Sunday, September 22, 2013

Wayne LaPierre on the DC Naval Yard Shooting, More of the Same...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


I watched the Memorial for the victims of the Washington DC Naval Yard victims. I listened to the words of President Obama, intently and hopefully with an open mind.

My first though was the President gave his usual good delivery. My second thought was here he goes again, politicizing another tragedy to advance his anti gun agenda, following the line of thought made famous by Rahm Emanuel (I think it was him) that you should never let a tragedy go to waste.

Then my third and perhaps the most important thought was, what if our grandson or granddaughter were to become the victim of senseless firearm violence. How would the misses and I feel.

My final thought was why in the hell can't intelligent and compassionate caring people find a solution that has a significant impact on REDUCING the incidents of innocent people losing their life because of firearm violence. And at the same time ensuring our right to own firearms.

Then I came across this bit of brilliance from the NRA's own Wayne LaPierre. It pretty much told me all anyone needs to know why we can't find a reasonable and sensible solution.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This sites position is clear in support of reasonable and nationally consistent firearm regulations. A position that would significantly reduce instances of firearm violence and at the same time insure the right to responsibly own and utilize firearms for legal purposes. Certainly one that respects our 2'nd amendment rights.

 Feel free to peruse the archives for further explanation of this sites position. I've frankly grown weary of the muddled emotionally driven responses from both sides of this issue.

 It is INDEED time to do something constructive and to hell with the firearm manufactures and pinheads like Wayne LaPierre.

 Via: Memeorandum

32 comments:

  1. "My second thought was here he goes again, politicizing another tragedy to advance his anti gun agenda,"

    Can you elaborate on exactly what are the "anti-gun" policies the president is pushing? You do remember that it was President Obama who signed legislation that ALLOWS FIREARMS in our national parks--that doesn't sound "anti-gun" to me.

    Asking for stricter background checks is hardly "anti-gun." Taking away guns from Americans is. So far as I've been able to determine, the president has not proposed that.

    Here's what President Obama has proposed and actually done:

    "Obama signed executive orders to strengthen background checks on gun sales, research the causes of gun violence, encourage mental health providers to report patients who own guns and may be prone to violence. Complete list here.

    He also encouraged Congress to ban assault weapons, step-up background checks on secondary sellers and purchasers and hire a director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms department, which has gone vacant for six years."

    That's it.

    Now THIS is an example of an anti-gun agenda:

    "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

    And this:

    Supporters of gun control point to the strict legislation Reagan signed as governor of California, such as the Mulford Act of 1967, which forbid open carrying of guns. The act came at a time when the Black Panthers openly carried weapons.

    “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said.

    Pres. Reagan wanted to restrict guns far, far more than Pres. Obama. Would you ever hear a conservative/libertarian say he had an "anti-gun" agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wicked, I am pleased you read my post and apparently visited the archives as we appear to be on the same page, even if not at the precise same point on that same page.

    The fear many people have is that the measures being talked about by the President and others more anti gun is that they are steps that ultimately will lead to confiscation and banning of firearms for civilian and non law enforcement citizens. I do not share this view in it's entirety and have stated many times that the nation needs responsible and universal gun regulations.

    As I said, I weary of the hyperbole and emotionalism from both extremes (and yes there are those who would prefer firearms be confiscated and banned) and shake my head at this nations inability to address what is a growing concern among all reasonable people. At least the ones I talk with.

    Perhaps Wayne LaPierre and the firearms lobby best explains why we simply spin our wheels and the politicians continue to give fine speeches.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's very easy to demagogue the gun in issue. Too easy. The level of civic and political discourse in America today disallows a thoughtful consideration of the issue. It's been reduced to an either/or, simplistic, paranoia-inducing hot button. Meanwhile the corporate and political friends of the NRA are profiting from the underground gun trade. NRA members should be ashamed and furious.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed jmj, yes indeedy dandy. Given the near ZERO response to this post, one that actually is critical of BOTH sides in this debate, especially the NRA and gun lobby, it is VERY clear that the ideological PARTISAN EMOTIONAL BULLSHIT is all that people are interested in.

      Oh well, THE PATHETIC BEAT GOES ON...

      Delete
    2. "Given the near ZERO response to this post"

      Don't take the lack of my diving in for a lack of interest. So few comments yes... but substantive.

      Delete
    3. The difference between the fringes in the gun debate is that the anti-regulation interests are far more powerful and constant than the pro-regulation interests. It's one of those issues that we normally don't have to seriously deal with in our lives. People can go a lifetime without ever holding a gun or hearing one fired live. But for the weapons industry and it's enthusiasts and sycophants, weapons are everything all the time, of course. So the impetus for political activism is usually theirs. Sure, once in a while there are uproars for more regulation, but there is a constant demand for the status quo or less from the gun interests. Meanwhile, the American people are blissfully unaware of the realities of the issue they pretend to care so much about.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. What it is indicative of is the most squeaky or loudest get the grease. The rest (the reasoned and the reasonable) merely get shouted over or shouted down. Typically in the past it has been the liberal/progressives who tended to consistently do this. The conservatives/republicans have caught up to them.

      It has truly become a Ho-hum moment, at least for me.

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately it's been hum drum moment after hum drum moment for a long time now. One of these days something really, really bad is going to happen and the reaction against the anti-regulation interests may be overwhelming and overzealous. The "no compromise" rightwing commandment will blow back hard on them one day. It always does.

      JMJ

      Delete
  4. Yeah, you may very well be correct. Or at the very least partially so. I rather think the hyperbole and emotionalism engaged in by both sides drowns out meaningful discussion.

    It is like the respective choir directors directing their choirs in following exactly the script they have been given.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Universal background checks and limiting the cartridges to 10-15 rounds are restrictions that I could potentially live with. Not that I necessarily see either as a major deterrent to gun crime, mind you, but if they give people solace and take the steam out of knuckle-dragging partisans like Rachel Maddow it's probably worth it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will; I wonder how many gun deaths are caused by high-round magazines, relatively. But I generally disagree with you on this point you made. Public policy should be done for real effect, not to ruffle the feathers of Maddow, whom I never hear about unless I go out of my way to find her.

      Delete
    2. There isn't a lot of hard evidence that gun laws work and actually some that they make things worse (most multiple shootings happening in "gun free zones", the murder rate actually going up in many areas in which gun laws are enacted). Background checks - yeah, those are probably reasonable and relatively harmless.

      Delete
    3. Is there a lot of "hard evidence" they don't? Would it be instructive to compare other advanced economic and technological societies and thier experience in terms of violent firearm deaths per 1,000 in population to ours? Would it make sense to analyze guns owned per 1,000 in population in other advanced societies compared to the US of America and determine any direct or indirect correlations? Does it make sense to think outside the NRA and firearm manufactuerer paradigm? Are we as a nation willing to accept a continuing increase in annual death by senseless firearm violence?

      I ask these questions as the Devil's Advocate. I ask them as a father and grandfather. I ask them as a person who has owned firearms, one who target practiced, one who has hunted, and I ask them as a person who recognizes society has changed and in the process so has the level of respect for human life.

      Delete
    4. Les, if you simply compare countries and their murder rates via firearms, yeah, we're clearly #1. But if you look at murder rates within various countries before and after gun control legislation, it's hard to find one in which the murder rate actually decreased (they've either stayed the same or went up). I would also point out that in this country the murder rate has been coming down at the same time that the right to carry has been going up (I obviously can't infer causation but you know that if the trend had been the opposite the gun control crowd would have highlighted it).

      Delete
    5. Here's another stat, Les. According to the E.U., Britain is the most violent country in Europe with a violent crime rate of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Compare this to the violent crime rate per 100,000 people in America - 466. Yes, guns can do a lot of bad things but they can also prevent them, too.

      Delete
    6. Well: Carry-conceal is fairly well regulated.

      Delete
    7. 'Fairly' is the operative word. Recently a couple of CC fellows pulled out their boy toys and
      kill each other . If folks felt safe with these cop wannabees packing, they should feel safer now.

      Delete
    8. BB: I guess it needs better screening... I wonder if alcohol was involved.

      Delete
  6. We need; 1) a nationally uniform and consistent policy, 2) extensive background checks, 3) same waiting or cooling off periods at gun shows as applies to firearms purchased elsewhere, 4) limit magazines, clips etc. to 10 shots, 5) restrict ownership of assault type weapons designed to deliver the greatest damage in the shortest time to military and law enforcement personnel, 6) make crimes committed with the use of a firearm in which a person (victim) is maimed or killed universally punishable by life in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole, and 7) tell the bleeding heart liberals that think number 6 is too tough or violates the criminals civil rights to stuff it. Especially as it is quite likely these would be the same people using the emotionally driven argument for stricter firearms control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The door has been open too long. There are 0.97 firearms per person in this country, which compared to Switzerland's 0.43 would seem to satiate the NRA. Visit a gunshow some time,
      wear your camo and check it out. Gun-running, unrestricted. While I agree with your recommendations, the guns and the nuts are already out there. And hey, what makes you think we bleeding heart liberals wouldn't like drawing and quartering for gun killers?

      Delete
    2. Wow! Did this really happen? A discussion on firearms that didn't devolve into name-calling and hyperbole?

      Well done, Les!

      Delete
    3. RN says that Liberals that point out that his cruel and unusual punishment prescription violates the constitution should stuff it? Huh. I think others might make that point, despite what BB-Idaho says. Me, I'm not in agreement with anti-Constitutionalists, no matter their ideology... the other stuff I do agree with.

      Delete
    4. "Anti-Constitutioanlist" in reference to RN is a very rare example of "name-calling and hyperbole" in this discussion. Les has a sterling reputation when it comes to the Constitution.

      Delete
    5. The 8th amendment to the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, look it up. I disagreed with the comment about drawing and quartering, a "punishment" that would CLEARLY violate this amendment. So, no "name-calling and hyperbole" from me, just an agreement with the Constitution. But I doubt this fact will stop Dennis in the future... looks like he's added another fib to his already full grab bag of fibs.

      Delete
    6. It is quite clear here that someone is creating a straw-man of "name-calling and hyperbole" of RN as being in any way "anti-Constitutional", and attempting to feed this newly-deceased horse with the oats of the preposterous idea that anyone wants to seriously "draw and quarter" killers.

      He seems bound and determined to beat this dead horse until it wins the Kentucky Derby. The rest of us see the spectacle of a scarecrow sitting atop a motionless carcass... and we shake our heads and walk on.

      Delete
    7. Looks like RN determined that the favored commenter Mr. Dennis Marks shall have the last word (big surprise). Dennis attempts to cause trouble and steer this thread toward a "crap fest" with false accusations against me -- and RN lets the offender Dennis slide. Clearly more of the "respect" RN said he would show me. Ha ha ha ha ha.

      Delete
    8. The lady who put her baby in the microwave and cooked it for several minutes I would also like to "draw and quarter", if it's OK with you fellows.

      Delete
    9. Mr. Sanders, aside from reminded you that you are full of s*it, continually fabricate falsehoods to fit your template, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A S*IT.

      Hope you finally get it. If not continue to wander in the wilderness of your delusions.

      Delete
  7. I could get on board with the D&Q thing BB- Idaho!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Shaw, the credit however goes to the fine commenters here at RN USA.

    (O)CT(O)PUS is correct. Weeding out the trolls whose sole purpose it is to disrupt intelligent discussion has a valuable purpose. Comment moderation properly used can indeed be a blessing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And I think I see RN's earlier complaints about the response to this post fading :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not a complaint earlier dmarks, just an observation. :-)

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.