Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Meet The ‘Press’

March 26, 2013 by  

Meet The ‘Press’
Gun control was the topic of Sunday’s edition of "Meet the Press."

There’s a grave somewhere in which Tim Russert is spinning like the smart meter on Al Gore’s mansion during Masseuse-apalooza. Russert spent decades building NBC News’ “Meet the Press” into the benchmark of Sunday morning appointment television. Not only did viewers flock to the Peacock network to watch Russert conduct a weekly symphony of journalism and celebrity, the roster of guests was a veritable who’s who of the movers and shakers of the world.

Perhaps it’s the pressure of trying to fill the oversized footprints of a legend like Russert. Perhaps it’s the relentless drumbeat of liberal malarkey that has replaced actual discourse. Perhaps President Barack Obama promised him a spot in his next foursome with Tiger Woods. Whatever the reason, David Gregory has fallen into the same pit of partisanship that has turned the rest of NBC’s news apparatus into a weird little carnival of mealymouthed mendacity.

On Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press,” Gregory hosted yet another in the seemingly endless series of increasingly fruitless Democratic efforts to dismantle the Bill of Rights. While discussing so-called “gun control” with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Gregory coughed up an old and debunked “loophole” statistic: “[I]sn’t that preferable to a big loophole where you have all these — 40 percent of sales, private sales, one-on-one, where you’ve got no ability to trace it?”

Gregory was trying to make a point about what liberals believe is an epidemic of unregulated and unregistered sales of firearms between private citizens. For the gun-grabbing tyrants of the left, two law-abiding Americans conducting a simple business transaction free of the withering gaze of the government, President Barack Obama and/or NBC News is simply too much to bear. Thus did they concoct the aforementioned “40 percent.”

To be honest, I wouldn’t mind if that number were accurate. After all, Americans don’t require government approval to exercise their 1st Amendment rights; so they neither want nor need the Democrats’ approval to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, the real percentage of gun sales conducted between consenting citizens is around 10 percent, an admission even The Washington Post was forced to make following Obama’s use of the number in a ghoulish speech on so-called “gun violence” more than a month after the Newtown massacre. It’s worth noting that not only was Obama lying during his January fearmongering session, but he also omitted the fact that Connecticut already has the sort of anti-freedom laws the Democrats want to force upon the rest of us — for all the good they did the victims of Newtown.

While I don’t condone liberalism’s leading lights deliberately fabricating anti-Bill of Rights talking points for the sole purpose of, well, abrogating the Bill of Rights, I do understand that people so completely bent on control of The People will lie like Attorney General Eric Holder testifying about Operation Fast and Furious. But Gregory is supposed to rise above petty partisan dishonesty.

Democrats lie; it’s what they do. Obama deploys the “40 percent.” Congressman Charlie Rangel, disgraced but re-elected anyway, claims: “[W]e’re talking about millions of kids dying, being shot down by assault weapons.” Piers Morgan and Michael Moore jabber like cracked-out orangutans on basic cable television, blaming inanimate objects for everything except Morgan’s weak chin and Moore’s lack of self-control around fatty foods. But they’re politicians. Gregory is, ostensibly, a journalist.

In December, Gregory displayed a standard-capacity magazine during an attempted interrogation of LaPierre. His actions violated a local ordinance which bars possession of any magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds. Though he escaped prosecution for his televised crime, Gregory did succeed in proving that anti-gun laws have no bearing or effect on people determined to break them, even pencil-necked media hacks who couldn’t actually use a firearm without wetting their pants.

Gregory’s murdering his own credibility is shameful, but not unexpected. Too bad “Meet the Press” got caught in the crossfire. Of course, the real estate between liberals and their goal of comprehensive gun control is as dangerous as your average Democrat-run city. Tim Russert would be mortified.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Meet The ‘Press’”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • M. Saint-Jean

    We may get Tim back in the form of Luke one day but while Tim was with us it was one heck of a ride. He certainly was dedicated to his profession and NBC. When we lost him I had hoped for Brokaw who I grew up watching in Los Angeles. When David Gregory took over I was pleasantly surprised. I don’t necessarily agree with his politics, however, he is fair in his time allotment and in giving women equal forum. We don’t have to agree with people to like them. That’s what this country is all about!

    • Bob Reynolds

      @ M. Saint-Jean…Great!…”grew up watching Brokaw (gutless liberal minion) in Los Angeles”. The land in perpetual pursuit of utopia and the realization of bankruptcy. “Giving women equal forum”…shouldn’t everyone have equal forum? Are you racist, feminist, a sheeple that requires someone else to be your spine, or are you under 21 years of age and still believe in fairy tales? You “don’t necessarily agree with David Gregory’s politics” and “we don’t have to agree with people to like them”. People are who they are politically or they suffer schizophrenia and/or prevaricate. I do not agree with Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Goebbels Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama (just to name a few) and I DO NOT LIKE THEM. Now enters the question….Saint-Jean, do you know who you are?

    • CatGman

      You miss the point. Gregory is pushing his agenda. A real journalist should be reporting facts and persuing the truth. Both the truth and real journalists are a rare thing to find in the news.

    • Carol J

      Why would you want a liberal like Brokaw? I grew up listening to Meet the Press because my Dad never missed it unless he was working graveyard shift. I always thought Tim Russert was one of the best. He gave everyone a chance to voice a personal opinion. I stopped watching during Gregory’s 2nd show. He’s about the worst they could have chosen.

  • independant thinker

    Not directly related to the article but here is something that was forwarded to me. If true it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are.

  • http://none Charley D

    Any time I notice an article by Ben Crystal I always read it; Ben never disappoints me; occasionally, after reading Ben’s article, I’ll read a few comments on this forum; I have never bothered to reply more than once; the reason is very simple; todays comments are a rare exception; today many of the people making comments are intelligent, make sense, and I completely agree with many of them; but then we come to ever present troll, Joba; (or Jopa, Sloba, or what ever he calls himself today); the last few times I read these comments, there were more Trolls than there were “real people;” I participate regularly on another website that is about 85% liberals, and what few conservatives there are, argue with each other. Besides all of that, the membership of the forum is at least 60 homosexuals; when I hear people saying they belong to the NRA, then say, “What’s wrong with registering your gun purchases”?, I know right then I’m listening to an idiot, and I have more productive things to do, than to listen to idiots; Today was a pretty good day here; only about 3 or 4 idiots today………Jopa, M. Saint Jean, Kinetic1 and possibly one more. I can’t believe “Eddie” wasn’t here today; I kinda miss Eddie……..(like a tooth ache, the day after it goes away)

    • Suze

      The greatest advantage the socialists had going for them was applying their agenda to an unsuspecting nation, and we were either too distracted or suffering the “normalcy bias’ (can’t imagine that what has always been could change). But with every area of our rights being challenged, such as the gun grab efforts and this invasion of our privacies, the result has been a couple of things: 1. we are now motivated to wake up out of our apathy, 2. we are all taking our 101 constitution course that the socialist teachers didn’t provide in school, 3. we are galvanizing across social media, 4. we are no longer content to let our treasonous government rip us off, 5. And now that we know how complicit the MSM has been in this attempt to overthrow our country, we are also now demanding that our safeguard for democracy (the free press) hold true to that resolve or we the people will no longer have any use for those so-called journalists.

  • replica oakleys

    Neurophysiology is the study of the functioning of the nervous system within a living organism, most especially the human. The word origin of physiology itself comes from the Greek root word physis-nature physi-, physio-, which is in turn related to the Greek root phyein-to produce, cause to grow, bring forth, which gives us such English vocabulary words as physician, physics, hypophysis, and even imp

  • Kinetic1

    So, 75% of NRA members approve of tougher background checks, but government is out of line to require private sales (as well as gun show sales) to follow the same guidelines as those conducted by a authorized retailer? Was it way out of line when I had to register the purchase of my car from a private party? What is the problem here? No one is violating your right to own a gun. No one is stopping those of us who are not felons or mentally ill from purchasing our neighbor’s extra weapon. All you are doing is registering your purchase, and the majority of Americans are fine with that. Of course the majority of Americans are not on this website sharing their fear that the Feds (or Obama himself) are waiting outside their door, ready to confiscate their “end-of-times” arsenal.

  • JJinCO

    The mentally ill are ont on the list since it violates doctor-patient privelege and even the Feds don’t use the background check to prosecute attempted illegal purchase. Fixing a problem that doesn’t exist will not make the situation any better.

  • Jon Walser

    While history shows a strong indication that registration leads to confiscation, it has been argued that the progression is not inevitable. What cannot be logically argued is that failure to register makes confiscation almost impossible. With the feds on a multi-billion round ammunition buying spree, with the example of Greece and Cyprus showing where our own debt and tax policies are leading, I think the expectation that the Feds are preparing for confiscation to be a reasoned one. I, for one, would like my possession of, or lack of possession of firearms to be a complete mystery.

    On an entirely different level, if I should choose to give my daughter a pistol for her 21st birthday, I consider it no-one else’s business, particularly some bureaucrat in Washington. And, no I don’t see any reason to ask for a background check, or PERMISSION to give my daughter a gun.

  • Kevin

    There are enough restrictions and registrations set in place already. If the Government is so concerned about Gun Violence then it should address the Main area where this is an Issue. With Criminals who use Guns in the commission Of crimes. Law abiding Citizens are not the problem. Semi automatic Rifles are not the Problem… look up the statistics on this. People are killed more often with household Objects than with these weapons. The only conclusion that Gun owners can come to is that the Gov wants to use these first small steps to begin the slow process of Gun Bans. If you pay attention to History this is not Far fetched. No one is Paranoid or crazy for being concerned about this. No laws are perfect….No restrictions or Bans of any kind are going to stop some wacko from Killing another person if he or she so desires. The argument that Mag restrictions will keep the body count down is a ridiculous argument for the Rights stripping agenda proposed currently by Dems in Washington. If the Government is so concerned about lives being lost then why not ban the use of Cigarettes? or Alcohol?? or any number of things in this country that kill Infinitely more people every year than do Semi-auto Rifles or any other gun for that matter. The Reason??? This is about control and Money. Lots of money is made every year by our Government in the form of taxes placed upon these Weapons of mass destruction. and so you will not see the “concern” for the welfare of children whose parents are Dieing in droves from these addictive substances. this can only lead me to assume that the Great cry of concern over “Gun Violence” has absolutely nothing to do with “Gun Violence” it has everything to do with Control and Politics.

  • Capiralist at Birth

    Registration is the first step towards confiscation. What don’t you understand about “Shall not be infringed”? If you think you can come and get my weapons. I doubt that you have the courage.

  • bill

    you registered your car so the state can get its cut. come wake up.

  • phideaux

    “So, 75% of NRA members approve of tougher background checks,”

    Another lie. No one outside the NRA (and especially Bloomberg) has access to the NRA’s list of members so they cannot do an accurate survey of the members opinions. When an NRA sponsered survey of their members was done the number of members who “approved of tougher background checks” was as best I remember around 25%.

  • dan

    I miss Russert and Buckley….and the Constitution

  • Deerinwater

    WoW Ben! ~A well written piece! Great composition and powerfully delivered. I did not view the program and not sure of what to make of your comments does not take away the quality of of your article.

  • Capiralist at Birth

    I quit watching NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN many years ago along with canceling my subscription to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. I always thought Russert was an obvious Left winger, just more interesting than the current fare.

  • Grok

    Finally I agree about something with this author. “Meet The Press ” clearly sucks with David Gregory at the helm.
    BUT not becausee he leans Democratic, but because he never challenges the outright lies (on both sides) and allows pompous rhetoric from the gun lobby to go unchalled.
    The Second Ammendment is not being infringed by current firearms legislation (proposed).
    And SCOTUS rulings by conservative justices support that view, although Conservatives never mention that part of the history of firearms law.
    But, Meet The Press SUX!

  • Smokestack

    Russert??? He was a recognized liberal leftist from his earliest days.

  • Jon Walser

    Additionally, though the Statists are loath to admit it, all of these schemes have been tried and MADE NO DIFFERENCE! At least, they made no difference in terms of increased safety. They made lots of difference in terms of freedom and security lost, lives lost, criminals empowered…

  • Ken10

    My problem with Russert is he softballed the conservatives. I like to see everybody asked the hard questions.

  • Deerinwater

    That sort of narrows the field down to Fox doesn’t it CAB? I’m not actually up to speed as to what all the choices are anymore. ~ Cspan and Fox seems to be what you have limited yourself too.

    At least I can say that I equal view none of them in my home. ~ when I’m “out”, sports channels and Fox is most common.

  • deerinwater

    I think everyone misses Buckley. ~ It’s hard to miss the Constitution as the Tea Party has make it a central theme. Probably the single wises thing the Tea Party can be guilty of.

  • STEVE E.

    That’s because there is nothing in the Constitution that states that the right to posses automobiles on the public streets cannot be infringed. Look up the meaning of “infringe”, and it’s meaning will open up a whole new world for you.

  • Kinetic1

    Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
    Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

    The Constitution states (among other things) that ” 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.” Some in the Federal government want to require that all sales of arms, public or private should be registered. The act of registering does not negate your right to make a purchase. Neither does it limit the number of guns you can own, or undermine your ability to purchase and own said guns. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to secretly own guns, so the government is not infringing on your privacy.

    I’ve read the meaning (though I already knew what it meant) and all I can say is, what was your point?

  • STEVE E.

    To say I cannot secretly own guns is an encroachment on my rights. That’s what you call infringe.

  • CZ52

    “The act of registering does not negate your right to make a purchase.”

    Wrong. The act of registration of our firearms is called prior restraint. It will inhibit some people from purchasing a firearm simply because they do not want anyone to know what they own.

  • Kinetic1

    SteveE & CZ52,
    Again, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to secretly own a gun, just the right to own one. And why should we care? Well, let’s take the case of David Michael Keene. David has issues. In fact, David was institutionalized with “severe emotional problems” seven times between the ages of 8 and 13. According to his mother, Diana Carr, “He’s had a continuing problem with impulse control, and an exaggerated belief that he was in more danger than he was in at times, causing him to respond in a way that was more excessive or out of line with what was going on.” But this information was withheld by his father when he helped David register for a gun permit.

    Now David has served a 10 year sentence for road rage. in December of 2002 Keene, driving to the shooting range with his girlfriend, fired his pistol at another driver who upset him. The bullet shattered the back window of the other car and lodged in the driver’s seat, just inches from the driver’s head.

    Should Mr. Keene have been allowed to carry? Should the authorities have known about his emotional issues? Should his father, NRA President David Keene have withheld this information?

  • Suze

    What I was wondering was if one of our historians on this site could pull up the different communist takeovers where registration of arms was followed by government takeovers….I know of two in Europe but also know there are others in smaller countries….It’s just the way its done. We need to post this process. I will not comply.

  • jopa

    CAB;You are exactly right on that registration is the first step towards confiscation.Just look at our cars.Registration on the automobile first came about in 1901 and they are going to come and get them any day now.LMAO

  • CatGman

    David Gregory isn’t a pimple on Tim Russert’s back side. Barely even a dangle-berry.

  • Bob666

    Tim Russert was exceptional, jury is out on David.

  • Jon Walser

    Pretty damn clear that licensing, confiscation, taxing are all part of infringe. All of which become pretty hard to do without registration. Also note, we are not, repeat not, talking of just registration, but background checks: An added cost (tax) for an unalienable right, and the power of government to decide who gets to exercise their rights. Maybe, a lookup of the meaning of “unalienable rights” is in order?

  • Jon Walser

    oops meant this as a reply to Kinetic1′s 10:59 post…

  • foxhandler

    The “slippery slope” arguments are false. Look that up in your logical fallacies website.

  • Jon Walser

    “And SCOTUS rulings by conservative justices support that view”
    This is called a Naked Assertion.
    ” A “naked” assertion is simply an assertion without any evidence, proof, or other support. It is usually based on the false presumption that since we all have “a right to an opinion”, that this implies that our opinions must be automatically accepted as valid. What invariably proceeds the blunder of a “naked” assertion is the logical fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof” which further illustrates that the arguer has no concept of logic. ”

    Perhaps you could give a few examples?
    How about one?

  • foxhandler

    Try googling the subject. I hate to emulate this forum with so much garbage that obsures the oriiginal thought. But if I must…

    “One of the ironies of the gun-control debate is that Justice Antonin Scalia’s ruling in an important Supreme Court case left the door open to gun control. The conservative jurist and star of the ideological Right didn’t get soft and squishy in his 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court’s biggest ruling on guns in modern times, though Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says he did.

    Not really. Scalia authored a 5-4 ruling that struck down D.C.’s law banning handguns and as well as its requirement that owners purchase and use a gun lock and keep their guns unloaded. He took on a liberal shibboleth that the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to individuals. No, he said, the constitutional protection applies to individuals, too. ”

    Right to Bear Arms

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1939, in a case called “US v. Miller,” that the 2nd amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia — for example, sawed-off shotguns can be banned because they’re not “ordinary military equipment”.
    Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling prior to “Heller”, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.
    “Heller” refers to a ruling on the issue of “individual rights”. The Supreme Court ruled, in the 2008 case called “District of Columbia v. Heller”, that the 2nd Amendment does define an individual right to gun ownership, as opposed to a “collective right” for a state-run and state-armed National Guard.
    Much discretion was left to the states and to Congress, but Heller opens up the issue to further Supreme Court cases.
    Hence, gun control issues are still primarily the subject of Congressional legislation.

    Not to mention that magazine llimits, backround checks, and registration of restricted weapons (current law) infringe one iota on the right to own and bear arms.

  • Grok

    Your post is the north end of a southbound cow leaking.
    I am a member of the NRA and I have access to the roles of the NRA (for a price, as I sell something). Like any other list, it is availble to either money or power.

  • Jon Walser

    Yes, slippery slope is a logical fallacy; however I did not make such an argument. I listed a few current infringements, and stated that registration is a necessary precursor to doing any of them. I said, standing hip-deep in the lake, that had I not stood at the top of the slope and danced, I would not have slid in.

  • Jon Walser

    Thank you for proving my point!

    Miller stated that only arms of military use were protected. The short shotgun was not protected because no evidence was offered that it was of military use. Of course, no defense was offered, and the government clearly lied when they argued the shotgun was not a military type weapon, as such weapons were used extensively in WWI.

    As you said, Heller carefully avoided dealing with the 2nd amendment, except to state that it is an individual right. While not as strong a ruling as I think the 2nd deserves, it does not support any of the current proposed legislative schemes.

    Interestingly, the current state of the gun control argument is exactly 180 degrees from Miller. Only non-military guns are to be allowed, while Miller states that only military guns are protected.

    So, I guess Grok was simply wrong in his assertion, as you have amply demonstrated.

    Again, thanks.

  • Kinetic1

    “And, no I don’t see any reason to ask for a background check, or PERMISSION to give my daughter a gun.”
    David Keene was of the same opinion, and look how that worked out. (read further down) Some people just shouldn’t own a gun. I’m not suggesting that your daughter is on of those people, but there are valid reasons to restrict ownership.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.