Saturday, December 22, 2012

NRA’s LaPierre misses opportunity in anti-gun-control rant after Newtown massacre -

        When I was watching the NRA presser on Friday, I thought the gun group's head man Wayne LaPierre was digging a deeper hole rather offering a defense of gun rights in the wake of the Sandy Hook killings.
Did NRA Misfire With Its Response to Newtown ?

         The NY Post describes the speech as a tone-deaf rant about the need for more guns at a time when the national mood has been affected by the outrageous events just a week before in Connecticut.
         It's not that all of what Mr. LaPierre said was not true...and he made very valid points about he coarsening of the culture and culpability of media in that.
         It was an in-your-face push back at the wrong time, by the wrong person.
         NRA’s LaPierre misses opportunity in anti-gun-control rant after Newtown massacre -


Anonymous said...

I think you are correct in that he made some very valid points.Meanwhile he will be vilified and ridiculed because he did not put them in a kinder,gentler way,witness the Post front page title Gun Nut! in caps,and calling him a loon..of course anyone the msm doesnt agree with gets ridiculed in like fashion,to minimalize their points.

Anonymous said...

Wow. And the Post is like the Fox News of print.

Anonymous said...

The V.P. of the NRA, which is heavily supported by gun manufacturers, makes a pitch for Americans to buy more guns just after a school massacre.

All the NRA is thinking about is how many schools there are, and how many guns can be sold for school arsenals.

Someone asked if the leadership of the NRA has no shame. Obviously they don't, and what's becoming more obvious is they will do ANYTHING for profit. THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST PLAIN EVIL.

Anonymous said...

This is the same type Tokyo Rose Berlin Betty crap that the left and MSN have been droning on about since Mitt got his 51,000,000 votes.

Those 51,000,000 still think Obama is a f$%@ and they still think the right to bare arms is not the cause of school massacres nor will they be stopped when guns are taken away.

In other words...all the makers agree with the NRA stance. And all the takers want to take our guns away so it will be easier for them to take even more.

Anonymous said...

11:41, its not "bare" arms. Sheeesh.

Nope, all media is in lock step. All gun owners are murderers and this is a politically expedient time to DO SOMETHING, ANYIHING, NOW, FAST, INTSTANTLY, FORGET IF IT WILL WORK, HURRY, DEAD KIDS, DEAD KIDS!!!!

The NRA's suggestion of putting security in schools is not new or revolutionary. It is sensisible. In fact, our educational professionals (Dannie types) advocated for just the same thing with NYSP in many schools around here. But media, fully dedicated to hatred of all things gun and/or freedom, dutifully ridiculed the notion. With all the retired police officers around here, why not put a professional in the schools? It was a great idea when the NRA didn't endorse it. And in an age of part time, $100k counselors flooding the hallways, surely we can afford an hourly officer. Its only money. Its not like we have to build them a sign or a monument when they retire.

Anonymous said...

Most "takers" I know also hunt, so there goes that theory 11:41. And those 51,000,000 people you mention are mostly mad because Obama is still black and still the president, whether they want to admit it or not. And the word is "bear", not "bare". Merry Christmas.

Dan Francis said...

Anonymous 1:40 - you a are a lousy, low-down, stinking liar ... I have NEVER advocated for guns in schools - NEVER.

Mayor Graham: I must insist you block this a-hole from his blatant, bald-faced lies and defamation of my character ... or have you lost control of this blog? I wonder> BTW: what he posts is not 'free speech' not one bit.

Anonymous said...

“The NRA's suggestion of putting security in schools is not new or revolutionary. It is sensisible.”

Sensible? Then you shouldn’t have any trouble answering a few “sensible” questions. Take your time… there are more to follow...

1. If we place a gun in the office, ready to a principal’s hand (or to the hand of some other school defender), as some absolutists are now suggesting, what happens if the heavily armed intruder shoots his way in through a different doorway?

2. What if two maniacal killers are involved? Then one defender isn’t enough (See: Columbine, 1999).

3. If the psychopath has a semi-automatic weapon clearly the defender will require (at minimum) a semi-automatic weapon. How exactly does this gun vs. gun strategy play out if the attack occurs at the start of the school day, or during a class change, when halls are crowded with children? How many bullets do the absolutists want to see flying around our schools?

4. How do we protect kids on a playground during recess if a psycho shows up and starts spraying fire? (That’s already been done. See: Stockton, 1989)

Anonymous said...

Didn't Columbine have an armed guard? I believe so (if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me) and that didn't help any at all.

Anonymous said...

I am a lifetime supporter of the NRA and a parent. The NRA should support a ban on combat weapons and high volume magazines, but that will not stop terrorism. Gun restrictions would have not stopped the Oklahoma bomber or the 9-11 attacks and better gun laws cannot stop terrorists from killing kids in our schools.

If society wants to better serve our children we should start with the root causes and not the symptoms. Every terrorist was once a kid. Our society now serves children a daily dose of insidious psychological poison. We live in a world people think every kid should get a trophy and the winning scores should not be too high, where every kid should get every material thing they ask for and every kid does not have to mature through hard work and wholesome discipline. Our increasingly liberal society is increasingly liberal with kids. We feed the fire of entitlement from toddler to teen years and to the point that kids think life owes them every material and psychological satisfaction they desire. Kids then grow up to find out they have to work hard to be “somebody.” Layer that with desensitization to violence through TV and video games and removal of consequences linked to behavior and - congratulations liberal parents - you raised psycho. When they find out that they are not “relevant” in the world without real achievement – they take the easy way out – steal, cheat, lie or kill to make a “name” for themselves or finally get what they want.

Anonymous said...

Yup… and let’s not forget PSYCHO PLAN B: What if the killer can’t get into the school. What if he heads for a college campus, a theater, a Sikh temple or mall in frustration? (We do know that’s been done, do we not?)

Anonymous said...

If there was an armed or unarmed person in the room where the shooter's mother lives they would have seen her guns, and then in the basement her poor son who needed much more help than he got. But that person wouldn't see her as she was out partying! It was all momma's fault, not the gun. A school with an armed guard is ineffective. Good parents are.

Anonymous said...

Sure the armed guy in Columbine helped. If it was you or your kid in that school that day, I bet you would be glad there was a guy there to end it sooner rather than later. It could have been a hundred kids or more dead.

Anonymous said...

@4;48 PM

Great Post, thank you !!!
You said it all , what is wrong with todays upbringing and parenting of children.

I would like to add to all what you mentioned, that it needs a entitlement thinking connected with an unstable personality to be a danger for it self and others.

Max Volume said...

Dear Anonymous December 22, 2012 4:48 PM:

PLEASE stop making sense. The LIBS are gonna' start questioning you.

Anonymous said...

A lot of misinformation out there.

Columbines guard was not in the school at the time of attack. The attackers were aware of this and planned their attack around that fact. In Texas teachers are required to carry their firearms concealed and no one knows which teachers are carrying and which are not. This would have likely deterred the armed attack in Columbine

Columbine involved more than guns. Bombs were planted in order to kill people fleeing for safety. Fortunately they did not go off. Crazies will resort to whatever means necessary to achieve their goals.

We have more to worry about than crazies. Unprotected children are soft targets for terrorists and have been victims elsewhere. Muslim
terrorists in Russia have taken over schools and movie theaters resulting in death tolls far exceeding what we have scene. Schools in this country have been targeted by similar groups ,but so far these attacks have been thwarted while still in the planning stages.

Schools are soft targets with maximum impact. Putting arms in schools will make them harder targets and potential attackers may look elsewhere, but there are no guarantees.

The left was going to attack the NRA no matter what they proposed. Putting armed officers in our schools was an idea that was proposed and implemented by Bill Clinton. Now because of NRA supports it is a bad idea. The officers were there for prevention not just a means of meeting force with force. They were there to identify weaknesses in school security and make the schools as safe as possible. They were there to intervene before social and psychological problems reached the tipping point.

This was an effective program that is now doomed because of partisan politics.

Anonymous said...

Since we have a certain number of cops on the street every day. It only makes sense to assign a percentage of them to schools, when so much of our population is in school.

Anonymous said...

Right on point 7:31..and to "bare" arms,only leads to the right to arm bears.. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Dannie, calm yourself. Lib types, meaning YOU types, have advocated for resource officers in schools. That is what the post said. In fact, there is nothing that you haven't advocated for in schools. That is your philsophy. More and more, spend and spend, tax and tax. As long as you are exempted. Which you usually are. But I digress. The NRA's proposal, which is to put armed security in schools, is not a new proposal. Until our checks started bouncing here in NYS, most educational advocates, folks like YOU, thought it was a good idea. Calm down. Its Christmas.

Remember on the old Saturday Nite Live, the angry old man? You're it sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Let's quit skirting around the issue. There are certain weapons that should not be available to anyone for the safety of our public.
Does anyone here think they have "a right" to own chemical weapons? How about atomic weapons? How about nerve gas? Bazookas? Hand grenades? Anyone?
Then please tell me why it is anymore "a right" to own an assault rifle as it is to own any of these other WMDs? Then you can go and try to spread your heartless B.S. to family in Connecticut whose 6 year old was shot eleven times by an ASSAULT RIFLE.

Anonymous said...

Dear December 23, 2012 10:13 AM:

PLEASE stop making sense. The Conservatards are gonna' start questioning you.

Anonymous said...

I see none of 2:42 PM’s questions are being answered.

Anonymous said...

A ban on certain weapons will not prevent repeat attacks. You can now print a gun with a 3D printer and it is not that hard to make a box full of homemade grenades or a chemical weapon with 50 gallons of assorted ingredients you buy at most hardware stores. Stop coddling kids and start raising them right. Not only do we mess up their minds with our liberal ways, we are messing up their physical nervous systems and bodies by feeding them crap, poison food. There are a lot of spoiled, fat, pimply, anti-social, messed up kids out there right now.

Anonymous said...

Deere December 23, 2012 2:00 PM,
This is what you come up with?
"I know you are but what am I"?
We had libtard long before you came up with conservitard. Please try to come up with something on your own. Not only do you want to take our money, you want to take our intellectual property too.

Maybe you could go back to calling us "the party of know". That worked good for you in 2010.

rick aldrich said...

Was this guy drunk, nuts, or both? The answer to bad guns, is more good guns? This mentality is what has gotten this world of ours, in the mess it's in. The "right to bear arms", was never meant to be turned on its' own citizens.

Anonymous said...

“I see none of 2:42 PM’s questions are being answered.”

And they won’t be. That’s because the intellectually bankrupt Stone Age Party haven’t had an original idea in decades.

Incidentally, ‘Insane Wayne’ LaPeePee’s statement could possibly be one of the dumbest ideas anyone has proposed in recent memory -- and that’s by Republican standards mind you.

Anonymous said...

Yes 10:13, you make complete sense. Most gun owners I know have long advocated for nukes and chemical weapons in the hands of civilians. Yours is a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

What a idiot. Have sex. Get drunk. Do SOMETHING to settle down.

Anonymous said...

Buy more guns and ammo..