NRA Sends Out Tweet Mocking Gabby Giffords Shooting, Ends Up Proving The Need For Regulations

Personally, I view the NRA as one of the most dangerous lobbying groups in this country. Not because they’re a gun group, but because they’re an organization built on fear-mongering and propaganda. When Ted Nugent and this guy are members of your board, that’s just about all anyone really needs to know about the integrity of the NRA.


The NRA has vilified anyone who speaks out on responsible and reasonable gun safety. Unless you’re a 100 percent rabid pro-gun enthusiast who opposes any and all regulations pertaining to guns, according to the NRA, you’re basically just an anti-American, gun-hating traitor.

And when that’s the kind of vile, irrational rhetoric that’s constantly spewed by one of the most powerful lobbying groups in this country, any hope for rational discourse and sane solutions to gun violence goes right out the window.

While they’re not a “hate group,” they are a very hateful group.

Take for instance a recent tweet the NRA sent out essentially mocking former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot in 2011 by Jared Lee Loughner:

Utterly disgusting and horrifying.

Even going beyond just Giffords (who luckily survived her wounds), six people died from this shooting – including a 9-year-old girl.

But while this tweet was horrifically distasteful, ironically, it also proved something that these jackasses over at the NRA apparently didn’t think about. The tweet provided a great argument as to why we need tighter regulations on guns. In fact, it gave an answer to a question I often ask gun nuts, “How can someone tell a ‘good guy with a gun’ from a ‘bad guy with a gun’ prior to the ‘bad guy’ shooting someone?”


The answer being, there is no way to tell the difference until shots are fired. 

When Loughner bought his gun, he did so legally. But following this shooting, after many people looked into posts he had made, as well as many of his personal beliefs on various issues, it’s clear that Loughner had no business owning firearms. The problem is, because the NRA has lobbied for decades to make buying guns easier, it’s not at all difficult for unstable individuals such as Loughner to legally purchase guns.

Not only that, but with anywhere between 8-10k Americans dying each year from gun violence, using the same type of “logic” the NRA used in this pathetic tweet, wouldn’t the fact that we lead the modern world in gun violence disprove their propaganda concerning guns making us “safer”?

If they want to mock the usefulness of background checks since one individual legally purchased a gun, then committed a horrific act of violence – well, then the 8-10k people who die every year from guns (and the fact we lead the modern world in gun violence) debunks the lie that guns make us safer.

While this tweet was petty, tacky and flat-out disgusting, it actually proved a lot of the pro-gun propaganda these fools push is ridiculous and not based in reality.

Because the fact is, if we were making it more difficult for people to purchase guns, maybe Loughner wouldn’t have been able to get his hands on one. And up until he opened fired that day, he was what the NRA would have proudly called a “legal, proud gun-owning American.” But even in Arizona, which is a very pro-gun state, there wasn’t a single “good guy with a gun” to stop Loughner from carrying out this heinous act.

So, all the NRA really did with this tweet (aside from showcasing how low they can go), is prove that we need tighter gun regulations; that “bad guys with a gun” are simply “good guys with a gun” until they open fire; and even in a very pro-gun state such as Arizona, not one single “good guy with a gun” did anything to prevent this tragedy.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • sherry06053

    One of the reasons the NRA is so powerful is because their “members” use the threat of violence to anyone in opposition. People don’t want to die to openly oppose them, so we have to rely on our lawmakers, who receive considerable donations to their election campaigns by the NRA to not pass sensible laws.

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      Like the abortion promoters and the Gaymafioso? I see!

      • sherry06053

        I wouldn’t know – I have never met an “abortion promoter”. Are speaking of women’s rights advocates, or, referencing your “Gaymafioso”, HUMAN rights advocates? What we can’t compete with donations, we make up with having the majority of voters. That being said, your comment makes no sense. How have any of them threatened violence?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        See Steyer, Soros, Buffett, Hollywood and unions to name a few and that does not count foreign money nor the under the table donations the RAT party is so fond of. Right my foot, you are a supporter of the abortion industry as the liberals and other democrat voters are either too stupid or lazy to use birth control. Take your pick. Violence? Compare any liberal ‘demonstration’ with a TEA Party rally or a gathering of Conservatives. Take your meds.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        you should probably lay off of Fox “news” and Limbaugh for a while lady…..Soros, Buffett, and then abortion, really? Up your meds quick.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        You are registered with Idiots International aren’t you?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        wow, good one….?

    • Pete Flanagan

      Yes, NRA members are killing off gun grabbers left and right, LOL.

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    The NRA has so badly brainwashed enough Americans into buying into their simple 3-5 word catch-phrases and bumper sticker campaigns, that there is no hope for any kind of meaningful gun regulation for the foreseeable future. No sane person believes that easier access to firearms in America has made us a better or safer country in which to live. But there is no convincing the mouth-breathing, constantly terrified gun nuts that some constraints might be in the best interests of themselves and their children because, you know….Obama….. Stalin….Hitler….

    The very first sentence of the 2nd amendment assumes that a “well regulated militia” is necessary to the security of a free state. So if this country, or a state, is not able to organize or “regulate” this “militia” and if joe sixpack isn’t wielding his gun in the name of a free state/country at the orders of some sane person and instead uses it to intimidate ladies at starbucks because Ted Nugent told him to, how does this make any sense in the 21st century.

    The NRA serves one purpose; ensure enough Americans are stupid and afraid so that they will continue to buy things they don’t need which only put themselves, their families, and their neighbors in danger.

    • Nancy B

      We sorely need to repeal this amendment and pass a new one that reflects the time in which we now live. Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be revised every generation or so, so that people wouldn’t be living under laws they had no say in creating. Too bad it will never happen.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well Nancy the constitution was designed to limit government not the individual.
        Furthermore at least 2 SCOTUS cases have declared that the right to bear arms is not dependent upon the Document i.e. the Constitution, it is a natural right that exists and is part of an individuals right to life.
        You and the person you replied to are sadly uninformed about what the constitution does and the rights it protects.

      • Nancy B

        Well, at least I agree with your first sentence. Not sure which cases you’re referring to. But I happen to have little faith in the political circus that is the SCOTUS. This is why we need to revise the Constitution periodically, as Jefferson believed. So that interpretations of the document and its myriad of amendments and court decisions are not as dependent on which way the political winds are blowing at the times judges are appointed and cases are decided.

        It is a natural right for one to protect oneself. But to remain a civilized society, the people must spell out what is and is not acceptable. I happen to believe in the right to own weapons. But that right must be restricted in a way that protects others’ freedoms and well-being – similar to the restrictions on free speech that restrict one yelling fire in a crowded theater.

        I’m no expert on the Constitution. But I’m pretty well informed. Possibly as much as you are. But I certainly wouldn’t speculate on one’s expertise on the subject, as you have hubristically done, based on a few internet posts.

      • Charles Vincent

        United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

        “The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating “Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence.” Their ruling was that citizens must look to “municipal legislation” when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.”

        WRT your second paragraph;
        Society isn’t civilized and never will be due to the nature of the human condition and its propensity towards violence. This fact is why people need weapons to defend themselves from any individual who would do them harm.

        WRT your third paragraph;

        It’s hardly hubris to read in your own words and be able to deduce that you are uninformed about this particular subject.

      • Nancy B

        LOL. Cruikshank has been unrecognizably muddled in the generations since it was adjudicated. Most of it a horrible politically racist decision that made a mess of things. A prime example of why we have to revisit the Constitution more often.
        Re civilized society: sorry you have such a terrible viewpoint. You appear not to have a grasp on the term in the sociological context . Naturally, there are individuals who are not civil. And as I already stated, self protection is necessary. But that does not define a civilized society.
        Re your hubris: it shines brightly.
        Have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        “LOL. Cruikshank has been unrecognizably muddled in the generations since it was adjudicated. Most of it a horrible politically racist decision that made a mess of things. A prime example of why we have to revisit the Constitution more often”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ad lapidem nonsense^^^^^^^^^^^^

        “sorry you have such a terrible viewpoint.”

        History is filled with examples of societies being violent and to date none of that has changed. In fact history is a nonstop Ode to the violence of mankind.

        “You appear not to have a grasp on the term in the sociological context .”

        ^^^^^^^^^^^ad hominem^^^^^^^^^^^^

        “Naturally, there are individuals who are not civil.”

        Contradiction to your previous statement, and the exact reason self defense ans use of arms are still necessary.

        “Re your hubris: it shines brightly.”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^ad hominem^^^^^^^^^^^^

      • Nancy B

        You are citing an antiquated decision that has been mostly vitiated by subsequent court decisions. So the source lacks credibility in this argument. Happy now? I thought that was intuitive. But apparently not.
        Aaaaaand, you are misusing the term “ad hominem” in both cases. In one I was pointing out that you don’t seem to understand a term as defined in the context I was using it. No attack on you, just that your seeming lack of understanding on the topic was clouding the issue (you seemed to have no problem commenting in the same manner regarding me and the OP). From your latest response, you still seem confused by it. So I won’t beat this dead horse any longer.
        In the last, just an affirmation of my opinion on the nature of your statement on your perception of my area of knowledge. Nothing more.

      • Charles Vincent

        Lacks credibility according you.
        Moreover since you mentioned it what cases Invalidate that ruling?

        You are not aware of the variety of flavors of ad hominem
        This statement by you “You appear not to have a grasp on the term in the sociological context .”
        Is a back handed way of calling me stupid. had this conversation many times and had my labeling it as ad hominem confirmed by multiple sources.

        “(you seemed to have no problem commenting in the same manner regarding me and the OP).”

        Saying you are uninformed isn’t calling you stupid, many smart people make uninformed decisions this doesn’t make them stupid it means they don’t have the right information.

      • Charles Vincent

        just for giggles ;

        Let us not insult the free and
        gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would

        be less able to defend the rights
        of which they would be in actual possession than the

        debased subjects of arbitrary
        power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their

        oppressors.

        James Madison, Federalist # 46

        It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favour of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.
        Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations, “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
        Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
        But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
        If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
        I go further and affirm thatbills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous.
        They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
        Why, for instance, should it besaid that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer aregulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, tomen disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.They might urge with a semblanceof reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providingagainst the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 84

      • Pete Flanagan

        I love how gun grabbers always resort to the “yelling fire in a theater” claptrap. Gun control is essentially prior restraint. Thus, if we were to apply gun control theory to theater goers, then a muzzle would be applied to everyone entering the theater. Of course, that would make eating popcorn difficult, but at least nobody would run the risk of being trampled to death.
        Nancy’s “civilized society” strawman actually goes further in supporting gun rights than it does in supporting gun control. A truly civilized society would not need gun control because peaceful citizens wouldn’t be shooting each other – they could possess as many guns as they want and peacefully coexist. Why? Because, by definition, they’re civilized.
        On the other hand, gun control would make an uncivilized society even more uncivilized as the miscreants preyed mercilessly on unarmed good citizens.
        I just wish that, once and for all, gun grabbers like Nancy would finally fess up that they hate guns and the people who own them. But, we won’t hear that from Nancy and her ilk because they are too “civilized” to admit to their hatred.

      • Nancy B

        You know, I was all ready to respond “civilly” to the points in your rant, even though my eyes usually glaze over when I see the childish “gun-grabber” rhetoric. You actually made some good points among your logic failures. But then I got to your last paragraph. No, I don’t hate my daughter, son-in-law, brothers, aunt, nephew, and niece, and other assorted friends and family members, and have no problem with them owning their guns. I would get one myself if I weren’t characteristically so careless with my belongings. It’s irrational people like you – who pigeonhole people in shallow, general terms – owning guns that worries me.

      • Pete Flanagan

        Thank you, I waited with bated breath for your “civil” response – a response which has given us all greater insight into your neurosis.
        The operative phrase here comes in your closing words, “…worries me.” It seems that you transfer your admitted irresponsibility regarding firearm ownership to the rest of us and then worry that we will err by exhibiting the very behaviors which you fear that you yourself will exhibit. As might be expected, you attempt to soothe your worry with self righteous indignation and delusions of infallibility when it comes to the topic of safe firearm ownership.
        From your self-ordained position as expert on all things gun, it’s easy for you to dismiss defense of gun rights as “childish.” Your protests notwithstanding, the gun control movement is all about grabbing guns and not even you, oh holy one, can walk back that fact.
        It’s amusing how you employ the, “…some of my best friends are Black” logic in an attempt to bolster your credibility on gun ownership. However, your ploy backfires since you’ve thereby demonstrated that you are greatly outnumbered by friends and family who do not share your paranoia about guns.
        It’s equally amusing to see how you again transfer blame for your predicament to others. In fact, it is you that have “pigeonholed” yourself by holding an irrational and unpopular position on firearm ownership. Again, your delusions of infallibility are the root of the scorn you feel for those who do not agree with you.
        I’m certain that your next “civil” response will again be pregnant with diversions, ad hominem, and invective. However, none of these devices will cloud the fact that gun control is unnecessary and unworkable.

      • Nancy B

        More irrationality. So many assumptions and misdirections here, it’s laughable. But mainly, I did not dismiss defense of gun rights as childish. I dismissed your close-minded rhetoric and stance. Most of us do not want to “grab your guns”. That’s simply NRA brainwashing.
        I did not employ the “some of my best friends are Black” logic. Even though, living on an island that is 85% Black, some of my best friends really ARE Black. I simply was refuting your statement that I hate guns and gun owners by pointing out that I do not hate my own flesh and blood, nor their decisions to own firearms.
        I transferred no blame. I am not paranoid about guns. I recognize my own shortcomings. Period.
        Re ad-hominem: Calling me neurotic? Delusional? Paranoid? All I did was call out your overused and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Project much?
        Now, unless you have anything substantial and rational to contribute to the original post, instead of armchair psychoanalyzing me, I’m done here.

    • Pete Flanagan

      OK, so name me one purpose you serve. Thanks in advance.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        what kind of a douche comes to a 5 day old post for this?
        But ok.
        A. I am active duty Army with more than 20 years of service and have been deployed twice to places you will never go. How’s that for you?

  • Nancy B

    I haven’t been able to see the tweets you place in your articles for over a week now. Did something change on your end? I can see them on other sites.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      I can access them fine. Might be your browser.

  • bestfriend

    This is pretty weak. The tweet was not ‘mocking’ it was pointing out a fact about the man who shot her. Then you suggest that people should have questioned his right to own a weapon because of his ‘personal beliefs’. Really? I can’t imagine you mean that.

    And then there’s this “Because the fact is, if we were making it more difficult for people to purchase guns, maybe
    Loughner wouldn’t have been able to get his hands on one” “Maybe”! Lame

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      I absolutely question his right to own a weapon and anyone who comes to the defense of the NRA for standing up for Jared Loughner’s rights, or anyone who is mocking Gabby Gifford.

      • bestfriend

        You can do that. Jared still has rights even if he has committed a crime, and they should be stood up for. And, being the victim of a crime does not provide you immunity from being mocked for your beliefs. Though, I could see how people might not want to hurt her feelings due to the horror of what happened to her.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        and there you have it. Woman shot in the head and children slaughtered mean nothing to people like you. You just turn your back and go about your business. This is exactly what is wrong with this country.

      • bestfriend

        Have you dropped everything since this shooting, or any other? Now that you know exactly what’s wrong spread the word. Doing something that doesn’t work is doing something, I guess.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        red herring, argumentum ad populum

      • bestfriend

        Whoa, Yous edumucated!

      • Charles Vincent

        moral high ground fallacy

      • Jim Bean

        (?) That’s also the definition of the word ‘Liberal’ if I am not mistaken.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really. I believe they have good intentions they just fail to grasp certain logical facts that make their intention unfriendly to personal liberty.

      • Jim Bean

        I think I’ll disagree in part. Consider Obama’s proposed ammunition ban. That isn’t designed to address any actual problem. That’s just a liberal throwing a turd at people he doesn’t like.

      • Charles Vincent

        That particular ban wont fly because it isn’t in the presidents or the BATF’s purview to legislate that power is solely congress’. I should have said they have good intentions it’s their follow through that fails. As the saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        observational selection fallacy.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong I didn’t cherry pick data.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        I see now. You don’t use data but pretend to and then overgeneralize. Gotcha.

      • Charles Vincent

        argumentum absurdum chief, you’re using logical fallacy arguments incorrectly.
        Not cherry picking data(which is what you suggested with “observational selection fallacy.”) is not the same as you claiming I don’t use data, when I said I didn’t cherry pick data sets to support my argument nor is it generalizing.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        ahhhhh, there is Jim. I knew you couldn’t quit me

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        good use of nominal fallacy

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really it’s my opinion of the problem and its based on empirical data observed right here on this site.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        empirical data? When do conservatives ever use empirical data? BTW, what is with the existential fallacies you are so fond of?

      • Charles Vincent

        Re point one prove that the majority of conservatives don’t use empirical data.

        RE point two again you’re misusing logical fallacy arguments. because liberals and progressives and democrats as a “class” exist and have members.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        so you must think that if you attach a name to something you have power over the person, right? Your opinions are somehow valid but others’ are a result of some logical fallacy….how much time per day do you spend being a douche troll?

      • Charles Vincent

        No They are the basis of logical argumentation and debate and being able to recognize when others use them makes it easier to call them on their BS.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        The mere fact that he is a registered democrat should have been reason enough to ban him from owning a gun, however Gffords was fortunate that she was a democrat politician and nothing got in the way of the round. A Conservative would have been killed for sure.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Crumudgeon is yet another wacko that should never be allowed to own a weapon.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Not that you might know how to use them you should be prohibited from owing a knife, fork and spoon.

    • Charles Vincent

      I believe they call then Straw man arguments red herrings and circular reasoning

      • bestfriend

        Is that anything like ‘bullshit’?

      • Charles Vincent

        More like outright lies in Allens case.

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    For some reason, gun nuts think the 2nd Amendment means they can intimidate others from exercising their 1st Amendment rights by threats of violence, specifically abridging freedom of speech. Anyone who uses a weapon to intimidate a person from speaking out against guns should not be allowed to own any weapon because they have no respect for our country, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

    • Jim Bean

      Anyone who threatens some one with gun has committed a crime. I certainly hope you reported your experience(s) to authorities.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        gun nuts don’t scare me, they only like to intimidate ladies at starbucks

  • Jim Bean

    – – – – The tweet provided a great argument as to why we need tighter regulations on guns. In fact, it gave an answer to a question I often ask gun nuts, “How can someone tell a ‘good guy with a gun’ from a ‘bad guy with a gun’ prior to the ‘bad guy’ shooting someone?”- – – – – –

    But doesn’t that actually indicate just the opposite? That the regulations are pointless because what is a good guy today can be a bad one tomorrow?. . . . .unless . . . . . . unless the authors angle is, ‘since no one can tell who might become a bad guy tomorrow, no one should be permitted to own a gun ever.

  • labman57

    Once again, the NRA leadership demonstrates that it has bullets for brains.

    The NRA’s argument makes as much sense as claiming that — because some people die in car crashes while wearing their seat belts — laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts serve no purpose and should therefore be repealed.

  • Devin D.

    “This tells us a lot about Gun Control” (states a single assumption).

    I believe you have “straw-manned” this “tweet issue” far beyond any reasonable individuals comprehension…