NRA News is deliberately misleading its supporters about Mitt Romney's firearms policies while he served as governor of Massachusetts. During the October 2 edition of Cam & Company, host Cam Edwards suggested that any action taken by then-Governor Romney on assault weapons was supported by Massachusetts state gun rights group Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) and further stated that Romney "actually undid some of the damage" of the commonwealth's 1998 assault weapons ban. In fact, legislation signed by Romney in 2004 made the Massachusetts assault weapons ban permanent.
A July 1, 2004 press release issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," leaves little doubt that the former Massachusetts governor was involved in restricting access to assault weapons. Indeed, at the bill's signing ceremony Romney stated that the "sole purpose" of assault weapons is "hunting down and killing people." In response to the new law, GOAL stated that the Romney administration "took a major shot at lawful gun owners and showed their true colors."
CAM EDWARDS, HOST: Doc in Jacksonville, Florida says, "Cam, due to the fact that Mitt Romney signed a gun ban into law while he was governor of Massachusetts, does the NRA trust him to stand up for the Constitution and Second Amendment as president?" You know, I'm glad you asked this question, Doc. Last time -- I've got to promote this video because we've got it up I know on our YouTube page -- the last time we had Jim Wallace from the Gun Owners Action League in studio, that's the state-level organization in Massachusetts, we asked him about this. Because Mitt Romney did sign a bill as Governor of Massachusetts, but he did not institute an assault weapons ban. This was actually a bill that the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts supported. The quote unquote assault weapons bill, or excuse me the quote unquote assault weapons ban, was already law in Massachusetts. It was already permanent in Massachusetts. This bill actually provided some relief to gun owners in the state of Massachusetts. It was portrayed and it has been portrayed in the media as Governor Romney signed a bill to ban quote unquote assault weapons in the state of Massachusetts. But that's not the case. This was a bill, as I said, that was supported by the state gun owners' organization in Massachusetts because it actually undid some of the damage of that original legislation.
From the October 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First:
Loading the player reg...
A new graphic appearing on the National Rifle Association store website analogizes the supposed existence of a plot by the Obama administration to disarm Americans with ancient Spartan mythology.
As the story goes, Persian King Xerxes' demanded that King Leonidas of Sparta and his 300 Spartan warriors lay down their arms. Leonidas' refusal precipitated the Battle of Thermopylae.
By implication, National Rifle Association is King Leonidas, NRA members are the 300, and President Obama is King Xerxes. The ad explains: "King Leonidas of Sparta defended what he valued with everything he had. To preserve our God-given rights, Americans need to do the same today by supporting the NRA in every way possible!"
The NRA previously referenced September 11 in fundraising emails sent on the tenth anniversary of the terror attacks. This year, the NRA marked the January 28 anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster with a NRA store advertisement that paired the likeness of assassinated President John F. Kennedy with an image of the smoke plume after Challenger exploded midflight. Recipients were encouraged to "pursue freedom" by buying NRA-stamped mugs, denim jackets, and other trinkets.
(h/t Protest Easy Guns)
On October 10, the Discovery Channel will air a special on gun culture in America starring Washington Times columnist and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent. In doing so, the channel will give mainstream treatment to a divisive right-wing figure who has made countless inflammatory remarks on the topics of race, religion, LGBT equality, politics, equal treatment of women, immigration, and vigilantism.
Last Thursday, Andrew Engeldinger finished his shift at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, where he'd worked since the late 1990's. In the afternoon, Engeldinger was called into the front office and told he no longer had a job.
According to police, Engeldinger was armed at the time and began to open fire with a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol. He killed the company's founder and sought out three other sign-making coworkers for execution. The 36-year old shooter also killed a local UPS deliver man who got caught up in the on-site rampage.
When Engeldinger was done, he'd murdered five people. Then he went down into the firm's basement and shot himself in the head. When police arrived they described the scene as chaotic and the carnage as "hellish." When they searched the shooter's apartment, police found packaging for 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
"He obviously had this gun and was practicing how to use this gun," said Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan, describing the deadliest workplace shooting in Minnesota since the state began tracking these types of attacks two decades ago.
For the past two years Engeldinger's family had feared he was slipping into bouts of delusion and mental illness and had urged him, in vain, to seek treatment.
Incredibly, that mass murder story wasn't considered to be especially newsworthy by major news organizations. The shockingly small amount of press coverage the story has received (the New York Times has printed just two clipped AP reports on the shooting, buried in Section A and totaling less than 500 words) highlights the shoulder-shrugging response so many gun rampages now generate inside national newsrooms.
An investigation on shooting rampages by Mother Jones could not identify a single mass public shooting that was ended by an armed civilian, a violence prevention strategy that remains popular in right-wing media. In two instances, however, armed individuals who attempted to stop a shooting were wounded or killed. Mother Jones also deduced that successful attempts by armed civilians to stop public shootings in general, not just those incidents involving mass casualties, were rare.
The analysis conducted by Mother Jones, which examined 60 public shootings that have occurred in the United States over the last 30 years, stands in sharp contrast to baseless conjecture by members of the right-wing media that the solution to prevent mass shootings is a greater number of people armed in public.
More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare -- and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson--who was a firearms instructor--was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)
Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened--while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him. [emphasis added]
Mother Jones noted that 2012 is already a record year for mass public shootings in terms of the number of killed and injured. The right-wing media's response to each of this year's mass shootings has been the same: "If only more people would have been armed, it would have been prevented."
But even setting aside the fact that the United States already has the most heavily armed private citizenry in the world, and that laws allowing the concealed carrying of firearms in public are increasingly permissive and widespread, the bottom line is that there is no data to support the right-wing media's armed citizen theory.
Fox is distorting comments President Obama made in 1998 to claim he has "a manifesto" for engaging in "class warfare." In fact, Obama was simply outlining government's role in creating a society where everyone has a fair chance at success.
During his show today, Rush Limbaugh advanced the myth that the public doesn't support gun violence prevention measures. The radio host quoted a 1998 statement by then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, who said that "the vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control," and falsely claimed that it was incorrect. In fact, two gun violence prevention measures that Obama has indicated favor for -- the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and mandatory background checks at gun shows -- are broadly supported by the general public.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Here's Obama on gun control in that 1998 tape. I just want to play it for you, because [Washington Post columnist] Colbert King says when I say it, you don't believe it. So here's Obama himself saying it. October 19, 1998, Loyola University.
THEN-STATE SENATOR OBAMA: The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control. It does not pass. Why does it not pass? It does not pass because there is a huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.
LIMBAUGH: So in Obama's world, the American people wanted gun control but elected officials didn't. And that's why we didn't have it. It's the other way around. Every president -- every Democrat president, Democrat senator, Democrat House of Representatives member, they've all wanted gun control. It's the people that don't want it and never have. Not the kind of gun control these guys are talking about. Anyways, that's Obama. He said it. Not I.
Contrary to Limbaugh's suggestion, the public favors a multitude of legislative proposals to prevent gun violence. A June 2011 Time magazine poll found that 62 percent of Americans supported banning assault weapons, including 61 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Republicans. A January 2011 American ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis poll found that 86 percent of Americans support requiring all gun buyers to undergo a background check when buying a firearm, including those sales conducted at gun shows.
Indeed, in spite of conjecture by some in the media, the majority of Americans support bans on high capacity magazines like the one used in the Aurora theater massacre, limiting the number of guns that can be purchased at one time, a prohibition on gun purchases by individuals on the terrorist watch list, and a requirement for gun owners to notify police if they discover a gun they own has been lost or stolen.
During his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh again claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Operation Fast and Furious was hatched as an Obama administration plot to disarm Americans.
Limbaugh's baseless claim was refuted by a report onthe failed gun trafficking sting released by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General on Wednesday. The DOJ watchdog found "no evidence" that the agents involved in Fast and Furious had "improper motives" and that the goal of the operation was "dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization."
RUSH LIMBAUGH: American people don't want to give up their guns. What do you do? What liberals always do. Try to create a false narrative or impression that the American people have had it and are fed up with it and we got to get guns out of people's hands. They want that cry erupting from all over America. So many people think that the point of Fast and Furious was very simple: get these guns into the hands of some of the deadliest, vicious, trigger happy criminals you can find. And they are very close. They run drug cartels south of the border. They're in Mexico. So you give them the guns and they will go crazy. Because people die in gun raids, drug cartel activities every day. And what happened was one of our agents, Brian Terry, died and more than a hundred Mexicans. And what was supposed to happen, the American people were supposed to hear this news and they were supposed to be outraged at two things. A, that drug cartels have American guns. You mean it's that easy that some local weed can cross the border buy a gun and take it home to Mexico and another to stop -- that's right. And then they start shooting people. The outcry was supposed to -- the American people were supposed to rise up in indignation. So you've gotta shut that down. We've got to stop making guns so easily. That's what they were trying to shape public opinion so that you ended up demanding gun control.
But Limbaugh's theory -- which MSNBC host Rachael Maddow termed the "specific" version of the National Rifle Association's grand conspiracy that Obama secretly plans to eliminate the Second Amendment if re-elected -- was debunked by the Inspector General report:
The right-wing media's conspiracy theory that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Operation Fast and Furious was hatched as a nefarious plot by the Obama administration to impose draconian gun control upon the United States has been debunked by an independent investigation into the failed gun trafficking sting.
According to a report issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, there is "no evidence that the agents responsible for the cases had improper motives or were trying to accomplish anything other than dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization." This is consistent with a June 2011 report by Republican congressional staff, which found that "The operation's goal was to establish a nexus between straw purchasers of assault-style weapons in the United States and Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border." From the OIG report (emphasis added):
ATF's Phoenix Field Division, together with the U.S. Attorney's Office, bore primary responsibility for the conduct of Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. While we found no evidence that the agents responsible for the cases had improper motives or were trying to accomplish anything other than dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization, we concluded that the conduct and supervision of the investigations was significantly flawed. For reasons described in Chapters Three and Four, the Phoenix and Tucson offices adopted and adhered to a strategy that deferred taking overt action against subjects, even when evidence of the illegality of the purchasing activity was overwhelming, and we concluded, did so without adequate consideration of how that strategy placed the public at risk and what measures could be taken to minimize that risk. Further, as the case progressed, there was no discussion about whether the goals of the investigation should yield to what should have been an imperative to end the firearms trafficking taking place.
The Inspector General also specifically found no link between Operation Fast and Furious and plans to regulate firearms. According to the report, there is "no evidence that ATF Phoenix initiated the investigation in order to facilitate efforts to obtain long gun legislation." The report also found that then-Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson did not use Fast and Furious as a justification for an ATF-backed reporting requirement for the sale of multiple assault rifles that went into effect in August 2011. From the report (emphasis added):
Melson told the OIG that the impetus for the long gun reporting requirement came from him, though he could not recall the date that he asked his staff to pursue the matter. He also stated that when he discussed the long gun reporting requirement with staff at ATF Headquarters, "[n]o one ever suggested that [Operation Fast and Furious] was being done for purposes of supporting our position on the long guns," and that he did not make any decisions concerning the case in order to increase the likelihood that the long gun reporting requirement would be implemented. We found no evidence that contradicted Melson's statements to us concerning the long gun reporting requirement; and no evidence that ATF Phoenix initiated the investigation in order to facilitate efforts to obtain long gun legislation.
This report directly contradicts baseless claims made about Fast and Furious by members of the right-wing media and National Rifle Association leadership.
It has been more than three years since a conservative campaign waged in the media and in the capital hounded a decorated analyst named Daryl Johnson out of his job at the Department of Homeland Security. That campaign, sparked by a leaked report Johnson authored on the increased threat of right-wing domestic terrorism, was an early and telling flashpoint in the Obama administration's fraught relationship with the right. There is a neat political symmetry, then, in Johnson's return to Washington this week in the waning months of the president's term.
On Wednesday, Johnson will speak to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the topic of "Hate Crimes and the Threat of Domestic Extremism," delivering the same warning that made him a prominent right-wing whipping boy during the early days of the Tea Party. In a sad reminder of Johnson's vindication, a survivor of last month's Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting will join him on the panel.
If Johnson's exchange with elected officials this week does not involve some sort of apology or contrition, it should. Following the release of his report, DHS slashed staff assigned to studying domestic terrorism unrelated to Islam, which Johnson says led to his own resignation. The years since this inelegant end to Johnson's public service career are pockmarked with acts of non-Islamic domestic violence -- violence defined by the exact characteristics listed in Johnson's report.
That April 2009 report, written under the imprimatur of DHS' Department of Intelligence and Analysis and running nine bullet-point pages, was brief but sober. Using recent history as his guide, Johnson argued that the sharp economic downturn triggered by the 2008 financial crisis, in combination with the election of the country's first black president and intensifying debates over immigration, gun control, and abortion, all set the stage for an uptick in violent right-wing extremism. Citing the growth of the militia movement in the 1990s that culminated in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (until 9/11 the worst act of terrorism committed on U.S. soil) he implied that the agency's near all-absorbing focus on al Qaeda and Islamic terror was misplaced.
Leak of the report to the notorious birther website WorldNetDaily produced what appeared to be a well-coordinated furor on the right. Newt Gingrich called for Johnson's firing. Rep. Peter King called for hearings on Obama's DHS. Leading conservative senators penned letters of protest. And the conservative media responded as if martial law had been declared on July 4.
In retrospect, the timing of the media attack on Johnson looks significant. His report, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", was leaked in early April of 2009, when the Tea Party movement was in boost phase. The contents of Johnson's warning did not concern non-violent activism around taxation or policy issues, as even a cursory reading made clear. But a conservative funhouse-mirror version of the report was a perfect match for the Tea Party scene's persecution complex and band-of-rebels self-image, in which ordinary Americans were being forced to organize in defense of the last shreds of American freedom.
Leading right-wing media figures grasped this. They hyped and excoriated the DHS report as a sign of the Obama administration's master plan to smear and repress his conservative opposition. Although Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is the only proper name mentioned in the report, and although DHS had previously issued reports on violent leftwing extremism, T-shirts and signs proudly proclaiming "domestic terrorist" soon emerged as staples of the Tea Party scene.
During an appearance on NRA News, Jim Wallace, the executive director of Gun Owners' Action League, the state firearms association of Massachusetts, suggested that strict gun laws did nothing to curb gun violence in his home state of Massachusetts. Wallace, who is also a candidate in this year's National Rifle Association Board of Directors elections, went on to deny that crime guns are trafficked into Massachusetts from states with weaker laws.
To the contrary, trace data made available by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicates that the majority of crime guns traced in Massachusetts originate from states with lax gun laws.
During the segment, Wallace also referenced supposed attempts by the media to "hype up" the fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin and a July 20 massacre at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater that left 12 dead and scores injured. From the September 14 edition of Cam & Company:
CAM EDWARDS, HOST: Because even in Massachusetts running explicitly on a "we need more gun control platform," I mean if that's your campaign you're gonna be facing an uphill battle? Is that--?
JIM WALLACE, GUN OWNERS' ACTION LEAGUE: Oh, absolutely. There is no doubt about it. You know the one thing that has been helpful -- and I don't know if [Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs executive director] Scott [Bach] has seen it as much as I have, I know we have talked about it-- is that no matter how much the general media tries to hype up issues like what happened in Florida with Trayvon Martin and so forth and in Colorado, for the most part, unless they are rabidly ignorant, the general public really gets this now--
WALLACE: --that random acts of stupid violence like this are occurring because of the people that we're allowing on our city streets. They are not occurring because guns are supposedly easily accessible. They understand for the most part now that times have changed, they've lived through in Massachusetts almost a decade and a half of severe gun control--
WALLACE: --with incomprehensible laws. And gun crime has gone up. So what do we do from there? "Oh, we blame New Hampshire," says the Mayor [of Boston Tom Menino]. Well, you know New Hampshire's crime rate is pretty low, mayor, so where are you going to go? I remember one time debating one of the mayor's people on the radio and he said, "Well, you know, we have the strict laws here, but it's the other states that are the problem." And they said, "You know people can go across the border to New Hampshire and legally buy guns." Well first of all that's incorrect. There are 13 legal steps you have to go through to get a gun from New Hampshire to Massachusetts.
WALLACE: But, being that said, you know, he said, "You can go to Georgia and buy them at gun shows." And I said, "So, okay, what you're saying is the mayor has the most loyal criminals in the country. Because they will travel a thousand miles to get a gun, but they will always come home to commit the crime."
WALLACE: So, you know, they are very friendly to criminals in Boston.
From the September 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
The Daily Caller has again strayed into ethically murky waters concerning its relationship with the National Rifle Association. A September 5 post in the online publication's "Guns and Gears" section urges its readers to help the NRA identify businesses that may be violating a Texas law forcing most private employers to allow guns on company property.
In fact the post, titled "Texas: Please Help The NRA-ILA Identify Non-Compliance Among Employers on One-Year Anniversary of Texas Parking Lot/Employee Protection Law," is copied verbatim from a NRA Institute for Legislative Action press release.
The Caller is asking its readers to submit evidence of noncompliance, including copies of employee handbooks, directly to the NRA:
In order to comply with this law's provisions, most employers in the state have amended their policies to allow the transportation and storage of firearms in locked, employee-owned motor vehicles parked on company-controlled parking lots. However, the NRA needs your help to ensure that no hard-working, law-abiding Texans remain disenfranchised by employers who refuse to abide by this law. Please notify the NRA-ILA by email of any examples of company policies that continue to violate the spirit and intent of the statute (if possible, please provide a scanned copy of the actual policy from your employee handbook) and any instances of employees being disciplined or terminated under such policies.
Please contact NRA-ILA at SLocal@nrahq.org about alleged violations of this law. We have already received information about companies that are misinterpreting the law or ignoring it altogether. The NRA-ILA will monitor and investigate those situations to ensure that your rights under the Parking Lot/ Employee Protection law are protected. [emphasis in original]
The Associated Press and CNN recently debunked an op-ed featured at The Daily Caller that suggested a recent ammunition purchase by the Social Security Administration evidenced an Obama plot to kill American citizens en masse. The bizarre theory is hardly the first conspiratorial idea to be promoted on the opinion page of The Daily Caller.