Fischer Doubles Down on Ferguson’s Bigotry »« Genie Scott to Retire

Jon Stewart on the NRA Convention

Last weekend the NRA held their annual convention in Houston, Texas and the Daily Show predictably had a lot of fun with it. My favorite part of the first video is the introductory video of Rick Perry firing a gun and then looking off in the distance at nothing for no reason with a look of clueless conviction about something unsaid.

The second part is even funnier. You get to hear Glenn Beck — Glenn fucking Beck — loudly proclaiming that “we will fight their tactics of fear.” Seriously? You spend your entire life stirring up fear of dark conspiracies that never come true, for fuck’s sake. But the highlight of this video for me is Ted Cruz flatly contradicting himself, feigning outrage over the Democrats filibustering a bill, then moments later declaring his pride in filibustering a bill.

Comments

  1. says

    What was Rick Perry thinking, after firing that weapon that looks a fuckuvalot like an “assault rifle*”?

    He was prolly thinking that after this KKKodak moment:

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/08/17/gun-slinging-rick-perry-photo-caption-challenge.htm

    it was odd that they had handed him a loaded gun.

    * The generic term that reasonable people use for weapons that look nearly identical to the military version from which their designs are largely derived and which, in many cases can be converted from semi-auto to full-auto weapons with a minimal amount of work and parts.

  2. Matt G says

    Did Perry fire it at something, or just into the air? Was it a blank, or should we worry about where the slug came down? What century are these psychopaths living in?

  3. Rasmus Odinga Gambolputty de von Ausfern....of Ulm says

    @Democommie

    I doubt Perry was thinking anything anything after firing that rifle. We, unfortunately, just got to see Perry’s “O”-face. He fired the weapon, then shot his own load.

  4. CSB says

    @2: There are several problems with your defense of “assault rifle” as a generic term, but really the biggest is the fact that such generic terms are useless when passing actual laws. Look at the Clinton-era AWB, for example: it defined “assault weapon” based off a list of features that had almost no overlap with things like “does this make it easier to convert a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic” or “does this make it easier to pick off an enemy at ten kilometers”. Instead, it targeted stuff like bayonet mounts and

    This is really one of the largest roadblocks in any question regarding gun laws. The people who know the most about guns (and would therefore be best able to draw the laws in such as a way as to have them actually do much of anything) are the people least likely to have any interest in doing so. It’s like a dark reflection of Inholfe voting on climate change legislation. He

  5. CSB says

    I seem to have accidentally posted my above comment before it was finished.

    Anyway, here’s the full version:

    @2: There are several problems with your defense of “assault rifle” as a generic term, but really the biggest is the fact that such generic terms are useless when passing actual laws. Look at the Clinton-era AWB, for example: aside from specifically named models, it defined “assault weapon” based off a list of features that had almost no overlap with things like “does this make it easier to convert a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic” or “does this make it easier to pick off an enemy at ten kilometers”. Instead, it targeted stuff like bayonet mounts and pistol grips.

    This is really one of the largest roadblocks in any question regarding gun laws. The people who know the most about guns (and would therefore be best able to draw the laws in such as a way as to have them actually do much of anything) are the people least likely to have any interest in doing so, and vice versa. It’s like a dark reflection of Inholfe voting on climate change legislation – he all but takes pride in how little he knows about the science, but he still takes every opportunity he can to scream about it being a hoax.

  6. mobius says

    Jon Stewart is definitely on my list of people I would like to have a conversation with.

  7. Matrim says

    @8> I seem to remember hearing in an interview that he’s a real jerkwad. Now that I think about it, I believe it was actually on Culture Wars Radio.

  8. typecaster says

    @mobius -All during the Bush years, my strongest reassurance that we were still living in a mostly free society was the knowledge that Stewart’s body hadn’t been pulled out of the East River.

  9. says

    A6&7:

    I assure you that I know the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16 and variants thereof. I also know that the law which went into effect in 1994 was cobbled together without any help from those folks you say know so much about weapons. It was hoped that it would fail in its intent, which it pretty much did. The NRA and it’s drooling, wannabe vigilantes are, I’m sure, proud of their work. Meantime a shitton of people die by GSW every year that might not have done so if the gunz weren’t so fucking easy to get your hands on. Fuck the NRA and its braindead supporters.

    Since the term, “assault rifle” is so meaningless to you and others why don’t we just call them “big cock substitutes”? That seems to be what a lot of the videos I see on youtube equate them with.

  10. matty1 says

    @11 Or, and this is just a suggestion, you could focus on coming up with a law that works in reducing the availability of the most dangerous weapons. This might involve coming up with criteria based on how easy it is to kill large numbers of people rather than cosmetic similarity to other weapons. It might also involve finding and working with people who both know about weapons and support regulation rather than assuming anyone who owns a gun is Rick Perry or Sarah Palin in disguise.

  11. CSB says

    @11/12: Yeah, that would kind of be the point of what I was saying. Without someone who actually knows what to focus on when writing a gun control bill, we’re going to have laws that have no effect on the crime rate. And thanks to the NRA having a death grip on the Republicans despite being like the Tea Party without the connection to reality, there’s about no chance of such a person stepping up to help. If you’re going to write an effective gun control law, you need to find and get the support of someone who understands what such a law would need to do, rather than scream about how everyone with the knowledge has a tiny dick.

    Ironically, the NRA came closest to one of the best ways to reduce gun deaths when they blamed Sandy Hook on the state of mental health support in this country: the majority of such deaths are suicides, and even a small increase to the difficulty of the act can significantly reduce the number who attempt it. Of course, I can’t imagine the overlap between “supports the NRA” and “supports spending tax money on mental health” exceeds a rounding error, so that just becomes another area in which they’re making things worse.

  12. says

    “@11/12: Yeah, that would kind of be the point of what I was saying. Without someone who actually knows what to focus on when writing a gun control bill, we’re going to have laws that have no effect on the crime rate. And thanks to the NRA having a death grip on the Republicans despite being like the Tea Party without the connection to reality, there’s about no chance of such a person stepping up to help. If you’re going to write an effective gun control law, you need to find and get the support of someone who understands what such a law would need to do, rather than scream about how everyone with the knowledge has a tiny dick.”

    There are millions of gun owners are NOT tiny dicked gunzloonz; MILLIONS. Just as there are millions of decent, church going Christians. Their money is used by the loud minorities of KKKrsitians and gunzloonz (some serious overlap in those demographics) to push their crap over the airwaves and the intertoobz. The NRA panders to the extremists and works for the manufacturers; they have no interest beyond ginning up the fear and raking in the cash. It’s that simple. They don’t give a fuck about how many people die for so long as THEY retain their right to hoover money out of the pockets of both groups. The NRA may be achieving the status of a religion; follow the money.

    Going back to the 1950’s I can remember hearing people my dad’s age spouting the same bullshit about gun confiscation that is being spouted today. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.

    The GOP profits from the discord.

    FWIW, one of the memes that is popular in gunzloonz circles is that the M-16 and the various weapons whose designs followed fro the AR-15 is not a “battle rifle”. They say that it fires a smaller round, one that doesn’t have the stopping power of, say, a .308, .30-06 or a 7mm magnum round–iow, to many of them it’s not as “deadly”. Oddly, a lot of these same people will argue that the AR design is used by a lot of hunters. The object of the exercise when hunting is to hit the prey with a slug that will knock it down and incapacitate it immediately, if not kill it outright–yet they claim they will use a weapon with inferior stopping power. Gunzloonz logic, “If I say it, it’s true.”.

Leave a Reply