Anyone Notice the Silence from the NRA on Ferguson?

Filed in National by on August 21, 2014

After most of America’s high profile shootings, you can count on the NRA to immediately get their PR Offensive on — using tragic incidents to extend their lobbying for the gun manufacturers who call the tune over there now and to do even more fundraising. All of this is focused around pushing back on any common sense controls on weapons and advocating that more of us carry — so that everyday can be the OK Corral or some such. But for this — a cop shooting an unarmed kid over jaywalking — they’ve been pretty quiet. It is a surprise, because you’d think that they’d see the government tyranny that they keep insisting that people need guns for and would be out defending this community that is clearly pushing back against that tyranny. As Cliff Schecter points out in the Daily Beast:

The National Rifle Association has been warning us about the threat of a heavily-armed and dangerous government crushing dissent for decades. Their leader, Wayne LaPierre, even referred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as “jack-booted thugs.”

Their dystopian nightmare sounds exactly like what’s happening in Ferguson, Missouri.

Yet somehow, the NRA seems to have missed the whole thing with the SWAT teams and the tank-like vehicles and the snipers and the LRAD sound cannon and the tear gas and the rubber bullets being trained on unarmed Americans. Not a peep from LaPierre on this extended assault on citizens of Ferguson, at least that I can find.

Right? The dystopian nightmare that they’ve been selling as a reason to be scared of your government is happening right now and these people can’t be bothered to defend this community. Wonder why?

Then there’s Cory Pein over at The Baffler, who asks the same question (making note that the other “defenders of freedom”, libertarians and teajhadis have been MIA from this conversation, too):

But libertarians aren’t the half of it. The most telling silence in recent days has come from that timid, mouselike, ever-genteel lobbying organization, the National Rifle Association. The NRA is bigger than libertarianism, bigger than the Tea Party, and indeed in some respects is more effective than the Republican Party itself, given the loyalty the NRA commands among diehard followers and the deference granted to it by politicians, even some who support gun control.

It was only five years ago that NRA chief Wayne LaPierre delivered a characteristically demented performance at CPAC, the national conservative conference, endorsing the so-called “insurrectionist” interpretation of the Second Amendment. This interpretation maintains that the fundamental purpose of civilian gun ownership is to enable citizens to protect themselves from their own government. “Only the Second Amendment breathes life into liberty,” LaPierre said to an adoring audience. And then:

Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind until it’s guarded by the blue steel and dried powder of a free and armed people. . . . It’s not politically correct, but I don’t care if their butts pucker from here to the Potomac: Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.

LaPierre also claimed that the trend of rising gun sales amid historic recession demonstrates this hunger for freedom, security, and empowerment:

Americans all over this country are saying, “I will fight for my family, I will fight for my neighborhood and I will fight for my freedom from tyranny, from crime and from any threat in any form.”

At this year’s CPAC conference, LaPierre revisited those themes. “The NRA proudly stands for the America we all want. Where we can speak and gather as we choose,” he said.

One would think, given his views on freedom of assembly and the importance of democratized violence, that LaPierre would be shouting through a megaphone for the besieged citizens of Ferguson to powder their muskets and cry liberty! (For the record, I think that is a terrible idea. More guns will only make an already horrifying situation more dangerous and deadly. My point is that the images from Ferguson, so strikingly reminiscent of cities under armed occupation elsewhere around the world, would seem to present an ideal opportunity for grandstanding by Second Amendment absolutists.)

Even our Canadian neighbors find the NRA’s hypocritical absence here pretty glaring:

It’s why the NRA’s silence in the tear-gas wake of Ferguson, Mo., is so telling. The four-day police operation following the police shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown has essentially shut down the city of 21,000. The resulting images are a gun-obsessed paranoiac’s nightmare made flesh: Phalanxes of flak-jacketed police officers line the streets, firing tear gas and pointing assault weapons at unarmed citizens, often with tank-like police vehicles behind them. Dozens of people have been arrested, including journalists and municipal politicians, and a media camera crew had its camera forcibly turned off and its equipment torn down. The “jack-booted thugs” haven’t just stormed a private residence or seized a compound—they’ve taken over an entire city.

And yet, there hasn’t been a peep from the NRA about the incident. The Gun Owners of America, the NRA’s even more paranoid offshoot, mentions Missouri only to congratulate citizen gun owners there. Former congressman Ron Paul spends much of his time regaling his flock about big-government abuses when he isn’t giving away assault weapons or asking for money. He, too, has been mum. (A blog post on his website, not written by Paul, decries the “militarization of police,” but chides protestors for not remaining calm.)

This seemingly perfect spectacle for NRA outrage—the shooting of an unarmed man, cops with outsized weapons, mass arrests—is flawed for one reason: Michael Brown was African-American. As such, he doesn’t fit the profile of the typical NRA member and, apparently, doesn’t warrant the group’s paranoid rage it has displayed in the case of Randy Weaver, a known racist who was armed to the teeth at the time of the standoff. The NRA’s lack of rhetoric about Michael Brown, like Trayvon Martin before him, speaks volumes about the group’s other reigning paranoia, this one, race-based.

The NRA doesn’t give a damn about government tyranny until the government tries to make it harder for their constituency to sell more guns.

nra and race

Tags: , , ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (53)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mouse says:

    The NRA is about appealing to angry white paranoid rubes in service to gun manufacturers. Ferguson doesn’t meet their criteria

  2. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    I’d hope that they were waiting for clarity before they rant, but I know better. Nice observation on the missing Goliath.

  3. pandora says:

    You’re correct, ATIAM, because the NRA always waits for clarity… oh wait.

  4. kavips says:

    Genius… All we have to do to get responsible gun control through Congress, is give black people unlimited access to guns. Why didn’t anyone think of this earlier?

  5. Steve Newton says:

    As for libertarians being MIA from this discussion … boatload of misleading crap.

    Here’s the FB of the national chair of the LPD–aside from the usual family-type posts, please note that the Libertarian Party has been all over this issue from Day One.

  6. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    You might be right about the LPD being all over this but the Facebook link you provided is dead:

    This content is currently unavailable.

    The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.

  7. mouse says:

    Automatic weapons for all black people now!

  8. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Why limit it to blacks? Bushmasters for everyone – how could the NRA say no.

  9. bamboozer says:

    The last line sums it up, the goal is to sell guns. Ferguson and the police response also are loaded with dynamite from a PR perspective, coming days will be interesting to watch, I predict massive hypocrisy and lies.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    This is what Pein has to say about the libertarian response:

    Some libertarians have responded, unpersuasively, that, yes, they are talking about Ferguson, albeit in very constricted terms. Libertarians are happy to talk about police militarization, but they’d prefer not to talk about institutional racism, because racism is a problem for which they have no answers, and when the subject comes up, their shoes tend to get messy.

    Which seems about right from what I’ve read so far. What I’ve read even of

    Republican David says:

    I don’t get what your point is. Why would the NRA be involved in this? Was there an effort to deprive Michael Brown of his rights to bear arms? Obviously the NRA is not about police rights to bear arms so it seems they have dog in the hunt as an organization.

    As for the open carry bill in 1967, you don’t think things have changed in 47 years? The NRA used to be for a lot of compromises. It used to be more about being a super gun and sportsmans club but then came the rise of Gun Owners of America dedicated to uncompromisingly protecting the rights of Gun Owners. The NRA lost most of a million members to them. They changed boards more than 20 years ago and stopped taking a mentality of how many rights can we tolerate giving up and fought to win as many rights as they could. They grew dramatically, won elections, and changed public opinion. The NRA had history, funding from the industry, and a national lobbying force.

    The NRA has been at the forefront of fighting for the rights of blacks and hispanics to self defense in public housing, in the cities, and everywhere. Today’s NRA is not a white man’s sportsman club. It is a broad coalition of men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos, and everyone concerned about their 2nd Amendment rights. That is why it has become so effective even in suburbia where its candidates used to get buried.

  11. Republican David says:

    I personally have kept my silence on the Brown case because I don’t know the facts. One story was all that was told. I waited for the other side. It turned out the star witness was a thief who had interests in changing the story as he may have been an accomplice to a strong arm robbery minutes earlier with Brown. Then the officer’s story comes out backed by a reasonable reading of physical evidence. It looks as if the officer was the victim and may have barely escaped with his life. Then we get conflicting witnesses and it seems no one really knows what happened outside of those involved and their stories are diametrically opposed. I am content with letting an investigation take place not having a mob rule.

    Some police officers are irresponsible people who shouldn’t have a badge and a gun. Most are honorable people who serve us with their heart, soul and mind every day. They are the thin blue line between order and disorder. They deserve the presumption of innocence just like everyone else. They shouldn’t be punished for their service. Of course of they are found to have abused that public trust, they should be held to a higher standard.

  12. Republican David says:

    When the emotions die down a little bit more, I would like to engage in a broader discussion of how do we make a stronger connection with law enforcement and the black community, why it is weak, and why it is important to change. There is 350 years of history that has not been exemplary with law enforcement enforcing unjust laws on blacks. That doesn’t disappear overnight, but it is the 21st century. It is time we chart a new course together because blacks are the ones suffering the most from the lack of that connection.

  13. Geezer says:

    “It looks as if the officer was the victim and may have barely escaped with his life.”

    Not to most people it doesn’t. That looks like typical police ass-covering to most people who aren’t apologists for authority.

    Your “history” of the NRA is also exactly the load of crap I’d expect from a GOP apologist. You’re a hopeless quisling.

  14. Geezer says:

    “Why limit it to blacks?”

    To highlight the hypocrisy of most people on the right. You excepted, of course.

  15. Ain't Taking it Any More says:

    Republican Dave’s suggestion to discuss law enforcement’s “350 years of history that has not been exemplary with law enforcement enforcing unjust laws on blacks” is a good one.

    Start a thread.

  16. Davy says:


    The goals of the NRA changed about 30-40 years ago:

    Don’t think anyone would label Michael Waldman as a “GOP apologist.”

  17. Geezer says:

    Dave: Yes, I know. What I’m calling BS on is David’s version of that history, which is written from the gun-nut hysteric’s point of view.

  18. Truth Teller says:

    I love reading the news where GUN NUTS shoot themselves and others while teaching gun safety

  19. Dana says:

    There is a possibility that Michael Brown had a juvenile record, which, if true, would have disallowed him from owning a firearm, period, something with which the National Rifle Association agrees. But even if it turns out that Mr Brown did not have a juvenile record, we’ve all seen the videotape of him robbing a convenience store; formal criminal record or not, the NRA certainly isn’t going to defend someone caught on tape robbing a store.

  20. cassandra_m says:

    But even if it turns out that Mr Brown did not have a juvenile record, we’ve all seen the videotape of him robbing a convenience store; formal criminal record or not,

    And some of us have seen the videotape prior — which seems to show that Brown paid for his Rellos.

    Still, you make my point here. That the NRA is AOK with jack-booted government thugs shooting Americans even for petty crimes. And if Brown stole those Rellos, that is a petty crime and no one should be shot for that. And in spite of the fact that the NRA defends criminals all of the time (they never met a Straw Purchasers law that they would support, defending the rights of those who would buy guns illegally for others), the NRA doesn’t need to defend Brown. They *should* be condemning the out of control government that points its weaponry on its citizens to get them to shut up.

  21. pandora says:

    “They *should* be condemning the out of control government that points its weaponry on its citizens to get them to shut up.”

    Which is one of the NRA’s main marketing strategies, no? It’s one of their main reasons for an armed citizenship, right?

    They don’t even need to support/mention Mike Brown to take a stand on this issue, right? And, yet, they remain silent.

  22. cassandra_m says:

    And in the meantime, UK police fired a total of 3 shots against their citizens in the last 2 years.

    3 shots fewer than those that hit Michael Brown.

  23. Dave says:

    @C, your link does not seem to work. Regardless, here is official source data for the same:

  24. cassandra_m says:

    Thanks, Dave, I fixed that link.

  25. Liberal Elite says:

    @p “They don’t even need to support/mention Mike Brown to take a stand on this issue, right? And, yet, they remain silent.”

    Because their other pitch is based on rank racism. It would help to confuse the pitiable dupes.

  26. xyz says:

    Not a petty crime. Assault on the shopkeeper makes it a felony.

    And, in other news, turns out that key witness Dorian Johnson is a convicted thief and has lied to police in the past.

  27. cassandra_m says:

    Trying to impeach the victim doesn’t change the fact that Brown was stopped for Jaywalking. A petty crime. The cop that stopped him had no knowledge of the store incident.

    Interesting that there are people here who think that there ARE some Americans who should live with the jack-booted government thugs.

  28. pandora says:

    I find it interesting that the only people claiming to know what happened between Wilson and Brown are RWNJs.

    I’ll also point out that the “shopkeeper” didn’t call 911 to report the alleged crime.

    And here’s something everyone should read. I’ll include a snippet. It’s worth your time.

    I keep coming back to what seems to me to be the most inhumane thing of all, the inhumane thing that happened before the rage began to rise, and before the backlash began to build, and before the cameras and television lights, and before the tear gas and the stun grenades and the chants and the prayers. I keep coming back to the one image that was there before the international event began, before it became a television show and a symbol in flames and something beyond what it was in the first place. I keep coming back to one simple moment, one ghastly fact. One image, from which all the other images have flowed.

    They left the body in the street.

    Dictators leave bodies in the street.

    Petty local satraps leave bodies in the street.

    Warlords leave bodies in the street.

    A police officer shot Michael Brown to death. And they left his body in the street. For four hours. Bodies do not lie in the street for four hours. Not in an advanced society. Bodies lie in the street for four hours in small countries where they have perpetual civil war. Bodies lie in the street for four hours on back roads where people fight over the bare necessities of simple living, where they fight over food and water and small, useless parcels of land. Bodies lie in the street for four hours in places in which poor people fight as proxies for rich people in distant places, where they fight as proxies for the men who dig out the diamonds, or who drill out the oil, or who set ancient tribal grudges aflame for modern imperial purposes that are as far from the original grudges as bullets are from bows. Those are the places where they leave bodies in the street, as object lessons, or to make a point, or because there isn’t the money to take the bodies away and bury them, or because nobody gives a damn whether they are there or not. Those are the places where they leave bodies in the street.

    Bodies are not left in the streets of the leafy suburbs. The bodies of dogs and cats, or squirrels and raccoons, let alone the bodies of children, are not left in the streets of the leafy suburbs. No bodies are left in the streets of the financial districts. Freeze to death on a bench in the financial districts and you are whisked away before your inconvenient body can disturb the folks in line at the Starbucks across the street. But the body of a boy can be left in the street for four hours in a place like Ferguson, Missouri, and who knows whether it was because people wanted to make a point, or because nobody gave a damn whether he was there or not. Ferguson, Missouri was a place where they left a body in the street. For four hours. And the rage rose, and the backlash built, and the cameras arrived, and so did the cops, and the thing became something beyond what it was in the first place. And, in a very real way, in the streets of Ferguson, the body was still in the street.

    This probably deserves its own post. I’m sure xyz, and others, have an answer to this.

  29. Aint's Taking it Any More says:


    RWNJ’s are not the only ones that seem to have nailed it all together. The throng of demonstrators, and of course the looters, have figured it all out. They ain’t marching because Wilson was acting in self-defense. They’ve marching because Wilson was a racists cop that killed an unarmed black man. Those in the know-it-all are, however, worried. There is published concern that the grand jury might NOT indict Wilson. The is a hypocrisy so rank that it defies any measure of a civilized society.

    Maybe instead of knowing it all – either way – we collectively hope that the investigation is conducted impartially by honorable, talented people, with openness and, most importantly, without perception of taint.

    If the process unfolds objectively, and Wilson is indicted, then so be it. Let the prosecution begin in earnest. Let the political chips fall as they may.

    On the other hand, if Wilson is not indicted, then so be it.

  30. cassandra_m says:

    They’ve marching because Wilson was a racists cop that killed an unarmed black man.


    For someone who keeps whinging about critical thinking and getting all of the information, you are remarkably quick to substitute your own stereotypes and privileged for thinking.

    The protesters are in the street because one unarmed black man was gunned down for jaywalking. They are in the street because one unarmed black man was subject to a level of police surveillance and violence that unarmed white people are not subject to. They are in the street because the police refuse to deal with them as human beings, which would make them invoke the training they get in dealing with humans.

    Whether Brown stole from that store or not is completely immaterial to ALL of that. Because the man who shot up the movie theater in Colorado (killing and hurting people!) was taken by the police ALIVE. The looters are a distraction to this too — since most of them are from out of town, but they aren’t helping the situation. But pushing back against tyrannical government is supposed to be our right. And a government who thinks it is OK to shoot unarmed black people over jaywalking.

  31. ben says:

    The pro-Wilson crowd seems to have one point… and that is “we havent heard his side of the story”
    there was ample time. Every time the police kill someone, it is typical that the public get’s their side right away. Because it is no small thing for the state to kill someone.
    The Ferstapo didnt even release the killer’s name until public outrage had boiled over. That is all the side of his story we should need. That his actions were so indefensible, his PD hasn’t even really tried to mount a public defense.

  32. cassandra_m says:

    But they have been conducting a smear campaign against Brown and various eye-witnesses.

  33. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Absolutely, positively NOT pro Wilson. Ain’t apologizing for the police. In Ferguson, their post-shooting behavior has been utterly deployable. I’m just holding judgment – nothing more.

    Don’t understand the reference here: “They are in the street because one unarmed black man was subject to a level of police surveillance and violence that unarmed white people are not subject to.” Is your point that a police officer would never ask a jaywalking white guy to get out of the middle of the street? If so, that’s an awfully big observation that sounds like it was ground out of the Ferguson narrative.

    With the DOJ looking over everyone’s should, and the press (not Gannett of course) shadowing the process, I hope that witness intimidation is a non-factor.

    I don’t know what to make of the suggestion that there is damned meaning in the police failure to get Wilson’s story out. Its as crazy as suggesting that Benjamin Crump, the Brown’s attorney, decision to withhold releasing the Brown’s privately commissioned autopsy can ONLY mean it doesn’t support the hands in the air surrendering story line. More likely other reasons explain their respective conduct.

  34. pandora says:

    Wait… what? The privately commissioned autopsy was released close to a week ago. So what exactly are you referring to when you say, “Its as crazy as suggesting that Benjamin Crump, the Brown’s attorney, decision to withhold releasing the Brown’s privately commissioned autopsy can ONLY mean it doesn’t support the hands in the air surrendering story line.”

    And, yet again, you claim to know the protesters’ motivation while calling on everyone else to hold judgement.

    And if you believe the outcry was only about Mike Brown then you haven’t been paying attention.

  35. cassandra_m says:

    Is your point that a police officer would never ask a jaywalking white guy to get out of the middle of the street?

    The point is that a police officer is alot less likely to shoot an unarmed white guy who was *just* jaywalking.

  36. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    You are likely correct that the police are more likely to hassle a jaywalking black man.

    And you’re sure that a jaywalking offence is what explains why Mr. Brown was gunned down? I know you’ve read news accounts – I do not know if they are accurate – that Mr. Brown assaulted the police officer upon being asked to get off the street. If you choose to believe that account, then does it matter that Mr. Brown was a black man or not? Right.

  37. ben says:

    It still all circles back to….
    The only way multiple cops… who are armed with more weapons than just their deadly manhood stand-ins… couldn’t come up with another way of subduing an unarmed kid who was only AT BEST a “person of interest”, other than shooting him 6 times…. (twice in the head) You dont event need to know WHY OR IF arresting him was the proper thing to do in the first place.

    Nothing else matters. Race of the killed kid aside, (not that it doesnt matter, because it clearly plays a part…. but for the purpose of this exercise) it shows a disgusting lack of training, discipline and professionalism on the part of the cops. Every other new bit of information makes their case worse.

  38. pandora says:

    Hmm… no comment on the privately commissioned autopsy that you claimed wasn’t released? Perhaps you aren’t following this situation as closely as you should.

    You focus on the protesters (who you say are: “…marching because Wilson was a racists cop that killed an unarmed black man.”) and the looting. Why is that?

    Watch this video and then ask yourself if your 9 year old son would have exited the car with his hands up – without being instructed to do so. Mine wouldn’t have.

    And have you watched the latest STL shooting? You okay with that?

    And what about this:

    Police are offering a strange explanation of the death of 22-year-old Victor White III, a New Iberia, Louisiana man who allegedly shot and killed himself while in custody. According to State Police, White managed to smuggle a gun into a police cruiser and, despite his hands being cuffed behind him, shoot himself in the back.

    White, an African-American man, was arrested in March of this year on narcotics charges. Police say that he refused to enter the police cruiser, so the arresting officer went to get help. When he returned, he found White in the back seat of the cruiser critically wounded from a gunshot wound to his back in an area of the parking lot with no security cameras to back up this wild story.

    Despite police assertions, the autopsy report states that the bullet entered White’s chest, perforated his left lung, and exited his armpit area–a feat that would prove difficult if a person’s hands are cuffed behind his back. However, the report still lists his death as a suicide, changed from accidental shooting. The report also revealed that White suffered a blow to his face, listed as two upper facial abrasions near his left eye.

    I could go on all day.

  39. Geezer says:

    You keep refusing to understand that Michael Brown was the last incident in a long string of incidents. The reason the people of Ferguson have not waited for more information: That’s long been the way the authorities have evaded responsibility. The vast majority of police shootings and brutality come back as justified, even when they clearly are not, and the race of the victim makes little if any difference.

    Consider the case of the Rehoboth Police, who were filmed kicking the head of a handcuffed suspect who was lying on the ground. The “investigation” found the kicks to the head justified because, according to the officer, the man in handcuffs was trying to bite him.

    In Ferguson, we have the case of the man charged with bleeding on officers’ uniforms after being struck in the head by the police.

    To the blacks in Ferguson, waiting for the investigation is not rational; it’s the beginning of a cover-up.

    I realize you don’t understand this. What I question is whether you’re making a good-faith effort at trying. You seem instead to be demanding that other people, including many with far more at stake than you have, sit back and analyze this as unemotionally as you do.

    You have no standing to make such a demand, so you are best ignored.

  40. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    And you my lily white friend are too willing to believe that the worst happened with nothing more than one black, one white person.

    You were going to tell me about that long string of incidents but then you were, at first, at work and then too lazy to follow through. I still await. The best you’ve told anyone is anecdotal “Johnny said” or “Johnny did” and white flight and a beaten black man charged with bleeding on the beater uniform.

    Please ignore me. Intelligent conversation will resume in your absence. Disagreement does not make fools, it reveals them as it has revealed you.

  41. pandora says:

    He should ignore you, since you’ve ignored everything I’ve said on this post (and I understand why, since you were wrong about the autopsy) and every link I’ve posted. I’ve supplied what you’re asking Geezer for. What say you?

  42. Geezer says:

    I’m not at all interested in what happened between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson. That’s the part you don’t get. Michael Brown’s lack of standing as a perfect victim is not the story.

    Here, start with this:

    You can find, literally, more than you could read in a day if you’d bother to look. You wanted statistics; they’re out there, for how many blacks vs. whites in Ferguson are stopped by police, etc.

    You don’t see this because you don’t want to see it. You want to “win” the internet, and you don’t care about the reality for any black person in Ferguson except the dead one. And no, I’m not reading your mind. You display your asshole attitude with every self-righteous post.

    Oh, and fuck yourself, too.

  43. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Another obscenity laced insult. Go Geezer go!

  44. LeBay says:

    @Aint’s Taking it Any More-

    2 “obscenities” in 104 words does not make an “obscenity laced” insult.

    Please read Geezer’s post and the link he provided and refute whatever you think is refutable.

    Or shut the fucking fuck fuck fucking fuck up.

    THAT’S an obscenity laced insult, you fucking moron.

  45. Geezer says:

    Most of it wasn’t insulting at all. That interpretation just furthers the evidence that you can’t or won’t read the things you claim people won’t provide for you. Or were you under the impression there was some sort of prize for not cursing on the internet?

    As noted before, you’re just a troll, albeit one pretending to be rational and reasonable. You’re so dumb you don’t even realize that I agree with you that we don’t have enough evidence to condemn Darren Wilson.

  46. dgt says:

    What I find interesting is that we never hear the lives that have been saved as a result of owning a gun. Would be nice for those with an agenda to present both sides. What is the first line of defense when one is breaking into your home? Gun ownership until the police arrive. What is the first line of defense when thugs are breaking into your store front to loot while the police were told to stand down. Present both sides. Guns are not the problem.

  47. liberalgeek says:

    dgt – of course you do. The NRA and its apologists wave the story around for 2 weeks every time it happens (about twice a year). I’d love for the NRA to start screaming for better gun security ad/or education every time some kid shot himself or his little sister, but I guess they’d have to spend all of their time doing that once they started.

  48. Geezer says:

    “What is the first line of defense when one is breaking into your home? ”

    Not a gun. Sorry.

  49. Aint's Taking it Any More says:


    Real brainiac. You strung the same obscenity together 5 times in one sentence!! What’s next using five different crayons in your coloring book?

    Instead of proving you an idiot, try expanding your vocabulary.

  50. Aint's Taking it Any More says:


    In all my years, I’ve never seen someone so gracefully master double speak as shamelessly as you. You have the hutzpah to write:

    “You’re so dumb you don’t even realize that I agree with you that we don’t have enough evidence to condemn Darren Wilson.”

    Where in all the brilliance you’ve spewed here, on this subject, or on any of the several Ferguson-related threads, could anyone find such utterances from you? Examples to the contrary abound.

    You’ve been relentless and strident in arguing that the protestor were justified. How could they be justified if Mr. Wilson isn’t guilty of some wrong? Just cause?

    You’ve been unequivocal that the police are covering-up events leading to Mr. Brown’s death. Doesn’t it strike even you

    You’ve schooled me that waiting is not an option for blacks in Ferguson. Do you mean to say waiting to condemn or vindicate Mr. Wilson is pointless because there no time to wait either way the protests are starting at sundown? Is that what you are saying?

    You’ve written so many things here that are intrinsically inconsistent with any sense that you, of all people, believes Mr. Wilson might be vindicated.

    Scream, insult, use profanity but for the sake of your own integrity don’t bleach your shit white.

  51. pandora says:

    Geezer, and others, have never claimed that there’s enough evidence to condemn Wilson. Please provide the examples to the contrary you cite.

    Again and again, Geezer has discussed Michael Brown’s killing as a tipping point.

    Could you explain this sentence? I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying.

    “Do you mean to say waiting to condemn or vindicate Mr. Wilson is pointless because there no time to wait either way the protests are starting at sundown?”