A free press asks a question NRA dodges: Where were you for Philando Castile?

In a recent advertisement, the National Rifle Association says it is “coming for” The New York Times. When you’re in the business of stirring up fear to boost gun sales, Constitutional guarantees mean little.

The National Rifle Association claims its mission is to protect and defend constitutional freedoms. Yet with a recent advertisement that says the NRA is “coming for” The New York Times, the organization does just the opposite.

“We the people have had it,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch says in the ad.

“We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news.

“We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords. Your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. … We’re going to fisk The New York Times and find out just what deep rich means to this old gray hag. … In short, we’re coming for you.”

While Loesch claims her intention was to tell The Times that the NRA would be fact checking the newspaper’s content — that’s why she said she used the word fisk — don’t be fooled. When an organization that claims to have millions of armed members says, “We’re coming for you,” that is a physical threat. But more than that, it is a threat to the very Constitution the NRA has sworn to defend.

Because while I believe the NRA loves that the Constitution’s Second Amendment allows Americans to bear the arms that have made gun manufacturers wealthy, I also believe the NRA hates that the Constitution allows for a free and unfettered press. That’s because a truly free press can expose the NRA for what it is — a right-wing organization that used racial and religious bigotry to help gun manufacturers sell 27 million firearms to Americans in 2016.

If the NRA loved the Constitution, it would have spoken out forcefully for licensed black gun owner Philando Castile, who was gunned down by a police officer while legally exercising his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The NRA would have pointed out that Castile did not receive the equal protection that is promised in the 14th Amendment. Or perhaps the NRA would have encouraged people to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Instead, the NRA issued mealy-mouthed statements that never truly condemned the actions of an officer who killed a law-abiding gun owner and was…

Read the full article from the Source…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *