Politicon: Sarah Palin, James Carville Engage in a Debate About Guns

Sarah Palin James Carville
Rob Latour/Variety/REX/Shutterstock

When James Carville sat with Sarah Palin for a Politicon conversation on Sunday, he was polite. He praised her 2008 Republican National Convention speech. He even seemed to sympathize with her for being scapegoated in John McCain’s presidential campaign.

But then he challenged her on wanting to “take back the country,” a common Tea Party phrase that has morphed into Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again,” and their conversation quickly turned into a debate over gun control.

Carville, the Democratic strategist, said to the former vice presidential nominee: “When you say you want to take back the country, what is it you want to take back?”

Related

Anthony Atamanuik Trump Vs. Bernie Panel Politicon

Politicon: Almost All Roads Lead to Donald Trump

“I want to take back the interpretation of our Constitution that is being wrongly interpreted today,” Palin said.

“Where are we going haywire on the Constitution?” he asked.

Palin’s response: the Second Amendment.

“It is black and white, and we have a right, of course, to bear arms,” she said. “People who can interpret that to, ‘Oh that means not everybody has that right.’ Or to take certain things like ammo, ‘Well that doesn’t apply.’ Or we can get rid of AR-15s because AR-15s weren’t invented for hunting. I say, ‘Yeah, the Second Amendment wasn’t written in the case the moose turn on us.’ Of course it wasn’t mean for hunting.”

Carville, though, pressed her further. “Do I have a right to possess a bazooka? Do I have the right to have a surface to air missile and live close to the Los Angeles Airport?”

“Well, that is such a stupid question,” Palin responded.

The Palin-Carville conversation was among a number of marquee events at Politicon, a gathering of political junkies with panels, standup comedy, film screenings and art displays at the Pasadena Convention Center.

Carville went on, “I was in the Marine Corps. I have guns. I grew up rural. Why do I need a 40-clip magazine?”

“Well, I hear what you are saying is — there are some firearms that you think should be outlawed assuming, and it is a wrong assumption, that the bad guys are going to follow any law and not have that firearm,” Palin said.

Palin had a number of supporters in the audience, which was standing room only at a meeting room at the Convention Center. But there were also many cheers as Carville tried to make his point.

“I was just asking the question, why do I need a 40-clip magazine rapid fire rifle?” Carville continued.

“You probably don’t in your area of New Orleans,” Palin responded.

“Where would I live and need one? I am not doing ‘gotcha.’ Actually real hunters, they don’t even hunt deer anymore with repeating rifles,” Carville said.

Palin answered. “It has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with the constitutional right to protect yourself.”

She added that there “is an assumption that more laws on the books are going to wake up and convert a criminal, a bad guy, to all of the sudden wake up say, ‘I can’t do that, I am not going to do that anymore.'”

But Carville wasn’t finished. “People are going to get drunk and drive, but we have drunk driving laws.”

“This is one of those issues that you are not going to change my mind,” Palin said, as Carville switched topics. “I am not going to change your mind. Because if the Second Amendment goes, that right goes and every right goes.”

Carville also pressed Palin if she had any examples when she referred to the news business as the “lame-stream media” — a frequent phrase she uses in speeches and on social media.

She named Katie Couric, who interviewed her in a notorious series of pieces for CBS News in 2008. Palin cited Couric’s recent apology over edits made to a recent documentary, “Under the Gun.”

But later, in a Q&A with the audience, she also agreed that some reporters at Fox News have a bias. “I believe that Fox News has a conservative bent,” she said. “You know what? Thank God for that.”

The first question from the audience came from a ten-year-old boy, Adam Chernick, who also said he was a reporter. Carville asked him to come up on stage, and the boy noted that Palin had said that she “hated” countries that didn’t treat women right and didn’t want them to be part of the United Nations.

Palin tried to interrupt, but the boy asked her to “please” let him finish.

Given her comments about those countries, the boy said, “How come you are endorsing Donald Trump after he said, Megyn Kelly ‘has got blood coming out of her wherever.'”

There were cheers and some laughs from the crowd.

Palin answered, “Donald Trump isn’t sexist. If he were, I wouldn’t be endorsing him.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 185

Leave a Reply

185 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Jeff Johnson says:

    The Second Amendment was created to protect the security of the free State, not “good” people from “bad” people or even people at all. The point was to be able to form a well regulated militia in the event the free State was under attack.

    As things stand today, a well regulated militia is in place. It’s commonly referred to as the Department of Defense.

    Does that mean the Second Amendment is out of date? Perhaps. But until it is removed from the Constitution, the right of the people to bear arms, ANY AND ALL, is irrefutable.

  2. Michael says:

    Any amendment to the Constitution can have rules. For example, the 1st amendment doesn’t cover all speech. In addition, the Constitution is malleable. When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, they had primitive guns.

    Also, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Congress can place restrictions on weapons if they can show that they don’t serve any law-abiding purpose. Which makes sense considering the kinds of guns that were made in 1791.

    So, take your issue up with the Supreme Court then because nobody is going to change anyone else’s mind in the comments section of a variety article, where vitriol reigns supreme.

  3. DB says:

    40 clip magazine? Mr Carville, you don’t know what you’re talking about! It’s a 40 round magazine. It’s not about needing a repeating rifle with a 40 round magazine. It’s simply about wanting one. You see, what you liberals seem to forget is that firearms are a right! If a person wants a repeating rifle with a 40 round magazine they can have one because it’s their right! The driving and DUI point is ignorance and a terrible argument! Driving is not a right therefore is much easier to regulate. Thank you for your service but stick to subjects that you are qualified to discuss!

  4. Jason Bernhardt says:

    Perhaps they should do a little more proof reading before it is published. This is awful.

  5. J Mc says:

    She doesn’t know the English language very well it appears. What was McCain thinking when he chose this dingbat to be his running mate? We all know how that turned out.

  6. GKN says:

    When is she going to learn to speak proper English even? So intelligent, we just can’t wait to see what this semi-literate woman “thinks”.

  7. Richard says:

    The folks speaking out against Trump are helping me make up my mind a little more every day!

    Is he the Perfect Candidate whose opinions mirrors mine on all fronts? NOPE

    Does he say everything the way I wish he would say it? NOPE

    Am I absolutely sure that his motives are absolutely pure? NOPE

    Can I point to any other Dem Politician that I like better? NOPE

    Are there any of the other RINO Politicians I like better? NOPE

    Am I going to sit home, refuse to vote and let Hillary win; because he is NOT Perfect? NOPE

    Do I like what I have seen for the last 7-1/2 years with the Jerk that sleeps in my White House? NOPE

    Do I like the “fundamental changes” that same Jerk has brought about in MY America? NOPE

    OK, your turn to decide what you are going to do in about 5 months!

    Trump’s presidential qualifications . . .

    Obama is against Trump … Check

    The Media are against Trump … Check

    The establishment Democrats are against Trump … Check

    The establishment Republicans are against Trump … Check

    The Pope is against Trump … Check

    The UN is against Trump … Check

    The EU is against Trump … Check

    China is against Trump … Check

    Mexico is against Trump … Check

    Soros is against Trump … Check

    Black Lives Matter is against Trump … Check

    Move On is against Trump … Check

    Koch Brothers are against Trump … Check

    Bushes are against Trump … Check

    Planned Parenthood is against Trump … Check

    Hillary & Bernie are both against Trump … Check

    Illegal aliens are against Trump … Check

    Islam is against Trump … Check

    Kasich & Cruz are against Trump … Check

    Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump … Check!

    NOW THAT BEING SAID…

    It seems to me, Trump MUST BE the Best Qualified Candidate we could ever have.

    If you have so many political insiders and left wing NUT CASES — all SCARED TO DEATH, that they all speak out against him at the same time!

    Most of all, it will be the People’s Choice….

    PLUS

    He’s not a Lifetime Politician … Check

    He’s not a Lawyer … Check

    He’s not doing it for the money … Check

    He’s a Natural Born American Citizen, born in the USA from American parents. . . .

    Bonus points!

    Whoopi says she will leave the country…

    Rosie says she will leave the country…

    Sharpton says he will leave the country…

    Gov. Brown says California will build a wall…

    Cher says she will leave the country…

    Cyrus says she will leave the country…

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail.

    Hillary will go to jail!

    The budget will be balanced in eight years.

    Americans will have first choice at jobs. You will not be able to marry your pet. You will be able to keep your gun(s) if you qualify… (Not a criminal or crazy, etc.)

    Only live registered U.S. citizens can vote. MUST SHOW ID TO VOTE. You can have and keep your own doctor. You can say whatever you want without being called a racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc. He will make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    Come to think of it, we have no place to go, but UP!

    • anonymous says:

      reichwing racist nutjobs are for trump? check.

      trump is a lifelong oligarch and a part time democrat? check

      trump speaks of the working man but has never done a real days work in his life? check

      has his branded junk made in foreign countries? check

      admits to buying/selling politicians for his own gain? check

      and now you are standing with them. if that is your only litmus test then you deserve what you get.

      and if he becomes president and you speak and act like a racist then expect push back. people are not taking this bllsht anymore.

  8. aleric says:

    Ahh I see the “non partisan” Variety showing Carville as an actual rational person which his is not. Ask Carville about all those white trash women he made fun of until Bill was forced to admit he was screwing interns in the white house. He is the typical Scumbag Liberal like all the ones commenting below,

    The Constitution guarantees the right to bear ARMS, it does not say only hunting rifles or weapons approved by Socialists, THAT is the reason it is there to keep these people on line and to take back out country when it becomes a tyrant.

  9. Jean Cunningham says:

    Sara Palin;
    SHUT UP YOUR MOUTH AND GO HOME! TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN FAMILY THAT IS FALLING APART DO TO YOUR, GET ME, YOUR BIPARTISAN!

  10. jeffrey melton says:

    The second amendment has little to do with hunting specifically rather it defines the right of the citizen to be armed if he so desires. The mention of “regulated malitia” meant well supplied or well maintained when the amendment was written. And citizens can own virtually any arm or munition with the proper tax stamp which says more about the government’s desire to get paid than public safety.

  11. But Carville wasn’t finished. “People are going to get drunk and drive, but we have drunk driving laws.” Was this his statement in,” his defense?” Which proves the point, written laws only apply to law abiding citizens, because Criminals don’t acknowledge the law. Drunk driving laws do not limit your ability to buy alcohol, nor does it restrict you from buying a car. Therefore Carville is an idiot and his argument is invalid. His own wife doesn’t agree with him. She is a Republican that just turned to Libertarian.

  12. Buck. says:

    Car-vile… a disreputable imbecile, should take gander at history if he wants to quibble about “bazookas”….at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution and BoR, it was legal to own…as an individual….FEILD ARTILLERY AND MORTARS.
    Many of the Continental Army cannon were privately owned, most of the citizens militia guns(as in artillery and mortars) were owned by private parties.
    I was entirely legal to own and use hand grenades(yes, Mildred, there were grenades and petards in those days and well before) and bursting shells.
    It was possible to own a 28 gun frigate that could level a city…..and some of the merchant class owned just such things.
    It’s a shame Car-vile says he was a Marine but doesn’t know what he’s saying when he says “40 clip magazine”….POGs never learn. It’s such a shame that he didn’t take the lessons of Marine Corps and early US history as TAUGHT IN BOOT CAMP very seriously.

  13. Phillip Anyi says:

    You can’t have a reasonable discussion with a niwit

  14. Sarah is a good advocate for gun control. She doesn’t intend to be, but she is.

  15. Kathryn Hines says:

    And Palin never ceases to prove her stupidity, ignorance, and her cosmically size sense of her own self worth.

  16. Alan Weyant says:

    James, you should know better then to enter into a battle of wits with a totally unarmed opponent…

  17. Sam Owings says:

    so many people have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment. It’s purpose was to make provisions for us to defend ourselves from an oppressive government or tyranny…how much sense does it make for the government to be able to put restrictions on it? That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.

    • tominbuff says:

      Sam, perhaps it is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment that is lacking. While the 2nd Amendment is indeed purposed to make provisions to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, the 2nd Amendment is clearly an issue pertaining to Federalism – that we’re a collection of States with some independence of the overarching Federal government. This is why the phrase “a well-ordered militia” is used in the very sentence of the right to bear arms. The meaning is crystal clear! That the right to bear arms in a well-ordered militia is a right of State and local governments – to enable localities to act against an oppressive or tyrannical government. There is NO supposition that it intends for individuals to have such rights (and that is clear both from the Federalism perspective, as well as the verbiage of the 2nd Amendment “… a well-ordered militia…” – obviously an individual cannot be a “well-ordered militia” by definition). That being said, I don’t believe there was any intent to disarm the populace – but the 2nd Amendment in no way indicates that governments – particularly local governments – cannot regulate the ownership of firearms.

      • Rick Grimes says:

        These are the actual words of the second amendment:

        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      • Buck. says:

        “Sam, perhaps it is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment that is lacking.”

        Tom…it is absolutely your understanding of the 2nd Amendment that is lacking…..you never find the term “well ordered” in the Second. It’s “well regulated” therein a distinct difference. And it has nothing to do with Federalism…nice try.

        And this….you just make it up as you go along, don’t you?:

        “The meaning is crystal clear! That the right to bear arms in a well-ordered militia is a right of State and local governments – ”

        It doesn’t say that, nor anything like that.

        It says:

        “In order to maintain a well regulate(not well ordered)militia, the right of the ***people*** to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
        Your assertions are preposterous and your rewording of the documents a naked lie.
        It doesn’t say in order to maintain a well regulated(or ordered) militia, the right of the STATE to keep and bear arms…etc.
        The whole of the Constitution is very clear in separating rights of states byname, rights of people by name and the rights of the federal government by name.

        That there are 10 articles in the original Bill Of Rights, and they all deal with that which are the expressly enumerated rights of the INDIVIDUALS….not the states, not the national government, not the cities…..the people…and what the government bodies are restricted from either taking from or imposing upon….is all one needs to know about how wrong you are.
        Wrong in a very intentional and manipulative way, I charge you.

        “That being said, I don’t believe there was any intent to disarm the populace – but the 2nd Amendment in no way indicates that governments – particularly local governments – cannot regulate the ownership of firearms.”

        Of course there was no intent to disarm the individual…..dude….it was the express intent of the framers to make SURE the people as individuals were armed.
        Hence the debated document that you just intentionally rewrote to suit your silly assertions and desperate wishes.
        The Founders and Framers, in their public and private correspondences repeatedly stated the2nd was about an individual right to own and carry weapons.
        Even the anti-federalist proponents, in that series of letters, states a need for an armed populace.

        And where in “shall not be infringed” do you get “hey…we can regulate(infringe!!!!!!!!) this!”?

        Again…your understanding is not only faulty, it’s fraudulent.

  18. Maggie Morse says:

    Palin can’t even handle questions from a 10 year old! Once again, she has hitched herself to the wrong wagon politically. 50 prominent Republicans have turned down the chance to speak at the convention. Hey, Sarah may just get the call!

    • Phil H says:

      The part I don’t understand is the view that having gun control laws, ex. the felon in possession law, somehow is equated to taking away second amendment rights. With 300 000 000 guns in the US and growing, how does implementation of these minor laws take away the average persons right to bear arms. I’m sorry but the thin end of the wedge argument doesn’t work. We aren’t within a million miles of creating laws which actually prevent law abiding citizens from appropriately defending themselves.

  19. Marcie Cohen says:

    What a thankless task – disputing with Sarah Palin. It is the intellectual equivalent of trying to stuff the horse manure back into the orifice that extruded it.

  20. “Carville went on. “I was in the Marine Corps. I have guns. I grew up rural. Why do I need a 40-clip magazine?”
    The questions isn’t about NEED, it about the right to have one if you WANT it. I have a lot of things I don’t need, like a 50″ inch TV, or any of the other “Stuff” I have because I WANTED it.

    • D.J. White says:

      The 2nd Amendment starts out “a well REGULATED militia.” Regulations are not oppressive, their meant for everyone’s safety. Its not about taking guns away, its about Common Sense laws about guns.

  21. The 2nd amendment was intended to conscript the people to help fight in support of our government in war against a foreign power, because they didn’t have an ‘army’ like we have today. It was so people could be organized to fight against the King of England. It didn’t intend to make every person in this country a gun nut that stores military grade weapons in his own personal stockpile so he can engage in mass murder on the populace at any time if he/she so decides. Which is what we have now.

    • Spencer Osborne says:

      According to his comment (“The 2nd amendment was intended to conscript the people to help fight in support of our government in war against a foreign power, because they didn’t have an ‘army’ like we have today. It was so people could be organized to fight against the King of England. It didn’t intend to make every person in this country a gun nut that stores military grade weapons in his own personal stockpile so he can engage in mass murder on the populace at any time if he/she so decides.”), Mr. Kobernus apparently believes that anyone owning a firearm, regardless of criminal intent or lack thereof, is a gun nut if he has military-grade weapons. When regulatory agencies like the IRS, which exist outside the law enforcement community, can buy these weapons rather than call on the U.S. Marshal’s Service or the FBI for backup, it makes an inquiring mind ask who the government is planning to fight and when. Because until I see drug dealers and gang-bangers crucified and planted along our highways to show the error of their ways, the National Socialists in Congress aren’t giving us any reasons to do anything less than keep our powder dry and our weapons oiled — just in case they decide to torch the Constitution and declare a “New Order.”

  22. Vincent says:

    Leave it to a 10 year old to put her(Sarah Palin)in her place. A kid calling out a 40 something woman on her hypocrisy.

  23. Ingrid Wells says:

    If our Second Amendment were negotiable, that would make all the others as well. The “law makers” (Specifically the Democratic Lawyers) have throughout American History, tried to get rid of the Constitution and/or rewrite it by adding their own lingo to it. Our forefathers are turning in their graves and the fact that Democrats are complicit in bringing other nations from other countries in the hopes of getting votes, goes to show they do not like our Constitution; i.e.: Some radicals now want Sharia law as in Irving, Texas. Google it if you don’t believe me.

    Lastly, that 10-year old boy was REHEARSED by his LIBERAL parents to ask that question. Better ask yourself why would they want a SUSPECTED FELON like HRC to be their president. Unless of course, the boy’s parents are ……… well, felons….

    • Actually Sarah was born in 1964, she is 52. And she is looking her age.

    • Mike says:

      Please get over yourself. “law makers” in general, yes even your precious Republicans, have tried to nullify or rewrite the Constitution for their own ends. It is certainly not limited to Dems. Are you ignorant to the fact that our forefathers (as well as virtually every settler thereafter) were from other countries? People can want whatever they want, doesn’t mean they are going to get it, however since some people have been fairly successful in getting elements of Canon Law instituted, I guess the fear of Sharia law is somewhat warranted. If we’re going to ignore the 1st Amendment and allow one religion to implement its laws, not much to stop another one from doing it too.
      Whether or not the 10y/o was “rehearsed”, does not change the validity of the question. As for HRC, suspicion does not a felon make. You know, that whole “presumption of innocence” thing that follows from the due process clause, or do you not support that part of the Constitution for people you don’t like? Regardless, (and correct me if I’m wrong), I don’t believe a felony disqualifies someone from public office.

  24. lexclouseau says:

    The comment by Carville about allowing bazookas and surface to air missiles made perfect sense in context. Either the Constitution allows exceptions to the right to own guns, or it does not.

    • navarre says:

      Amendments are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, but not to “dangerous speech.” It should be the same for the right to bear arms — you are allowed to own guns, but not ones that will unduly endanger citizens.

    • Bill says:

      Your argument fails on its face. Who has access to buy either a bazooka or surface to air missiles? If they were available to buy, the price would be exorbitant. Would anyone really spend $600K on a surface to air missile so they could rob a liquor store of $20?

  25. Sarah Palin is to political debate what a hooker on the street is to sex. She will do anything for money. The flaw, is that Palin still thinks she’s a lady.

  26. So Carville mopped the floor with her

  27. Mike Smith says:

    Carville wants to bring in drunk driving laws….How’s that working? Simply enforce the laws on the books and the gun issue will take care of itself.

    • Louis says:

      If Carville would actually go to New Orleans instead of staying out side of it he would know that he probably needs a 40 round magazine to keep himself and his family safe !!!
      Have you seen the crime stats in NOLA lately ?? His buddy Mitch isn’t doing a very good job handling his city !!!

  28. There is no such thing as a 40-clip magazine. If Carville has guns, he should know that. Also, 99.9% of the people don’t own rapid fire (aka full-auto/assault rifle/pistol) weapons.

    • Daniel says:

      Before you assume something, please check your facts. There are many different size magazines for guns ranging from 1 to over 100 rounds.
      Personally I think anything over 30 is a waste of money. I’ve shot 10 round mags and 30 round mags with my AR and the only difference was I got to shoot more in the time I had.

      • wayne Klein says:

        Did it ever occur to you folks that he might have been misquoted about the “40 clip” if the writer wasn’t familiar with guns?

    • kc says:

      Actually semi auto gun is rapid fire ……full automatic is continuous fire with the trigger pulled …. maybe if you knew anything about guns you would know that.

    • In Vietnam two 20 round magazines were clipped together for rapid reloading. So yes, there is.

  29. Junior Cleve says:

    Palinski is not even a math for a 10 y/o much less Carville. Lol!!!

    • Ingrid Wells says:

      Hardly, Palin kept to the subject matter as to where Carville did not. He only thinks he’s smart. Electing a known rapist like Bill Clinton into office doesn’t say much for this man. Wonder if he’d let any one of his two girls working near Bill Clinton. To bad Palin didn’t as him that. I WOULD HAVE.

      By the way, that 10-year old boy was REHEARSED by his LIBERAL parents to ask that question. Better ask yourself why they would want a SUSPECTED FELON like HRC to be their president. Unless of course, the boy’s parents are ……… well felons…….

  30. Paul Hopfgarten says:

    The fact that Palin isn’t particularly fast on her feet, DOES NOT mean Carville was right in his opinion!

    • austinandjustin says:

      @Ingrid Well, we know WE KNOW you believe that the “that 10-year old boy was REHEARSED by his LIBERAL parents to ask that question.” I’m not sure why that matters. It was a valid question. Also the child had manners that Sarah Palin lacked, she tried to interrupt a 10 year old child. I don’t know if the 10 year old’s parents are liberal or conservative. How are you so sure? Because the 10 year old asked Sarah Palin a question she couldn’t answer? That’s not liberal or conservative, that’s smart.
      BTW, when was Bill Clinton convicted of being a rapist? “crickets” You say Bill Clinton is a “well known rapist” much like you say the 10 year old’s parents are liberals. You make a lot of assumptions.

  31. Only one person in this debate has a three-digit IQ and it isn’t the wacko from Alaska!

  32. It is simply not fair. Carville is a smart guy and he was debating a moron.

    • Ben Waple says:

      Carville sounds like a broken record…no debate here..Palin made him look like the idiot he really is.

    • Dunstan says:

      Mary, it might not have been “fair” but Palin, being the media whore she is, agreed to show up. I don’t know if she received compensation or not but there she was.

      Calling this a “debate” is like saying Hitler was cranky.

  33. Longwalkertj says:

    …Sarah darlin’, shouldn’t you be at your AA meeting…….you only have 10 steps to go.

  34. shaylastriffler says:

    We require training, licensing, and insurance in order to drive a car. Why can’t we have the same for a gun since it’s design and purpose is to kill what it is pointed at. It’s ridiculous that some moron with no clue what he’s doing can go buy a gun and then you hear that he shot himself in the foot, or his kid shot his sister. All because there’s no requirement of accountability prior to buying a gun.

    • Paul Hopfgarten says:

      Shayla (and everone else)……..DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT! It is a priviledge and therefor subject to licensing…..GUN OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT, and Constitutionally so, therefore NO LAW OR LICENSE is Constitutional…….IF you want tighter control on Guns for real (I oppose) then either file a new US Constitutional Amendment to either repeal the 2nd or to mitigate it to some level…..

      • If you are into interpreting the Constitution as it was intended, then owning a musket is a right, because that’s what “arms” were then, and single shot handguns…….and since we’re on it, and there’s no mention of driving a car in the Constitution, how do you know that driving a car is NOT a right?

      • Ingrid Wells says:

        This is just baloney… This just never stops, not until the Dems. have taken away all our rights under the Constitution. People research what Joseph Goebbels said about propaganda…. Try and get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in my state of [Blank}. It’s near impossible despite the Second Amendment. How is this possible you might ask? Because the Supreme Court gave local authorities the rights to make their own laws.

        The U.S. Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Second Amendment ‘codifies,’ ‘protects,’ and ‘secure[s]‘ a right – rather than ‘grants,’ ‘bestows,’ or ‘gives’ one.
        The Supreme Court explicitly stated that ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.

        The Second Amendment text recognizes the right as pre-existent, declaring only that it ‘shall not be infringed!

        That is why the court concluded in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms ‘belongs to all Americans.
        Thus, the Second Amendment protects a right granted us by our Creator, as described in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        If the Second Amendment is a mere privilege given to American citizens by government, it is a privilege which can be overcome by naked assertions of public safety.

        The Second Amendment seeks to preserve the United States as a free nation, by protecting the rights of individual American citizens to acquire, own, possess, sell, carry and use modern firearms, both through service in a citizen’s militia as a final line of defense against government tyranny, as well as other personal uses such as self-defense, hunting, and other sporting activities.

      • Conscientious Objector says:

        So I can have a gun and shoot at whatever I want, provided I get there by walking?

      • Billy Boy Boy Boy says:

        His laws against drunk driving don’t have anything to do with whether driving is a right or a privilege. Carville’s point was that just because people break the law doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.

      • Ian Seldin says:

        The right to possess and bear arms is a regulated right. It says so right in the amendment. Consequently, Congress and the states have the right to provide regulation concerning the possess and the bearing or forbearing of firearms, so long as the regulation does not result in its prohibition. This is why a civilian citizen cannot possess or bear a bazooka; canon; fully automatic rifle or a thermos-nuclear device. Yeah, everyone has rights, but they are neither unlimited nor unrestrained.

  35. David Bell says:

    Carville, is an ASSHOLE PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Adam says:

      Ingrid Wells. You are right. The group that is trying to restrict the 2nd amendment will not be happy until they have their way. I am all for having as few laws as possible. Let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences. After a while people will start making better decisions. As things continue on the path we are on there will be more and more laws which will attempt to make people “better”. The problem is there are no consequences for anything. If a person doesn’t work hard and try to make a better life it ok cause the government will take care of them. If a person abuses drugs to the point where a person can not take care of themselves its ok cause the government will take care of them. If a person wants to hurt others its ok, cause it is not their fault. They will just be moved to a new place where nobody knows them. In other words things are only good if they agree with it. There is no live and let live anymore. Someone else wants to tell me what I can or can not do.

    • Jane Rioux says:

      Carville is an intelligent Democratic Strategist. He’s awesome. Palin is Palin. She never gets any smarter or any wiser.

    • Don says:

      What’s an “ASSHOLE PERIOD” ?

      • Ingrid Wells says:

        Hey Don, ask Obama!!! He likes to finish sentences with a “PERIOD.” Case in point: 1) You can keep your doctor, PERIOD. 2) You can keep your hospital, PERIOD. 3) You didn’t build that, PERIOD. Described perfectly by an ASSHOLE, PERIOD!!

  36. Paul Hopfgarten says:

    But Carville wasn’t finished. “People are going to get drunk and drive, but we have drunk driving laws.”

    He is mixing Apples and Oranges here……Driving a motor vehicle is NOT a right but a privilege. I may disagree that it should be a priviledge vs. a right, but there is no constitutional right to Drive……THERE IS however a Constitutional Right to Carry a Gun…. So the argument falls apart…

    Secondly, the Liberals LOVE to use children as political pawns. I have seen that personally, so I always take a grain of salt when a 10 year old “reporter” tries to play ‘gotcha’ to the Conservative Du Jour.

    • Billy Boy Boy Boy says:

      Your comment about driving being a privilege and not a right is a non-sequitur. Carville’s point was that saying people will just break the law if you make laws against owning a repeating rifle is like saying people will still drive drunk of you make a law against drunk driving.

    • Jeremy Michaels says:

      The constitution does say people carrying guns should be “well-regulated.” The reason automobiles are regulated is because of public health and safety. Guns should be “well-regulated” for the same reason. Common sense gun control can be conducted without violating anyone’s constitutional right to bear arms. It’ll happen sooner or later.

  37. Keith Hardy says:

    For the life of me, I have no idea why Sarah Palin would engage in yet another recorded debate or interview. Her comments are not even discernible. She speaks in her own “hillbilly” language and she leaves the rest of us in utter confusion. She is a large reason why the Republicans cannot be taken seriously.

  38. Greg says:

    Palin debating anyone on anything is a joke. She is ignorant of the constitution that she tries to quote from time to time. She’s had 8 years to educate herself in our laws and system of government and she is just as ignorant as ever. When Carville asked her if he could have a bazooka, with her reply as it being a really stupid question just shows that she is unprepared to answer such questions. Those questions are designed to find that line out there of what is acceptable and what is not under the terms of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not absolute and all courts have always recognized reasonable restrictions on weapons. The 2nd amendment is not necessarily contingent on a militia because the last part of the amendment says, “the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed”. She is, however, correct that it has nothing to do with hunting, it has to do with everyone having the ability to protect themselves and their property. Police forces cannot be relied upon to intervene or save you in an emergency, and ultimately it is up to each person to take care of themselves. Both extremes of the interpretation of this amendment is wrong, the answer lies somewhere in the reasonableness of the middle.

    • Ingrid Wells says:

      Really Greg?? Is that what YOU say. “That the Second Amendment is not absolute and all courts have always recognized reasonable restrictions on weapons.” Yet, you’re devoid of mentioning any such court and/or law and in which State… I would hope that had the folks at The Pulse night club had they had a gun – anyone of them – could have killed him before he could have injured more. Nobody is disputing that if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one. I am not forcing you to purchase a weapon if you don’t want want, However, for YOU and other liberals imputing on my right to carry is just ridiculous. Why would YOU want me not be able to protect myself or my family because YOU and the liberals want to do away with guns.

      Here’s my philosophy: “I/We respect your right to not own a weapon, if that is what you choose. Why can’t you respect the rights of others…”

      GREG, HERE’S A FACTOID:
      The U.S. Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Second Amendment ‘codifies,’ ‘protects,’ and ‘secure[s]‘ a right – rather than ‘grants,’ ‘bestows,’ or ‘gives’ one.

      The Supreme Court explicitly stated that ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.

      The Second Amendment text recognizes the right as pre-existent, declaring only that it ‘shall not be infringed!

      That is why the court concluded in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms ‘belongs to all Americans.
      Thus, the Second Amendment protects a right granted us by our Creator, as described in the nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      If the Second Amendment is a mere privilege given to American citizens by government, it is a privilege which can be overcome by naked assertions of public safety.

      The Second Amendment seeks to preserve the United States as a free nation, by protecting the rights of individual American citizens to acquire, own, possess, sell, carry and use modern firearms, both through service in a citizen’s militia as a final line of defense against government tyranny, as well as other personal uses such as self-defense, hunting, and other sporting activities.

      LASTLY …… Laws simply define criminal behavior; they do absolutely nothing to prevent the actual crime. Any future gun law or laws will serve only to define the criminality of the act when it happens again, not stop it….

      I seriously doubt all those shooters in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, Orlando, etc, are registered Republicans or NRA members. FYI, THEY WERE ALL REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. We see how well things are going in Chicago don’t we? The highest crime per capita and what are the Dems. doing about that? Nothing, Zip, Zilch not a darned thing. Why because they’d be deemed racist. These guys get their guns illegally. Yes, too bad Palin didn’t mention those things. I certainly would have but under the circumstances sitting by Carville alone, would have made me display my Sig Sauer. This guy is a terrible terrible man who has temper fits when things don’t go his way.

      • Databass says:

        I’ll bet you $1000 to your $1 that the shooter at the Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic was NOT a democrat! You can’t make the statement you made without the evidence to back it up! You, sir, are simply sensationalizing and spreading your bias against Democrats, and that by itself, makes you entire comment worthless!

  39. kavack says:

    Why on earth does someone this stupid have to be the one to advocate for Gun rights against someone like Carville? This doesn’t help the gun rights program or the constitutional rights we all have. What on earth? Seems like the media set this up as a stunt to watch Carville win with someone who isn’t equipped to defend.

  40. Abel Garcia says:

    I liked the Limbaugh show parodity of James Carville on Larry King with Karl Rowe.

  41. Sharlene Starner says:

    Here is the real kicker that most people choose to ignore.
    1. It is not about banning any firearm for public safety.
    2. Any law or new rule anyone has proposed will not have ANY effect on PAST or FUTURE CRIMES.
    WHY because only those that FOLLOW THE LAW will abide by said law.
    Now here is where I will lose a few but please read and just think for a minute..
    3. Ask any Police Officer or for that matter any Law Enforcement Agency, Where are the criminals with all the firearms, Surprise they can.
    Now ask them who has the over 3 million guns owned by the law abiding citizen they will have a big problem.
    4. No I do not think the Gov is coming to take firearms away tomorrow, However once they do know who has what then it is very possible to do just that.
    5. What we really need is a logical approach to crime control. Stopping the loony, stopping the gang banger, the radical terrorist that wants nothing more than to cause terror, and those that are wanting to tear apart what our blood and tears have made, a great nation.
    Just something to think about..

    • Ingrid Wells says:

      Sharlene Starner, great comment. Here’s what I say……………. “Enforce the laws we have on our books.” They do nothing to enforce the laws. They only seek to make deals.

      The NRA is the people. It has 5,000,000 members, and that’s just the people who are willing to shell out the money. Why do anti-gun people have to express their messages with such perverted penis-centric insults? They need to grow up; and stop acting like a kindergarten bully.

      LASTLY, they cannot take away a person’s right without due process. What Part of “The Right to Bear Arms” shall not be infringed is unclear; and being on a terrorist watch list bypasses due process.

      Why not enforce the laws we already have. And why not be this upset at Obama for not wanting to fight ISIS. Call it what it is. This is not a gun issue; it is a fight to keep America safe from harm issues.

    • Don says:

      #4 is simply preposterous.

  42. We all need to work hard supporting Trump and loons like Palin, Bachman, that lady who is not a witch…the Republican party will soon be extinct. You idiots just need practice…now say this out loud ten times…My President of the United States Mrs. Hillary Rodam Clinton and first man Bill Clinton.
    good good job now get used to it for 8 years!

  43. She came to gunfight with a knife. Hmmmmmmmmm, cannot image big gun advocate not bringing a gun. Maybe she is just stupid.

  44. We all need to support this “amazing man” Donald Trump and this “smart hot” Sarah Palin who are Democrat plants ending the GOP. The hill billy half of America that follows these hucksters are handing our girl the White House and making the Republican Party extinct. thanx red necks! Hillary 2016!

  45. tony says:

    Why would James Carville engage in a debate with the likes of Sarah Palin about anything. Isn’t that like debating ones self?

  46. To interrupt someone (let alone a ten yr. old) means that what you have to say you consider more important than the person who is speaking. Aside from being rude, it shows you are afraid to let the other person speak. Sounds like Sarah wants to back the right to kill people AND do away with the 1st amendment as well. How is either anything other than a self serving interpretation of the constitution?

  47. wsdbiker says:

    I understand both sides of the argument. Most people to whom the second amendment is the most important part of the constitution don’t want background checks because they are afraid the government will mass too much personal information on them. I’ve got news for you. Every time you apply for a job, you go through a background investigation of some kind and e-verify. Every time you apply for a loan you go through some sort of background check. I personally have a secret clearance, every six years I have to undergo a background check. every contractor and worker who goes onto a government installation has to undergo a background check. There is little not known about us, it is no sweat to undergo a background check to buy a gun. If it goes beyond that then I will stand with you, until then I stand on the side that requires a background check.

    • You are missing a very important point here. Let’s take the proposal to ban guns to those on “no-fly lists”. It sounds well intentioned enough. And up until now the sole purpose of putting people on that list has been entirely in the interest of stopping terrorism in the air. But you fail to realize that those lists can be abused with ease. A faceless bureaucrat, with the stroke of a computer key can put anyone on the list. And like any list- or even credit report, it is absolute hell to get a correction made; exponentially more difficult when dealing with government entities.

      If the IRS can weaponize itself and go unpunished even when caught, it wouldn’t be any stretch at all to have law abiding individuals denied their 2nd Amendment rights without any recourse.

      And let us recognize why the 2nd Amendment was implemented: To constrain tyrannical government. Not for hunting deer or moose. And while most would not characterize the U.S. government as tyrannical AT THIS TIME, it gets closer every day. The disclosure of IRS’ Lois Lerner’s persecution of conservatives is one of many governmental encroachments. The executive orders to legalize illegal aliens, albeit more clandistine in intent, was a deliberate attempt to change the political and racial balance in America and create a permanent liberal-left government and one party (dictatorial rubber-stamp) rule.

      While the danger isn’t so apparent at face value, the danger is clearly there. America needs to open its eyes not only to the present dangers, but the cumulative results of these baby steps to steal your freedoms and liberties.

  48. jonoe221 says:

    Republicans say Democrats want to take away their guns. It will never happen!!!! Pro Choic-rs say Republicans want to stop abortions. It will never happen!!!!

  49. Joann Omara says:

    Why do we even ask this woman a question? She never completely answers it and what she does say doesn’t make any sense. Why can’t we just let her fade into oblivion? I think they bring her out for amusement and it works except that she is so aggravating!

  50. kevin jorgensen says:

    But Carville wasn’t finished. “People are going to get drunk and drive, but we have drunk driving laws.”

    Driving isn’t a right. The Dems are guilty of making a lot of these non-right to right comparisons. The idea that a person on a no fly list should have certain rights taken away is another example. Rights should only be taken away as the result of due process. That’s why we have the 5th amendment. We should have a process for taking away rights but that process should be transparent, have an appeal process and should have clear standards.

    • Paul Hopfgarten says:

      BRAVO KEVIN! Very well said (even better than myself…..)

    • wsdbiker says:

      Then why do many NRA types want to add a law for voter ID? We already have laws on the books that say who can and cannot vote. Why do we have to have voter ID laws without due process? It is the exact same thing.

      • Paul Hopfgarten says:

        Since the 2nd Amendment and Voter Rights (at least federal) require US Citizenship, having a control ONLY for proving US Citizenship is logical, not anti-constitutional, and prevents the left from letting illegals vote to gain them more House/Senate seats….

More Biz News from Variety

Loading