Wayne LaPierre on "Meet The Press" this morning

[herr.baer]

The one question I would liked to have seen Wayne ask David would have been, "Even if high capacity mags were to be banned what would you do to about the 20 or 30 million of them in circulation now? Do you believe that criminals would just turn them in?"

 

[sykesville]

It is awesome that the NRA is funding this. I did a quick search, and didn't find any news of this, so I don't think the NRA is getting credit for thisl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...41fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story_4.html

LAPIERRE: The NRA is going to bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control, to information technology, to student and teacher training, this multifaceted program will be developed by the very best experts in the field. Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead the effort as national director of the National Model School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires.

 

[EL1227]

What's good for the goose ...

NBC's Gregory Mocks NRA Security Guard Idea But Sends Own Kids to Guarded School

Gregory sends his kids to D.C.-based Sidwell Friends, the same school the President sends his own children, where there is an armed Secret Service detail. But in addition, Sidwell has it's own security department made up of at least 11 people, many of whom are police officers and presumably armed. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was also "outraged" at the NRA's plan, but he sends his kids to a school that has armed guards stationed in the hallways.

Hypocracy, they name is David Gregory AND Rahm Emanuel.

 

[sykesville]

NBC's Gregory Mocks NRA Security Guard Idea But Sends Own Kids to Guarded School

Gregory sends his kids to D.C.-based Sidwell Friends, the same school the President sends his own children, where there is an armed Secret Service detail. But in addition, Sidwell has it's own security department made up of at least 11 people, many of whom are police officers and presumably armed. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was also "outraged" at the NRA's plan, but he sends his kids to a school that has armed guards stationed in the hallways.

Hypocracy, they name is David Gregory AND Rahm Emanuel.

Nice find

 

[alucard0822]

I figured the negotiations would occur behind closed doors and in a strategic fashion. Others you loosely refer to probably did as well.

But ultimately, we are working from a very weak position and in Maryland our approach will probably need to be different this year.

There are a few people that come here simply to antagonize some right wingers, while some respectful debate is welcome, they make it a point to pee in the punch bowl when it comes to our support of gun rights here. I am not talking about the religion/drug/police/abortion/hot chick/funny picture threads, or divisiveness there, when it comes to political action, MSI and MDS are pretty much single issue organizations. The usual offenders supporting gun control here might be Brady campaign plants, they might just be A-holes, and at least one has posted in this thread. I do not think you are one, your other posts convey that you just haven't seen first hand how sausage is made in Annapolis, and your points are common with many gun owners who are new to the political action part of our community.

You asked in another thread:

Does anyone know MD state politics well?

I'm thankful for the good work of MSI and others but what has held MD politicians back in the past (and could possibly help mitigate the damage)? I'm holding out hope that there is something I'm missing because MD never followed CA/NJ/MA to a total ban despite being as blue as any of those places. Was that just the Ehrlich speed bump or something else?

Nationally and in MD, some have tried to surrender their rights in hopes that those who oppose us would go easy, or be satisfied, not only does it flat out not work it has been a disaster, and has handed us basically every loss we have had up to this point. It's like getting robbed in a dark alley, and beliving that you can open your wallet, give the criminal $5, and they will leave without taking any more, or that they won't rob you again the next time you meet. Our place is to oppose any gun control bill that reduces our 2A rights, if you do support one, then you will be on the other side of the fence from myself and MSI, this is how we have kept a lot of bad stuff from passing, fighting every bill with everything we have.

There have been times that we have supported and campaigned for a pro-gun candidate, and they won by a mere dozen votes. We aren't very well funded, and 99.9% of gun owners in MD, even most here would rather sit home than sit in a judiciary comittee hearing with us, so we are left with about 20 regulars. Thankfully those 20 sign up to speak, practice their craft, and what we lack in funding and numbers we make up for in tenacity, and we have the respect of many politicians in Annapolis. We don't have the luxury of compomise, we have to fight everything we face with everything we have. Come down with us next time MSI has a few bills going through comitee, we can use the help, and your opinion will probably change. Nationally, and up here with PAFOA we are in much better shape, so there is even less reason to compromise, they can only take what we give them. In the end there are a handful of circumstances where a bill will pass, we have done all we can, and it hasn't been enough, at that point everyone outside of the back room keeps up the pressure, and gives our leaders the most to work with, they usually go line by line trying to negotiate away the worst of the bill, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, that is why it is a last ditch effort, not an initial response.

 

[OEH]

Just got to watch the whole thing this morning. When David Greggory kept harping on the 30 round magazines (paraphrasing) "But isn't it worth a try to ban large magazines", I really wanted Wayne to say "We did try it for 10 years and it did nothing!". The media is coming at this like the shooter never had to reload. If the reports of hundreds of rounds fired are correct he had to reload multiple times. What effect would a few more mag changes have? Time to donate more money to the cause I guess.

 

[Machodoc]

There are a few people that come here simply to antagonize some right wingers, while some respectful debate is welcome, they make it a point to pee in the punch bowl when it comes to our support of gun rights here. [...]

It's refreshing to see an intelligent and reasoned exchange of ideas here, even though the two people are not of the same mind. It's depressing to see people here immediately start name-calling and claiming that someone's an anti-gun plant, just because they don't join the me-too chorus of people who claim that they won't budge an inch (even when they already are doing so).

We aren't in the same political environment that we were in during the 1950s. Sorry, but that's a fact. If we want to preserve our 2A rights, we need to be smart, and not stubborn. It used to be that the antis were a small number, and we were a larger one ... but the majority of America was silent and didn't seem to feel the need to take a stand. Now, because of one terrible gun-related tragedy, many of the once-ambivalent majority of Americans have been rallied to the antis' side. We need more Lindsey Grahams and less Wayne LaPierres at a time like this.

We also need to have people who can listen, even if they don't agree, without acting like they are the voice of God.

 

[alucard0822]

It's refreshing to see an intelligent and reasoned exchange of ideas here, even though the two people are not of the same mind. It's depressing to see people here immediately start name-calling and claiming that someone's an anti-gun plant, just because they don't join the me-too chorus of people who claim that they won't budge an inch (even when they already are doing so).

We aren't in the same political environment that we were in during the 1950s. Sorry, but that's a fact. If we want to preserve our 2A rights, we need to be smart, and not stubborn. It used to be that the antis were a small number, and we were a larger one ... but the majority of America was silent and didn't seem to feel the need to take a stand. Now, because of one terrible gun-related tragedy, many of the once-ambivalent majority of Americans have been rallied to the antis' side. We need more Lindsey Grahams and less Wayne LaPierres at a time like this.

We also need to have people who can listen, even if they don't agree, without acting like they are the voice of God.

Intelligent discussion or debate is fine, but there are certain phrases, memes or tactics that come directly from gun control groups that some of us have seen over and over during hearings,, reading their memos, or when speaking to professional lobbyists. When somebody starts repeating them practically word for word, their purpouse here is in question, and it goes beyond a simple disagreement.

 

[Machodoc]

Intelligent discussion or debate is fine, but there are certain phrases, memes or tactics that come directly from gun control groups that some of us have seen over and over during hearings,, reading their memos, or when speaking to professional lobbyists. When somebody starts repeating them practically word for word, their purpouse here is in question, and it goes beyond a simple disagreement.

If you are referring to anything that I've said, I can assure you that it's purely coincidental. I do, however, have a strong background in public policy development, and I know exactly how that game is played, and what the strategies are. Maybe the reason that some things sound word-for-word is because there are terms that are in the general lexicon of people in that field. These are terms like, "window of opportunity," "triggering event," etc. If that's the sort of thing that you are looking at, you can choose to have someone who knows their strategy on your side, or you can be paranoid and decide that they're one of the "enemy".

Again, this is a time that we need to be smart. I think most people here get that, but they don't want to bother saying anything because a half dozen, or so, people jump on every word that they say like a bunch of playground bullies. People here want to work together for a common goal, but it's hard to do that when a few people insist that they alone know the right way, and everyone else is an "anti".

 

[md123]

Intelligent discussion or debate is fine, but there are certain phrases, memes or tactics that come directly from gun control groups that some of us have seen over and over during hearings,, reading their memos, or when speaking to professional lobbyists. When somebody starts repeating them practically word for word, their purpouse here is in question, and it goes beyond a simple disagreement.

Well I'm glad we've got you on the political front line because it seems like you know what you're doing.

I hope we don't give an inch...joined NRA on Friday after Wayne's speech. Plan on joining MSI after holidays.

 

[Silverlode]

Well I'm glad we've got you on the political front line because it seems like you know what you're doing.

I hope we don't give an inch...joined NRA on Friday after Wayne's speech. Plan on joining MSI after holidays.

Edit: I misread something previously, disregard.

 

[jpk1md]

Would someone please attempt to explain to me why we should even CONSIDER having a "Discussion" about "Gun Control" with the left?

Any "Discussion" will actually be premised with a Capitulation that our rights should be FURTHER infringed.

So why allow any discussion/capitulation at all?

If we're going to even THINK about ANY discussion our opening requirement needs to be premised with the elimination of GFSZA as well as the refunding/reopening of the MG registry.

Do that and I'd be willing to talk about doing more to ensure that mental health records make it into the NICS records.....as well as a real process for restoration of 2A rights to people who have done their time.

We ALL need to make sure that Liberals are willing to capitulate to law abiding citizens before we have any discussion whatsoever

 

[MDFF2008]

Would someone please attempt to explain to me why we should even CONSIDER having a "Discussion" about "Gun Control" with the left?

Not a fan of?

"Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?"

A smart NRA could use that to it's advantage when "discussing" the issue.

 

[jpk1md]

Not a fan of?

"Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?"

A smart NRA could use that to it's advantage when "discussing" the issue.

Thats the point

There IS no good reason to even have the discussion and anyone with the prerequisite 2 brain cells required to form a synapse can tell you that.

If the left were actually interested in protecting children/people then they would be howling about spoons/chainsaws,hammers, rocks, sticks, stones, bicycles, automobiles, swimming pools and pretty much every inamimate object out there to "save the children"

Banning/Restricting/Registering Guns and Ammo or any other inanimate object has been demonstrated to NOT work.....EVER.

So lets keep in mind what the left's goal is here.....its not safety.....its control

 

[Mr H]

When the other side says "compromise is agreeing with me", you have to change the argument.

In our case, we have to get away from trying to disprove "Guns are bad, mkay", and change the focus to not just the 2A, but instances where (to quote Wayne) "a Good Guy with a gun" has been--not COULD BE--a rescuer... then parlay that into the bigger picture.

Or something along those lines.

Just counter-punching the MSM and the Left is hitting a brick wall. We need to chip the mortar out.

 

[Machodoc]

Would someone please attempt to explain to me why we should even CONSIDER having a "Discussion" about "Gun Control" with the left?

I'll try, if you'll try to understand the my position doesn't make me anti-gun.

First of all, it's not "with the left" anymore. There are a lot of conservative, or right-leaning non-gun-owners who are now agreeing that something must be done to prevent incidents like the Sandy Hook slaughter. That means that this is no longer a Right v. Left issue, and that means that the numbers are simply not adding up in our favor. You can say all you want about how wrong that is, but that's how it is, and that's what we have to deal with.

Next of all, by being part of a discussion, we have some opportunity to shape our future. If we stand off to the side, fuming about how we aren't going to give an inch, our future will be shaped by people who are anti-gun and ignorant of the facts. In short, people who talk about "The thing that goes up" will have a say, and you won't.

Finally, if you do stay off to the side, and you continue to hold a firm line against anything that affects your 2A rights, the inevitable consequence is that you'll have to go to war against the United States government. As much huffing and puffing as goes on here, I doubt that there are many people here who truly do plan to take on the US Govt. in an armed conflict. That seldom ends well.

From the standpoint of a strategic analysis, the anti-gun folks are diving through a huge window of opportunity that was opened when a little turd murdered a bunch of babies, and chose to use guns to do so.

Pro-gun people don't have anything near that powerful to counter it. If you could arrange to have some foreign power suddenly land troops on the beach in California, that might shift the tide in our favor ... but I don't see that happening.

Also, it doesn't help that Wayne LaPierre has proven to be a rather lame public face of the NRA at a time that we need someone who is exceptionally strong. He not only has to convince his supporters, he has to win over the folks who don't know which side to be on ... and he's not doing that.

Also, and Bloomberg has figured this out, the NRA can sway the votes in a close election, but it can't sway public perception at a time like this. The numbers just aren't there.

No matter how much we'd all like things to be different, that's how they are. You either deal with reality, or you live in your own fantasy. Your choice.

Our only hope right now is to dive into the discussion process and say that we're open to listen to all proposals. Don't say you're only going to listen to the ones that you want to hear. Then, as each one comes up, you have to be able to make a persuasive argument why it won't work ... and you have to be able to do that long enough for the emotional anti-gun avalanche to settle down and lose its power. Even logical and reasonable ideas are being rejected now--not just by the left, but by a large percentage of people who previously hadn't had an opinion about guns. There's just too much emotion. We have to buy some time, and then show true leadership.

 

[INMY01TA]

Wasn't Lapierre supposed to speak again today and answer questions?

 

[Phoenixsm]

I'll try, if you'll try to understand the my position doesn't make me anti-gun.

First of all, it's not "with the left" anymore. There are a lot of conservative, or right-leaning non-gun-owners who are now agreeing that something must be done to prevent incidents like the Sandy Hook slaughter. That means that this is no longer a Right v. Left issue, and that means that the numbers are simply not adding up in our favor. You can say all you want about how wrong that is, but that's how it is, and that's what we have to deal with.

Next of all, by being part of a discussion, we have some opportunity to shape our future. If we stand off to the side, fuming about how we aren't going to give an inch, our future will be shaped by people who are anti-gun and ignorant of the facts. In short, people who talk about "The thing that goes up" will have a say, and you won't.

Finally, if you do stay off to the side, and you continue to hold a firm line against anything that affects your 2A rights, the inevitable consequence is that you'll have to go to war against the United States government. As much huffing and puffing as goes on here, I doubt that there are many people here who truly do plan to take on the US Govt. in an armed conflict. That seldom ends well.

From the standpoint of a strategic analysis, the anti-gun folks are diving through a huge window of opportunity that was opened when a little turd murdered a bunch of babies, and chose to use guns to do so.

Pro-gun people don't have anything near that powerful to counter it. If you could arrange to have some foreign power suddenly land troops on the beach in California, that might shift the tide in our favor ... but I don't see that happening.

Also, it doesn't help that Wayne LaPierre has proven to be a rather lame public face of the NRA at a time that we need someone who is exceptionally strong. He not only has to convince his supporters, he has to win over the folks who don't know which side to be on ... and he's not doing that.

Also, and Bloomberg has figured this out, the NRA can sway the votes in a close election, but it can't sway public perception at a time like this. The numbers just aren't there.

No matter how much we'd all like things to be different, that's how they are. You either deal with reality, or you live in your own fantasy. Your choice.

Our only hope right now is to dive into the discussion process and say that we're open to listen to all proposals. Don't say you're only going to listen to the ones that you want to hear. Then, as each one comes up, you have to be able to make a persuasive argument why it won't work ... and you have to be able to do that long enough for the emotional anti-gun avalanche to settle down and lose its power. Even logical and reasonable ideas are being rejected now--not just by the left, but by a large percentage of people who previously hadn't had an opinion about guns. There's just too much emotion. We have to buy some time, and then show true leadership.

I agree. The current situation is a different animal than before. We need to engage all these "new" folks who are not so much anti-gun but looking for a solution to limiting violence such as what occurred at Sandy Hook.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[jpk1md]

I'll try, if you'll try to understand the my position doesn't make me anti-gun.

First of all, it's not "with the left" anymore. There are a lot of conservative, or right-leaning non-gun-owners who are now agreeing that something must be done to prevent incidents like the Sandy Hook slaughter. That means that this is no longer a Right v. Left issue, and that means that the numbers are simply not adding up in our favor. You can say all you want about how wrong that is, but that's how it is, and that's what we have to deal with.

Of COURSE this is still a leftist agenda

Please show us some facts to support your assertion.

Tell you what, I'll share a few facts

Lets start with a Pew research poll post Ct shooting

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/20/pew-poll-not-much-change-in-gun-control-views/

Slight temporary rise which is to be expected based on emotional response and media hype but the simple fact of the matter is that there's been no sea change in attitudes at all......in fact folks that think there should be more gun control are no where NEAR historic highs

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Next of all, by being part of a discussion, we have some opportunity to shape our future.

You're missing the point entirely

We agree to play by Dem wits rules on their turf and pretty much guaranteed its going to go badly

Put enough pressure on Sens and more importantly Reps and make this a nuclear issue and the "Discussion" never happens.

This is the best of all outcomes and will put "Dem Wits" on the defensive just like they've been since 1994.

This is the very same thing that just happened in the House over Boehner's attempt to raise taxes.....Conservatives said "NO!" despite being strong armed by Cheese eating surrender monkey big gov progressives in their own party.

No offense but the rest of your post isn't supported by polls/facts/history

You want to have a discussion about Mental Illness and whether or not certain individuals are fit to be loose on our streets at all then I'm totally in support of that but opening up the door to any discussion of gun control is a losing proposition that ignores the rational fact based argument that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that more gun control will not achieve a damn thing other than to punish the law abiding

 

[jpk1md]

I agree. The current situation is a different animal than before. We need to engage all these "new" folks who are not so much anti-gun but looking for a solution to limiting violence such as what occurred at Sandy Hook.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Whats different?

Please quantify that with stats/numbers from reputable sources....not internet polls.

I assert that based on reputable polls that we're still in a much better position than we were 20 years ago in terms on public opinion.

This is a battle of facts vs feelings and the facts don't support your statement