Skip to content

Don Mattingly is against assault rifles

Mar 22, 2013, 10:31 AM EDT

Don Mattingly Reuters Reuters

It came up because the Dodgers were playing in a game to benefit the Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Foundation, named after the nine year-old victim — and daughter of Dodgers scout John Green — of the Tucson shooting which involved Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. And after expressing some hesitance to get into the matter, Don Mattingly did offer his opinion to Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times:

“Politics now?” Mattingly asked. “I don’t know if I really want to get into it. I’m just not a gun guy. I never hunted as a kid. So I’m not much for the topic. I know we have coaches who love them; they think it’d be crazy if they weren’t allowed to have them … I don’t see any need for assault rifles,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense for me for a guy to have an assault rifle in his house. If you ask me my personal opinion, I would definitely be against assault rifles, any kind of weapons that you’re able to fire off that many rounds at one time. It doesn’t make any sense. In the military, maybe.”

If I had to guess I’d say that baseball players, as a group, are far less likely to hold this view than the general public simply because there are so many hunters among their ranks. So, yes, this is a bit surprising, even if it is sorta beside the point.

131 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    Especially from somebody who grew up in downstate Indiana. Of course, the AR-15 isn’t exactly a hunting rifle, so even being a hunter shouldn’t exactly mean you’re in favor of it.

    • Alex K - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      It’s not that wildly uncommon for people from Southern Indiana to not hunt or like guns. Sure, there are lots of them, but he grew up in Evansville (Go Aces!) which for Indiana purposes is a bigger city.

  2. chill1184 - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    If he doesnt like Ak-47s than thats his business. My problem is if he wants the thugs of the state to prevent me or anyone else to obtain one

    • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM

      Perhaps you can enlighten us as to (a) why you need or want an AK-47, and (b) how that need outweighs the risks posed to society by making such high-capacity, high-damage guns available to the general public.

      • oldnavyperformancefleece - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

        Freedom is not based on the need for something

      • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

        First, I asked for a justification based on need OR want.

        Second, there is absolutely a calculation when it comes to your desire for freedom and the deleterious social/economic/environmental impacts of that freedom. If you want to smoke in your own home, that is your right. But you can’t do it in a restaurant because your “freedom” harms others. If you want to yell “fire” in your own home, go ahead. But if you do it in a movie theater, you will potentially be prosecuted. If you want to practice Christianity, you can. But if you try to follow the passages of the Bible that allow you to sell your daughter into slavery, you will not be allowed to do so. So, I say again: Just because you might want (or even need) an AK-47 does not mean you’re entitled to have it if the damage done to the rest of us outweighs the benefits to you.

      • bh192012 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

        mrfloydpink, the problem is there is almost no risks posed to society by making high-capaciy, high-damage (WTF does that even mean, it’s a !@##@#@ gun?) available. The number of deaths caused by “mass shootings” in the United states is small. Roughly 18 per year on average.

        Compare that with drowning… which is something like 3000 death’s a year. If you really want to save the kiddies by banning some private recreational activity like target shooting, then ban swimming and swimming pools.

        “ohhh no, but I like swimming.” Tough, welcome to my world.

      • bh192012 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

        Also, swimming was not specifically protected in the constitution. Guns were, therefore there is a higher barrier to controlling them.

      • Josh - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        This is pointless to get into because no one ever changes his mind or budges an inch. BUT, bh192012, you’re right that guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution; however, read the Heller decision, which was written by Antonin Scalia–hardly a liberal or gun restrictions advocate. In the decision, he said, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”

        So yeah, oldnavyperformancefleece, freedom isn’t based on need, but according to the Supreme Court and Scalia, people are NOT free to own whatever gun they want.

      • asimonetti88 - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        mrfloydpink – Mar 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM
        First, I asked for a justification based on need OR want.

        Personally I don’t believe one should require a justification for a right or freedom.

      • bh192012 - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        Josh, I did not argue that gun rights were unlimited. I specifically said there was a “higher barrier to controlling them,” implying they could be controlled.

        My argument is based on myfloydpink’s premise that somehow the need or want of doing something has any relevance. Swimming and target shooting with an AK-47 are both equally valid forms of recreation. Neither have any need whatsoever to sucessfully live in a cage. (a) doesn’t matter

        I find it crazy that anti-gun nuts can completely overlook 800 deaths a year due to recreational boat useage, but somehow 18 deaths a year because of “ASSAULT RIFLES” is an issue. Seriously, of all gun crime, “ASSAULT RIFLES” (what I don’t have a special spooky blood soaked font to use?) are the least of the problem. (b) low risk

        Having said that, I personally support various gun control measures, just nothing like the BS that the media and liberals are pushing for. It’s like trying to ban all swimming, it’s a stupid overreach because they are scared and literally ignorant. Ban boating, ban beekeeping, ban peanutbutter, ban selling dangerous sugary soda’s over 16 ounces.

    • okobojicat - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM


      The reason it is our business if you have access to one of these weapons is that your access means that other people, perhaps other people who are less in control of their faculties also have access to those weapons. They pose a danger for society.

      That’s where his opinion matters. That’s where my opinion about what you should have access to, what other people should have access to matters. We already regulate that items explicitly designed for killing lots of people (missile, bombs) are not for public consumption. The fact that guns that are solely designed for mass killing are allowed for public consumption is absurd.

      • oldnavyperformancefleece - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        Would you rather be killed with a handgun or an assault rifle?

      • okobojicat - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        I’d rather not be killed with anything at all. Its a safer world when I don’t have guns around me.

        There is reason that people who own guns are more likely to:
        A. Committ suicide
        B. Be a victim of a gun crime

      • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM

        Ah, that old strawman argument. “They could still kill you with a ballpoint pen”.

        Yes, they probably could.

        But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that less carnage can be done in a short amount of time with handgun than an AR-15 or AK-47, thus giving people time to get out danger and authorities a better chance at responding before 30 people are dead.

        If ya don’t see that then you’re friggin hopeless and need to remove your head from the gun industry’s NRA’s ass for a few minutes each day.

    • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM

      How about all you gun advocates have the balls to actually address the questions, instead of simply giving thumbs down? Or is the issue that you CAN’T answer those questions?

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM

        “…you CAN’T answer those questions?”

        Perhaps because there are no questions actually being answered here just opinions being stated? Also, this is the type of red meat topic that isn’t likely to convert anybody.

        I find it ironic that the pro-gun side will interpret explicit freedom in the Constitution so as to allow them to be projected to weapons that the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined. Yet will ignore other freedoms in the Constitution because the word abortion does not appear in it.

        I also find it ironic that the anti-gun side is quiet willing to surrender their rights for the perceived greater good of society and are dumbfounded and incensed that people that own guns don’t see it their way. Yet they completely ignore that there ANY number of other things in our culture that could have a greater effect on public safety.

        The Constitution is flexible enough to adapt to the changing culture we live in yet robust enough to protect basic rights. The debate about gun control as it relates to “assault weapons” is proof of that notion. In fact what we are engaging in here, and in effect throughout the country, is a debate about gun control, .. although somewhat crudely. From what I’m reading, nobody here appears to be attempting to persuade anyone of the intellectual merits of their point of view nor does anyone seem to be won over. It’s just a lot of “.. your a jerk I’m right..” dialogue. So why not just thumbs down it? It’s about as useful and takes less time.

      • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:13 PM

        Maybe you can explain to me, bigharold, how these are not questions:

        “Perhaps you can enlighten us as to (a) why you need or want an AK-47, and (b) how that need outweighs the risks posed to society by making such high-capacity, high-damage guns available to the general public.”

        I am a trained academic, which means I respect evidence. If I was presented evidence that supported the pro-gun claims, I would give it careful consideration. But what I invariably get, whenever I ask questions like this, are logical fallacies, propaganda, and finger-pointing.

      • skids003 - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

        Mr. Pink, just go look at the FBI sites that show the crime rates. The cities (Chicago, New York, DC) that have the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates,even the anti gunners admit this. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see those laws don’t work. Criminals DO NOT obey laws. These would only harm law abiding citizens, and would not stop something like Sandy Hook. Those poor kids wouldn’t have been helped by laws like these at all.

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM

        I do not own, nor am I interested in owning any form of assault weapon. If others have the need or desire, as long as they are not felons or have a history of mental instability I believe they have the right. Moreover, I think many of the suggestions regarding strengthening gun laws are not only worthwhile but over due. But, not all of them.

        As for the need to enact laws based solely on the perceived greater good there are so many areas that could easily be addressed, so that is a specious argument. That tact could be taken for any number of things and have far greater effect, .. starting with automobiles. But, we aren’t even discussing that because there isn’t enough red meat on that bone.

        As is pointed out we have a Constitutional right to keep and bare arms, .. the question is to what degree. I’m of a mind that reasonable people can have differing opinions regarding that and it doesn’t mean that they are without “balls”, intelligence or integrity. My point was/is that nobody is answering questions here, they are stating their opinion, (more like beating each other over the head with them). And frankly, when You start with questioning peoples “balls” you are not adding to the discourse you are limiting it.

        You say you are a trained academic, .. well my career is in corporate security, .. for a major financial institution. I have, over the years, received a number of writs under the auspices of the Patriot Act. Essentially, a law enforcement agent fills out a form and my company must comply with the request. These always have to do with turning over records and or allowing access to what would otherwise be privileged and confidential. And these writs aren’t signed or reviewed by a Judge or Court, .. basically just filling out the right form. Little to no oversight or protection against abuse. Because of the attacks on Sept 11, 2001 and the frenzy that followed Americans willingly gave away significant rights. This frenzy surrounding the current push to enact gun control has the exact same feel. More frenzy and hysterics than logic and reason. If you think surrendering your rights in this instance is in the best interest of society than be my guess. But, you are clearly setting the ground work for the erosion of more of your rights. And, sooner or later it will affect one that you aren’t so will to give up.

      • skids003 - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

        Well worded, bigharold. They sure would feel differently if the 1st or 4th amendment were attacked like this.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM

        skids, bigharold is talking about the 4th amendment.

    • mcs7584 - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

      There was an interesting story yesterday on NPR. Doctors in Colorado were interviewed about the new gun regulations that were just recently signed into law there.

      “I see patients every day that are right on the edge of being unstable and are out there in the environment, and they describe problems with access to medications, problems with access to psychiatric care or substance abuse care, problems with access to homes or to shelter,” says Colwell. “But they don’t describe problems with access to guns.”

      I found this very enlightening. Beyond health care and outside the scope of the mentally ill, there is no shortage of documentation where people do not have access to food, shelter, education, jobs, transportation and the list goes on and on.

      (Right now in Kansas, we are talking about, again, eliminating in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants inconsiderate of the fact that the kids were just that, kids, when they were brought here and that actually giving them access to education at the same cost as others who come from in-state might actually lead to them being a productive member of society rather than the drain most claim them to be.)

      We’re talking about essential human needs and vital services to maintain a productive and fulfilling life that, in many cases, might just be one of the very things needed to lift someone out of a life of poverty. But what there isn’t a shortage of? Guns. And while they very well may be Constitutionally protected, the things in this world that we don’t have enough of just can’t cause the type of harm and inflict the kind of pain that individuals with guns do.

      If your toddler is running with scissors, what do you do? You take the scissors away. Keep them out of reach. Currently, there’s no adequate system in place in which to remove guns from or prohibit the sale of guns to those who shouldn’t have them. And we’re not even really serious about having that conversation because of the outcry from those who keeps a firearm for home protection or for deer hunting is irrationally afraid their gun will be the next to be taken away. We’re not even talking about the same thing!

      While I choose not to own a firearm, I’m not opposed to those who want to. I am, however, opposed to the argument that we shouldn’t take reasonable steps to eliminate gun violence just because the Constitution entitles us to “keep and bear arms” **if we want to.** The Second Amendment is not a mandate. With that right comes responsibility. Frankly, if the pro-gun crowd doesn’t want to police itself, which it appears it doesn’t, then the larger society needs to take reasonable steps in that regard.

      And if we’re not, at least we need to be a little bit more compassionate about providing those things that people are going without. But you know the same folks who are generally against any reasonable gun control are also typically against any kind of “entitlement” program that provides real help to real people.

      I’m starting to think that we’d all really just rather hurt each other and see people suffer.

      But this is America, the greatest country on Earth.

      • oldnavyperformancefleece - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        You lost me at “NPR”

      • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM

        @oldnavy: I’m not surprised that you’re frightened by ideas that come from anywhere even mildly outside your Fox News comfort zone.

      • oldnavyperformancefleece - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM

        Fox News?… Don’t you know I get all my news from the comments on HBT….since you are clearly the smartest person on the internet you should have known that….By the way I’ve never even shot a got let alone owned one. I just believe in freedom. Why does that get me accused of being a right winger?

    • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM

      Grow some nuts and join the military like I did then. We just spent the last decade plus in a shooting war, you’d have had plenty of chances to “enjoy” one then.

      As for “thugs of the state”…blow me candyass.

      The “thugs of the state” are fine citizens serving their country. More than likely a whole lot more than your Ted Nugent worshiping ass ever did.

      • chill1184 - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM

        Ted Nugent is a neoconservative chickenhawk single issue voter, I have as much of a use for him as having a share of stock in Enron. Cops aren’t heroes all they are is tax payer funded street thugs. Protect and serve themselves is their real motto

    • paperlions - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

      I would like some dynamite…I see no reason I should be prevented from having as much of it as I would like to have (or need). Dynamite is far more useful than an assault rifle (which is really only useful to kill someone or as a toy), you can blow up stumps, do some mining or demolition, go fishing, or just because blowing shit up is cool….no reason at all to keep who ever needs it from buying it.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

        Maybe you can get your own blast fishing reality show.

      • paperlions - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM

        That would be fantastic. I could see the competitors now: Three Fingers McRuffin, One-Eyed Jack, Deaf Jim…..that would be awesome!

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

        You would definitely have fanboys then.

        You might even get lucky and take out a beaver or two.

      • paperlions - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        HEY! That could be the competition….bustin’ up beaver dams and collectin’ pelts. We could have it in Canada….Alberta, maybe.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM

        Have it in Ontario and you can catch a game too.

      • paperlions - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        Isn’t Cur in Alberta? We could have him on the show….he likes going after beaver.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        Oh, please. He’d be so afraid, he’d drop his monocle. PC is in Ontario. He’ll help you. Plus, you can get a little Dickey while you’re at it.

      • paperlions - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

        He was going to be “One-Eyed Jack”….thus, the monocle…no need for an entire set of glasses.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:08 PM

        Well, try not to blow each other up then…and don’t trust the beaver. Canadian, you know.

      • cur68 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM

        Hey! Leave Beavers Alone!

  3. rvnc - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    ……and cue a long and bitter debate on gun control. As an outsider from england, my response is ‘How about that local sports team huh?’

  4. blantoncollier - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    Seems like Donnie got boxed into a corner. After all they were playing in a game to benefit the Foundation that was created due to a terrible act of gun violence. But also give him credit he gave his opinion knowing several of his coaches and over 60% of his players will disagree with him.

    Agree or not with his opinion–it was leadership.

  5. ctony1216 - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM

    Uh-oh, now Mattingly moves onto the NRA’s enemies list, along with the Kansas City Royals, St. Louis Rams, Doug Flutie, Mary Lou Retton, Vinny Testaverde, Cathy Rigby, (it’s a very long list).

  6. bronxbomber213 - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    Yea I mean fully auto is already illegal but we don’t want people being able to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger which is all an AR can do…I mean handguns can’t do that….oh wait…

    • ctony1216 - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM

      Private gun owners, ultimately, are cowards — the Barney Fifes of the world.

      Hunting is no excuse either — real “sportsmen” bow-hunt.

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

        “Private gun owners…”

        Says the guy voicing his idiotic opinion behind the safety of his keyboard.

      • ctony1216 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

        There it is: Bigharold thinks I should have something to fear. That’s the paranoid, frightened mind of a gun owner.

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:14 PM

        Who said I’m a gun owner?

        Real sportsmen hunt with bows? I wonder if the deer think that bow hunting is very sporting.

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:17 PM

        Oh, .. and I think you’re an ass for making a stupid incendiary statement that neither adds anything to the discussion or is very witty.

      • skids003 - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        ctony, I am a legal gun owning law abiding citizen, and I’m not afraid. Whether it be one bad guy or 20, I will defend myself and my family from bad people. Take off your rose colored glasses, the world is full of bad people who would do you harm, and the police can only get there in time to clean up the mess, that’s just life, and reality.

        That’s the part that I can’t understand why you people just don’t get it. These tight “laws: don’t work, the worst crime rates are in the cities and states that have the tightest “gun control.” What is so hard to see about that, it’s obvious.

        I’m sorry, I refuse to give up my right to defend myself and my family because you people don’t think I should have that right. If you’re so tough, put a “Gun Free Zone” sign in your yard.

      • ctony1216 - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:56 PM

        bigharold — I didn’t say you own a gun. I said you had the frightened mindset of a gun owner. My contribution to the conversation is this — helping gun owners recognize their own fear, which the NRA and mass media whips them into. You don’t have to be afraid — no one is out to get you. Don’t be such a scaredy cat.

        skids003 — you live in fear of “bad people.” Read what you wrote. The sad thing for your family is that there’s a greater chance that a member of your family will die from one of your guns than some imagined bad guy will.

        How is it that little old ladies can walk the streets unarmed and unafraid? They’re not cowards. My mother is braver than the typical gun owner.

      • bigharold - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM

        “I said you had the frightened mindset of a gun owner.”

        So now you are clairvoyant? Pretty God Damn presumptuous of you infer what my, or anyone else for that matter, state of mind might be.

        “My contribution to the conversation is this — ”

        Is pretty much nothing. Thanks anyway.

      • ctony1216 - Mar 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        bigharold — When you claim that I’m commenting “BEHIND THE SAFETY” of my keyboard, you’re implying that it’s UNSAFE to comment outside the safety of my keyboard. A clear sign of fear and paranoia on your part.

        You see, the NRA turns normal people into cowards. The NRA says BOO! Bad Guys are going to get you — so you better buy a gun! And the frightened people go buy guns, and gun makers make lots of money. But you don’t have to be afraid.

        Real men don’t need guns — they’re for cowards. If little old ladies can live unarmed and unafraid, so can we all. You just have to stop being afraid. Enjoy your day.

  7. barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    confusion reins..the second amendment is not about assault rifles or hunting. The right shall not be infringed. Again we may disagree why someone would want an assault rifle but as americans we have that right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The founders were worried about a rogue government with an unarmed populace could lead to slaughter. It is the first thing that Dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot outlawed. Finally when you heard the news about the massive amount of ammunition homeland security has bought it does scare me. Especially since they do not explain why they bought it and for what purpose it is meant for. Here is the link for that story.

    • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      Then how come bans on fully-automatic weapons and plastic guns can be banned Constitutionally? Also, this whole “overthrow the government claptrap is bunk – if it was true, treason wouldn’t be unconstitutional. How about the explicit reason given in the amendment – well-organized militia?

      Also, if you rebel against the government, you will be annihated unless the military turns on the government. Just give up this fantasy that yiu wouldn’t get bombed out of existence.

    • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

      Please, please, do not break out the Founders on this. Assault rifles and drones and whatnot did not exist back then. They did not give an opinion on them then. They may have changed their minds, if they knew what we now know. You cannot say they would approve of it…Gator’s Ouija Scrabble board to the contrary. Also, everyone born after them is not bound forever by their intent. The courts have ruled that your other Constitutional rights are not absolute. There is no reason to treat this one differently than the others then.

      • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        historiophiliac your answer is what scares the crap out of rights are not guaranteed? you bet their are not when we have people like yourself who are willing to let them get trampled on. I don’t know where you learned about history. But once again the second amendment is not about rifles, assault rifles et al. It’s about our OWN protection from the federal govt. Did you ever learn the words they shall not be INFRINGED upon? What does that mean in your liberal mind? You are the sheepeople that rogue governments dream about.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        In the real world (not the echo chamber), your rights are not absolute. Sorry to burst your bubble on that. There are restrictions on what your freedom of speech, right to assemble, etc cover — and the courts have ruled repeatedly that when these are not unreasonable burdens and they serve the public good, they are okay. For example, you cannot in protest camp out in certain places — the government can remove you from these spots and the courts say that’s okay (to use a recent example).

        Guns will not save you from a tyrannical government. They might have once, but it is a different world today. You’d better come up with a better defense plan, realistically speaking. If not, good luck w/ the drones.

        Also, you know we can scrap the Constitution and adopt another form of government if we want, right?

      • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        No, it’s not. That assertion isn’t supported by anything from that time, and it wouldn’t work even if it was. Just stop.

      • skids003 - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM

        barry, people like histrio think we are dangerous, yet he tells you we could scrap the government we have now. I guess that’s the reason to disarm the law abiding public, it would make it easier for the liberals to take over the country.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        When we take over, skids, I’ll be sure to request you for my slave, so you’re good. No worries.

    • mcs7584 - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

      “Here is a link to that story.”

      You’re right, that’s just a story. What’s scary to me are people who cannot discern opinion pieces from legitimate news sources. Just because if affirms your opinion or your found in on an internet site that “looks like” a news site, doesn’t make it true. In fact, it probably makes it false. I’m not scared of guns as much as I’m scared of an uninformed electorate.

      • mcs7584 - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

        Correction: ” … or you found it on …

      • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        uneducated? are you kidding me? you posted a site that shows if something is true or not..dude here is a story from a Congressman asking the DHS for answers on why they bought the ammo..and he was stonewalled..the video is there for educate yourself!

      • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        Cluefree Boy, a.k.a. Barry

        From another real fact-checking site, not that clown ass Tea Party shit you linked….

        “Bullet Baloney”

        The email cites a “drastic spike” in the Department of Homeland Security’s bullet purchases and asks: “What is the US federal government preparing for?” The email also claims that “federal management agencies are looking more and more like a military army every day.”

        DHS has indeed ordered hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition. But there is less here than meets the eye. And that’s according to the National Rifle Association and the office of Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.

        The Department of Homeland Security recently contracted to buy up to 450 million rounds over the next five years. But DHS was making a first-time bulk order for all of its law enforcement agencies to save money. Those agencies include the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement, among many others.

        The NRA describes the assertion as “incendiary.” It says the suggestion that the Obama administration is “preparing for a war with the American people” displays “a lack of understanding of the law enforcement functions carried about by officers in small federal agencies.” The NRA, which is no fan of the Democratic president, concludes that “there is no need to invent additional threats to our rights.”

    • indaburg - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM

      Barry, you are the sheep the NRA dreams about. You really think that little old you, holed up in your compound with your weapons, can defend against a US government gone rogue? You’ve been watching way too many movies if you truly believe that. We already have something far more powerful than weapons to protect us from a rogue government.
      A system of checks and balances representative of the people, elected by the people. That’s what keeps our government in its place. Not people stockpiling weapons.

      The Constitution is not perfect. The people who created it were not perfect. Amendments exist to correct oversights and errors. The 2nd Amendment is in need of correction, and it will be.

      • randygnyc - Mar 22, 2013 at 9:42 PM

        Sadly for you, not in our lifetimes.

      • indaburg - Mar 23, 2013 at 8:02 AM

        We’ll see.

    • mcs7584 - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      “you posted a site that shows if something is true or not.”

      Exactly. And it correctly examines and identifies your claim as not true which is why it doesn’t warrant attention.

      With that said, I’m done. Have a nice day living in fear.

      • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM

        again a video asking the Head of DHS about the purchasing of weapons with no response is not enough proof for you. I have to laugh you take a website over an actual video where the question is asked. You must be Obama fan because no other moron could come up with that response.

    • carbydrash - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

      Dear Sir,

      The first rule to being taken seriously as a grownup is to not compare people to Hitler until they’ve killed several million people.

      Good day.

    • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

      Wrong. The founders were worried about the fact we didn’t have a standing Army with a pissed off global superpower just itching for a chance to come back (see War of 1812).

      Hence the “well-regulated militia” part of the thing.

      No matter how good a job the NRA has done on behalf of their gun industry masters convincing people otherwise, that is the truth of the matter.

      The notion that these TeaTards could go all “red Dawn” on a rogue government is laughable anyways.

      I could see Ted Nugent pissing & shitting all over himself (again & this time NOT intentionally to get out of going to Viet Nam) as the first Specter Gunship came into sight.

      The thing that will keep that from happening is the nature of our military, being that it’s all volunteer.

      If the day ever came where a President became what every CPAC attending conservatard seems to think Obama is the military would fracture because the majority of those in it would not suppress their own people.

      That fractured, ineffective military would be the end of things for that administration, not a bunch of Billy Bob’s with AR-15’s and pick-up trucks.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:45 PM

        Well, they didn’t want a standing army, but then they needed one, so they did both.

        I think the historical record is against the notion that the army won’t put down citizen rebellions. Start w/ the Whiskey rebellion and work forward. SWAT teams were a government response to the civil rights movement. Threats against citizens are more likely to come from state and local police forces, hence the decentralization of the same. I could go on forever on this stuff…

  8. jm91rs - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM

    1) No way he would have said anything but “no comment” or “anti assault rifles” at that event. He’d be an insensitive ass to make any other comment at that time.

    2) I know exactly how this is going to go on this site, judging by all the other comments recently showing exactly where everyone tends to lean here.

    3) When baseball starts back up for real are we going to be subject to political articles, or can we get back to baseball stories on this baseball site?

    • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      jm91rs amen-let the great echo chamber begin!

      • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        It is pretty rich that a person whose handle references “birther” conspiracy theories is making snide comments about others’ incapacity for independent thought.

  9. barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    mrfloydpink-pretty funny I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii..another liberal douche who jumps the gun on my name..and btw how do you feel that the Head of DHS refused to answer questions why the purchased all those weapons..again put your head in the sand and call me a birther

    • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM

      Yeah, because that’s not at all a reasonable assumption. If my handle was theholocaustneverhappened, people would have every right to assume I’m an anti-Semite even though I’m actually dating a Jewish woman.

      • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        nice just an assumption from liberals make to discount your points. When they cant debate you they jump at that. Pretty amusing. And btw my son is always asking his brother barry where are you from..hence the name..maybe I should change it..maybe i wont to keep the comedy going on..

    • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM

      Guess what? You can put a Confederate flag in front of your house, and you can claim until you’re blue in the face that it’s there because you are a huge “Dukes of Hazzard” fan. Even if you’re telling the truth, you know full well that people are going to reach other conclusions about that flag, and tt’s pretty disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

      It is similarly disingenuous to spout far right-wing/government conspiracy views under the handle ‘barrywhererufrom,’ and then to claim ‘liberal bias’ and ‘it’s in honor of my kids’ when I or anyone else assumes it’s a reference to the president. You know exactly what people are going to infer from your username, since I’ve seen people make the inference before today.

      As to this DHS “story,” I do not believe it is necessary for government agencies to answer all questions of this sort. In order for them to be effective, there’s often a need for secrecy–hence the existence of security clearances. Let us imagine that DHS is planning a major offensive against, say, the distributors of illegal drugs. Well, they can’t exactly announce those plans, can they?

    • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      I know how law enforcement works and he knows how idiot trolls like you do.

      I wouldn’t have answered that dumb ass fucking question after having covered it eight ways from Sunday either.

      The batshit, tinfoil hat wearing theory has been killed many times over lol.

      Now keep explaining how you’re really not a birther and it was all just a clever name choice…as you link TeaTard sites with their cute “don’t tread on me” logos featuring an animal that is fighting extinction because of people like them not giving three shits about man’s impact on the environment.

      • barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

        I call BS on you diposti-I know an actual video showing the DHS Head ignoring a question about the weapon purchases. You dont refute the video because you cant. You refute the site. Sounds pretty stupid when you say something like that. But that’s exactly what you did.

  10. thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

    Just as a “Did You Know” nugget. AK-47s are actually used to hunt game like the American coyote. Yes, they were designed for military purposes, but there are many people that hunt with them as well.

    • indaburg - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      People who need an AK-47 to hunt suck at hunting.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM

        You, sir, are an ignoramus.

      • indaburg - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:25 PM

        Ma’am, not sir. And sorry about your penis.

    • djpostl - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM

      My girlfriend uses a can of corn as a hammer some times, doesn’t make it any less stupid or unnecessary lol.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

        Regardless, you liberal idiots are going to lose this fight again.

    • cur68 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

      I have never, in my life, needed more than one shot at a time to knock of varmints or to take game. The smallest calibre that’ll do the job efficiently is the best. Every time I see someone make the “automatic weapon hunting” argument I invariably think “tiny dick, lousy shot”.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 3:41 PM

        When I read comments like yours, I invariably think “idiot.”

      • cur68 - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM

        Got an automatic weapon, eh? Tsk. Your thing’s STILL tiny, y’know?

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

        Hey bud – you’re the one talking about penises.

      • cur68 - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

        And you’re the one choosing to engage me in this chat about your little willy. What’s your point?

  11. barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    historiophiliac -i would take a chance with a weapon then talking someone to death. What kind of logic is that? So since i can’t be victorous against a rogue government I shouldn’t have a weapon to defend myself. I would rather been part of the Warsaw Uprising then the people who sadly went to their deaths without a fight..

    • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM

      Funny, I’d rather be a part of the Great Salt March or some sit-ins or, hell, even the Rally to Restore Sanity (oh, wait, I did go to that one). I am not opposed to all armed responses to government oppression, but when a mechanism exists to oppose something democratically, you are a fool not to use that instead. Generally, I prefer active to armed resistance. Really, either will get your ass kicked, but one is morally right and the other, not so much.

      • cur68 - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        I thought you had a strict “don’t fight with pigs” policy? After all, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

  12. randygnyc - Mar 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    Why I want access to firearms and assault weapons isn’t important. In fact, I only need an interest to exercise my right. I don’t need to justify it. But I’ll say this, the right exists in case our govt starts governing without the constitution in mind. Kinda like what’s starting to happen now. And for those that are ignorant enough to think, what could these puny weapons do up against the US Army, that’s assuming that these soldiers are willing to take up arms against their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and perhaps children. That’s an assumption I’m not willing to make. In fact, I’d bet against it, and am.

    • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

      what’s starting to happen now


    • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM

      It is funny how the moment that something happens that you disagree with, the Constitution is being ignored. Pray tell, what violations of the Constitution has the Obama administration committed?

      • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        And the same people claiming Obama is a dictator want him to violate the Constitution and ignore the military restrictions imposed by the BCA. I agree they’re harmful, but maybe Congress should work out a deal instead of just whining about Obama not doing they’re job for them.

      • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:27 PM

        You know what would violate the Constitution? Not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on our bills. Guess who wants to do that?

      • asimonetti88 - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM

        Well, the Obama administration’s use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan is unconstitutional. Certainly this isn’t exclusive to the Obama administration (President Bush began the campaign) but that doesn’t change its constitutionality.

    • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

      If the Armed Forces are unwilling to oppress Americans, then the oppression is DoA anyway. It’s completely independent of how many guns you have.

  13. louhudson23 - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    While I have yet to determine exactly what means are used to do so,it is clear to me that the ability to completely ignore any reference whatsoever to the “well regulated militia ” portion of the 2nd amendment is the same means used to ignore the many biblical admonitions against pigskin,tattoos,mixing of textiles,working/playing on Saturday,divorce,adultery etc,while ranting against the (wrongly interpreted from the Greek original forbidding pedophilia) admonition against homosexuality. I will ask once again,what means are used to ignore,and by ignore ,I mean refuse to acknowledge) the existence of ALL of the 2nd Amendment ,as well as teh overwhelming majority of “sins” listed and forbidden in the bible??

  14. randygnyc - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

    Historio- guess your ok with our Libyan involvement. Or our extra judicial drone killings. You’re a liar if you say yes. But it’s a democrat doing it, so you’re happy to turn a blind eye to the constitution. If it was a republican, you’d be calling him a nazi and pushing for impeachment. They’re still whining on daily kos that bush wasn’t prosecuted. Still, I’ve been heartened to see the many liberals there who have finally acknowledged that Obama is a war criminal.

    • mrfloydpink - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      Some friendly advice, randyg: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

      • asimonetti88 - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        I think there is value in what he said, he just presented it in a very partisan way. There has been a lot of discussion about where the anti-war liberals went over the past few years. There have been some prominent liberals asking this same question, including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Wyden.

      • micksmantle - Mar 22, 2013 at 7:14 PM

        Wow, you must be a constitutional scholar. First commenting on something you clearly dont understand, then being condescending. What are you Calcaterra’s mini me? I dont think you could have the concept of rights more mixed up. But that’s really no surprise being that it’s obvious you are a follower of ultra liberal pretend baseball writer Calcaterra.
        Only CC could cause such a worthless debate to go on at a totally unrelated website with a bunch of morons giving their opinions. Please change your name bro, David Gilmour would think you a fool.

    • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM

      I guess I don’t understand your point. I’m not in favor of drone killings and I think I’ve said that on here multiple times. I don’t know what you’re gettting at with that.

      • randygnyc - Mar 22, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        My point is that when the liberals are promoting their man, its doesn’t matter how they’ve trampled the constitution. Confiscatory gun policies? Check. An act of war without congress? Check. Extra ducal killing of American citizens? Check. Obama should be at The Hague, arguing to save his life. Being the principled, moral historian you claim you are, should be doing everything in your power to make sure he’s brought to justice for his war crimes. I know I am.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 10:02 PM

        I am doing about the same as I did to bring Bush before The Hague…

        Gun regulation and unconstitutional acts against citizens are two different things. I support the first but object to the latter — and it doesn’t matter which administration is doing that. I have been against drone strikes since we started them and the same with warrantless searches — and I still refuse to go through the photo booth at the airport. I have written to my Congressmen and promptly received back notes about why trampling my rights is totally justified, fyi. Unfortunately, the courts have not been with me so far (although it looks like the 9th Circuit is edging that way).

  15. curtis35w - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

    PFT “note to self, no political talk on baseball site”

    • curtis35w - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

      HBT oops

    • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      You know that’s been the rule here since never, right?

    • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM

      No kidding….but Calcaterra knows it draws hits. Can’t say I blame him.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        “She likes the high fast balls. Can’t hit ’em. Can’t lay off ’em.”

  16. dukepatrol - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    Yes we are going to lose this fight again because us “Liberal idiots” are idiots when it comes to holding our representatives feet to the fire. Here’s the bottom line on Gun control in the US. Nothing is going to get done and in the not to distant future there will be another muthaf..king nut job who will kill a bunch of innocent people with an semi automatic assault rifle. Tears, sadness,funerals,arguments and then the cycle will start again. We live in a broken fractured country and guns will rule in our immediate future.

    • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

      Explain how gun control prevents these senseless crimes. Explain how these nutjobs and criminals get guns in the first place. Does that require an automatic weapon ban? No, it might call for better mental health care though.

      I know liberals hate to admit it, but the criminals don’t go through background checks. See, they obtain guns on the black market or by stealing them. Background checks and weapons bans mean nothing to them.

      Your side tries to equate senseless killings to the NRA and law-abiding citizens. Sorry….apples and oranges. Your sports shooters and hunters don’t break laws to begin with and that’s who these “gun controls” hurt. That’s why you will lose again. Focus on the problem and maybe you will get somewhere. Here’s a hint: the guns ARENT the problem. Next time, maybe you guys will get it straight. Then I look at the picture of Diane Feinstein with her finger on the trigger of an empty AK-47 that’s pointed toward the crowd of followers next to her. Then, I know you never will.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        Gee, the police chiefs in my state who have come out for better gun control say exactly the opposite of you.

        Oh, and then there was that sheriff we had who turned out to have a felony and couldn’t own a gun himself…after carrying one on the job for years.

      • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM

        Y’know, it isn’t exactly a black market if you can advertise for it on an I-95 billboard. Criminals don’t go through background checks because we don’t require them at gun shows. Would some still find their way to the black market? Certainly, but making background checks universal and cracking down on straw purchases is going to go a really long way to reducing the number of criminals who have access to guns.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

        The two sides are never going to agree. We shouldn’t even bother.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

        I will say ….background check improvements don’t bother me at all.

      • Kevin S. - Mar 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM

        Good! Then you support the centerpiece of the Democrat’s gun-control push. Ask your Republican leaders why these are such an issue.

      • thebadguyswon - Mar 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM

        I think in the end you will see movement in that area anyway.

  17. barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    Cluefree Boy, a.k.a. Barry

    From another real fact-checking site, not that clown ass Tea Party shit you linked….

    “Bullet Baloney”

    The email cites a “drastic spike” in the Department of Homeland Security’s bullet purchases and asks: “What is the US federal government preparing for?” The email also claims that “federal management agencies are looking more and more like a military army every day.”

    DHS has indeed ordered hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition. But there is less here than meets the eye. And that’s according to the National Rifle Association and the office of Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland..ok riddle me this jackass why didn’t they just say that when the question was answered to them by the Senator? The evidence was right there on the ignored it let’s hear it from the DHS Head. I am sorry I DONT believe a person that has a chance to clarify the purchase and doesn’t. I can tell how clueless you are when you believe a website over a video from a questioning at the Senate. Your stupidity astounds me..

  18. chill1184 - Mar 22, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    People want to say that gun owners are pussies need to ask themselves a few questions;

    1. What about the gun owner who has his own little store? How does said owner defend himself and his business if thugs come in a try to rob him?

    2. What about people who unfortunately have to live in high crime areas? How are they going to defend themselves?

    3. Are you that built enough that you can take on street thugs if they try to harass you? The way these punks operate is in packs

    There is a human right to self defense and in these times the gun is the obvious tool. Government thugs aka cops aren’t going to defend you see (Warren vs District of Columbia)

    You dont want to own a gun fine as a libertarian I support your decision, my problem is those who want the state to prevent me from obtaining one.

  19. barrywhererufrom - Mar 22, 2013 at 6:11 PM

    Dear Liberal FTards..Please explain to me how Chicago has more murders than other ciy in the US AND more than the war in afghanstan with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. I know because criminals will continue to get guns..that’s why you morons. They dont care about the would rather go after the people that follow the law because you think you are making a political statement. Remember Liberalism is really a mental disorder.

  20. micksmantle - Mar 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM

    What else could I expect on a NBC affiliate? A pointless argument being had by people that understand little to nothing about the subject. I can tell there is a lot of MSNBC watchers in this room eh? eh?

  21. jikkle49 - Mar 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    I just feel a great emphasis should be placed on mental health and making sure people that shouldn’t have the guns don’t get the guns rather than outright bans.

    Because they are mentally unstable there really isn’t any way to say for sure if them not having hands on an assault rifle would stop the tragedy in the first place and it could drive them to other more devastating means to kill.

    Timothy McVeigh was able to kill 128 people and injure 680 people while doing $652 million dollars of damage without firing a single shot.

    Of course that’s not to say that if they didn’t have guns they would all make bombs but to say if you really want to kill people it can be done with our without a gun.

    So I just see the time, energy, and resources would be better spent on mental health car issues than wasting it on banning and enforcing the ban on guns.

  22. jimeejohnson - Mar 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM


    The Depends Adult Diaper Corporation
    The Kleenex Corporation

  23. randygnyc - Mar 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM

    Your welcome jimee. I’m glad you, as a democrat, and Obama supporter, deemed it necessary to take a debate about our US constitution, and degrade it into,…..race. Congratulations. You. Are. The. Problem. In. America.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2734)
  2. C. Correa (2601)
  3. Y. Puig (2592)
  4. G. Springer (2521)
  5. B. Crawford (2477)
  1. H. Ramirez (2411)
  2. H. Pence (2370)
  3. M. Teixeira (2286)
  4. J. Hamilton (2257)
  5. J. Baez (2241)