ShareThis Page
‘Target practice’: Critics slam NRA’s headline next to Pelosi, Giffords photo in magazine |
Politics Election

‘Target practice’: Critics slam NRA’s headline next to Pelosi, Giffords photo in magazine

The Washington Post
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., escorts former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords following the Feb. 19, 2019, introduction of bipartisan universal background check legislation at the U.S. Capitol. Giffords survived being shot in the head in 2011.

WASHINGTON — Next to a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and former Arizona lawmaker Gabrielle Giffords were the words “Target Practice.”

It was the headline of a story in the National Rifle Association’s American Rifleman magazine, where the author, chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox, criticized newly introduced bipartisan universal background-check legislation. But in the eyes of others, the headline and accompanying photo of Pelosi and Giffords, who was shot in the head in Tucson in 2011, said more than the article did.

Some claimed the headline was an intentional attempt to incite violence against the politicians.

“The NRA’s words here are clear,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted. “They may pretend that the article is about something different. But everyone can see what is being suggested against [Pelosi and Giffords]. Time to shut them down with our voices and votes.”

A firestorm erupted over the weekend after photos of the spread in the magazine’s March edition began circulating on social media, inviting scorn from parents of children killed in the Parkland mass shooting as well as Democratic lawmakers. Some, including Swalwell, called for legal consequences against the NRA for its “Target Practice” headline, while other gun-rights supporters insisted that critics were reading too much into the words.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, was among those who pushed back against critics, specifically Swalwell, who he suggested had stirred up fake outrage.

“How can you claim this?” he said in response to the California congressman. “Are you deliberately lying or did you just not read it? The article is about legislation targeting gun owners, not the NRA targeting Democrats. If your goal is to ensure that ‘outrage culture’ is alive and well, continuing to divide us, congrats.”

The NRA could not immediately be reached for comment, though spokeswoman Dana Loesch retweeted a story on Sunday about Crenshaw’s remarks. The American Rifleman magazine is the NRA’s official publication, with more than two million print and online readers, according to its media kit.

The backlash began Friday evening after Jennifer Bendery, a politics reporter at HuffPost, tweeted images of the spread, and it accelerated after parents of teenagers killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School condemned the image as well, equating it to domestic terrorism.

“Who are you trying to intimidate NRA?” wrote Manuel Oliver, who lost his son, Joaquin Oliver, in the shooting. “By now, you should know that we don’t give a [expletive] about your efforts to terrorize a nation. This ‘nazi style’ propaganda only shows your low power over society.”

Fred Guttenberg, who lost his daughter Jaime in the Parkland massacre, called on NRA members to renounce their membership over the spread.

“Magazine covers and titles are highly thought out,” he wrote on Twitter. “People get paid a lot of money on decisions like this. The decision in NRA magazine to have an article titled Target Practice next to photo of Pelosi and Giffords is intentional. This is incitement of violence and not OK!”

He continued: “For those who have ever challenged my assertion that the current NRA leadership uses terror tactics, look no further.”

The controversy comes amid heightened sensitivity toward perceived threats made against lawmakers, journalists and other public figures in recent months. On Thursday, longtime Republican operative Roger Stone was forced to apologize in federal court, the day after he posted an image of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing his obstruction of justice case, with what appeared to be crosshairs visible just over her shoulder. A Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested on Feb. 15 and later accused by prosecutors of plotting a terrorist attack after an arsenal of guns and a hit list targeting politicians and journalists and bombmaking materials were found in his possession. And last year, a man whose white van featured images of Democrats with targets on their faces was arrested after sending pipe bombs to prominent lawmakers and to CNN.

“This is only slightly more sophisticated than what Roger Stone did last week,” John Iadarola, a liberal pundit and online talk show host, said of the American Rifleman spread on Saturday.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is running for president, and Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., were also among the lawmakers to condemn the spread.

Pelosi has not chimed in, but her daughter Christine Pelosi called the NRA’s magazine spread “criminal” on Sunday.

“We must condemn the NRA’s intentional, outrageous criminal incitement,” she wrote on Twitter. “We cannot allow this hate speech to stop common sense gun violence prevention such as #HR8.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced House Resolution 8, or the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, on Jan. 8, the anniversary of the day Giffords, then a Democratic congresswoman, was shot in the head in Tucson, Ariz.., at an event for her constituents. The gunman fatally shot six others.

The bill would require universal background checks on all gun sales and most gun transfers, including among private sellers.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.