Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts

12.17.2015

NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch launches a fact-free "Godless Left"-blaming tirade


Cross-posted from Daily Kos.


Prominent NRA spokeswoman and conservative hate-spewing phony “Christian” radio/TV host Dana Loesch had a screed that was full of hot air and lacking in facts and substance in the wake of the San Bernardino Shooting. She falsely blamed gun safety advocates as the “Godless Left” for demanding more than just thoughts and prayers, such as meaningful action on gun safety measures.
In a video for NRA News, Conservative pundit Dana Loesch sneered her way through a pro-gun, pro-prayer, and anti-”Godless Left” rant (which, it should be noted, seems to encompass the entire left, godless and otherwise). It touched on everything from Benghazi to healthcare, and was really quite a hodgepodge of cherished right-wing talking points.
Loesch bravely, bravely takes on a whole host of favorite conservative straw men with the requisite contempt and anger she believes they merit. She is, after all, fighting for the right to survive. Somehow. She never quite gets to the hows, but, you know, FREEDOM!!!
So, fuck you, Dana.
Fuck you and your self-righteous “my 2nd Amendment rights are more important than your dead kid” granstanding bullshit.
Fuck you and your xenophobic “be afraid of the Muslims” bullshit.
Fuck you and your “it’s the liberal’s fault because they won’t spy on Muslim’s social media”.
Fuck you and your blaming liberals and the “godless left” for everything wrong in the world.
AMEN! Loesch and her acolytes can fuck off!
Dana Loesch, a religious right, gun supporter extraordinaire, went on a crazed anti-left rant on The Blaze earlier today.
Apparently, she has a trademark on "God," owning the Almighty outright and blamed the "godless left," for everything wrong with the world under the sun.
In fact, this claim formed the crux of an unhinged rant that The Blaze's Dana Loesch delivered on her television program last night in which she furiously attacked the "godless left" for "mocking people who were simply asking for prayers" in the wake of the attack and for blaming the attack on guns and the NRA.
"Here's an idea," she said, "how about you guys stop letting terrorists in ... because you all have blood on your hands right now."
[...]
"I also have a major problem with all these tragedy dry-humping whores," she ranted, "and I'm not watching my language because it’s about time somebody call you out for what you are. You sicken me.”
Speaking of tragedy dry-humping whores, it’s YOU, Mrs. Loesch, not the “Godless Left!”  In fact, you are a dry-humper for various right-wing causes, such as opposition to unions, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and supporting the NRA unconditionally.
Arguing that calling for sensible gun regulations and not prayer “mocked the entire concept of religion,” Loesch called the cover a “coordinated assault” on “our right to believe.” Loesch went on to smugly mock the paper (and the so-called “the Godless Left”) for their apparent knowledge of “God’s will” before segueing into rhetorically abhorrent territory. 
[...]
And then Loesch (in true right-wing conspiracy theory spirit) brought in Benghazi. Because of course. Despite the fact that not one GOP-led Congressional committee could indict Hillary Clinton on a single charge of wrongdoing, dangerous ideologues like Loesch continue to capitalize on the fear mongering invoking the word “Benghazi” creates.
Thereafter, Loesch somehow even managed to shoehorn the so-called “War on Christmas” into the commentary for good measure.
The pièce de résistance arrived when Loesch discussed the San Bernardino shooting. Referring to the “Godless Left”, Loesch argued, “These saboteurs share the same fanatical fervor to tear apart the foundations of America as the terrorists who threaten our very survival. And together, they march hand-in-hand toward the possible, purposeful destruction of us all.”
Her latest rant sums up why Loesch (and her listeners) are a danger to American morals. 
If you lack the stomach to watch Loesch connect-the-dots between Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, Obamacare, the ostensible demonization of Christianity, the War on Christmas, the “weaponizing of the IRS,” the Fort Hood attacks, the Boston Marathon bombing and, of course, Benghazi, that’s most likely because you belong to the “the global alliance of elitists, media activists, Hollywood celebrities, campus radicals and political power-mongers who have openly attacked sacred American values and the people who cherish them with ruthlessness, contempt and downright hatred.”
You most likely, according to Loesch, share “the same fanatical fervor to tear apart the foundations of America as the terrorists who threaten our very survival.” That’s why you applauded as “the New York Daily News became the loudest, vilest, most condescending voice for what many people call the Godless Left.” 
[...]
“As a horrific act of terror unfolded in real time, the majority of Americans,” Loesch said, speaking for this imagined majority, “turned to earnest prayer for the dead, the wounded, their families and the world — while political and media elites joined forces to insult and mock and disparage them, and in so doing, laid bare the utter moral depravity of the Godless Left.”
Her “Godless Left” tirade is proof that right-wing hatemongering buttmunches like Loesch are actually driving more people away from Christianity.
Her NRA News commentary, called the “Godless Left”:

From the 12.15.2015 edition of TheBlazeTV’s Dana:

I hate to break it to you and your brainwashed fans, Dana, but a lot of the people on the political left in this country believe in God and/or own guns.
Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

6.16.2014

Paid NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch tastelessly poses with an AR-15 on the cover for her book Hands Off My Gun

Yet again, NRA mouthpiece and TheBlaze Dana Loesch is pandering to the fringe gun nuts by posing on the cover for her new book (Hands Off My Gun: Defeating The Plot To Disarm America, originally titled Defenseless) due to be out in October in a very offensive manner by insulting the survivors of the Sandy Hook Shooting.


John Amato at Crooks and Liars:
Dana Loesch, firebreather for Glenn Beck and other low brow conservatives has a new book out and decided to pose on the cover with an AR-15, a weapon that helped massacre so many innocent children in Sandy Hook. Glenn Beck is very excited that the cover will absolutely piss off liberals, but her crassness only proves the point I've been making for a long time.


Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache:
ana Loesch is no stranger to controversy. She's the extreme right conservative that applauded the desecration of enemy bodies overseas (urination on the bodies by American soldiers, in case everyone's forgotten). She's the Tea Party conservative that defendedArizona's SB1062, a piece of legislation that would bring back a new era of Jim Crow public accommodation discrimination (which didn't come as a surprise since Loesch supports Jim Crow in general). Loesch is the extremist that sided with Cliven Bundy even after he made (and doubled down on) egregiously racist statements in the course of his 'sovereign citizen' spiel. In her latest shock-jock stunt to generate publicity (and money), Loesch posed for the cover of her new book "Hands Off My Gun" (due out in October) with the same weapon used in both the Sandy Hook massacre and the Oregon high school shooting this week.  
[...] 
 Furthermore, Loesch's intentional use of that particular firearm - a firearm now nationally associated with one of the worst school shooting tragedies in modern history - doesn't just work to incense the gun regulation crowd; rather, it serves as a snub (perhaps even a rude gesture) to those families who lost family members in both Sandy Hook and the Oregon shooting. And Loesch knows this. To say anything otherwise would be disingenuous.
 This is typical crass moronic behavior we've come to expect from Loesch.

 More on Loesch's idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:  




Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

11.08.2013

Dana Loesch falsely says #KYSen candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes's gun shooting photo was staged

Yet another edition of Dana Loesch attacking Democratic women.
And this time, it's directed at Kentucky Senate Candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) (who is running to attempt to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)) for offering her rival to a gun club for a challenge and being allegedly "anti-2nd Amendment."

Here were Loesch's insensitive tweets discussing Grimes holding a gun while shooting:






Loesch smeared Grimes for not having eye and ear protection while using a gun. I bet if it was a Republican doing the same thing that ALG did, then Loesch will give that person a pass instead.







Jed Lewison at Daily Kos has the real facts and slams McConnell shill Brad Dayspring:

Well, you know what? Maybe Mitch could take Grimes up on her invitation and offer a free lesson or two in gun safety, complete with his choice of earmuffs and goggles. Now that's a sight I'd pay to see.
 Update: It gets even more ridiculous:Such a ridiculous unforced failure MT @DLoesch: Hi @AlisonForKY ! Eye and ear protection. This is how it's done. http://t.co/...— @BDayspring

Politico:
Firing a twitter shot at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, senatorial candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes on Friday challenged the incumbent to join her on her shooting range while jabbing his service to the state.
[...]In addition to criticizing McConnell, the tweet was an attempt to clarify Grimes’ position on gun rights.
“As an NRA member, my strong support for the Second Amendment is unquestioned. I am proud of Kentucky’s long-held gun ownership, sporting and hunting traditions,” Grimes said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that Senator McConnell is desperate to mislead Kentucky voters about my strong support for the Second Amendment.”




That photo is NOT staged whatsoever, contrary to Loesch and Dayspring's self-serving bullshit spin.




Posted by at 1 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

3.25.2013

Dana Loesch smears another pro-gun safety advocate: Jim Carrey

Guess who's smearing gun safety supporters again? If you said the shithead Dana Loesch, then you'd be correct. She smeared Jim Carrey (a celebrity that she used to admire) for simply releasing a song that bashes Charlton Heston and NRA entitled "Cold Dead Hand."









































































































































Typical from this useless NRA shill Loesch.










The facts about the song:

TPM:
Jim Carrey has become the latest Hollywood star to wade into the gun control debate. The actor teamed up with Funny or Die to release a song Monday, titled "Cold Dead Hand," that goes after gun rights advocates, specifically former NRA chief Charlton Heston, who died in 2008. 
HuffPo:

The late Charlton Heston might be rolling in his grave today thanks to Jim Carrey, who debuted a new satirical song about gun enthusiasts appropriately titled, "Cold Dead Hand." 
The Funny Or Die music video features Carrey and alt-rock band Eels as "Lonesome Earl And The Clutterbusters," a country band on a TV show set inspired by the classic variety show, "Hee Haw." Carrey also portrays the aforementioned Heston, who is continuously mocked throughout the song for his NRA spokesman-ship. Carrey even implies that Heston and all other gun enthusiasts buy weapons to compensate for having, um, "diminished" sexual organs. 
Carrey, who has openly supported gun control, said in a release: “I find the gun problem frustrating and ‘Cold Dead Hand’ is my fun little way of expressing that frustration."



More on Loesch's idiocy and falsehoods on Guns and the 2nd Amendment:  

Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

1.29.2013

Dana Loesch visits CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, tells more tall tales on national TV

Is Dana Loesch out of her goddamn mind?! She appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight to make even more idiotic arguments for the 2nd Amendment. As if that weren't enough, she made herself a bigger irresponsible moron by brandishing an AR-15 lighter on national television.


Charles Blow of The New York Times, on the other hand, made well-reasoned arguments on this issue-- including calling out the NRA for what it really is: "a no regulation organization."

From the 01.28.2013 edition of CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight:


Loesch on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight with her AR-15 lighter.






Transcript:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take. Congress is going to be paying attention to them. And we'll be able to make progress. 
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: President Obama just before today's White House Meeting on Guns. Joining me to talk about that is Dana Loesch, the host of "The Dana Show," and Charles Blow, "New York Times" columnist and CNN contributor. I'm also bringing back the former congressman Steven LaTourette, because, Steven, you were about to make a point about the Second Amendment. 
And in the interest of fair play, I would like you to make that point. 
LATOURETTE: Thank you. What I was saying is the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court recently in a Washington, D.C. case, Heller, and another case in Chicago, looking at gun regulations. And you can't frame the argument, why do you need that gun? That's not the issue. The issue is the Second Amendment says you are entitled to have that gun.
It also -- the courts have said that you can put reasonable restrictions on that. This is a political problem we're facing. So people can take the extreme views on this issue and get nothing done. Or you can say how can we come together and close the gun show loophole and -- 
MORGAN: OK, I get that. I get that point. I don't disagree with that second point you made there. But on the question of the Second Amendment, I got into this with Newt Gingrich the other day. Presumably -- I mean, do you agree or disagree with the ban on machine guns, for example, automatic machine guns? 
LATOURETTE: Well, that's a reasonable restriction. That's what I'm saying. 
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: But my question is, since the Founder Fathers never specified obviously the precise type of gun, because they couldn't have done -- they wouldn't have been able to foresee them. My question to you is, what is the substantive difference between the effect of a banned machine gun, that you and I both agree should be banned under the Second Amendment -- what is the difference between that and what it can do to a classroom full of children and an AR-15 loaded with a 100-bullet magazine?
Because to me, I don't see any difference. And that's why I don't understand why you're comfortable with banning one and not the other? 
LATOURETTE: It's not a question of what I'm comfortable with. The Founding Fathers didn't foresee texting while driving either. But that's not how we measure things. The fact of the matter is that the recent interpretation of the Second Amendment says that you're allowed to have a gun. What you have to do -- then say is what can we do within the political framework, the fractured political framework, where the Republicans control the House, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate -- 
MORGAN: I get that. 
LATOURETTE: That's what this is about. 
MORGAN: I get that, except that I just think you should also include an assault weapons ban. I'm interested in exploring the debates on both sides about that. 
Charles Blow, this is -- the contradiction that I can't quite work out in my head with the pro-gun lobby -- let's call them that, even though I'm not anti-all gun. It's a pointless phrase, in many ways. But what is the difference between agreeing that under the Second Amendment you can't own a machine gun, because it causes mass carnage in a few seconds, but you can apparently, as a right, have an AR-15 with a 100-bullet magazine? Can you explain to me the argument, the logic that differentiates those two? 
(CROSS TALK)
CHARLES BLOW, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": You can't ask me to explain the logic of this because I don't quite understand the logic of those. I do believe that we can start by saying that high-capacity magazines are probably not things we should have in civilian hands. I think that we can say that weapons like these assault weapons, assault rifles, both -- but I think also some assault handguns can be placed out of bounds of ordinary citizens.
And I think that's OK and still within the Second Amendment and does not violate the spirit of that amendment. 
MORGAN: OK, Dana, I spoke to Ray Kelly off camera at the end of that, because I knew that you and I had locked horns about this before. And I said explain to me the difference between an AR-15, in reality, and some of the more high powered guns. He said, look, if you get a 30-bullet magazine clipped to a high powered handgun, it can obviously fire at a rapid rate and everyone can see that. 
The difference with an AR-15 is that way you hold it and the way that you load the magazines makes it a much easier weapon to commit mass slaughter with, and a much faster one to commit it. So he said there is a substantive difference. 
But I ask you the same question I have asked others, which is what is the difference, in terms of the argument you're putting forward to me about your resistance to ban an AR-15 style weapon -- what is the difference between the kind of carnage it can cause in a school and a machine gun, an automatic rifle, which is already banned in most places? What is the difference? 
DANA LOESCH, "THE DANA SHOW": The AR-15 is semiautomatic, Piers. And a machine gun is obviously automatic. One is select fire capabilities. The other -- or one may have select fire capabilities. The other one you, with one -- pull the trigger once and you get one bullet. There's a huge difference.
MORGAN: But that wasn't my question. My question was in terms -- 
LOESCH: I explained the difference. You asked what the difference was. 
MORGAN: I know the technical differences. I am asking about the effect, if a man like James Holmes walks into a movie theater armed with, as he had, a 100-bullet magazine and an AR-15 and begins to unload, what is the difference in the carnage that he can cause in a minute compared to a machine gun? The only answer is a few more dead, right, because he still managed to hit 70 people. 
LOESCH: Well, we had the Virginia Tech shooting, which was done with handguns. By the way, I have never heard the term assault handgun before. But that -- Virginia Tech, that was the single deadliest shooting in the history of this country. And that was done with handguns. But if you're trying to somehow equate AR-15s with machine guns, the two are completely different. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. 
In fact, I asked your producers about this, Piers. I wanted to show you something. This is actually a small sized AR-15. In fact, if you will believe it, I got this at the gas station. It's a lighter that's probably -- there it goes, not going to work. 
The difference between a fully automatic, an M-16, which is the military style, is that you hold the trigger -- imagine this is me holding the trigger. The ammunition -- the rounds keep coming. But with a semiautomatic, you have to -- with one pull of the trigger, one pull, one bullet every single time. And I want to make -- 
(CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: No, no, no, no. 
LOESCH: -- 40 percent background check, that is a bunk number. That is a completely false number. You're citing a study done of 250 people back before the Brady Act in the Clinton administration. 
MORGAN: Dana, stop talking for a moment. We'll come to that after the break. On that particular point, I know the difference technically between the M-16 and the AR-15 completely. My brother used the M-16 in the Army. 
The point -- the point is the difference in the carnage they can cause in one minute in a school. I don't see much difference. And that's why I'm bemused that you believe one is entitled, under your rights, but the other you're perfectly happy not to be entitled under your rights. 
Let's take a break. Let's come back and discuss this further because it is a lively debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MORGAN: Back now with Dana Loesch, host of "The Dana Show," and Charles Blow, "New York Times" columnist and CNN contributor. Dana, let me ask you -- because I asked you this before and you said nothing. But now you have had time to think about this. What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do to curb gun violence in America? 
LOESCH: To curb gun violence in America? Stop disarming law abiding citizens. That is the first thing I would do. 
MORGAN: Other than -- other than not removing any guns, what would you do to stop the fact that 18,000 Americans kill themselves with guns every year, 12,000 murder with guns every year and -- 
LOESCH: And Piers, that is a fraction of people who have firearms. You can't loop -- you can't just lump law abiding gun owners in with criminals. I think that is really offensive to a lot of Americans, especially when you consider 2.7 million firearms were sold December 2012. 
MORGAN: What would you personally do and authorize politicians to do to reduce gun violence?
LOESCH: To reduce gun violence? Like I said, first and foremost, I would stop regulations that seek to disarm law abiding citizens. I would also, in addition to that -- that is actually one of the most important things you can do, because conceal/carry, first off -- whenever conceal/carry is implemented for instance, like Florida and Missouri --
(CROSS TALK)
LOESCH: That is a huge thing, Piers. 
MORGAN: Dana, other -- Dana, other than keeping guns in people's hand -- I have your point on that -- what would you proactively do to reduce gun violence? 
LOESCH: Tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained fire arms. 
MORGAN: OK, Charles Blow --
LOESCH: Did that answer your question? 
MORGAN: Charles -- 
LOESCH: I answered it. 
MORGAN: I am asking Charles. The president came out with all of these plans and all these initiatives, but many Republicans and many gun's rights people simply don't agree with any of them. They don't even think there should be background checks. 
BLOW: First of all, we should make clear that none of those suggestions are proposals to disarm any law abiding gun owners. None of them. The government has not said that they want to do that and is not doing that. The second thing is that the NRA is basically a no regulation organization. They don't want any new regulations of any sort. 
And none of the gun -- I don't call them gun rights groups, but gun proliferation groups, because that is the business that they are in, is to make sure that there are more guns produced, sold and in public hands. And I think that -- that -- pushing in that direction is actually the wrong direction for us to go, because they will not only -- there will be people -- who most people who buy a gun will use it responsibly. But the more guns that are out there, the more likely guns will be able to fall into the hands of the criminals. And that becomes the problem. 
MORGAN: OK. Well, the debate will carry on. I am sure I will have you both back very soon. Dana Loesch and Charles Blow, thank you both very much.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MORGAN: That is it for us tonight. And a programming note, Anderson Cooper hosts a special town hall on guns this Thursday night. And Anderson starts now. 
Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,

1.12.2013

Wingnut extraordinaire Dana Loesch attacks Piers Morgan and "anti-gun" liberals

Recently, GOP and NRA shill Dana Loesch has attacked "gun safety"/"gun control" supporters for simply trying to get common-sense reforms on guns in America.


Loesch on the Sandy Hook Shooting and how she blamed Liberals/Progressives:

Friday was a day of horror, heartbreak, and prayer. Despite this, some of our progressive brethren couldn’t resist using the tragedy to make a case for risking lives by preventing families a means of self-protection via their Second Amendment rights. Let us have a frank discussion: Progressives believe that our Second Amendment rights are what perpetuated the horrific massacre in Sandy Hook. They believe that if firearm ownership was illegal then Adam Lanza wouldn’t have murdered. They say that Americans shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons,” as they call them.Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?

Dear Dana, it is conservatives like you that politicizes shootings like Sandy Hook, by blaming the following: the alleged lack of spankings in school, alleged lack of mandated [teacher-led] school prayer, unarmed teachers and support staff, abortion, same-sex marriage, liberals, unions, et al.


More Loesch distortions on the gun issue:

The other evening Piers Morgan continually referred to the weapon Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook massacre as an “assault rifle.” He’s not alone; many left-leaning hosts do the same. Unfortunately, it’s wrong, and it’s dangerous for any conservative to accept such a mischaracterization of these firearms in any conversation. Doing so immediately cedes to the left that such assertions are acceptable and correct. They are not. Unless Morgan and other pundits are insisting that Adam Lanza used a firearm with fully-automatic firing capability, we need to stop using these make-believe, unicorn terms and get educated on firearms. 
First and foremost there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Any device used to assault (a behavior or action) someone can be defined as an “assault weapon.” There exist fully automatic firearms and semi automatic firearms, period. There technically is no such thing as an “assault rifle,” either. The term is a Nazi invention (Sturmgewehr) fully named Sturmgewehr 44, and is regarded as the first “assault” rifle. Firearms which shared the technical characteristics of Hitler’s rifle were casually defined with this sobriquet and it grew over time.

The problem with using this phrase to define scary-looking rifles is that it betrays a gross lack of knowledge on firearms. The rifle Lanza had in the trunk of his car (and there are various conflicting reports from a too-eager media about whether or not this rifle was used in the shootings) was not an “assault rifle.” Anyone claiming that it was is insisting that Lanza’s weapon was a military-grade rifle capable of selective fire, meaning, it has the giggle-switch to kick it from semi-automatic to fully automatic. I’ve shot so-called “assault rifles” and I own semi-automatics. They are not the same. Anyone calling any of these rifles “assault rifles” used in the Sandy Hook shooting and any other such tragedies are claiming that fully-automatic weapons, regulated to banned, are somehow in the civilian market used in mass shootings.
If the left can move conservatives into using their misused terminology, they’ve already won ground in the anti-Second Amendment battle. When we start taking on the language of the left, we are no longer defending our position, we will have ceded it. We can’t afford such mistakes.

Typical right-wing/pro-NRA apologist rubbish by Loesch. Also, Ms. Liaresch, Liberals/Progressives like me do NOT hate the 2nd Amendment.

And yes, "assault weapons" exist and are a valid definition.

On the 01.09.2013 edition of The Dana Show, she blamed the liberals for "the corruption in society and attempting to ban guns."

From the 01.09.2013 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:




Excuse me, Dana Loesch! Your gun (or anyone else's) will NOT be confiscated. And the 2nd Amendment is NOT "under attack", either!



She attacks Piers Morgan, who is being chewed out by wingnuts over his recent comments endorsing gun control, on Twitter:

































































































Piers Morgan's rebuttal tweets to Loesch's misleading falsehoods;



















































































Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr