In her opening statement on Justice, Judge Jeanine Pirro criticized President Obama for going on an "anti-Second Amendment crusade" while the nation is under threat from terrorist groups.
Pirro said that Obama's planned executive action on gun control will leave Americans "up a creek not just without a paddle, but without a gun as well."
"At a time when we face the biggest threat we have ever confronted, our commander-in-chief is on an anti-Second Amendment crusade to take away our guns," she said.
Pirro said that restrictive gun laws policies in California and France did nothing to prevent the attacks there.
"Mr. President, the issue is terrorism, not mass shootings."
Judge Jeanine is either being dishonest or stupid with that statement! The presidents EO has to do with gun violence in the US, not terrorism in the middle east. She is evoking the fears of Americans about ISIS, even though that has almost nothing to do with gun violence in America.
Terrorism related deaths in America account for 0.8% of gun deaths since, and including 911. Since 911, terrorism related deaths in America count for 0.1% of gun deaths. 99.9% of gun deaths have nothing to do with terrorism, yet Judge Jeanine is only concerned with the 0.1%. How insane is that?
"And yet because of a political agenda, you refuse to confront the biggest danger that we face. Instead of blaming guns, start shooting terrorists."
Judge Jeanine's remarks in full:
As we venture into 2016 the most dangerous threat to Americans is President Barack Obama’s intent to use his presidential action to once again usurp congressional powers and circumvent the constitution by thinking up "new actions" this Monday with his attorney general.
Translation: together they will chip away at our second amendment gun rights.
JJ - please explain to me how this affects 2nd Amendment gun rights? Since the only thing in the EO that affects gun ownership is the expansion of gun checks - how does it chip away at your gun rights? Gun checks have been occurring for decades; why is it all of a sudden a threat to the 2nd Amendment? And since the only people who will be affected by the expanded gun checks are criminals, terrorists and nut-jobs - the only rights you are protecting are their rights to purchase weapons without a gun check. In protecting the rights of nut-jobs and criminals, you are forbidding innocent people including children, like those in Sandy Hook, to have the right to life. You are sacrificing them on the altar of NRA insanity.
|***It's astonishing, and very troubling to me that Republicans don't see a problem here***|
Example #1: Not to worry--ISIS is a JV team. He would contain them. Until he decided that he would dismantle them all the while admitting he had no strategy to do either.
The reality? Today ISIS is the largest, strongest, most well-funded terrorist organization the world has ever seen, with not only social media savvy, but with satellites above the Muslim world.
Example #2: Al-Qaeda is on its knees--we've defeated the Taliban sufficient to bring our troops home. Maybe I missed it but apparently there's been a resurrection.
Al-Qaeda is far from on its knees--developing training camps all over Africa and Afghanistan and the Taliban? Back in Afghanistan on the brink of controlling it again.
So looking back at 2015 when ISIS succeeded in the slaughter of innocents in Paris, and ISIS inspired militants succeeded in the slaughter of innocents in San Bernardino, it's no wonder more Americans believe the terrorists are winning the war against the United States. It’s no wonder 64% of Americans disapprove of Obama’s approach to ISIS.
So where does this all leave you? Up a creek not just without a paddle, but without a gun as well.
While what you say above is correct, it is completely irrelevant to the EO. You know that, yet you choose to play the charade because it's good for your ratings. How despicable!
At a time when we face the biggest threat we have ever confronted, our commander-in-chief is on an anti-Second Amendment crusade to take away our guns.
How does this even remotely compute to taking away your guns? There are 300 million or more guns in America; it is physically impossible to take them away. Plus, you of all people JJ, know that the Supreme Court would never allow that to happen in a million years. And if, by some astounding miracle the Supreme Court failed, the military would never allow that to happen. You are hyping and playing on fears that are simply absurd, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
America should be the safest country on the planet. Yet it is the least safe country in the developed world. Tell me again how guns make you safe. The deterrent theory was the excuse for developing nuclear weapons by America and the Soviet Union, until, one day, they woke up and realized how close they came to destroying all life on earth. They since have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in an unusual glimpse of sanity. Reducing gun deaths by putting more guns on the streets is no more sane than the cold war race to develop nuclear weapons.
In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, the president took 23 executive actions. It didn't stop a thing.
No, it didn't. Nor did it take a single gun from a single bonafide owner - so where's the conspiracy?
California with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country--it did not stop a thing in San Bernardino. In France, where gun laws are among the most restrictive in the world, innocents were slaughtered like lambs.
This is cherry-picking and it is beneath you (at least, I used to think so). Yesterday, Obama quoted stats on two states where gun checks were instituted or abolished. In the former, gun deaths dropped by 40%; in the latter they rose. Those are real stats that are relevant; why did you not address them?
Mr. President, the issue is terrorism, not mass shootings. And yet because of a political agenda, you refuse to confront the biggest danger that we face.
How is 0.1% of shooting deaths the biggest danger we face? The 99.9% of shooting deaths that have nothing to do with terrorism is the biggest danger to America. Fear of the 0.1% is nothing less than paranoia - and you are feeding it!
Instead of blaming guns, start shooting terrorists.
Good grief! You are 1000 times more likely to be shot by someone you work with, or someone down the street who can't even spell terrorist, than you are to be shot by a terrorist!
Maybe you don’t have time to focus on this because you’re too busy emptying Guantanamo and trading deserters for Taliban generals.
As a result of your dilly-dallying in leftist political ideology you should be focusing on protecting us and letting us defend ourselves. The police can't do it all.
So why do you want easy access to guns for criminals, nut-jobs and even terrorists? Why are you worried about terrorist but won't take the smallest step to make it difficult for them to access weapons? Is that helping the police?
Give your head a shake Judge Pirro. Be honest and speak the truth instead of playing up to your audience and sponsors. You just dropped completely off my list of respected political commentators.