NRA Members Spontaneously Combust
According to National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, gun owners are uniting in "political spontaneous combustion."
Ouch.
In the most recent edition of the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine, LaPierre cites a "tsunami of Second Amendment consumerism" in the wake of the election of Barack Obama and his appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General. Says LaPierre, "Americans are speaking with their wallets--buying firearms, accessories and ammunition in quantities never seen before," driven by fear of "Obama's hostile gun-ban agenda." The scary part is that most of the gun-shopping Krooks participating in this alliterative buying spree are those simply adding new military style weaponry to an existing arsenal. Over the past few years the gun industry has become increasingly dominated by manufacturers selling only AK-47 and AR-15 type assault rifles (newly christened "black rifles" by gunmakers to make them a little more cuddly and a little less killy), new high-powered handguns ranging from revolvers with the penetration power of rifles to AK-47 pistols, to anti-armor 50 caliber sniper rifles. Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of Shotgun News and compare the number of gun ads for "traditional" hunting rifles (a handful) to those for assault rifles (all the rest). Military-style weapons are the guns that are flying off the shelves and into the homes of people frightened about the "change" that an Obama Administration represents. (Left unstated by the NRA is that this short-lived sales peak will, if history is any gauge, be followed by a predictable sales slump, and gun ownership in the U.S. will continue its steady decline.)
And where some might see this latest sales bump as nothing more than the predictable result of NRA and gun industry fear mongering, LaPierre sees it as more, a whole lot more. To the NRA, there is nothing more patriotic than stocking up on the gun industry's latest and most lethal wares. In fact, the NRA equates the gun-buying binge with the Congressional election of 1994: "The last time we saw such an outpouring of anger and frustration...." Ballot box, bullet box? Tomato, tomahto. Only the NRA could equate buying a gun with exercising your right to vote.
This, of course, ignores the fact that angry and frustrated people might not be the best candidates to own that extra assault rifle.
Political spontaneous combustion? More like cynical spontaneous generation.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One more time...
Just for the hell of it, I decided to take Josh up on his challenge to "Pick up a copy of Shotgun News and compare the number of gun ads for "traditional" hunting rifles (a handful) to those for assault rifles..."
I picked up the copy of Shotgun News that I had in the bottom of a drawer in my desk at work & thumbed through it over lunch. I carefully tallied up the two categories of ads specified: traditional hunting rifles and assault rifles. I included only ads offering rifles (if the ad offered both types of rifle, I counted it in both categories) and I excluded ads offering only parts, air-soft guns, optics, handguns, etc. Here are the results:
Traditional Sporting Rifles: 16
Assault Rifles: 3 (Side note – the average price for anything offered in those ads: $11,000.00
I also tallied up a third category of ad: Those offering what I will call ‘Scary Rifles Josh Doesn’t Like.’ In that category, I counted a total of 41 ads. Offered in those ads were semi-auto only (and, BY DEFINITION, NOT assault rifles!) AR’s, Kalashnikovs, M-1A’s, FN-FAL clones, H&K G-3 clones, M-1 Carbines, etc.
Seems that Mr. Sugarman is again engaging in a blatant attempt to deceive the public!
Old SF MJT
Sugarmann seems to see the same difficulty that Helmke and Kelli do--if they are arguing with facts, truth and logic--they lose
It's an old VPC trick. Several years ago, they claimed 20% of all cops killed by firearms were killed with "assault weapons". But when I looked at their report, I could see they inflated their numbers by counting weapons not covered under the 1994 AWB.
To Josh and his followers, an "assault weapon" is whatever they want it to be.
Ohio,
You're correct on the so-called 'assault weapon' definition - whatever the anti-gun rights / civil rights folks want it to be! But the term that Sugarmann used in the write-up was 'assault rifle.' This is a term with a very clear-cut, spelled out definition which was purposefully (based on his previous behavior/lies) misused by Sugarmann!
Old SF MJT
Sugarmann's admission that the VPC deliberately misleads the public and uses those misperceptions to push his groups political goals really says all one needs to know about his honesty and integrity.
I get tired of reading such obvious manipulative-type comments by Thirdpower, designed to call into question the integrity of gun control advocates. Will this individual never learn?
Yeah how dare he call into question the integrity of a gun control advocate who has a Federal License to sell firearms?
Yeah how dare he question the integrity of a gun control advocate who has a federal license to sell firearms?
if i were you i would get tired of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear...at best all i have ever seen or read from the vpc or brady campaign is half truths and distortions of logic from shady sources...
HIs own words condemn him:
"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Kelli--there is a downside to speaking/writing in a public forum--it is legit that Josh Sugarmann's words come back to haunt him
You are right about this, Josh Sugarmann.
And it may sound overly-simplistic; but in response to a few individual comments here ... even if a person feels he or she cannot live without a gun, there are places (schools, government buildings, national parks, etc.) & situations where a loaded firearm is not necessary or in anyone's best interest, safety-wise (such as during a heated domestic disagreement or post-drinking, etc.). Some people's responses to living in a violent society is to arm themselves. But, this only ups the ante ~ creating a scenario where innocent people may be killed or very badly injured. Certainly, our medical advances have helped to bring down deaths from gunshot wounds; but many people still die from gun-related trauma (e.g., gang-related; felonies like narcotics/drug offenses, sex offenses, gambling offenses; shooting of police; other circumstances like brawls).
This isn't news to anyone reading, I'm sure; but may help to keep reality (rather than fantasies about such weapons being the answer to all of our problems) front & center.
How many times has a bystander been shot by a licensed carrier acting in self-defense due to actions of an aggressor?
Please giving a compelling reason why a gun is any less appropriate in a National Park then it is in a state park. Dozens of State parks across the nation allow CCW with no problems. Why would federal parks be any different?
Shedances wrote “And it may sound overly-simplistic; but in response to a few individual comments here ... even if a person feels he or she cannot live without a gun, there are places (schools, government buildings, national parks, etc.) & situations where a loaded firearm is not necessary or in anyone's best interest, safety-wise (such as during a heated domestic disagreement or post-drinking, etc.).
Many States allow firearms in government buildings and state parks for those with permits. Nine public universities in Utah as well as Colorado State University and Blur Ridge Community College in Virginia allow licensed students and faculty to carry firearms on their campuses as well. Shedances, can you cite a case where someone with a carry permit has misused a firearm in any of those places or “during a heated domestic disagreement or post-drinking, etc.” If not than why would there be a problem in National Parks or anywhere else?
First of all, the Heller decision does not uphold the right to carry any sort of weapon anywhere one pleases. Like the first amendment (which someone was kind enough to mention. By the way, the gun control lobby does like the first amendment.
Simply because a point of view is popular does not make it right, and no other circumstance I can think of better represents this idea than the one presented in this blog. Gun owners of America are running scared buying their firearms now because they are afraid that right will be taken from them. The gun control lobby is merely interested in placing reasonable restrictions on guns that prevent them from ending up in the hands of the wrong individuals, namely, criminals, those with a history of mental illness and adolescents. Odds are the Obama Administration will not be confiscating handguns from the American people. This is a phenomenon, as someone already noted, that has occurred before. Once the fear has subsided gun sales will drop.
Define "reasonable restrictions"?
Howabout mandating that all sales go through FFL dealers while at the same time trying to litigate those same dealers out of business?
Howabout banning "assault weapons"? Find me a definition of one that doesn't contradict itself or show me a group that doesn't want current ones 'expanded and strengthened'?
How about a group that admits to using deception to pursue its goals? Is that 'reasonable'? Or one that calls for the banning of bolt action rifles? Is that 'reasonable'?
For KElli--if it will disarm her neighbors, it is "reasonable"
48 out of 50 states have some sort of ccw policy in place...wh
Yes, indeed. And gun lobby folks posting here need to be reminded that the ownership of firearms is not an unregulated right (or an unlimited one, as you already point out). Even the Court recently made that very clear.
and you need to be reminded that the court affirmed what we already knew...tha
none of the supporters of the right to keep and bear arms has ever claimed the right is unlimitied--in fact all of your opponents has supported adding several years in additional prison time to ANYONE misusing a firearm in a crime, as well as supporting improvements in the NICS. So far Kelli--your stock in trade is denying that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals in any enforceable ways
Kelli--is complete civilian disarmament reasonable? Paul Helmke, both Joshes (Horwitz and Sugarmann) and have all claimed laws like the ones that lost in the Heller case are "reasonable", as well as claiming laws prohibiting civilian ownership of any firearm design that has been used by the police or the military are legit (while completely ignoring the fact that the police and military have used just about action type out there)-- so excuse me if I use a very different definition of reasonable than you do
Clearly you are not familiar with the track record of the people in the Obama administration, who have never met a gun ban they did not love. Obama, Biden, and many others have in the past advocated broad, sweeping gun bans that only effect lawful citizens, not criminals.
Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a brief in SUPPORT OF WASHINGTON D C'S HANDGUN BAN in the Heller case, meaning he thinks that handgun bans are a good policy.
Clearly, the track record of this administration proves that gun owners fears of them are well founded. I certainly do hope we are proven wrong, but right now the burden of proof is on Obama, not us. Until he shows that he will stand up to the gun control lobby and uphold gun rights, expect the sales spike to continue.
"Until he shows that he will stand up to the gun control lobby and uphold gun rights, expect the sales spike to continue."
Admit it --- there is absolutely NOTHING that Pres. Obama could say or do to get you to the point where you would say that he (Obama) has now shown you this. Furthermore, there is no way the NRA would ever concede it either regardless of anything Obama does. Heller comes down and yet you still retain your intrinsic fearfulness. The NRA told you to vote for Bush and he picked your pocket and got a good start toward confiscating your guns and yet you fear Obama. Fearfulness is a good, hard-wired human instinct, but only if it is accompanied by good judgment.
Josh Sugarmann wrote: “The scary part is that most of the gun-shopping Krooks participating in this alliterative buying spree are those simply adding new military style weaponry to an existing arsenal.”
“This, of course, ignores the fact that angry and frustrated people might not be the best candidates to own that extra assault rifle.”
Mr. Sugarmann makes these paranoid, derogatory, and hateful statements about lawful firearms owners and then accuses the NRA of “fear mongering.
Of course, Mr. Sugarmann and other gun ban zealots wants AR-15s semi-auto AKs, Etc. completely banned simply because they favor total citizen disarmament. Of course, this class of firearm is used in less than one percent of all homicides annually nationwide, and more homicides are committed with hands, fists, feet, etc., or knives or cutting instruments, or blunt objects, than with all rifles combined including the scary AR-15s, AKs, Etc.
http://www
So, with a lack of compelling facts to support this a ban on semi-auto rifles fear mongering and demonizing lawful firearms owners is the only argument left for the gun ban zealots.
"Newly christened"? The term "black rifles" was given to it by the first soldiers to use it in Vietnam.
So, Mr. Sugarmann, are you going to help D.C. residents who want to purchase a firearm from their local FLL? That's you, isn't it?
the vpc and brady bunch lost the debate on gun control the minute the heller decision was announced.
Great article, Josh. And as if to confirm everything you said, the assault-weapon wielding insurrectionists (hello Timothy McVeigh) pop up on here immediately.
I could have sworn Timothy McVeigh used a bomb, not a gun.
But what do I know. I was just sitting in a classroom a few miles away when it happened. That big boom must have been one of those heat seeking, .50 caliber bullets that can cook a deer from the inside out.
McVeigh not only used a truck bomb, but rather angrily left the NRA because the NRA was not agressive enough
Last time I checked, the pro RKBA people have no problem with admitting that McVeigh was absoluetely breaking the law--for me either execution or life in prison no parole (and as young as he was--spending 60 or 70 years in solitary would have been worse punishment than execution) would be acceptable. What I have yet to hear is for gun ban supporters like yourself admit that Waco and Ruby Ridge were major screw ups (and McVeigh's claimed provocation (but those 2 event DID NOT JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS))
Josh--is there a logical reason beyond fear mongering that you are opposed to people owning semiauto ARs and AKs? All rifles combined are used in fewer crimes than knives, hands or feet. Or is it similar logic to calling scope mounted bolt action hunting rifles "sniper rifles" where you deliberately use deceptive terminology to demonize weapons to make them easier to ban?
Josh, after the Heller decision, have you been able to sell a lot of handguns in DC? How is your Federal Firearms License working out?
Josh Sugarmann in 1988:
Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Our freedom rests on four boxes:
1. The ballot box.
2. The jury box.
3. The soap box.
4. The cartridge box.
"The scary part is that most of the gun-shopping Krooks participating in this alliterative buying spree are those simply adding new military style weaponry to an existing arsenal."
Why is it scary that they are styled like military weaponry. They do not function the same as the military counterpart. Functionally they are the same as my grandpa's hunting rifles. Well, truth be told my grandpa's hunting rifles are probably more powerful and definitely more accurate. But that is beside the point.
Keep spreading the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Josh. But don't be too surprised when the boy who cries wolf becomes less and less relevant.
Ruffrider--if your grandpa hunted deer or larger game--his rifles ARE more powerful than ANY rifle in 223/5.56 (ammo for the AR) or 7.62X39 (round used in the AK/SKS)
Josh,
You state "The scary part is that most of the gun-shopping Krooks participating in this alliterative buying spree are those simply adding new military style weaponry to an existing arsenal.".
Ok, where are the facts and figures that you used to base this claim on?
I find it interesting that when I go to my local gun shops here in Central Florida they are selling out of EVERYTHING! Not just "black rifles". Even dusty old bolt action wall hangers that have been un-touched for years are selling.
Hey if the guns are made in America, more power to the buyers. Anything to stimulate the economy.
Because with the economy, 2 wars, health care reform, education, and finding people that can pass Senate review and will actually serve in the Cabinet, President Obama and his team have plenty to do. Joe Biden even spoke about this subject during the campaign.
Gun control is a low priority for the new administration. It's somewhere on the To Do list, right after "Call Joaquin Phoenix and ask what's up with the beard."
Gun and ammo sales are about the only bright spot in the face of the pokulus bill just passed by Congress.
The NRA has been set up as the only voice for gun owners. Thankfully, there is a whole world of gun owners out there who are not at all interested in the NRA or in the fear and propaganda they feed on. The NRA creates fear because fear creates new gun owners and new gun purchase, which all feed money back to the NRA. The NRA gets money from sales at many retailers (the "NRA Roundup" program where you round up your change and give it to the NRA.), from official NRA targets that are required at many matches, from their certified instructors (who are usually the only people, aside from state certified law enforcement, that are authorized by states to give training and testing for handgun carry permits). When they stir up fear over some made up charges, they are just feeding their coffers. The more fearsome the better.
However, there *are* some alternatives. Check out http://www
Can you show me a single thing that the AHSA has done to support hunters and/or shooters?
Which organization do you work for?
Why don't you mention the SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, etc. ?
I didn't mention GOA because I think they are just as bad as the NRA. As for the SAF and the CCRKBA, they are all cut from the same cloth. My point is that liberals own weapons too. There are others that neither of us mentioned: pink pistols, the gun toting liberal, there is a 'drinking liberally' group, etc.
My point is that the NRA has convinced gun owners that they must vote republican or their guns will be taken away - and that is evidently not true.
As far as the AHSA, I don't know anything about them or their support of hunters. All I was saying was that they were a group of gun owners that don't share the same views as the NRA - which was the point of my post.
I have tried to contact AHSA several times (at least 7 times in the last 4 months) to ask them about their organization and their programs.
Guess what?
They never reply.
For anyone who is truly interested in contacting AHSA, cut out the middle man and call the Brady Campaign directly. At least Doug Pennington answers the phone.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
