Barack Obama | Guns | News | NRA | Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow Takes On The NRA Trolls: VIDEO


Rachel Maddow was all fired up for her take down of the NRA yesterday. The specific topic? The gun rights group's advert attacking "elitist hypocrite" President Obama for using Secret Service to protect his daughters, a smear offensive both to common sense dictating such protections for the first family and to those of us who know the unwritten rule: president's children are off limits.

To Maddow, NRA's commercial is just another example of right-wing trolling. It is a schtick, she says before running through a brief history of trolling of "purposeful outrage" and how this schtick reveals a group or individual's political impotence: if you have to go to these lengths, you're truly desperate. And, what's more, when one looks at how much money is spent on trolling, that shtick turns out to be a huge waste of money.

Watch Maddow - and, toward the end, fellow gay MSNBC staffer Steve Kornacki - say it like it is AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Rachel for President! Actually, she's way too smart to take the job.

    I hope the NRA screws itself into the ground.

    Posted by: SoSeriouslyY | Jan 17, 2013 11:43:03 AM

  2. The NRA is public enemy No. One. Thing is, as irrationally well-armed testicular hysterics they are EXTREMELY dangerous!

    Forbid the thought, but I would not want to be our President, in the open, walking down Pennsylvania Ave. on Inauguration Day.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jan 17, 2013 12:06:22 PM

  3. It goes without saying that these nuts should not own anything lethal. How tone-deaf can you get?

    Posted by: Paul R | Jan 17, 2013 12:23:15 PM

  4. I have seen gay people attacked in the gay neighborhoods of DC and San Francisco. I have read about attacks on gay people in other gay neighborhoods as well as nightclub districts and on public transportation. Less guns means that guys who don't have guns are reasonably sure that you can't defend yourself against superior strength, skill, or numbers.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 12:37:26 PM

  5. I watched this segment last night and I marveled at Rachel Maddow's ability to distill and then explain with clarity the faux outrage emanating from the right-wing noise machine and reveal the ludicrousness if not perfidy of all their fabricated anger.

    The NRA should now be classified as a terrorist organization, if not an out-and-out hate group.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jan 17, 2013 1:08:39 PM

  6. @DAVID HEARNE: And how is adding more guns to that going to reduce violence rather than result in more people getting shot?

    Posted by: Rrhain | Jan 17, 2013 1:40:50 PM

  7. RRHAIN The point is not to reduce violence, it's to see that the law abiding citizen is not the target or or victim of violence. Criminals will always be violent.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 1:45:28 PM

  8. folks that give excuses for walking around armed just prove to everyone that they've got capers for testes and a pea for a brain.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 1:47:30 PM

  9. @ LITTLEKIWI | JAN 17, 2013 1:47:30 PM

    Thank you for sharing.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 1:48:39 PM

  10. Little Kiwi is right. The solution to violence in our society isn't to turn the streets into a Wild West shoot out. That is absurd.

    Posted by: ChristopherM | Jan 17, 2013 1:53:52 PM

  11. Thanks for the NRA talking points David. Nice try using "fear" against the gays to try and sell your bull.

    Posted by: HUH? | Jan 17, 2013 1:56:17 PM

  12. Are the Presidents kids off limits? Not to NBC, the network she works for. We are bombarded with images of these 2 girls, all kinds of details about their lives by this and every network. Rachel is a hypocrite. The media she works for exploits anything and everything for a profit.

    Posted by: jeff | Jan 17, 2013 1:59:05 PM

  13. can you imagine it, ChristopherM?

    people walking around - in restaurants, in cinemas, at the mall, on the street - proudly displaying their guns.

    what's our response to be?
    Pride? in their, uh, "dedication" to the second amendment?
    Relief? in the hope that those guys with their semi-automatics will...uh.... be able to shoot...uh...some other person who is "carrying" who might be crazy?

    you're eating dinner and a man walks into a restaurant with an assault rifle. you feel good? you don't feel scared? you don't wonder if HE's about to go on a rampage? what if some other @sshole is carrying a gun in that restaurant, sees the other guy enter with his semi (sexual pun not intended)....what's his response going to be?

    fraternal happiness, that there's a fellow gun fan? or fear, that that man might be crazy and now HE needs to "protect people" by opening fire?

    people that carry guns are already living in a delusional paranoid state. you wanna make 'em all crazier by having more nutbags walk around with guns?

    if so, congrats - you're looking at the end of your so-called culture of "Freedom"

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 1:59:19 PM

  14. @ Huh? Is fear why you lock your doors behind you?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 2:41:10 PM

  15. anyone who compares locking a door to carrying a loaded semi-automatic assault rifle is a complete f***ing idiot who should not only not be allowed to own a gun, but shouldn't be allowed to breed.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 2:45:18 PM

  16. The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, listed right after the right to freedom of speech. Without the Second Amendment, there is no First Amendment. Not only can the police not protect you, it's not their job to protect you regardless of what it says on the side of the police car. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 2:53:54 PM

  17. Kiwi, as a Canadian how is this any of your business?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 2:55:41 PM

  18. it's not my fault that my Canadian-@ss is smarter than you.

    i get it. you're not bright and you have no balls. neither of those things, however, are my problem.

    you compared carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle to locking a door.

    how many americans die every year from locking doors?

    you can't get upset when people point out how stupid you reveal yourself to be.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 3:00:51 PM

  19. @ kiwi I said nothing about carrying around a rifle. I carry a semi-automatic 380 pistol. By the way, you can get a Florida concealed carry permit even as a Canadian assuming that you aren't using certain (usually those prescribed for bipolar) medications or have a history of mental illness, criminality, or drug abuse. Does that exclude you?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 3:12:51 PM

  20. I'd never need nor want to carry a gun. All the security I need I carry above my shoulders and between my legs.


    but thanks for playing, troll. enjoy a life wasted.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 3:20:21 PM

  21. @DavidHearne. By that logic, Americans should not have an opinion about politics in the Middle East, censorship in China, genocide in Africa, starvation in Sudan, or anything beyond our own borders. Are you being narrow-minded, xenophobic, rude, or all three?

    Posted by: Gr8guyca | Jan 17, 2013 3:23:04 PM

  22. @DAVID HEARNE: That doesn't answer the question. How does the presence of more guns result in less violence? As you say, the criminals are always going to be violent. What makes you think that adding more guns results in less violence?

    The right to keep and bear arms can only be understood in the context of a well-regulated militia. That is, after all, what the amendment says. Your right to have a gun has nothing to do with self-protection but rather for your duty as a citizen to defend the state. The recent SCOTUS opinion directly overturned centuries of established precedent. A court headed by people who make a big show about "respecting the words and intent of the authors," they sure managed to forget that when it was convenient.

    But, all that's a side issue. Back to the question at hand: What makes you think that adding more guns results in less violence?

    Posted by: Rrhain | Jan 17, 2013 3:26:05 PM

  23. guys, david hearne is yet another alias of this site's pathetic trolls.

    UFFDA/Rick/jason/yupp/david hearne/stephen lucas/
    trolls. the musical.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 17, 2013 3:29:28 PM

  24. Or is it possible that DavidHearne is simply being ironic? Being a troll about a Rachel Maddow piece about being a troll. (See? It works.)

    Posted by: Gr8guyca | Jan 17, 2013 3:32:17 PM

  25. eh... I'm pro gun. if anybody needs them it's us the LGBT's of the world. the other side is well armed, homophobic and heterosexist and makes me feel a little nervous how defenseless our community really is. thinking on joining the Pink Pistols. ^_^

    Posted by: alexander | Jan 17, 2013 3:34:37 PM

Post a comment


« «Louisiana Gay Men's Trip To Streisand Flick Ends In Assault« «