LaPierre Before Senate

B

BarryLee

New member
NRA VP Wayne LaPierre will be testifying before a Senate hearing on gun violence Wednesday at 10:00AM. I assume this will be carried by CSPAN and possibly other news outlets.

The NRA is also requesting that supporters of the Second Amendment show up by 8:00AM to pack the hearing room. So, if you're in the DC area and have the ability consider attending.

Oh yes, they make the point that you will have to pass thorugh security to get in the Capital, so leave that Super Redhawk in the car. ;)

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/please-attend-us-senate-gun-control-hearing-tomorrow!-show-your-support-for-the-second-amendment-and-nra!.aspx
 
It is being held by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is titled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”.

I assume there will be a lot of grandstanding by various Senators both pro and con Second Amendment. Also, they will hear from pro gun groups and also anti-gun groups. I do not believe they will be discussing specific pieces of legislation in detail, but I could be mistaken.

Either way just offering a heads up for anyone interested.
 
Pomp and Circumstance

This is the dog and pony show that the antis want to show. We are listening to both sides before we do what we want to do. I hope the NRA has a different game plan than using facts, because to the antis, facts don't mean anything. That actually hurt to say, but it sure feels that way. Facts, don't bore us with facts, we want emotions!
 
Ditto what Qtiphky said. The only think I'd add is that if the NRA doesn't show up, they would hold the hearing anyway and there would be no one there to fact check the lies told by the antis.
 
I wonder if Lapierre is going to throw the First Amendment under the bus while defending the Second, by continuing to blame movies and videogames for the gun violence.
 
Last edited:
gun violence.
Click to expand...

Hopefully he is smart enough not to even use this term. It's a stupid term made up by the antis. I could think of a dozen other words you can put in front of "violence" that would be much more accurate, but not very politically correct.
 
I'm hoping that Sen. Leahy allows a balanced set of viewpoints to be expressed today, I think he'll try after the email I got from his office yesterday (see the L&CR forum below)
 
So far, each committee member is just asking loaded questions to get a selected answer to support their personal agenda. Both the pro's and anti's are equally.
 
Congressional hearings are a waste of taxpayers money. They give members of congress an opportunity to mug before the cameras and demonstrate their 'knowledge'. They accomplish little other than that.

Reports are that Feinstein is unhappy about the witnesses for todays hearings so will hold her own separate hearings (kangaroo court).
 
LaPierre's testimony is here.

Basically,
  • expanded background checks won't work because we're not prosecuting criminals who try to buy guns now.
  • semiautomatic firearms are the most common choice for the law-abiding
  • we need better mental health reporting to the NICS database
  • armed school security is already common and practical
  • even the DOJ under Clinton admitted that the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on violence or crime

There was audible booing and hissing during his speech. Feinstein grudgingly acknowledged that the roster of speakers was packed with anti-gun shills, and has promised her own round of supposedly impartial hearings.

Senator Grassley asked Dave Kopel about the 1994 ban, to which Kopel repied, "it was tried with great sincerity ... but it didn't seem to save any lives that the researchers could find."
 
Last edited:
Facts, don't bore us with facts, we want emotions!
Click to expand...

Due to business obligations I have only started to watch a little of this.

A few observations:

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar starts her statement by acknowledging how important statistics are and then goes into a long list of emotional triggers ignoring the facts.

Captain Kelly, the husband of Gabby Giffords, response to one question was so full of “maybe”, “might”, could’ve”, etc. that it was devoid of any real facts. Senator Klobuchar acknowledge it and then tried to somehow salvage what he had to say, but really couldn't.

The Chief of Police from Baltimore was there representing several Law enforcement related organizations and calling for an AWB and the banning of magazines over 10 rounds. Senator Cruz of Texas showed him a chart indicated crime was much higher in his City and others with already restrictive gun laws than other Cities. He then asked the Chief to provide some data to support his position or to refute the data from the Justice Department. The Chief basically dodged the question entirely by basically parroting his previous statements.

Also, although we tend to try and avoid partisanship on this site I am struck with how divided this seems to be along party lines. Admittedly I have not watched the entire thing, but it seemed that all the Democratic Senators were anti-gun. Did I miss any of them that seemed to make any real 2A supportive statements?
 
Last edited:
The Chief basically dodged the question entirely by basically parroting his previous statements.
Click to expand...
Johnson claimed that the NICS system had stopped 2 million disqualified individuals from getting guns since 1994. I'm not sure how that works when the system didn't go online until 1998, but he failed to mention that only 62 of those 2 million cases were ever referred for prosecution.
 
I did not see any of this, but

these things always have an ANTI outcome


I feel that this is strictly a diversion, and the decisions have already been
made in the back room.
 
I feel that this is strictly a diversion, and the decisions have already been
made in the back room.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the Senators may not really be swayed by what is said in these hearing the hearing can influence public opinion which the Senators do listen to.
 
Here in Connecticut-- the deal is already done
no matter what us residents want...

I don't care how many letters, emails, etc...

Our two--- Murphy and Blumenthal you know what they are pushing..

Blumenthal introduced bills for background checks for ammo,
and "Much Much More" need I say more ?

tell me how this is unbiased, fair & equitable


Don't blame me.. I didn't vote for them
 
Also, although we tend to try and avoid partisanship on this site I am struck with how divided this seems to be along party lines. Admittedly I have not watched the entire thing, but it seemed that all the Democratic Senators were anti-gun. Did I miss any of them that seemed to make any real 2A supportive statements?
Click to expand...
There's no getting around it now. Dems for the most part want to selectively abolish the constitution. They are totally incapable of understanding that the very thing the despise is the very thing that protects them and their views.
They cannot fathom people having free will or free thought. If you don't tow their line you're any number of foul hateful things the party of tolerance will call you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top