Home > 2nd amendment/guns/weapons, General > LaPierre testimony…extremist driven

LaPierre testimony…extremist driven

January 31st, 2013

LaPierre sounds like a survivalist.  His attempts to explain himself actually made him sound like a jackass.  The “It won’t work” mentality just doesn’t cut it.

LaPierre speaks for himself.  He has convinced me of nothing.  I would be curious why LaPierre says  that that armed security words at schools.  What is he basing that blanket statement on.  What are the metrics?

Federal gun prosecutions are down?  His conclusions are absurd and unfounded.   He is grasping.

Background checks don’t work?  Give me a break.  Non-logic used on that one.

My fight is not with the concept of the NRA.  My fight is with the folks who were trotted out today with the worst analogies in the world.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is the NRA training our military, as suggested by LaPierre?

 

Categories: 2nd amendment/guns/weapons, General Tags:
  1. punchak
    January 31st, 2013 at 08:04 | #1

    Speaking of “trotting” out. Did you see and hear Gayle Trotter?

    • January 31st, 2013 at 08:17 | #2

      Yes. That was the lamest excuse I have ever heard in my life. The mother needed a rambo gun to do battle for her children? For a brief moment it was embarrassing to be a woman.

  2. January 31st, 2013 at 08:20 | #3

    @Moon-howler
    Even I, a hardened 2nd amendment activist, want to say to her,…..”Please, stop helping.”

    But what is even sillier, is that the gun banners want to ban AR15′s because of the exact same reason that she liked them. The term “assault weapon” was INVENTED because the “evil black rifle” looked scarier than “traditional” semi-automatic rifles.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 09:52 | #4

      Well, she certainly made a twit-fool out of herself with her scary looking gun. I truly wanted to reach through the TV, grab her by the throat and tell her about scary sounding dogs….great deterrent. No one knows what the kennel on the other side of the door looks like.

  3. Starryflights
    January 31st, 2013 at 08:26 | #5

    He is the face of gun huggers everywhere. I think he damaged his cause today. He comes across as a idiotic fool.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 09:50 | #6

      I felt he hurt his brand also, Starry. He probably didn’t with his peeps but with the rest of us….he swooped much lower.

  4. blue
    January 31st, 2013 at 10:15 | #7

    Unfortunately, A speech based on factual and logical arguments, one that does not fit the demogog dogma, will be completely ignored.

    I was intereted to learn that out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the current federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted. Proposing more gun control laws – while failing to enforce those we have – is not a serious solution to reducing crime.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 13:52 | #8

      Blue, please explain what you think wasn’t done after a background check. I am afraid you have left us all puzzled. Who broke the law and who should have reported it to whom?

  5. middleman
    January 31st, 2013 at 10:34 | #9

    blue :Unfortunately, A speech based on factual and logical arguments, one that does not fit the demogog dogma, will be completely ignored.
    I was intereted to learn that out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the current federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted. Proposing more gun control laws – while failing to enforce those we have – is not a serious solution to reducing crime.

    What’s even more interesting is that those statistics are false, and LaPierre knew it. The “62 referred for prosecution” were for Chicago only. There were actually 11,700 defendants charged with federal gun crimes, which LaPierre acknowledged when confronted.

    LaPierre also had bodyguards that violated congressional rules by knocking reporters out of the way so they couldn’t interview LaPierre in the halls of congress. Makes his lamentations about “well protected elites” kind of ironic, huh?

  6. blue
    January 31st, 2013 at 11:25 | #10

    @middleman

    Appreciate the response, but the point stands that we need to define what problem we are going after. Is it to reduce crime, gun crime or protect children from madmen, or simply to confiscate guns.

    Acording to the DOJ, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. Now the incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 5.1 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2008. And where did they come from — According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –a flea market or gun show fewer than 2% ; a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% and from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. I wonder how many were committed with bats and knives purchased in a sports store or a Walmart? Should we go after those owners or just the manufacturers?

    But to your point, apparantly the FBI NCIS reports that 150,00 denials are issued per year. As to assult weapons– well of course they are dangerous. Cars, baseball bats and sissors are dangerous in the hands of madmen too.

    The O’Donnel massacre control hearing language, the defense of assult weapons BS, the Giffords bubba testimony on gun checks, and the Bashir batshit crazy talk does not contribute to any solutions for any of the “problems” was defined.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 15:22 | #11

      @Blue

      Giffords bubba testimony? Exactly what is THAT supposed to mean? Are you mimicking Gabby Giffords?

      I don’t know what other references you have but I am going to call foul if you are ridiculing Gabby.

  7. Steve Thomas
    January 31st, 2013 at 11:38 | #12

    @blue

    Blue, I couldn’t agree more. The current background check requirements are sufficient. What needs to be improved are the things included in the background check. If someone who is mentally unstable is not adjudicated as such, it will not trigger a flag in a background check. The main reason why increasing the requirements for background checks will not work to prevent crime, is criminals will not submit themselves to the check. They will purchase their gun off the street, or steal one, or have someone conduct a straw purchase. In making this assertion, the NRA isn’t stating an opinion. It’s a demonstrable fact, backed up by tons of imperical data.

  8. blue
    January 31st, 2013 at 15:50 | #13

    @Moon-howler

    Seriously? A bubba testimony is a now time honored practice of giving expert testimony followed by a real person – usually someone pro or con from the district of one of the committee members. The unions developed it into an art form. Trotter was doing the same thing – whom you attacked for her views.

    I thought bringing Giffords in – in victum mode – was a foul. They did that with Brady too, but that time it worked.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 16:05 | #14

      Blue, I didn’t attack Trotter for her views. I attacked her for saying something incredibly freaking stupid. Big difference. They didn’t “bring Giffords in.” Giffords and her husband are a 2 man team. They are not victims, in their mind, but activists. Tacky? I am sure Gabby Giffords would rather have nothad half her brain shot out and would prefer to have her full vision, her speak returned, etc…ie…be whole again.

      Victim mode? That is an incredibly callus statement. If that woman can survive being shot in the head at point blank rage, she can go anywhere and say anything she wants. She has earned her stripes, in my opinion. I sort of feel the same way about my contemporary, Max Cleland and of course, Colin Goddard.

      Who better to speak pro or con an idea than someone who has lived the experience and in the case of all three examples, will always have to give the event.

  9. Steve Thomas
    January 31st, 2013 at 16:15 | #15

    If stricter gun-laws are the answer, why hasn’t a near-total ban worked in Chicago? Why is it that violent crime in DC fell post-Heller?

    • January 31st, 2013 at 18:18 | #16

      Straw man alert.

      Holistic approach needed. No one is calling for random stricter gun laws for school shootings. Massacre shootings have a totally different cause than inner city shootings. I suggest one problem at a time.

      Not even going to play the Chicago or DC game. That really isn’t what this is all about. No one likes seeing kids killed in chicago or LA.

      Violence and poverty has to be handled different from violence and effen nuts. Most rampage shooters are middle class also.

  10. blue
    January 31st, 2013 at 16:22 | #17

    First, you did attack Trotter – not for anything she said that was stupid but because it does not fit your preconcieved solutions and DNC talking points – and you ridiculed her – separately – as a woman.

    Giffords is no expert on guns, law enforcement, gun regulations, background checks, mental health issues, or victums of madmen crimes. She is a victum – period. She now wants to be an activist. It was dramatic though wasn’t it. Bubba stories are supposed to be.

    • January 31st, 2013 at 18:14 | #18

      Blue, once again you are simply full of crap. I didn’t ridicule her as a woman. I would have the same contempt for a man who said the same stupid thing ABOUT women.

      It helps women to have scary looking guns? You really like contributing to your own oppression don’t you?

  11. Lyssa
    January 31st, 2013 at 17:36 | #19

    LaPierre should be pushing for background checks, trigger locks and limitations of ammunition. None of those things are a violation of the second. Instead he drones on about protecting rights. Why doesnt he push a campaign to make weapons inaccessible. With the exception of one needed for protection. The no compromise attitude is repetitive, frustrating and divisive. Criminals who will get guns anyway are not shooting up schools, malls …. People who take their parents guns and those that build arsenals over the Internet are. LaPierre needs to do his part and challenge others to follow his lead with regard to mental health. He should be pushing backgrounds with mental health screenings. He could be a leader working to solve this while clearly defining their role and defending their postion. He is missing a great opportunity and will be remembered as digging his heels in and not open to collaboration.

  12. punchak
    January 31st, 2013 at 18:07 | #20

    @blue
    You sir/maam,

    Just go lay an egg!

  13. BSinVA
    January 31st, 2013 at 18:41 | #21

    I heard the following testimony: The Chicago gun murders involve, in large part, guns coming into the city not by guns being acquired in the City. I heard that every Constitutional right has limits, even the first amendment (can’t yell “free beer” in a crowded room). The second amendment right also has existing limits (background checks when buying from Federally licensed dealers). I heard that kooks and criminals know that they can’t pass a background check, so they buy from strawmen dealers because there are no background checks required. I didn’t hear anyone testify that they wanted to repeal the second amendment or confiscate everyone’s guns. I heard that what was being proposed regarding background checks was that the existing limit (background checks and licensed dealers) be expanded so that anyone wanting to purchase a firearm would be required to undergo a background check in order to keep the kooks and criminals from purchasing weapons. That way we reduce the number of firearms in the wrong hands (which, I think, is everyone’s goal).

    That looks like sound reasoning to me.

  14. middleman
    January 31st, 2013 at 19:18 | #22

    Steve Thomas :
    If stricter gun-laws are the answer, why hasn’t a near-total ban worked in Chicago? Why is it that violent crime in DC fell post-Heller?

    The gun laws didn’t work in Chicago because the guns came in from surrounding jurisdictions that didn’t have gun laws, hence the need for federal laws…

  15. middleman
    January 31st, 2013 at 19:29 | #23

    Wayne LaPierre represents less than 1% of American gun owners, but he does represent gun manufacturers, who want no restrictions on gun sales.

    Bravo, BS (post #21)- you nailed it! I see nothing in the proposed new regulations that will inhibit my use of my high powered rifle, my shotgun, or my 9mm pistol (kept in a holster on my bedframe). The NRA gun manufacturers may sell a few fewer guns, but our children will be safer.

  16. Starryflights
    January 31st, 2013 at 20:57 | #24

    Steve Thomas :
    If stricter gun-laws are the answer, why hasn’t a near-total ban worked in Chicago?

    Chicago is a good example of why a national law is needed. Of course it won’t work if limited to a few cities.

  17. January 31st, 2013 at 22:36 | #25

    Also if the goal of legislation is 100% perfection we will never get anywhere. Unrealistic expectations never help anything.

    I think most of us want to stamp out spree shooting massacres but know that because of human nature, total eradication will never be possible. Therefore, we hope for next best…reduction in incidence.

    Inner city gun violence is an entirely different issue. Any discussion of those types of killings is seen as an attempt to deflect the conversation away from mass killings.

    Inner city crime probably is best solved by local initiatives. Those living in the cities probably have a lot closer handle on the problem some social do-gooder who wants to give a blanket solution to a unique problem. I bet community organizers, locally elected officials and Rom Emmanual have a lot more insight into the problem than we do here in Manassas or even those in Washington who think they know it all do.

  18. January 31st, 2013 at 22:58 | #26

    @blue
    Blue, even I thought Trotter needed to manage her words better. That’s a consensus across the gun blogosphere. That said, the content of what she advocates is right on.

    @middleman
    Then why isn’t there a crime spree at the guns source? Since that is the origin, there will be many more guns there. Like the canard that Viriginia guns are the reason why DC and New York have gun crime. But…Virginia’s is much lower.

    I love how those in favor of what’s being discussed are ignoring what has already been passed. New York passed draconian gun laws in the dead of night, with no debate, so quickly that they forgot to put in a law enforcement exemption.

    Feinstein is sneaking through massive bans on long guns. How so? I’m glad you asked.

    http://www.weerdworld.com/2013/more-poorly-written-bills/
    From her bill, along with explanation:
    According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.
    A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as “a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

    Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

    The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that.
    Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.

  19. January 31st, 2013 at 23:10 | #27

    I would be curious why LaPierre says that that armed security words at schools.
    Because it does? That’s why there are armed resource officers at my schools in Henrico. That is their primary purpose, as stated tonight, by them. If armed security doesn’t work at schools, perhaps Obama should homeschool.

    Federal gun prosecutions are down?
    Do you have info that states otherwise?

    Background checks don’t work? He didn’t say that. He said that they will not be universal, because criminals don’t use them. He was also right, regardless of whether it his stats or Middleman’s, that the prosecution of said “rejections” is ridiculously low. Furthermore, Cho, Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza were all able to pass checks.

    Just out of curiosity, why is the NRA training our military, as suggested by LaPierre? Because the NRA has good trainers.

    He sounded quite reasonable. He said nothing extremist. You just don’t agree with him.

  20. Scout
    February 1st, 2013 at 04:27 | #28

    LaPierre frequently says he now opposes expansion of background checks because criminals won’t submit to them. Durbin did a good job or reacting to that, but I thought the more obvious response would be that we have any number of prohibitions or requirements in the law that criminals violate, but we have the prohibitions so that we put people on notice of what is acceptable and so that we may punish those who don’t adhere to them. We have a federal law against kidnapping [or fill in the blanks]. Criminals still kidnap. Does that indicate we should not have the law on the books?

  21. middleman
    February 1st, 2013 at 05:06 | #29

    Cargo, the point of universal background checks is that it will make it harder for the bad guys to get guns, especially in a hurry, wherever they plan to use them. LaPierre used to be in favor of this, as was brought out at the hearings. It’s just common sense. The fact that crime in general, including gun crime, is higher in the inner cities such as Chicago and DC and New York is a given and is a separate issue.

    I hesitate to even address your assertion that the density of gun owners is higher at the source of the guns, as this is so obviously false logic. That would be like saying that there’s more washing machines near the washing machine factory “since that is the origin.” The product moves to the market.

    There are no “middleman stats” or “LaPierre stats.” There are only the facts, which are that 11,700 were charged instead of 62. Big lie from a rude, overbearing, desperate man…

  22. February 1st, 2013 at 07:45 | #30

    @Cargosquid

    Well other than the gun that was involved in her story was a shotgun, not an AR.

    See top thread this morning.

  23. February 1st, 2013 at 07:59 | #31

    @Cargosquid

    An SRO officer is not an armed guard and that isn’t why they are there. Now, I don’t know what your county is calling an SRO, but I was assuming that all SROs are trained police officers who work locally within a particular school (or schools) with kids, teachers and administration.

    Their presence in the school is multi-faceted often likened to a beat cop in the neighborhood. The SRO talks with kids and goes into neighborhoods if necessary. The beat is the school and its surroundings. A good SRO is going to have a great relationship with the students and trust is established.

    Trained guard? nah. The ones here are far more professional than that. They would probably miss the first round of school intrusion because here they would be down in the cafeteria talking to a table of kids.

    Any references to them being armed guards is purely political. Yes, they are armed. Their roles are so much more than armed guard.

  24. February 1st, 2013 at 08:02 | #32

    @Cargosquid

    The military should be training the military. Just out of curiosity, where is the NRA training our military.

    “They are good trainers?” Sez who? The military should be doing its own training.

    Where and under what circumstances?

  25. February 1st, 2013 at 16:39 | #33

    @Moon-howler
    An SRO officer is not an armed guard and that isn’t why they are there. Now, I don’t know what your county is calling an SRO, but I was assuming that all SROs are trained police officers who work locally within a particular school (or schools) with kids, teachers and administration.

    In Henrico, the SRO is a Henrico police officer. We have one in each middle and high school and a rotating team of 8 for the elementary schools. Their primary duty at the school is security of the school. I was told that by more than one SRO.

    • February 1st, 2013 at 17:46 | #34

      Security is a broad word. I think probably before 12/14 the emphasis would have been more kid centered, like resource officer.
      .

      It just isn’t armed guard security and they have a lot of other functions that lead to safe communities and safe kids.

      Here is my issue, just so you don’t think I am arguing just for the sake of arguing. Since 12/14, lots of people are focused on school security and with good reason. The mood is right. However, I have read more erroneous info on what SROs are there for than you can shake a stick at, some from my own husband.

      When jurisdictions go to cut back spending or save money, often the School Resource Officers are the first to go. If their jobs are saved, then they are spread so thin. So saying they are security is a safe thing to say. Actually they are so much more than that. The program is invaluable. They build relationships with kids, handle ‘juvie’ stuff from the school setting, intervene in neighborhood ‘rumblings,’ keep ears to the ground, and yes, if someone entered the building with questionable business, the SRO would be called immediately.

      Mr. H just thought they were there to remove unruly students. Not true. They are also different from school “security.” There is a security person in each school in PWC. There has been since forever…but those people aren’t armed. Unfortunately, there is not an SRO in every school. I lose track if they are in every middle school.

      Corey Stewart just came out this fall with a proposal to do away with them. He did a 180 after 12/14. Its a shame this position is always the one with the head on the chopping block.

  26. February 1st, 2013 at 16:41 | #35

    @Moon-howler
    Don’t know. You’d have to do the research. I answered why the NRA was training them. The NRA has good instructors.

    If they were not good instructors, that job would end quickly. It would become known quite quickly.

  27. February 4th, 2013 at 11:19 | #36

    @Moon-howler
    I feel very fortunate then. I went to a county briefing on school security and they laid out what was going

    They have been working this for about 15 years. They set up a specific office that works with the county police in 2007. Education is our biggest budget entry, and is very low on the priority board if we have cuts, either from the police or educations side. The office runs out the county operations dept so there are no turf battles. They take a multilayered approach. They were selected as the premier organization by the Association of Education Administrators for their security work.

    • February 4th, 2013 at 11:56 | #37

      Cargo, isn’t there a security person in the school in addition to the SRO?

      Are you in Henrico? Is there a website? I would like to compare the programs. I think they all follow a similar paradigm.

    • February 4th, 2013 at 12:08 | #38

      If you are in Henrico, I found it.

      http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/SafetySecurity/SafetySupportPersonnel.html

      As I suspected. And PWC and Henrico have a similar program for the SRO.

      It sounds like the SSO’s are a little more formal there than here. The school security personnel in PWC aren’t called officers and they do not wear a uniform.

      the link says the difference so much better than I did.

  28. February 5th, 2013 at 00:03 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    I wrote some notes with the intention of writing a blog post.

    I have to get on that.

    Been busy with school and sick kid.

Comments are closed.