Now even Rupert Murdoch is against assault weapons-- has become a Liberal ?

[Tea Part-T R]

He Tweeted :

"Constitution right about guns for self defence and hunting. Founders did not mean modern weapons of war."

https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status...4882151424
I think he's a CINO (conservative in name only) a lib, a traitor, a muslim and a commie

[Pamela J]

No, he just happens to be right about this particular issue. It happens occasionally.

[Steve O]

It seems like Murdoch wants to recover his damaged reputation after 2011's hacking scandal.

EDIT: How can you call him CINO/RINO ? He is the owner of Fox News.

[Guru Hank]

He is less than nothing, and his opinions are those of a pompous and unpleasant old man. He should be in the dock for the things his employees have done on his behalf, and have taken the blame for.

[sociald]

Rupert Murdoch always was a lib. just because newscorp owns fox news has nothing to do with nothing. Most of Murdochs other media holders are more lib.
Its Roger Ailes , CEO of FoxNews thats been the conservative. if foxnews was making money, which it was, its pretty hard for Murdoch to argue with Ailes about how he was running it.
Murdoch has over a long period of time donated at least as much money if not more money to democrats than republicans.

[TK421]

Well, he is wrong. If you read case law, you would see the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects weapons of war. True. Go look at US v. Miller.

[Gum control]

The liberals & antifreedom fighters on here will use the broken-clock joke. ya know? "even A broken clock is wrong twice a day".
But ÃŽ could careless what some government bimbo says. a right to bear arms means a right to bear arms. we don't need people trying to change the meaning.
Gun owners don't owe you snot-boses any expanations, and they sure as heck don't need to feel sorry for owning what you call an "assault rifle".

@Former governor And exactly who is supposed to be doing the interpreting? Shall we let government decide? Haven't they proven to be terrible at dictating morality? This is the problem with moral-relativism. you think the gov should decide what's right & wrong. It's wrong to take away peoples right to buy guns. full-fledged machine guns are already illegal. We don't need a ban on ar-15s & high cpapcity mags. why can't you libbies let people buy what they want with their money?

[General McConnel]

Australia has just passed some stringent gun laws.

Maybe he thinks it works.

Nobody is taken all your guns, just military style weapons.


Too bad fruit cake and yes I will take them from your cold dead hands.

[hollowwilderness735]

@Gum Control, the term, "Arm" is open to interpretation, isn't it? Why shouldn't we be able to own weapons of war!?!??! Itz a rite!

[Lucky P]

No, he's a conservative on most issues. But he is from Australia, where a conservative government introduced gun controls in 1997, after years of mass shootings by lone nut gunmen. Prime Minister John Howard, a right-wing ally of George Bush, banned assualt weapons and made it hard to own guns unless you could show a need to own one. Not one mass shooting since then. I guess even conservatives can care more about human life than the "right" to carry guns.