Skip to main content

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's million-dollar-a-year executive vice president who is the chief strategist behind the organization's aggressive political strategy.
Wayne LaPierre needs to rethink this one.
One of the stories we heard from anti-gun-control advocates at the Senate hearing this week was of Sarah Dawn McKinley, who fought off two intruders with her shotgun in Oklahoma in 2011. This was then embellished by witnesses into the broader assertion that good moms everywhere need to be able to have assault rifles and enough ammo to fight off entire zombie hordes.

So is McKinley on the same page as the others? Well, she is and she isn't.

I just got off the phone with Ms. McKinley, and what she told me will give a boost to people on both sides of the argument. She told me she does not favor an assault weapons ban, even though she didn’t use an assault weapon in warding off her intruders.

But Ms. McKinley said she supports the idea of expanding the background check system, telling me: “Anybody should be willing to get a background check that wants to take a gun.”

“I completely agree with background checks,” she said. “If I want a gun I have no problem getting one. I don’t see why anybody would have a problem getting a background check if they have nothing to hide.”

The NRA is so far afield on this one that even their own poster children aren't buying it. You would think the group would stomach popular things like tightening background checks in order to look more reasonable while they're battling against all the other proposals, but nope.

To help deal a blow to the NRA's continued power in Congress, Daily Kos is enthusiastically supporting Robin Kelly in the upcoming Illinois 2nd Congressional District primary. Please help by contributing $3 (or more!) to her campaign.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:00 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The main reason I don't own a gun... ? (11+ / 0-)

    A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Netroots Radio podcasts of The After Show with Wink & Justice can be found on Stitcher

    by justiceputnam on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:01:19 PM PST

  •  suppresses demand for corporate wares (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, justiceputnam, Oh Mary Oh
    You would think the group would stomach popular things like tightening background checks in order to look more reasonable while they're battling against all the other proposals, but nope.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:04:58 PM PST

    •  It makes me wonder if the gun manufacturers (6+ / 0-)

      have done a marketing analysis and determined that they would lose a significant part of the customer base ... if we had comprehensive background checks.

      What other reason could the NRA have for this common sense regulation ... that they used to support, before they became the propaganding puppet for arms industry?

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  background checks (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, historys mysteries, Oh Mary Oh

        are a form of regulation and as we know the GOP and its NRA supporters hate regulation of most things.  There's probably demand data from the first Ban-era, which is why the GOP regime let it lapse. They're happy with the broadest market possible and it's about consumption of the maximum number of firearms at any one time since some of the regulations limits over certain time periods the number that can be purchased (noting that 20% of legal firearms owners own 65% of all guns) Many FFL - holders would resent the new and additional paperwork, even if it's streamlined like it should be, or example, one of the TV reality shows on guns shows transfers of five to ten guns at a time.

        Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

        by annieli on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:37:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  However, the NRA used to be supportive of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, cocinero, notrouble, Oh Mary Oh

          the checks and the majority of their current members support them.  The switch seems to coincide with the gorsth in influence by the arms industry.  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:12:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is unlikely that enhancements to background (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr

        checks would have much impact on the manufacturers.  Currently everyone who buys from an FFL dealer is required to pass a background check.  There are a few rotten dealers, such as the one just outside of Chicago, but by and large they follow the laws.  On top of the federal laws, there are state requirements which do vary.  Some states, such as NC, require a special permit to purchase a handgun but allow long gun sales to use the federal NICS system.

        Most criminal transactions are through black markets face to face and strawman purchases.  Unless someone is engaged in gun running, buying them legally and then selling them on the black market, most of these sales won't even reflect back to the manufacturer and even if they did, the front man would be passing the background check.

        •  Do they track the number of guns someone (0+ / 0-)

          is buying?

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:55:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Theoretically no. I have my doubts however (0+ / 0-)

            I have heard from people who have an FFL and run stores report being audited and being asked to verify records that go back well more than a year.  This is supposed to be on a system that keeps track of sales and is purged after three months.  When questioned on how they had records that were supposed to be purged, the answer given was that they are supposed to SAY that the records are purged after three months.  Sure.  

            So in practice, it looks like someone does keep this information, but doesn't want anyone to know that they are doing so.  This makes it look like they are doing so for illicit purposes.

  •  She must hate the second amendment. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justiceputnam

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:05:47 PM PST

  •  When I was a deputy DA in the 1980's (13+ / 0-)

    I prosecuted a man who had shot a police officer in the neck.  The defendant and his brothers were hosting a very noisy party and neighbors called the police and complained.  The officer came to the door and knocked but no one would answer, perhaps the music was too loud to hear the knocking.  So he walked back to his car to activate the spotlight and loud speaker.  On his way, he was shot.

    Everyone at the party denied knowledge.  There may have been over 50 people there and the police had no idea who did it.  Then they found a handgun on the shoulder of the interstate less than a mile away.  Ballistics testing showed a match to the bullet removed from the officer.  The police went to the town's only gun shop.  In those days (I don't know about now), gun store owners were required to keep a log of everyone they sold a gun to.  The gun had been purchased a few days before by one of the party's hosts.  He was also the only party goer who had fled the town immediately after the shooting, and the police were able to get a warrant for his arrest.  

    At the trial, he took the stand, admitted firing the gun, but said he didn't know it was a policeman as it was dark, and he didn't try to hit him he tried to shoot into the ground.  The jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of first degree assault and not attempted murder of a police officer in the line of duty.

    My point is all guns should be registered so that whenever a gun involved in a crime is recovered it can be matched to its owner and the owner investigated if not prosecuted.  This is essential for law enforcement.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:12:25 PM PST

    •  Registration of firearms (3+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Navy Vet Terp, annieli, noway2
      Hidden by:
      reflectionsv37, WakeUpNeo

      I used to feel that I agreed with folks like the person above (Navy Vet Terp, I am a Navy Vet too), but, I have to admit that the publication of the addresses of those that have concealed carry permits has taught us all that any kind of records that are created about gun owners are just a threat to their homes and lives by irresponsible reporters and liberals that are willing to put peoples lives at risk and what have you. By the way, I do not think that all liberals would do something so irresponsible, but, I think that as long as one would and could the threat is real enough for me to be concerned about ending registration and CCP records keeping.

      Unless such records are going to be dealt with in a manner consistent with how Top Secret documents and the like are handled, gun registration and records concerning conceal carry permits will be lobbied against by gun owners for a long time to come.

      George

  •  They don't want to lose the business of felons... (5+ / 0-)

    and the insane. That would cut into gun industry profits.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:12:32 PM PST

  •  Well, be fair (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justiceputnam, second gen

    Her approach is, 'As long as no law you pass could impact me or people who are just like me, I'm fine with that law.'

    I would hardly call that virtuous.

  •  Even the originator of our own... (5+ / 0-)

    RKBA group here is opposed to mandatory background checks. In a post a day or so ago, he said he supported mandatory background checks for federally licensed dealers, and supported making the NCIS system available for public use, but sees no reason why transactions between private individuals should require a mandatory check.

    Which, if you ask me, kinda defeats the whole concept of mandatory background checks. How anyone could be opposed to this is beyond my ability to understand.

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by reflectionsv37 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:15:50 PM PST

  •  Why does the GOP/NRA want the following (2+ / 0-)

    to be able to buy guns on demand:

    Illegal aliens
    Convicted felons
    Psychotic people
    Left-handed liberals

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:21:51 PM PST

  •  They are going big, negotiation tactic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justiceputnam

    NRA is likely going way extreme, in an attempt to move the line on what is reasonable. Give ground on background checks and there's no leverage on assault gun restrictions.

  •  Another idea for discussion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Kong, notrouble, FiredUpInCA

    Background checks - "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Wouldn't you love to throw that back at the people who've given us death by drone, wiretaps without warrants, and wars of choice?

    Here's a somewhat related question. What about a requirement that all new firearms should be designed with some kind of visual indication whenever there is a round anywhere in it - in a magazine, in the chamber, etc. ? I can't see it being all that hard to do mechanically.

    You're always expected to treat any firearm as loaded, but considering how many people shoot themselves with 'empty' guns all the time, wouldn't it make sense? A friend of mine complains it might cut into the number of Darwin Awards earned each year, and I am sure there are those who would complain it would just add expense to the price and would make the gun unreliable, etc. etc. It's like helmets, airbags, and seat belts though. How would the cost compare to the lives saved and injuries prevented?   Thoughts?

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:27:05 PM PST

    •  It makes me laugh... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar
      "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
      That's why the Patriot Act is a good thing! (snark)

      New guns seem to be required to have a loaded chamber indicator. I don't know if it really is a requirement, but new pistols all seem to have it, including older designs that where produced for years without it.

      I'm an RKBA type person and I do support reasonable improvements:

      Background checks required (NICS) for all purchases. A system for this is already in place because it is required for purchases across state lines.

      Effective laws against trafficking and straw purchasers. Obstructions to the enforcement of existing firearms regulations should be eliminated.

      Mandatory reporting stolen and missing firearms. This should apply to dealers and private persons.

      Reasonable magazine capacity limits. If you are proposing less than 10 rounds I am likely to not see it as reasonable. That has been a standard number for many firearms for longer than I have been alive. This idea is not popular with significant percentage of RKBA people.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 08:57:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of guns already have that feature (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar

      by way of a visual indicator that there is a round chambered.  It still comes down to the fact that the only real gun safety is the one between your ears.

  •  would they get everyone's files or just the people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justiceputnam

    who apply for permission to buy a gun.

    If it's everyone's files this sounds a little like we are heading toward "big brother".

    •  Ever notice... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      ... those cameras at every intersection in America?

      Heading towards Big Brother?

      Big Brother has been here for decades.

      In spite of it, background checks is such a "no brainer," it boggles the mind anyone would care.

      A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Netroots Radio podcasts of The After Show with Wink & Justice can be found on Stitcher

      by justiceputnam on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:33:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it's everyone's files, is there a right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        to privacy in the Constitution? Again, I'm not asking about the people applying for permission to buy a gun, but everyone else.

        If they are going to predict future criminal behavior, don't they need more information which is probably available to them, online postings, memberships in groups, books purchased and so on. It is a slippery slope.

        •  It is easy to conflate... (0+ / 0-)

          ... to the extremes you list.

          Everyone knows background checks are going to find if the purchaser is a convicted felon who cannot purchase a gun, the buyer who has a restraining order, judicially found to be mentally incompetent, etc.

          How about we craft the statutes to address those, at least?

          A Poet is at the same time a force for Solidarity and for Solitude -- Pablo Neruda / Netroots Radio podcasts of The After Show with Wink & Justice can be found on Stitcher

          by justiceputnam on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:54:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's so surreal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Recall

    that this whole national dialog is tilted to totally paranoid gun nuts. I was really weirded out by the WH releasing pictures of Obama shooting a gun to prove that he was manly enough to wield a gun and therefore credible on gun control.

    This woman who's home was invaded is another clay pidgin. I'm sick and tired across the board of giving these people credence and acting like they get to control not only legislation but the whole dialog. Their violent paranoid gun nuts. They are why we cannot like other civilized countries have some sane gun control.

     Melt these nasty ass killing machines down to ploughshares and quit acting like any of their insane beliefs in their rights and fears are credible. Course then their is the money and god knows this country doesn't disparage wealth even if it is derived from killing both each other or the terrist's who are gonna kill yer family. It's madness.      

    •  They released the photo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, FiredUpInCA

      to highlight just how full of shit the RWNJs are.  

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:55:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall

        you mean by 'full of shit' that their unhinged stance regarding guns is worth responding to on their terms? Why and how does this do anything but cede the point that guns and killing be it clay pidgins or 'terrists who will kill yer family' is the American way? How come they could not say so what Obama isn't a gun 'enthusiast'.  Well I guess that would counter the reality of his kill lists, drones, and Osama is dead but GM is alive.      

        •  I didn't say he shot skeet to prove (0+ / 0-)

          the RWNJs were full of shit....only that they released the photo for that reason.  He probably shot skeet for the same reason he plays golf and basketball--there's a range at Camp David and it's fun.  Shooting skeet doesn't make him a gun nut or put anyone at risk.  If anything, it does add a nice visual to the notion that nobody is interested in taking away your shotgun, but there is a need to deal with military-style assault weapons--and everyone should be able to get behind that.  

          One of the most powerful tools the RWNJs have is to speak of the "gun control" bogey man as if there is no difference between the shotgun you hunt pheasants with and an AR-15 with a 50 round magazine.  Showing the "gun banner" president shooting a shotgun is an opportunity we should be using to show the nuance; that the NRA line is pure bullshit.  

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 03:02:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Can it not be said that the NRA mirrors the GOP... (0+ / 0-)

    in that they both allow spokesmen who would be better as foot soldiers.  Some people are leaders, some are foot soldiers and some are unfortunately fodder for the cannon...  la pierre, malkin, coulter, limbaugh and the likes and there are many many more do more harm that good for their cause.

    There is something strange about how this continues to play out.  I know this has been buried as a dead horse... but the desparation of the GOP was seen in them having nothing better to offer than Bush...  Katherine Harris put them in a hole through trickery that they have yet to get beyond.  

    It would seem that they felt that they could put this kind of person in office and run by committee with Karl Rover and the rest.  Trickery always ends up costing the user there of.  And it has been a comedy of errors every since...

    It seems as if the NRA who has power is willing to see it slid away.  They forget that their members do have a human side also.  They try to keep their mouth frothed and foaming with this liberty and 2nd amendment crap as if liberty can be taken by taking guns.  Nor can it be kept by armed citizens.  It takes sane and courageous people who can reason with the issues of the time.  

    The current NRA machine is running strictly on fear.  Fear is never a good fuel for any movement...

    I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

    by meknow on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:35:13 PM PST

  •  I want to see pictures and the long form (0+ / 0-)

    police report for this? "fought off two intruders with her shotgun in Oklahoma

  •  Here's my main problem with background checks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    For a person to fail a background check, it means that person is known to be a danger to themselves and others. It means that person is considered such a risk that we fear they will kill someone the second they have a gun in their hand.

    A person who's only thought about committing a crime will pass the check. Only those who are known to be violent criminals will fail. So given that I have to ask, why are those people walking around free?  

    Shouldn't the conditions for parole include the likelihood of committing violence in the future?  It seems to me that those who would fail a background check and are considered a high risk for violence have lost all their rights and shouldn't have been released.

    Maybe if we stopped arresting non violent drug users we could keep the violent offenders locked up and not have to worry if they have a gun or not.

    Because honestly saying "The only thing keeping that released murderer from killing again is that he can't legally buy a gun" is pretty cold comfort.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site