• NRA's Wayne LaPierre makes it clear he isn't backing down on guns — or the culture wars
    31 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-wayne-lapierre-delivers-remarks-at-cpac-live-stream/?linkId=48399519"]Source[/URL] [QUOTE]National Rifle Association Executive Director and CEO Wayne LaPierre launched into criticisms of socialists, the FBI and the media Thursday, as he defended gun rights from the stage of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). His remarks came just one week after the deadly school shooting in Florida that has sparked renewed calls for more stringent federal gun laws, and increased scrutiny on the NRA. But while LaPierre had plenty to say about protecting the Second Amendment and keeping schools armed to prevent further violence, he spent roughly as much time questioning the leadership of the FBI, vaguely lamenting a loss of "due process" in America, criticizing teaching in schools and perceived chill of free speech on college campuses, and generally decrying the "growing socialist state." LaPierre made it clear that the NRA is expanding its role beyond Second Amendment issues. "We share a goal of safe schools, safe neighborhoods and a safe country," LaPierre said. "As usual the opportunist wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain. Saul Alinsky would have been proud. The break back speed of calls for more gun control laws and the breathless national media eager to smear the NRA." In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, LaPierre criticized the failure of the FBI to follow up on a tip about the suspect, media coverage of shootings, and liberal critics who think gun control is the answer. "They don't care if their laws work or not," LaPierre said of critics. "They just want to get more laws to get more control over people. But the NRA, the NRA does care," LaPierre said on stage. LaPierre, calling schools "gun-free zones" that are easy targets for shooters, echoed what President Trump suggested the day before — that schools be better armed and protected. LaPierre reiterated that there should be armed security in every school, questioning if Americans love their jewelry and money, in stores and banks with security guards, more than children. "Evil walks among us, and God help us if we don't harden our schools and protect our kids," LaPierre said. LaPierre said criminals should not have access to a gun, and someone who shows warning signs of mental disturbance should show up in background checks. But LaPierre did not only stick to gun rights issues, launching into a tirade against the "rogue leadership" in the FBI, echoing frustrating with the FBI Mr. Trump and others have consistently criticized. "What is hard to understand is why no one at the FBI stood up and called B.S. on its rogue leadership," LaPierre said. "Still, too much of today's Washington, no one speaks out. No one challenges authority." But LaPierre's comments weren't necessarily the most fiery from the NRA at CPAC Thursday. Before LaPierre took the stage, NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said some in the media "love mass shootings." "Many in legacy media love mass shootings," Loesch said on stage "Now I'm not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold..." Loesch, who launched into an angry tirade against the media, also said Democratic lawmakers, in addition to the media, are taking advantage of the shooting. "They're exploiting a tragedy for an agenda. Shame on you. We call B.S.," she said. As students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland demand action from lawmakers, the White House has signaled its openness to addressing fixes to current gun legislation like a ban on so called "bump stock" devices that make semi-automatic weapons operate similar to automatic ones and raising the legal minimum age to purchase a gun. President Trump on Wednesday floated the idea of increasing the minimum age for buying guns, which the NRA promptly shot down. [/QUOTE] [video=youtube;t51vKk--LsA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t51vKk--LsA[/video] Don't politicize gun tragedies unless you're doing it to take a dump on democrats and the left
What a guy
For the record, this guy also says in the same speech that the right to bear arms isn't bestowed by man but granted by God. And people wonder why the rest of the world loves taking the piss out of Americans with dudes like this at the wheel of things...
What is it with everything being about politics? You want to do something about shootings? Stop politicizing a tragedy! Climate change research? It's politically motivated, cut the funding! It's not politics, people are just rightfully angry about how things are going and are demanding to know how many shootings have to happen before we make our background check system worth a shit and start taking mental health seriously. The only people making it political are the people that want a quick "solution" that just equates to brownie points with voters but won't actually fix the deep seated problems we have that lead to violence. It's a really complex and difficult problem to solve, and until the right stops playing politics it isn't going to get any better.
Wayne LaPierre has been running the show far too long, and took an organisation about gun rights and turned it into a right wing echo chamber. He's another right wing religious nut.
[QUOTE=Dana Loesch]"They're exploiting a tragedy for an agenda. Shame on you. We call B.S.," she said.[/QUOTE] That fucking bitch, that was what the students calling for progress were saying to [I]them[/I]. And as if the Democrats have said the first word about gun control; they're too afraid of scaring away moderates who support gun rights to take a stand. Believe what you want about gun rights, but the people advocating for it are fucking assholes.
Exploiting this tragedy in order to push laws that will prevent future tragedies is the right thing to do and something to be proud of. There is a long history of parents who tragically lose their children campaigning for new laws to save other children's lives, but for some reason if a child dies to gun violence it's okay to shame their parents and friends into silence. Time's up on the extremist NRA running the show on gun policy in the United States, the new generation is sick of their shit.
[QUOTE]But while LaPierre had plenty to say about protecting the Second Amendment and keeping schools armed to prevent further violence, he spent roughly as much time questioning the leadership of the FBI, vaguely lamenting a loss of "due process" in America, criticizing teaching in schools and perceived chill of free speech on college campuses, and generally decrying the "growing socialist state." LaPierre made it clear that the NRA is expanding its role beyond Second Amendment issues.[/QUOTE] Just as people were getting me to question why I hated the NRA so much, this guy so kindly reminded me. If gun rights supporters want to be taken more seriously and have the gun debate be less partisan and divisive in the US, they desperately need to get people like this out of the picture and out of leadership positions.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53151788]Exploiting this tragedy in order to push laws that will prevent future tragedies is the right thing to do and something to be proud of. There is a long history of parents who tragically lose their children campaigning for new laws to save other children's lives, but for some reason if a child dies to gun violence it's okay to shame their parents and friends into silence. Time's up on the extremist NRA running the show on gun policy in the United States, the new generation is sick of their shit.[/QUOTE] I don't think that even qualifies as exploitation, it's just a basic reaction. If bad shit happens it's entirely reasonable to try to prevent it from happening again. Survivors of a massacre are asking for change and somehow the goddamn NRA is playing the victim. They aren't going to take our guns, the 2nd amendment won't cease to exist if we acknowledge that we need to change things. If they put the same amount of effort into improving the NICS system as they put into mental gymnastics, they could do some actual good while still preserving the right to bear arms.
Just listen to Dana Loesch's ad pieces. They're propaganda. That's all they are. And the scarier thing is they sound so poorly written and over-exaggerated I feel like they're the same quality as propaganda in a video game or some shit.
LaPierre had no shame plugging gun sales after Sandy Hook but when people try to pull the rope the other way, he gets on the floor and kicks around with his legs like the pissbaby he is. Trying to participate in the political process to encourage change is suddenly anti-American, anti-Christian and basically, you're an asshole for not wanting his industry sponsors to continue profiting from school shooting hysteria.
It's a shame that the sentiment from these people is if an area is gun free, it's an easy target. Where I come from we call that "safe".
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53151745]For the record, this guy also says in the same speech that the right to bear arms isn't bestowed by man but granted by God. And people wonder why the rest of the world loves taking the piss out of Americans with dudes like this at the wheel of things...[/QUOTE] Well, it's based off of the actual text in the Declaration of Independence: [QUOTE][B]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are [U][I]endowed by their Creator [/I][/U]with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53151877]Well, it's based off of the actual text in the Declaration of Independence:[/QUOTE] The Declaration makes no mention of gun rights. The only mention of "bear arms" in that document is in the list of grievances against the King: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." The only divinely-granted inalienable rights it explicitly lists are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to occupation of choice (the intended meaning of "Pursuit of Happyness"). The right to bear arms was only made explicit in the amendments to the US Constitution, which makes no mention of its provenance. The likely source for the Second Amendment is Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, which states simply "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Again, no mention of gun ownership as a god-given right - it is more concerned with limiting the guns in the hands of the government than in proliferating the guns in the hands of citizens.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;53151751]What is it with everything being about politics? You want to do something about shootings? Stop politicizing a tragedy! Climate change research? It's politically motivated, cut the funding! It's not politics, people are just rightfully angry about how things are going and are demanding to know how many shootings have to happen before we make our background check system worth a shit and start taking mental health seriously. The only people making it political are the people that want a quick "solution" that just equates to brownie points with voters but won't actually fix the deep seated problems we have that lead to violence. It's a really complex and difficult problem to solve, and until the right stops playing politics it isn't going to get any better.[/QUOTE] Because yelling that some movement is political is a good way of instantly defining it in partisan terms and forcing "your" side to tow the line. In other words, Republicans are now brainwashed to instantly hate and oppose anything Democrats want. If you want to shut down something you don't like because it threatens your business model, like guns, just yell that it's a Democrat dirty trick and you'll immediately have a large segment of the right supporting you -- even if five minutes ago they were in support of it. Seriously, just suddenly say the words "gun control" in front of a Republican and there's a 50/50 chance the immediate result is some variation of REEEEEEEEEEE. And I feel sympathy for the sensible mature Republicans for which this is not the case, because the gullible fucking morons they're stuck with are giving them all a pathetically hilarious reputation. It also works on varying amounts of Republican voters if you replace "gun control" with "immigration reform" or one of a large number of triggering terms and words.
I really wish LaPierre would get voted out. Fat chance of that though, him and his crowd have driven moderates out of the NRA. That organization has turned into a vat of fanaticism concentrate.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53152503]I really wish LaPierre would get voted out. Fat chance of that though, him and his crowd have driven moderates out of the NRA. That organization has turned into a vat of fanaticism concentrate.[/QUOTE] I feel like I'm pretty far of center on guns (support armed teachers and want to repeal the NFA and Hughes amendment) and I can't stand the NRA. It was bad enough under Obama, but the last year or so have turned almost apocalyptic.
These idiots always say that the problem is that we don't have armed guards protecting our schools or some ridiculous shit like that. Schools in other first-world countries don't have armed guards, but for some reason mass shootings seem to occur a lot less frequently for them. It's almost as if the lack of a "good guy with a gun" in the situation [I]isn't the fucking problem[/I].
[QUOTE=IKTM;53152862]These idiots always say that the problem is that we don't have armed guards protecting our schools or some ridiculous shit like that. Schools in other first-world countries don't have armed guards, but for some reason mass shootings seem to occur a lot less frequently for them. It's almost as if the lack of a "good guy with a gun" in the situation [I]isn't the fucking problem[/I].[/QUOTE] Please see Israel.
[QUOTE=IKTM;53152862]These idiots always say that the problem is that we don't have armed guards protecting our schools or some ridiculous shit like that. Schools in other first-world countries don't have armed guards, but for some reason mass shootings seem to occur a lot less frequently for them. It's almost as if the lack of a "good guy with a gun" in the situation [I]isn't the fucking problem[/I].[/QUOTE] Even when there are armed guards protecting the school (for instance in this most recent school shooting tragedy where, in fact, there was an armed guard who was on duty and on-campus at the time of and throughout the active shooter situation) they're not a perfect solution because: (1) They'd need to know exactly where the shooter is and schools are like churches -- they've got [I]tons[/I] of reverb. Also, school shooters aren't turrets. They don't just plonk down somewhere and let rip forever -- they move around, especially if they hear someone coming, which they will because - again - school hallways have [I]excellent[/I] reverb. (2) They have a pistol. The active shooters often have a rifle. One of these has far more power to suppress than the other - one of them can shoot through kevlar and thin walls, even if the security officer was wearing some that doesn't stop the rounds from crushing their bones or causing internal bleeds from organ damage. (3) [I]Perhaps most importantly:[/I] said armed guards are not required to [I]sacrifice their life[/I] to protect you. If you think a police officer is required by duty to give up their life to save yours the Supreme Court would like to have a word with you as they ruled the opposite is true. (4) The [I]armed guards come with maybe one or two magazines[/I]. These school shooters tend to come with [I]tens of them[/I]. Unless you're creeping up behind the shooter, who is standing still, and you have a perfect shot - that shooter is going to get the hell out of your firing solution while attempting to blast you (and anyone near you) away. And, if your goal is to protect the children, your first priority is ensuring that [I]you don't get shot[/I] so that your gun [I]doesn't add to their collection[/I]. (5) If the armed guard's main guiding principle is to prevent the loss of life, they're not going to fire until they have a perfect shot on the shooter because those bullets they're firing may very well find their way into innocent bystanders through the walls - unless they're being equipped with low power pistols that have frangible rounds -- which may only wound and make desperate a shooter rather than incapacitate/kill them. The active shooter has absolutely no problem spraying and praying, meantime, and if you miss your shot they're going to fire like mad when you set them off - meaning that blood is potentially on your hands for escalating the situation rather than ending it. e: (6) School shooters often meticulously plan exactly what they're going to do to maximize damage. They study the school layout, observe procedures, and make plans. They come prepared to do a long, extended, battle to ensure they maximize the amount of loss of life they create - and that means they already know all the entrances and exits, and all the hallways. They make backup plans and crisis plans to get them out of becoming 'trapped' in the school. That means there's no 'home advantage' for the security officer to rely on, especially if they know where you are when they start shooting because they can guess where you're going to go - and it means you're going to be dealing with someone who's moving from place to place constantly. You're more likely to run across them accidentally then you are to guess, correctly, where they're going to go. Armed guards have a [I]lot[/I] of problems. They are a deterrent to - and [I]not[/I] a solution for - school shooters. Increasing the amount of guards only increases the amount of potential cross-fire and only increases the amount of hazard they're collectively in should the police feel the need to storm the school.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53152904]Please see Israel.[/QUOTE] Because everyone around them hates them though. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] Aren't guns pretty fiercely regulated in israel anyway?
[QUOTE=Pax;53151785]That fucking bitch, that was what the students calling for progress were saying to [I]them[/I]. And as if the Democrats have said the first word about gun control; they're too afraid of scaring away moderates who support gun rights to take a stand. Believe what you want about gun rights, but the people advocating for it are fucking assholes.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of this: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8RRhN0KA4[/media]
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53153088]Reminds me of this: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8RRhN0KA4[/media][/QUOTE] Not gonna lie, that thumbnail looks like he is being possessed.
[QUOTE=Sharc;53153882]Not gonna lie, that thumbnail looks like he is being possessed.[/QUOTE] Looks like he's doing something else actually. Were there any sexual misconduct allegations against him?
[QUOTE=Sharc;53153882]Not gonna lie, that thumbnail looks like he is being possessed.[/QUOTE] How do we know he isn't?
[QUOTE=Sharc;53153882]Not gonna lie, that thumbnail looks like he is being possessed.[/QUOTE] Repost from its thread [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/uhv59Bc.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28167383_552380925123662_8864245853208813069_n.jpg?oh=c26d05386c405440e7c345c2c45ce859&oe=5B0C8FE1[/IMG] Now they're giving people ultimatiums
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;53154910][IMG]https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28167383_552380925123662_8864245853208813069_n.jpg?oh=c26d05386c405440e7c345c2c45ce859&oe=5B0C8FE1[/IMG] Now they're giving people ultimatiums[/QUOTE] This isn't new. The NRA have been ranking any kind of elected official they can for years. Since they single-mindedly care about guns, supposedly, it stands to reason that they'd ask elected officials of their opinions on them, so that they can inform their membership of where these officials stand on the issue of guns. Stating that their membership can interpret not giving an opinion as hostility is not wrong. There's 5 million members of the NRA, they can't control exactly what they all think, and it's certain that a number of them are going to view not answering the question as hostility towards either the NRA or gun rights in general.
It must be tough being a supporter of the second amendment and having to choose between voting for a party that may introduce gun regulations or a party made up of disney villains that also happens to be supported by lunatics.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53151745]For the record, this guy also says in the same speech that the right to bear arms isn't bestowed by man but granted by God. And people wonder why the rest of the world loves taking the piss out of Americans with dudes like this at the wheel of things...[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with that. A common classical liberal belief in that liberties are divinely ordained because, per John Adams, man isn't rational enough to be self governing without an external moral authority. Therefore, having rights exist in as much the state enforces them is a recipe for slow loss of freedoms. It's inseparable from the concept of natural rights. The fact you consider this a huge red flag is evidence this guy is on the right track, this gun nondebate is post factual and conditioned by cultural conflict in the wake of the Trump election. The gun control position is supported more by a elitist view of small town, heartland America as backwards rather than policy debate consensus. Who gives a fuck what the rest of the world thinks? The rest of the world is not a unique historical experiment in liberalism. At the core of this culture war is the loss of faith (or knowledge, public schools fail us) in liberal civics and the republican spirit behind things such as the second amendment, and in its place is a belief of how our history is the that of a republic of an unjust white male property owners. Culture spawning off from that, in particular as its highlighted in backlash to Reconstruction or the Civil Rights movement, is tied to gun culture and thus considered reactionary, not fitting 21st century America, and a danger to people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.