Chris Cox: Obama, Clinton Trying to Distract From Failed Policies

Chris Cox 2(1024x512)
Chris Cox: Obama, Clinton Trying to Distract From Failed Policies

Executive director of NRA-ILA Chris W. Cox is standing up to irresponsible politicians and media who have suggested that the NRA wants to make it easier for terrorists to obtain firearms. In his new commentary “The Truth About the Terror Watch List,” Cox rightfully calls such deceit wrong and “infuriating,” making it clear that NRA members have given their lives fighting the war on terror. He also asserts that the NRA will not let President Obama and Hillary Clinton distract attention away from their repeated failure to keep American safe: “Obama and Hillary apologize for America and our way of life. If you dare use the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ they accuse you of attacking all Muslims. If you believe we should secure our borders, they call you a bigot.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposal is also mentioned. The proposal is set to be voted on the United States Senate next Monday, marking the 15th year of it being discussed in Congress. Cox points out the California Senator’s proposed Second Amendment restrictions would not have prevented the Orlando terrorist attack.

Throughout the video, Cox sets the record straight on the NRA’s positions on watch lists and due process. And he sends a strong message to all those who seek to restrict our Second Amendment freedoms: “Make no mistake—the NRA will fight without apology to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves.”

Watch the video below, share it on social media and call your Congressman and Senators at (202) 225-3121 before next Monday’s vote. Tell them our freedom isn’t to blame for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed policies.

  • 9 thoughts on “Chris Cox: Obama, Clinton Trying to Distract From Failed Policies

    1. The antis are past masters at re-defining terminology and then twisting what anyone says who does not agree with them. And why shouldn’t they continue to do so, it has worked very well for them in the past and will continue to do so unless they are challenged about their ahem ‘inaccuracies’ at every opportunity.

    2. The antis are past masters at re-defining terminology and then twisting what anyone who does not agree with them. And why shouldn’t they continue to do so, it has worked very well for them in the past and will continue to do so unless they are challenged about their ahem ‘inaccuracies’ at every opportunity.

    3. I wonder what the Democrats would want after they get all our money in taxes and total gun control?

    4. I am angry and sad. Angry because people die in so-called Gun Free Zones imposed by law. In Florida it is illegal for anyone, other than a law enforcement officer, to be armed in a drinking establishment.
      Forty-nine dead because some legislator feels that licensed and armed citizens cannot be inside a building where alcohol is served without becoming drunk.
      So, again the Democrats re-file and push the same bills they that had been rejected by State Legislatures and Congress before.
      Then the media accuses the NRA of being complicit with the killers, repeating the words of accusations from the Brady Campaign and SPLC as though the NRA said those things. Of course the media can’t be bothered to actually listen directly to the NRA.

      It almost seems the Democrats want bloodbaths so they can push their agenda and the NRA is the organization with the greatest desire to end all gun violence. [Keep in mind, the gun banners consider a rapist or armed robber shot in self-defense to be “gun violence.” Murder with ropes, burning tires, knives and hatchets seems to be OK.

      1. I didn’t know CCWs were prohibited in a “drinking establishment.” Thanks for that insight.

        1. STATUTE allows you to carry in a restaurant that serves alcoholic beaverages. Althought you can not “Carry” in a bar. See: FS 790.06(12)(a)12: “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to OPENLY CARRY a handgun or CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM into:
          1. Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05;
          2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
          3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
          4. Any courthouse;
          5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
          6. Any polling place;
          7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
          8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
          9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
          10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
          11. Any career center;
          12. Any PORTION OF AN ESTABLISHMENT LICENSED TO DISPENSE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;”

    5. Right on the mark ! keep up the good work NRA. It is infuriating for me trying to understand how people think sometimes about gun control !

    Comments are closed.