Hate Acts and the NRA's Extreme Rhetoric

Please take a moment this weekend to read Bob Herbert's column published today in the New York Times.

His message is long overdue:

Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh -- all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks -- were just the beginning and that worse is to come.

As if the wackos weren't dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people's guns. The group's anti-Obama Web site is called gunbanobama.com.

[Read Bob Herbert's full column here.]

Comments

[Bandofotters]

"...the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people's guns."
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­____

I get it now. Helmke is upset that the NRA is obsessed with the idea that Obama will "take away" our guns. He is upset that we are ignoring the "fuel to further inflame" that he and Bob Herbert are attempting to pour on the American people with their own gun control rhetoric. They want the attention now being bestowed on Obama. Believe me, there is anough fuel to go around!

How can they possibly believe that the NRA's rhetoric is inflaming to right-wing extremists yet theirs is not? I content that theirs is even more so when one considers the source and the possible real harm that they can do with their influence to effect gun control legislation.

[benEzra]

You know, failing to differentiate between the lawful and responsible vs. the criminal and irresponsible is how the gun-control lobby got into this mess in the first place.

In light of that, I'm surprised that you'd endorse the NYT op-ed, which raises the art of the broad-brush smear to new heights (or sinks it to new lows). Particularly since Mr. Herbert also repeats the "guns are for hunting" canard that caused the DLC and Third Way'ers so much grief in the '90s through 2004.

[mike102]

So now Paul is trying to infer a connection between gun owners and hate mongering right wing loonies. I find that odd, since half of the gun owners in this country are democrats and independents (mostly dems). That would put us at 40,000,000 plus.

Standard does not impress me as someone who actually lives in a neighborhood where bullets are whizzing past people's heads. If he did, he would know that the PEOPLE firing these bullets are gangbangers and street hoods, who did not legally purchase their firearms.

Standard, outright DC and Chicago style GUN BANS did not make a dent in homicide stats in either of these two 'gun free' Utopias. As a matter of fact, the problem got worse. Last year, Chicago's homicide rate exceeded 500.

Standard, one more thing. 'Elitist' does not mean 'well-eduacated'. Most gun owners are well educated, as are the people posting here. An elitist is someone with a superiority complex, who generally has different rules for themselves than they do for everyone else. They think this imagined superiority entitles them to tell the rest of us how to live.

[Toonadude]

The speaker implies ... the listener infers.

[djkrlsn]

Your snide comments don't change the fact that mike is on target

[mike102]

You are correct. My bad.

Paul is implying that we are all Kloset Klansmen.

[fishyjay]

From "The Daily Show," John Stewart comments upon the game that Helmke & Herbert are so eager to play:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/78243/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-blame#x-4,vclip,1

[twogunmojo]

my friend odin....fr­om the other thread concerning fireworks.­...i just typed in 44 millimeter shell to google and it seems every pyrotechnic firm now makes a 3 inch shell for sale to the general public...t­he first hit was black cat....

[twogunmojo]

i meant 44 millimeter firework..­which is aobut 1 3/4...and due to a change in the law you can now have 500 gram fireworks for sale to the general public....­.

[DaveNYC]

Bob Herbert starts out with one white supremacist wacko and one anti-abortion wacko. These TWO individuals become a large and amorphous group of "right wing wackos" who are being "inflame[d]" by "over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Associatio­n." How do we know this? First, Mr. Herbert tells us that "[the NRA] has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns." Second, Mr. Herbert recounts that the two referenced individuals were wackos -- they were anti-semitic and vehemently anti-abortion and they carried out acts of violence against others. See the connection?

Somehow, Mr. Herbert avoids addressing whether there is any actual connection between: (1) the NRA saying that Obama will ban guns; and (2) criminal acts of violence by acknowledged "wackos." Why not? Is the rationale that once the white supremacist wackos hear there may be new gun laws, they decide that now is the time to wage race attacks? Perhaps the implausibility of this argument is the reason that Mr. Herbert does not bother with any citations.

Mr. Helmke, in the past you have said that gun control should be debated on its merits, and not as simply a "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" issue. If that's what you think, then I respectuflly submit that you should not be encouraging unsubstantiated ad hominem arguments along the lines of, "the NRA is bad because Bob Herbert associates it with white supremacists and violent anti-abortion activists.­"

[djkrlsn]

Paul, the 2 Joshes and Cryan Bryan do the broad brush attacks all the time

[OdinsEye]

In an effort to help poster "standard" out -

Machine gun (includes assault rifle, sub-machine gun, and machine pistol): Full-auto firearms firing miltiple shots per trigger pull. Strictly control by federal laws passed in 1934, 1968, and 1986. Legal possesion is an arduous, time consuming process. Illegal possesion is a ferderal felony worth 10 years in federal prison.

Assault weapon: Defined in 1994 as semi-auto firearms firing one shot per trigger pull and having more than an arbitrary number of arbitrarily objectionable features, mostly external.

Semi-autos have been legally sold in the US since around 1900 (before 1900 for pistols, 1902 for shotguns, 1903 for hunting rifles).

[fishyjay]

More fom Bob Herbert's column:

"You cannot blame the N.R.A. for McVeigh’s actions. But you can sure blame it for ignoring the tragic lessons of history and continuing to spray gasoline into an environment that we have seen explode time and again."

From the New York Times (5/4/95):

"Sergeant Witcher said Sergeant McVeigh had belonged to the National Rifle Association, but when the organization seemed to be taking a softer position on the banning of assault rifles, he wrote an angry letter dropping out of the organization and canceling his subscription to the N.R.A. magazine."

So Herbert deceitfully fails to mention that McVeigh angrily quit the NRA because it was too moderate for him.

[OdinsEye]

"continuing to spray gasoline into an environment that we have seen explode time and again."

And he fails to address who created the environment.

[Tencfan]

" gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams. " Is he trying to lump or stereotype all Americans who own firearms that do not hunt? Paul is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
The "right-wing hate mongers" is just another label slapped on those that do not kowtow to the elitist attitude shared amongst most of the big city-dwelling national media crowd.

[standard]

What elitist (i.e.: well-educated), big city-dwellers bring to the table is first-hand knowledge about what it means to live where gunshots mainly kill our fellow citizens, not deer and game birds. They're keenly aware that one-size-fits-all rules on firearms have deadly, if unintended consequences and that some intelligent balance between hunters' and collectors' legitimate rights and actual public safety--in other words, between preserving historic rural traditions and containing homicide--is actually needed. That exclusively preserving rural traditions has deadly consequences is something that responsible citizens (gun-owning and not, urban and rural) know well, but that the NRA leadership vigorously denies.

It's absolutely true that most gun owners aren't right-wing hate mongers--but it's equally true that right-wing hate mongers really exist, and that the NRA leadership does precious little to differentiate itself from them and nothing whatever to defeat their dangerous mythology. The NRA's leaders could just as easily help to eliminate the problem--and ought to.

[molonlabe]

"What elitist (i.e.: well-educated), big city-dwellers bring to the table is first-hand knowledge about what it means to live where gunshots mainly kill our fellow citizens, not deer and game birds. "

Michael Bloomberg blows your "opinion" out of the water. Here's a billionaire elitist who thinks that the way to solve the country's violent crime problem is to campaign against the Tiahrt amendment in order to litigate FFL's out of business with illegal sting operations.

And I'm sure he has TONS of experience with bullets flying past his million dollar home in his gated community. George Soros probably does too. And the board of the Joyce Foundation. And Carolyn "the thing in the back tha tgoes up" McCarthy..­...

Get real.

Here's a question..­. If public safety is such a concern for anti-gun groups, then how do you explain the fact that teh NRA's Eddie eagle program has taught over 21 million children about gun safety, and the Brady Campaign and VPC has a combined total of ZERO?

[OdinsEye]

"the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people's guns. "

Shall I once again post Obama's own words for you, Paul?

[kaveman4]

Thanks for the reminder, Paul.

In honor of Founding "Father's Day" I will be sending a special donation to the NRA. I normally send about $350-$400 every year in addition to my normal membership dues.

I will also be buying a new gun on, or very near, July 4th, as I have done every year since 1995.

So while you and your organization are busy suckling the anuses of a few wealthy individuals in order to survive, the NRA will be cashing the checks of millions of grass-roots supporters.

We win, you lose, now let's buy some guns.

And ammo.
And mags.
And scopes.
And Hoppes.
And patches.
And grease.
And hard cases.
And safes.
And some more ammo.

We have an entire economy of support. We vote with our wallets.

What do you have?

Lies, emotions and traditional media which is dying on the vine. Deep down, you know it's true. Your refuge in the main-stream media is shrinking. Dying really. I know several people who, when the TV signal switched from analog to digital, simply turned off the TV and stored it in the garage.

What are you left with?

Your silly blog on the internet which is dominated by the pro-2A crowd.

Congrats.

I used to think the Brady Campaign was a threat to the RKBA...no more of that nonsense.

Now, you serve as a source of enertainment.

[molonlabe]

First it was opposition to concealed carry reform. The anti-gunners claimed that if citizens were allowed to carry a concealed weapon, that we'd have "Blood in the Streets(tm)" and "Wild West Shootouts(tm)". Never happened. 48 states now have some form of CCW and we're still waiting for that to come to frutition.

Then it was the "For the Children(tm)" campaign. Until people figured out that the anti-gun camp included those 24 year old gang bangers as "The Children." Loss of credibility. Position abandoned.

Then it was AWB; trying to convince the American public that somehow, the color of a rifle, protruding grip, and "the thing in the back that goes up" (thanks Carolyn), makes it more lethal, although functioning the same as every other semi-auto rifle. Sunset of the '94 AWB. Position abandoned.

.50 cals and the "Planes, Trains, and Chemical Plants" argument? Nope.

Big Boomers? Nope.
Vest busters? Nope
Mexico? Nope.

Ah ha! Domestic terrorist and Right-wing extremists! Let's give it a shot!

This is nothing more than another "throw it against the wall and see what the public will rally around" attempt by the Brady's and others to demonize law-abiding gun owners and the NRA.

What will it be next?

[fishyjay]

After a column decrying "over-the-top rhetoric," Herbert concludes with this:

" The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix."

On second thought, maybe I WOULD support a law banning guns from people who believe in "over-the-top rhetoric." We just need to work out two small technical difficulties:

1) A good legal definition of "over-the-top rhetoric."

1) A good means of determining who has heard and believes "over-the-top rhetoric."

[djkrlsn]

Since the NRA is one of the leading providers of firearm instruction to LEOs and civilians (including the Eddie Eagle program teaching gun safety to kids) and is one of the OLDEST civil rights organization in the country--I would say most of the over the top rhetoric is coming from the BC and the VPC

[fishyjay]

Herbert concludes his column with this:

" The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix."

So the NRA has been lying about the Obama administration wanting more gun control, and the Obama administration should respond by pushing for...more gun control?

You can't make this stuff up.

[mikeb302000]

Maybe it would be better if people said the NRA has been pounding what has proven to be the bogus theme of Obama taking your guns away. Everyone knows the presidential candidate promised to bring back the AWB and implement other gun control initiatives. The fact that he has failed to do this means what in regards the NRA hysteria? I say it means it was just that, hysteria.

[GoldenBoy22]

It's not that Obama doesn't want to, His own party is telling him to leave it alone for now.
I believe if he thought he had the backing in congress he would push for a new AWB today.
For the first few month he had it as a goal on his web site but has now taken it down.

[OdinsEye]

"Everyone knows the presidential candidate promised to bring back the AWB and implement other gun control initiatives"

Sadly, everyone does not. Several people who post here have had to be shown.

[fishyjay]

What you call "hysteria" is what I would call a "worst-case scenario."

If candidate X says ".32-calib­er guns should be banned," the NRA will always say "Candidate X will ban .32-caliber guns." If candidate X is elected and abandons (or postpones) his pet gun ban becuase it is so unpopular that trying to pass it will bring ill upon his party, then the NRA will turn out to have been "wrong." That's OK with me.

[Thirdpower]

Or maybe it means that a presidential candidate played up to a certain crowd for a few votes while distancing himself from his former positions.

[fishyjay]

Also from the New York Times:

Burt Neuborne, a professor of law at New York University and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that while the debate was not new, “the ability to technologically call up snippets of speech” is.

Mr. Neuborne said that a commentator’s language, no matter how colorful, generally cannot be treated as an incitement unless it directly instructs individuals to commit violence.

“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously­.”

(Wow -- that last part is so important, let's read it again)

“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously­.”

Professor Neuborne, limiting the ability of their opponents to spealk vigorously is EXACTLY what Paul Helmke and Bob Herbert want. Years ago, they had a near-monopoly of the media. But ever since all sides have had access, they have been losing the battle of ideas.