Rachel Maddow Flat Out Lying

I’ve always known Rachel Maddow was a complete fucking moron but I never realized just how stupid she really was until I watched her following clip (you’ll have to copy and paste since I won’t be a referral to this idiot’s site):


It’s Rachel Maddow on guns and it’s even more idiotic than I imagined. First she goes on a little rant about the all plastic gun that Glock was able to make. Yes you heard me right, an all plastic gun that Glock made. She claims Congress then passed a bill banning entirely plastic guns because of this magical undetectable-at-airports gun. What she is referencing (but never tells you) is the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Basically they law states any gun that can not be detected by a walk through metal detector is banned from being manufactured or imported into the country. The law also provided an exemption for any firearm that was already in the United States.

If the law was passed and Glock never actually made an entirely plastic gun then what was Congress doing passing any such law? Probably the same thing Wisconsin was doing when they banned electromagnetic weapons for hunting. In other words they were banning something that doesn’t exist. So where did Rachel get her firearm knowledge? Probably from Die Hard 2.

She then moves on to bitch about “cop killer bullets” (and Dick Cheney). There is no such thing as “cop killer bullets.” When people refer to such mystical things they are talking about armor piercing ammunition which is defined very specifically in the United States via the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985. In the United States armor piercing bullets is defined as handgun bullets (rifle and shotgun ammunition is specifically exempt) constructed from specified material. It also exempts any ammunition that the Secretary of Treasury exempts for hunting purposes.

Next she asks if her audience would like an anti-aircraft weapon. HELL YEAH I would. You know how awesome it would be to own a World War II anti-aircraft cannon? Pretty awesome that’s for sure. Anyways she states that there are federal regulations against having anti-aircraft weapon in airport observation areas. This is another stupid law because I’ve been in airport observation areas and honestly there is no way to wheel and anti-aircraft cannon in there. Have you seen the size of those things? They’re not exactly small rifles.

Funny enough she’s still not done bitch about guns. She goes on to talk about how everybody is stating passing gun control in this country is impossible (which, sadly, it isn’t) but she things differently. The reason passing gun control in this country is difficult is two fold. First we have a right to keep and bear arms codified in the second amendment. Second we’ve seen gun control laws never actual prevent or lower violent crime rates they only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. If something has been demonstrated not to work time and time again why should anybody take it seriously?

She then follows by making a classic anti-gunner mistake, stating the “assault weapon” ban made purchasing standard capacity magazines illegal. That’s not even close to the case. The “assault weapon” ban made it illegal to manufacture new magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds unless they were meant for military or law enforcement personnel. The Arizona shooter could still have legally purchased a previously manufactured 30 round magazine even with the ban in place. Likewise she keeps calling them clips because she’s a moron who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Then the real bullshit comes up, she claims information on gun control laws are “un-Googleable.” She also tells her audience that they shouldn’t even try to Google gun control laws but instead research them at a library. Yeah, sure. Guess what? I always find my information relating to gun laws using Google, it’s pretty easy. There isn’t some super gun lobby conspiracy to filter the Internet of all things gun law related.

If her staff can’t Google information related to gun laws she needs to fire them and hire new people. Either way that was the absolute worst piece I’ve seen done since the Arizona shooting and honestly don’t know how it could be topped.

10 thoughts on “Rachel Maddow Flat Out Lying”

  1. You are really, deeply, intensely dense. You have misunderstood every single thing she said. You have also linked to the wrong video clip.


    1. Oh, snap. These RWers think Glenn Beckkk’s rantings make sense, but sloppily try to delegitimatize a brilliant mind like Rachel Maddow. Must be scared people will actually begin listening to her excellent points.

    2. How did I misunderstand anything she said? She was incorrect on all the gun related points she made that I pointed out.

      She was trying to making an argument for gun control by flat out lying about gun related information.

      Also if that’s the wrong clip then they changed it on the site as I did check when I posted it.

  2. Christopher Burg you are a typical reichwing republicon who has no critical thinking skills, so stop trying.

    1. I’m a typical right-wing Republican? HA ha ha! That’s downright rich right there. Thanks for making me smile this morning.

  3. One recent example in the news, easily Googleable:
    Houston, Texas
    Ramon Castillo and Eva, his wife of 30 years, Jewelry Store owners face-off with three armed men who were going to tie them up and shoot them in the head. Four bullets pierced Castillo’s body six times because he had to run around getting 3 different “low capacity” guns to fight back.
    Castillo’s condition was upgraded to fair Wednesday, and he is expected to recover fully. The family has set up a website to help with medical bills

    The Bill of needs, I mean the bill of rights, doesn’t require anyone justifying a “need” to own something, else Politician fat cats ice cream is in trouble. Though “regular” capacity magazines in a “normal” capacity Glock could have benefited Mr. Castillo.

  4. Description of the above commentors….
    *Log into gun blog. Don’t understand any of the points the author is trying to make, but think that Rachel Maddow is “A good person”. Leave a rant attacking the personal intelligence, and political bias of the author, because he disagrees with something someone I like said….log off and stand infront of my mission accomplished/internet hero banner*

    People wonder why a reasonable discourse over the content of ideas is no longer possible… well I think we all know why.

    I’d make a statement about how well Mr. Burg researches his topics before posting, or how in the past he is equally quick to come down on republicans that he disagrees with, but it seems like a waste of effort. If you had read anything he posted previously, you would see he’s far more a libertarian, than republican, but considering you didn’t bother to read the article in the first place, I doubt you will read this response either.

    Keep up the good work Chris!

  5. She equates guns with cigarettes. Its a false analogy. First off Cigarettes are legal in all states. It was the manipulation of addictive ingredients and lying about it that they got hit for. Guns do exactly what they are said to do. They are not more or less deadly than they are said to be. They don’t blow up from faulty gas tank placement. They don’t have more nicotine then they do naturally have. Its apples and oranges.

    Maddow was ambushing people who were pro gun and hitting them with the question who is doing any anti gun bills? No one wants any anti gun bills so why are you so afraid of Democrats? Now that the election is over she is at the front of the pack with the usual suspects trying to ban guns and magazines as “sensible gun laws. ” I voted for Obama, now I vote Republican and screw women and their abortion rights, and gay rights. Not in the next election. I hope we can deliver a 1994 blow to Obama like we did to Clinton. We wiped out the congress of Dems for several years. Lets do another house cleaning.

Comments are closed.