Barack Obama | Guns | News | NRA | Rachel Maddow

BigGayDeal.com

Rachel Maddow Takes On The NRA Trolls: VIDEO

MADDOWTROLL

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

Comments

  1. JEFF: Slight difference.

    A) Those girls don't live in the White House anymore. They are grown up. Their father is not a sitting president which makes them less of a target.

    B) They are allowed to have a career now and have every right to do with THEIR life as they see fit as they are not minors. If they want a career in broadasting, so be it. If they want a career in the public spotlight as some other ex-first kids have chosen, they can choose that. Or not. But it is THEIR choice. They are being paid to do the work on the network. NBC is not hounding them like paparazi. They would not being doing it if they were still living in the White House and 12.

    Posted by: BETTY | Jan 17, 2013 3:41:07 PM


  2. @ RRHAIN I am not the one who said that guns would reduce violence. I said that guns are a defense against those who would do violence to you.

    "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."

    I suspect that you have little understanding of my ancestors' point of view. They were individualists. Each of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights in an individual right. You do not have a group right of free speech, you have an individual right of free speech. You have an individual right to keep and bear arms. You have an individual right to freedom of association (although this has been trampled in the name of "civil rights") and an individual right to be free from unreasonable search (although this has been trampled as well) , and an individual right not to incriminate yourself (unless you are driving a car)... etc.

    Mostly, you do not have rights to serve the state. You do not serve the state, the state serves you.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 4:03:28 PM


  3. @ LITTLEKIWI well hopefully you'll never need to protect yourself. In that case, you would have simply wasted the price of a gun. What is your objection to that?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Jan 17, 2013 4:16:06 PM


  4. As a gun owner, I strongly support the 2nd amendment right of the people to own guns. I also believe in background checks and a limit on the kinds of guns people may own.

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 17, 2013 5:55:07 PM


  5. I don't know how this devolved into a gun argument from the topic at hand, which is political trolling practices - the NRA's among many.

    Be that as it may - and while I usually agree with Kiwi - this is one of those times I think he's being too strident. I myself have argued for the literal meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to a well-regulated militia. But in trying to come to terms with fellow citizens of different minds on a very controversial and passion-filled issue - I have to acknowledge the basic human freedom of being allowed to possess a weapon for personal security.

    In this day and age where, for example, you might want to protect your family from a midnight home intruder, I can't say that anything less than a gun would be appropriate.

    No one has the right to commit acts of non-defensive violence. But I cannot deny a person's right to protect themselves and others with common weaponry. So there's a balance to be struck between that right and the rights of others to remain safe.

    It's too bad so many react mindlessly to any notion of gun regulation. It's absurd. I think the policies proposed yesterday by President Obama present quite a harmless balance. In fact, they would likely do little to stem the tide of gun violence in this country. And perhaps would put the merest crimp into the plans of a lunatic bent on mass murder.

    But they are SOMETHING, and I'm glad the mood in America is that something must be done. Alas, that's not the mood in Congress ... so we'll just have to see what happens. Shameless as it might be, I wish Obama would haunt every legislator who won't vote his way on this with reference to dead Sandyhook children. That's likely just the kind of trolling Ms. Maddow rightly decries, but I'm not sure what short of that will convince the Tea Party Rethuglicans to vote for common sense and quite moderate gun regulation.

    Posted by: Zlick | Jan 17, 2013 6:54:12 PM


  6. @DAVID HEARNE: You still haven't answered the question: How does adding more guns work as a "defense against those who would do violence to you"?

    What would be the point of you having a gun if not the idea that adding more guns reduces violence? If someone intends to do violence against you, how would having more guns in the scenario lead to less violence rather than more?

    And let's not pretend that you are capable of psychoanalyzing me over the internet, shall we? The founding fathers were hardly "individualists." After all, Franklin's rallying cry was, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

    Your Second Amendment rights are specifically and directly stated as being in reference to "a well-regulated militia" since such a militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." That's why you get to have a gun: The state may call you up (standing armies weren't allowed) in case there is a need.

    Now, there are other uses that you might make for your gun. Self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. are all legitimate uses of the gun that you are allowed by the Second Amendment. But while those activities are legal uses of your gun, they are not the basis for you having the right to a gun.

    The Second Amendment has never been interpreted to mean an individual right until this most recent court decision. Now, I'm all for recognizing that the SCOTUS is not perfect and long-standing decisions can be wrong. But it's hard to come to a conclusion that the Second Amendment is referring to an individual right when the very text directly and specifically states the purpose of why you are allowed to have a gun.

    And you clearly don't understand why we went to the Constitution compared to the Articles of Confederation if you think "you do not have rights [in order] to serve the state." We tried having a weak federal system that did not presume any responsibility on the part of the states or people to provide for the country and we nearly collapsed under the impotence.

    After all, what is the point of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process if there were no obligations of the citizens to the country? Why does Congress have the power to lay and collect taxes if the citizenry didn't have a responsibility to the state?

    By your logic, Selective Service is unconstitutional.

    But all of that is irrelevant. Back to the question at hand: How does adding more guns result in less violence?

    Posted by: Rrhain | Jan 17, 2013 8:05:30 PM


  7. @ZLICK You're conflating things. Your ability to protect yourself has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. You have a right to own a gun specifically because the state has the right to call up the militia and thus it needs you to have one.

    Now, there are other things you can do with that gun which are perfectly legal such as self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. But those aren't the justification for your right to have a gun. Your right to have a gun is to use it in service of the state.

    And on top of that, we clearly agree that certain arms are not guaranteed by the Constitution. You aren't allowed to have nuclear arms. So clearly the problem isn't that we've drawn a line. It's where to draw it. The Second Amendment clearly indicates that the ownership of guns is to be "well-regulated." Surely that implies that questions of what kind of arms you are allowed to have aren't beyond the pale.

    Posted by: Rrhain | Jan 17, 2013 8:12:31 PM


  8. Oh, I'm quite aware of what the Second Amendment says, and I agree it should be read quite literally. But for one thing, I don't think that's the current state of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court - and for another, I was looking beyond that to a basic human right of self-defense via common weaponry.

    Certainly there is a line, and the question is where to draw it. But since it seems unthinkable to draw it in such a way as to ban handguns, there's no hope of any ban having a dent in the incidence of gun violence. It's a bit of a conundrum. You simply can't ban the guns that cause 94% of all gun deaths.

    So we can work around the edges, and we should. Let's regulate the heck out of it. Let's enforce every one of the president's executive orders and pass every measure of his proposed legislation. It's worth whatever lives will be saved, but I fear it won't save nearly enough.

    Posted by: Zlick | Jan 17, 2013 11:14:51 PM


  9. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

    - George Mason
    Father of the Bill of Rights
    Co-Author of the Second Amendment

    Source: Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    Posted by: Danielle | Jan 19, 2013 2:11:53 PM


  10. I am a 65 y/o female who believes in the right to bear arms, the right to have an abortion, the right to die in dignity which is the right to make "choices'. Choices that do not harm myself or others. I firmly believe that "chipping" away of any of our rights will lead to the lost of all rights. Our forefathers had the foresight to put into the bill of rights, the right to bear arms as the "second amendment". It is also noteworthy that the "Declaration of Independence" justifies revolution when government harms natural rights. Yes I believe in these rights and you Ms Maddow should read the Constitution as it gives you the right to love and marry whomever YOU choose. You cannot pick and chose what right you want to adhere to or obey. That is what makes this country great.
    To stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I stand with the NRA on this one.

    Posted by: Millie | Jan 20, 2013 1:17:30 PM


  11. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


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