Accuracy in Media

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow, an admitted gun control advocate, shocked her fellow liberals this week when she told CBS News’ Rita Braver that she thinks “shooting is fun.”

Braver accompanied Maddow to a gun range, where she watched Maddow shoot a few rounds.

Maddow: This is a beautiful gun.

Braver: So maybe you wouldn’t expect the woman wielding the Colt .45 pistol or the AR-15 rifle to be unabashedly left-leaning Rachel Maddow.

Maddow: Like, I’m a real liberal, even on, like, gun safety and gun control issues. That said, I think that shooting is fun, and I think that shooting ranges are an excellent place to both learn about guns and to freak your friends out!

Maddow is correct that gun ranges are an excellent place to learn about guns. But apparently she hasn’t learned enough to realize that her desire to shoot—and perhaps own—a gun is predicated on the Constitution and laws that allow citizens to own a gun, not those that restrict their rights to do so, which is what she advocates.





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • mayday911us.

    Wow I would’ve never of guessed that would come out of her mouth. With pushing this gun control narrative. Oh wait did she have a background check?

    Or even pick up a gun to shoot it at a target.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    If you idiots would bother to listen to “gun control” advocates, you’d stop freaking out that liberals want to “take” your guns from you. The Democratic Party position is, and has been for a long time, that we need to employ common-sense restrictions on who can legally own firearms, what types of firearms are permissible (no bazookas, as an example), and dictating safety requirements. These stances are shared by the overwhelming majority of American citizens. So…no, dummies. Calling for common sense regulations and saying that shooting guns is fun isn’t the least bit surprising.

  • wfcollins

    There is a movement in CA to completely ban “assault weapons”. They keep passing legislation that will finally put the nail in the coffin. What is illogical is that they ban cosmetic features that do nothing to change the lethality of the weapon. Even if the current legislation is passed, a rifle that shoots the exact same bullet at the same rate of fire will be legally available. It will just lack the pistol grip. Many hunting rifle shoot more powerful bullets at the same rate of fire.

    And even if all assault weapons disappeared tomorrow, the number of gun deaths would not change. The worst gun killing in US history was at VA Tech. The killer used normal handguns and standard capacity magazines. Any time there are unprotected people, a psychopath can continue to kill until armed law enforcement shows up.

  • R T Deco

    That’s what they said in Australia.

  • R T Deco

    Answer this:

    Happiness is

    (A) a warm puppy
    (B) a warm gun (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
    (C) shooting a warm puppy with a warm gun.

    I think that Maddow would answer C, as long as the puppy was a registered Republican.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    I agree that some of the “assault weapon” stuff is silly. But my point stands. Background checks, safety guards, etc. I don’t own a gun but I don’t have any problem with someone else owning one. As long as they aren’t crazy, pass a background check, keep it away from toddlers, etc.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Actually, no. It’s not. Also, Australia doesn’t have a 2nd Amendment.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    That started out funny. Ended incredibly lame.

  • Trey Brakefield

    You said:

    “If you idiots would bother to listen to “gun control” advocates, you’d stop freaking out that liberals want to “take” your guns from you.”

    And then you admitted: “… that some of the “assault weapon” stuff is silly.”

    That “assault weapon stuff” is exactly them “want[ing] to take your guns from you” (albeit particular ones they think they can get away with). Many of these “gun control” groups have simply changed their marketing to a softer goal so that they can get traction on any possible ban. They hope people like you don’t look at their past when many of them have openly said they have goals of outright firearms bans and some even have had goals of confiscation.

    You can’t call us idiots for actually listening to them wanting to take particular guns away. Especially when it’s in the name of “gun safety” and/or “gun violence” reduction but the ones they’re targeting are involved in less than 2-3% of gun murders. With that kind of contribution to gun murders, we (gun owners) recognize that won’t impact “gun violence” at all. The past has shown that when various gun control policies don’t work (like assault weapons bans), they don’t get repealed. They just get expanded to ban more.

    Further, there are policies in place RIGHT NOW that lead to gun confiscations. They are just more creative in disguising it. New York’s SAFE Act is an example. All newly defined “assault weapons” had to be registered after the law went into effect. The law then forbids the registered firearm change ownership within the state (including through inheritance). Therefore, at the latest, upon a New York “assault weapon” owner’s death, the only legal option for in-state beneficiaries is to turn their family’s property over to the state.

    Delayed confiscation is still CONFISCATION.

  • wireknob

    So why are they enacting or trying to enact punitive taxes on guns and ammunition, banning popular rifles that are commonly used for legitimate and lawful purposes, trying to enact requirements that gun owners buy “liability” insurance to pay for the criminal acts of others, trying to hold gun manufacturers liable for illegal acts committed by others, enacting restrictions on open/concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, requiring that gun owners purchase extremely expensive and unnecessary/ill-advised “smart gun” technology, restricting the number of guns that law-abiding citizens can purchase (typically, one per month), trying to appoint Supreme Court justices that deny that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to own and carry firearms, advocating for Australia-style gun bans and confiscations? How is any of this “common-sense” or even addressing the purported goals of gun control advocates? How is this not a threat to gun rights?

    I think you are too credulous when it comes to the disingenuous rhetoric of gun control advocates and you are failing to look at their actions and facts on the ground. Maybe you’re the idiot for buying their BS.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    We’re not that far apart, you and I. Are there people who want to ban all guns? Yeah. But they are pie-in-the-sky dreamers. It’s never going to happen (nor should it).

    The “idiots” I refer to are the people who, after almost eight years remain convinced that Obama (or Clinton, who will be the next president) wants to come for their guns. He doesn’t. Neither does she.

    What’s infuriating to me is the fact that vast majorities want to see common sense legislation designed to improve public safety yet the NRA commands the Congresspeople that they own to oppose ANYTHING perceived as “anti-gun”.

    So, yeah. Our current hodgepodge of state and federal laws is confusing and often contradictory. I get that. But I, like you, realize that this is actually a complex issue. The main problem is that we have two sides digging in their heels and not listening to common sense. So, in other words, Its like almost every other issue today. lol

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Why are they pushing all those things? Because the NRA and the Congresspeople they own refuse to enact common sense legislation so the gun control crowd is reduced to piecemeal solutions. Are there confiscation advocates? Of course. Are they in any position of power or influence. Not really. You can always find a far left “No guns of any kind” person just like I can always find a “Even bazookas should be legal” person. We need to rein in the margins from both sides and get some stuff done.

  • wfcollins

    I am OK with background checks. All of my guns have involved a background check even at gun shows.

  • wireknob

    Hillary Clinton is not in “any position of power and influence”? She has advocated many of the things listed, including bans and confiscation. I could list plenty of other powerful politicians advocating for such things, and some efforts that I listed have succeeded. So we’re not talking fringe elements here, these are policies advocated by many politicians and powerful advocacy groups.

    But you’re blaming of the NRA’s efforts to protect rights for the attempts to abridge those rights, attempts that you won’t even defend, is just plain backwards and asinine. By your twisted logic it must be the victim’s fault that he/she was assaulted because he/she provoked the unjustifiable assault by trying to protect his/herself. That’s ludicrous.

    Instead of throwing out straw man arguments (e.g., bazookas), what are your arguments for the real-world policies and laws I cited? How are these not a direct threat to the lawful, legitimate ownership and use of firearms?

  • wireknob

    But liberals/progressives are trying to appoint Supreme Court justices that would effectively read the 2nd Amendment out of the Bill of Rights. Chelsea Clinton even highlighted this as a major selling point of her mom’s candidacy (i.e., Hillary would appoint justices that would overturn decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms to pave the way for stringent gun restrictions that significantly infringe upon this right).

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Then I wish the sane people on either side of this divide, like us, could get some stuff done.

  • wireknob

    What’s infuriating is that you don’t seem to be aware of the many efforts across this country and at the federal level to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, many with no reasonable connection to actual safety concerns. You absolve one side of it’s attempts to deny law-abiding citizens their rights, and you demonize the other side’s attempts to defend their rights. And, for someone who claims such deep interest in the issue, you seem almost completely uninformed when it comes to the actions and statements on gun policy of both Obama and Clinton.

    And the NRA has done far more to promote and improve gun safety than all gun control advocates combined. Can you explain exactly how the gun control policies you advocate for would reduce gun crimes or improve gun safety?

  • wireknob

    Practical questions about background checks:

    1) How would you implement such a system without a national registry of all firearms and their owners; the same type of registry that has been used in some states and localities to ban guns and require owners to surrender, destroy, or get rid off those guns?

    2) How would you compile and maintain records of all firearms in this country, including the 300 million or so already in private hands?

    3) Wouldn’t it make sense to at least properly fund and fix the incomplete and error-prone NICS system we already have in place before extending its reach, especially since law-abiding citizens would become criminals if an error in the system incorrectly showed an unregistered firearm in their possession?

    4) How do we handle those persons seeking to transfer ownership of a firearm that do not live near a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check?

    5) Where would we get the resources to administer such a system, especially considering that law enforcement already considers this such a low priority given their limited resources?

    6) Who pays for all of these additional background checks?

  • wireknob

    What “safety guards” are you suggesting?

  • R T Deco

    The Democratic Party is opposed to the Second Amendment.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Actually, no. It isn’t.

  • R T Deco

    Well, the Supreme Court Justices that they appoint sure are:

    “I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So … the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”

    – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Maybe the Democratic Party should appoint different Justices.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    That’s not the same thing. And do you REALLY want to talk about the Democratic Party appointed different Justices when THEY JUST DID?

  • R T Deco

    It’s not? So when a Republican tries to appoint a Justice who would like to overturn Roe v. Wade, does that mean that Republicans are pro-choice?

  • wireknob

    It’s probably the most important aspect of all this and a big reason why there is such a war over Supreme Court justices. When justices can be placed on the court who ignore the limits of federal power and the protections against government violations of individual rights, that’s a threat to our liberty. Specifically with respect to the 2nd Amendment, efforts by liberal politicians to appoint justices that will use whatever specious reasoning necessary to read the second amendment out of the Constitution is an existential threat to our right as citizens to keep and bear arms.

    More to the point, though, how can you argue that this is not a serious concern for those who cherish their 2nd Amendment rights? How do you defend such overt and admitted attempts to appoint justices that would deny this right? Why would you expect anyone concerned about this right to work with those who seek to deprive them of this right?

  • FrancisKing

    General Kitchener was such a bad shot that he named his gun dogs “Bang”, “Miss” and “Damn”.

  • R T Deco

    It’s a good thing that he didn’t play golf. Otherwise, the names of his dogs would be unprintable in polite company.

  • Trey Brakefield

    6) Why do some current “universal background check” schemes actually make running a check HARDER than it was before their passage? How does that encourage responsible behavior? For instance, before Oregon passed it’s recent UBC law, one could optionally check a potential buyer by calling the state police and paying a $10 fee for the check. Easy, cheap, reasonable. Logic would dictate that a mandating a BGC would simply mandate usage of that system. I guess we can’t give the Dems put in place by Bloomberg funding many points on logic because they didn’t do that. Instead, they used a copy/paste version of the one that was recently enacted in Washington state and made the BGC process require a round trip to an FFL and a fee (averaging $50 in Oregon due to state charging $10 per check in it’s system). So making responsible behavior infinitely more burdensome and 500% more expensive is NOT the way to encourage that behavior. That’s a way to both discourage it and penalize those that would use it (law abiding gun owners).

    7) Why do most currently popular UBC schemes also require BGCs on transfers to known non-prohibited and thouroughly vetted persons like CPL/CCW holders if the real goal is just to keep guns out of prohibited hands?

    8) If the only goal of current UBC schemes is to prevent “gun sales” to prohibited persons (as advertised), why do they broadly also subject numerous common (and often responsible) transfers (usually in the form or loans between known non-prohibited persons) to the same burdens/fees? Temporarily storing a gun or two with a known non-prohibited friend while on vacation, while deployed, while between residences, or while temporarily sharing a residence with an at-risk/prohibited person is responsible behavior. However, with no exceptions for transfers to known non-prohibited persons, acting responsibly in this way, without paying fees and travelling to an FFL at every single temporary change of possession, is a crime. What’s worse is that it’s considered no less of a crime than someone selling guns out of the trunk of their car to anonymous people. When you make responsible gun-owner behavior just as much of a crime as those actually putting guns in the wrong hands, you prove you already consider us criminals. We understandably find that offensive.

  • Trey Brakefield

    Yes we are pretty far apart.

    Unfortunately, there are people, currently in power, that want to ban most guns. Most don’t go on record saying that anymore because polling shows the public values gun rights more than gun control right now. However, none have ever recanted on their earlier statements either (showing that they’ve at least changed their minds). I’m not a mind reader so I can’t say if they really want to ban ALL guns (although some are on record saying so). It’s only logical, though, that if they are willing to put so much effort into banning guns that contribute to almost ZERO crime, in the name of reducing crime, that they are not to be trusted to make logical decisions on gun laws. It also proves, by there constant expansion of bans they’ve managed to enact, that they will never stop.

    It’s undeniable they want to ban some guns. Then when that doesn’t improve things, they’ll ban more. Then they’ll take a break from bans to focus on something softer. Perhaps like universal background checks (that not only can’t be enforced without a registry but also often make common, responsible, gun-owner activities illegal, expensive, or legally precarious). Then, when enough people give up gun-ownership through attrition of it’s regulation-driven inflated legal or monetary cost, they’ll point to how gun-owners are a minority and therefore don’t deserve to keep some other “deadly” gun type/style. Then begins the next round of bans. Rinse and repeat.

    One would have to be blind to not see this pattern.

  • Wanting sensible gun safety laws, and also respecting the Constitution, and enjoying gun ownership are not mutually exclusive ideas. I was raised around guns (with shotgun shell and loaders in the basement I’d help dad with) my whole childhood. I was taught proper handling, never a toy, ALWAYS act as though they’re loaded, etc. I’m a liberal. I favor the right to discuss reasonable gun safety laws, training, registration. It’s not in my short list of big issues, personally, but I’m AMAZED at the instantaneous, frothy freak-out that occurs if there is the barest whisper of ANYTHING to do with trying to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands.

  • wireknob

    So what are your suggestions? Why do you want to register gun owners and their guns?

    Keep in mind that the vast majority of gun control proposals are designed to restrict what firearms law-abiding citizens can own, increase the cost of lawful gun ownership and use with punitive taxes and fees, increase the legal perils for gun owners with a bewildering array of often senseless laws that change from place to place, restrict where a law-abiding citizen can carry a firearm for self-defense, would mandate expensive “liability” insurance to make law-abiding gun owners pay for the criminal acts of others, would open gun manufacturers and dealers to lawsuits when one of their products is used in a crime. These have little if anything to do with preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands or dealing with criminal gun possession and use, so how do you explain that disconnect?

    How about voluntary government-funded gun safety and training courses? How about a stamp on everyone’s government-issued ID that indicates whether or not they are legally allowed to own/possess a firearm so that private sellers can easy and freely check? How about lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of violent crimes with a weapon? How about increased, targeted policing of crime-ridden, gang-infested neighborhoods?

  • Mr. Knob (ahem) I said “not in my short list of big issues” because I don’t claim to have suggestions. My point of contention is the notion that if you’re a liberal, you can’t like guns. Or if you think that there ought to be room to talk about sensible gun safety, that you can’t also like to shoot. It’s not one or the other. Thinking that–for instance–perhaps people should learn to shoot a gun before owning one is a good idea, doesn’t make you a “GUN GRABBER!!!”

    Z’all’s I’m sayin’. I have no intention of getting all nuts and bolts with you, it’s not the burr under my saddle at the moment.

  • wireknob

    I get your point, but with these sorts of issues common sense, reasonable views and proposals are rarely what motivate people to fight so hard to prevail over others through political machinations or that causes people to disagree so vehemently. If the issue was solely about making gun safety education and shooting instruction more accessible to gun owners, helping to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, or addressing the true nature of most gun-related crime, including the demographic and geographic concentration of such crime, there would be precious little that divides us all. Think about it.

  • In truth, for most of us, there probably really is very little that divides us all. On most issues. But we’ve become not only divided, binary, political on every subject. . .but also knee-jerk reactionary to the point where shields go up, heels dig in, claws pop, and obscenities come out, and no discussion is allowed. Especially on God/guns/gays/abortion. Guns, perhaps most of all. The premise of the article though, what I was talking about, is a misguided assumption: that to be liberal means being 100% against guns.

  • PStarr

    20,000+ firearm regulations aren’t enough “common sense” legislation? How much is enough?

  • wireknob

    True on that premise. I live in a fairly liberal area and, somewhat surprisingly to me, I’ve discovered that many of my neighbors are also gun owners, regular shooters, and at least somewhat pro gun rights. So, even the liberals are generally knowledgeable enough on the subject to recognize the dishonest and emotionally charged gun control rhetoric and anti-gun political demagoguery. For most it’s just not an issue on their “short list”, as you put it. Not many heated discussions or strong disagreements around town, though.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Well, when you pull numbers like that out of your butt, we don’t really have much to talk about, do we?

  • SkippingDog

    There are many of us on the left who know firearms and enjoy shooting them. That doesn’t mean there should be unrestricted access to them.

  • nodixe

    Background checks are completely unconstitutional and should be utterly abolished along with the NFA and GCA. This is not land of the safe home of the pacifist. Who cares if some psycho gets ahold of a gun when half the people in any given crowd are armed. Thats how it should be. Nothing makes me more angry than tragic accounts of defenseless people being hunted as they scramble for some place to hide in fear. They should have been armed. That just goes to show that it is long past time to water the tree of liberty. Freedom belongs to those who would fight for it……I’m ready to give my pound of flesh.

  • RSII0210

    Don’t forget that “Sandy Hook” was ALL handguns as well. The AR-15 was in the back seat of his moms car during the entire school shooting.

    That doesn’t fit the Statist narrative so the liars in media always lie and say that the AR-15 was used in the rampage.

    Another often omitted fact is that ALL mass shooters since Columbine have been liberals raised in liberal households!

    If you ban all Democrats from owning guns mass murders will decrease!

    “Sic Semper Tyrannis”

  • jug

    You have no common sense!

    Proof?
    You are supporting the worst criminal in this country’s history!
    And lying about her stated intensions!

  • Governor1

    Iron Chef – If you would bother to pay attention, you would understand that “gun control” advocates do want to take the guns from citizens. You may be surprised to learn that there is a presidential election this year, with the Democrat Party candidate advocating just that.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    “You are supporting the worst criminal in this country’s history!”

    Dude, get a grip. You make this too easy.

  • Cheesemaster

    I see. So when Obama held up Great Britain and Australia as models of gun control, he wasn’t supporting the wholesale banning of guns. You are delusional. You are why liberals can’t be trusted. Background checks? Really? I should have to beg the federal government in order to exercise my natural rights? No, thank you.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Obama has been president for 7.5 years. How many guns have been confiscated? Exactly. STFU.

  • Mac

    And you believe this sh*t? You really shouldn’t call people who can think “dummies”. BTW no private citizen has ever legally owned a bazooka, tank, armed drone or any of the weapons that liberals say they want to sieze. Duck guns and repeating rifles are on the list.

  • Steven Barrett

    Sick, R.T., really really sick.

  • R T Deco

    I stole that one from some sick folks.

  • Steven Barrett

    Driving a car is fun. But to do it responsibly, you have to have a driver’s license which is earned, not a given. You have to have insurance, which has to be paid. No free lunch.
    And you have to be trained in the simple art of handling the weapon, taking what it represents very seriously and know what the hell you are doing. That can be fun, and I support her for saying so because at least she’s taking the precautions to make sure shooting doesn’t become a tragic event caused by carelessness.
    Notice I haven’t even gotten around to mentioning weapons used for criminal reasons. Responsible gun owners and operators don’t have to worry about such thoughts when they’re using firearms responsibly, any more than somebody who chooses to own a fast high powered sports car. If you can’t handle it or take full responsibility for your actions while using a 2,000 lbs projectile, obviously, you have no business being able to operate a firearm.
    And this, not government overreach, is the real crux of the matter never mind all the bloviations that came out of Nashville last weekend. This is what Ms. Maddows is trying to get across. C’mon, this is not difficult. It really isn’t.

  • missionvalleysd

    Yeah! It’s about time that I get carry around my missile launcher strapped to my back like a back pack everywhere I go so that on the off chance when I easily spot that psycho-looking person in a crowd of other gun toters I will be prepare to blast his arse away and save the rest of humanity and walk away hero. I match your pound of flesh and give you two!

  • missionvalleysd

    He shot off 154 rounds in 5 mins. Each hand gun had 30 round magazines. THAT is the problem. There is no common sense in that. How may of those dead kids and teacher could have escaped while he had to take time to reload if his max capacity was 10-15 rounds???? Also, it was a 12-gauge shot gun not an ar-15 found in the passenger compartment of his car.

  • RSII0210

    Adam Lanza. Raised by a liberal Democrat mother left Her AR-15 In the trunk of Her car! Liberals are anything but Liberal!!! Just a pack of freeloading statists who kill children to advance their agenda.

    If ONE person in that school had a gun No one would have been killed. Locked glass doors do NOT stop armed murderous liberals. Only Hot Lead!

    Ever wonder why Israel doesn’t have ANY school shootings? Because all of their teachers may be armed and some are armed.

    Maybe all of you “boot lick” fascists who are commonly called progressives should just voluntarily turn over all of your own guns?

  • missionvalleysd

    You really are a special kind of stupid. I will pray for you. Peace be with you.

  • Rausch Creek

    Nice way to start off by calling people idiots. I frankly don’t understand why liberals aren’t more pro-gun and why the ACLU is so tepid in its support for 2nd amendment civil liberties. We have tons of firearms laws already – somewhere in the neighborhood of 9,000. The vast majority of these are stupid and complicated and make innocuous otherwise lawful acts into crimes. Meanwhile liberal city bosses, judges and prosecutors ignore good laws that regulate dangerous behavior and actually could protect people. Not sure where the common sense is in me jumping through hoops, filling out paperwork, using ineffective weapons, and letting the government violate my privacy and other civil rights while the same liberals who demand these things repeatedly give criminals a free pass and buy votes by subsidizing the lifestyle of dependency and lack of respect for rights, society, and human life that perpetuates rampant crime.

  • RSII0210

    Troll alert..