Joe Scarborough, ‘If you defend assault weapons, you look like a jackass.”

Joe Scarborough, ‘If you defend assault weapons, you look like a jackass.”

lapierre-assault-weapons

Joe Scarborough has a message for those who are defending assault weapons, “If you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.”

Here is the video:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Continued Below)

Transcript from MSNBC:

Lindsey Graham: Would I be a reasonable American to want my family to have the 15-round magazine and a semiautomatic weapon to make sure if there’s two intruders shouldn’t run out of bullets. Am I an unreasonable person for saying that in that situation, the 15-round magazine makes sense? There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here. Six bullets in the hands of a woman trying to defend her children may not be enough.

Gayle Trotter: An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. and the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened violent criminals.

Joe Scarborough: And therein —

Brzezinski: Wow!

Scarborough: — lies the problem with having to defend assault weapons. Because if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass. seriously —

Brzezinski: i’m sorry, but that’s true.

Scarborough: Willie– Willie–

Brzezinski: That was Gayle Trotter, a gun advocate for the Independent Women’s Forum.

Scarborough: And before that, Lindsey Graham who said, Am I unreasonable to think that a woman needs a high-capacity magazine? Rambo in the house. to defend — come on. seriously? This is so stupid. and Wayne LaPierre saying, you know, the criminals out there, the criminals out there that aren’t going to abide by background checks, so we should just have no background checks. Well, why do we — Willie, why do we have any laws on the books? there are terrorists that are going to end up —

Brzezinski: Just let it be the wild west.

Scarborough:– in the United States of America. Why do we even try to stop Al Qaeda, right? They say they’re going to attack us again. So why don’t we let down all of our defenses and just give up?

The NRA doesn’t want any laws when it comes to guns. That’s the whole point of their existence. They aren’t defending the average American’s Second Amendment rights. They are a lobbying front for weapons manufacturers. The fewer laws the better. The easier it is to buy a gun, the more profits will grow for the gun industry. That’s is the purpose of what the NRA is doing. While working to make sure that the laws on the books can’t be enforced, the NRA has taken the public stand that the problem is that government isn’t enforcing existing gun laws. What the NRA doesn’t mention is that they are the ones who are lobbying Congress to limit the power to enforce gun laws.

From a public relations point of view, Scarborough nailed it. Anyone who tries to defend assault weapons ends up looking like an uncaring jackass, or someone who is completely out of touch with reality. The flaw in the NRA’s fantasy intruder scenario is that they assume all criminals are armed with guns. (This makes sense when you consider that the NRA’s position is just say no to any and all gun laws.) What if the intruder doesn’t have a gun? If the intruder is not carrying a gun, the woman would only need one bullet. That’s the problem with these survivalist fantasy scenarios. They can be spun in any and all directions.

The NRA is selling a fearmongering fantasy that is making their membership and the Republican members of Congress who mouth their talking points all look like jackasses.

Recent posts on PoliticusUSA