Wayne LaPierre issued a statement to the Daily Caller in the form of an essay:
(excerpt)
Before I tell you how the NRA and our members are going to Stand And Fight politically and in the courts, let’s acknowledge that all over this country, tens of millions of Americans are already preparing to Stand And Fight to protect their families and homes.
These good Americans are prudently getting ready to protect themselves.
It has always been sensible for good citizens to own and carry firearms for lawful protection against violent criminals who prey on decent people.
During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing. Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.
The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.
When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along.
A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of gun control.
No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever.
After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.
Anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had already done everything he could to prevent law-abiding New Yorkers from owning guns, and he has made sure that no ordinary citizen will ever be allowed to carry a gun. He even refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!
Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it.
Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.
The full essay may be read here.
The essay is laced with racial overtones and false “facts.” Specifically, his statements about Brooklyn and Hurricane Sandy are exact opposites of what really happened, Five days after Hurricane Sandy there had been no homocides. LaPierre sounds unstabile and paranoid. He is now coming across as a person who will say almost anything to advance his political agenda. It appears that not all NRA members are heeding the call to follow this delusional piped piper.
I find LaPierre’s remarks irresponsible, inaccurate, racist and created to feed into people’s fears. Why does the NRA put up with this clown? He is going to wall off the strident NRA members and isolate them from the rest of American society. Many Republicans this morning think that LaPierre has gone over the edge for sure this time. LaPierre keeps bumping the right further and further to the outer extremes.
LaPierre is insane IMHO!
Are you suggesting that maybe HE shouldn’t be sold a gun?
I thought at least someone would come along and try to justify LaPierre’s behavior. I guess no one wants to justify the unjustifiable. There is hope!!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-murders-robberies-sandy-ravages-nabes-article-1.1227843
Maybe not homicides, but violent crime went up.
His hyperbole was a bit too much. His basic idea though, is sound. I would like a better spokesman though. But you use whatcha got.
One should be armed after a disaster. Gangs are growing…the most rapid growth are the latin drug gangs.
Riots and flash mobs happen. As do lone criminals.
Every tragedy is exploited by the gun control crowd.
Katrina.
Everyone should be allowed to determine their own solutions for security.
I am not sure I totally believe what I just read. I would have to see the actual dates for crimes. I have seen politicans, specifically Corey Stewart, use crime statistics to bolster up his anti immigration spiels. I know for a fact he misused facts like a crazy man.
Now, having said that, no one is saying turn in all your guns. What is Crazy man Lapierre talking about?
Background checks for all sales, limited mag saize, and certain types of multiple kill guns should have nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy.
I agree that people should be armed after a disaster, if it makes them more comfortable. I would want to be.
I honestly don’t recall a single person advocating gun control after Katrina. Again, what does that have to do with backgrounch checks, high capacity magazines and military type weapons? It shouldn’t matter. There are plenty of guns that will drop a robber, burglar or two.
Besides, after being called a fascist, insurrectionist, red neck, anti-gay, cowardly nut job that doesn’t care if babies are killed if it sells guns, and I have “compensation” issues to boot….
Ol’ Wayne is a little tame.
And that was just in the last week.
To make clear NONE OF THAT WAS HERE.
Huffington Post is filled with screeds and insults about gun owners.
I was getting ready to confess to ONLY right wing nut job.
I would say that I think LaPierre represents the gun industry more than the NRA members. That’s where the big money seems to come from.
@Moon-howler
Even old Charlton Heston with his “dead, cold hands” stuff was a better
spokes person than LaPierre. If looks mean anything (and they do), he looks
like the fanatic he is. Any thinking, sane person would be taken aback listening to him.
LaPierre and his crew are a pretty cynical, mercenary bunch. In their efforts to promote more gun sales, they play to the more impressionable, disenfranchised, excitable, even somewhat anti-social element among us. I’m not saying every gun owner or even most NRA members fit this profile, but some do, and they are the die-hards (not YOU, Cargo, so don’t start!).
When LaPierre and the others do this kind of thing, in the process of causing many ordinary folks to stock up on guns and ammo, which is their goal, they inflame the deranged and the borderline sociopaths and it’s no coincidence that some of the gun tragedies have come not long after some of these speeches. It’s a dirty business, and I guess for LaPierre the deaths are “collateral damage.”
He may have some explainin’ to do at the Pearly Gates. Maybe he can give one of his speeches to St. Peter…
I hadn’t thought of that, middleman. Good point though, what happens when one of those firely speeches sets off the hounds of hell in someone’s brain? Some special someone who goes after the President, or decides to go out in a blaze of glory to make some sort of 2nd amendment point?
Scary. I believe LaPierre is just flat out irresponsible.
@Moon-howler
Guns were illegally confiscated during Katrina. The state and city police said that owners would have to have a sales receipt, etc, to get them back. Then they were discovered, dumped willy nilly, into a shipping container. The guns were mostly destroyed through neglect.
A class action lawsuit was instigated and the city lost. I’m not sure what the plaintiffs got.
@middleman
Please show ONE of such tragedies linked to ANY NRA speech.
I think you actually have to make a YouTube video for that to happen, Cargo.
He doesn’t need to. Prove to me that any one of these killings wasn’t based on something that LaPierre didn’t say. makes about as much sense.
Any time you have some horse’s ass out there telling people the crap I just read today from LaPierre, there is a strong likelihood that some paranoid soul will decide that the gubmint is coming for his (or maybe her) guns. Who knows what sets off some of this. the point with mentally ill people is there is darn little tracking the logic.
LaPierre’s speech will scare lots of moderates and independent into the gun control camp.
LaPierre now sounds paranoid and irrational. Should be easy for moderate GOP members to run towards sane gun regulations. He is his worst enemy right now. Just keep talkin’ Wayne. That foot must be tasting awfully rank.
@Moon-howler
So, he makes an assertion, but doesn’t need to back it up because you dislike the message.
Ok. I’ll remember that.
Be specific. What assertion?
LaPierre also has the responsibility to back up his assertions with things that really happen.
@Cargosquid
Who did this? Last I heard many of the cops ran away.
Missing the point, Cargo. LaPierre-type speech encourages, enrages and legitimizes anti-government and anti-government-employee thinking.
From a W. Post article yesterday:
In 1995, in a fundraising letter written by LaPierre, the NRA said that a Clinton administration ban on semiautomatic weapons “gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure or kill us.”“Not too long ago,” the letter continued, “it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack lawabiding citizens. Not today.”
The following month, the federal building in downtown Oklahoma City was bombed. Two weeks later, former president George H.W. Bush sent the NRA a letter to say that he was canceling his membership. Bush noted that among those killed in the bombing was a Secret Service agent who had served on his security team. “He was no Nazi,” the former president wrote. The NRA’s “broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country.”
An absolute correlation? No. But LaPierre’s type of speech can clearly be said to plant seeds and provide encouragement.
@middleman
Of course, actions speak louder than words.
Know what encourages them? Entrapment like Ruby Ridge. No-knock raids that kill innocent people. Cover ups of no-knock raids that use bad warrants, politicians in Missouri and Mn that call for the turn in or removal of all “assault weapons” within 90 days of passage of their bill or the gun owner becomes a felon. Statements like Chicago Police Chief stating that he will have his men shoot anyone that carries concealed in Chicago if it becomes legal.
You don’t think actual gov’t over-reaction, corruption, and overreach might do it?
@Cargo, This really isn’t the place to discuss Ruby Ridge. I vehemently disagree with your assessment. Those people alived in an alternate universe. Obviously they hadn’t learned their lesson since they went to other sites where other alternative universe people were taking on the federal government.
I will say no more. Most of us really reject the backwoodsman/survivalist/religious nut case point of view. I understand the Weaver family are all atheists nowadays.
Cargo, I’m sure many things play on a sick mind and perceived gov’t overreaction, corruption, “overreach, ” etc., are undoubtedly in the mix.
But when a perceived authority figure like LaPierre inflames and legitimizes these borderline sociopathic killers a line is crossed. And he has crossed it repeatedly.
@middleman
And do you also worry about how leftist rants depersonalize people? Notice…most of the of the recent incidents have involved people that, if they have left documentation, shows that they lean left. The others have left no evidence of motivation by “NRA rants.”
Even Tim McVeigh was found to agree with the Unibomber’s rantings. And he’s is about the only one that can remotely be considered to be “right” and he stated that he was motivated by the Ruby Ridge entrapment and murder.
First off cargo, everyone is left of you.
Secondly, what you said is bull puckey. Just which mass murderers have been leftist? Most of the ones that spring to my mind have been apolticial as best we can tell.
Cargo, you’re all tied up in left and right, and I’m talking about an organization that is out to sell guns and ammo and doesn’t care who gets killed in the process.
Left, right, center, it don’t matter. The NRA doesn’t represent the vast majority of gun owners in their extreme positions. Just the gun manufacturers. But they use your dues to lobby against ANY realistic reform. That ain’t left or right- just wrong.
Totally agree. @middleman
I’m talking about an organization that is out to sell guns and ammo and doesn’t care who gets killed in the process.
And I say that is a completely bigoted point of view. Saying that the NRA is just trying to sell guns insults millions of people that they represent. And yes, millions more than are actual members. I say that the gun control people are willing to disarm people, allowing them to fall victim to predators….ie..those that wish for strict gun control are pro-criminal.
I mean..if you can say that pro-2nd amendment people are willing to have people die to sell guns……
Your definitions of “realistic reform” are….?
I’ve seen the gun control people state that they are for “reasonable” control before and then Feinstein starts banning guns. States are now calling for actual confiscations and imprisonment of those that don’t turn in guns are get them out of state. The problem is that those calling for “reasonable” reform always expect that THEIR ideas are “reasonable” no matter how extreme. Since the pro-gun side has already compromised on much of their freedoms, what limit are the gun banners going to set on THEIR ambitions…because not one of the gun control organizations have EVER stated one….except their dream of a total ban.
Why should you be allowed to insult many of us (those who are for stricter gun control are pro criminal)? I say THAT is a particularly bigotted point of view.
The NRA seriously represents gun manufacturers and accessories also.
I don’t understand why you don’t see that you have insulted many of us. Pro criminal?
If this discussion is going to take place on this blog, we are going to have to come to an understanding. No more binary discussion. No one here, to my knowledge, wants to ban guns. Period. Therefore, The expression “gun banners” is out. Sorry, you don’t get to play pin the insult on the blog owners.
There is a whole world out there that has some reforms that will make this country a safer place. One such place to start is with background checks. No one is messing with anyone’s rights. If someone wants to sell a gun to cousin Billy Bob, then he goes through the background check. There’s a starting place.
Being pro 2nd amendment doesn’t have anything to do with proposals to enact universal background checks or to ban large mags or assault-type weapons. The right to bear arms was never intended to cover ALL possible arms. You can’t own rocket-launchers or flame-throwers or automatic weapons and I don’t hear a huge 2nd amendment outcry about that. Actually, I don’t necessarily agree on the assault-type weapon ban and the mag ban, but the 2nd amendment is a non-issue. And don’t put words in my mouth, Cargo (“pro 2nd amendment people are willing to have people die to sell guns”). I never came close to saying that. If you read my posts I am clearly talking about LaPierre and the NRA using hate speech to inflame and distract people and the effects that can have on the sub-humans.
Cargo, according to polls, a large majority of Americans, including NRA members, support universal background checks. A smaller majority support banning large magazines and assault-type rifles. The NRA resists ANY changes while talking about “jack-booted government thugs” and criticizing the protection of the president’s daughters. You can try to side-track the argument with 2nd amendment rights or disarming people, but the reality is that we can no longer afford to have an organization promoting gun sales controlling our national gun policy.
“Why should you be allowed to insult many of us (those who are for stricter gun control are pro criminal)? I say THAT is a particularly bigotted point of view. ”
Why shouldn’t I respond to an insult? – “an organization that is out to sell guns and ammo and doesn’t care who gets killed in the process.”
“if you can say that pro-2nd amendment people are willing to have people die to sell guns……” So, you don’t see how that insults millions of gun owners like myself that support the NRA?
So it doesn’t represent all gun owners. Ok. But policy is being determined by polls that survey a few thousand people…..and equates that with the entire population. The NRA’s poll is a 4.5 million dollar membership that supports the NRA’s positions.
@Middleman
“I’m talking about an organization that is out to sell guns and ammo and doesn’t care who gets killed in the process. ”
pro 2nd amendment people are willing to have people die to sell guns”
Looks close enough for gov’t work since the NRA represents 4 million 2nd amendment supporters. Your sentence did not talk about inflammatory speech. And it insulted me.
I was just using your logic. If the NRA is pro-death to sell guns, then I have every right to classify the gun control groups that want to disarm law abiding gun owners as I see fit.
How is the 2nd amendment a non-issue? Universal background checks, as desired by the gun control groups would required registration. THAT is a non-starter. When these polls ask such questions, most of the Americans have no clue about that. Most Americans think that “assault weapons” are automatic rifles. That is why the VPC invented the nonsense term. Of course the NRA and others are going to resist any change. Because whenever an inch was given to the gun control groups, they take a foot. There are states demanding confiscation of currently owned rifles and magazines.
The reality is that we cannot allow people to infringe upon rights using dishonest techniques and emotional arguments. The very statement, “t we can no longer afford to have an organization promoting gun sales controlling our national gun policy.” nothing more than the current attempt to make that statement the narrative.
The NRA represents its members. It is not a guns sales organization. Does it support firearms access and sales? Of course. Its a gun rights organization. But, I know that your statement is the narrative being pushed in the media and by the gun banner organizations.
And yes Moon, there are gun BANNERS. YOU may not be one. But the VPC and the Bradys, and such are gun ban organizations.
“Prove to me that any one of these killings wasn’t based on something that LaPierre didn’t say.” Oh..prove a negative….that’ll work.
Not all of the incidents were the mass murderers. And you are right, the mass murderers have been mostly apolitical. So, you admit that there is no evidence linking NRA statements to the events.
You don’t want to be insulted…but its ok to insult me? You don’t want me to use the term gun banner, but there are gun banners demanding outright confiscations. Its not “binary” except that, in the case of those calling for confiscation and threatening to turn citizens into felons within 90 days of passage of a bill that infringes upon their rights…it really is.
You want universal background checks. I don’t have a problem with that if there is no registration. I’ve said that before. Now…calling that a “starting place” is what makes gun owners nervous. If that is a starting place…what is your ending place?
You can’t demonize millions of people without them getting testy. Keep pushing exaggerated and false narratives and all you do is push the 2nd amendment supporters into more resistance to even discussing alternatives because you seem dishonest and bigoted. Since you are are asking for yet more gov’t intrusion and infringement on a right, it is up to you to justify it and reassure that rights will not be infringed and specify what safeguards you will put into place while enacting your ideas.
They aren’t going to discuss them anyway. I guess its all a matter of numbers at the polls, isn’t it?
I see nothing wrong with registration. I wouldn’t mind registering my guns.
Cargo, its the binary reaction. yes or no. black or white.
Arrgggghhhh
Seriously, this is all about a hobby. Do certain people have a right to have a hobby and own the equipment to use with that hobby.
If the hobby imposes danger to anyone, I think it should have to have some rules to go with it.
People are alarmed because they don’t know if you are just Joe friendly with a gun fetish or someone who is getting ready to blow their brains out. That was an easy question.
Btw Moon,
I just realized…according to your logic, I did NOT insult you. You state that you do NOT wish to disarm law abiding people.
I said: “I say that the gun control people are willing to disarm people,”
If you aren’t willing to disarm people, then I guess it doesn’t apply to you.
But I’m also willing to change that sentence and add a word: “I say that the gun control people WHO are willing to disarm people,……”
That makes it more accurate.
I might want to control what and how they are armed, Cargo.
I don’t want to go house to house and round up people’s guns though.
Cargo, you’re mixing moon and me so much in your post that I’m not sure what pertains to whom. If you’re claiming that I insulted you, I’ll tell you that you can twist what I said and be insulted if you want- I can’t do anything about that. If you’ll remember, I said in my very first post (#10) on this subject that I wasn’t speaking about you. If you want to let LaPierre and the NRA be your voice and speak for you, that’s your prerogative, but the only person who speaks for me is me and I’m amazed that someone would align themselves so closely with a group that engages in such tactics and hate speech.
The second amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It is well established under case law that restrictions may be placed on what arms are allowed to be kept, such as automatic weapons, for example. That’s why IF a law was passed banning high capacity mags or so-called assault weapons, it would certainly be upheld as constitutional. Hence, it’s NOT a second amendment issue.
Since the Heller decision mentions that weapons in common use are protected under the 2nd Amendment, and semiautomatic rifles are in common use, and can reasonably considered viable militia weapons, and the assorted magazines that are designed to make them efficient are also in common use, then these rifles are protected under the 2nd Amendment…both under Heller and Miller.
@Moon-howler
I know that YOU don’t want to go from house to house, but there are bills being presented that suggest just that, either to confiscate or enforce storage laws.
Many people, including Giffords/Kelly want what they consider reasonable restrictions. Most people support background checks for all and limited magazinr capacity.
We shall see.
If they can do universal background checks without registration, more power to them.
If they can open up the NICS to the public and forego the need to use an FFL, even better.
And if they would figure out a system to get the FBI out of altogether, like an endorsement on your ID whether you are prohibited or not…. best.
Reminder: not everyone knows guns speak here.
Secondly, that just might not be an option. The people are pretty determined about this background check and I don’t think the 2nd amendment is going to come to the rescue in the courts unless there is a lot of conservative judicial activism, which we all know happens sometimes.
NICS is the federal background check
FFL is the federal firearms licensed dealer.
probably best to spell it out if you are referencing it. Most of us have no clue because we don’t do gun-speak. The only word I know is bang bang.
Cargo- a former Supreme Court justice disagrees with you on Heller: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/heller_decision_leaves_room_for_new_gun_restrictions_retired_justice_steven
I’m way out of my league here regarding legalities, but Heller appears to deal mostly with handguns, and it would remain to be seen if the Heller decision would affect banning assault type weapons and magazines. More info here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html.
Miller deals with laws banning sawed-off shotguns, which were upheld, so that would also appear to be questionable as far as affecting the changes currently being considered.
Stevens also disagrees with Scalia and the overall Heller decision.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Heller is law while Steven’s opinion is not.
Miller states that weapons suitable for militia use are protected…ie..they saw no militia use for a sawed off shotgun.
Heller speaks of protecting weapons in common use bt confirming Miller.
Heller is law, but the constitutionality of banning high capacity mags or assault-type weapons is yet to be decided. Stevens obviously thinks it would be constitutional.
Various weapons have been banned before (and are banned now) without the law being declared unconstitutional, so it would be surprising if the current proposal was.