NRA Leader Wayne LaPierre's Much-Criticized Sandy Hook Speech Was Actually Quite Effective

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Spend enough time dipping into the post-game reaction of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre's press conference today -- staged and performed as the organization's first public statement since the tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- and you'll likely run up on any number of people who'll tell you the LaPierre's presentation (which included calls for more guns in schools and greater restrictions on video games) was tone-deaf or ineffective or out-of-touch or a failure.

Those critics are wrong. LaPierre's presentation was terrifically effective.

Granted, if you believe that what LaPierre was trying to do today was to sincerely join in a national conversation over school shootings, or offer a coherent set of preventative policy options, or even just demonstrate some baseline sensitivity for the lives that were lost, it is easy to see why you'd deem LaPierre's press conference to be an ineffective, tone-deaf failure. But what you should remember that the National Rifle Association does not exist to offer sensible public policy or participate in conversations or pretend to be sensitive about tragedies. The National Rifle Association exists to assist the manufacturers of guns and gun-related accoutrements in selling guns and gun-related accoutrements to people. That is their job, summed up, in its entirety.

The NRA are lobbyists who represent a bunch of gun retailers, and this is what lobbyists do -- they help their clients sell their products. And every action that LaPierre took today can and should be viewed through that prism.

There are people who claim to be legitimately gobsmacked today that LaPierre did not come to Washington, D.C., and say, "You know, I honestly think we can give ground on the assault weapons thing." Those people need to ask themselves: Why would a guy who is paid to help assault weapon manufacturers sell assault weapons to people who want assault weapons say, "Hey, let's restrict the sales of assault weapons?" If you thought that the NRA was going to sign on to any sort of weapons ban, then you have not been paying attention to what the NRA is all about.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2348277.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[himher 634]

Demonize the NRA all you want. Speech from those like you is far more effective than Wayne LaPierre. 2 million guns were sold in November (excuse me those were the background checks run I'm sure there were probably a lot more) because of the election and December will probably match the record for all time. Ammunition is moving off the shelf as fast as it can be stocked.

Good luck dude. LOL

Spend enough time dipping into the post-game reaction of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre's press conference today -- staged and performed as the organization's first public statement since the tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- and you'll likely run up on any number of people who'll tell you the LaPierre's presentation (which included calls for more guns in schools and greater restrictions on video games) was tone-deaf or ineffective or out-of-touch or a failure.

Those critics are wrong. LaPierre's presentation was terrifically effective.

Granted, if you believe that what LaPierre was trying to do today was to sincerely join in a national conversation over school shootings, or offer a coherent set of preventative policy options, or even just demonstrate some baseline sensitivity for the lives that were lost, it is easy to see why you'd deem LaPierre's press conference to be an ineffective, tone-deaf failure. But what you should remember that the National Rifle Association does not exist to offer sensible public policy or participate in conversations or pretend to be sensitive about tragedies. The National Rifle Association exists to assist the manufacturers of guns and gun-related accoutrements in selling guns and gun-related accoutrements to people. That is their job, summed up, in its entirety.

The NRA are lobbyists who represent a bunch of gun retailers, and this is what lobbyists do -- they help their clients sell their products. And every action that LaPierre took today can and should be viewed through that prism.

There are people who claim to be legitimately gobsmacked today that LaPierre did not come to Washington, D.C., and say, "You know, I honestly think we can give ground on the assault weapons thing." Those people need to ask themselves: Why would a guy who is paid to help assault weapon manufacturers sell assault weapons to people who want assault weapons say, "Hey, let's restrict the sales of assault weapons?" If you thought that the NRA was going to sign on to any sort of weapons ban, then you have not been paying attention to what the NRA is all about.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2348277.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Demonize the NRA all you want.

What is the purpose of the NRA? Why does it exist?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

What is the purpose of the NRA? Why does it exist?

NRA.org check it out.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

We like to have philosophical discussion round our dinner table. Last night we speculated of what might happen if the US did as Australia and confiscated newly illegal weapons through a buy-back program. We reckoned there would be violence in the streets, with both sides shooting at each other. And that the US falls inward on itself, all over 27 words originally written to protect us from outside invasion.

[himher 634]

Those 27 words have nothing to do with outside invasion. They were based/crafted/built/based on adding to the 1689 English Bill of Rights

Some highlights:

no standing army may be maintained within the community during a time of peace

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

On the issue of INTENT which is the favorite dinner table topic of the pro-government and anti-gun crowd I offer a a game of "who said this"

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man

Jefferson tended to take very careful notes as the constitution was drafted and the system of government that would form the nation was set up. There are however two ways to change it.

Here are the legal ways for personal rights to keep and bear arms to be removed:

ONE: The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

TWO: The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. Otherwise, every soldier who ever served stood and swore to uphold the Constitution and they take that with them when they leave service and that's just a start of what you imagine might happen if you make the mistake of believing that this is a democracy and not a constitutional republic.

"who said this"

We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done

Hint - it wasnt the NRA

We like to have philosophical discussion round our dinner table. Last night we speculated of what might happen if the US did as Australia and confiscated newly illegal weapons through a buy-back program. We reckoned there would be violence in the streets, with both sides shooting at each other. And that the US falls inward on itself, all over 27 words originally written to protect us from outside invasion.

Edited December 23, 2012 by himher

[himher 634]

Those 27 words have nothing to do with outside invasion. They were based/crafted/built/based on adding to the 1689 English Bill of Rights

Some highlights:

no standing army may be maintained within the community during a time of peace

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

On the issue of INTENT which is the favorite dinner table topic of the pro-government and anti-gun crowd I offer a a game of "who said this"

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man

Jefferson tended to take very careful notes as the constitution was drafted and the system of government that would form the nation was set up. There are however two ways to change it.

Here are the legal ways for personal rights to keep and bear arms to be removed:

ONE: The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

TWO: The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. Otherwise, every soldier who ever served stood and swore to uphold the Constitution and they take that with them when they leave service and that's just a start of what you imagine might happen if you make the mistake of believing that this is a democracy and not a constitutional republic.

"who said this"

We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done

Hint - it wasnt the NRA

http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-defiant-over-proposed-gun-laws

We will not turn our safety and right to protect ourselves over to people who have a responsibility to protect themselves, their communities, and their children but choose to shirk that duty

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

We like to have philosophical discussion round our dinner table. Last night we speculated of what might happen if the US did as Australia and confiscated newly illegal weapons through a buy-back program. We reckoned there would be violence in the streets, with both sides shooting at each other. And that the US falls inward on itself, all over 27 words originally written to protect us from outside invasion.

the 27 words to protect us from our own government. Stop trying to twist things to suit yourself.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

the 27 words to protect us from our own government. Stop trying to twist things to suit yourself.

Hey IMO, her post is a victory in that at least she recognizes that even the most moderate of us follow the "from my cold dead hands" notion.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There are people who claim to be legitimately gobsmacked today that LaPierre did not come to Washington, D.C., and say, "You know, I honestly think we can give ground on the assault weapons thing." Those people need to ask themselves: Why would a guy who is paid to help assault weapon manufacturers sell assault weapons to people who want assault weapons say, "Hey, let's restrict the sales of assault weapons?" If you thought that the NRA was going to sign on to any sort of weapons ban, then you have not been paying attention to what the NRA is all about.

Anyone who understands exactly WHAT an assault weapon is as defined by the 1994 bill will never see any logic to a cosmetic ban.

This rifle features a pistol grip and a muzzle shroud making it an assault weapon. The pistol grip is ergonomics, and the shroud keeps the shooter from being distracted by the flash...it doesn't hide it from view. Remove those to features and its a normal rifle again.

This rifle has identical capabilities but is not an assault weapon

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Anyone who understands exactly WHAT an assault weapon is as defined by the 1994 bill will never see any logic to a cosmetic ban.

This rifle features a pistol grip and a muzzle shroud making it an assault weapon. The pistol grip is ergonomics, and the shroud keeps the shooter from being distracted by the flash...it doesn't hide it from view. Remove those to features and its a normal rifle again.

actually the shroud is the forearm - it keeps the shooter from getting their hand burned by a hot barrel. the flash suppressor is what you're referring to.

eta: i've also never known anyone to be injured by a bayonet lug either.

Edited December 23, 2012 by charles!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Hey IMO, her post is a victory in that at least she recognizes that even the most moderate of us follow the "from my cold dead hands" notion.

Victory?

This is the problem, in a nutshell.

the 27 words to protect us from our own government. Stop trying to twist things to suit yourself.

It was a philosophical discussion. Relax.

But while we are at it.......

You would prefer the US dissolve into civil war rather than give up some of your guns?