News
Former Bush AG Gonzales Throws Support Behind Ban on ‘Killing Machine’ AR-15s
Appearing on CNN’s “New Day,” former George W. Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that he supports a ban on AR-15s, while surprising host John Berman after calling the high-powered weapons “killing machines.”
Reacting to reports that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle will be having a Zoom meeting on Tuesday to discuss changes needed in gun laws following the latest mass shooting, this time in Texas that took the lives of 19 elementary school students and two teachers, Gonzales said he parts company with other conservatives that the 2nd Amendment is as inflexible as the National Rifle Association insists it is.
“I was the attorney general during the time of the Virginia Tech shooting where is we lost, I think, 30 people,” he began. “And part of my responsibility was to work with the secretary of education, secretary of health and human service and try to understand what happened at Virginia Tech and come up with a list of recommendations that would help to prevent those kinds of incidents from happening again.”
“Having a discussion about this, I think it’s important,” he continued. “I think Congress can be very, very helpful. This is not about ending gun ownership, it’s about expanding gun safety. I grew up in Texas, I live in Tennessee, two very red states and gun ownership is very, very important. I think if you talk to most people in the red states, even they’ll tell you what they really support is responsible gun ownership and that’s what we are looking to have our Congress look to provide.”
IN OTHER NEWS: Trump supporter ‘went off the deep end’ while doing voter fraud inquiry at Washington man’s home
Host Berman pressed, “You don’t think, for instance, as often we hear from some people, the Second Amendment isn’t absolute, in the sense that there can be no regulation on firearms?”
“Oh, absolutely,” the attorney replied. “I absolutely disagree with the notion that the Second Amendment is unlimited. The Supreme Court has already issued a decision indicating that restrictions are constitutional. Those who say any regulation is an infringement on my constitutional rights — they’re just making a political statement.”
Calling AR-15s “killing machines” he went on, “It’s possible we might get some movement there. But again, a complete ban? I quite frankly, think politically it’s not viable. No matter what it is with respect to assault weapons or any other kind of weapon, you have millions of these weapons already in the hands of gun owners in this country so there are limitations. I think what we ought to focus on is what is possible, what is really possible, as opposed to going for something that has absolutely no chance of being passed in the law.”
“I’m actually a little surprised you just used the phrase ‘killing machines’ because that’s something that people who do want to see a ban on AR-15s, that’s a phrase that they use,” Berman prompted. “You were, I believe, still White House counsel in 2004 when the assault ban expired which is something that the Bush administration, if I’m not mistaken, wanted to see expire. Do you regret at this point that the 1994 assault weapons ban expired?”
“Well, again, because there are millions already in the hands of gun owners that doesn’t mean that it would have eliminated or stopped a mass shooting,” Gonzales explained. “Quite frankly, personally, I have no issue with respect to bans on assault weapons. But I, again, John, I just don’t think it’s possible in this country at this particular point in time. I don’t know what it would take to get that passed. Look at the make-up of the members of the Senate, members of the House, I just don’t see it happening.”
Watch below:
“I’m actually a little surprised you just used the phrase ‘killing machines’ because that’s something that people who do want to see a ban on AR-15s, that’s a phrase that they use,” Berman prompted. “You were, I believe, still White House counsel in 2004 when the assault ban expired which is something that the Bush administration, if I’m not mistaken, wanted to see expire. Do you regret at this point that the 1994 assault weapons ban expired?”
“Well, again, because there are millions already in the hands of gun owners that doesn’t mean that it would have eliminated or stopped a mass shooting,” Gonzales explained. “Quite frankly, personally, I have no issue with respect to bans on assault weapons. But I, again, John, I just don’t think it’s possible in this country at this particular point in time. I don’t know what it would take to get that passed. Look at the make-up of the members of the Senate, members of the House, I just don’t see it happening.”
Watch below:
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
