updated 5/4/2005 2:47:00 PM ET 2005-05-04T18:47:00

Guest: Art Acevedo, Ric Robinson, Mykelti Williamson, Debra Bowen, John Lockwood, Edward Murray, Ken Hutcherson, Lindsey Martin, Mary Coombs, Randall Terry, Ted Nugent


GOV. JEB BUSH ®, FLORIDA:  It‘s a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position.  There‘s no good news in this at all. 

PAT BUCHANAN, GUEST HOST (voice-over):  Today in Florida, the state refuses to appeal a judge‘s ruling that a 13-year-old can have an abortion.  Is this just more judicial activism or fallout from the Terri Schiavo case?   


REV. KEN HUTCHERSON, ANTIOCH BIBLE CHURCH:  This is no threat.  This is truth and what I would do if you don‘t back off. 

BUCHANAN:  This pro football-player-turned-evangelical-preacher took on the richest man in the world and won.  Is he a power broker or a new bully in the pulpit?  We will ask him live. 

And point, click, and bag big game.  Online hunting is legal, but it has animal rights activists up in arms.  Is it sport, or should it be a crime?  We‘ll debate it with rock legend and NRA member Ted Nugent. 


BUCHANAN:  And late word.  A star from the movie “Forrest Gump” is involved in a dangerous road rage drama in Los Angeles.  You‘ll hear what happened in his own words.  

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

BUCHANAN:  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  I‘m Pat Buchanan, sitting in for Joe. 

Tonight, in Florida, still reeling from the battle over Terri Schiavo, which began with a judge‘s order to remove her feeding tube, today, another judge has ruled that a pregnant 13-year-old girl may go ahead and have an abortion, despite the objections of her biological mother and Governor Jeb Bush. 


BUSH:  Look, if the judge has ruled, it‘s time to move on.  It‘s a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant.  And it‘s a tragedy that her baby will be lost.  There‘s no good news in this at all. 


BUCHANAN:  It‘s an emotional issue.

And joining me to talk about it Randall Terry, president of the Society For Truth and Justice, Mary Coombs, who is a family law professor from the University of Miami, and Lindsey Martin, a constitutional attorney with the Liberty Counsel. 

Let me start with you, Randall Terry. 

In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, are you disappointed that Governor Bush did not do more to prevent this abortion this 13-year-old requested and apparently she is going to receive on a judge‘s orders? 


Yes, I am very disappointed.  Unfortunately, it seems like more of the same, Pat.  For me, the measure of a man, the man of a statesman, the measure of a hero is that he has a set of principles, and then he is willing to live, fight, and, if necessary, die by those principles.  And we had hoped that Governor Bush would intervene and save Terri Schindler.  He did not. 

We would have hoped that he would at least appeal this through all of the courts that are available to try and preserve the life of this baby, as well as give proper counseling and protection to this young girl.  He didn‘t do that.  I just don‘t get it.  If this is a human being that‘s about to be killed, this isn‘t a tragedy that you just say, oh, we are going to move on.  This is an innocent human life that you fight for. 

All right, Mary Coombs, despite what Terry—I mean, what Randall Terry just said, and despite the points made by Governor Bush, my understanding is, whether we like it or not, that a 13-year-old is entitled to request and receive an abortion, even though she is not entitled to go to an R-rated movie? 


And R-rated movies are not constitutional rights.  Control over your body and decision-making over your body is a constitutional right.  And, in the state of Florida, there‘s a specific privacy provision in the Florida Constitution.  The Florida Supreme Court has twice ruled and held that that provision applies to protect all women, including minors, in making those decisions, unless the state has a compelling interest. 

TERRY:  Pat, Pat...


BUCHANAN:  Mary Coombs—let me get back in here.  Mary Coombs, look, when you talk about a compelling interest, the girl‘s mother and the grandmother of this baby wants the baby kept alive.  In addition to that, this gal is 13 years old.  She has got herself in a statutory rape situation. 

TERRY:  Right. 

BUCHANAN:  She has not shown good judgment.  Would you not defer to her mother?

COOMBS:  First of all...

BUCHANAN:  Or a legal guardian to say, wait a minute; this is an irreversible decision?

COOMBS:  Her mother is not—her mother is not her legal guardian.  Her mother had her rights terminated by the state.  She has no rights over this child from her own behavior. 

So, secondly, you are right.  The notion that this child got herself into a statutory rape situation, the point of statutory rape is, the law is there because we think 13-year-olds aren‘t ready to make those decisions.  The reason she was able to get pregnant is because the state, which was supposed to be taking care of her in foster care, let her run away and didn‘t find her. 


BUCHANAN:  All right, well, let me follow up, bring in Lindsey Martin. 

COOMBS:  There are grownups here.


BUCHANAN:  Wait a minute. 

Lindsey Martin, look, the gal clearly is not equipped to be making decisions like this, and it seems to me an abortion is an irreversible decision. 

TERRY:  That‘s right. 

BUCHANAN:  Despite what that judge said. 


BUCHANAN:  You talk about emotional trauma.  This gal may not feel it now, but you talk to women who, 20, 30 40 years later, are still feeling it. 

MARTIN:  Absolutely. 

And, you know, we are talking about privacy interests here.  We need to look at who is making the decisions.  A baby is making a decision to terminate her pregnancy and end the life of her baby.  This is a baby.  This is a 13-year-old girl we are talking about here.  So, when we talk about privacy interests, we need to look at, is this girl mature enough to be making this kind of life-altering and life-ending decision, as it would be for her unborn child? 

COOMBS:  Excuse me. 


MARTIN:  And the answer to that is clearly no.

COOMBS:  If she is not old enough to make a decision, she is not old enough to carry a child to term. 


BUCHANAN:  Let Mary go.  Let Mary go, and then Randall Terry respond to that. 

Go ahead, Mary, quickly. 

COOMBS:  The answer is, yes, there are maturity issues here. 

But, at this point, the only choices are that she has the child or she doesn‘t have the child.  She carries a child to term.  We don‘t want 13-year-olds to get pregnant.  You don‘t want 13-year-olds to get pregnant.  But she is pregnant.  And, at this point, somebody has to make a decision. 



TERRY:  At least, at least...

COOMBS:  There is an entitlement to make a decision.


BUCHANAN:  All right, Randall Terry, go ahead. 

TERRY:  At least you are admitting it‘s a child. 

COOMBS:  No, I am not admitting it‘s a child. 

TERRY:  We‘re sitting here having a discussion about killing a child. 

Second of all, she doesn‘t have the right to get a tattoo.  She doesn‘t have the right to get her ear pierced without parental notification or a guardian consenting.  So, don‘t—the Florida Supreme Court is out of control.  It is more judicial tyranny.  And, unfortunately, the DCF and Governor Bush did not have the moral fortitude to stand up for the life of this innocent, preborn baby. 


COOMBS:  Let‘s not talk about moral fortitude for a minute. 


BUCHANAN:  All right, Mary Coombs—let me go to Mary Coombs quickly.

Look, let me ask you, why are you not on the side—if the baby is born...


COOMBS:  I am the side of the child.  I‘m the side of the 13-year-old child. 

BUCHANAN:  Well, why not be on the side of the child and her baby and say, let the child be born; let it be put up for adoption and she can say later whether she did the right thing or not?


MARTIN:  Look, I understand, the other people here, you all don‘t believe in abortion. 


BUCHANAN:  All right, we don‘t.

But go ahead, Lindsey. 


BUCHANAN:  Go ahead, Lindsey.

MARTIN:  We have—the problem is this.  We have a woman who is trying—a girl, a baby, who is trying to end her pregnancy.  She doesn‘t realize she is not capable of looking into the future and seeing the long-term psychological, emotional effects this will have on her. 


COOMBS:  There are psychological effects and physical effects of having a baby as well. 


MARTIN:  That‘s 45 million Americans have died from abortions. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, but, Mary Coombs, let me just say something. 



BUCHANAN:  Hold it, Mary. 

COOMBS:  Yes. 

BUCHANAN:  I have seen the numbers.  You hear on alcoholism, on drug abuse, on suicide. 

MARTIN:  Depression. 

BUCHANAN:  On depression, all of these things, you have an abortion, and they are much more higher rate among those who have had abortions than those who don‘t.

COOMBS:  Those statistics have not—those statistics

BUCHANAN:  How does a judge...


COOMBS:  Those statistics have not been confirmed by the CDC. 

TERRY:  Oh, please. 

BUCHANAN:  How does a judge sit up there and say there‘s no emotional stress or no emotional problems as a result of this, a 13-year-old girl having an abortion?  It‘s just common sense tells you it‘s going to be a problem. 


COOMBS:  Excuse me.  And common sense is that there‘s no emotional problem, no physical problem with asking a 13-year-old child to carry a baby to term and either to care for or to give it up for adoption.  I‘m sorry.  Those are also traumatic.

MARTIN:  Mary, let me ask you this.  Have you ever heard a woman who says, I regret that I had my baby?  No.  But you hear women all the time strategy, I regret that I have had abortions. 


BUCHANAN:  Let‘s let Randall Terry talk for a second. 

Go ahead. 

TERRY:  Thank you. 

What we have here is a human life, an innocent human life that is about to be lost, a young girl whose life is going to be irreparably marked.  This is going to be a defining moment for her, because she is having her offspring killed.  And we have a crisis of leadership.  We have a crisis going on in the courts with runaway judges.  And we have chief executives and legislative bodies who don‘t have the moral fortitude to stand up to them and stand for justice and human life. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Terry, Terry—Randall Terry...

COOMBS:  Before we attack the court...


BUCHANAN:  Hold it.  Let me follow up with Randall Terry. 

What would you have had Governor Bush do?  The law, whether we like it or not—and I don‘t like it.  The law apparently says this 13-year-old girl, who can‘t go to an R-rated movie, has the right to have an abortion if she requests it or demands it.  What could George Bush—or Bush—Jeb Bush have done once the judge ruled, Randall Terry? 

TERRY:  Well, the first thing, the first thing that he could have done was continued the appeal process all the way to the state Supreme Court. 

Then they could have jumped to federal court if they wanted to, because the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right of parental notification and consent or...

COOMBS:  Wrong. 


TERRY:  Yes, they have.  The Supreme Court has ruled that...


COOMBS:  They recognize a right if she was claiming a federal constitutional right.  She is claiming a right under the state Constitution. 

TERRY:  Listen, the state Constitution is about to be turned over here. 

BUCHANAN:  Let me give the last question to Lindsey.  Let me give the last question to Lindsey. 

Lindsey, what do you think Governor Bush could or should have done?  Under the law, it seems to me maybe he could have made this appeal and gotten a stay. 

TERRY:  Yes. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think Governor Bush went as far as he should have gone to save both this 13-year-old and her child? 

MARTIN:  In the Terri Schiavo case, Pat, Governor Bush said that he would rather err on the side of life.  I think the same thing has to be true in this case. 

You can‘t be duplicitous about these kinds of issues.  This needs to be taken to the appeals level. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think the governor was duplicitous?

MARTIN:  In issues of life and death, appeals are expedited very quickly, within a week.  A lot of people have said, well, this could be an issue that, you know, the pro-life movement is just trying to stay, so that it will be too late for her to have an abortion.  That‘s not the case. 

In emergency appeal situations, they are expedited, usually within a week.  I don‘t see the problem of waiting another week when life is hanging in the balance. 

TERRY:  Yes. 

BUCHANAN:  OK, thank you very much, Randall Terry, Mary Coombs and Lindsey Martin.  I think we are going to hear more about this.  Thank you all for coming tonight.  And we hope to have you all back soon. 

One of the stars at “Forrest Gump” caught up in a road rage drama.  He talks about what happened. 

But next, Bill Gates is one of the most powerful businessmen in the world.  And this reverend took him on.  Did he force Microsoft to make a controversial change in company policy on gay rights?  We will ask him live. 

And the Motor City Madman, rock legend Ted Nugent, will join us to talk about a new Internet Web site that lets you shoot animals from your own living room. 


BUCHANAN:  He claims to have taken on Bill Gates and won.  Did a Washington Christian minister force Microsoft to change its stance on a controversial gay rights issue? 

We‘ll ask him next.



BUCHANAN:  What some are calling a real life David and Goliath battle.

A Christian minister in Seattle says he stared down software giant Microsoft, and Microsoft blinked.  The company, with, which NBC Universal, owns this network, has long been viewed as among America‘s most gay-friendly companies.  But Microsoft and its founder, Bill Gates, came under fire from religious groups for supporting a bill in Washington state that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Seattle met with executives from Microsoft and threatened to boycott if the company continued to support the bill.  Soon after, Microsoft withdrew its support, though the company strongly denies any connection to the reverend‘s lobbying.  The bill was defeated by one vote last month.  Did one man take on Bill Gates and win? 

Joining us from Seattle is pastor Ken Hutcherson. 

Ken, do you think that your meeting with the Microsoft folks was the thing that caused them to back off support for this gay-rights bill, and what did those fellows say when you met with them? 

HUTCHERSON:  Well, I think there‘s no doubt that my meeting with Microsoft definitely made them back off and take a neutral stand. 

And when I met with them, I called them at first and let them know who I was and told them I wanted to meet with the executive vice president of legal, and that they had stepped out of their four walls and had stepped into my world.  And I told them, as long as it was your policy inside your business, that was fine.  But when you tried to make your policy my policy by making it a state law, then you have messed up.

And since you stepped into my world, I am going to step in your world, and you‘re not going to like it. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Ken Hutcherson, Reverend Ken Hutcherson, I should say, Microsoft says that‘s nonsense.  They didn‘t back down.  You weren‘t responsible.  They still hold to their usual positions.  And what they say is you are putting out a lot of hooey, basically.  They don‘t say that directly, but, indirectly, that‘s what they are saying. 

HUTCHERSON:  Oh, absolutely.

But they said that they had already decided to make this a neutral policy before the legislature even started in January.  If that was true, Pat, then why did they have two conference calls with me on the phone and then two face-to-face meetings before they said that they were going to take a neutral stand?  If they had taken a neutral stand, which all I had asked for was to back off their support, if they had already done that before January, they could have killed the conversation when I first called and said that, you need to back off supporting this bill. 

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

HUTCHERSON:  So, if they are going to have four meetings with me, why would they wait to tell me at the fourth meeting that they are going to take a neutral stance? 

BUCHANAN:  Well, so to speak, you are saying you ran them out of the hood.  



Here‘s what Microsoft says.  Microsoft laid out its position in an e-mail, chief executive—this is Steve Ballmer.  He sent it to employees last month.  It read in part—I quote—“There have been several news stories that imply that Microsoft changed its position on an anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515”—that‘s the bill—“because of pressure from a conservative religious group.  I want to make it clear that that is not the case.”

So, you are saying Mr. Ballmer is not speaking the exact truth.  Is that right? 

HUTCHERSON:  I am saying, Pat, that—and I want to make it perfectly clear—Steve Ballmer speaks with forked tongue.  He is just flat-out lying. 


Let me bring in Reverend—I mean, let me bring in State Rep. Ed Murray now. 

Ed Murray, you lost by one vote up there.  Do you think Reverend Hutcherson is responsible for the defeat? 

REP. EDWARD MURRAY (D), SEATTLE STATE REPRESENTATIVE:  Actually, I don‘t.  I think the story broke the same day as the vote.  I think that the fact that Microsoft was neutral was not helpful.  But I don‘t think the...


BUCHANAN:  Why was Microsoft neutral? 

MURRAY:  Well, it‘s not clear to me. 


MURRAY:  In my conversations with them, they indicated that they felt they were somewhat caught between some competing social forces and they needed to develop some policies.  But I don‘t think—but I don‘t...


BUCHANAN:  This sounds like Reverend Hutcherson.

Excuse me.  When you say caught between social forces, they shifted their position.  It sounds to me like Reverend Hutcherson was the social force that forced them to shift their position.  And partly as a consequence, you might have lost that by a single vote.  That seems to be a fair statement from what you and Reverend Hutcherson both say. 

MURRAY:  Yes. 

Pat, I don‘t think Microsoft was ready for this situation.  And I think that‘s what happened.  I think that they realized that the reverend was calling citizens in our state who work hard and pay taxes, some who fight in the war in Iraq, but happen to be gay and lesbian—I think if they had realized that he was calling them pedophiles, I think if they had realized they were dealing with a man who, last year, accused the Jews of crucifying Christ, they wouldn‘t have met with him. 

I just don‘t think they knew what they were doing. 

BUCHANAN:  All right.  Well...

MURRAY:  And I think that it‘s a great company.  It‘s a great company.  When they have an opportunity to take a look at this, I think they will be supporting the bill again. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, but—yes, but you are bringing in extraneous matters, but fair enough. 

Reverend Hutcherson, you heard what he said.

MURRAY:  Well, no, not really. 

BUCHANAN:  Well, I mean, the issue is whether he—whether Microsoft backed off.  And from everything you are saying, it seemed to me Reverend Hutcherson is right to claim a good measure of credit for it, because it was a reversal of position. 

But, Reverend Hutcherson, let me ask you, what do you say to the charges you have just heard about your positions, your Christian positions, which seem to be very strong and pretty far out there, as described by Mr.  Murray? 

HUTCHERSON:  Well, I think it still boils down to the fact that Microsoft, who had promised Ed Murray—and you can ask him, Pat.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

HUTCHERSON:  That they was going to support that bill and send a letter down there.

And I just stood up and said, you stepped into my world.  I am going to step in yours.  And if you don‘t back this off, I am going to put a national boycott.  And everyone knows boycotts don‘t work, Pat, but I told them and I told Brad Smith to his face, look, it doesn‘t have to work.  What I am going to do and the boycott doesn‘t have to work. 

What Microsoft don‘t want is how much publicity I can bring to this if they don‘t.  And, Pat, I was very happy with Microsoft.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

HUTCHERSON:  Because I got what I wanted.  I didn‘t let this out.  The homosexuals at Microsoft was the ones that leaked this, because it would have been foolish for me, who got what I wanted, to let this out in public. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think Microsoft is a moral organization, Reverend? 

HUTCHERSON:  You know, Microsoft has done tremendous good for our area.  It has done very great things for adoptions.  They help their employees adopt. 

And I told them, I wasn‘t—I wasn‘t mad about their policies inside their four walls.  But they made a major mistake when they told Ed Murray and they told others that they were going to support that bill, because homosexuals at Microsoft is not the only group that works there. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Ed Murray, I want to ask you one final question. 

MURRAY:  Sure. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think the next time this comes around that Microsoft will be all out behind your bill or do you think they have now adopted a sort of the semi-permanent position of neutrality on your bill? 

MURRAY:  Well, I can‘t speak for Microsoft.

But I think, when they have the chance to hear from other religious voices, other Christian voices, that support the bill, when they have a chance to hear from a broad array of people in Washington state, I think they will be there.  They have been there in the past, and I think they will be there in the future. 

BUCHANAN:  OK, State Representative Ed Murray and Reverend Ken Hutcherson, thank you both for joining us. 

Coming up, road rage on the streets of Los Angeles and one of the stars of the movie “Forrest Gump” is the latest target.  Are highway shootings putting the City of Angels on edge?  We will have the latest. 

Plus, he‘s here live tonight, the man they call the Motor City Madman.  Rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent weighs in about a new Web site that lets people shoot live animals online. 

We‘ll be right back with that hot one.


BUCHANAN:  You can stay home and still be on the range.  Online hunting.  A new Web site lets you point, click and shoot.  Is it opening the sport to more people or is it just a form of video slaughter?  We‘ll debate. 

But, first, here‘s the latest news your family needs to know. 



We have all read about wonders of the Internet, but even we were a little surprised to hear about this one, Internet hunting.  A Texas-based Web site allows users to log on to shoot and kill live animals from anywhere in the world with a click of a computer mouse.  How does it work? 

For a $150 fee, a user logs on to a remote controlled rifle linked to the site, allowing users to shoot sheep, antelope, and hogs on a real-life 330-acre ranch in Texas.  Not surprisingly, this Internet hunting is generating outrage.  Right now, it‘s legal.  But Texas is working on a bill to ban it.  California just outlawed the practice, and legislators in Congress and 14 states are scrambling to pass similar laws. 

Joining me live, the founder of the Web site, John Lockwood, Debra Bowen, the California senator who pushed the ban in her state, and rock ‘n‘ roll legend and hunting enthusiast Ted Nugent, whose love of guns and hunting is his passion. 

Let me start with you, John Lockwood. 

I mean, is this really sport?  Somebody, a couch potato, getting up in the middle of the night, or I guess you would have to get up in the dawn, because it would be daylight down there in Texas, and getting on his computer and steering a rifle and killing some deer? 

JOHN LOCKWOOD, LIVE-SHOT.COM:  Well, Pat, it‘s not quite that easy.

And, you know, we set it up exactly like a guided stand hunt would be down here in Texas anyway.  It has to—make a reservation.  You have to put in the time it takes to hunt.  It‘s not just logging on, seeing an animal and shooting it.  It just—it doesn‘t work that way. 

BUCHANAN:  Well, is this really hunting, when this fellow is sitting and he doesn‘t get out of his I guess maybe his basement and his computer and is able to fire a rifle that kills an animal hundreds or thousands of miles away? 

LOCKWOOD:  Well, Pat, it‘s proven to be that the people that have the ability to get out in the field and hunt in a conventional manner aren‘t interested in doing it this way at all. 

This is designed for those people that do not have that normal opportunity to get out into the field and hunt. 

BUCHANAN:  Ted Nugent, look, you are an NRA man, a hunting enthusiast. 

Is this really a sport? 

TED NUGENT, GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE:  Well, happy turkey season, Pat.

Of course it‘s not a sport.  It‘s an electronic manipulation.  The vast majority of hunters, like 100 percent that I have celebrated campfires with my entire life, we need to smell the beast.  We need to challenge ourselves, that stealth factor, that higher level of awareness, getting out there. 

Now, I am against banning this activity because I am not going to ban canned hams.  I am not going to ban anyone‘s choice of methodology.  But I don‘t know anybody that would consider this sport.  I got some electronic goofball friends that might get a kick out of this, but it has no semblance of hunting, I assure you. 

All right, Senator Debra Bowen, I don‘t think it‘s hunting either.  But, look, it‘s not cruelty to animals.  And the animal is going to die anyhow.  And people are doing this and they want to do it.  What exactly is the offense here, in your judgment? 

DEBRA BOWEN (D), CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR:  Well, it‘s a very interesting thing. 

It pushes the disgust button, I think, both among avid hunters, like Mr. Nugent.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

BOWEN:  And among animals rights folks. 

I—I have actually never seen a bill where the National Rifle Association and the Humane Society have joined hands to oppose a practice.  And my view of this is, it‘s the kind of technology that we want to limit to military applications.  We don‘t want this out in the civilian sector at all.  The ramifications of what happens if this goes beyond animal hunting, I think, should give us all pause. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me read—let me go back to you, John Lockwood.  Let me read a few of the criticisms here. 

Humane Society calls it pay-per-view slaughter.  The Safari Club says this ain‘t hunting.  The Texas Wildlife Association said—quote—“This falls off the end of the ethical chart.”  Even the NRA says—I quote—

“We believe hunting should be outdoors and that sitting in front a computer three states away doesn‘t qualify as hunting.”

Aren‘t you here—I mean, let‘s set aside the paraplegics, who you say can get—have no other way to—quote—“hunt,” but isn‘t this really.  It‘s taken everything out of hunting, except, if you will, the joy of killing something from your basement? 

LOCKWOOD:  No, that‘s not true, Pat, because none of those people have actually come out and seen exactly how the whole thing works.

And you can ask Dale, the person who has done the hunting online, who was avid hunter and trapper and fisherman before his accident, if he had the same feeling and excitement of what it takes to be back in the hunt again.  You ask him, and you ask me, and the people that were in the stand with us during his first hunt in 18 years if it wasn‘t an actual hunt.  It was no different, other than the fact that Dale does not have that ability to get out into the field. 

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

LOCKWOOD:  So, basically, you are just taking his right away to be able to enjoy a hunt. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me—Ted Nugent, you are a hunter.  I am not, but I have got a number of brothers who love hunting, but they love to get out in the woods and take their sons out there or go out with buddies and go out west and hunt mule deer and all these things. 

There‘s something to the sport that you just cannot get, that is simply not shooting an animal, is it? 

NUGENT:  Oh, absolutely not. 

In fact, that‘s why a lot of us challenge ourselves further for more difficult methodologies.  Bow-hunting is growing in popularity, muzzle loading.  That limiting factor is very exciting to the majority of us.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

NUGENT:  But we have got to be very careful.  I am not into banning stuff that doesn‘t have any negative outcomes.  I don‘t agree that we should ban an activity that is limited.  And there will be no slaughter.

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

NUGENT:  Because there‘s very, very few people that are going to partake in this.

And, remember, wild ground will only support so much living wildlife anyhow.  And a surplus has to be harvested with any ethical responsibility every year.  So, if someone chooses to do it this way, as John recommends, I would support their desire to do so.  But it will never become hunting.  Hunting is about a primal scream, a hands-on conservation lifestyle that demands that we get out there and challenge ourself in the stealth factor. 

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

NUGENT:  And I think this is an electronic stealth, because you see a lot of this kind of goofiness going on out there today that I don‘t support at all.

But I also do support someone‘s choice to do that.  If they are going to kill it to grill it, I don‘t really care how they do it, but it‘s not for the majority of people by any stretch of the imagination. 

LOCKWOOD:  Absolutely true.

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me go to Debra Bowen. 

Debra Bowen, let me go to you.

You know, look, I think what Ted Nugent, he says something—you know, I find this sort of ridiculous.  But, look, the animal is going to die anyhow.  And this gentleman, Mr. Lockwood, has someone on hand to make sure the animal doesn‘t suffer, as you don‘t want any—no hunter wants that to happen.  Nobody that believes in hunting does.  And so what is inherently wrong with this? 

I mean, I don‘t like it, but what is wrong with it that we should—I mean, Tom Davis, a congressman, Republican from Virginia, wants to ban it nationwide.  He has introduced a bill called the Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting Act that would ban it nationwide.  Why would we want to—why do you want to ban it? 

BOWEN:  You know, I do think that there is a moral aspect to this.  It‘s the reason that in many states cockfighting is illegal.  We have long passed the point where we found it to be...

BUCHANAN:  Well, that‘s deliberately letting animals suffer.  But go ahead. 

BOWEN:  Well, I just—but this is the next thing on that list. 

And ,again, I think this crosses the line between video game and real experience.  California has a number of programs.  We have blinds that are accessible to the disabled.  We have special roads that are otherwise not open, can be—can be—are open to disabled hunters.  There are a lot of ways to actually get a hunter out in the field.

BUCHANAN:  Right.  All right. 

BOWEN:  But, you know, we are looking at—think about “Grand Theft Auto” and the debate we have about whether our kids ought to be engaging in video games that promote killing cops.


BOWEN:  And now you have got....

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

BOWEN:  You are saying it‘s OK to have somebody sitting 3,000 miles away.

And, yes, I mean, Mr. Lockwood is saying it‘s about the disabled. 

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

BOWEN:  This was first marketed as a way for corporate executives who come home after a hard day... 


LOCKWOOD:  Where did you hear that, ma‘am?  That was never, ever, ever done.  I don‘t know where you heard that from.  That...


BUCHANAN:  All right, John Lockwood—let me let John Lockwood talk here a second. 

BOWEN:  Sure.

BUCHANAN:  John Lockwood, are you making money off this?  And it looks to me, it looks to me like you are going to be out of business pretty soon, all these states, California passing, when you got a Republican like Tom Davis, and they are doing that up on Capitol Hill.  You think they are going to put you out of business? 

LOCKWOOD:  Pat, the hunting part is not the business.  The business is the target shooting part, is where I make the money on the Web site. 

The hunting is—there‘s so little revenue generated by it.  And like Ted said, there are so, so people that want to do it, there‘s no money in it.  It never has been—the hunting part has ever been a part of money at all, a money issue. 

BUCHANAN:  Would you want to give—would you be willing to give it up just to keep the target shooting? 

BOWEN:  No.  I am on the same boat where, how come, yes, we can make special rules for the disabled to have special roads, special blinds?  My blind is special because it‘s built specifically to allow handicapped hunters to come in and use the same exact technology, but to be there on site, which will be my next hunt.  So...


Let me go to Ted Nugent. 

Ted Nugent, you were talking about hunting.  And I remember the great movie “The Deer Hunter,” where they did the one-shot hunting up in the Pennsylvania woods.  Did you see that film? 

NUGENT:  Sure.  That was a great film. 

BUCHANAN:  Yes.  It was a great film.  In other words, they would take one shot.  And, if they missed, they walked away.  The deer got away.  The deer wins. 

NUGENT:  Well, it...

BUCHANAN:  Do you think this is going to give hunters and sportsmen and people who really love it a bad name, because, I think, again, the only thing here for—if a—this corporate executive this fellow is talking about, if he comes home and, you know, gets down in his basement and shoots some poor pig in Texas, what is going on? 


NUGENT:  Well, Pat, I am getting old. 



NUGENT:  I am still touring because I‘m out of my mind, but I might need an electronic game to go kill my backstrap for the barbecue someday. 


NUGENT:  But we got to be very careful not to call this a slaughter. 

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

NUGENT:  There‘s nothing going to be slaughter.

If you want slaughter, let‘s support the ranchers and the farmers of America, who are feeding the world through a very positive and beneficial slaughter.  Slaughter is a good word.  We kill over two million deer in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Texas a year, two million deer a year just in four states.  What would someone recommend we do with those two million deer that will turn into six million the following year? 

This natural season of harvest must be celebrated. 


NUGENT:  And, believe me, everybody I know across the country does so. 

BUCHANAN:  It was lyrical there. 

Thank you very much, John Lockwood, Ted Nugent, Debra Bowen.

Coming next, another case of road rage in Southern California.  This time, the victim is an actor from the movie “Forrest Gump”.  What happened to Bubba in his own words next.


BUCHANAN:  More rage on the roads in Los Angeles. 

Tonight, we are learning actor Mykelti Williamson, best known for Bubba Blue, the shrimp man in the movie “Forrest Gump,” was involved in a terrifying ordeal that began just before noon today near Los Angeles.  A man reportedly started tailgating Williamson, and that‘s when the real trouble began. 

Reporter Furnell Chatman from KNBC in Los Angeles spoke to the actor about his ordeal. 


MYKELTI WILLIAMSON, ACTOR:  This guy pulls a gun on me, just because he is driving crazy and is looking to pick a fight. 

FURNELL CHATMAN, KNBC REPORTER (voice-over):  It was a real-life death threat for this Hollywood actor. 


WILLIAMSON:  There‘s pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp. 


CHATMAN:  Mykelti Williamson is perhaps best known for role as Bubba in the movie “Forrest Gump” with Tom Hanks.  But he has also had roles in the hit movie “Heat” and played boxing promoter Don King in the movie “Ali.”

WILLIAMSON:  I almost get killed today.  It‘s crazy. 

CHATMAN:  While traveling eastbound on the 105, Williamson says another driver stopped, then threatened him for no apparent reason. 

WILLIAMSON:  When he pulled up alongside me, he was yelling and screaming.  And I just went like this, like, yes, yes, yes.  And that escalated it.  That guy got really upset. 

CHATMAN:  Williamson got off the 105 freeway at Vermont, with the suspect right on his tail. 

WILLIAMSON:  Then, when he followed me and was driving next to me with the pistol pointed at me, and he was screaming that I was a dead (EXPLETIVE DELETED)  And he had my license number.   Even then, I don‘t know why he didn‘t fire. 

CHATMAN:  Williamson says the gunman forced him to stop, then approached on foot with a gun. 

WILLIAMSON:  If there were no witnesses around, that man could have very well killed me.  That was a huge gun.  I think he felt in complete control of the situation, and that‘s probably why he didn‘t fire. 

CHATMAN (on camera):  That satisfied him. 

WILLIAMSON:  I think so, but I think even that was an act of God. 

CHATMAN (voice-over):  The gunman then sped off.  Williamson called 911 and police apprehended the suspect on the 105 Freeway just a few miles away. 

WILLIAMSON:  I am overjoyed that he is off the street, but that was one guy with a gun.  There‘s a whole lot more guys out here like that. 


BUCHANAN:  That was Furnell Chatman of KNBC.

Now, what happened to Williamson was definitely terrifying, but it is not rare these days.  There have been eight shootings on Southern California freeways in the last two months.  Four men have been killed.  There have been leads, but, so far, no arrests. 

Joining me now, Ric Robinson, former state trooper and author of “Cop:

The Truth Behind the Badge,” and, on the phone, California Highway Patrol Assistant Chief Art Acevedo. 

Chief, tell me, what is going on?  What is behind these highway shootings like the one we saw with Bubba today?  Are these road rage incidents, and are there more of them now?  What is going on? 

ASST. CHIEF ART ACEVEDO, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL:  Actually, Mr.  Buchanan, first of all, I am not aware that anyone actually shot at that gentleman. 

However, what is going on is that we have had four deaths in a very short period of time, very tragic deaths, deaths that shouldn‘t have occurred.  But, actually, we are experiencing fewer incidents in Southern California.  This year to date, we actually have two fewer incidents in the metropolitan area of Los Angeles than we had last year.  And that trend has been downward for the last several years.

So, what we have is just random acts of violence.  We have leads.  We have citizens such as you just had on air that are taking matters into their hands and coming forward to law enforcement, providing us with their leads, and hopefully we will be making some arrests in the very near future. 

BUCHANAN:  All right.

Chief, what is—what are you—is there any pattern to the motivation here?  Is this just guys who get ticked off?  Are they cut off?  Are they caught in traffic jams?  I don‘t know whether it‘s legal to carry a sidearm on California highways.  Do you have any pattern to the motivation?  I mean, four killings, it may be down a bit, but I think, in this area, people would be astonished if that happened. 

ACEVEDO:  Absolutely. 

Like I—what we have is very strict laws here, but, as you know, we have criminals that run around our freeways and in our communities on a daily basis.  And what it is, is that these criminals, if you make them outraged, they are going to come out and they‘re going to take out a gun. 

So, the most important thing for the public to realize is that you need to take your time out there.  Be courteous.  If somebody starts tailgating them, you simply get out of the way.  Don‘t make gestures.  And let them move on with their business.  The bottom line is that we do have incidents.  They do occur.  They are a fact of life, and not only in California, but in this country.

But if you contrast the number of incidents we have on our freeways to the dozens of shootings we have on a daily basis on our communities, our freeways are still very safe transportation corridors that you can use. 

BUCHANAN:  All right.  OK. 

OK, Ric Robinson, let me ask you this.  How—look, have you spotted any—first, any pattern to what causes these type incidents?  These are clearly nutballs or dangerous people doing this. 


BUCHANAN:  And, secondly, how do you recommend—I mean, how do you recommend people act out on the road? 

If some guy is behind them, he‘s honking, beeping, or flipping his lights up and down, what should people do?  How should they behave, and is this a—is this becoming an epidemic? 

ROBINSON:  No, it‘s not becoming an epidemic.  As a matter of fact, there are fewer incidents in California and across the United States, as Art mentioned a moment ago, at this point in time than in prior years.  For instance, California had 46 last year, had 36 the year before, fewer to this point. 

But to answer some of your questions, what I have seen, in looking at the shootings, not just the ones that we are talking about, the eight and the four where the people were killed, but there were also about a dozen in the Los Angeles area, and a few more than that since the 1st of the year, it appears as though they are not happening in peak hours, not primarily, anyway, because that‘s a time when traffic is bumper to bumper and people can‘t get around anyway. 

It appears to me that most of these are happening at times when people can come whipping around, when somebody comes up on you.  Williamson may have done something that this guy was upset about and was totally unaware of it at the time.  He made a terrible mistake by gesturing, as he did, and he made an even worse mistake by allowing himself to be pulled over to the side. 


ROBINSON:  One of the things that I would say, especially to women with their kids, don‘t let somebody force you to the side of the road. 

BUCHANAN:  OK.  Thank you very much, Assistant Chief Art Acevedo and former state trooper Rick Robinson.

We‘ll be right back.


BUCHANAN:  Want to know more about something you saw tonight?  Be sure to check out Joe‘s Web site at Joe.MSNBC.com.

Be right back.


BUCHANAN:  Tomorrow night, Joe is back. 

America‘s college campuses have been a breeding ground for the anti-war movement for decades.  Ivy League schools have banned ROTC programs.  Now there‘s a movement to bring them back.  But now our academic elites have a whole new rationale to keep men and women training to defend America off campus.  Joe will get to the bottom of this one. 

Plus, the Reverend Jesse Jackson will be here to talk about the involvement of the infamous—his involvement in the infamous case of a 5-year-old girl handcuffed in school.  That‘s tomorrow on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Be sure to watch Imus tomorrow morning.  His guests include anchorman Bob Schieffer.

Got something to say?  Send Joe an e-mail at Joe.MSNBC.com.

“HARDBALL” is next.  Good night.


Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shalluser use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Discussion comments