THEN: We set a goal of 1,OOO Members by Gun Violence Awareness Day on June 2nd
NOW: With over a week to go, a whopping 1,169 people have already stepped up!
The Moment When The National Rifle Association Shot Itself In The Foot. District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that upended decades of Second Amendment law and handed a major victory to supporters of gun rights, was “wrongly decided,” according to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
It’s a remarkable moment for the campaign itself and in the evolution of gun politics in the United States. Hillary Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton, reportedly believed that his party’s support for an assault weapon’s ban cost Democrats about 20 seats in the 1994 U.S. House elections. Now, more than two decades later, the former Secretary of State has apparently decided that there is no margin to trying not to anger the gun lobby. Short of promising to send federal agents to every gun owner’s home to personally seize their firearms, it’s hard to imagine another statement the Hillary Clinton campaign could have made that is more likely to antagonize the National Rifle Association and its allies.
As recently as three years ago, President Clinton sang a cautious tune on guns, warning Democratic donors “not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for” gun regulation because “the only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.” A few months later, four Senate Democrats joined the overwhelming majority of the chamber’s Republicans in filibustering a popular background checks bill to death.
Yet, despite this history of many Democrats being reluctant to cross the NRA and its supporters, the organization has spent the last several years seemingly doing everything in its power to discourage Democrats from playing ball with the gun lobby.
Early in the Obama presidency, for example, they sent a message that any official — or, at least, any Democrat — who departs from the gun lobby’s most maximalist stances would be labeled a heretic and subjected to the NRA’s full wrath. The NRA opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court because, as a lower-court judge, Sotomayor followed a binding Supreme Court precedent that the NRA disagreed with. They opposed Justice Elena Kagan’s nomination in part because, as Solicitor General of the United States, Kagan remained neutral in a case seeking to overrule this precedent, rather than actively calling for an expansion of gun rights.
The NRA even ran ads against Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), a long-serving Republican, criticizing Lugar for supporting Sotomayor and Kagan. These ads contributed to Lugar’s loss to a much weaker primary candidate, who went on to lose to now-Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN).
Why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton come out against the most significant victory for gun rights supporters in American history when she knows that, no matter what she does, she will be castigated by the NRA?
One of the NRA’s most telling moments, however, involved a much more obscure nomination fight. Caitlin Halligan is a former Solicitor General of the state of New York that President Obama nominated to serve on a federal appeals court. As New York’s top litigator, she twice argued positions against gun manufacturers. This was enough to earn the NRA’s ire, and her work on these cases was repeatedly cited by Republican senators who filibustered her nomination.
The important thing to understand about Halligan — or, indeed, anyone who serves as a government lawyer — is that she was representing her client while she had a job that called on her to defend the state’s positions, regardless of whether she personally agreed with the arguments she advanced in that job. By opposing Halligan, the NRA sent a message to all lawyers in similar positions — if you get a guns case, you better either betray your client or resign in protest if you don’t want to incur our wrath.
With respect to lawmakers and other officials who are already sympathetic to the NRA’s views, there’s a logic to punishing even the most minor of heresies. Lawmakers and potential judges who want to stay in the NRA’s good graces are now on notice that they risk being shunned if they do not obey the NRA’s wishes 100 percent of the time.
There is also, however, tremendous risk in this strategy for the NRA. For it also sends a message that, once a lawmaker has done anything that may have angered the gun lobby group at any point in their career, they might as well just give up trying to work with the NRA. Why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton come out against the most significant victory for gun rights supporters in American history when she knows that, no matter what she does, she will be castigated by the NRA?
Or, to put the NRA’s predicament another way, they are now all-in with just one of the nation’s two political parties. If Democrats run this table in this election, they have no reason to work with or even to fear the gun lobby. After all, no matter what Democratic lawmakers do, the NRA will still treat them the exact same way.
The NRA’s transformation from an organization that saw value in maintaining good relationships with some Democrats into its current, more partisan, and more absolutist form did not happen overnight. So it is difficult to pinpoint a single moment when the group most unambiguously told Democrats to stop caring what the NRA has to say. But, if you had to pick a date, a good choice would be September 16, 2014.
That’s the day that the NRA announced that it would spend $1.3 million to defeat former Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and replace him with now-Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Pryor was one of the four Democrats who opposed President Obama’s background check bill in 2013. It was a risky decision to place the interests of the gun lobby ahead of the preferences of his constituents. Polls around the time of the vote showed that 60 percent of Arkansas voters supported “requiring background checks for all gun sales, including gun shows and the internet.” And yet the NRA rewarded Pryor’s decision to go out on a limb for them by spending a fortune to defeat him.
It’s a wonder why any Democrat would ever make common cause with the gun lobby ever again, after the NRA treated Pryor so poorly.
The NRA endorsed Trump. It's official: the NRA has endorsed Donald Trump in this year's presidential campaign. The endorsement event, and Trump's speech, gave us even more insight into what's at stake this November.
* Trump pledged to "un-sign the first hour I'm in office" President Obama's executive actions that are already working to make our communities safer from gun violence.
* He pledged to get rid of gun-free zones on schools and military bases.
* And he said that the terrorist attacks in Paris could have been avoided if there were a few people with guns wearing red Make America Great Again hats shooting back on the other side.
All of the gains we have made in Washington and in states across the country are at risk this November, and Gabby and I are going to do everything we can to make sure we protect them and elect candidates who will put our interests ahead of the gun lobby's. But we need you with us:
Almost 90 percent of Americans disagree with Trump's extreme position on guns, and we are in a unique position to hold him accountable for that. That's why your contribution is so important.
I Got Gunsplained At The NRA Convention
“What’s your edc?”
Sitting alone in my Louisville hotel room, working in my pajamas, I pulled up a new internet tab to consult Urban Dictionary. I consider myself proficient in internet speak — I taught many of my friends what Netflix and chill really means — but this one was new to me.
Turns out that Phil, one of gentlemen who swiped right on my Tinder account reading “Here for the NRA, gun emoji, party emoji,” wanted to know my “everyday carry.”
“Actually not an owner myself!” I responded. “Are you going to the NRA convention?”
That’s when Phil turned into my first encounter with a gunsplainer.
“Well I would highly advise you to invest in your personal safety, just my $.02,” he replied.
Cosmopolitan defines a “gunsplainer” as the type of guy who “will condescend to you about why you’re safer in a world where guns are easier to buy than Sudafed, or how a good guy with a gun is the best antidote to a bad guy with a gun.” The term was coined by Singled Out, a group associated with Everytown for Gun Safety, who created a video in which an actor portrays this special type of mansplainer.
Phil wasn’t the only gunsplainer I encountered during my three days at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting or on NRA Tinder (I set up an account in the name of journalism — to learn about the social lives of NRA meeting attendees while reporting inside the convention).
In the convention’s exhibit hall, I had men try to peddle pink assault rifles by explaining to me that I would be safer if I were armed. A male representative from “Packin’ Neat,” a company that sells devices to “turn any purse into a concealed carry purse,” told me I could stick one of their contraptions into my own bag so that I would always be prepared for the worst.
Throughout the “seven acres of guns and gear,” there were hundreds more companies using female stereotypes and sexist images to attempt to appeal to women and to convince them that they’d be safer if they were armed.
For its part, the NRA tried to spotlight female gunowners alongside their white, male leadership. Katie Pavlich, a young conservative blogger for the pro-gun TownHall.com, even pushed back on the concept of a “gunsplainer” for the 80,000 NRA members in attendance during her convention speech. “A gunsplainer is a man who repeatedly explains to a woman why she’d be safer if she owned a gun,” she said. “Well yeah. I think there’s probably some gunsplainers in this crowd today.” The audience cheered and applauded.
Despite every urge that overcame me throughout the weekend, I refrained from telling the gunsplainers that, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, women who were victims of attempted or completed crimes used guns to defend themselves just 0.4 percent of the time.
The NRA has a huge financial incentive to convince women they need to be armed, and they’re willing to go to almost any length to do that. They have incorrectly claimed that women can protect themselves against domestic violence if they are armed, when in fact, women are more likely to be subjected to violence in their homes if they have guns. They have pushed for more weapons on college campuses by claiming that students need to be able to protect themselves from campus rape and sexual assault. In reality, firearms make sexual assault more deadly for victims.
The NRA isn’t the only group that thinks it knows what’s best for women living in a world filled with dangers. Women are constantly told how they should change their behavior to protect themselves.
But contrary to popular male belief, I experience the threat-filled world on a daily basis and do not need men to explain to me how to dress, act, and speak in order to avoid being sexually assaulted, or what to carry to avoid being the victim of violence. There’s no one clear solution to the issues women face, but it’s abundantly clear that the answer is not more guns — or being told we need to carry more guns. So thanks, Phil, but I don’t need your “$.02.”
It was refreshing to interact with someone during the convention who seemed to understand that. Gary — who was tempted by my Tinder bio, “Swipe right to talk about guns and freedom” — actually thought he could learn a thing or two from me.
“Guns and freedom are always a good conversation starter though I’m betting you know more about guns than me,” he said to me, before revealing his true feminist colors. “That don’t intimidate me in the slightest.”
They
thought they could hide money and keep their illegal contributions secret -- all
to make sure their attacks on our movement flew under the radar.
They. Were. Wrong. And now they’re being punished for their shameful crime.
But
let’s not kid ourselves -- the NRA is one of the most well-funded groups in
history. And now that we’re on the ballot again, they’ll do anything to stop us
from bringing more commonsense gun reforms on the books.
The NRA is prepared to spend whatever it takes to see us fail. We need to know you’re with us.
Become a member of our Alliance Action Network today: http://action.gunresponsibility.org/Donate
Holding Kelly Ayotte accountable. When the U.S. Senate shamefully filibustered a bipartisan proposal to close the lethal loopholes in our background check laws in April of 2013, there was one -- and only one -- member of the U.S. Senate from New England who voted against the bill: Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire.
Her approval ratings took a dramatic plunge immediately after the vote, and as a local newspaper editorial put it at the time, "If we don't like how she voted Wednesday it's up to all of us who care about this issue to show Sen. Ayotte she was mistaken by voting her out of office."
In 2014, we had the task of defending vulnerable senators who voted to make our communities safer from gun violence. This election, we have a chance to flip seats and elect a Senate with a majority of members who are willing to act to reduce gun violence.
Watch our first ad of 2016 and make a $3 contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC as a way of saying we are committed to replacing members of Congress who put the gun lobby's interests ahead of our own.
Shortly after the 2013 background checks vote, one Republican senator who voted against the legislation was asked about potential accountability for his vote. He replied, "That's the beauty of a six year term."
Years ago, before organizations like ours existed, he probably would have been right. Many Americans would have forgotten and moved on while the transgressors collected huge sums of money from the gun lobby.
That's not the case any longer. 91 percent of New Hampshire voters - including 90 percent of gun owners - support expanding background checks. And we're building a movement that will hold people accountable for their votes. And that's why we have to ask:
Senator Kelly Ayotte is one of the gun lobby's favorite candidates, and you can be sure they're going to come in and spend tons of money supporting her campaign. But I know that if we continue to stand together, we can be sure that Senate seat will be filled with a candidate who stands with us on the values we share.
Here's the way it works: for many years now, the gun lobby has used big money to exert maximum influence on candidates and elected officials across our country.
Take Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte. The gun lobby helped fund her election in 2010, and were quick to run ads on her behalf after she shamefully voted to block the bipartisan background checks bill shortly after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Repeat that plan with countless others and it's easy to see how they've built so much power.
But we have to do it differently. The majority of the money raised by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC this year has come from people who have given $200 or less. Gabby and I are really proud of that fact.
So when we can run ads holding Kelly Ayotte accountable for her votes and for her close relationship with the gun lobby, our work is only possible because a lot of people are giving small amounts of money to make that happen -- often responding to emails like this one.
Can Gabby and I count on you to make a $3 contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC to help us hold Kelly Ayotte and other candidates accountable for siding with the gun lobby?
The gun lobby's influence comes from the size of their checks. Ours comes from the size our our movement -- the 90 percent of Americans who believe our elected officials must come together and put our communities' interests ahead of the gun lobby's.
Next week, we're turning America orange. On June 2, National Gun Violence Awareness Day, we'll be marking the biggest national day of action around gun violence prevention in history.
There's an orange event happening in Camden -- and we want you to be a part of it!
NOW: With over a week to go, a whopping 1,169 people have already stepped up!
The Moment When The National Rifle Association Shot Itself In The Foot. District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that upended decades of Second Amendment law and handed a major victory to supporters of gun rights, was “wrongly decided,” according to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
As recently as three years ago, President Clinton sang a cautious tune on guns, warning Democratic donors “not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for” gun regulation because “the only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.” A few months later, four Senate Democrats joined the overwhelming majority of the chamber’s Republicans in filibustering a popular background checks bill to death.
Yet, despite this history of many Democrats being reluctant to cross the NRA and its supporters, the organization has spent the last several years seemingly doing everything in its power to discourage Democrats from playing ball with the gun lobby.
Early in the Obama presidency, for example, they sent a message that any official — or, at least, any Democrat — who departs from the gun lobby’s most maximalist stances would be labeled a heretic and subjected to the NRA’s full wrath. The NRA opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court because, as a lower-court judge, Sotomayor followed a binding Supreme Court precedent that the NRA disagreed with. They opposed Justice Elena Kagan’s nomination in part because, as Solicitor General of the United States, Kagan remained neutral in a case seeking to overrule this precedent, rather than actively calling for an expansion of gun rights.
The NRA even ran ads against Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), a long-serving Republican, criticizing Lugar for supporting Sotomayor and Kagan. These ads contributed to Lugar’s loss to a much weaker primary candidate, who went on to lose to now-Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN).
Why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton come out against the most significant victory for gun rights supporters in American history when she knows that, no matter what she does, she will be castigated by the NRA?
One of the NRA’s most telling moments, however, involved a much more obscure nomination fight. Caitlin Halligan is a former Solicitor General of the state of New York that President Obama nominated to serve on a federal appeals court. As New York’s top litigator, she twice argued positions against gun manufacturers. This was enough to earn the NRA’s ire, and her work on these cases was repeatedly cited by Republican senators who filibustered her nomination.
The important thing to understand about Halligan — or, indeed, anyone who serves as a government lawyer — is that she was representing her client while she had a job that called on her to defend the state’s positions, regardless of whether she personally agreed with the arguments she advanced in that job. By opposing Halligan, the NRA sent a message to all lawyers in similar positions — if you get a guns case, you better either betray your client or resign in protest if you don’t want to incur our wrath.
With respect to lawmakers and other officials who are already sympathetic to the NRA’s views, there’s a logic to punishing even the most minor of heresies. Lawmakers and potential judges who want to stay in the NRA’s good graces are now on notice that they risk being shunned if they do not obey the NRA’s wishes 100 percent of the time.
There is also, however, tremendous risk in this strategy for the NRA. For it also sends a message that, once a lawmaker has done anything that may have angered the gun lobby group at any point in their career, they might as well just give up trying to work with the NRA. Why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton come out against the most significant victory for gun rights supporters in American history when she knows that, no matter what she does, she will be castigated by the NRA?
Or, to put the NRA’s predicament another way, they are now all-in with just one of the nation’s two political parties. If Democrats run this table in this election, they have no reason to work with or even to fear the gun lobby. After all, no matter what Democratic lawmakers do, the NRA will still treat them the exact same way.
The NRA’s transformation from an organization that saw value in maintaining good relationships with some Democrats into its current, more partisan, and more absolutist form did not happen overnight. So it is difficult to pinpoint a single moment when the group most unambiguously told Democrats to stop caring what the NRA has to say. But, if you had to pick a date, a good choice would be September 16, 2014.
That’s the day that the NRA announced that it would spend $1.3 million to defeat former Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and replace him with now-Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Pryor was one of the four Democrats who opposed President Obama’s background check bill in 2013. It was a risky decision to place the interests of the gun lobby ahead of the preferences of his constituents. Polls around the time of the vote showed that 60 percent of Arkansas voters supported “requiring background checks for all gun sales, including gun shows and the internet.” And yet the NRA rewarded Pryor’s decision to go out on a limb for them by spending a fortune to defeat him.
It’s a wonder why any Democrat would ever make common cause with the gun lobby ever again, after the NRA treated Pryor so poorly.
The NRA endorsed Trump. It's official: the NRA has endorsed Donald Trump in this year's presidential campaign. The endorsement event, and Trump's speech, gave us even more insight into what's at stake this November.
* Trump pledged to "un-sign the first hour I'm in office" President Obama's executive actions that are already working to make our communities safer from gun violence.
* He pledged to get rid of gun-free zones on schools and military bases.
* And he said that the terrorist attacks in Paris could have been avoided if there were a few people with guns wearing red Make America Great Again hats shooting back on the other side.
All of the gains we have made in Washington and in states across the country are at risk this November, and Gabby and I are going to do everything we can to make sure we protect them and elect candidates who will put our interests ahead of the gun lobby's. But we need you with us:
Almost 90 percent of Americans disagree with Trump's extreme position on guns, and we are in a unique position to hold him accountable for that. That's why your contribution is so important.
| White House Convening on Gun Violence Prevention |
 | ||
| ||
Sitting alone in my Louisville hotel room, working in my pajamas, I pulled up a new internet tab to consult Urban Dictionary. I consider myself proficient in internet speak — I taught many of my friends what Netflix and chill really means — but this one was new to me.
Turns out that Phil, one of gentlemen who swiped right on my Tinder account reading “Here for the NRA, gun emoji, party emoji,” wanted to know my “everyday carry.”
“Actually not an owner myself!” I responded. “Are you going to the NRA convention?”
That’s when Phil turned into my first encounter with a gunsplainer.
“Well I would highly advise you to invest in your personal safety, just my $.02,” he replied.
Phil wasn’t the only gunsplainer I encountered during my three days at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting or on NRA Tinder (I set up an account in the name of journalism — to learn about the social lives of NRA meeting attendees while reporting inside the convention).
In the convention’s exhibit hall, I had men try to peddle pink assault rifles by explaining to me that I would be safer if I were armed. A male representative from “Packin’ Neat,” a company that sells devices to “turn any purse into a concealed carry purse,” told me I could stick one of their contraptions into my own bag so that I would always be prepared for the worst.
Throughout the “seven acres of guns and gear,” there were hundreds more companies using female stereotypes and sexist images to attempt to appeal to women and to convince them that they’d be safer if they were armed.
For its part, the NRA tried to spotlight female gunowners alongside their white, male leadership. Katie Pavlich, a young conservative blogger for the pro-gun TownHall.com, even pushed back on the concept of a “gunsplainer” for the 80,000 NRA members in attendance during her convention speech. “A gunsplainer is a man who repeatedly explains to a woman why she’d be safer if she owned a gun,” she said. “Well yeah. I think there’s probably some gunsplainers in this crowd today.” The audience cheered and applauded.
The NRA has a huge financial incentive to convince women they need to be armed, and they’re willing to go to almost any length to do that. They have incorrectly claimed that women can protect themselves against domestic violence if they are armed, when in fact, women are more likely to be subjected to violence in their homes if they have guns. They have pushed for more weapons on college campuses by claiming that students need to be able to protect themselves from campus rape and sexual assault. In reality, firearms make sexual assault more deadly for victims.
The NRA isn’t the only group that thinks it knows what’s best for women living in a world filled with dangers. Women are constantly told how they should change their behavior to protect themselves.
But contrary to popular male belief, I experience the threat-filled world on a daily basis and do not need men to explain to me how to dress, act, and speak in order to avoid being sexually assaulted, or what to carry to avoid being the victim of violence. There’s no one clear solution to the issues women face, but it’s abundantly clear that the answer is not more guns — or being told we need to carry more guns. So thanks, Phil, but I don’t need your “$.02.”
It was refreshing to interact with someone during the convention who seemed to understand that. Gary — who was tempted by my Tinder bio, “Swipe right to talk about guns and freedom” — actually thought he could learn a thing or two from me.
“Guns and freedom are always a good conversation starter though I’m betting you know more about guns than me,” he said to me, before revealing his true feminist colors. “That don’t intimidate me in the slightest.”
We
just got the news: The NRA is being punished for illegal spending against
our 2014 Washington campaign.
They. Were. Wrong. And now they’re being punished for their shameful crime.
The NRA is prepared to spend whatever it takes to see us fail. We need to know you’re with us.
Become a member of our Alliance Action Network today: http://action.gunresponsibility.org/Donate
Holding Kelly Ayotte accountable. When the U.S. Senate shamefully filibustered a bipartisan proposal to close the lethal loopholes in our background check laws in April of 2013, there was one -- and only one -- member of the U.S. Senate from New England who voted against the bill: Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire.
In 2014, we had the task of defending vulnerable senators who voted to make our communities safer from gun violence. This election, we have a chance to flip seats and elect a Senate with a majority of members who are willing to act to reduce gun violence.
Watch our first ad of 2016 and make a $3 contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC as a way of saying we are committed to replacing members of Congress who put the gun lobby's interests ahead of our own.
Shortly after the 2013 background checks vote, one Republican senator who voted against the legislation was asked about potential accountability for his vote. He replied, "That's the beauty of a six year term."
Years ago, before organizations like ours existed, he probably would have been right. Many Americans would have forgotten and moved on while the transgressors collected huge sums of money from the gun lobby.
That's not the case any longer. 91 percent of New Hampshire voters - including 90 percent of gun owners - support expanding background checks. And we're building a movement that will hold people accountable for their votes. And that's why we have to ask:
Senator Kelly Ayotte is one of the gun lobby's favorite candidates, and you can be sure they're going to come in and spend tons of money supporting her campaign. But I know that if we continue to stand together, we can be sure that Senate seat will be filled with a candidate who stands with us on the values we share.
Here's the way it works: for many years now, the gun lobby has used big money to exert maximum influence on candidates and elected officials across our country.
Take Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte. The gun lobby helped fund her election in 2010, and were quick to run ads on her behalf after she shamefully voted to block the bipartisan background checks bill shortly after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Repeat that plan with countless others and it's easy to see how they've built so much power.
But we have to do it differently. The majority of the money raised by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC this year has come from people who have given $200 or less. Gabby and I are really proud of that fact.
So when we can run ads holding Kelly Ayotte accountable for her votes and for her close relationship with the gun lobby, our work is only possible because a lot of people are giving small amounts of money to make that happen -- often responding to emails like this one.
Can Gabby and I count on you to make a $3 contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC to help us hold Kelly Ayotte and other candidates accountable for siding with the gun lobby?
The gun lobby's influence comes from the size of their checks. Ours comes from the size our our movement -- the 90 percent of Americans who believe our elected officials must come together and put our communities' interests ahead of the gun lobby's.
There's an orange event happening in Camden -- and we want you to be a part of it!
What: Camden Wear Orange Block Party
When: Thursday, June 2, 5:00 PM
Where: Elijah Perry Park, 9th Street & Ferry Ave, Camden, NJ
|
|
store.everytown.org >>
All proceeds go towards our fight for a future free from gun violence.
