Turns Out Ed Schultz is Conservative - On Guns

September 18th, 2013 5:35 PM

This won't go over well at MSNBC to say the least.

In the wake of Monday's shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, radio libtalker Ed Schultz, who also hosts an MSNBC cable show, wasted little time in saying further restrictions on gun owners would be pointless. (Audio after the jump)

Here's what Schultz said right out of the gate on his radio show yesterday, in remarks that could easily have come from an NRA ad campaign (audio) --

Obviously tonight on "The Ed Show" we're going to talk about gun violence in America. And I think that we have to put all of this in perspective. I'm just not convinced that anything's going to change. I'm not convinced that Washington is going to react, that we're going to see any gun laws that are going to be passed that is (sic) going to potentially change the outcome of mass shootings in this country. And I want to take it from the perspective of someone who has owned firearms for a long time, that would be me. I've never had a handgun. I've never had an assault weapon. And not to sound grandiose about this, but I think I'm basically from the background of someone who might be somewhat concerned about, where's this all going to go?

Obviously something has to be done, OK? Obviously we have to make some strides into trying to curb this kind of behavior. Oh it's the video games. Oh it's poor parenting. Oh it's bad security. Oh it's mental health. There's no, for lack of a better term, any silver bullet out there that is going to be able to wipe a clean slate in this country and society where we're going to not have mass shootings any more! We knew after Sandy Hook it was going to happen again. We know today that it's probably going to happen again. And it's not all about Congress either. It's about us. It's about responsibility.

I guess I'm going to give some audio that might be a little bit tough for liberals. But as a gun owner myself, I pose the question to our audience -- why should there be restriction on people who are law-abiding citizens that don't have mental health issues? That are law-abiding citizens? That pay their taxes? That do everything they're supposed to do? But then every time there's a mass shooting we're going to have a conversation about what I can own in this country. This is freedom, isn't it?

I'm going to infuriate some of you, I don't mean to, I'm pushing the conversation that, it's almost as if we don't dive into the conversation the way we should. And what is at the crux of all of this is freedom! You can go out and purchase a firearm! And there are groups out there that want to limit that and the types that you own because some crazy guy went in and shot up a workplace!

Now, from a gun owner's perspective, do you think that's fair? Gun owners are going to say no. And they're going to have their advocates who are going to take it beyond common sense and come up with statements that the only thing that can protect a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. No, I don't adhere to that. If I did, I'd own firearms that would be concealed. If I really believed that in my heart, I would have, I'd be packing. And I'd have a permit that lets me pack. But I don't! 

What I do have is a deer rifle and a bunch of shotguns and I use 'em every fall and that's the only time of year I use them! And there's a bunch of people out there across America like me that think that, well, you know, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco, you don't run the whole country, OK! You don't run the whole country. This is a country that's run by all of us!

Couldn't help but notice that five of Schultz's colleagues at MSNBC are from four of the cities he mentioned -- Lawrence O'Donnell (Boston), Al Sharpton and Chris Hayes (New York), Chris Matthews (Philadelphia) and Rachel Maddow (San Francisco Bay Area). Yeah, probably just a coincidence.

While Schultz's remarks are a welcome departure from his robotic demonizing of the wealthy and racial grievance-mongering, he claims that his guns are for hunting only. If that were true until now, I hope it always remains so. But I find it hard to believe that they would not be used in self-defense if he deemed it necessary.