Is Fox's Chris Wallace Anti-Gun Rights?

[Dwmckie]

Let me say first that I just turned on the tv to see Fox's Chris Wallace interview Gabby Gifford's husband. I only caught the last few questions, but stayed on to see Wayne LaPierre from the NRA. From what I did see, it seems as if Wallace gave Giffords' husband all the opportunity in the world to spin his views, but then was pretty controlling with LaPierre, cutting him off from his comments.

Granted, I did not see the whole segment, so I am asking those of you who may have seen more and know more. Is Chris Wallace anti-gun rights? Was he being as fair and balanced with LaPierre as he was with Giffords' husband? Is Wallace as bad as the rest of the media in portraying the gun rights issue?

 

[angsniper]

Yes Wallace is anti gun.


Sent from my brain using ESP

 

[JM44-40]

Let me say first that I just turned on the tv to see Fox's Chris Wallace interview Gabby Gifford's husband. I only caught the last few questions, but stayed on to see Wayne LaPierre from the NRA. From what I did see, it seems as if Wallace gave Gifford's' husband all the opportunity in the world to spin his views, but then was pretty controlling with La Pierre, cutting him off from his comments.

Granted, I did not see the whole segment, so I am asking those of you who may have seen more and know more. Is Chris Wallace anti-gun rights? Was he being as fair and balanced with La Pierre as he was with Gifford's' husband? Is Wallace as bad as the rest of the media in portraying the gun rights issue?

Wallace was not fair and balanced at all. He threw Gifford's husband "softballs."

What happened to her was a tragedy and we all hurt for her. But, first of all, her husband insinuated that the same weapons available to the military were available on the street. Secondly, I've been waiting on someone, anyone, to ask Kelly why after the court process was finished on the shooter, he immediately gave an interview and said "life" in prison was satisfactory. Why not the death penalty?

Thirdly, no mention is ever made of the people who's lives are saved because they were armed.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Wallace was not fair and balanced at all. He threw Gifford's husband "softballs."

What happened to her was a tragedy and we all hurt for her. But, first of all, her husband insinuated that the same weapons available to the military were available on the street. Secondly, I've been waiting on someone, anyone, to ask Kelly why after the court process was finished on the shooter, he immediately gave an interview and said "life" in prison was satisfactory. Why not the death penalty?

Thirdly, no mention is ever made of the people who's lives are saved because they were armed.

No media outlet is fair and balanced... Each has an agenda. As the editorial commentators spew their personal opinions, the rift grows... It all divides to red and blue... Never any common ground

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I just can't sit here and fathom why someone who's wife was shot in the head would want law abiding citizens to have to suffer for it. And that is what Giffords' husband wants. I don't care what he says he is anti 2A. Banning certain firearms and limiting ammo magazines is not going to solve this epidemic. Yet he thinks that it will. And why do we never here about the other people who were shot that day along with Giffords? I would really be pissed if it was me. They treat Giffords like she is a god. I am sorry for her and her husband that she had to go through what they had to go through but I am not gonna sit here and agree with what they have to say. They are no different than Feinstein or Obama or any other anti gun person. I didn't get a chance to watch La Pierre on there but I am sure they set things up to make him look bad and made Kelly look good. It is all about benefiting the anti's. I just read this story on yahoo and thought I would post it.




WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Rifle Association's executive vice president continued to oppose background checks for all gun purchases despite polls indicating that most NRA members don't share his position.

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre said on "Fox News Sunday" that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

Mark Kelly, a gun owner and husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who survived a 2011 shooting, asked LaPierre to listen to his members. He said the current system prevented 1.7 million gun purchases since 1999. However, those potential buyers had other options because many gun sales don't require a background check.

"Members of the NRA tend to be very reasonable on this issue," Kelly said, who also appeared on the Fox show.

As Congress responds to the spate of mass shootings in recent years, most notably the December massacre of 20 children and six adults in a school in Newtown, Conn., some are calling for a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and on high-capacity ammunition magazines. However, calls for expanding background checks appear to have gained the most bipartisan support.

LaPierre said that requiring checks for all gun purchases would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

"It's going to affect only the law-abiding people," he said. "Criminals could care less.

LaPierre was pressed about his contention that gun checks would lead to a national registry, when no one from the Obama administration is calling for that.

"And Obamacare wasn't a tax until they needed it to be a tax," LaPierre said.

Kelly and LaPierre agreed on one point: More people seeking to buy guns illegally should be prosecuted.

"They should be prosecuted and there should be stiff penalties," Kelly said.

A key player in the coming gun debate in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said on ABC's "This Week" that he's willing to take a look at legislation that would ban certain semi-automatic weapons, but he also noted that he voted against a ban on such weapons in 1994 because it "didn't make sense."

He was more definitive on the issue of background checks, saying "everyone acknowledges we should do something with background checks."

Reid said his goal is for the Judiciary Committee to report out a gun bill. Senators could subsequently seek amendments on the Senate floor. That way, if the bill didn't contain certain provisions, such as the ban on certain weapons, then sponsors would at least get a vote on their proposal and lawmakers would have to go on the record about where they stand.

 

[vicious]

I caught the Wayne LaPierre portion, too, and every time Wayne tried to talk, Chris would stop him, change the subject, or tell him he was wrong. The interview was completely biased. What I find troubling is that Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are the only ones getting any credit for fighting the anti-gun movement. Where are the others?

 

[Roadking Larry]

I caught part of it on the radio. I used to have a little respect for Wallace. He'd ask Wayne a question then when Wayne would try to answer he'd interrupt, cut him off and tell him he was wrong. I don't thing he let Wayne answer a question uninterrupted while I was listening.

 

[abajaj11]

Let me say first that I just turned on the tv to see Fox's Chris Wallace interview Gabby Gifford's husband. I only caught the last few questions, but stayed on to see Wayne LaPierre from the NRA. From what I did see, it seems as if Wallace gave Giffords' husband all the opportunity in the world to spin his views, but then was pretty controlling with LaPierre, cutting him off from his comments.

Granted, I did not see the whole segment, so I am asking those of you who may have seen more and know more. Is Chris Wallace anti-gun rights? Was he being as fair and balanced with LaPierre as he was with Giffords' husband? Is Wallace as bad as the rest of the media in portraying the gun rights issue?

Yes Wallace is a liberal and is very much anti-gun, like most folks on Fox News. They are the coutnry club republican types who live in NYC, and just want lower taxes.
Wallace is also a registered democrat, and has been for over 20 years:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/12/94709.shtml

 

[Shadowrider]

You could see it plain as day in that interview. WL would say something truthful and logical and he would just have none of it. This is the problem with elitists, they are so brainwashed that they know better than everyone else that they aren't going to even listen, there's just no reason for them to do so.

 

[dennishoddy]

I caught part of it on the radio. I used to have a little respect for Wallace. He'd ask Wayne a question then when Wayne would try to answer he'd interrupt, cut him off and tell him he was wrong. I don't thing he let Wayne answer a question uninterrupted while I was listening.

this is what I don't understand. Why didn't Wayne say to Wallace, Wait a minute! I'm not done with my statement, and I would appreciate you not interupting my comments until I've finished answering answering your question?

Why act like a meek lamb. DAMMIT! Get aggressive! Put out the facts, and quit acting passive!