NRA loves Christie’s ridiculous non-plan to deal with gun violence.
Talking Points Memo: Campaign finance reports filed this week by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) show he has collected $3,000 in donations since March from a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association.
The latest of those reports became public Monday, just as Christie’s Democratic opponent in the Garden State governor’s race, state Sen. Barbara Buono, has been hitting him for having a weak stance on gun control.
“We’ve seen really exceptional leadership across the river with Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, but unfortunately, in New Jersey, Gov. Christie has not shown leadership,” Buono told TPM by phone on Monday evening.
“Her criticism has centered on a task force Christie launched in January to address violence following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.,” the report goes on. “Buono has repeatedly described the recommendations issued by that commission as ‘shallow’ and accused Christie of using it to avoid the issue of gun control immediately after the shooting.”
“Shallow” works, but “a joke” would be good too. “He set up this commission right after Newtown. I’m not sure why he set up the commission considering Vice President Biden had already set up a commission,” said Buono. “It really appeared as though it was a delay tactic to delay and put it off hoping that people would calm down after the latest tragedy.”
The commission’s recommendations: criminalize the video games like “Call of Duty,” as well as mental illness. There’s even a call to ban the Barrett .50 caliber rifle — not because it’s been a problem in New Jersey, but because it’s featured in “Call of Duty.” The NRA is apparently cool with this ban, I suppose because it helps lay the blame for gun violence in America on video games and not the deep saturation of guns in our population.
Meanwhile, the state legislature is expected to pass legislation ignoring the panel’s recommendations and instead expanding background checks. That legislation may not have a bright future and this might explain why the NRA is shoring up Christie early — a veto of background checks legislation is pretty much the same as voting against it. Ask Kelly Ayotte how that sort of thing plays in the northeast these days.
![Stories to Watch: 5/13/13. Got a really late start on these headlines, so this is going to be brief.Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne holds up Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as the kind of mayor who talks sense about gun control. That’s the kind that makes the gun lobby nervous.Harry Reid says that gun safety advocates will “settle” for legislation leaving gaping holes in the background check system. Harry Reid is very wrong. Marco Rubio wants the president to “demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately” over news that the agency gave special attention to Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status. The problem: there is no IRS Commissioner. The previous commissioner’s term ended during the last election year, meaning nominating a replacement was completely impossible. “The Republicans would block anybody that Obama sent up.” Jeff Trinca, a former chief of staff for the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, said at the time. So Rubio’s demanding a resignation from a position that’s empty because of Republican obstructionism. Democrats are fighting over what to do with California’s $4.5 billion budget surplus. A problem you want to have. Liberal economic policies work. Here’s living proof. Finally, John McCain becomes the latest Republican to thank Fox News for all their help in hyping Benghazi. [cartoon via Truthdig]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/5f14781a93d6020a2a1ddbee7920559b/tumblr_mmrli5BM1y1qfengno1_500.jpg)
Stories to Watch: 5/13/13.
Got a really late start on these headlines, so this is going to be brief.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne holds up Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as the kind of mayor who talks sense about gun control. That’s the kind that makes the gun lobby nervous.
Harry Reid says that gun safety advocates will “settle” for legislation leaving gaping holes in the background check system. Harry Reid is very wrong.
Marco Rubio wants the president to “demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately” over news that the agency gave special attention to Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status. The problem: there is no IRS Commissioner. The previous commissioner’s term ended during the last election year, meaning nominating a replacement was completely impossible. “The Republicans would block anybody that Obama sent up.” Jeff Trinca, a former chief of staff for the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, said at the time. So Rubio’s demanding a resignation from a position that’s empty because of Republican obstructionism.
Democrats are fighting over what to do with California’s $4.5 billion budget surplus. A problem you want to have. Liberal economic policies work. Here’s living proof.
Finally, John McCain becomes the latest Republican to thank Fox News for all their help in hyping Benghazi.
[cartoon via Truthdig]
![Gun lobby, Ayotte clearly feeling the heat.
Greg Sargent: A bit of a dispute has broken out over just how much pressure Kelly Ayotte is feeling over her vote against the Manchin-Toomey compromise to expand background checks. The gun control forces have organized to pressure her at town hall meetings and on the air, but conservative media have argued that the pressure on her from the left has been exaggerated.
It’s interesting, then, that the major efforts to defend Ayotte by gun rights groups and fellow Republicans tend to emphasize her supposed support for background checks. That seems like a pretty good sign of which way the political winds are blowing on the issue.
Here, for instance, is a new ad that Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running in New Hampshire. It says this: “Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”…
That message echoes a recent NRA ad that thanks Ayotte for her vote, but also says: “Kelly Ayotte voted for a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” Ayotte herself recently defended her vote on the same grounds that she supports.
It’s hard not to notice that the thrust of these defenses center on Ayotte’s support for background checks, and not her opposition to expanding them.
In other words, the message here is “Kelly Ayotte? Voted against background checks? Why, you must be thinking of someone else!” They aren’t even trying to defend her vote. Instead, they’re trying to cloud the issue with bullshit. According to Sargent, what they’re pointing to is not the background check bill that was nearly universally popular, but instead “an alternative proposal, sponsored by Chuck Grassley, that would have beefed up state sharing of mental health data with the feds, without extending the background check to private sales via commercial portals on the internet and at gun shows.” So, not really a vote about background checks at all.
Sargent reports that “gun control groups believe the Grassley approach would actually undermine the overall background check system” and that voting for Grassley’s idea wouldn’t have prevented her from voting for voting for the background check expansion. They were separate issues, not competing proposals. In the end, Ayotte voted against expanding background checks and any other story isn’t even spin — it’s a lie.
But Rubio and the NRA know they’ve got the losing argument here, so they aren’t bothering to defend it. Rather, they’re just plain lying about Ayotte’s record to make it seem like she voted for gun control. This is so not going the way they’d hoped.
[photo by M Bergman]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/39f7332c7a82e56b3d6a2517879b7fc6/tumblr_mmrbw9Z0wI1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
Gun lobby, Ayotte clearly feeling the heat.
Greg Sargent: A bit of a dispute has broken out over just how much pressure Kelly Ayotte is feeling over her vote against the Manchin-Toomey compromise to expand background checks. The gun control forces have organized to pressure her at town hall meetings and on the air, but conservative media have argued that the pressure on her from the left has been exaggerated.
It’s interesting, then, that the major efforts to defend Ayotte by gun rights groups and fellow Republicans tend to emphasize her supposed support for background checks. That seems like a pretty good sign of which way the political winds are blowing on the issue.
Here, for instance, is a new ad that Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running in New Hampshire. It says this: “Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”…
That message echoes a recent NRA ad that thanks Ayotte for her vote, but also says: “Kelly Ayotte voted for a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” Ayotte herself recently defended her vote on the same grounds that she supports.
It’s hard not to notice that the thrust of these defenses center on Ayotte’s support for background checks, and not her opposition to expanding them.
In other words, the message here is “Kelly Ayotte? Voted against background checks? Why, you must be thinking of someone else!” They aren’t even trying to defend her vote. Instead, they’re trying to cloud the issue with bullshit. According to Sargent, what they’re pointing to is not the background check bill that was nearly universally popular, but instead “an alternative proposal, sponsored by Chuck Grassley, that would have beefed up state sharing of mental health data with the feds, without extending the background check to private sales via commercial portals on the internet and at gun shows.” So, not really a vote about background checks at all.
Sargent reports that “gun control groups believe the Grassley approach would actually undermine the overall background check system” and that voting for Grassley’s idea wouldn’t have prevented her from voting for voting for the background check expansion. They were separate issues, not competing proposals. In the end, Ayotte voted against expanding background checks and any other story isn’t even spin — it’s a lie.
But Rubio and the NRA know they’ve got the losing argument here, so they aren’t bothering to defend it. Rather, they’re just plain lying about Ayotte’s record to make it seem like she voted for gun control. This is so not going the way they’d hoped.
![Ayotte background check vote sparks NH ad war. Ironically, the gun lobby is being outgunned. Washington Post: …Ads in the state are focused on Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), the only senator from the Northeast to vote against expanded background checks. Gun-control groups hope to turn her vote into a political liability; gun-rights advocates aim to prove that it isn’t one. American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit, is up Friday with a $250,000 ad buy supporting Ayotte. That dwarfs the $25,000 buy from the National Rifle Association. But it pales in comparison to the ad buy from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is estimated to be larger than $600,000. (The group says only that the two-week buy is in the six figures but has not disputed that estimate.) The ads are running during Red Sox games, an expensive time. Americans for Responsible Solutions, the pro-gun control group founded by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, also has a $350,000 radio buy up in New Hampshire and four other states. The group has raised $11 million in the past four months and is likely to spend more in New Hampshire. Ayotte isn’t up for reelection until 2016, so the ads aren’t focused on electoral politics directly. Instead, they’re seeking to influence her vote when the issue comes up again. Ayotte’s favorables have been in a tailspin after the vote and gun safety advocates see her as a likely defector in the next round. The ads from them are downward pressure meant to keep her numbers low by keeping voters’ disappointment with her fresh in their minds. Which may explain the lower figures for gun lobby ads. They want to shore up support, but Ayotte is taking such a beating that they don’t want to make her seem like a no-guns-laws-ever fanatic. It’s kind of a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation — you can’t defend her without reminding everyone why they got so mad at her in the first place. The best they can do is offer cautious support and hope this whole thing blows over. Unless Ayotte is politically suicidal, that may not be enough. [photo by schmilblick]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/0b28cb1888b31e0d619732515b0ca35f/tumblr_mmldgtve171qfengno1_1280.jpg)
Ayotte background check vote sparks NH ad war.
Ironically, the gun lobby is being outgunned.
Washington Post: …Ads in the state are focused on Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), the only senator from the Northeast to vote against expanded background checks. Gun-control groups hope to turn her vote into a political liability; gun-rights advocates aim to prove that it isn’t one.
American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit, is up Friday with a $250,000 ad buy supporting Ayotte. That dwarfs the $25,000 buy from the National Rifle Association. But it pales in comparison to the ad buy from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is estimated to be larger than $600,000. (The group says only that the two-week buy is in the six figures but has not disputed that estimate.) The ads are running during Red Sox games, an expensive time. Americans for Responsible Solutions, the pro-gun control group founded by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, also has a $350,000 radio buy up in New Hampshire and four other states. The group has raised $11 million in the past four months and is likely to spend more in New Hampshire.
Ayotte isn’t up for reelection until 2016, so the ads aren’t focused on electoral politics directly. Instead, they’re seeking to influence her vote when the issue comes up again. Ayotte’s favorables have been in a tailspin after the vote and gun safety advocates see her as a likely defector in the next round. The ads from them are downward pressure meant to keep her numbers low by keeping voters’ disappointment with her fresh in their minds.
Which may explain the lower figures for gun lobby ads. They want to shore up support, but Ayotte is taking such a beating that they don’t want to make her seem like a no-guns-laws-ever fanatic. It’s kind of a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation — you can’t defend her without reminding everyone why they got so mad at her in the first place. The best they can do is offer cautious support and hope this whole thing blows over.
Unless Ayotte is politically suicidal, that may not be enough.
Another day, another 5 year-old shooter.
Remember, there’s nothing at all that can be done about things like this, everything is fine. Five year-olds walking around blasting family members is exactly the America the founders envisioned.
Contact your local NRA to update your talking points and tune in to talk radio to get your brain freshly laundered. Do not deviate from the politically correct, GOP- and NRA-approved thinking points. Critical thought is, after all, the enemy of liberty.
That is all.
![NRA Turns to the Tried and Failed Politics of the Tea Party. In some ways, new NRA president Jim Porter is the best thing to happen to the common sense regulators’ side of the argument. He approaches the issue with the same subtlety and finesse of a brain surgeon with a sledge hammer. He seems to be an all or nothing, slash and burn type, who practices rightwing politics of exclusion. Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says that Porter drags the National Rifle Association even farther “into the extremist camp.” “With Jim Porter, they’ve gone full crazy,” he says. He also represents just about every failed approach to national politics imaginable. At the NRA convention this weekend, he called for a “culture war” — I guess because rightwing culture wars have gone so swimmingly lately. And yes, he is far outside the mainstream. Talking Points Memo: Porter has called President Barack Obama a “fake president,” Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly un-American” and the U.S. Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.” On Friday, he repeated his call for training every U.S. citizen in the use of standard military firearms, to allow them to defend themselves against tyranny. As I’ve pointed out before, calling for the taking up of arms to “fight tyranny” is just a more pleasant-sounding way of endorsing the assassination and murder of your fellow Americans. And “War of northern aggression” means exactly what it seems to mean; a revisionist take that puts the north at fault in the Civil War, completely ignoring and — even denying — the role of racism and slavery in launching that war. The exclusionist aim straight at white voters is unmistakable here and it’s the same tactic that’s cost Republicans black voters nearly universally. “Fake president” is an obvious birther reference. At a time when the Republican Party is trying to shed these tendencies, Porter drags them back in. I doubt he’s making many friends over at GOP HQ. You might remember Sharron Angle, a Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010. She was another Todd Akin type and what cost her election — at least in part — was her endorsement of “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with what she saw as an unresponsive congress and even to remove her election opponent, Harry Reid, from office. In other words, she pretty much endorsed assassinating Harry Reid and any other congress member who’s politics you don’t like. People found this kind of talk a tad bit terrorist-sounding. And it’s nearly indistinguishable from Porter’s rhetoric. I doubt the average person will like it any better coming from him. So we have an NRA president practicing failed rightwing politics and repeating far-right talking points that everyone else finds insane. But keep in mind that the NRA’s purpose here is different from the GOP’s. The Republican Party’s purpose is to get Republicans elected. The NRA’s purpose is to make money for small arms merchants. The NRA made an alliance with the GOP long ago, but that doesn’t mean they work hand in hand. What Porter’s trying to do here is pretty simple — collect all the white male voters turned off by the GOP’s rebranding effort under the NRA banner. You get all the racists and the homophobes and the Christian supremacists and various and sundry other extremists, then you try to sell them back to the party. A big problem with the GOP rebranding effort has been in trying to win over new voters, while keeping these frootloops in the flock. Porter seems to believe he can turn these people into single-issue voters and use them as leverage to keep the GOP from caving in when the pressure builds. And so NRA gatherings start to look like Tea Party rallies — thinly veiled racism and all. It’s a bad strategy, because eventually the Republican Party will realize that pandering to these voters just plain isn’t worth it. After all, the rebranding effort is the first glimmer of a dawning realization that these people are costing more votes than they bring. But in the meantime, the NRA will do what the Tea Party did — enable completely insane candidates to win primaries, then lose general elections with their frothing nutbaggery. On the other hand, what else can Porter do? His “culture war” is already being fought and he’s losing it badly. Gun ownership is down, support for gun regulation is high — all you can really do is buy time while you try to figure out how to turn this around. The tone of the NRA convention was triumphalist, but the reality — as made clear by the NRA’s strategy going forward — is that their “movement” is treading water. -Wisco [photo by Gerald Rich]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/579e60e579503e678e05b684ffc2af72/tumblr_mmdua57ANu1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
NRA Turns to the Tried and Failed Politics of the Tea Party.
In some ways, new NRA president Jim Porter is the best thing to happen to the common sense regulators’ side of the argument. He approaches the issue with the same subtlety and finesse of a brain surgeon with a sledge hammer. He seems to be an all or nothing, slash and burn type, who practices rightwing politics of exclusion. Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says that Porter drags the National Rifle Association even farther “into the extremist camp.”
“With Jim Porter, they’ve gone full crazy,” he says.
Talking Points Memo: Porter has called President Barack Obama a “fake president,” Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly un-American” and the U.S. Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.” On Friday, he repeated his call for training every U.S. citizen in the use of standard military firearms, to allow them to defend themselves against tyranny.
As I’ve pointed out before, calling for the taking up of arms to “fight tyranny” is just a more pleasant-sounding way of endorsing the assassination and murder of your fellow Americans. And “War of northern aggression” means exactly what it seems to mean; a revisionist take that puts the north at fault in the Civil War, completely ignoring and — even denying — the role of racism and slavery in launching that war. The exclusionist aim straight at white voters is unmistakable here and it’s the same tactic that’s cost Republicans black voters nearly universally. “Fake president” is an obvious birther reference. At a time when the Republican Party is trying to shed these tendencies, Porter drags them back in. I doubt he’s making many friends over at GOP HQ.
You might remember Sharron Angle, a Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010. She was another Todd Akin type and what cost her election — at least in part — was her endorsement of “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with what she saw as an unresponsive congress and even to remove her election opponent, Harry Reid, from office. In other words, she pretty much endorsed assassinating Harry Reid and any other congress member who’s politics you don’t like. People found this kind of talk a tad bit terrorist-sounding.
And it’s nearly indistinguishable from Porter’s rhetoric. I doubt the average person will like it any better coming from him. So we have an NRA president practicing failed rightwing politics and repeating far-right talking points that everyone else finds insane. But keep in mind that the NRA’s purpose here is different from the GOP’s. The Republican Party’s purpose is to get Republicans elected. The NRA’s purpose is to make money for small arms merchants. The NRA made an alliance with the GOP long ago, but that doesn’t mean they work hand in hand. What Porter’s trying to do here is pretty simple — collect all the white male voters turned off by the GOP’s rebranding effort under the NRA banner. You get all the racists and the homophobes and the Christian supremacists and various and sundry other extremists, then you try to sell them back to the party. A big problem with the GOP rebranding effort has been in trying to win over new voters, while keeping these frootloops in the flock. Porter seems to believe he can turn these people into single-issue voters and use them as leverage to keep the GOP from caving in when the pressure builds.
And so NRA gatherings start to look like Tea Party rallies — thinly veiled racism and all. It’s a bad strategy, because eventually the Republican Party will realize that pandering to these voters just plain isn’t worth it. After all, the rebranding effort is the first glimmer of a dawning realization that these people are costing more votes than they bring. But in the meantime, the NRA will do what the Tea Party did — enable completely insane candidates to win primaries, then lose general elections with their frothing nutbaggery.
On the other hand, what else can Porter do? His “culture war” is already being fought and he’s losing it badly. Gun ownership is down, support for gun regulation is high — all you can really do is buy time while you try to figure out how to turn this around.
The tone of the NRA convention was triumphalist, but the reality — as made clear by the NRA’s strategy going forward — is that their “movement” is treading water.
-Wisco
[photo by Gerald Rich]
Just in time for its wingnut-filled annual meeting tomorrow, the National Rifle Association is set to install a new president: an Alabama lawyer who laments ‘the war of Northern Aggression,’ calls Barack Obama ‘this fake president,’ and fantasizes about ‘whipping’ opponents of the gun lobby’s agenda.
5 year-old kills 2 year-old sister with gun ‘ideally sized for children four to ten years old.’
ThinkProgress: On Wednesday, a five-year-old Kentucky boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a gun he’d been given as a birthday present. The weapon, a small rifle, was manufactured specifically for children’s use.
The boy’s weapon was a “My First Rifle” .22-caliber gun from Keystone Sporting Arms’ youth branch, Crickett. Crickett’s website markets itself “especially for youth shooters.” The firearms come in several neon colors, and the website even has a “kids corner” featuring pictures of small children with guns…Crickett does not manufacture bullets. The company offers books for “Grades 2-3 and up,” and says their guns are “ideally sized for children four to ten years old.”
Yeah, this is real and there’s no shortage of morons who think this is “responsible gun ownership.” Teach the kids about guns early, the reasoning goes, and they’ll be safer gun owners. This same reasoning would put a five year-old behind the wheel of an SUV or in the cockpit of a plane.
Unfortunately, companies like Crickett can get away with selling these things to extremely stupid people because gun manufacturers are immune from liability lawsuits and no consumer safety laws apply to them. Why? Because the NRA, that’s why. They don’t give a fuck if some kid shoots his baby sister with a dayglo kid-gun. They’re just happy someone was stupid enough to buy the bullet.
Again, this is what the NRA and all the gun freaks out there believe is the very best America can do when it comes to firearm regulations. This is the very best way to deal with guns — to not deal with them at all. Look at those photos; some of those kids are basically babies and mom and dad stuck a gun in their hand because they’re that fucking stupid and because the gun culture promoted by the NRA and the Republican Party led them to believe that it was OK.
Do we need laws to protect people from themselves? Yes. And even more importantly, we need to protect children from their braindead, gun-happy parents. This is not the best we can do.
And fuck you if you think it is.
No this is not responsible gun ownership. This is Irresponsible gun ownership. Ironic to your argument that the NRA is one of the biggest advocacy groups fighting against it.
That reasoning is applied to many children. On farms children are taught to drivet trucks and tractors. Many families of pilots start their children off at extremely young ages. I met an eleven year old girl that told me she co-piloted her first plane at six. She had been flying under supervision ever since as was waiting for her sixteenth birthday to get her actual pilot’s license.
What is someone going to sue Crickett for? Tell me. What charge? Crickett makes firearms that are sized to a child’s frame, are manually operated, feature a multitude of safety devices, fire a minuscule round, and must be manually fed by hand. What would you prefer a child be taught with? A large heavy recoiling hunting rifle that doesn’t fit them? An adult sized semi automatic? By making child specific firearm’s they’re actually helping make shooting safer by controlling the environment and helping reduce the chance that the child could loose control of the firearm.
“Do we need laws to protect people from themselves? Yes. And even more importantly, we need to protect children from their braindead, gun-happy parents. This is not the best we can do.”
This situation could be had with a multitude of other dangerous objects all with the same outcome. Why is it that a firearm subjected one is any different?
Child is given a knife. Child accidentally stabs someone and they die. Parent’s are to blame for not teaching them how to use it and should be charged with manslaughter.
Child is given permission to drive a tractor. Child gets in a wreck and dies. Parent’s are to blame for not teaching them how to use it and should be charged with manslaughter.
Child is given an axe. Child accidentally impales someone due to misuse. Parent’s are to blame for not teaching them how to use it and should be charged with manslaughter.
Child is given a firearm. Child accidentally shoots someone and they die. The NRA, Republican’s, and Gun Culture are to blame and should be crucified?
I agree with the NRA on this issue:
If you’ll excuse me, as per your order; I’m going to go lay on my bed and fuck myself now.
Wow, this is all just astonishingly stupid. Given your nick, that’s hardly a surprise. “Bigot” and “moron” are practically synonyms, after all.
What would Crickett be sued for? Wow, that sure is a stumper, huh? (And “charge” is meaningless here, since it wouldn’t be a criminal case). Maybe they’d be sued for marketing a dangerous product to children. It’s the same reason you’d sue a company for putting marbles in cereal or making exploding Barbie Dolls. Do you really find this impossible to understand?
And for fuck’s sake, no one is out there arguing that people have to drive tractors or use axes (btw, how do you “impale” someone with an ax? That’d take real talent). People on the right are arguing that you NEED a gun to protect yourself from the gummint, like you’re Snuffy Fucking Smiff protecting his still from revenuers. Some towns are talking about passing laws requiring gun ownership, to the loud applause of rightwing deepthinkers and people who need to imagine guns in order to get a woody. .
When the argument calls for it, then guns are perfectly safe, they’re just a tool, don’t worry your commie little head over them.
When it doesn’t, then it’s” WTF are people giving guns to kids for?” You can’t have it both ways. Pcik an argument and stick with it: either firearms are a danger to life and limb or they’re nothing anyone should ever worry about. They can’t be both.
We now have five year-olds shooting and killing two year-olds with guns the five year-olds own. Five fucking years old. FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD! And you’re cool with that. You think that’s fine. You answer to me for thinking that’s insane? “Well, what kind of gun do you expect a five year-old to use?”
I expect a five year-old NOT to use a gun. And anyone who thinks they can possibly use one responsibly is the biggest fucking moron I’ve ever come across in my life. Again, I’m not expecting a lot of intelligence from a dickwad who calls himself “556operateitfagget” and you’re still falling short of my expectations.
And it doesn’t surprise me that you’d have to go fuck yourself. I can’t imagine anyone else would ever want to.
Those are all unintentional safety hazards. Crickett is marketing firearms to parents of children and are fully acknowledging the entire time that yes, it is a firearm and yes it can be used to kill people. So yes what would they sue them for? Their product doing exactly what it’s advertised to do albiet being misused by the owner?
I didn’t say anything about guns being perfectly safe. If you look at my original argument I specify that the family of this child did not practice responsible gun ownership are now reaping what they sewed. The child shouldn’t have been given access to the firearm as he displayed that he wasn’t responsible enough to use it without supervision.
This family’s complete disregard for firearm’s safety and handling has now taken a life and I find it repulsive. “He thought it was unloaded” no every gun is always treated as if it were loaded. And why were you pointing it at your sister?
You can’t stop it. So long as adults can own firearms (and even if they can’t) children will gain access to them wether they’re allowed to or not. But you can however change the culture to promote safe handling and prevent things like this from happening.
I hope the family get’s manslaughter charges for the death of their daughter.
You would sue Crickett for wrongful death — and you would so win. We live in a world where kids can’t get the cap off a bottle of aspirin and these dickheads are selling kids guns? Not only should they be sued, they should go to prison. This tragedy was entirely predictable — and predictable means avoidable. They had to know that some kid would shoot some other kid and they sold the product anyway. It is unforgivable and the fact that you’re ready to forgive makes you a fucking monster. Period.
And don’t give me that fatalistic “nothing can be done” bullshit. Again, we put childproof caps on pharmaceuticals for a reason and that reason isn’t to prevent every single death. That reason is to reduce the deaths from accidental ingestion and overdose. If you don’t want kids shot, YOU DON’T GIVE THEM GUNS! Seriously, why is that such a huge, preplexing Scooby-Doo mystery to you?
If Kentucky has a law against giving guns to kids — and you seem to support that — why would it be such an awful, awful crime to make things like Crickett illegal and put these soulless sons of bitches out of business?
The family charged with manslaughter? They were only using the product as directed. In a sane world, they’d have the easiest wrongful death case ever. As it is, all they’ve got is a dead daughter and son who’s fucked up for life because of what he’s done.
And yeah, they’re fucked on that front because of the NRA. You may not like lawsuits, but who cares? They’re a constitutional right and the way shitty products get taken off the market. If they weren’t shielded from liability, it’s likely a product so blatantly stupid and evil as Crickett would never even have been produced — it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.
5 year-old kills 2 year-old sister with gun ‘ideally sized for children four to ten years old.’
ThinkProgress: On Wednesday, a five-year-old Kentucky boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a gun he’d been given as a birthday present. The weapon, a small rifle, was manufactured specifically for children’s use.
The boy’s weapon was a “My First Rifle” .22-caliber gun from Keystone Sporting Arms’ youth branch, Crickett. Crickett’s website markets itself “especially for youth shooters.” The firearms come in several neon colors, and the website even has a “kids corner” featuring pictures of small children with guns…Crickett does not manufacture bullets. The company offers books for “Grades 2-3 and up,” and says their guns are “ideally sized for children four to ten years old.”
Yeah, this is real and there’s no shortage of morons who think this is “responsible gun ownership.” Teach the kids about guns early, the reasoning goes, and they’ll be safer gun owners. This same reasoning would put a five year-old behind the wheel of an SUV or in the cockpit of a plane.
Unfortunately, companies like Crickett can get away with selling these things to extremely stupid people because gun manufacturers are immune from liability lawsuits and no consumer safety laws apply to them. Why? Because the NRA, that’s why. They don’t give a fuck if some kid shoots his baby sister with a dayglo kid-gun. They’re just happy someone was stupid enough to buy the bullet.
Again, this is what the NRA and all the gun freaks out there believe is the very best America can do when it comes to firearm regulations. This is the very best way to deal with guns — to not deal with them at all. Look at those photos; some of those kids are basically babies and mom and dad stuck a gun in their hand because they’re that fucking stupid and because the gun culture promoted by the NRA and the Republican Party led them to believe that it was OK.
Do we need laws to protect people from themselves? Yes. And even more importantly, we need to protect children from their braindead, gun-happy parents. This is not the best we can do.
And fuck you if you think it is.
