Connect with us

NRA: Guns Should be Subsidized By Government, Like Healthcare (Video)

Published

on

One NRA representative is calling for guns to be mandatory, treated “as a need” and subsidized by the government — just like healthcare.

The NRA, contrary to how they portray themselves, is actually the world’s largest gun manufacturers’ lobbying group. The fact that they can and do boast they have 4.3 million members is a smokescreen for their larger agenda: ginning up fear to increase sales of firearms. And the NRA has been exceptionally successful at achieving this goal, by creating the false narrative that President Barack Obama is going to take away everyone’s guns, by claiming that he’s a socialist, and more recently, by perpetuating the lie that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

Looking at that sentence, it doesn’t make sense — not even grammatically.

But nothing the NRA does really makes sense.

This is what a Glock looks like:

glock.jpg

 

This is what an AR-15 looks like:

 ar15.jpg

In the 21st century, aside from the few among us who still hunt for food, or work in law enforcement, do most Americans need guns?

If a resident of New York City or Los Angeles or Minneapolis or Hartford or Seattle were to walk around with a Glock strapped to their waist or an AR-15 strapped to their back, people would not only think they were crazy, and up to no good, they would likely call the police. 

When members of a right-wing open-carry group decided to thank Starbucks for not banning guns, by hanging out in Starbucks with their guns and rifles, Starbucks issued a statement asking customers to not bring guns into their restaurants. The exact same thing happened at Target and Chipotle. Whole Foods, Peet’s Coffee, AMC Theaters, California Pizza Kitchen, Toys R Us, and Disney World and Disney Land have all requested customers leave their guns at home.

This week, the NRA issued a video as part of its NRA News Commenters project — people the NRA supports but who technically are not official spokespersons for the NRA, allowing them to project wild and ridiculous ideas the NRA likes but doesn’t want to take heat for.

“Everyone Gets a Gun” is the name of the video. In it, NRA News commenter Billy Johnson espouses the gun-lovers’ ideal that, yes, everyone should have to have a gun, that having a gun is a “need,” not a want, and that guns, like healthcare and education, should be subsidized.

Think about that for a moment. Aside from things that cause disease, like cigarettes or stress, what could be more diametrically opposed to healthcare than guns? 

Now, who would think this is a great idea? Maybe, people who have a financial interest in selling more guns? Maybe people who make guns? Maybe the world’s biggest lobbyist for gun manufacturers?

Yes, the NRA likes this idea very much.

Johnson asks, “what would happen if we designed gun policy from the assumption that people need guns — that guns make people’s lives better?” 

He says that instead of gun free zones there should be “gun-required zones,” and wants schools to require gun proficiency as a prerequisite to advancing to the next grade — or graduating. Of course, the NRA would be happy to teach every student in America how to use a gun — probably at the taxpayers’ expense, but they probably would be happy to work out a deal.

“As a country we have an education policy,” Johnson says in this NRA video. “Imagine if that policy was about limiting who has access to public education. I mean, let’s be honest, the danger in educating people to think is that they might actually start to think for themselves. Perhaps we should think seriously about who we give access to knowledge. They could use it to do a lot of damage.”

“We don’t have a U.S. gun policy. We have a U.S. anti-gun policy,” Johnson laments. “Gun policy driven by people’s need for guns would seek to encourage people to keep and bear arms at all times. Maybe it would even reward those who do so. What if instead of gun free-zones we had gun-required zones?”

Pity Oprah isn’t doing her show anymore. If the NRA had their way, “And you get a gun, and you get a gun, and you get a gun…” at least, in an alternate universe, might be what people remember her for.

“Just like we teach them reading and writing, necessary skills. We would teach shooting and firearm competency,” the NRA commenter continues. “It wouldn’t matter if a child’s parents weren’t good at it. We’d find them a mentor. It wouldn’t matter if they didn’t want to learn. We would make it necessary to advance to the next grade.”

A gun “mentor.” Doesn’t that sound all warm and fuzzy?

“I mean, perhaps we would have government ranges where you could shoot for free or a yearly allotment of free ammunition,” Johnson proposes. “Gun policy, driven by our need for guns would protect equal access to guns, just like we protect equal access to voting, and due process, and free speech.”

Watch:

 

Previously at The New Civil Rights Movement:

Racists More Likely To Have Guns At Home — More Racist, More Likely, Study Shows

Anti-Gun Is The Same As Anti-Gay, Says NRA News Commentator

On Gun Appreciation Day: 79 People Shot, Including 32 Killed, All With Guns

Look: 40 Pictures Of How Gun Freaks Celebrated ‘Gun Appreciation Day’

5 People Accidentally Shot At Gun Appreciation Day Events Probably Less Appreciative

 

 

Transcript via The Raw Story.
Hat tip: Eric Dolan and Gawker

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Reality Check’: Buttigieg Busts Republican’s Claim of Infrastructure Support

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) was served a “reality check” by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on Friday, after the pro-Trump election-denying Republican repeatedly took credit this week for a massive infrastructure project in his home state, funded by President Joe Biden’s legislation the Minnesota Congressman voted against.

“Reality check: I approved this because it’s a deserving project, consistent with President Biden’s priorities. This is happening because the Biden infrastructure package passed, despite your ‘no’ vote,” wrote Secretary Buttigieg on social media, in response to Rep. Staubert’s video providing what he claimed was a “fact check.”

At issue is President Joe Biden’s signature Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which he signed into law in November of 2021. Although bipartisan, just 13 Republicans in the House and just 19 in the Senate voted for it.

“I was recently proud to announce that both Duluth, Minnesota and superior Wisconsin received over $1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge,” Congressman Stauber, a three-term backbench Republican, proudly declared in his social media video (below). “The Blatnik Bridge has helped drive our Twin Ports economy for the past six decades, and it needs repair and replacing. Securing the money to help replace this bridge has long been a priority of mine. And I am proud to help deliver over $1 billion in federal funds to the north.”

READ MORE: Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 Million

He also berated President Joe Biden and Democratic Governor Tim Walz. President Biden was a U.S. Senator for more than 35 years, and Governor Waltz was a U.S. Congressman for a dozen years.

“Now I know it’s been a while since the President and the governor worked in Congress. So maybe they need a little refresher on the legislative process, just because the infrastructure bill passed Congress and was signed into law that did not magically guarantee federal money for the Blatnik Bridge.”

Sec. Buttigieg’s “reality check” also came after Rep. Stauber earlier in the week posted on social media, “I’m proud to announce that Duluth, MN and Superior, WI have received over 1 billion in federal funding to help replace the Blatnik Bridge. This is a HUGE win for #MN08 and I was proud to advocate for these funds!”

That post earned a “Readers’ note” correction says: “Pete Stauber voted against the bill that is funding this project.”

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party blasted Stauber: “FACT CHECK: you said the law that’s funding the Blatnik Bridge replacement was a path to socialism and voted against it. Give it up.”

Minnesota author Eric Chandler also berated Congressman Stauber: “Shorter: I will vote against infrastructure. But when money is approved by others who realize infrastructure costs money, I will put out my hand for some.”

READ MORE: Not Just Trump: GOP Voters Cheer and Applaud Boebert and 5 GOP Rivals for Arrest Records

Jake Schwitzer, the executive director of Minnesota’s North Star Policy Action added, “It’s extremely funny that this guy thinks that Biden wasn’t going to fund this bridge, but then he was presented with a letter with Stauber’s name way down the list of signatures and was like HANG ON GIVE IT A BILLION DOLLARS. Just vote for the bill if you want credit man.”

See the social media posts below or at this link.

Continue Reading

News

Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 Million

Published

on

Donald Trump will have to pay journalist E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in total damages in her defamation case, after nine jurors – seven men and two women – deliberated for just under three hours in a lower Manhattan federal courthouse Friday afternoon.

This is the second civil defamation and sexual abuse case Carroll brought against the ex-president, who is facing 91 state and federal criminal felony charges. Hen is also facing a civil business fraud case in New York, which has the potential to cost him hundreds of millions and bar him from doing business in the Empire State.

E. Jean Carroll’s case surrounded defamatory statements Trump made in June of 2019, and jurors were required to determine compensatory and punitive damages Trump owes for those statements. In the first case a jury determined Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The judge in both cases, senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan determined those facts would hold over for this case. He also had noted after the first case that Trump had effectively been found liable for rape, making the ex-president an adjudicated rapist.

READ MORE: ‘Bratty’ and ‘Megalomaniacal’ Trump Mocked for Storming Out of Court After Being Criticized

Initially Carroll’s attorney asked for $10 million in compensatory damages in the current case, but expert testimony revealed it would cost the journalist, author, and advice columnist at least $12 million to repair her damaged reputation, and millions more in lost wages and other injuries.

Just Security last week described that as, “economic loss (lost income, career opportunities, or business deals due to damaged reputation) as well as for emotional distress (mental anguish, humiliation, and reputational harm).”

Carroll’s attorneys on Friday asked the jury for $24 million in compensatory damages. During closing arguments Carroll’s attorneys told the jury Trump’s claims of high net worth should be taken in to account when deciding how much to award Carroll in punitive damages.

Throughout the trial, and as recently as 11:30 AM Friday, Donald Trump continued his attacks, calling the trial the “E. Jean Carroll False Accusation Case,” and falsely claiming, “This is another Biden Demanded Witch Hunt against his Political Opponent, funded and managed by Radical Left Democrats. The Courts are totally stacked against me, have never been used against a Political Opponent, like this.”

The jury was required to answer these three “yes” or “no” questions:

“Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Carroll suffered more than nominal damages as a result of Mr. Trump’s publication of the June 21 and June 22, 2019 statements?”

READ MORE: Not Just Trump: GOP Voters Cheer and Applaud Boebert and 5 GOP Rivals for Arrest Records

“In making the June 21, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

“In making the June 22, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

During the final day of trial, Donald Trump stormed out of the courtroom when he was criticized by Carroll’s attorney, the highly-respected Roberta Kaplan. Judge Kaplan (no relation) announced that would become part of the trial record.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, repeatedly ignored Judge Kaplan’s directions to not question the facts of the case, that Trump had been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, yet she repeatedly ignored his warnings.

Judge Kaplan was forced repeatedly to warn and rebuke Habba, and at one point during closing arguments, he threatened Habba with jail if she continued.

READ MORE: Former Trump Press Secretary Serves up Surprise Praise for Biden on Fox News

NBC News reports the breakdown in damages:

“$7.3 million in compensatory damages outside of the reputation repair program, $11 million in compensatory damages for a reputation repair program only, $65 million in punitive damages.”

The jury was anonymous. After they reached tier verdict Judge Kaplan instructed them, “My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury.”

 

This article was updated to add the breakdown of damages and Judge Kaplan’s final instructions to the jury.

Continue Reading

News

‘You Will Not Quarrel With Me’: Habba Repeatedly Rebuked by Judge in Closing Arguments

Published

on

Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan was forced to repeatedly warn, rebuke, and reprimand Donald Trump’s attorney Alina Habba during Friday’s closing arguments in the $10 million E. Jean Carroll civil defamation case against the ex-president who is now an adjudicated rapist.

Judge Kaplan long ago warned Donald Trump and his attorneys that it is established fact – after E. Jean Carroll won her first sexual abuse and defamation civil case – that Donald Trump is liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and later wrote that Trump in “common modern parlance” was found to have committed rape:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Trump attorney Alina Habba on Friday ignored Judge Kaplan’s prior warnings, telling the jurors who will decide how much Trump will have to pay E. Jean Carroll for defamation, that that Trump repeatedly “has said the same thing,” because it is “the truth.”

READ MORE: Calls Mount for Biden to Seize Control of National Guard as Abbott Ignores SCOTUS Ruling

“He has said the same thing over and over again, and do you know why? It’s the truth,” Habba said, Politico’s Erica Orden reports. Judge Kaplan told the jury to disregard that remark.

Professor of law, frequent MSNBC legal commentator, and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann responded to Orden’s post, writing: “Habba flirts with contempt of court here as this is asking for jury nullification. The court has already ruled based on the first trial which Trump lost that it was NOT the truth.”

“You know why he has not wavered — because it’s the truth,” Habba also told the jury.

“That line prompted a furious objection from Carroll’s lawyer,” The Messenger reports, noting Judge Kaplan sustained the objection.  “As Habba walked close to that line again, Kaplan warned: ‘If you violate my instructions again, Ms. Habba, there may be consequences.'”

The Messenger’s Adam Klasfeld also reports at one point during her closing argument Haba told the jury, “Ladies and gentlemen, in our country, you have a constitutional right to speak.”

Carroll’s attorney objected.

“Sustained,” Judge Kaplan ruled. “You have a constitutional right to do some kinds of speech and not others.”

EARLIER: ‘Bratty’ and ‘Megalomaniacal’ Trump Mocked for Storming Out of Court After Being Criticized

CNN adds at another point during closing arguments, “Habba attempted to toe the line of denying Carroll’s allegations again, telling the jury that Trump has ‘consistently stated his position as is his American right.'”

“Judge Lewis Kaplan cut her off to again instruct the jury that they must accept that it’s been previously established by a prior jury that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll.

“Yes, it’s been established by a jury,” Habba replied.

“’It is established, and you will not quarrel with me,’ Kaplan responded, telling Habba to finish her presentation.”

Earlier Friday, as The Messenger noted, Judge Kaplan was forced to warn Habba, saying: “You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup.”

“Sit down,” he also told her.

All closing arguments have now concluded, and the judge has given the jury his instructions. A verdict could come as soon as Friday afternoon.

READ MORE: Not Just Trump: GOP Voters Cheer and Applaud Boebert and 5 GOP Rivals for Arrest Records

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.