Rosie prospects for gun owners?

By WND Staff

On the June 7 broadcast of NBC’s “Today” show TV talk show host Rosie
O’Donnell was questioned about news reports that a security guard for
her children had applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. She
said, in part, “He applied for a permit not at my request. Permits to
carry a gun are sealed. He has the right, as a person who’s residing in
Connecticut a lot of the time, due to his work with me, to request to
carry a gun. It wasn’t done at my request. He’s an individual and he
works for a security firm. What happened was the police department
released to the media a private gun application in order to — to call
me a hypocrite.”

O’Donnell had previously said regarding guns and the Second
Amendment, “I know it’s in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough!
I would like to say, I think there should be a law — and I know this is
extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you
go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It’s ridiculous. … I’d
like to start the NGA — the No Guns Association — and get celebrities
to do ads for that.”

But, in an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily, Greenwich, Conn.,
Police Chief Peter Robbins flatly denied that his department released
information to show that she is a hypocrite. As he told me “No, we
didn’t release anything to the press. By State law we can’t identify
who, or the address, or display a copy of the application (of a person
applying for a gun permit). We didn’t do any of that. You can’t even get
this information under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Law.”

When contacted in New York City, Jennifer Glaisek, a spokesman for
O’Donnell, repeatedly insisted that O’Donnell stands by her allegations
— though she provided no evidence to support what her boss said.

Here’s the way the conversation went when Glaisek was informed that
Chief Robbins flatly denied O’Donnell’s charge:

Jennifer Glaisek: Rosie stands by her charge and won’t discuss
it any further. It’s a dead issue at this point. But, it was released
from that office.

John Lofton: How do you know this?

A: I don’t understand exactly what you are looking for.
There’s no further comment beyond what she says. She stands by what she
said. She is very confident in saying that based on what she has found
out. And it is what it is.

Q: So, are you implying she has inside information from the
Greenwich Police Department regarding this matter?

A: I don’t really know what her information is. I am not
going into it any further. … If they didn’t release it, who did? … I
believe that someone in that office released it.

Q: OK, so you “believe” this. But, what is the evidence that
what you believe is true?

A: I’m not going to discuss it any further because it’s a
dead issue. She said what she wanted to say. She felt very confident in
saying it, based on what she knew. And the evidence is that it made its
way to a paper. I mean, if they say they didn’t release it, who did?

Glaisek, by the way, says the latest is what it’s always been: that
the security guard involved “does not carry a gun.”

Q: What kind of sense does it make to announce on national TV
— as O’Donnell did on the “Today” show — that the security guard
protecting her kids is not carrying a gun?

A: Well, she really didn’t have a choice now, did she?

Q: Of course she did! She could have said she would have no
comment on the question.

A: But, it doesn’t really matter what she says. People are
going believe what they’re going to believe. But, no, he is not armed,
and she feels strongly about his not being armed around her children.
And she stands by that.

Q: Without intending to joke in any way about this serious
issue, I have read that this security guard is an expert in the martial
arts. Does this mean that his only weapon is going to be to use karate
on someone who might threaten her children?

A: Pretty much.

Q: Well, I once had young children and I have grandchildren.
And if I had a guard for them I’d want him armed to the teeth, and I’d
want the world to know this. And even if my guard was unarmed, I’d never
announce on national TV, to potential attackers of my kids, “Don’t
worry, the security man
guarding my kids is unarmed.”

A: You know what though? Whatever she says, John, she’s going
to be taken to task for. So, if she says she’s (sic — the
guard’s a guy) armed, then everyone is going to say, “Well, you’re a
huge hypocrite.”

Q: Well, if I had to choose, I’d rather have an armed
security man guarding my children — and be called a hypocrite — than
be someone sticking to a wrong-headed, no-gun policy. I mean, she told
the truth here about her guard having no gun around her kids. I just
don’t think it’s wise to tell this truth on national TV so potential
attackers of your children might hear it.

A: But, you don’t live in the limelight, either. It’s a very
different situation.

I have no idea what this final statement means.