When the NRA is Talking More Sense than Trump…

Via the NY Post:  NRA says Trump’s Orlando comments ‘defy common sense’

Donald Trump’s suggestion that armed clubgoers could have prevented the worst mass shooting in modern US history “defies common sense,” according to the National Rifle Association — which is backing the tycoon for president but on Sunday had two of its top officials taking rare exception with him.

“No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told ABC’s “This Week.” “That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”

[…]

Cox’s remarks Sunday echoed those of President Obama, who said last Thursday in Orlando that the notion that armed clubgoers could have averted the tragedy “defies common sense.”
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said Sunday that pistol-packing revelers are not a good idea.

“I don’t think you should have firearms where people are drinking,” LaPierre told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He later tweeted, “I want to clarify my comment: if you’re going to carry, don’t drink. OK to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.”

This continues to be one weird campaign. (Although I have to admit that it is a low bar, no pun intended, to admit that it is unwise for people who are drinking to be armed).

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Quick Takes, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Nikki says:

    Six years ago, the NRA was a big proponent of guns in bars.

    Wonder why its position has changed.

  2. Jeff S. says:

    Had enough of Trump AND Hillary?
    Refuse to let the media tell you who to vote for or fool you into thinking you only have two choices!
    Google “Governor Gary Johnson”!
    He’s the best kept secret in America!!!!!!!!!
    He’s the only presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states that nobody knows about!
    Contact the media and tell them you want them reporting on him, and stop keeping you in the dark.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmxMb9t4IW4
    https://www.youtube.com/user/GovernorGaryJohnson

  3. Jen says:

    OT: Wow. Trump has fired Lewandowski.

  4. Mikey says:

    @Jen: The wheels are well and truly coming off.

  5. Mister Bluster says:

    @Jeff S.:..Refuse to let the media tell you who to vote for or fool you into thinking you only have two choices!

    My first vote for Commander in Chief USA was cast in 1972. I was 24.*
    I have voted in every Presidential election since.
    I was never fooled by the media about my choices nor was I told by anyone who to vote for.
    Asserting that electors are dupes unless they vote Libertarian is not a good campaign strategy.
    Jeff S. I will not be contacting the media at your behest and you will not be telling me who to vote for.

    *Couldn’t cast a ballot in 1968 since the legal voting age then was 21.

  6. bill says:

    “That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”

    but it doesn’t stop people like mateen from casing the joint prior to “defying the law”. i mean really, a bar in fla. with approx 350 people in it and nobody was armed?! is that one reason he chose a gay bar?
    guns are banned at “51%” bars in Texas- but hat doesn’t mean much as i can tell there’s anywhere from 10-40% of the crowd are armed. and ironically, they aren’t shooting each other….

    but go ahead and try to deflect blame from the criminally insane people/local jihadists to the inanimate objects they use.

  7. Mikey says:

    @bill:

    i mean really, a bar in fla. with approx 350 people in it and nobody was armed?!

    There was an armed guard at the club–an off-duty cop–who exchanged fire with Mateen before Mateen even entered Pulse. He realized Mateen had him severely outgunned and radioed for backup.

    Two more officers showed up about two minutes later. They entered the club and also exchanged fire with Mateen.

    Sadly, the NRA mythos did not translate to reality, and the good guys with guns didn’t stop the bad guy.

  8. stonetools says:

    but go ahead and try to deflect blame from the criminally insane people/local jihadists to the inanimate objects they use.

    Can I blame the sociopaths and stupid people who are responsible for the idiotic laws that allow the criminally insane people/local jihadists to get easy access to the inanimate objects that they can use to kill or injure 100 people at a time?

    BTW, there was a good guy with a gun there. And once again, he failed to stop a massacre.

    It’s almost as if the “good guy with a gun” myth doesn’t work in real life. But I’m sure you’ll once again disregard inconvenient reality. After all, you are a conservative

  9. Franklin says:

    OK, we’re getting somewhere. Drunk people shouldn’t be carrying guns around. Now how about people with anger management issues (which covers about 70% of the Republican electorate)?

  10. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jeff S.: You need to re-do your sales pitch, he’s only on the ballot in 32.

    https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map

  11. gVOR08 says:

    @Jeff S.:

    He’s the best kept secret in America!!!!!!!!!

    Gary Johnson? At OTB? With Doug?

  12. gVOR08 says:

    @Nikki: Thanks. I thought some stuff from the NRA had gone down the memory hole.

  13. Gustopher says:

    Before we start applying “common sense”, I think we should step back and take a look at this: Does an individual lose any other rights because they have been drinking?

    – Can the state limit the free speech or association of drunk people? No, of course not. As much as we might want the guy at the end of the bar to just shut up, there is nothing that can be done.

    – Can the state establish a religion that people must adhere to when they are drunk? No.

    – Can you be prevented from voting just because you are drunk? No, and with the current election, people might need a couple of stiff drinks before they can handle their ballot.

    – Does a drunk defendant give up his protections of self-incrimination? No. He might not be able to shut up about how great it was when he did that criminal act, but if he can keep his mouth shut, the government cannot compel his testimony.

    – Does a drunk defendant give up his rights to a speedy trial, or a trial by a jury? No.

    – Can the government quarter troops in your home just because you are lying drunk in a pool of your own vomit in your front yard? No.

    If we don’t restrict any other rights for the completely inebriated, are we sure we can restrict the 2nd Amendment rights for them?

  14. gVOR08 says:

    @Gustopher:Beautiful.

    We do try to keep drunks from driving, but as the gun people are fond of saying anytime one makes an analogy between regulating guns and regulating cars – Driving Is Not A Right.

  15. stonetools says:

    @Gustopher:

    – Can the state limit the free speech or association of drunk people? No, of course not. As much as we might want the guy at the end of the bar to just shut up, there is nothing that can be done.

    Well, actually you can. The bartender can tell him to shut up or leave and if he is disorderly enough, the police can arrest him. Constitutional rights are never unlimited.

    – Can the state establish a religion that people must adhere to when they are drunk? No.

    Actually, the state shall not establish ANY religion :-).

    If we don’t restrict any other rights for the completely inebriated, are we sure we can restrict the 2nd Amendment rights for them?

    Yup. State can establish time, place, and manner restrictions on any constitutional right. State can make it unlawful for anyone to carry or discharge a gun while drunk. Even the NRA would agree with that.
    The constitution is not a suicide pact.

  16. @Gustopher: All rights can be regulated (e.g., libel, slander, commercial speech, rules about assembly) or balanced (your right to worship as you see fit stops if it requires human sacrifice–to pick an extreme example).

  17. @Gustopher: But, of course, you are rightly being sarcastic…so never mind.

  18. Gustopher says:

    @stonetools:

    The bartender can tell him to shut up or leave and if he is disorderly enough, the police can arrest him. Constitutional rights are never unlimited.

    The bartender is not acting on behalf of the state. And, “drunk and disorderly” requires being disorderly, not just drunkeness.

    State can establish time, place, and manner restrictions on any constitutional right. State can make it unlawful for anyone to carry or discharge a gun while drunk.

    Restrictions and limitations on enumerated rights are held to a high standard — and I don’t think we have any examples where inebriation has been found to meet that high standard.

    We have Free Speech Zones near political conventions, to ensure that the free speech of the protesters does not interfere with the free speech of the attendees, and we have buffer zones around abortion clinics, but I cannot recall a single instance of a law requiring people protesting outside an abortion clinic or near a political convention to not be drunk.

    I haven’t seen any inebriation restrictions on any of the enumerated rights, except for the right to bear arms. A case could theoretically be made that a drunken mob is not a “well regulated militia”, but the Supreme Court has ruled that a right to bear arms exists even for people not in a well regulated militia.

    There’s a proud American tradition of dressing in bright orange, getting one’s long gun and a flask, and drunkenly staggering into the woods with a bunch of friends to shoot at anything that looks sort of like a deer. Perhaps liberals in the cities don’t understand, but the inevitable tragedies are what brings people together. Why do you hate tradition? Why do you hate America?

  19. Bookdragon says:

    @Gustopher: LOL

    Maybe because those drunks in the woods with long guns have shot at me before (the flasks having deprived them of the ability to distinguish a brown Chevy in a parking area from a deer).

    But, hey, if we go ‘Stand your ground’ so I can shoot back….

    Seriously, I think this is one where even the ghost of Scalia would agree that “well-regulated” was a relevant part of the 2nd Amendment.

  20. bill says:

    @Mikey: i know, i read the story- but the patrons had no guns, or used them. sure, a bunch got out of there quickly but out of that many people you’d think several would be armed.
    lot’s of off duty cops wok the doors at clubs here too- and mateen knew what he was walking into and that he would not be walking out.

  21. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Gustopher: “shoot at anything that looks sort of like a deer.”

    I really wish you hadn’t mentioned this. This exact thing happened to a classmate from high school. In fact, the guys who shot him mentioned that they thought it might be a person but were unwilling to miss out on a chance to get a dear. No charges were filed–in the 60s, these types of things were simply “tragic accidents.”

    I could really have done without that trip down memory lane.

  22. bookdragon says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer:

    …I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow,
    Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow…

  23. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @bookdragon: I checked on what I had written and now realized that I left out the he died as a result of the shooting “accident” part of the story. As I say, it is difficult for me to be as glib about hunters shooting people as it is for others–Tom Lehrer not withstanding.*

    There are too many hunters out there who follow Professor Lehrer’s maxim of “oh there’s really nothing to it/you just stand there looking cute/*and if something moves, you shoot!*” As the NRA has evolved from a firearms safety organization to a bunch of gun toting loonies, it hasn’t helped the cause of firearms safety to any great degree. And things weren’t that good when my classmate was killed by a bunch of drunken idiots almost 50 years ago.

    But what can I say, accidents happen, you know.

  24. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @bookdragon: Tom Lehrer is a great satirist. You, not so much.

  25. bookdragon says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: I did not know from your post that the classmate had died and certainly did not mean to make of light of that (or even of him shot if he hadn’t died). I have known people who were shot in hunting ‘accidents’ too. Once the number of yahoos going out to drink and ‘shoot at anything that moves’ reached a certain point, most of my friends stopped hunting on public lands because of that.

    Tone is difficult to convey online and my mine was a bitter humor, but I evidently failed at getting it across.

  26. John D'Geek says:

    @Nikki: I don’t see the disconnect.

    There is a difference between walking into a bar or pub and drinking in one; those laws weren’t able to tell the difference. If the NRA position is “If you’re going to drink, don’t carry; if you’re going to carry, don’t drink” it seems consistent to me.

    That said, when I was in Oklahoma, the “no carry” restrictions imposed by owners and/or management at restaurants (and, presumably, bars as well), were near universal so I’m not sure how much of a difference it makes.