Wayne LaPierre on "Meet The Press" this morning

vector03 · Dec 27, 2012

I understand where Machodoc is coming from but I disagree. jpk1md and Silverlode are (IMO) correct. You don't negotiate away inalienable rights.

I'm of the opinion that Liberals don't understand the meaning of the word negotiate. They seem to think it means they give nothing and wait for the other side to see things their way...or just give in and give them what they want.

I can't (truthfully nobody can) negotiate my inalienable rights.

Haides · Dec 27, 2012

vector03 said:
I understand where Machodoc is coming from but I disagree. jpk1md and Silverlode are (IMO) correct. You don't negotiate away inalienable rights.

I'm of the opinion that Liberals don't understand the meaning of the word negotiate. They seem to think it means they give nothing and wait for the other side to see things their way...or just give in and give them what they want.

I can't (truthfully nobody can) negotiate my inalienable rights.

Absolutely right. Compromise to a Liberal means "you're wrong and I'm right."

If there is a high number of people asking "Why do you need an assault weapon/high cap mag?" then the discussion that needs to happen is not immediately letting them have our high (standard) capacity mags, which says nothing to a liberal but "see, I was right and you were wrong." The discussion needs to be about educating these people about these things and showing them they aren't the evil boogymen they all think they are.

Machodoc's formula is a losing one, plain and simple. He keeps saying we're ignoring him when in reality he's the one ignoring us (he didn't even address me.

lol)

jpk1md · Dec 27, 2012

What we ALL need to do is to better understand the liberal bastardization and coopting of language

"Compromise" to a Demwit Liberal means "Capitulate to me"

"Common Sense" = "The facts don't support my position but I want it anyway"

MS2k · Dec 27, 2012

jpk1md said:
What we ALL need to do is to better understand the liberal bastardization and coopting of language

"Compromise" to a Demwit Liberal means "Capitulate to me"

"Common Sense" = "The facts don't support my position but I want it anyway"

I don't like the name calling here. Liberal/conservative labels don't need to come into play. Democrats tend to be more anti-2A than Republicans, but there are those on both sides of the aisle who will break from party lines. And like the discussion here, there are those on both sides who are "all or nothing" types and those who are willing to concede certain points and/or compromise (not that that's a good or bad thing).

Like it or not, the National Discussion now is about gun control. Public perception, thanks to political rhetoric and mass media, is that something must be done. And with emotions running as high as they are, it's hard to convince anyone otherwise. The anti-2A crowd wants tighter gun control and the AWB; that's something. We can use facts and reason to argue that they're the wrong thing, but until emotion subsides or we have something substantive to offer we're crying on deaf ears.

Back on topic, I like that Wayne proposed something specific. Put "qualified, armed security" in every school, and let the NRA fund their training. I think this will have a strong deterrent effect on reducing violence in schools, but no effect on violence on the street or in other gun-free zones. It's a small step though on the way to universal concealed carry and protecting our gun rights. It'll be a tough fight for a while yet, and we may have to make a few small concessions in the short-term to win the battle in the end.

Haides · Dec 27, 2012

Well if this is about making compromise, I say we introduce a counter bill removing NFA making full-auto's cash & carry, and national constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere, and start compromising from there.

jpk1md · Dec 27, 2012

MS2k said:
Democrats tend to be more anti-2A than Republicans, but there are those on both sides of the aisle who will break from party lines.

Individuals may break with party line but the simple fact remains

Democrats are overwhelmingly ANTI 2a...AND they elect Reps/Sens that are overwhelmingly Anti 2A

Democrat politicians that buck party line are generally speaking rare as hens teeth,

Take Reid and Manchin's recent ANTI comments as examples of this and look at Republicans that have a long history of supporting 2A and what THEIR response has been.....they've largely remained silent waiting for the emotional over-reaction of Demwits to subside.

Dems that call for knee jerk reactions/legislation based upon an purely emotional reaction deserve the moniker of "Demwit"

MS2k said:
And like the discussion here, there are those on both sides who are "all or nothing" types and those who are willing to concede certain points and/or compromise (not that that's a good or bad thing).

Again....since when are natural/god given rights up for discussion let alone "Compromise" which is "Dem Speak" for "Capitulation"

MS2k said:
Like it or not, the National Discussion now is about gun control. Public perception, thanks to political rhetoric and mass media, is that something must be done. And with emotions running as high as they are, it's hard to convince anyone otherwise. The anti-2A crowd wants tighter gun control and the AWB; that's something. We can use facts and reason to argue that they're the wrong thing, but until emotion subsides or we have something substantive to offer we're crying on deaf ears.

Actually you're wrong again and making statements based purely upon emotional REACTION instead of rational fact based evidence.

MS2k said:
Back on topic, I like that Wayne proposed something specific. Put "qualified, armed security" in every school, and let the NRA fund their training. I think this will have a strong deterrent effect on reducing violence in schools, but no effect on violence on the street or in other gun-free zones. It's a small step though on the way to universal concealed carry and protecting our gun rights. It'll be a tough fight for a while yet, and we may have to make a few small concessions in the short-term to win the battle in the end.

Depends.....how many armed guards do you have to put into a school in order to be able to respond to a threat.

But again you missed the point right?

Who's going to pay for millions of armed guards at a starting salary of ~50k plus benefits?

We're already borrowing almost HALF of every dollar that the fed gov spends....where's the money going to come from?

Hate to break it to you but the BIG discussion is the fiscal cliff......gun control is on the back burner of a stove that has the pilot light off......polls taken 5 days after the Ct shooting bear this fact out and in a couple weeks new polls will almost certainly demonstrate this to be correct as the emotional response subsides and rational/upper brain function resumes control.

A look around the world will demonstrate that putting guards in schools is neither effective nor is it cost effective. Allowing law abiding citizens to CCW in schools same as they do everywhere else IS.....and it doesn't cost a penny.

SCARCQB · Dec 27, 2012

When it comes to 2A

Jim Sr · Dec 27, 2012

The NRA president's solution to school massacres won't work, but for a reason that will make gun control advocates apoplectic -- namely, it doesn't go far enough.

Wayne LaPierre: Close but Not Quite

sykesville · Dec 27, 2012

The answer IMO is access control. Come on, you mean to tell me access to schools cannot be controlled? And, by the way, that is a key aspect of the NRA's suggestion. Armed guards are only a minor aspect, and not required. And I just contributed more to the NRA because of their constructive suggestions.

Mr H · Dec 27, 2012

sykesville said:
The answer IMO is access control. Come on, you mean to tell me access to schools cannot be controlled? And, by the way, that is a key aspect of the NRA's suggestion. Armed guards are only a minor aspect, and not required. And I just contributed more to the NRA because of their constructive suggestions.

The bold above is what many people are missing.

MDFF2008 · Dec 27, 2012

sykesville said:
The answer IMO is access control. Come on, you mean to tell me access to schools cannot be controlled? And, by the way, that is a key aspect of the NRA's suggestion. Armed guards are only a minor aspect, and not required. And I just contributed more to the NRA because of their constructive suggestions.

The NRA proposed a huge package of security updates, not just armed guards.

The media ignores what it wants to ignore.

sykesville · Dec 27, 2012

gprimr1 said:
The NRA proposed a huge package of security updates, not just armed guards.

The media ignores what it wants to ignore.

Exactly. And they distort the rest.

Jim Sr · Dec 27, 2012

sykesville said:
The answer IMO is access control. Come on, you mean to tell me access to schools cannot be controlled? And, by the way, that is a key aspect of the NRA's suggestion. Armed guards are only a minor aspect, and not required. And I just contributed more to the NRA because of their constructive suggestions.

The school will no longer be a guaranteed "Free Fire Zone " for the shooter!

2nd=Good+Substantial · Dec 27, 2012

Haides said:
Well if this is about making compromise, I say we introduce a counter bill removing NFA making full-auto's cash & carry, and national constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere, and start compromising from there.

+1

rbird7282 · Dec 27, 2012

MS2k said:
It'll be a tough fight for a while yet, and we may have to make a few small concessions in the short-term to win the battle in the end.

NO WE DON'T. Left wing politicians always work this way. They take away your rights and freedoms one small step at a time and then you wake up one day and wonder what happened.
There are people saying they would agree to a magazine limit (10 ends). What then? Liberals will just move on to the next concession and won't stop.
NO CONCESSIONS.

Silverlode · Dec 27, 2012

rbird7282 said:
NO WE DON'T. Left wing politicians always work this way. They take away your rights and freedoms one small step at a time and then you wake up one day and wonder what happened.
There are people saying they would agree to a magazine limit (10 ends). What then? Liberals will just move on to the next concession and won't stop.
NO CONCESSIONS.

A lot of people just can't seem to fathom this. I'm glad to see a number of new folks on these boards recently that do.

Haides · Dec 28, 2012

I don't understand how giving concessions to liberals on an emotional rampage will help anything at all. So we give up all but our 10rd mags to make ourselves "look" good and "look" like we're trying to help. So what? Do you think it will really end there? No, because something as stupid as that won't do a thing to solve the real problem. Then a few months later when the next mass shooting happens, the rabid gun banners will be on their emotional rampage yet again, and the cycle continues, over and over until all of our rights are gone.

Silverlode · Dec 28, 2012

vector03 said:
You don't negotiate away inalienable rights...

I can't (truthfully nobody can) negotiate my inalienable rights.

Haides said:
I don't understand how giving concessions to liberals on an emotional rampage will help anything at all. So we give up all but our 10rd mags to make ourselves "look" good and "look" like we're trying to help. So what? Do you think it will really end there? No, because something as stupid as that won't do a thing to solve the real problem. Then a few months later when the next mass shooting happens, the rabid gun banners will be on their emotional rampage yet again, and the cycle continues, over and over until all of our rights are gone.

It really is just this simple.

mvee · Dec 28, 2012

Haides said:
I don't understand how giving concessions to liberals on an emotional rampage will help anything at all. So we give up all but our 10rd mags to make ourselves "look" good and "look" like we're trying to help. So what? Do you think it will really end there? No, because something as stupid as that won't do a thing to solve the real problem. Then a few months later when the next mass shooting happens, the rabid gun banners will be on their emotional rampage yet again, and the cycle continues, over and over until all of our rights are gone.

Yep.

They always talk compromise, but we're the ones that do all of the compromising. If they say that magazines holding more than 10 rounds is the problem, than it must not have been the full auto that they effectively made illegal in 1985. If they want a compromise they should be saying we'll open up the NFA, but we'll also go after the magazines. That's a compromise!!

rambling_one · Dec 28, 2012

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

Wayne LaPierre on "Meet The Press" this morning

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Frustrated Incorporated

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Get Opp my rawn, Plick!

Attachments

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics