That's odd, Ed Schultz is usually a model of consistency, at least when it comes to robotic repetition of left-wing talking points.
It's when things get, uh, nuanced, one of liberals' favorite words, that Schultz runs into trouble. (Audio clips after the jump)
We do know that Zimmerman had a firearm and I think we can easily come to the conclusion that he felt pretty safe. And when he didn't feel safe, and by evidence he was getting his ass kicked, he decided to take someone else, someone else's life.
Got that? Not only can we conclude that Zimmerman felt safe that night, we can easily come to that conclusion -- because he was armed. And when Zimmerman was "getting his ass kicked" in Schultz's evocative phrase, he decided to defend himself from serious injury or worse. The assault by Martin ended when Zimmerman shot him, thereby confirming Schultz's premise that Zimmerman being armed made him feel safe.
All of one day later, on Wednesday, Schultz was condemning guns as inherently dangerous (audio) --
It is the wrong message. We are sending a message to the next generation of kids that violence is a viable option, carrying a firearm is a good thing to do. In fact, it's necessary and oh by the way, it's all about freedom. The hell it is! You're no more secure with a firearm than you are without one, OK? And we have to think about the end result here. How do you know that there's going to be a positive outcome? How do you know?! You don't. If there's not a firearm there, you got a helluva lot better chance of it.
Unless you want to feel safe, in which case a gun may prove useful, especially if you are being attacked. I'm reminded of a song title I wish John Lennon lived long enough to write -- happiness is a bodyguard with a warm gun.
Schultz's disdain for firearms is curious considering how he often boasts of his impressive arsenal, though he claims to use his guns only for hunting at home in Minnesota or near the fishing lodge in Canada that this "buy American" pitchman bought several years ago.
