Sunday, February 13, 2011

NRA CEO on Tucson shooting: Don't blame our guns

There was a time, not too many years ago, when even the National Rifle Association could be counted on to be a voice of reason when it came to issues like having average citizens in possession of major artillery.

Apparently, that is no longer the case.

In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six others last month in Tucson, Ariz., there has been a call for a return of the same kind of sensible ban of assault weapons that the Bush administration allowed to expire.

Though it seems likely there will be an effort in upcoming months to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and to eliminate the type of magazine that allowed Jared Loughner to get off several more rounds before he was finally subdued, odds are nothing will come of it.

Those types of much-needed reform would not make one bit of difference as far as Americans' Second Amendment rights are concerned. It would not affect the type of weaponry a person would need to protect his or her home. Americans could still exercise their constitutional rights.

However, that is not the message the National Rifle Association has been pushing. The following passage is taken from the Washington magazine, The Hill, concerning a speech made last week:

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and CEO, lashed out at supporters of tighter gun control laws in the wake of the attack on Giffords in Tucson, and said that existing gun regulations had only failed.


"If Tucson told us anything, it told us this: government failed," LaPierre said in a speech Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"When they tell you that a government ban on certain guns or magazines will stop violence, don't you buy it, not for one second," LaPierre said.
The National Rifle Association has made a habit over the last decade or so of creating a new crisis, almost always fictitious, based on the idea that someone is lurking around every corner trying to take away the guns of peaceful citizens.

Each crisis gets the dues pouring in. One such crisis brought about a series of so-called Castle Doctrine laws, which gave people rights they already had to protect their lives and property. No one was ever able to show a case in which the Castle Doctrine was necessary, but that didn't stop politicians from treating it like it was the most important ruling for gun rights that ever came down the pike.

Now, at a time when we should be having rational discussions about the type of weaponry that no one outside of the military needs, (and especially not for protection), Wayne LaPierre and his organization are back to their old tricks.

To LaPierre and those who hang on his every word, it is never about the weapons, it is always about big government wanting to sneak into your bedrooms and liberate your guns while you are sleeping.

That is simply not going to happen. Law-abiding citizens are going to be allowed to keep their guns. Recent U. S. Supreme Court rulings have made that clear. But our nation's highest court has yet to say that the Second Amendment gives a person the right to own any kind of weapon he wants.

Hopefully, considering the Tucson shootings, that will never be the case.

7 comments:

Ought to be a law against Liberals said...

What part of 'shall not be infringed' doesn't Turner and other liberals understand?

Insofar as new pro-freedom laws not being necessary, how about a law against Turner and other liberals? Why not pass a law to where liberals cannot own guns and they must live next to those they profess to love? Why not 'interpret' the laws against those like Turner?

Turner is a mere hypocrite wanting people disarmed so that the government can do anything it wants. We need to close down them public schools so that clowns like Turner can't perpetuate theysselfs no more

Anonymous said...

Randy, who are you to tell me how many rounds I'll need to fend off a home invasion? How can you possibly know 10 will be enough?

It's also worth mentioning that the new bills go way beyond Clinton's, making transfer illegal as well as making possession unless you can prove you owned them before the bill went into effect. Why are you and your ilk so eager to make Federal felons out of tens of millions of your fellow citizens?

Anonymous said...

12:38,
What about convicted felons and 'shall not be infringed?'

Let's face it, some people's access to guns needs to be infringed. The problem is how to do it.

With a hugh gun market along Mexico's border, reportedly providing weapons to the criminal element in Mexico, something, somehow needs to be done.

Perhaps the NRA CEO could help provide some leadership on solving that problem.

Anonymous said...

It's illegal for felons to own or even be in possesion of a firearm of any kind. They can't even have one in the house that they live in even if it belongs to another person. It's a trip straight back to prison if it's found out of any of these circumstances, so that's the solution to your first problem. Solution to your second problem about guns on the border involves more than just selling the guns to druglords...maybe more intervention from the government that is supposed to keep us safe and actually have more presence on the border for starters. Possibly intercept shipments of guns that are going back to mexico across the border. There's many things that more military presence on the border can accomplish.

Unknown said...

There are enough gun laws on the books. If the person who sold him the gun would've had beter training, who knows? There is more than enough blame to go around, don't just focus on the NRA. The person who did this if he did't have a gun could have probably done more damage by blowing himself up. Even without guns in the equation people will always find ways to kill other people.

Anonymous said...

Better training? The guy selling the gun was interested in a profit, period.

Anonymous said...

Didn't one of the guys who stopped the wack job in Arizona have a gun. I think he said in an interview, much to the chagrin of the MSNBC anchor, that he wouldn't have had the courage to go after Loughner if he didn't have his licensed concealed handgun with him.

The 2nd amendment was designed not to protect our recreational desires of hunting, shooting and collecting. It was designed to protect our "life, liberty and property." Its that simple. If the government can control what kind of gun you own, they can control if you own it, or if any one owns it.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
George Washington

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
Thomas Jefferson to his nephew

"& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Jefferson again

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
Adolf Hitler