering to her whiner audience.When she and they are not whinimg they are nagry and belligerent.

  • The primary purpose of guns in the USA as promoted by the NRA (a total front for the arms industry) is not to cause deaths. It is to cause bigger profitts for the arms makers. It’s true that mass murders are acceptable as part of this profit goal, but even the NRA wishes tehse deaths did not happen. To the NRA these deaths are “collateral damage” in a God blessed crusade.

  • Benchwarmer Bob (AKA José), enough of your blathering. It’s time to act to support gun control and gun reduction.

    You know what you need to do, and here it is, so get your lazy backside off the couch and get on it:

    One less gun https://www.youtube.com/wat

    #neveragain

  • “I bet Jesus knows she only apologized because she wants money…”

    And Jesus would know, because YOU “know,” right?

    I’m always amazed at the casual ease with which progressives divine (i.e., “assign”) the deepest interior motives of their opponents: “the NRA wants to kill children; pro-life activists want to make poor women suffer; strong border proponents hate Mexicans;” etc., etc. Until you figure out that human psychology is the most complex subject of study available, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion but parodies and caricatures. But apparently that’s enough to rake in the plaudits of your peers – and that in itself tells me most of the verbiage expended on this site doesn’t even amount to a “discussion.” It’s more like a progressive pep-rally, at which conservatives are welcome to witness their own degradation, but unwelcome to challenge it. Me? I watch, and occasionally comment – but mostly just notice the groupthink.

  • What other explanation do you have for her apology? It certainly was only motivated by loss of advertisers. She didn’t go home after work and realize, “you know, I have been a bad person today and should apologize for my petty insults to an innocent person”. THAT would have been remarkable and commendable!

    Your second paragraph has nothing to do with my comment.

  • I’m not a victim at all.

    Your nonsense bounces off me like a peashooter off an M-1 Abrams.

  • The statement “(s)ince the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started capturing that data in 1975, car deaths have fallen by 27 percent” sets up the straw man.

    The drop in car deaths is a result of mandated changes in car design, improvements in roads, tires, and brakes that were not mandated, not tracking car accident data, and a drop in per capita driving.

    The National Rifle Association had nothing at all do with the CDC’s problems. The CDC violated Federal law, which prohibits lobbying with federal funds, and some of its to people almost went to jail and paid big fines over it. Instead Congress just cut off their water.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913

    Once the Congress lifted the prohibition, after the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama ordered the CDC to fund a study for $10m to figure out what it might study. The result was “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”:

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    Some of its findings included:

    1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

    2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

    3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

    4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

    5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

    6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

    7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

    Apparently Sarah Zhang at Wired did not get the memo.

  • The NRA may not actively want dead kids, but they clearly have no problem with it. Gun sales go up after every shooting, and the NRA fights tooth and nail against any and every attempt to decrease school shootings.

    Pro-life activists similarly don’t care how many women suffer from their policies and tactics. Their express goal is to force women to go through pregnancies they don’t want. Anti-abortion laws have resulted in women dying. That’s not rhetoric. Women have died mid-miscarriage at hospitals because their doctors weren’t allowed to do anything to endanger the life of the fetus. Even if they don’t actively want it, they’re indifferent to it.

    As far as “strong border proponents”, well, you don’t have to look hard to find those people saying what really motivates them.

  • No, a straw man is bringing up auto related deaths when the topic is gun related ones. An answer to an argument nobody is making in good faith.

    If guns were regulated to the same degree as autos, we would not be having this conversation. 🙂

  • So,in other words,

    People who watch their friends get murdered, and think that maybe the bestest nation on the face of the earth has a severe problem with guns, unmatched by any other country in the first world, are the problem.

    Whereas, people who think that their right to own as many guns of as many different kinds as they wish, and who put that right above the rights of other people to stay alive, who have no objection to yet another slew of children getting murdered by someone who had access to a weapon of mass murder, but prefer to blame livers and law enforcement for those murders, are not a problem.

    Well, OK then.

  • I don’t agree on this at all. Jim. She is a millionaire reporter on a national “news” network. He is a high school senior who is justifiably outraged that the hyper-conservative, fact free audience she represents refuses to do a damn thing about our obvious gun problem.

    I don’t think there is any comparison between the two.

  • There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to own an automobile, or to drive an automobile.

    That is why guns are not regulated to the same degree as automobiles.

    The article implied that keeping records led to the drop in automobile deaths.

    It did not.

    If automobiles were as safe as guns per capita, automobile deaths would drop by 80% or more.

    The article stated that the NRA is responsible for the failure for the CDC to “study” guns.

    No, the CDC is responsible, and when the ban was lifted, the report which I provided the url to pretty much ended gun controllers’ interest in more studies.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • “What other explanation do you have for her apology?”

    There are a number of other “explanations” for her behavior – such as believing that if you make a mistake that injures someone somehow, the most righteous way forward is to apologize, retract the mistake and thereby re-wind the discussion to its starting point. That’s another angle on the possibility you held in contempt. I’ll give you a pass on dismissing that option because you are obviously a long way from understanding what motivates Christian believers, or how it does so. The contempt is another matter. You’ll have to deal with that one on your own

    But the prior question is, why should we even assume there IS a single, simple, “explanation” for people’s behavior? There are undoubtedly dozens of factors that we could identify (and likely hundreds we can not) that influenced Ingraham’s reaction, from childhood experiences, to educational upbringing, to religious and intellectual influences during her maturity, and so on. All of them went into shaping her response, and the world-view that reduces her motive purely to material concerns is not only crass reductionism, it’s positively Marxist in its conception of human nature. You’re welcome to it. But, while it will give you plenty of demonizing rhetoric to throw at your opponents, it won’t get you very far in actually understanding what you’re talking about

    And here’s a final question: since tracing the sources of an individual’s behavior is akin to unraveling the Gordian Knot, why don’t we just abandon the useless effort and take the behavior at face value? Ingraham took Hogg’s ”offense” at face value; the rational response would be to reciprocate.

    As to my 2nd paragraph – its relevance to your comment, and even more to the attitude it reveals, is obvious enough, and should require no further comment.

  • “I’ll give you a pass on dismissing that option because you are obviously a long way from understanding what motivates Christian believers, or how it does so. ”

    Hilarious. I actually described for you what a Christian motivation would have been. Hers was obviously not. If she performed a good and honest examination of conscience she would have apologized sincerely and made it right.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name over the long term since it is suggestive of an illegal immigrant.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account? Disqus would like to clean it up, and your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • YOU don’t have to look hard to uncover a person’s most profound motivational triggers, because your world-view supplies them for you — a ready-made collection of pop-psycho-political cliches for pigeon-holing your opposition. Real psychologists, on the other hand, have a much more daunting task ahead of them in sort the effects of all these intangible factors. That”s why the psychological profession frowns on making declarations on the mental state of “patients” who have not been treated or examined by the declarer. Take it to heart.

  • I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t change the fact that “there is only one purpose for the existence of guns, and that is to cause death.”

  • Hey I can understand why you rely entirely on avoidance and deflection. I would be embarrassed too if I had to defend the ridiculous notion that the second amendment means gun happy lunatics can act irresponsibly and dangerously without consequences. But that is the turd you chose to try and polish.

    Regulation is part of the right to bear arms. There is far more in the plain language of the 2ND Amendment to promote it then there is for the usual NRA talking points. I can’t help it if they choose to enable the illegal gun trade and mass murder. But I guess even reprehensible organizations need love too. 🙂

  • What you described was your “take” on, your concept of, a Christian motivation. But you can’t reliably evaluate a mental state you personally know nothing about – which is why your accusations are just so much emotionally charged “static” if we are trying to carry on a real discussion. Your kind of virtue-signalling is emotionally gratifying but rhetorically irrelevant. What you think you “know”about the mindset of your opponents is a groupthink cliche.

  • Hmmm, I think I know quite a bit about moral behavior and Christian morality. There is right and wrong behavior. Ingraham clearly demonstrated wrong behavior in her pettiness against this kid. She only apologized like a good Christian should when faced with unemployment. Christian morality dictates that one do the right thing even behind closed doors. You’ll learn one day!!!

  • Either there is no constitutional right to own and use an automobile, or it’s not avoidance and deflection.

    I would be embarrassed too if I had used a half-baked silly argument from Wired to support an even sillier have baked notion that “gun happy lunatics can act irresponsibly and dangerously without consequences”.

    But that is the turd you chose to try and polish.

    Regulation is part of EVERY right. The Second Amendment is not unique.

  • Actually there is. There is an inherent right to own personal property without government appropriation. Part of the third amendment people tend to ignore.
    The second amendment never precluded regulation or even as it seems bans on owning certain kinds of weapons.

    SCOTUS upheld assault weapons bans in three states so far. You have no shame so you have no problem with such ridiculous premises and dishonest arguments. We all know that already.

  • When you dig a hole and climb into, you REALLY like to dig it deep.

    Here’s the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution:

    “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

    I will go get some popcorn while you try to explain how that constitutes “an inherent right to own personal property without government appropriation”.

    To this point the SCOTUS has not undertaken a review of the so-called “assault weapon” bans which the 4th and 9th district courts viewed favorably.

    Therefore, the SCOTUS has upheld neither.

    Don’t come to me with automobiles and NTSA and try the “ridiculous premises and dishonest arguments” cr-pola.

  • Excellent illustration of Christian morality. Only have to do the right thing when it is officially ordered. Every other day is same-old nasty behavior. Incredible.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using that José Carioca account yet? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account yet? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account yet? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using a name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account yet? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant over the long term.

  • User Bob Arnzen, have you finished using the José Carioca account yet? Disqus would like to clean it up, and also your NRA financial backers won’t want you using that name suggestive of an illegal immigrant in the long term.

  • Really? He criticizes the ammosexuals and You say he is acting like a Nazi, spewing propaganda? You say scratch a liberal, find a hypocrite?

    Oh honey. You have a really bad problem with projection.

  • A) Who says? B) Who cares?

    Thus, so what? What’s your point – assuming you’ve got one?

  • Apparently we have a problem with murders.

    On the other hand guns have not committed any murders.

    Your analysis of the “problem” is illogical, ill-founded, and nonsensical.

  • So we are Communist now? There is no right to personal property? Appropriating one’s house for the purposes of government needs is the heart of the 3rd Amendment. Quartering troops was an appropriation of personal property and was a form of surveillance.

    Your entire argument is pure derp. “We can’t regulate gun ownership because of the 2nd Amendment, even though it specifically mentions a right to bear arms being part of a well regulated purpose”. There is nothing sane, reasonable or intelligent which comes from such a view.

    The long and the short of it is, your idea can be used to justify nonsense like letting children buy guns. Age restrictions are regulation which attack that right to bear arms! derp derp derp.

    My idea is the sane and realistic one. That like any right to own a dangerous piece of personal property comes with responsibilities and regulations. That law enforcement and public safety come far far before the privilege and right to own firearms.

    But I guess when someone feels the need to tow such a ridiculous line as your own, deflection, dishonest presentation and semantic silliness is expected.

  • Well at least you debunked the progressive platitude that the NRA likes killing kids. But you’re still stuck with an appeal to psychic powers if you’re discerning a supposed “corporate motivation” behind the positions the organization takes. The NRA consists of over 5 million members. It only exists to protect their rights. That is the motive behind everything they do – period. Your projection of how its 5 million members “corporately feel” about dead children is pure oracular divination – plus an exercise in self-congratulation.

  • Well, it IS pretty much the only thing any of them can counter with. I think it’s quite funny.

    I personally don’t care who anyone is or what name anyone takes — I prefer to discuss ideas. Larry’s comments are just as vulgar and hate filled whether signed Larry or the potato he currently favors. Darr was the same Magic 8 Ball as Darr or as any one of his other monikers. And I only WISH Max’s constantly changing hats added something to his empty arguments but of course they never do.

    Bob should simply take it as the backhanded compliment it is.

  • The three most risible things in popular political discourse:

    1) People of no religion telling the religious how they need to behave;

    2) People of one political party telling the other party how they need to behave;

    3) Cultural insurgents telling cultural conservatives how they need to behave.

    In that order.

  • The Third Amendment has zero to do with an alleged “inherent right to own personal property without government appropriation”.

    The single case under the Third Amendment I can find, Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    It went against the plaintiffs, indicating that unlike the Second Amendment which states that it “shall not be infringed”, the Third could be.

    Since I haven’t made the argument “We can’t regulate gun ownership because of the 2nd Amendment”, your entire argument is pure derp.

    “The long and the short of it is, your idea can be used to justify nonsense like letting children buy guns.” is also imaginary.

    The notion that the Second Amendment can be infringed because it “specifically mentions a right to bear arms being part of a well regulated purpose” is also nonsense, and that has been pointed out to you so many times there’s no excuse left for your ignorantly stating it.

    “To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.”

    “Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” – District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    If “public safety come far far before the privilege and right to own firearms”, it trumps the First Amendment as well, and we should start curbing inflammatory, erroneous, and otherwise potentially dangerous speech forthwith.

    Thank you for your own, deflection, dishonest presentation and semantic silliness.

  • The firearms manufacturers have their own organization.

    The NRA, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, promotes and defends the Second Amendment, as well as the entire Bill of Rights.

    Its 5 million citizen members support with annual dues.

    They vote, and their neighbors vote.

    The entire notion that “primary purpose of guns in the USA as promoted by the NRA (a total front
    for the arms industry) is … to cause bigger
    profitts (sic) for the arms makers” is a carefully perpetrated lie by the Bloomberg-funded anti-gun lobby.

  • That explains the shooting sports in the Olympics, hunting, target shooting, and so on.

  • What obvious gun problem is that?

    That ordinary citizens own them and use them for all manner of lawful purposes?

  • Contributions to the ACLU, another civil rights organization like the NRA, go up after every attempt by the government to stomp on the right to free speech.

    And the ACLU fights tooth and nail against any every attempt to curb free speech.

    The NRA does, in fact, support attempts to decrease school shootings.

    It just doesn’t support the ones you happen to favor.

  • NRA doesn’t support any legislation written to decrease school shootings. They want more guns in school. Their only idea for decreasing the kind of shootings we have now is to put more guns in schools, which will just result in more guns firing at kids, like the one shot accidentally a couple weeks ago. The NRA accepts school shootings as part of life and has fought every attempt at limiting military style assault weapons being sold in bulk to any teenager who walks in, without any kind of training or background check.

  • Thanks to Ben Carson, brain surgeon is no longer a shorthand for being smart. 🙂

    At least we still have rocket scientists.

  • Quartering troops is government appropriation at its most obvious. Forcing one to use their private property to meet a government need at the expense of your civil liberties.

    The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia has zero to do with “free for all for gun happy sociopaths” but that is how the NRA reads it.)

    Your position is beyond brain dead. A right to bear arms must be a heavily regulated one to ensure the kind of domestic peace and rule of law needed to protect all other rights. But I guess you find rampant urban shootings and mass murder perfectly acceptable consequences. Sane people do not. Oh well.

  • So, if I pointed out the obvious fact that “there is only one purpose for the existence of cars, and that is for transportation,” then I suppose you would respond by saying, “that explains the racing sports . . .”

    The fact that some people created those additional activities doesn’t change the reason why guns and cars exist in the first place.

    And, by the way, “hunting” does not belong in your list of additional activities involving guns . . . because hunting causes death. In my opinion, sport-hunting is disgusting, and should be illegal.

  • Cute. But when you hear the racial slurs and white supremacist rhetoric from the people you euphemistically call “strong border proponents”, it’s pretty obvious they’re motivated by racism. I’m sure they have some kind of self-justifying logic that let’s them ignore or make peace with the fact they’re racists, but it’s not all that complicated. You don’t need to know their deep-seated psychological damage to see a racist for a racist. Their words and actions are more than enough to go on.

  • So, if you make the ridiculous assertion “there is only one purpose for the existence of guns, and that is to cause death”, which is inaccurate, you get “the shooting sports in the Olympics, hunting, target shooting”.

    It’s rather like making the ridiculous assertion “there is only one purpose for the existence of automobiles, and that is to drive fast”.

    It doesn’t explain anything, it doesn’t support any conclusions, and it’s not completely accurate.

    Completeness is why we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth.

    Three decades ago the bean sprout and sandals set at Indiana University became so enamored of the notion that “sport-hunting is disgusting, and should be illegal” they managed to get deer hunting in Brown County, Indiana, severely curbed.

    Since wolves and mountain lions were long gone from the area, the deer population exploded. You could hardly drive through the state park the herds were so thick.

    When emaciated starving deer began wandering into Bloomington, Indiana, and dropping dead in the downtown in front of children, reality set in.

    But in my opinion “In my opinion, sport-hunting is disgusting, and should be illegal.” says more about your position then you realize.

  • Blah, blah, blah did not make the Third Amendment support your misuse of it.

    No the right to bear arms is not conditioned on being “part of a well regulated militia”.

    No, the NRA – the country’s largest trainer of law enforcement in the use of firearms – does not read the Second Amendment as “free for all for gun happy sociopaths”.

    Your position is beyond brain dead.

    Since the Second Amendment specifically states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” it not only should not, it cannot be “heavily regulated”. Proposed regulations of it must meet the strict scrutiny standard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

  • The Parkland shootings were a direct result of sequential police incompetence, starting locally, then the FBI, and finally again locally.

    The NRA supports strict law enforcement.

    The teachers shot in Parkland trying to protect their students and stop the shooter were unarmed due to local law.

    The NRA supports the right for teachers to be armed for self-defense.

    The NRA does not accept school shootings as part of life.

    In the entire United States every year there are around 300 homicides +/-50 with rifles of all kinds, including “military style”, which are NOT “assault weapons”.

    While you and your friends chase the butterflies of “military style” rifles, the NRA supports law enforcement, gun safety training, and has an extensive program with a well-developed curriculum – the Eddie Eagle Program – to teach children gun safety.

  • I guess you need to go back and read the second amendment. But then again your premise is not based on the plain reading of it. But of imputing new elements and exaggerating them to well beyond a reasonable level.

    A right to bear arms without limitation or regulation undermines rule of law for all other respects. Firearms ownership has responsibilities to the public. Like every piece of personal property capable of inflicting serious injury and death by accident or design. One which is obviously and entirely poorly met by gun owners acting on their own accord. Especially with their advocates deliberately working to enable the flow of guns to non law abiding owners as well.

    There is nothing rational and honest with NRA rhetoric or arguments. Paranoia, sub rosa racism, and dishonest representations and outright malice are all they have at this point.

  • In the Spirit of Easter, I call Laura to honesty! You apologized because your advertisers were leaving and you needed to stem the blood flow of cash from your machine. Laura, your understanding and following of Christianity appears to be very loose.

  • I guess you need to go back and read the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and legal commentaries beginning in the early 19th century forward.

    The notion of a “(a) right to bear arms without limitation or regulation” is a straw man.

    However, the Second Amendment clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, and the standard by which to measure any regulation of a civil right in the Bill of Rights is strict scrutiny.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    No one is “deliberately working to enable the flow of guns to non law abiding owners as well”.

    There is nothing irrational and dishonest with NRA rhetoric or arguments, but the same cannot be said of gun control fanatics’ rhetoric or arguments, as you never tire of demonstrating.

  • Well it’s not like ever read Heller. So there is no point in taking your reference seriously.

    You clearly missed the parts about the second amendment not precluding law enforcement concerns or even bans on “M-16 like weapons” .

    As usual you are arguing from the POV of sociopaths. Having a gun meaning having no responsibility that comes with it or regard for potential harm coming with it.

    Again, even SCOTUS didn’t think 3 state’s assault weapons bans were worth challenging.

  • Interesting. I like number one on your list, we would not want religious people to have to behave in any manner close to what they preach others have to lol. THAT is risible…

  • Well it’s not like you’ve ever read Heller, so there is no way you can understand references to or even quotes from it.

    “(L)aw enforcement concerns” don’t void civil rights:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

    As to “even bans on ‘M-16 like weapons’”, this is according to my records the third time I have pointed out that phrase does not exist in that context in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    What it does say is:

    “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.“

    “M-16 rifles and the like” specifically refers to fully automatic weapons, which are and have been regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and which are banned in some states.

    As usual you are arguing from the POV of Marxists and others to whom individual rights mean little or nothing:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/the_natural_right_of_selfpreservation_and_the_second_amendment.html

    No one has argued that with gun ownership comes no responsibility or regard for the fact that it can be used in dangerous manner.

    “… (E)ven SCOTUS didn’t think 3 state’s assault weapons bans were worth challenging” is knee-slappingly hilarious. The SCOTUS receives more than 7,000 writs of certiorari each year, but usually requests briefing and hears oral argument in 100 or fewer.

  • You have never read a court decision correctly or honestly. So I feel no need to pretend that has ever changed.

    There is no civil rights involved here. A right to bear arms is not absolute, nor unlimited. Never was, never intended to be. Even the Heller Court disagreed with you as noted on pgs 54-56 of the decision. But you know that already and just play ignorant and repeat the same bull.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. …commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”

    “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”

    Plus again, bans on assault rifles have not been considered an attack on civil liberties by SCOTUS either.

  • “…we would not want religious people to have to behave in any manner close to what they preach others have to…”
    In other words, “I know better than you do what you preach, how you fail at it, and the hypocrisy you maintain to ignore your failures.”

    Thanks for confirming the contempt in which you hold your religious interlocutors. The day you drop your disdain and display some comprehension (not a lot, just some) is the day we can have a “discussion” instead of a slanging match.. But I’m not holding my breath.

  • LOL Again, tons of comprehension here – part of the Christian religion for decades!

    BTW, you have never indicated any interest in “discussion”. You came at me with disdain simply because I pointed out Laura’s misappropriation of Christian holidays to justify her not-pology.

    Remember, it is usually Christians who preach how everyone should behave and act and try to make sure they legislate the behavior of innocent non-Christians even! When they don’t even follow the basic tenets of the faith – humility, recognition of sin and asking forgiveness with true contrition, ANYONE is allowed to criticize. If they were not holier than thou, they would get a pass like everyone should 🙂

    But I think at the heart of it, you actually don’t understand the concept of Christian forgiveness and contrition. Which explains why you are using ad hominem (criticizing my religious views and therefore saying “don’t listen to him” even though I speak more truth than you). Sad.

  • Based on your complete lack of actual citations, you have never read a court decision.

    The Second Amendment affirms a pre-existing civil right, the right to own and to bear arms. No right is absolute or unlimited.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. …commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose … nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”.

    Ah, your strawman.

    No one has contested that – like every civil right – there are limits to the Second Amendment.

    The SCOTUS has not to date considered whether semi-automatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes can be banned, regardless of whether idiots cal them “assault rifles”.

    Considering that only California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York have some sort of ban – most based like the former Federal law on Dianne Feinstein’s staff’s list of “scary looking” firearms rather than any rational functional definitions – and considering that these Clinton states have much bigger problems than firearms, three of them of them heading for bankruptcy, and all of them losing businesses and residents at an increasing rate, the rest of the country couldn’t care less if their legislatures make them even bigger hell-holes to live in.

    It just brings their days of reckoning closer.

  • “Based on your complete lack of actual citations?”

    Lying sack of turds said what? I quoted right from the decision you invoked and even gave you the page numbers where to find it.

    OK. As usual you feel the need to misrepresent what someone else says and does to make your argument. Bye Bye.

  • Lying sack of turds said “Based on your complete lack of actual citations?” to me.

    Yes, you quoted from Heller and gave the page numbers.

    You provided the EXACT excerpts the last two times you “quoted it”, even to “pgs 54-56″ rather than “pages 54-56″ or some other variation. I am sitting here looking at your source for this cut and paste, the same Bloomberg-funded website from which you found the misquotation “even bans on ‘M-16 like weapons’”.

    You’re such a sycophant to the gun control lobby you can’t even take a few minutes and actually read the decision after all the vacuous nonsense you’ve posted on the topic.

  • “BTW, you have never indicated any interest in ‘discussion'”

    Your mind is apparently too clouded with invective to recognize a “discussion” when you run into one.

    My opening comment referred to the complexity of psychological issues and psychology’s rejection of 3rd party diagnoses No response

    My follow-up comment elaborated on the complexity of motivational analyses, and raised two specific questions for consideration. No response.

    All of that was an open invitation to “discuss” any and every thing I said. But no – your comebacks invariably reverted to denigrating the “real motives” of those who disagree with you. That may pass for “discussion” among cronies in your groupthink bubble, but not among those who are accustomed to dealing in rational concepts. Try again.

  • #neveragain

    Benchwarmer Bob, enough of your blathering. Get off your lazy obese backside and start working to make gun control happen.

    Here’s what you need to do, so get on it and do something useful in your wretched life for a change:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pjAHjR1T0

    Get on it, Bob.

    #neveragain

  • I’m afraid Ben wouldn’t know a fact even if it had it’s way with him all night long.

  • Yeah – we already know your opinions, Lisa. Do you have anything but invective to express them in?

  • From @IngrahamAngle: “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

    Maybe during her Holy Week she stumbled across 2nd Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 2 through 5 and sees the meaning of turning away as her advertisers have done?

    2 Timothy 3:2-5:
    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

  • Talking about a broader response – no the NRA had nothing to do with Ingraham’s comments but they had lots to say about the March and the Paarkland students

  • Flattered by your pursuit, Lisa, but no time to scroll thru cyber-debris. Back to the trashcan, dear. And grow up while you’re there. Bye.

ADVERTISEMENTs