Bob Barker Is Shocked To Be On The NRA Enemies List

TV icon Bob Barker, who keeps a .38 revolver on his bedside table, reacts to being on the National Rifle Association's enemies list

  • Share
  • Read Later
Fred Prouser/REUTERS

Game-show host Bob Barker, with a contestant as she wins a Ford Thunderbird, tapes the 6,000th episode of "The Price Is Right" in Los Angeles in 2004

Veteran game-show host of The Price is Right and World War II aviator Bob Barker, 89, was surprised to learn that he was on the National Rifle Association list of celebrities who have “lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes.” “I am very opposed to hunting,” he told TIME in an exclusive interview. “I suppose that the NRA heard about my efforts to end that terrible pigeon shooting in Pennsylvania and decided I was opposed to guns. Not true.”

In fact, Barker says the NRA’s characterization of his position is not right; Barker has just lent his name and support to animal-rights causes. He has given PETA $4 million, and they named their Los Angeles office in his honor. He donated money to SHARK, a nonprofit animal-protection group, and wrote letters to state legislators in opposition to live pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania — the last state where pigeon shoots are held openly, according to the Humane Society.

A couple of years ago, Barker was in the news when he collapsed from dehydration at a California shooting range. He learned to shoot skeet as part of his training as a Navy pilot and has been shooting ever since. He keeps a .38 revolver on his bedside table for protection. He doesn’t think people need assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. “It’s perfectly all right to have a revolver by my bed,” he said. “If someone is prepared to attack me, I’m prepared to defend myself. I don’t need an assault weapon for that. I’m a pretty good shot.”

Now, he says, he hopes he will be taken off the NRA list. “I’m very much in favor of the Second Amendment,” he said. “I think it’s unfortunate that Obama is using this tragedy to go after guns. If there’s a sensible solution, I would be in favor of it, but this idea of making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to have guns is ridiculous.”

41 comments
oldgeezer2013
oldgeezer2013

I wonder if Mr. Barker checked SHARK out before he donated? Does he know this organizatin consist of the president-Hindi, his girlfriend, and family. Hindi has videos posted of himself bragging how much they spend on traveling all over the country and the amount of money they spend on very expensive toys, all with DONATED money? Their IRS Form 990 indicates over $50,000 for traveling in 2011, as well as someone in the group was compensated over $65 an hour. They edit and lie on videos, then post them on YouTube, to trick people into donating, more money. And what respectable animal rights group would attempt to video a mans sex organ, and post it on YouTube, other than SHARK? According to the news media, I see approximately 80% negative comments toward SHARK.

ogletree
ogletree

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time.  Saying that the authors intended to protect the owning of any type of gun or any type of anti-gun legislation is just stupid and not logical.  We have no idea what they thought because what we have now does not exist and there is no way we can know how the law would be written if they could see into the future.  Anybody who says that what we legislate now is against the constitution has not read the constitution.  It was made to be changed and interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Very few people on either side seem to understand these points.  I don't expect the mindless rabble of the US to understand the finer points of law.  I don't even expect the smarter people or even the law makers.  I think a lot of people actually do understand this but don't care.  Both side lie and will say or do anything to push their agenda. 

Right now we can't comprehend what the world will be like in 250 years.  We have written laws that may just seem silly in the future because things have changed so much.  Think about this. 250 years ago they wrote a law that fit that time.  They could not comprehend the modern world it would drive them insane. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the constitution it has to do with what modern society as a whole decides to do about it. If we ban assault rifles and go door to door and confiscate every single one of them that is not against the constitution because it provides a way to make changes to it.  If you want to go back to the laws in the 1700's you also are saying that women can't vote and people can be slaves.  Things have changed. 

roknsteve
roknsteve

I didn't think any group could be more ridiculous than PETA but the National Rifle Assoc. has proved me wrong.   

rcl1213
rcl1213

The NRA is like the Tea Party of 2nd Amendment supporters. I'm sure a great majority of Americans have a lot of respect and appreciation for the Constitution, but not everyone is so extreme and radical as those who feel any type of gun control laws would undermine everything this nation was founded on. It's possible to be in favor of gun ownership and also be in favor of stricter laws regarding who can carry and what types of guns they can own.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

Like Mr. Barker, I also am a fervent advocate of the 2nd Amendment and, also like him, I do not believe I need a rifle that looks like an "assault weapon". That being said, the rational for "banning" such weapons is specious and illogical. There is no "common sense" to that aspect of the discussion so, by extension, the proponents of such a rule lack common sense and any other rules they propose are suspect. I also question some of the logic shown by the NRA, but in the end I will continue to support them for the most basic reason. They stand in the way of some of the most idiotic rules makers this country has seen in quite a while. Idiocracy can not be allowed to prevail.

BukkiahGolden
BukkiahGolden

So to answer the article's question first. The answer is no.
Its akin to saying someone that supports Abortion in the case of rape or incest is pro-choice. Bob Barker is not pro-second amendment anymore then Obama. Saying it don't make it so.

Even if you wanted to say this is the divide between hunting sports and shooting sports, where NRA supports both and Bob only "shooting" not "hunting". Bob also doesn't support "assault rifles" so he doesn't understand the 2nd amendment. He thinks its about sport and NOT hunting? Its not about either, its the last bulwark to prevent a holocaust and it requires some level of parity with the governments everyday soldier's equipment. Before you wax ridiculous, look at Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, and then tell me this everyday soldier weapons cannot oppose jets and rocket. Not saying it was a low cost affair or anything but a last resort before slaughter, not saying its "close" in America, but you get the same results if you restrict / take guns 10 years before it all goes down or 40 years before it goes down, its the same, you are defenseless when it comes down.


Sue_N
Sue_N

It's interesting how many medical, religious and education groups are on that list. Also, Sylvester Stallone.

Seriously, Rambo is on the NRA enemies list. There's some irony for ya.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

Right on. I support the NRA on their work for the 2nd Amendment, gun safety and gun ownership issues but I also disagree with trophy hunting or even sport hunting.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Slightly OT: That Kyle guy and his friend who got snuffed by the person they wee trying to help - LaPierre of the North had the audacity to continue to ask for more mental health care, deftly sidestepping the fact that the gun range was that guy's mental health therapy!   If you can't take him there to get help, what else could've been done?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Bob dun spun that wheel one time too many.

Paul,nnto
Paul,nnto

NFL enders the thread with...guns ablazin'!

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Have your Glock spayed or neutered.

Shoulda been a 1KW.  Dang.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

I'll trade in my gun for...

A NEW CARRRRR!!!!

[screams]

Paul,nnto
Paul,nnto

NRA versus a guy who believes "it’s unfortunate that Obama is using this tragedy to go after guns."

Hard to find a side to support. 

MrObvious
MrObvious

This is the voice of a common sense gun owner, instead of the 'I want to fight the gubmint' type nutcases.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

The title makes it feel like this article was supposed to have a point but....it never got made....

Sue_N
Sue_N

"If there’s a sensible solution, I would be in favor of it, but this idea of making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to have guns is ridiculous.”

Oh, Bob, don't be that guy. Nobody's coming after your guns, and Obama's not doing anything to make it hard for law-abiding people to buy guns. The NRA is lying to you.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@ogletreeIt may interest you to know that the Constitution can NOT be "changed" by the Supreme Court. May I suggest that you avoid denigrating the "mindless rabble" until you have a firmer grasp of this subject yourself. Certain items may create uncertainty due to "interpretations" given these subjects, in various periods of history, but the basic precepts do not change (at least they do not change by simple dictate of any court, Supreme or otherwise, nor by "modern society" making an arbitrary decision to obey or disobey a law they find inconvenient).

bettinanarchic
bettinanarchic

@BobSheepleherder idiocracy consists of those who oppose background checks, insist on owning weapons of mass destruction as their "God given" right and power up those weapons with high capacity magazines just because. Idiocracy consists of those who turn a blind eye to epidemic gun violence out of a misguided, crazy fetish for guns

Heian
Heian

@BukkiahGolden I like how people say others don't "understand" the second amendment when another's views don't coincide with their own. It says "bear arms", not "bear arms of a certain degree". It doesn't allow you to own a tank, in thinking it guarantees you the right to own an assault weapon is just you drawing an imaginary "acceptable weapons" line that you yourself are defining. That is "interpretation", not "understanding", and it's a bit ridiculous how often people can't differentiate between the two.

The government and law enforcement, as well as the military, are all comprised of people. Citizens. Tyranny wouldn't just happen overnight, and anyone with fantasies of opposing an tyrannical government needs a more astute understanding of what makes up the world.

sandifjm
sandifjm

@BobSheepleherder Why is that exactly? I mean, I don't like sport hunting either, but the NRA seems more concerned that people be allowed to shoot other people. If it comes down to a choice between deer or human beings - you're out of luck Bambi.

Sue_N
Sue_N

@nflfoghorn Also, what does that shooting do to Wayne's argument that "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? I'm pretty sure Kyle and his companion were armed. As most likely was everyone else around the,. It being, you know, a gun range.

BukkiahGolden
BukkiahGolden

@MrObvious Owning a gun doesn't mean you understand the second amendment, anymore then speaking means you understand the 1st.

BukkiahGolden
BukkiahGolden

@Sue_N There just moving the Jews to a better place. Why are you so paranoid?

Its call historical precedent. A right lost is rarely returned. Usually they are taken piecemeal. First just a formality, then a hurdle, then a difficult hurdle, then only the connected, then no one but the special class, then just the core dear leaders.

If you think "universal background checks on the law-abiding" is not designed to create a registry of ownership you are fooling yourself. Otherwise what good would it be? How would you ever prove a person acquired the firearm without the background check? You would need to store all of them, thus allowing data aggregation for every current owner.
A big long list of every legal owner is the pretext to confiscation in every instance I've ever read about from Bolshevik Red/White Russian civil war, to Germany, to the more mundane (i.e. sans slaughter.. yet) Australian, Canadian & British actions in this regard.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Oh let Bob have his gun.  That's probably the only thing in his life that shoots straight anymore.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@bettinanarchicGuns, God given? Hardly, just via the 2nd Amendment. "Weapons of mass destruction"? "Epidemic gun violence"? Have you made any attempts to understand the subject of guns, gun control or violence in the US other than the propaganda offered by the media and political manipulators? I doubt it. You accuse others of being "misguided, crazy fetish"ist and turning a blind eye while exhibiting that exact same behavior, on behalf of the anti-gun contingent, yourself. You have no idea WHY the NRA opposes those laws, yet you chastise them for doing so. Educate yourself, use real data, supplied by reliable sources. You, at least if you have an open mind, will find that they have valid reasons for fighting for those things you find "misguided". The issue is not background checks or high capacity magazines. We all agree that various forms of control measures must be taken, we just don't all agree on what constitutes "common sense" measures. If the topic interests you beyond the mere formality of opposition to guns, make an effort to understand your opponent, we are not the monsters you would make us out to be.

bettinanarchic
bettinanarchic

@Heian @BukkiahGolden the assault weapons fetishists want the guns to form a militia against what they perceive to be a "socialistic, communistic" and other paranoia -driven perceptions of government. I don't have any need for deluded right wing gun nuts to form militias to bring down a democratically elected government

BukkiahGolden
BukkiahGolden

@Heian@BukkiahGoldenNice how you assume my reasoning is based on my own imagination rather then the contemporary material of the era of the constitutions writing, for example the federalist papers discussions on the matter of arms; as well as basic reasoning. Perhaps a reasoned person might ask why I think what I do rather then assume I have no reasoned basis for understanding the second amendment.

Its important to note some basic facts. Rifles were citizen arms, Muskets were government infantry standard issue, which means at the outset civilian arms were already superior to military issue.
It would be pointless indeed to have a guarantee of inferior weapons to prevent tyranny.
It doesn't specify the arms of a certain degree (or even firearms) because it is meant to encompass future innovations the citizens would also have the right to possess. Federalist paper contents contain the information that this is to put a citizen on equal par with a soldier (which in and of itself precludes chemical, bio, nuclear as they are never issued in this way).

There is no law that bars the owning of a tank. In fact I know of private citizens that do own tanks. (this is even allowed in England, believe it or not, I saw a yellow one, the main gun is disabled there).
Seems you are unaware of the cannon clubs that exist and fire their privately owned cannon. Officially called destructive devices, firing over 1/2 inch projectiles, these are legal to own.

Then you proceed to ignore what I have stated, "take guns 10 years before it all goes down or 40 years before it goes down". Yet you suppose I imagine Tyranny happening over night. The understanding of incremental limitation of our freedoms is completely independent of an imminent move to Tyranny. Its a slippery slope, one the US began in 1934, continued in 1968, again in 1994, reversed course by expiration in 2004, reversed direction further with Heller SCOTUS decision, and here we are again.

I guess you've forgotten or never knew the mechanics of how Hitler and the Nazis hijacked the German democracy and established dictatorship, since it passed from fringe group, to members of parliament, using obfuscation and delay to blame all other parties and expand its seats in parliament, then become a dictatorship via manufactured crisis. 6 or 7 years from democratically elected to invading Poland.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@sandifjm@BobSheepleherderYou pretend to believe that the NRA is about killing. That is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which being it is factually incorrect. It's unfortunate that so many of you choose to disseminate propaganda instead of working together to make it better. It's your choice to make an enemy of pro-gun advocates. They have reasons for their point of view that are just as valid as yours, remember that when you ask why they do not capitulate to your demands.

Paul,nnto
Paul,nnto

@forgottenlord @Paul,nnto Heh it brings to mind the long NCAA v Tarkanian. 

Couldn't respect either. Although, to be fair and I am not anything if not fair, it was the NCAA that cut the check at the end. 

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@Sue_N

The problem is that this is a basic, facts only article posted with a commentary style title.  I don't mind fact-driven articles with "pull your own conclusions", I don't mind articles where the author has a point to make, but this one can't seem to decide which it is - to the point that it feels like the former and somebody (probably the editor rather than the author) made the decision afterwards to turn it into commentary - and that just feels amateurish.

Sue_N
Sue_N

@BukkiahGolden @Sue_N Speaking of paranoia ...

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@bettinanarchicThere are MILLIONS of "assault weapons" owned in America, do you honestly believe they are all owned by fetishists wanting to form a militia? You may wish to examine your own level of paranoia.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@Heian@BobSheepleherder@sandifjmI pretty sure I know a lot more about the goals and purposes of the NRA than you do. What, other than anti-gun/anti-NRA propaganda, do you actually know about them? Have you ever read their literature? Have you ever participated in any of their events? Have you ever even MET anyone who believes in what the NRA stands for? It's extremely unlikely, since you  don't have even the vaguest idea of what they are or what they do. Other than the distortions mouthed by politicians and their lackeys in the press you don't have a clue about the NRA. The NRA lobby efforts are a minor portion of what they do, but since I'm sure you're neither interested in truth nor an open minded examination, so I'll leave you to your presumptions without any expectation that you will "seriously take a good look" at the organization.

Heian
Heian

@BobSheepleherder @sandifjm The NRA is really about preserving our right to give them and gun manufacturers money. If you think the NRA stands for a noble cause, you may need to seriously take a good look at it. 

Do you think that lobbyists for tobacco companies are interesting in protecting people's rights?

Sue_N
Sue_N

@forgottenlord @Sue_N Oh, I know. The post doesn't address the headline at all. Back in the Dark Ages when I was learning to write headlines (back when we had to count the letters), one of the hard and fast rules was that the headline had to tell readers what the story was about.

My j teacher would've handed this one back to me and told me to read the story again.

BukkiahGolden
BukkiahGolden

@Sue_NName calling becomes you. You are lying to yourself about history, if you think Americans are so much better then other countries that we could not similarly devolve.

You are failing to understand even basic facts in front of all on this forum. Since "Universal background checks" directly make it harder for me to sell a gun to someone I have known all my life (son, daughter, brother, father, neighbor, childhood friend) without a government official giving the OK. How exactly does your statement "Obama's not doing anything to make it hard for law-abiding people to buy guns" true?