On Thursday’s CNN Tonight, host Laura Coates went on an unhinged rant over the battle in Congress to renew the so-called “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA). Coates also lashed out at the National Rifle Association (NRA) for blocking the “boyfriend loophole” which would prevent someone who is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony from owning a firearm regardless of whether the couple is living together or not.
“It's frankly unbelievable that we even need to have a Violence Against Women Act, but we do. It's also unbelievable that the Violence Against Women Act was allowed to expire in 2018, but it did,” Coates huffed at the beginning of her rant.
She went on the wail that the NRA opposes VAWA because “they opposed a limitation on gun ownership in general, even in spite of the obvious truth, that it made women and children more vulnerable to violence, more vulnerable to abuse, and more likely to be killed by their abuser who would now have the means to kill.”
Continuing on her venomous attack on the NRA, Coates kvetched “times like this remind us that it is increasingly becoming a government of the lobbyists, by the special interests. And, frankly, for the love of money. And even when it means violence against women persists, I guess just as long as you don't upset the apple cart of the NRA.”
If you thought she couldn’t go any lower, she then suggested “lawful gun owners like maybe Amir Locke or Philando Castile killed by police officers in my home state of Minnesota. Apparently, those aren't the kinds of causes they prioritize. Lawfully carrying a gun and alerting the police of its presence when the car you aren't driving in is pulled over? I'm not sure this is the right case for us in the NRA.”
In case you didn’t get that, Locke and Castile are two black men who were killed with guns in their possession (of course, she didn't note the real issues with each instance). Coates suggested the NRA doesn’t want black people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Yet according to her, the NRA is perfectly fine with defending the rights of a white “convicted stalker who wants to carry a gun for the next time he violates a restraining order.”
This racially divisive segment was made possible by Chase, Mercedes-Benz, and Liberty Mutual. Their information is linked so you can let them know about the biased news they fund.
To read the relevant transcript of this segment click “expand”:
CNN Tonight
2/10/2022
9:51:18 PMLAURA COATES: It's frankly unbelievable that we even need to have a Violence Against Women Act, but we do. It's also unbelievable that the Violence Against Women Act was allowed to expire in 2018, but it did. And even in a political climate such as this, frankly, it's unbelievable that it took more than three years to negotiate a way to renew, let alone strengthen, that act, but it did. But what is absolutely unconscionable is that it actually came down to the NRA.
And why? Because they opposed a loophole known as the boyfriend loophole. What is it? Well as it currently stands, the act ensured that anyone convicted, not just accused but convicted, as in due process occurred here convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence would not be allowed to own or possess a gun. And for the last few years, Senators had been trying to expand that prohibition to not just married partners but to those who live together or those who share a child, but also those who are dating partners or stalkers and others covered by a protection order. But, well the NRA didn't like it. They opposed a limitation on gun ownership in general, even in spite of the obvious truth, that it made women and children more vulnerable to violence, more vulnerable to abuse, and more likely to be killed by their abuser who would now have the means to kill.
I saw this so many times as a prosecutor looking at domestic violence, and the first thing we would ask, of course, is not to have a gun be allowed to be in the possession. You would think in examining it, you wonder who should have been more powerful in these negotiations, women, and children who have every right to be protected from violence, or a gun lobbying organization like the NRA? You know, we talk a good game in this country about how we want a government to be of the people and by the people and for the people. But times like this remind us that it is increasingly becoming a government of the lobbyists, by the special interests. And, frankly, for the love of money. And even when it means violence against women persists, I guess just as long as you don't upset the apple cart of the NRA, well apparently the little ladies can take a seat.
Well, look, maybe altruism isn't your thing. Maybe you only see the bottom line. Ok, well, how about this? Recall that the Air Force was just forced to pay $230 million to survivors and families of those killed in the 2017 mass shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. On Monday a federal judge found the military was mostly at fault, for failing to report the shooter’s domestic violence-related convictions to the FBI, which could have prevented him from purchasing the semiautomatic rifle that he used in that mass shooting. Do you realize he fired more than 450 rounds into that church? He killed 26 people, including a pregnant woman. How did the NRA respond? Well, they doubled down on the myth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. When, really, the bad guy with the gun shouldn't have had it in the first place.
It's a loophole, though, nonetheless supported by the NRA. But what won't be NRA support? Well, lawful gun owners like maybe Amir Locke or Philando Castile killed by police officers in my home state of Minnesota. Apparently, those aren't the kinds of causes they prioritize. Lawfully carrying a gun and alerting the police of its presence when the car you aren't driving in is pulled over? I'm not sure this is the right case for us in the NRA. A man sleeping under a blanket jolted
awake by a no-knock warrant being executed, even when it wasn't even intended for him? I'm not sure we have the time or maybe the resources. A convicted stalker who wants to carry a gun for the next time he violates a restraining order? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Now, that's in our line with our mission statement. And the fact that Congress' mission was thwarted for three years because of it? My, that is quite a statement, America. I rest my case.
