Type to search

Elizabeth Warren Rips NRA And GOP For ‘Keeping The Game Rigged’

Memo Pad Politics

Elizabeth Warren Rips NRA And GOP For ‘Keeping The Game Rigged’


Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) used her speech at the Consumer Federation of America Thursday to make a wide-ranging argument defending the role of government and ripping Republicans and the National Rifle Association for intentionally keeping the American public in the dark.

After calling out the NRA’s “armies of lobbyists [that] are fighting to rig the system so that the public remains in the dark,” the senior senator from Massachusetts attacked the organization’s efforts to stop public research into gun violence.

“If as many people were dying of a mysterious disease as innocent bystanders are dying from firearms, a cure would be our top priority,” Warren said. “But we don’t even have good data on gun violence. Why? Because the NRA and the gun industry lobby made it their goal to prevent any serious effort to document the violence.”

Her defense of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she first conceived and helped create as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, was especially pointed.

“This agency is about making consumer credit clear — no more hiding tricks and traps in a thicket of fine print. It is about letting consumers see the deal — and not worrying about the things they can’t see,” Warren said.

Senator Warren discussed the creation of the CFPB in a 2010 speech at the Consumer Federation of America that you can watch here.

Republicans have praised the work of CFPB director Richard Cordray, who President Obama installed via recess appointment after the GOP blocked his nomination. But they are blocking him again because they are bent on increasing congressional oversight of the bureau, while weakening its power.

“Blocking Rich Cordray is about keeping the game rigged, keeping the game rigged so that consumers remain in the dark — and a few bad actors can rake in big profits,” Warren said.

Republicans are basically working to void a federal law simply because they don’t like it. And by abusing the filibuster, they’ll likely be effective.

Senator Warren called out this unprecedented obstruction at Cordray’s nomination hearing:

What I want to know is why every banking regulator since the Civil War has been funded outside the Appropriations process, but unlike the consumer agency, no one in the United States Senate has held up confirmation of their directors demanding that that agency or those agencies be redesigned.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

AP Photo/Cliff Owen


  1. Daniel Jones March 14, 2013

    I wonder, should Smith & Wesson rename their brand Philip & Morris?

  2. Dominick Vila March 15, 2013

    I wish we had more Elizabeth Warren’s in politics. This is the kind of elected officials we need in government, courageous, principled, willing to say what is on her mind, and not afraid of the big boys.
    Clinton-Warren 2016

    1. plc97477 March 15, 2013

      I realize that Warren would make a great president/vice president, but I really want her on the banking committee.

  3. nobsartist March 15, 2013

    Had Warren been involved in Obama’s great health care bill, perhaps this would not have been put in it.

    Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

    According to that amendment, the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.” This means that the government CANNOT mandate firearm registration. No registration, no confiscation.

    I believe that we are beginning to see just how bad Obama’s decision to create a new health care bill based on failed republiCON ideals really is. When you insert an amendment into a health care bill that deals with gun rights before patients rights, it sort of indicates that you are more interested in placating your political cronies than actually fixing the problem.

    I wonder what other surprises are buried in Obama’s failed health care bill?

    1. tcburch March 15, 2013

      Seriously…you would want confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens? How would you achieve this without infringing on the 2nd amendment AND the fourth?

      1. Charlie Watkins March 15, 2013

        Did you know that most of the weapons used in mass killings, murders, and robberies were not supplied by the Black Market, as some would have you believe, but by the so called “law abiding citizen?

        The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment, like all amendments, has limitations. They have not yet defined those limitations, so assault rifles may yet end up being over the limit, we’ll see.

        1. tcburch March 15, 2013

          You have not answered the question. So you would favor and encourage confiscation…at least by your answer. How then do you propose to go about your confiscation? House to house search? Sorry, that would be unlawful search and seizure. Neighbor agains neighbor? Friend against friend? Gestapo tactics? What say you?

        2. Silence Dogood March 16, 2013

          Nobody “supplied” the Sandy Hook weapon it was stolen –ie obtained illegally, as are most of the weapons used in these tragedies.

        3. DEFENDER88 March 16, 2013

          Did you know that the great majority of the killing done in mass and especially school killings is done with pistols and shotguns?
          Total gun crime in the US with Rifles is about 3-4%. Assault rifles as a sub-set of Rifles even less, 1% or less. So – why the big push to ban assault rifles when it will (by default) have very little effect on the killing?
          Seems paranoia driven to me.
          Emotion has replaced analysis here.
          Is the agenda to ban rifles?
          Or stop the killing?
          2 very different things
          A ban on any gun, but especially assault rifles will do very little to help stop the killing. Not anytime soon anyway.
          There are some things that actually *would* help(and soon) but a gun ban is not one of them.
          ps I understand the Supreme Court made a dicision(some time ago, 1-2 yr ago) that defined the 2nd amendment to apply to individuals and not just militias.

  4. stuart21 March 15, 2013

    Go Liz, go!

    Internet needs control, Liz, esp net banking – e.g. locking up funds for 6 months on flimsy excuses.

  5. peter March 15, 2013

    We need to get referendums or something on 2014 ballots (or 2013) that reference gun control. They may be worthless in a practical sense and un-constitutional and all that BUT they would show that Americans WANT gun control to be tightened. When the politicians see the results of the vote the IRA will lost it’s influence and our politicians won’t be afraid of them.

    1. CPAinNewYork March 15, 2013

      We don’t need referendums. A Supreme Court decision will suffice.

  6. Wrily March 15, 2013

    Elizabeth Warren 2016

    1. MOOSE4U2 March 15, 2013

      Unemployment line 2017.

      1. tobyspeeks March 15, 2013

        Yeah, because Warren crashed our economy.

        1. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

          Only in your wet dream

          1. old_blu March 15, 2013

            I think toby is being sarcastic, I hope.

          2. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

            I see that now and I hope so as well.

      2. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

        No unemployment line will ever be as bad as the one we had with GW Bush

  7. CPAinNewYork March 15, 2013

    I’ve been a member of the NRA since the early sixties because I’m interested in guns, but I cannot see any ethical reason for selling assault rifles to the public.

    1. TL Snyder March 15, 2013

      Typical liberal thinking. I don’t believe in it so no one should. I don’t eat meat so no one should. I don’t wear fur so no one should. I don’t have a lot of money so no one should. So typical. Read the second amendment CP
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
      The “being necessary to the security of a free State” is speaking about foriegn and domestic enemies IE Our Government. And “shall not be infringed” What part is it that you don’t understand?

      1. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

        Where does it say anything in the constitution about assault rifles and high capacity clips.

        1. Charlie Watkins March 15, 2013

          It doesn’t, but the Supreme Court does say that the second amendment has limitations. They may yet decide that assault rifles and high capacity clips are over that limit.

          1. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

            And I look forward to that decision and hopefully it will save lives

          2. Stuff It March 15, 2013

            You best re read that decision….it might just shock you, and don’t pick and choose what you read!

          3. plc97477 March 15, 2013

            then there is still hope for the country.

        2. Judy Mccracken March 15, 2013

          Right after the paragraph that states you can interpert this document anyway it suits your agenda

      2. english_teacher March 15, 2013

        What part of “well-regulated [imposition of proper discipline and training, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)] militia” (a body of citizens organized for military service, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) does not apply to regulating assault weapons?

      3. old_blu March 15, 2013

        You do know we are our government right? Typical Repuke thinking “I want it it’s mine and I don’t give a shit who it hurts”.

      4. Charlie Watkins March 15, 2013

        TL Snyder,

        The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment has, like all amendments, limitations. They have as yet not defined those limitations. So in the future they may come to the decision that military type assault rifles are over the limit.

        1. Robert P. Robertson March 16, 2013

          the problem with the constitution is, we’ve given idiots a puzzle and a pair of scissors and tell them to put it together.

      5. CPAinNewYork March 15, 2013

        Dear TL:

        I’m not a liberal. I tend to be fiscally conservative, but not extremely so.

        You may have heard a rumor to the effect that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. The Supreme Court does that. In reply to your question: I understand the Second Amendment very well. For example, I understand that it was adopted in the late eighteenth century, when there were no automatic assault rifles. Further, there didn’t seem to be very many crazies running around getting their jollies by killing innocent people. Both of those things seem to be in overabundance now. Combine them and you have a very serious problem.

        You do agree that we have a problem, don’t you? You do? Good. That’s progress. Now, let’s find a solution. I think that a really good solution is to ban assault rifles. For what purpose could one justify a private citizen owning an assault rifle, given the horrors that we’ve seen in the past twenty years?

        1. Stuff It March 15, 2013

          The supreme court also said the 2nd was written not with the musket in mind…..stop choosing words you like……

          1. CPAinNewYork March 16, 2013

            The second Amendment was written with the musket in mind. How many automatic and semi-automstic weapons do you think they had in the late eighteenth century?

        2. DEFENDER88 March 15, 2013

          Almost all the killing in the schools is being done with hand guns and shotguns.
          Look up the record of school shootings, the weapon used, the drug involved, etc
          Ban assault rifles my make you feel good about doing *something* but it will have little if any effect on the killing. If you really do want to stop the killing you will think about the causal factors. Young men on anti-depressants going crazy and killing everyone in sight. And choosing Gun Free Zones to do their dirty work because they are Gun Free ie unprotected. Does not take that much to figure that out.

          ps 1 – The crazies started this in the 1990’s when the institutions were emptied and they are now medicated at home with the new designer drugs(Prozac, Zoloft, Effexer,…..) then go nuts and go back to school and shoot it up. Look it up. Get the facts. The causal factors.
          If you really want to do something that will actually work to lessen the killing.
          – Secure the schools
          – Fix this drug loop-hole problem

          ps2 – The Revoluton War soldiers were sent home with the most advanced *assault rifle* of the day – the rifled musket. One reason why we beat the Brits. And they were ALL specifically sent home with them. And they were also sent home with the 2nd Amendment which not long ago the Supreme court decided it applied to individuals not just militias.

          Many progressives in here are not interested in the real problem and real solutions. Just ban assault rifles so *they* can feel good about doing *something* whether it works or not.
          Let the hate mail begin-*again*.
          I dont care, *my agenda* is to actually stop the killing.

          1. CPAinNewYork March 16, 2013

            The school and other killings are being done by crazies with automatic weapons. Where do you get your facts, the NRA?

            If we eliminate the automatic weapons in the hands of civilians completely and restrict the sale of other weapons to those who pass background checks, I think that we’ll have solved a good part of the problem. It will help greatly to take guns out of the hands of the crazies.

            Now, let’s address causal factors. Red China had the best approach to solving its drug problem. First, they executed all of the drug dealers. Then they took the users and dried them out. Any dried-out users who went back to drugs were executed.

            Problem solved.

          2. DEFENDER88 March 16, 2013

            NO, I am not connected to The NRA.
            I do my own research.
            See below.
            You have bought into the gun grabber hype about assault rifles.
            For all the hype very few killings have been done with assault rifles.
            Even the most notorious case – The Aurora Theater – his rifle jammed after about 30 rounds and he went to pistols. Most of the killing was done with pistols not an assault rifle. Like I said earlier.
            Even at Sandy Hook – it is yet to be determined(Information released) on how many were killed wlith the rifle or the pistols. I am hearing that even here most of it was done with pistols.
            So, do you want to ban assault rifles or do you want to actually do things to stop the killing? 2 very different things.
            Look at the data below. This from the worst school shootings.
            Virtually all is done with pistols or shotguns.
            Sorry these pesky little facts directly dispute all the hype about assault rifles. And does not fit into the rifle ban agenda.
            Assault rifles are not the problem and are the wrong target to attack in trying to limit the killing.
            Many anti-gun nuts are trying to take advantage of the hype out there to ban them when a ban on them will not do much to stop the killing.
            There is a lot of paranoia out there about Rifles.
            Some Nation-Wide Facts on assault rifles:
            Even nationwide of ALL gun crime – Rifles only account for some 2-4% of gun crime. And Assault Rifles are a sub-set of that group and account for only about 1%(maybe less). From FBI data.
            So, Again, banning them will have, by default, very little effect.
            Like I said, if you want to limit the killing
            – Secure the schools
            – Solve(somehow) the young men on drugs problem
            Just those 2 things alone will go a long way toward doing it.
            Those 2 things *could* be done in a relative shot time frame.
            A ban on any guns would take years to have any effect at all.
            I think we should do what will work an in the fastest time possible.
            My data shows that almost all the mass and especially school killings have been done by white males 16-27 yrold on one of the new-age anti-depressants, using pistols. Seems to me we should concentate on doing things/changes that consider these actual causal factors and that will actually work to mitigate these factors.
            Things like – 1) Provide armed security in schools 2) Some-how, get this particular drug/mental problem under control.

            Causal Factors:
            ps I am old enough 65, to remember when school shootings was not a problem. Look at what has changed.
            – 1 – Creation of Gun Free Zones(ie no security)
            – 2 – Young men now self medicated at home not put away so they cannot harm others.
            The school shooting problem started, roughly, in the 1990’s. About the same time the mental institutions were emptied and these new designer drugs were introduced to self medicate young men at home. Now they are housed in jails, then released upon us. And the poor parents of these troubled young men are suffering as much as any in not being able to get help with the problem.
            The drugs associated with the killings keep appearing time and time again(Prozac, Luvox, Effexer, ……). And attacks in Gun Free Zones – is now the norm. Why do they seek them out ? Because they are *Gun Free* . ie *kill all you want here, no one to stop you*. These kids are not dumb, most are highly intelligent and using the system against itself.

            THE DATA(FACTS)
            YR School Condition Drug Weapon Killer/Age # Killed Diagnosed
            ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
            1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 17/18 12
            2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 16 9
            2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol
            Male 23 32
            2008 N.Illinois Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun
            Male 27 5
            2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol
            Male 17 15

            # of School Shootings in USA
            1960’s 1
            1970’s 5
            1980’s 3
            1990’s 15
            2000’s 19
            2010’s 5 so far

          3. Marge Cullen March 23, 2013

            So 30 rounds is nothing to sneeze at for killings? Tell one of the parents that and see what happens to your butt.

      6. Douglas Johnson March 15, 2013

        No, typical liberal thinking is “I believe this, but you have the right not to believe it”

      7. Stuff It March 15, 2013

        I am sorry TL, your talking to someone up north where they should be proud that the revolution started there, but since its full of useless dems that push their opinions on you day after day. It seems that no one up there has a opinion of their own! Hell look at MA and the man that murdered his wife, now the MA criminal system has to pay for his sex change, but thats ok……

        1. Marge Cullen March 23, 2013

          You Stuff it I live “up north” and am sick of Repug’s pushing their fricken opinions on me.

      8. plc97477 March 15, 2013

        What part of “well regulated” do you not understand

        1. Judy Mccracken March 15, 2013

          What part of the best well trained, well funded, well equipped military dont you get….. you know the ones with technology and drones…. the ones that can take out the fireplace in your living room if they need to….. are these the guys, our guys, our well regulated militia that you arming youself against?…. good luck with that……

      9. Judy Mccracken March 15, 2013

        The part that uses bullets that implode inside a target… in the case of the Sandyhook babies….. those bullets dismembered those kids….why is that necessary for anyone to have or use that kind of ammo?

      10. Michael March 16, 2013

        The part about it that doesn’t tell you why the amendment was modified in its wording, so that there were “state regulated” militias. Militias, whose main purpose was to track down runaway or rebellious slaves. They didn’t want the federal government to have anything to do with it. Read your history before you start spouting off about what you don’t know.

      11. tiredofitall March 17, 2013

        This was written before we had a standing army. Now that we do. Why do you need gun? The fed will protect you….If you think the fed is out to get you…. are there any other options for you?

    2. plc97477 March 15, 2013

      the only reason for it is the money. Not very ethical but no one said it had to be.

  8. James Bruce March 15, 2013

    hey Silence Dogood stop hiding behind your name and show us the supposed facts which are none other than those from your herd…baaa … meh

    1. silence dogood March 15, 2013

      Read the Boston newspapers. It’s all out there if you care to learn the facts.

      1. Judy Mccracken March 15, 2013

        We dont have a Boston paper…. how about you giving us the info…. or at least the basis….. a name to look up….. a property…. a link….

  9. Robert P. Robertson March 15, 2013

    Man, what’s not to love about this woman? I love her courage and her tenacity. I can see her being on the ticket with Hillary Clinton for 2016. Imagine that: Clinton/Warren 2016.

    1. neeceoooo March 15, 2013

      I agree with you, she is one heck of a lady.

  10. TopCat_Texas March 16, 2013

    NRA speaks for the 5 million members, one of the few voices that are actually trying to bring some logic and good sense to this discussion. As far I am concerned the claim to be American Indian to get special treatment sets her level of trust, none. The training that the NRA provides is absolutely excellent, maybe it would help if DF, CS, and BO would take some, at least they might get the gun parts named correct.

  11. jstsyn March 16, 2013

    I really like Lizzie and think she will do a world of good for all of us but DO NOT agree with this attack on our rights. I will fight her and those like her with those misguided ideas against our law abiding citizens as should everyone. She is wrong on the anti-gun hysteria nonsense they think is gaining traction because there are millions of us against the attack on our rights. We do not plan to give up.

  12. 5thgenaz March 19, 2013

    Wonderful, found Real News on 03/19/2013 – I’ve been searching for truth in news for 3 years. Came across it accidently when the B.S. on goggle turned me away with disbelief this morning.

  13. Silence Dogood April 12, 2013

    If she doesn’t stop yacking about a rigged game I’m going to get ” hammered”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.