The NRA Response

Thank You Wayne Lapierre, and the NRA, brilliant speech with valid solutions.

“And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools
are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

Correct, there are plenty of “soft targets” in America, let’s make schools not one of them.

“How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think
about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with
armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants,
courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed
security.
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret
Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by
armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable
members of the American family — our children — we as a society
leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this
world know it and exploit it. That must change now!”

Correct, we are hypocrites, and our priorities are screwed up, we must have armed security in our schools whether active or retired police or military, qualified citizens or teachers and administrators.

“Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40%
— to the lowest levels in a decade.”

I did not know this, if it is because of decreasing crime rates due to more citizens legally carrying firearms that is a good thing, if it is because the feds lack the backbone to prosecute them, that is a bad thing.

“Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban
— or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect
us where 20,000 others have failed!”

I do not know where the 20,000 number came from or what all those laws were but we all know a ban on high capacity magazines and/or a ban on semi automatic rifles or shotguns or handguns will not stop anything.

“The only thing
that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Brilliant and true, only an idiot would not understand it.

“But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into
Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by
qualified, armed security?
Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have
been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather
continue to risk the alternative?”

What more needs to be said?

I know we are about to go over the so called "Fiscal Cliff" and we are looking at cutting budgets, however when I see a program where drug dealers quit dealing drugs to instead defraud Medicare because it is safer and more profitable and even professionals defrauding Medicare and I watch the "Golden Fleece Award" on National News for years about government fraud and corruption, and Don Rumsfeld says on 9/10/2001 the day before 9/11 that there is 2.3 TRILLION dollars missing in the Department of Defense and a DoD official states that is correct they cook the books every year, and I see programs about contractor fraud and billions wasted or stolen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in my own state agency in Iowa there were two instances of over a million dollars going missing or misspent with the last instance the FBI getting involved and a Grand Jury and four individuals spending time in Federal Prison and multiply that by all the stealing fraud and corruption in some of the local and county and state and federal governments nationwide and then I dare you to tell me we cannot afford armed security in our schools. We need to clean the criminals out of government.
 
MLeake said:
I find it interesting that people want to argue against arming teachers, basing the argument on the bizarre dual assumptions that this would 1) apply to ALL teachers and 2) that it would be required of teachers.

People making these arguments ignore the fact that proponents advocate allowing trained, licensed teachers to voluntarily arm themselves.

By ignoring that, they can make such asinine arguments as: Teachers have no calling to arms! (Tell that to my retired teacher Uncle, who earned two Bronze Stars and three ArComms with V during his time in Vietnam...); or Teachers did not sign up to carry a gun! (Similar vein, tell my Federal Flight Deck Officer friends how they only signed on to fly...)

Actually, what has been proposed has been very similar to the FFDO program.

It is really aggravating to listen to some of our own forum members act not only as apologists, but worse to hear them help the antis create straw men to use against us.
Click to expand...
Well said, my friend!

I've been suggesting this for many years, as have many of my cohorts. Some of us, as retirees, have even offered this as a service. PFZ laws are what stand in the way. Recently, Michigan passed legislation that practically abolishes PFZs, and our idiotic governor vetoed it due to this tragedy.:mad: Typical reactionary.

Wayne LaPierre was quite eloquent in my opinion.
 
It has already been said once, . . . but I think it is worth saying at least one more time.

Take the money we are giving to those countries who hate us, want us dead, despize our life style and mode of living, . . . put it toward hiring many of our unemployed veterans, . . . arm them, . . . put them in the schools.

Geez, . . . is it any more complicated than that?

No? You're right, . . . I didn't think it was.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
PH/CIB,

WOW!

From the sounds of your post, especially the part about the wasted tax money, sounds like you may have worked for the government for awhile. :D

Had 33yrs. watching the waste myself.

Some the stuff ya see will just leave ya standing there with your mouth hanging open. :rolleyes:
 
fraud/waste/abuse....

There is millions of fraud/waste/abuse on the federal, state & local level of government. New security programs in schools & campus can be set up. The billions saved from OIF & now OEF(which will end in 2014) could free up the $ for grants & projects.
It's time we start spending more $ to protect America not 3/4th of the globe.

Clyde
 
As my final contribution, and I do hope it contributes something constructive:

First, it seems that a couple of responses suggest that some folks critical of the NRA's response are somehow not team players, or sufficiently vested in NRA (e.g., members). I think it is reasonable to ask what people's backgrounds are and whether they are coming from the question as NRA members or non-members. So, for the record, I am not a member of the NRA.

Second, any legislation that might occur in the next session will be devised with significant input from people that are (certainly) not members of the NRA. Thus, it is important to understand how reasonable individuals with positions that differ on the role of guns in society, might view the NRA's statement.

Third, there is a large middle ground in this country consisting of individuals with highly variable political views, but that all see some form of gun rights as important components of our rights as US citizens. Many of these individuals are not members of the NRA and are not of the 'you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers' form of gun right advocates.

We, as responsible, upstanding, law abiding, and yes, reasonable, gun owners need to effectively communicate with this middle ground. I think the NRA is significantly misreading both the views of this middle ground and the views of a large portion of their membership.

Polls show that a large majority of Americans support implementing specific rules such as closing the gun show/private sale loophole. I agree that this would not have addressed the most recent tragedy but a large number of, I think, reasonable individuals (including myself), agree that this should be done. Moreover, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, agreeing to this makes it easier to disagree with other proposals (e.g., a ban on assault weapons, however defined) while maintaining a degree of dialog necessary in a democratic society.

In my view, the NRA is closing itself off from dialog in a way that is actually destructive to the interests of American gun owners. While not a member, I recognize the powerful role that the NRA has as a possible advocate for responsible gun owners, and would like to see this power used in a constructive manner.

On the other hand, if you believe that a take no prisoners approach is the best solution, then I think you have an excellent opportunity to see how this approach plays out. I only hope that your sense of the political environment is better tuned than mine and I will happily admit this if things come out differently than I expect.
 
I believe dspieler has some very good points to consider. There is some merit in at least listening to the other side. A crumb could save a bigger piece from being gobbled up. And I am a NRA member.
 
I liked the statement. The hoohah about videogames was odd, though. Especially Bulletstorm. I mean, like twelve people ever played that horrible thing.

Anyhow, I wanted LaPierre to come out resolute, and he did. For those who wished the NRA was more "conciliatory," ask yourself this: when has the anti-gun lobby ever been conciliatory? Never. They've always been vengeful, arrogant, and morbid. They talk of sticking it to the gun lobby, to burying us. I remember not too long ago when the US Attorney General encouraged people to "tell the NRA to get lost."

They're the ones who turned the murder of 20 children into political theater, not us.

We have no philosophical or moral obligation to sit down with those people. What's more, it would be a disaster to do so. What will they ever give us? Nothing. They just want to look more noble when taking things away from us.

That's why I have to admit to a certain schadenfreude reading their responses to LaPierre's speech. They expected us to cower to them, and we haven't.

And that hacks a bully off more than anything else.
 
scrubcedar said:
Let's use the current one as an example. Lets say just for argument he is not able to get ahold of firearms. He was reported to have been very bright and a member of "the tech club" very familiar with assembling electronics. Does anyone believe that in this day of the internet that such a person could not have assembled effective IED's? Bright, intelligent, mentally ill people,who are obsessed with killing will always be able to find a way to kill.
Click to expand...
This is another way of saying the same thing I have mentioned: If we allow the anti-gunners to focus the discussion on "gun violence," then they WILL focus the discussion on guns, because it is guns that they are after. And this is wrong because the focus should be on the violence, not the tool with which the violence was enacted.

Case in point: The Bath Township school massacre in 1927. 45 people killed, 58 people wounded. NO GUNS -- the weapons used were three bombs.

Columbine, 1999. 13 killed, 24 wounded. BUT ... too many people forget that the guns were the backup plan. The primary weapons were two 20-pound propane bombs that failed to detonate. If the bombs had exploded, the death toll would have been orders of magnitude greater.
 
I think that the one thing that the anti's will propose that will actually get traction with the general public is a ban on "high capacity magazines". There is not going to be a large grass-roots movement to ban guns, considering the wide spread ownership of guns in this country. But there could be a grass-roots consensus to "do something" about high capacity magazines. We should be ready for that, and we should be ready to offer a common sense solution that will address the fears of the general public.

As I mentioned before, a licensing scheme for high capacity mags that involves a background check ... that is not going to prevent me or anyone else from competing in a 3-gun match. Or perhaps the federal government could require mandatory training in order to buy high capacity magazines.

We should also be ready with a proposal for all of the existing high capacity magazines already in private ownership. I am not sure how that would work.
 
Someone on a newsgroup said we should tax guns to pay for all these new school resource officers. I told them there already is a federal excise tax on guns AND ammo; the government just wastes the money elsewhere.

Where does that excise tax go?
 
I guess I lied when I said it was my last comment.

I think it is a mistake to rely on a notion of 'anti's.

This is not 'us' against 'them'. Or, at least if it is, then both 'us' and 'them' are alot more diverse than either 'us' or 'them' realize.

Look, there is a broad consensus in this country on the acceptability of a large range of firearms. We are well advised to try to leverage that consensus rather than staking out positions that alienate many.

If I can relate something more generally political, but for a point: There was an interview with a congressman from Ohio on NPR today, where he noted that there is a group of GOP congressman in the House that think by not compromising, they will end up with final bills that are to the right of those that they originally voted against. He indicated (with ample evidence) that this is not the case. From a legislative perspective, staking out a no compromise position will often land you with a final bill that is much less to your liking than the bill that you might otherwise have had input into.

Again, if you like the 'take no prisoners and accept no compromises' approach, more power to you but there is just too much evidence that in a democratic (small d) legislature, that is a fool's position.
 
We should also be ready with a proposal for all of the existing high capacity magazines already in private ownership. I am not sure how that would work.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We should simply stop any such regulation in its tracks.
 
It amazes me how many of "us" want to start by accepting losses. Just give them this... as long as it isn't something "I" care about.

So we are getting an idea of which folks hike with fat guys, in case of bears....

Obama started out immediately after Newtown occurred by saying we needed to improve interstate reporting of mental health issues, and to improve mental health treatment. Days later, he started the anti-gun talk.

We should re-focus the conversation where Obama had initiated it: on mental health. He had a point, and it was one that did not threaten RKBA. (At least, not unless the government were to start slapping mental health labels on its critics.)
 
my answer to the gun problem is gun safes. if the govt. wants to do something effective they should subsidize gun safes. most of the guns out on the streets used by the bad guys are stolen from law abiding citizens. the drug dealer doesn't go to the local gun store to buy, he just breaks in and steals yours. unless you have several thousand dollars invested in firearms your probably not going to spend a grand or more on a safe. gun safes should be made tax deductable or we should get a tax credit, that's how you get guns off the streets and out of the bad guys posession.
 
I think it is a mistake to rely on a notion of 'anti's.

This is not 'us' against 'them'. Or, at least if it is, then both 'us' and 'them' are alot more diverse than either 'us' or 'them' realize.

Look, there is a broad consensus in this country on the acceptability of a large range of firearms. We are well advised to try to leverage that consensus rather than staking out positions that alienate many.
Click to expand...

I think that it's a mistake to think of all the anti's as well-meaning, albeit misguided, people who actually want to fix the problem, they're not. The majority of the most well-known and vocal figureheads of the gun control movement do not, I am convinced, believe the tripe they peddle as many of them have no problem at all with guns so long as they have them and we don't. Consider that Dianne Feinstein had a CCP and a handgun for years (probably one of the few people in San Francisco that could actually get a CCP) and that Sarah Brady bought her minor son a rifle that her own organization had classified as a "terrorist sniper rifle." These people have made a career out of gun control and they need to keep the issue alive in order to justify their own existence. If there were no gun violence, these people would likely be out of a job. They prey on the ignorant and emotional and, when confronted with facts, resort to name calling and overly dramatic hyperbole. I am at a loss as to how you can be "reasonable" with unreasonable people.

Also, you need to understand that the "us vs. them" mentality was not started, or even wanted, by our side but rather it was forced upon us. We tried to be "reasonable" and to "compromise" for decades and all that it got us was incrementally more gun control. It was only when we took a stand and said "this far and no farther" that things began to swing the other way. If you think that compromising on "assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," or a "gun show loophole" will placate them, you're dead wrong. If you give in to them now, when the next shooting happens (and it most assuredly will if gun control is the only thing we do) then they'll be all the more shrill about how the "gun lobby" didn't let them do all that was necessary to prevent the newest tragedy and they'll be on to the next piece of our rights that they want to strip away.

Realistically, another AWB would not be the end of the world. Life went on during the first AWB and I don't think things would be all that different under a second one. The problem is, if they get an AWB then they will start in on "cop killer bullets" (common rifle cartridges), "Saturday night specials" (inexpensive handguns) or "insidious hidden handguns" (concealed carry). By keeping them fixated on "assault weapons" we protect other, more important, gun rights.
 
Damn, Webley, you absolutely nailed it. This is not a fight we picked. The funny thing about Constitutionalists, if I can be forgiven for using the term, is we just want to be left the hell alone.

These sons of dogs will not rest until all the serfs are disarmed, and anyone who speaks of "well, why can't we close the gun show loophole [a violation of the Second and First Amendments, by the way]", or why can't we concede on standard capacity magazines, or any other compromise with these enemies of Liberty, is speaking of feeding the alligator your leg and hoping he'll wipe his lips and stop there.

Rubbish.

la Pierre did good on one point - we're not interested in more gun laws. As to a new TSA for the schools? Abysmal. I have to hope he's not even serious - that he knows it will never happen. It's deflection. I hope! :D
 
the video game, tv and movie industries are to blame for much of this.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are to blame for some of it, but assigning the blame to them is no different than the anti's blaming guns for violence. There were murderers and psycho's running around long before there were any video games, tv's or movies to be watched. They were out there long before guns had been invented as well.

Granted, I'm not saying the over saturation of violent media is exactly helping things either.
 
Last edited:
the video game, tv and movie industries are to blame for much of this.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest share of the blame goes to the news media -- after Columbine, they made those 2 losers* into rock stars. And after Virginia Tech they had that wanker's face all over the Internet and the TV for weeks. And now they seem to be trying to traumatize every man, woman, and child in the country with 24/7 sob stories from Connecticut. And the copycats have already started, they just haven't been successful yet.

*I'm not using their names or linking to their pictures. Just using disparaging pronouns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top