The Gun Lobby Loves Freedom—But Apparently Not Free Speech

NRA members listen to speakers during the NRA Annual Meeting of Members at the National Rifle Association's 142 Annual Meetings and Exhibits in the George R. Brown Convention Center Saturday, May 4, 2013, in Houston.... NRA members listen to speakers during the NRA Annual Meeting of Members at the National Rifle Association's 142 Annual Meetings and Exhibits in the George R. Brown Convention Center Saturday, May 4, 2013, in Houston. National Rifle Association leaders told members Saturday that the fight against gun control legislation is far from over, with battles yet to come in Congress and next year's midterm elections, but they vowed that none in the organization will ever have to surrender their weapons. (AP Photo/Houston Chronicle, Johnny Hanson) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Advocates for looser restrictions on gun ownership and use often portray themselves not as defenders of a noisy and expensive hobby, but the protectors of freedom itself. Wrapping themselves in the Second Amendment and claiming to speak for the Founding Fathers is central to the anti-gun control argument, right up there with claiming that “guns don’t kill people” and peddling fantasies of heroic self-defense against a largely imaginary crime wave.

But what happens when gun-loving patriots are asked to support any other freedom but the freedom to own a gun? That question was put to the test recently by the pro-gun control group States United to Prevent Gun Violence, and they quickly discovered that gun lobbyists have no problem looking for ways to censor and silence their opponents.

The group set out to debunk the widely-held notion that owning a gun makes you safer by inviting a group of people interested in buying their first gun to a fake “gun shop” set up in New York City. When would-be gun buyers came inside, the man behind the counter showed them a model of the gun they wanted to buy and told them the “history” of the gun: This gun is the same kind that a five-year-old found in his parent’s bedroom and shot his baby brother with it. Or this is the same kind of gun that a two-year-old accidentally pulled from his mother’s purse in Walmart and shot her with. Or another gun, a collector’s item, that was the one Adam Lanza used to rapidly murder 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The video is effective, capturing the reactions of people as they are disabused of the notion that owning a gun makes you safe and reminded that having a gun in your house just makes it that much likelier that someone in the house, by accident or on purpose, will shoot themselves or someone else. Apparently, the gun lobby thinks it’s, well, too effective, as Rachel Maddow reported on Friday. The official NRA affiliate in New York, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) is trying to use the law to criminalize this video and participation in it. They want the state to use laws meant to ensure gun safety to be used to persecute people for speaking out for gun safety. From the press release (sic):

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is calling upon state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate the producer of the video for potential violations of state and local laws.
“First off, the firearms and accessories hanging in the background do not appear to comply with either New York City law or the so-called SAFE Act,” said NYSRPA President Thomas King in a statement.
“Second, it felony violation of the Sullivan Act for a person to posses a handgun anywhere in New York without a license. The video clearly shows individual ‘customers’ handling various handguns and doing so in an unsafe manner,” King said.

But, as Maddow reported, the “guns” in the video were just really well-made fakes and apparently the entire thing was done with the cooperation and supervision of the New York Police Department.

So the NRA’s pathetic attempt at a gotcha isn’t going to go anywhere. But it’s worrisome that they tried at all. Regardless of what formal laws the NYSRPA, the intention here was quite clear: to suppress speech and silence dissent. All that heartwarming patriotism the gun lobby brings to defending the Second Amendment went up in a puff of smoke when it’s the First Amendment that needs defending. Instead, we get an overt, if failed, attempt to legally punish people for voicing opinions and stating facts the NRA does not like. Freedom doesn’t have a chance when it comes in conflict with the profits of the gun manufacturers that help fund the gun rights lobby.

Amanda Marcotte is a freelance journalist who writes frequently about liberal politics, the religious right and reproductive health care. She’s a prolific Twitter villain who can be followed @amandamarcotte.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for Snafu Snafu says:

    The racist billionaire funder of many current anti-2nd Amendment campaigns. A big believer in freedoms being withheld from millions of African Americans who he says are nothing but would be murderers. Even after the federal courts point out the unconstitutional harassment and FRAMING of African American men he thinks that program was fantastic.
    You think you’re better than the worst of these GOP/NRA scumbags? GTFOH. Same old shit.

    The comments Bloomberg tried to get the Aspen Institute to suppress.
    Bloomberg’s thoughts on how all young black men are crazy murderers with empty lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L0Zq0MusGA

    The entire speech.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbjB3jVGRU
  2. They don’t care. The NRA membership doesn’t care. The gun manufacturers do not care. And the politicians who are supported by the NRA don’t care. Deaths from guns is just chalked up to stuff happens.

    But if someone doesn’t want their members walking around their store with loaded machine guns, well, then they care. Anyone who supports the NRA or Gun owners of America should be put on a terrorist watch list.

  3. I’m curious about something, Snafu, since you seem genuinely concerned about racism. Gun rights fundamentalists insist that the 2nd Amendment is there to allow citizens to violently resist a tyrannical government. Does this principle apply to African-Americans who are regularly singled out for ‘special treatment’ by law enforcement? Does this principle apply to the Ferguson protesters? Did you support the recent shooting of officers in Ferguson after the release of the DoJ report that amply documented the corruption among the police force and judges and officials of Ferguson?

  4. Guns: How they hope to make sure there are rights for themselves, but not for you.

  5. The Second Amendment is a red herring. Gun nuts don’t care about freedom at all. They only use it to justify their cowardice, paranoid fantasies, and violent tendencies. Freedom cannot explain why someone would feel the need to be armed to teeth all of the time. Being scared of everything does explain it.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

32 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for silvrfox Avatar for charliee Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for austinite Avatar for Patriott Avatar for leftflank Avatar for arrrrrj Avatar for ryanp Avatar for sconosciuto Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for kevinschmidt Avatar for inlabsitrust Avatar for cvilledem Avatar for sniffit Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for guero80241 Avatar for Snafu Avatar for hjs62 Avatar for backlit Avatar for darrtown Avatar for halfbaked Avatar for copyboy

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: