Media Matters' Timothy Johnson flags a segment from NRA News that may seem like a parody intended to make the group look foolish, but it's entirely legit (video via TPM).
As Johnson reported, the clip features former NRA president Marion Hammer complaining about Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) 1994 assault-weapons ban, and the senator's renewed efforts to bring it back.
The NRA show's host, Ginny Simone, argued that proponents of the idea "admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it's about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works." Hammer responded, "Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics."
Yep, Hammer actually equated discrimination against people on the basis of race and ethnicity to banning assault weapons.
And while it's true that Hammer is no longer the president of the organization, it's worth noting that she remains a lobbyist for the group and her comments were aired by NRA News.
What's more, for the record, Feinstein and her allies have not "admitted" they want to limit sales of "ugly" guns; they've specified "the most dangerous guns."
I'm beginning to think the NRA is not prepared for a serious, mature conversation about public policy.
Leave a Comment:
Perhaps assault weapons should be banned due to the content of their character.
so, I guess Marion Hammer believes that people of color are the ugliest people, huh?
They can't help giving themselves away.
She's making it too easy...
I'm sure I'm not the first person that said this, and certainly won't be the last...
this woman is the personification of the term "Hammer-Head..."
How about "Ninnyhammer?"
Sorry but the notion that the NRA having a meaningful and intelligent conversation about gun control, is a pipe dream in it's current state. The NRA has spent millions making their own alternate reality. The fact that Hammer is trying to infer that banning assault weapons, is itself as being somehow inherently racist. Just exemplifies the notion that, The NRA are not serious or living in the real world.
That description sounds a lot like the current state of Republicans- millions spent on creating their own alternate reality.
I'm beginning to thinkthe NRA is not prepared for a serious, mature conversation about public policy.There, corrected it for you.
They have nothing. I can't believe I ever entertained any of their arguments, ever! They have no clothes and must be relentlessly crushed politically!
Banning a gun for the way it looks is perfectly legit and makes all the sense in the world. Regardless her comparison to racism which deals with treating a person unfairly based on their race, your talking about treating a gun unfairly based on its style? Poor gun, we shouldn't upset them.
Still, while a hunting rifle semi automatic functions the same as a Bushmaster .223, it is the Rambo look of the gun that is a draw to the people who want to look bad ass as they walk onto school property. If noone believes that then why do they were black fatiques or army camaflauge to a school at 9:00 am? Will they be unseen next to the brick wall? No, it is the fantasy they are living out. The bad ass who takes out his revenge on all the people who stole attention away from him. So he duplicates what he sees in movies and on video games.
This is the real crux of any assault weapons ban. Because most of these guns are not real assault full automatic weapons, they LOOK like them. they look war like.
Off the subject, and this might sound harsh, but here is a first step in solving this. Require a full background check and waiting time on all of these guns. they are banned from public concealed weapons lists. Then ,anyone, private seller or business that fails to run that check and cover the wait period, gets 10 years in prison. If the gun is used in commission of the crime, the person who sold it gets 20 years. If someone dies at the hand of that gun, the person who sold that gun and failed to run the check gets life in prison. Finally, just like on Dateline, you have a squad of police who attempt to buy guns from Craigslist, gun shows and gun stores undercover. Whoever fails, march them out to do their 10 years.
This would stop tomorrow. If anyone is really serious about a real solution, this would be a strong first step and noone touches a 2nd amendment for possession.
Michael, I find part of your comment's interesting, As you mention, The dressing up in Fatigues, Body Armor, The "look's" or similarity of a civillian style Assault Rifle as compared to what is used in the Military. Is the thought process of these People that of trying to Act out or Be like someone who is in the Military, Even though that Person never has served? The Fascination Aspect? I think you raise a Good point, Aside from the senseless Act, Why the wearing of Fatigues? Body Armor? To me, that kind point's to the Possibility of some sort of Mental Influence from either War type of Video Games or by watching other Violent material. Just a thought.
Well, while there are millions who play and watch violent games and movies who would never think of shooting a 6 year old in the face, the fact seems to be that the people who do this are escaping from reality in an extreme way and when they do their brain just doesnt shut down. they have to emerse in some alternate reality that allows them to be the 'winner' in their lives; to give them some control. for these people, the video games, are just to me anyway, a natural path through which to do that.
I agree with you but I want to contest one point. When I've talked about small arms with the career military people I know, the ones with the most extensive experience in the use of small arms (and I'm talking SF guys) think the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic in terms of killing power is meaningless--at least when you're talking about a weapon with an easy trigger pull like one of these M-16/M-4 wannabes. If anything, the reduction in the rate of fire makes the weapon more deadly in the hands of a lone-gunman, especially one without extensive military or SWAT training, because it results in fewer wasted rounds.
I am sure you are right, my point, though i didnt type it out, was that fully automatics are already illegal to possess by anyone other than police, military etc and by and large are never an issue. they are tightly controlled. it's the pretenders that can be bought at a Walmart that are the real problem.
As a matteer of fact, I recently saw a video where a gun nut put a 100-round drum into a semi-automatic assault rifle and began firing it as fast as he could squeeze the trigger, and I can assure you (having fired full-auto weapons in the military) that weapon was firing damn close as didn't matter to as fast as it would have fired on full-auto. He went through 100 rounds in well under 30 seconds for sure.
One other point, And I never heard of this being mentioned in regards to the Sandy Hook Tragedy, But as a Parent, At what Point would you begin to wonder IF something was wrong with your child when the Body Armor show's up at the House?We don't know the answer to that issue, But IF Body Armor showed up at my House via UPS for my Son , Ya think their might be an issue???? Red Flag that Something is Wrong?? That part I don't get
Steve..
Not to Mention, the kickback is less, which means the bullets are aimed better...
The thing I don't get is this "they're coming for our guns" nonsense. But people seem to buy into that hallucinatory argument, hence a run on ammunition after the tragedy in Conn. As far as I'm aware no one in congress has ever suggested taking away all guns, just the ones that should be reserved for military functions. The degree of paranoia that "they're" suggests frightens me more than some poorly framed shtick about "gunism." Stoking paranoiacs' paranoia is like yelling fire in a movie theater.
Doctor T, You nailed it with your comment. The NRA figured out that the message of "FEAR" is effective.
Doctor - it's the same logic that says "they're taking away our Freedoms" - same fear-filled reactions, same paranoid behavior.....
A ban on guns is in fact, "coming for our guns." I don't see how anyone could consider this not to be an infringement on the second amendment. On one hand you say you are not coming for our guns, then on the other hand you call for banning guns?? It is the purest example of George Orwell's doublethink, holding one fact to be true, while holding exactly the opposite to be true at the same time.
The mind bender in this, imho, is that the current gun control vs gun rights battle started as a racial issue in California in the Fifties or Sixties. The Black Panthers were, in part, a response to an effort to deny guns to the Black community.
Voodoo, Your post is an example of how the right wing distorts reality to fit their own fantasy. If you want a hunting rifle, no one is going to think twice about it. If you want a target pistol, no one cares a lot. It's when you want a gun capable of killing a lot of people and that has no other use that people become interested in you.
No one is taking your guns. They are trying to restrict your access to weapons that have no socially redeeming qualities whatsoever, like child porn. They're trying to make sure that people who have guns are trustworthy enough to be trusted in their use. A lot of the people responsible for the recent mass killings either got their guns without background checks or should never have been able to pass those checks because of mental problems or past police records. But the gun nuts have no problem with just anyone owning guns, even to the point of claiming that the kids killed are just part of the price we pay for freedom.
and btw, same penalties for those who do not lock up their gun with the possible exception that the gun is immediately reported stolen.
is she admitting that gun owners are attracted to they're guns? that they are in love with them like two human beings of different ethnicities would be in love? isn't that a sickness that is really obvious to her? or am i just being retorical and is she a nutball-crazy-pants?
So the conspiracy theory that the president would come after assault weapons is coming true. Another conspiracy theory is that the NRA caused these massacres to force the president to make their conspiracy theory come true. Thus the conspiracy to validate a conspiracy theory was a plot by the NRA. Just because there is no proof, is evidence of a conspiracy to cover up the lack of evidence of the conspiracy. Thus the NRA is the victim of gun violence theorists who secretly conspire to make the NRA seem uncaring and interested only in profit for the gun-makers. The evidence is in Australia with its rampant tyranny which prevents the evidence from being known according to the Russians.
Next...NRA gets the Supreme Court to declare that guns are people!
Hahaha. That made me laugh out loud!
In the words made famous by Mitt..."Corporations...no. Guns are people too, my friend!"
Don't laugh. Remember Poe´s law that any parody of the right wing will be regarded as true by someone. And also, that "guns don't kill people, people do."
If a hunter needs an assault rifle to bag a deer, they have no business being in the woods in the first place. If a target shooter needs an assault rifle to hit a bullseye, they need a better pair of glasses rather than a gun that will destroy the entire target. There is absolutely no excuse for owning a gun that can spray a hundred bullets before reloading. The NRA stands for Nuts Reciting Assfoolery, as the person in the article is obviously doing. Maybe she is hoping to get a gig on SNL?
Be sure to catch "Friends of NRA" on the Outdoor Channel (Sundays @ 10 PM). They shoot a wide variety of animals, and generally bring their kids along. Great family fun.
Bullets look ugly in kids.
I'm gonna go with choice b) nutball-crazy-pants
That is very astute.
I don't like the way the NRA argues its case most of the time, however the argument of judging something based on how it looks makes sense...."Assault weapons" are really "assault style" or "styled" weapons....Now there is an argument that that styling is attracting a certain style of nutjob to use them for mayhem. However her argument while poorly presented holds some weight
mortal kombat uh no...but Halo or Call of duty
Glen beck and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney at your convention I would have booked say Jon Tester or Ted Strickland or Heidi Heitkamp or President Obama as all of these folks are frankly more pro-gun....If the Republicans had given on the public option the President would have surely allowed reciprocal carry.
It's the new politics in America. If you know the conversation won't go well for you, change the topic!
Or, convolute the logic.
I'm still trying to get past the idea that the NRA has its own news channel ...
Funny, I don't remember seeing an article when Bob Costas quoted the sports journalist Jason Whitlock who said that the NRA was really today's KKK and that the NRA was arming black men. Seems this was just as ridiculous as the above post.
Hmmm, the KKK advocated killing blacks. The NRA, by refusing to allow legislation mandating trigger locks, banning assault weapons, banning large magazines, and even a modern gun registration and background check on gun buyers is essentially advocating for gun violence. Actually, I'd equate the NRA to something worse than the KKK, but I guess this will do for now.
The NRA is not advocating for violence or the irresponsible use of guns (they actually have a huge gun safety program) AND they certainly are not advocating violence against a minority race. To say that the NRA is worse than the KKK is as stupid as saying guns are being discriminated against like minorities were in the past. Wow.
RobDon, it isn't what they say. It's what they do, and if they were, in fact, advocating for violence and irresponsible use of guns, what would be any different in their publicity? How is their political posture any different from advocating for violence and irresponsible use of guns? They oppose checking on people who want to buy guns. They oppose any registration of guns, even keeping a record of what each gun's fired bullet looks like so that the gun used in a crime can be checked back by analyzing the bullet. They oppose any sort of reasonable measure to reduce gun violence. That sort of puts the lie to their claim of being for responsible gun ownership.
dkm, while I can appreciate most of your comment, I disagree with the notion that wanting less government oversight or interference is necessary the same as promoting violence. The NRA spends millions in gun owner education, gun safety, proper gun storage (they say you sould keep it under lock and key, stored unloaded, etc.)
They believe gun owners should take these steps, not the government. Too often responsible people pay the cost of irresponsible people.
I just wish both sides could discuss the issues you make (and others) and the also valid points on the NRA side. As an example, when the Sandy Hook school opened they had armed officers in strategic places to ensure safety. That is the quickest solution to the problem even if the desire that it be temporary. The newspaper that published gun owener information hired armed guards to protect themselves from "bad guys" who would want to unjustly harm them.
No, I don't want a police state that's why I said "temporary" but most guns are not bad nor or they the problem. It is people, so good people should have a productive discussion towards solutions...imho.
Is it possible that she is no longer sane enough to understand that guns are not human?
"The longer I'm here the more I think this planet is used by other planets as an asylum for the insane."
--- George Bernard Shaw
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." This is really the most interesting part of the second amendment. What does the "security of a free state" mean? And what is a "well regulated militia?" I suppose these things have been debated by the courts, Supreme and lower, at length. But it might be useful for the NRA to be made to explain out loud and to a large audience that they think private citizens need to be armed against their own government or whatever it is they think "security of a free state means." Do they really think that the authors of the constitution were putting into the Bill of Rights the right of people to bear arms against their own government? If not, then how does the right to bear arms against fellow citizens provide security for a free state? And how is a person armed with a semi-automatic weapon in his or her home or car part of a well regulated militia?
Well I don't have a large audience on this forum, but I'll try. The security of a free state means just what it says, the security of our constitutional republic.
A well-regulated militia means a well organized and well trained militia. A militia is a group which is is not a standing army and may be formed and disbanded as needed, which is made up of the people.
The people retain the right to keep and bear arms in order that they have the opportunity to gain basic experience with their own personal arms in the event that it is necessary to form a militia. When a militia is formed, they will learn to operate as a well-disciplined, or well-trained (well-regulated) militia.
They are expected to provide for security of the state from whatever force threatens it. That force could be in the form of a foreign invasion or due to a corrupt government.
The Declaration Of Independence explains that should government become corrupt, we have both the right to "alter or abolish it."
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
This is the right of revolution.
Despite inflammatory talk you hear in the media, this doesn't mean that if we're merely unhappy about who got elected, we should attack the white house. Revolution is serious business and only done for serious reasons. We're supposed to try to "alter" (by vote, peaceful assembly, etc.) it first.
We use the three boxes of liberty, the ballot box, the soapbox, and the ammo box.
Well put jpvoodoo. Just one more little note to add..."Do they really think that the authors of the constitution were putting into the Bill of Rights the right of people to bear arms against their own government?" Ummm, as a matter of fact that is exactly what they were saying as they had just gotten through bearing arms against Britain. Or perhaps my history needs to be rewritten to change how guns look.
YES
Many Americans can't handle responsibility of any kind, financial, sexual, personal, moral and others.They drive with face in phone, they get high school degrees and can't read.They reject the notion of God or any moral authority higher than man.They're taught that they are a highly evolved primate.
So when people act evil its not news to me.Maybe banning liberals from owning guns is the answer!
This was poorly stated by this radio host. Well, let me correct that. The radio host here IS a racist, and no doubt a bit of a lunatic, but there is a point here.
There's only a couple simple ways that firearms work. There's only so many different kinds of ammo they take. The assault weapons ban was mostly about cosmetics, not function.
There's no real difference in how fast a semi-auto AK-47 can shoot and how fast a pistol like a Glock 19 can shoot. Both are semi-auto.
What does semi-auto mean? Well, a hammer makes contact with a firing pin. A firing pin piercing the base of a bullet, igniting the gun power inside. This causes a tiny explosion in a barrel, and heat and pressure forces the bullet out of the gun.
In order for a hammer to hit a firing pin it has to be drawn back (cocked) and then released. These are two different mechanical operations.
In the old days, when everyone used revolvers, the trigger on the gun only did 1 thing. It released the hammer. You had to physically pull the hammer back first. These triggers are called "Single Action". Single action, as in they do one thing.
Then revolvers got new technology. A trigger that also pulled the hammer back when you first pressed it, and then released it. Here the trigger did two things, and were called "Double Action".
Then pistols came along. The first pistols were very much like the old revolvers. The triggers only did one thing, it released the hammer. However, pistols automatically would eject a used round and automatically put a new round in the chamber of the gun, and in this motion, would also automatically leave the hammer in the drawn back position. Soon, pistols changed so that the triggers also pulled back the hammer too, but since the hammers were drawn back automatically after the first shot, the triggers would work in single action upon following shots. This came to be known as "Single/Double Action", because it was both.
There are different ways a firearm works. Many hunting rifles are bolt-action. You have to physically put in one bullet at a time. This is slow and cumbersome, but allow you to shoot very accurately at very long distances. This is why sniper rifles work in the same way.
Glocks (the most popular handgun for the police) are striker-fired. They have no external hammer. Before you can fire, you have to rack the slide, which internally pulls the hammer back. The trigger works like a single action every time, but is often called "double action only" or "striker fired". Glocks will fire as quickly as any other pistol.
Automatic weapons are entirely different. You have to pull the trigger and hold it down, and the weapon will continually fire automatically. Full auto is, from a practical standpoint, almost useless, because you run out of ammo so quickly. It eliminates your ability to be precise with your firearm.
So is it really nothing about the way the gun functions and everything to do with how the gun looks? Well, let's find out. Let's play "Can You Spot The Assault Rifle?"
http://the_rat.blogspot.com/2012/12/can-you-identify-assault-rifle.html
No one is going to contribute money to the NRA if they are reasonably secure of their 2nd amendment rights - it behooves the NRA to stir up paranoia, and thus line their own pockets.
There can be no reasonable security for the second amendment until there is no threat of "assault weapon" ban, magazine ban, private sale ban, ammo restrictions, burdensome taxes on gun owners, or prohibition on ownership without due process. All of these things are very real threats. It isn't paranoia if they really can happen.
Awww! Guns are people too! Just like Corporations and Fetuses.
And people? They're coons and animals when they use food stamps, demand equal pay, and dare to want affordable health care.
I never comment on these diatribe rants, but this is just ridiculous...
Most of you people that blindness support this idea to ban "assault weapons" have no understanding of firearms. I know most anti-guns people refuse to believe this - but these AR15s are NOT "assault weapons"... This is a deeper discussion (in disguise) of whether or not ANY semi-auto firearm should be banned...PERIOD (and high capacity magazines -or- ALL magazine fed firearms).
This is why "gun nuts" are crying foul to Feinstein's ban... Warranted paranoia? You be the judge of that - but REAL assault weapons are not under attack here...assault weapons are so very few and far between in reality - they are a non-factor in the US!
The NRA is absolutely TERRIBLE at putting out good speakers - but the point made here is a simple one...we are spending time and resources attacking cosmetic features of firearms rather than functionality. Why this lady is equating it to racism is beyond me - but the point she is making is that it's the cosmetics of a weapon that is under attack. And to think that the cosmetics of a firearm take center stage for blame after the lost lives of all those innocent children is just unfair to those poor souls...b/c if you think FOR A SECOND that a ban on these "assault weapons" will keep these kids safe (even after the ban is in place for 50 years), then you are not thinking this through. We need to protect our young other ways than passing a law against the way a gun should look. Whether a killer has a Hello Kitty painted pump action Remington 870 shotgun (very common hunting arm sans Hello Kitty), or an AR15 - he/she could take as many lives as they want in these gun-free zones. BTW - shotguns are FAR more deadly in terms of short range firepower (just fyi).
Take away all guns - will that help? It might - but then you have to take away all 300+ million guns. This is what I believe Feinstein (and company) wants - she even admits that on camera back in the mid 90s. If you believe that too - then fine! But hey - at least you are supporting something real and not a facade!
So if you support banning semi-autos, high capacity magazines, or ALL guns in general then so be it - but this is indeed what this ban is about... Whether you support the 2nd amendment or not is your choice, but please understand that the push to ban these "assault weapons" is a MEDIA ploy for a deeper agenda that would likely happen in phases. And in fact - it IS a push on the 2nd amendment (like it or not).
Come on people...stop being media sheep!!!