MSNBC All In host and well-known beta man Chris Hayes smeared Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO) on Tuesday for daring to display her guns as decorations during a virtual congressional hearing. Comparing them to the likes of Osama bin Laden and communist revolutionaries in Cuba, he claimed that their portrayal was an “implicit threat” to politically motivated violence and suggested that everyone was in the GOP “Now they are signaling that they retain the right to overthrow the government by force at any time. ”
When Hayes teased the pathetic segment, he flashed a picture of Boebert and her background that included two ARs, a shotgun, and her famous Glock. “Do you notice anything else on the bookshelves? This image not only has a stash of weapons, but also has a deeper meaning. Also an implicit threat, “he defined.
In addition to the ridiculous notion that four guns were a “supply”, Hayes lamented how Boebert had “built her political identity around guns” and allowed people to carry them in the restaurant she owned at home. “Boebert vowed to carry a Glock around DC and on Capitol Hill. She posted a video to make sure we all knew“He snorted.
The ignorant MSNBC host then mocked the idea that the guns should defend her family and four boys, for which millions of Americans own guns:
Last Thursday she zoomed into a virtual congressional hearing with just a mess of guns piled on the bookshelf behind her. AR-15 style rifles, a pistol that only sits over a few books. Boebert, who is raising four boys who later tweeted that the weapons were not in storage but “ready for use”.
Apparently she’s just leaving them out fearing she’ll have to fire multiple rounds of ammunition for someone who walks into her cave?
“You know, Many people immediately noticed that the use of weapons in this manner as props, and the implied threat that it poses, has a long, not necessarily great, history among various movements around the world“He said.
According to Hayes, Boebert was just like former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden because he posed with a gun in front of books. “Osama bin Laden, because people like to pose in front of a bookshelf with a prominently displayed weapon. The Irish Republican Army displayed weapons on their propaganda posters and murals. Cuban revolutionaries also posed with guns all the time, ”he said.
After discovering that “no single side of the spectrum has a monopoly on this aesthetic,” he accused the congressman of undermining “democratic” norms.
“A movement or faction that places images of guns, the celebration of guns at the center of its political aesthetics is a movement that engages in something other than what we might call the normal rhetoric of elected democratic politics“He scoffed.
Added: “You cannot escape the meaning. It states that they are committed to, or at least open to, the possibility of a violent overthrow of the government or the existing order. And now, in the Republican Party, it seems to be getting generalized and unobtrusive.”
If that wasn’t enough, Hayes proved his ignorance of the Second Amendment and its origins (click “Expand”):
For decades the law has built this entire ideology around the second amendment, frankly based on the ridiculous idea that the US government has denied itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; because the founders themselves had gone through the revolution.
And history just doesn’t back it up, it’s not true. Not now, and not during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, for example, when President George Washington put on his old uniform, mounted a horse and dispatched troops to forcibly suppress a violent tax protest.
Hayes was obviously trying to illuminate his audience with revisionist history. We know the Founding Fathers’ intent because we have their personal writings.
It wasn’t until he moved on to his panel discussion that Hayes admitted that Democrats like John Kerry and Senator Joe Manchin (WV) had posed with guns. But this time it was different.
The cutbacks against Congressman Boebert and the Republican Party were made possible through lucrative sponsorships from ancestry and Febreze. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the terrible content they are funding.
The transcript is below, click “Expand” to read:
All In In from MSNBC
February 23, 2021
8:14:53 p.m. East
CHRIS HAYES: All right. Did you see that the other day This picture. This is what it looked like when the newly minted Republican Congressman Lauren Boebert zoomed in on a committee hearing the other day. This isn’t a standard zoom background behind her. It’s tailor-made, that’s actually their background. Do you notice anything else on the bookshelves? This image not only has a supply of weapons, but also has a deeper meaning. Also an implicit threat. I’ll explain right after that. Stay here.
(…)
8:18:57 p.m. East
HAYES: It’s been unclear for a while what exactly Donald Trump Jr. is doing, but like his father, he loves making content. This week he posted a video of himself railing against teachers’ unions while deliberately standing in front of a wall full of guns. The whole thing had the mood “Here are my thoughts from my bunker”. But as strange as this picture is, it’s becoming a trend on the right.
Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado, where guns are welcome and seemingly encouraged on the premises, has built her political identity on guns. Boebert vowed to carry a Glock around DC and on Capitol Hill. She posted a video to make sure we all knew.
Last Thursday she zoomed into a virtual congressional hearing with just a mess of guns piled on the bookshelf behind her. AR-15 style rifles, a pistol that only sits over a few books. Boebert, who is raising four boys who later tweeted that the weapons were not in storage but “ready for use”.
Apparently she’s just leaving them out fearing she’ll have to fire multiple rounds of ammunition for someone who walks into her cave?
You know, many people immediately noticed that the use of guns in this manner as props and the implied threat that it posed has a long, not necessarily great, history among various movements around the world.
Osama bin Laden, because people like to pose in front of a bookshelf with a prominently displayed weapon. The Irish Republican Army displayed weapons on their propaganda posters and murals. Cuban revolutionaries posed with guns all the time too. And no single side of the spectrum has a monopoly on this aesthetic. I mean you can see it all over the world. It is undoubtedly the aesthetic of armed struggle, revolution or insurrection.
A movement or faction that places images of guns, the celebration of guns at the center of its political aesthetics is a movement that engages in something other than what we might call the normal rhetoric of elected democratic politics.
You cannot escape the meaning. It states that they are committed to, or at least open to, the possibility of a violent overthrow of the government or the existing order. And now, in the Republican Party, it seems to be getting generalized and unobtrusive.
(…)
For decades the law has built this entire ideology around the second amendment, frankly based on the ridiculous idea that the US government has denied itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; because the founders themselves had gone through the revolution.
And history just doesn’t back it up, it’s not true. Not now, and not during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, for example, when President George Washington put on his old uniform, mounted a horse and dispatched troops to forcibly suppress a violent tax protest.
Many Republicans are now signaling that they retain the right to use force to overthrow the government at any time, and that is actually at the core of part of their political principles in the Second Amendment, and they are ready to prosecute this claim as a threat brand their political goals.
And it’s not an academic thing, is it? I mean right now the threat of violence and threat hangs over our collective political life.
(…)
Comments are closed.