Charleston Mayor: Huckabee’s Gun Response ‘Insane’ ‘Nutty’ Crazy’

Posted by | June 25, 2015 08:00 | Filed under: Politics Radio Interviews

Republish
Reprint


Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. exploded with disbelief about Mike Huckabee’s response to his city’s shootings, when I asked him if he thought concealed carry in church would have made a difference.

COLMES: Can you address the issue of gun control and what you think needs to be done next, in terms of making sure guns don’t get into the wrong hands?

RILEY: Well, this needs to be a national conversation yet again because I think in the 50 different laws about this, it’s not the way to go and I think we can’t let the gun lobby keep beating us down. We have the Second Amendment and people have the right to buy and own guns, but (it’s) the handguns and the access and the lack of accountability…

COLMES: Mike Huckabee has said if only someone had concealed carry or if concealed carry had been allowed that the outcome might have been different in that church.

RILEY: That is so ridiculous. I mean I knew these people. I’m looking that their pictures right now in front of me. They weren’t going to be carrying handguns. You want an 87-year old retired lady or you want a minister to be carrying a handgun or a 78-year old retired lady that used to work for the city of Charleston? That is so insane. You want those elderly people carrying handguns? Is that the best we can do in America? That is so nutty I can’t even talk. It’s crazy. Absolutely crazy. We want everybody to carry a gun and then you have everybody carrying a gun and then somebody gets upset and pull it out because they got it handy and they got mad all of a sudden and rather than argue, or take a swing at somebody, they just kill them. It’s crazy, that is insane.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

35 responses to Charleston Mayor: Huckabee’s Gun Response ‘Insane’ ‘Nutty’ Crazy’

  1. tracey marie June 25th, 2015 at 08:14

    Huck thinks animal cruelty, dead black people and racism are just fine. You will never be president huck, you are a liar, phony christian and a pos gun nut

    • Warman1138 June 25th, 2015 at 08:23

      It’s more than that. When one profits in one way or another from actions that leads to maiming and deaths of others even indirectly, time and time again……..is no more than premeditated, calculated evil.

      • Suzanne McFly June 25th, 2015 at 08:29

        That definition fits cheney to a tee also.

        • Warman1138 June 25th, 2015 at 08:42

          It fits many of them.

      • tracey marie June 25th, 2015 at 08:32

        I agree completely, so many “christians” are evil and ugly inside and out.

    • F_cons June 25th, 2015 at 09:29

      and incest, child molesting, etc

      • tracey marie June 25th, 2015 at 09:53

        Just hormones dontcha know.

  2. Anomaly 100 June 25th, 2015 at 08:25

    Guns don’t kill people, 87-year-olds with an Uzi do.

  3. rg9rts June 25th, 2015 at 08:38

    Someone makes sense down there

  4. granpa.usthai June 25th, 2015 at 09:02

    if a WHITE southern 21 year old gay boy says 87 year old BLACK women are raping his women, it must be true, right?

    ‘you rape my women! – BLAM! – down goes the 87 year old BLACK woman who raped the 21 year old WHITE southern ‘gay’ boy’s women.

    justice served – and another NRA hero emerges!

  5. tracey marie June 25th, 2015 at 10:12

    6-3 scotus upholds the ACA subsidies!

  6. illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 10:15

    I still don’t understand this paranoid belief that, just because you have a gun on you, you HAVE to pull it out and shoot someone when you get angry. That argument is so outlandish, as to be laughable. True, it DOES happen, mostly among those who don’t qualify to legally own or possess a firearm. But, among LEGAL gun owners, it’s a tiny fraction of a percent. That’s because law abiding citizens tend to understand the value of human life and are capable of exercising restraint. I carry a gun and I’ve been FURIOUS, many times. NEVER, did it cross my mind to use a gun against someone who’d pissed me off. It’s just something you DON’T do. There is NO SUCH THING as being so empassioned that you can’t refrain from shooting someone. It’s ALWAYS a conscious and PURPOSEFUL action.

    • Foundryman June 25th, 2015 at 11:19

      The real paranoia here is the belief or concept that we all should be carrying weapons to bible study, school, the store or the playground. That’s not the country most of us want to live in.

      It is rather paranoid to assume the American people are trying to “gun grab” when they call for improved common sense laws aimed at preventing ownership from those that would (and do) pull their weapon when they get angry.

      • illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 13:09

        It’s not paranoia to carry a gun for possible defense. It’s preparation. Paranoia is believing that a bad thing WILL happen, whereas preparation is merely maintaining a state of readiness, IN CASE something happens. There’s actually quite a big difference, between the two mindsets.

        • Foundryman June 25th, 2015 at 13:20

          You know what parsing words mean don’t you? If you don’t believe a bad thing will happen, then why are you carrying a gun? By your own words and definition your ‘preparation’ is one and the same as paranoia.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 14:26

            No, as I said, acknowledging the possibility that something bad CAN happen is NOT the same as believing that something bad WILL happen. That’s not parsing anything, it’s two completely different definitions.

            • bpollen June 25th, 2015 at 16:14

              Since the vast majority of Americans don’t find themselves in positions that require the carrying of a firearm, it seems that constantly carrying for the average person is WAAAAAY on the paranoid end of the spectrum. When I had a gun pointed at me, I disarmed the person with a wrench. Seems like I have more call to carry a wrench constantly than a firearm.

    • Robert Kennedy June 25th, 2015 at 12:56

      Most of those you don’t think are sane enough or who are law abiding enough to be armed were considered sane and law abiding enough until they killed. In fact insane people generally are the least likely to shoot you.

      • illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 13:19

        True, but until there’s a foolproof way of instantly KNOWING who’s unqualified to own a firearm, there’s not a lot to be done. That’s the thing about the law. It’s all about proving that someone is deficient, before their rights can be curtailed, which means evidence must be presented and they must have a chance to refute the charges in a court of law. I don’t give a spit about some mamby-pamby crybaby’s (not talking about any one person, just people who don’t think we should own guns, in general) fears and insecurities about MY gun ownership. I’m not willing to give MY guns up, just so some people can “feel” safer. We have a right to keep and bear arms, until PROVEN unfit to do so, while there’s no existing right to “feel safe”. Yes, some people will decide to act violently and murder someone else, but there’s nothing to say that the gun is the reason they did so. They could have just as easily pulled a knife or picked up a bludgeon.

        • Foundryman June 25th, 2015 at 13:22

          Why does it have to be ‘instantly’ provable? Why can’t a thorough background check be done with a wait period until it’s complete?

          • illinoisboy1977 June 25th, 2015 at 14:24

            I have no problem with a background check, as long as it’s accurate and respects the rights of people to challenge any disqualifying information. Judicial procedures and Due Process rights MUST be guaranteed.

        • Roctuna June 25th, 2015 at 14:28

          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          The first clause of the 4th Amendment seems to guarantee my right to safety. I cannot be secure in my person if every jackass on the street is packing and all too ready to pull the trigger.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 26th, 2015 at 23:02

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (not against physical harm), shall not be violated… Even if it DID guarantee your safety, it would only bind the government from acting against you, as the Constitution is a check on government power, not the power of the People.

            • Roctuna June 27th, 2015 at 10:01

              So by that logic the 1st A does not protect my right of free speech from suppresson by you or visa versa? I disagree. We also disagree that a heavier-armed society would be a safer society. I believe the hard data proves that hypothesis wrong.

              • illinoisboy1977 June 27th, 2015 at 15:16

                There are other laws that protect your speech from me. If you post a sign on your property and I take it down, I’m guilty of trespassing and destruction of property. If you’re speaking and I disrupt your ability to do so, I’m guilty of disorderly conduct. Only the government can be specifically charged with violating your right to free speech.

    • Roctuna June 25th, 2015 at 14:22

      Are you familiar with the term “crime of passion”? Perhaps it never crossed your mind to kill in anger but I think you give your fellow gun owners way too much credit.

  7. labman57 June 25th, 2015 at 11:45

    The NRA and their political lackeys appear to believe that any unarmed American citizen who is gunned down in cold blood should be blamed for their own demise.

Leave a Reply