(Unless you're Rosie O'Donnell's personal bodyguard, apparently.)

According to a May 25 AP article, Rosie O'Donnell has asked for permission to allow a bodyguard to accompany her and her adopted son to kindergarten in the fall. While she claims the bodyguard will not carry a firearm on the trips to school, he has applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and the article states that O'Donnell can accept the guard being armed at times. 

O'Donnell said she can reconcile her support of gun control with the guard being armed on occasion.  O'Donnell said, "I don't personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem." 

NRA-ILA FAX ALERT

Vol. 7, No. 22 6/2/00

"ROSIE THE HYPOCRITE" OR "ROSIE THE PARANOID"?

Rosie O'Donnell, fast becoming the nation's most outspoken anti-gun extremist, has been having a tough time with the media lately. Last week, it was revealed in the press that one of the beleaguered talk-show host's bodyguards has applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Connecticut (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 22).

In light of her past statements that only the police should be allowed to own firearms, and that gun owners should be jailed, this latest revelation had many in the media calling O'Donnell a hypocrite. Now Rosie is trying to defend her anti-gun, and thus anti-personal protection, views while also defending her employment of bodyguards most Americans simply cannot afford.
She started with her on-line newsletter, where she claimed to speak for all "gun control advocates," stating "[o]ur mission is NOT to prevent law abiding citizens...from owning a licensed and registered gun.... We are not trying to take away your gun...."

Her newsletter then went on to criticize the newspaper that reported the story, and then claimed that the local police were "politically motivated" when they investigated whether or not the bodyguard O'Donnell had stationed outside her son's school was illegally carrying a firearm.

Either Rosie does not believe that the police should investigate possible criminal acts when they involve celebrities, or she has simply convinced herself that she is the target of some conspiracy. She also doesn't seem to want people to think that she is responsible in any way for her having professionals hired to protect her and her family, as her newsletter closes by stating her bodyguard "works for a security firm" (a rather pointless assertion, as most bodyguards do), and that the firm was hired by Warner Bros., which employs O'Donnell. However, she earlier stated "I chose to have a ‘bodyguard' for my children." So is it her decision or Warner Bros.?

Rosie's next attempt to defend her hypocrisy and paranoia came on Thursday, when she appeared on NBC's Today with Katie Couric. O'Donnell reiterated her claim that a local Connecticut police department has targeted her for political reasons, and implied that the media has treated her unfairly by reporting her "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

Rosie did reveal to Couric, however, that she has had armed security protecting her home from time to time while at the same time she continues to promote restrictions on Americans who wish to provide for their own protection. O'Donnell even made the outrageous implication that NRA has somehow attempted to scare and threaten her.

But some efforts to further her gun control agenda actually made some of our points. She complained that the article about her security guard exposed the fact that he was currently unarmed, and that she felt the illusion that he might be armed added to his effectiveness as a deterrent to violent, criminal attacks. Of course, advocates of Right to Carry laws have been saying for years that if criminals don't know who is armed, but know that virtually any of their potential victims might be armed, then they will be less likely to attack anybody.

This view is supported by extensive research, including that done by Yale senior research scholar John R. Lott, Jr., which evolved into the 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, the seminal work on the benefits of fair, non-discretionary Right to Carry laws. As stated last week, though, we doubt Rosie is about to support the Right to Carry movement and help lobby for the passage of laws establishing such systems -- especially considering rumors circulating that the talk-show host is being groomed as the new spokesperson for HCI.

With O'Donnell's television future in question (there are rumors that her TV show will not be back next year because of sagging ratings), and Sarah Brady apparently looking to step down from HCI's helm, Rosie would appear to be ready to step into a role for which she has been rehearsing.

"I don't personally own a gun," she said, "but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem."

No surprises here, folks. Rosie "Only the Police Should Have Guns" O'Donnell would have you and me tossed in the clink for merely owning a gun, while she goes about in the company of armed guards. Most of us can't afford that luxury.

And now, the nasty truth is out: Rosie is defenseless when not in the company of her personal security squad. How does it feel, Rosie?

Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show Rosie O'Donnell Show May 19, 1999

Rosie O'Donnell Show
May 19, 1999

And debate they did.

Selleck, who had also been asked about the gun issue earlier in the day by Today show host Katie Couric, told O'Donnell that he didn't believe gun-control laws would have stopped the Columbine shooting. He also said that gun ownership was constitutionally protected.

"What you're really talking about is, 'Are we responsible enough of a society to be this free?' That should frame the debate. My answer, unfortunately in this culture is, 'Probably not.' I'm going to go down with the civil liberties ship for all the Bill of Rights and apply them equally. You can ask me specific questions about anything, but it's simply stupid political rhetoric."

That really got the Kmart pitchwoman going. "It's not stupid political rhetoric," O'Donnell shot back. "We also have freedom of speech, but you're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater because it threatens the safety of other people. Assault rifles threaten the safety of other people. There's no reason to have them."

After a few more exchanges, Selleck lost his patience, asking Rosie, "Do you think it's proper to have a debate about the NRA? I'm trying to be fair here. This is absurd. You're calling me a spokesman for the NRA." (The NRA ad campaign Selleck appeared in was sloganed, "I'm the NRA.")

After still more back and forth, a now-anguished O'Donnell tried to calm things down, telling her sparring partner, "This is not supposed to be a personal affront."

Selleck's seemingly well-intended response to that, however--a caustic: "It's certainly very entertaining. Look at the audience; they're laughing and having a good old time"--didn't sit well with Rosie.

"Well, it's a serious subject," O'Donnell replied. "I don't think it's a lot to laugh about."

To which, Selleck could only say, "Okay, that's fine."

Trying to wrap things up quickly, O'Donnell admitted, "This had not gone the way I hoped it had gone," adding, "I would like to thank you for appearing anyway, knowing that we have different views...And if you feel insulted by my questions, I apologize, because it was not a personal attack."

Selleck got in his last words: "It's your show, and you can talk about it after I leave, too."

That ended it, with the now-very-frazzled O'Donnell instructing everyone to "go see The Love Letter starring Tom Selleck, Kate Capshaw and Ellen DeGeneres. It's a great movie."

Maybe, but not nearly as entertaining as her show Wednesday. 

Rosie O'Donnell/Tom Selleck Show Transcript Rosie O'Donnell Show May 19, 1999

Rosie: We’re here with Tom Selleck who’s a member of the NRA. Three months ago you joined the NRA.

Tom: I did. I actually joined to do an ad. Because, I’ve done a lot of consensus work for like the last 7 to 8 years and what disturbs me and I think disturbs a lot of Americans is the whole idea of politics now-a-days which seems to be, “if you disagree with me, you must be evil” as opposed to “if you disagree with me, you must be stupid”. That’s very American. You know, the demonizing of a group like the NRA is very disturbing. And that coupled with the idea that the government is getting into the idea of suing. We did it for noble reasons with tobacco. I think it was a mistake. Then they moved to gun makers, now they’re suing television shows. Oliver Stone there’s a suit on his movie. I think the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights are extremely important. And somebody needs to stand up at times where...maybe some of our politicians are demagogue-ing issues. Reasonable people should disagree in this country; we should celebrate that, not consider it a threat.

Rosie: Right, but I think that the reason that people are so extreme against the NRA is because the NRA has such a militant strength, especially a power in Washington to veto or to stronghold any sensible gun law. They have been against every sensible gun law, until yesterday, including trigger locks, so that children, which there are 500 a year that die, don’t get killed.

Tom: I’m not a spokesman for the NRA. In fact, all I can tell you is, I was a member when I was kid. I was a junior NRA member. I learned firearm safety. And from what I can see in the last three months, they don’t do a lot of the stuff that you assume that they do.

Rosie: I don’t assume.

Tom: They are for trigger locks. The NRA is for a lot of things as long as they’re voluntary.

Rosie: They’re against the registering of guns. We have to register cars. Why shouldn’t we register guns so that when a crime is committed we can trace who has owned it?

Tom: You know, I understand how you feel. This is a really contentious issue. Probably as contentious, and potentially as troubling as the abortion issue in this country. All I can tell you is, rushes to pass legislation at a time of national crisis or mourning, I don’t really think are proper. And more importantly, nothing in any of this legislation would have done anything to prevent that awful tragedy in Littleton. What I see in the work I’ve done with kids is, is troubling direction in our culture. And where I see consensus, which is I think we ought to concentrate on in our culture is...look...nobody argues anymore whether they’re Conservatives or Liberal whether our society is going in the wrong direction. They may argue trying to quantify how far it’s gone wrong or why it’s gone that far wrong, whether it’s guns, or television, or the Internet, or whatever. But there’s consensus saying that something’s happened. Guns were much more accessible 40 years ago. A kid could walk into a pawn shop or a hardware store and buy a high capacity magazine weapon that could kill a lot of people and they didn’t do it. The question we should be asking is...look...suicide is a tragedy. And it’s a horrible thing. But 30 or 40 years ago, particularly men, and even young men, when they were suicidal, they went, and unfortunately, blew their brains out. In today’s world, someone who is suicidal sits home, nurses their grievance, develops a rage, and is just a suicidal but they take 20 people with them. There’s something changed in our culture. That’s not a simple...

Rose: But you can’t say that guns don’t bear a responsibility. If the makers of the TEC-9 assault rifle... Why wouldn’t the NRA be against assault rifles? This is a gun that can shoot five bullets in a second. This is the gun that those boys brought into the school. Why the NRA wouldn’t say as a matter of compromise, “we agree, assault weapons are not good”?

Tom: I’m not...I can’t speak for the NRA.

Rosie: But you’re their spokesperson Tom, so you have to be responsible for what they say.

Tom: But I’m not a spokesperson. I’m not a spokesperson for the NRA.

Rosie: But if you put your name out and say, “I, Tom Selleck...

Tom: (Visibly upset) Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not a spokesperson. Remember how calm you said you’d be? Now you’re questioning my humanity.

Rosie: No, not your humanity. I think you’re a very humane man. I’m saying that if you...

Tom: Let’s just say that I disagree with you but I think you’re being stupid.

Rosie: But you can’t say that I will not take responsibility for anything the NRA represents if you’re saying that you’re going to do an ad for the NRA.

Tom: Really?

Rosie: You can’t say that. Do you think you can?

Tom: Look...you’re carefully skirting the issue. It’s an act of moral vanity, Rosie, to assume that someone who disagrees with your political agenda to solve our problems, cares any less or is any less shocked...

Rose: I never said you cared less.

Tom: Well, let me finish...

Rosie: Tom, I don’t think you cared less. Nor do I think the men in the NRA cared less.

Tom: The women too.

Rosie: And the women. I simply said, why can there not be a compromise on the issue...

Tom: There IS a compromise! There’s a compromise in enforcing laws. There’s a compromise with not allowing kids with guns in school. The problem is, and what you don’t seem to realize...you seem to have some sort of...look, we all hang out with people we agree with. And you have a one very one-sided view of the fact of what you don’t understand...

Rosie: (Cutting in) As does the NRA and the people you hang out with at the NRA have a one-sided view as well.

Tom: I don’t hang out with people of the NRA...

Rosie: OK, well, you’re saying that I hang out with people with my views. I’m just saying...

Tom: I said people tend to...

Rosie: (Cutting in) We all tend to. The NRA does and the un-NRA does.

Tom: You know, this is a nice one-sided conversation but you keep interrupting me. Remember how civil you said we were going to be? Rosie: I let you talk for four minutes without saying one thing! (Medium audience applause.) I did. I didn’t say one thing! I simply asked a question on what their philosophies are. And you don’t want to...

Tom: I told you...look, when do you want to get to television and violence...

Rosie: (Raising her right hand) I agree! I agree.

Tom: ...and game shows...

Rosie: Game shows?

Tom: ...and how do you reconcile...

Rosie: You mean video games? I agree!

Tom: (Visibly upset, trying to make Rosie be quiet) Please let me finish! (Audience chuckles.) Let me say just one thing. What you’re really talking about...at least what I’m talking about...is are we a responsible enough society, in terms of television, in terms of guns, in terms of everything else, to be this free? That should frame the debate. My answer unfortunately, in this culture, is “probably not”. But I’m going to down with the Civil Liberties ship, and all the Bill of Rights, and apply them equally. That’s the way I feel. You can ask me specific questions about anything, but it’s simply stupid political rhetoric.

Rosie: Well, it’s not stupid political rhetoric. We also have freedom of speech, but you’re not allowed to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater because it threatens the safety of other people.

Tom: I understand.

Rosie: Assault weapons threaten the safety of other people. There’s no reason, in my opinion, to have them. You want to have a hunting rifle? Great! You want to have a handgun? (She holds her hand up and nods her head as if to say, “great”.)

Tom: Do you really think the Second Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee hunting and target shooting? Do you really think that’s what the Founding Fathers meant?

Rosie: I think the Second Amendment is in the Constitution so that we can have muskets when the British people come over in 1800. I don’t think it’s in the Constitution to have assault weapons in the year 2000. But I’m wrong? I guess...

Tom: (Remains silent, is a bit frustrated, and simply nods his head, yes)

Rosie: You know, this is the problem. Here’s what happens. The people with opposing views, there is no compromise because, you feel attacked, I feel attacked. You feel less understood...

Tom: (Calmly) I haven’t attacked you. I’ve disagreed with you.

Rosie: And I’ve disagreed with you as well. But mine comes in the form of attacking because...

Tom: I haven’t mentioned assault weapons once. I haven’t mentioned a lot of things once. The nature of this debate... I didn’t come on your show to have a debate. I came on your show to plug a movie. That’s what’s I’m doing here.

Rosie: And that’s what we did.

Tom: If you think it’s proper to have a debate about the NRA, I’m trying to be fair with you.

Rose: As I am trying to...

Tom: But this is absurd. You’re calling me a spokesman for the NRA.

Rosie: Tom, if you are a celebrity and you’re doing an ad that says, “I am the NRA”, then what should have been...

Tom: Have you read the ads?

Rosie: I have read the ads.

Tom: Good.

Rose: Did YOU read the ads?

Tom: I said them. I read them when I said them.

Rosie: Well, I do too. Well, this is not supposed to be a personal...

Tom: Well it’s certainly very entertaining, look at the audience, they’re just laughing and having a great old time.

Rosie: Well it’s a serious subject. I don’t think it’s a lot to laugh about.

Tom: (Frustrated) Well, that’s fine.

Rosie: Alright, well, this has not gone the way I had hoped it had gone. But, I would like to thank you for appearing anyway, knowing that we have differing views. I was happy that you decided to come on the show. And if you feel insulted by my questions, I apologize, because it was not a personal attack. I was meant to bring up the subject as it is in the consciousness of so many today. That was my intent. And if it was wrong, I apologize to you, on a personal level.

Tom: (Frustrated, Tom speaks quietly) It’s your show and you can talk about it after I leave too.

Rosie: Well, I thought I would give you an opportunity to discuss your side of it. Which is what I hope that I did. And if I was wrong I’m sorry.

Tom: (Tom smiles and makes a facial expression with body language as if to say, “Yea, right.”)

Rosie: Well, obviously, it didn’t do much good.

Is Rosie O'Donnell a "Mindless Parrot"?

Rosie O'Donnell was one of the most visible, tragically misinformed spokespeople for the Gun-Grabbers we have had to contend with over the last decade!!!

Fortunately Rosie O'Donnell's public Anti-Gun position and her relationship with K-mart (one of the largest firearms retailers in the USA) has finally come to a long overdue and welcome end!!!

News Update: May 2000 "ROSIE, THE UNABASHED HYPOCRITE"
"Anti Gun Rosie's bodyguard applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm"
According to a May 25 AP article, Rosie has asked for permission to allow a bodyguard to accompany her and her adopted son to kindergarten in the fall. While she claims the bodyguard will not carry a firearm on the trips to school, he has applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and the article states that O'Donnell can accept the guard being armed at times. 

Rosie O'Donnell is a Mindless Parrot or a Fool, Or Both!

Are you a mindless parrot too?

Do you find yourself mindlessly parroting senseless verbiage and buzz words fabricated by the Liberal anti-gun media?

Have they convinced you that their functionally useless "FEEL GOOD LAWS" can or will make a difference?
Do you Think "Smart Guns" are a good idea? WHY?

Do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of "Assault Weapons" in the hands of the American people?

Good, Now can you define an "Assault Weapon" ?

99% of the people I talk to who believe that "Assault Weapons" should be banned, CAN NOT EVEN DEFINE what one is???

Does it really make sense to be against something you know little or nothing about???