General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew NRA Talking Point: Banning Assault Weapons Is Just Like Racial Discrimination
Former National Rifle Association president Marion Hammer compared a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ban assault weapons to racial discrimination. According to Hammer, "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."
Hammer's comparison came during a discussion on NRA News about Sen. Feinstein's plans to introduce legislation to ban assault weapons during the new Congress. Hammer warned that the United States government could engage in firearm confiscation "in order to control the masses."
Host Ginny Simone's claim that the proposed ban is about "banning the ugliest guns" is plainly false. According to Sen. Feinstein, the impetus for the ban is the capability of assault weapons, explaining in a December 17 press release that her legislation would target "the most dangerous guns":
The NRA has not shied away from comparing gun regulations to past instances of discrimination. In August, the NRA issued a press release that compared a decision by the University of Colorado to house students who wish to carry guns on campus in their own dormitory to the infamous 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which laid the groundwork for racist "separate but equal" laws. NRA News host Cam Edwards struck a similar tone on his show regarding the University of Colorado policy, stating, "We are back to segregation now."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/new-nra-talking-point-banning-assault-weapons-i/192021
marmar
(77,073 posts)nt
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)Not to mention the 400+ who have been killed since Sandy Hook?
They are scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with that ridiculous point.
spanone
(135,823 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)... on something much more important.
Its very clear that so-called "assault weapons" are not used in a majority of homicides. Typically there are committed with handguns of smaller caliber.
FBI stats
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The usual Delicate Flower attempt to derail the thread into minutia and gunz porn.
I saw what you did there.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)You have to admit that most homicides aren't happening with ARs, semi-auto AKs, or similar rifles or other firearms listed AWB legilslation.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. the lame attempt to derail the thread, are you?
Oh my, you are so extra slick!
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Thanks for making a great argument as to why semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines AND handguns should ALL be banned.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)But we both know that the more you reach for, the less likely you are to succeed.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)So now you speak for me too? I guess you can just make all of my posts for me from here on out, eh?
Do you use a crystal ball, Tarot Cards, or what? I'm ALWAYS impressed by people that can decide what someone they have never met is thinking across the net. Do you have a magic monitor?
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)You exhibit a generosity of spirit there.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I would be ever so happy to discuss this. Though, your subject line seems (on its face) to disagree the body of your text appears to attempt to divert attention from the point of the OP (the point being the vile rhetoric often employed by the NRA and its representatives)
From the link:
The NRA has not shied away from comparing gun regulations to past instances of discrimination. In August, the NRA issued a press release that compared a decision by the University of Colorado to house students who wish to carry guns on campus in their own dormitory to the infamous 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which laid the groundwork for racist "separate but equal" laws. NRA News host Cam Edwards struck a similar tone on his show regarding the University of Colorado policy, stating, "We are back to segregation now."
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)When then I clicked on the link that the OP provided I found an error by mediamatters and I talked about that too.
Its a discussion forum.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Are they effective with those that generally support NRA views? Are they reflective of the views of the NRA membership?
It is a discussion board and we can discuss the topic at hand.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Outrageousness, absurdity, distortions and even lies became an rhetoric arms race.
Mostly because good data was and in some cases is still hard to come by and it's just plain easier to go for the cheap shot.
I don't think Feinsteins AWB is do arable to racism, but I also don't think my desire to buy an AR rifle is motivated by racism and I get to read that often at DU.
Hyperbole, dostortions, and lies are the status quo in gun control discussions.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... to the arms race.
I think spell check played hell with your last couple of sentences (it happens).
My greater question remains: Does this particular type of rhetoric play well to the NRA's membership? I liken it to some of PETAs campaigns ... the rhetoric brings negative attention to the group (though it plays well within the group) and diminishes the message they are trying to send out.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)When I referred to the arms race I meant the metaphorical arms race of words between the NRA and anti-gun organizations. It seemed to begin after the Gun Control Act of 1968 but the war of words seemed to really take off in the 1990s (when Wayne LaPierrre rose to power in the NRA) and continues to this day.
Hammer's allusion to racial discrimination when describing the AWB is absurd. But on the other hand, on DU there are multiple calls to call NRA a terrorist organization and ban NRA members from DU. Code Pink held up banners during the NRA press conference saying "NRA killing our kids".
You asked if the NRA's rhetoric plays well to NRA's membership? To some, perhaps. Most of the NRA members I know think its over the top. I am not happy with their hyperbole. I've talked to a Board Member personally about it and how it makes the organization look bad. He agreed but said organizational change is slow. I think the membership tolerates it because NRA tactics appeared to be working since the mid 1990s.
I honestly believe the era of Wayne LaPierre type rhetoric (Hammer being a protege) is coming to an end. But as with any metaphorical arms race it is difficult to not go for the cheap shot when the other side is slinging its own hyperbole.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We have millions of people drooling over these weapons, buying/accumulating multiple units, not giving a crap about society, etc. Time to take action against people who apparently can't or won't help themselves and society.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think they are full of crap, and should be ashamed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)See, it even smiles.
Yes, they have...but can't say I am surprised.
DearHeart
(692 posts)There is no comparison! They need help...they seem to be massively paranoid people. They need handguns, semi-automatics, large clips, tons of ammunition to "protect" their families. Really? All of that? Are there that many bands of marauders roaming the country?? I can understand a hangun and a shotgun, but I can't see the need for all the rest.
billbailey19448jj
(31 posts)They'll do just about anything to ensure that their tools of death and destruction ensure the daily incidences of bloodshed in this country.