The NRA Won’t Defend Donald Trump’s Gun Comments After Orlando

“That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”

Rodger Mallison/Fort Worth Star-Telegram/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


High-ranking officials from the National Rifle Association are distancing themselves from Donald Trump’s latest remarks about the Orlando mass shooting, in which the presumptive Republican nominee for president said that club-goers should have been armed—a situation Trump said would have been a “beautiful sight.”

“No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms,” NRA lobbyist Chris Cox told ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “That defies common sense. It also defies the law. It’s not what we’re talking about here.”

Cox, however, stopped short of completely breaking with Trump’s stance on guns, instead insisting what the real estate magnate meant to say was that if people had arrived to the scene sooner, “fewer people would have died.”

On Friday, Trump sparked a firestorm of controversy by suggesting that armed people with guns strapped to their waists inside the Orlando nightclub could have prevented the worst mass shooting in American history.

“If some of those wonderful people had gun strapped right here—right to their waist or right to their ankle—and one of the people in that room happened to have it and goes ‘boom, boom,’ you know that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight, folks,” Trump told supporters a rally in Texas.

The comments even prompted a rejection from NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre, who on Sunday said that he did not believe “you should have firearms where people are drinking.”

The NRA officially endorsed Trump for president in May.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate