The mainstream media’s contempt for gun owners was on blatant display in an incredibly one-side interview with journalist Katie Couric.
Speaking to Matt Lauer on Today, Couric hawked her new anti-gun documentary Under The Gun, which supposedly looks at the issue of gun ownership from both sides but by the sound of it repeats the same old canards that liberals invoke against firearms owners.
Abandoning any pretense of objectivity, Lauer gushed over Couric and her film throughout the interview, sanctimoniously declaring that he was sure “something” would be done after the Sandy Hook killings and was shocked when no action was taken against guns.
Couric, for her part, indulged Lauer’s sanctimony, weaving a conspiracy theory about the NRA brainwashing it’s members and controlling Congress to prevent anti-gun measures from passing.
But the biggest “WTF” moment of the interview came when Lauer asked Couric about how the documentary handled accounts of people using firearms to defend themselves
See Couric’s absurd answer on the next page:
Armed good guys are pernicious to bad guys.
And more importantly; every law against gun’s is illegal because it’s Unconstitutional!
That’s the very reason you have the freedom to sit and blather like an idiot.
She really is letting her ignorance show big time
Isn’t that what the Police get over Highly paid for is to Catch the Criminals and or Protect and Serve Our Country?
Then WHY are YOU always constantly asking the Public and or Citizens to Do your Over paid jobs for or assistance to YOU?
Right on
I don’t like the idea of a gun in the hands of a mental case but gun law did not stop the mental case in ,I think the Sandy hook case,where the guy got his mother’s guns and she was not mental all these regulations do nothing but impede lawful gun owners with unconstitutional infringements these peop l e are so lacking in real understanding of elementary reasoning.
she’s nuts
Katie if guns and are not a deterrent why do secrete service have t
Exactly right Mike Traver! What is it about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED that they don’t understand? Is it the word infringed? Do they not understand the meaning of the word or is it that they think that the Founders didn’t actually mean what they said? Many of them have said that the Founders meant muskets only and not today’s modern firearms, but if you read the Second Amendment, nowhere does it refer to muskets! The Founders, being highly intelligent men ( unlike today’s liberals) knew that firearms technology would of course advance, as it was already something they were aware of because they had seen it themselves! They went from matchlocks to wheel locks to flintlocks! That’s why they said the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed is written that way! Arms could mean knives, swords or clubs, not just firearms!