The National Rifle Association, quite conspicuously, said literally nothing in the wake of last week's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary at Newtown, Conn. Instead, the group very carefully took its time, crafted a specific message to present to the public, which would present the NRA and its vision in the best possible light.
And this train wreck is what the group came up with.
To call this a press conference is to mislabel what transpired. The NRA's Wayne LaPierre decided to give a speech, and the group refused at the outset to consider questions from the reporters that had been invited to the event.
It went downhill from there. It was hard to tell at times whether LaPierre was serious or had become a spectacular performance artist, making a dramatic statement about the absurdity of the NRA's increasingly twisted worldview.
Regardless, his performance is worth watching, if only to marvel at its farcical qualities, but don't brush past the substance of his message. As LaPierre sees it, there's a very long list of culprits that bear responsibility for gun violence -- but guns have no place on that list.
The NRA leader this morning blamed gun-free school zones, the media, the entertainment industry, video games, music he doesn't like, existing gun-control laws, and President Obama as all sharing collective responsibility for tragic violence. Guns, however, are fine.
LaPierre was willing to call for a new national database. Of firearms? No. Of gun owners? No. What the NRA wants instead is a new national database of Americans with mental illness.
This was a public-relations fiasco that only John Boehner can properly relate to.
But let's pay special attention to LaPierre's most important policy proposal.
As the NRA leader sees it, the only proper solution to "a bad guy with a gun" is ... wait for it ... "a good guy with a gun." With that in mind, LaPierre's big new idea is armed guards at every school in the United States.
No, seriously, that's what he wants.
Of course, school campuses can be awfully large, and the guards can't be posted at every entrance, so I'm not sure why the NRA isn't also suggesting armed guards be assigned to every student in every school.
Indeed, massacres aren't limited to schools, so it stands to reason that the nation will also need armed guards "deployed" -- a word LaPierre used in his speech -- to movie theaters, shopping malls, and houses of worship.
And what happens when people go home? People are sometimes shot by criminals in their own house, which suggest we'll need armed guards at all U.S. homes, too.
You get the point.
Honestly, it seemed like LaPierre was going out of his way to alienate even people who might be skeptical about new gun laws and sympathetic to his arguments. Gun-control advocates shouldn't have been annoyed by the NRA's public-relations disaster, they should have been thrilled.
Leave a Comment:
It is time to treat the NRA as a terrorist organization. If LaPierre is the best they have, there is no way they should be in charge or pushing anything.
What's the point of having a database of mentally incompetent people if they can just buy their guns at gun shows, flea markets or personal sales. The least we can do is close the gun show loophole and make it illegal to sell a gun outside of a structured environment where the buyer's bona fides can be checked.
I don't think he's being serious. Why would someone from the NRA advocate government usage of guns?
It doesn't make sense. He's trying to get people to think about whether or not having more government in their lives is a good thing. In turn, he's hoping people oppose gun control because they don't want the government monopolizing the situation.
Even Mr. Benen seemed to take the bait here:
"And what happens when people go home? People are sometimes shot by criminals in their own house, which suggest we'll need armed guards at all U.S. homes, too."
Therefore, people need to own guns to protect themselves from criminals instead.
You the #2 name on the "mentally ill" list?
And the money for all these cops in schools is supposed to come from WHERE?
Wouldn't that money be better spent putting more TEACHERS in schools?
The money could come From the Defense Budget.
They can't afford to pay teacher more to teach but they'll find money to train them to carry guns.
Gotta love this country.
Someone said that they have undermined teachers and want to cut their pay checks and generally degraded them and now they want to give them guns. Honestly, I just can't stand it anymore!
There are over 98,00 public schools in the US. That would mean hiring 98,000 police officers, plus more for vacation relief, illness. (Substitute cops, if you will.) That is a lot of money for salaries, health care, retirement. Where is it coming from? Wayne?
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
Excellent question...
So, let's say 100,000 schools just for easy math (don't want to strain the NRA's braintrust too much...), and $50,000 per officer per year (probably too low, esp. including taxes and benefits, and some schools really should have two or more, right?...).
Anyway...
100,000 x $50,000/yr = $5 billion per YEAR! (more like $10B/yr or $20B/yr)
So, let's see if they'll put their money where their mouth is... If the NRA leadership thinks this is the best possible idea, they can add a surcharge to their membership fees to help pay for it, or support taxing gun and bullet sales... that'll surely get their members' support!
And don't forget liability insurance.
To promote their plan, the NRA is going to produce a movie, GUNFIGHT AT THE OK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Deploy well-trained troops into schools? Station an officer in every hallway. Armed teens in the lunch room.
This will clearly never end. The NRA has a disorder; a vision that's as wide and long as as gun barrel. Terrifying?
What good would a database of mentally ill people do, in relationship to guns?
Gun salesmen would not be able to access it, because of privacy issues. Even if they were able to get a waiver and access such a list, they probably wouldn't, especially in states with lax gun sales laws. And that's just for the *stores*. Sales at gun shows are excluded from *any* checks -- NRA fought long and hard for that exemption.
Besides which, such a database (who sets up the criteria?) would still have been no help in the Lanza case; neither the mother (who bought the guns) nor the son would have shown up on it.
Mr LaPierre is a piece of runny merde, and his "press conference" was a fine example of it.
Oh, conservatives surely. Who better to recognize what crazy is. Anyone who doesn't look/believe/think like a Fox.
First, With what Lapierre had to say, As a Firearm owner, Now you know why I'm NOT a Member of the NRA. Who did he actually speak for? The NRA Membership? Did he express the Viewpoint of 74% of the NRA Members? Did I miss the Part in his Rant where HE expressed a Willingness to even Acknowledge that some or any Firearms Law's could or Should be addressed? Or the part where the NRA would sit down with Lawmaker's to discuss any regulation's Period? I saw nothing more than an Arrogant SOB, Speaking for Himself, The Weapon Producers, and the Politician's that carry the NRA Agenda, But not the 74% who think otherwise.
I kind of expected LaPierre to end this announcement with "Shotgun" by Junior Walker and the All-Stars playing in the background.
People or groups like the NRA are all powerful kingmakers--until they're not. They employ an all or nothing, take no prisoners, my-way-or-the-highway approach that works fine until some tipping point occurs.
Is last Friday's massacre such a tipping point for them? It may or may not be, but if it isn't, at some point there will be one. When that happens, they'll become toxic. Their endorsement will become political poison. Those who bowed before them, seeking their approval, will do the 100-meter dash in record time running away from them. So far that hasn't happened, but as we've seen in the last week, things can change quickly.
Since the NRA doesn't compromise, it had better hope that its friends--fickle, but friends for now--stay loyal. and enemies. Once those folks drift away, the NRA is going to be in for a world of hurt. One that it richly deserves, given its role in the pain felt by so many over the past decades.
The Only Genuine Monster there, was behind the podium giving the adress.
This is totally offensive and totally disgusting. Is this the answer, fortress America, gun America? A gun in every school, theatre, mall in America- seriously??? What happened to our freedom of liberty? What happened to our freedom to go where we please in this country? What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Are we going to settle for being held hostage to to the gun mentality of the NRA?
This does not solve the problem it only makes it worse. A pox on the NRA! These people have repitilian brains.
Maybe it's time to ask members of the NRA to give up their membership as a show of support for sensible gun control in the absence of sanity presented by the NRA.
now cue the howls of the average ignorant NRA member who also doesn't want to pay more taxes. Just who pays for all of these armed guards?
Do you think he can hear himself speaking? Hear what he was to say?
It was predictable that the NRA would have nothing of value to say about Sandy Hook. Therefore, I think we should step around them and work to see that some kind of solution is found.
please please MSNBC no softballs on Sundays Meet the Press
Hopefully, David Gregory is on vacation.
Bring on Nora O'Donnell!
Shoot, she belongs to CBS...
*ring, ring!*
"Hello?"
"Rachel, would you sit in for David on the 23rd?"
"I'd love to."
"Thank you."
DO EET!
Please, please, please find the old All in the Family clip where Archie is giving an "everyman" editorial saying that we could stop all the hijackings if every passenger were issued a handgun as they boarded each flight. I think I remember that that episode sparked a harsh reaction from the right towards this liberal show making a mockery of gun rights advocates by representing the right through such an absurd and overly satirical idea. This would be a perfect clip for your show tonight!
I think that the NRA will sacrifice all of us, children, babies and who ever gets in their way to keep the big guns coming! This is truly a perversion of the second amendment and of anything moral!
Note to anyone who thought the NRA would present anything substantial, realistic or in any way a contribution to solving gun violence: I have a slightly used Mayan calendar I'd like to sell you.
According to Wayne guns in schools will save lives.
I'm guessing he forgot that 13 people were killed at Fort Hood, 29 more injured. You don't get more 'armed' than on a military base, and yet people still died.
My son's school was closed today because a kid made threats to bring guns and knives to school and kill students and staff. Two guns were found in his home after he and his parents were arrested. This issue has now hit uncomfortably close to home for me. I haven't been able to work today for thinking about how it could have turned out if whoever heard this kid utter the threat hadn't told police about it.
Freddie, We are living in frightening times. Worse, we have brought it on ourselves, through our very own elected officials and through psychopaths like Wayne LaPierre and Grover Norquist.
Oh...wait, I don't recall voting for either of them to have control over my life...........Now what?
Honestly, I see the second amendment differently than these people. I see the "right to bear arms" more as the "privilege to bear arms on behalf of your country". If you fail certain tests (mental illness, felony conviction, drunk driving, drug conviction, etc), that privilege can be suspended / revoked, but you can get it back with hard work - same as if it was a car.
People who make irresponsible decisions in their personal life are more prone to make irresponsible decisions when someone else's life counts on their responsibility - which is why we suspend drivers licenses for unsafe drivers. Do the same with gun owners.
If you are a responsible gun owner, you can keep your guns. All of them.
If you are irresponsible, though, we will take your toy away, put it on the high shelf and wait until you show you are responsible to have a gun and operate it safely.
Wow! What a load of "platitudes" for a really serious problem. WHO determines who is "responsible"? How about me?
Because you can't "responsibly" respond to this issue, you need to turn in all of your guns immediately!!
I did list some of the criteria...
In my opinion, responsible gun owners should avoid all of these checks:
No mental illness, No felony conviction, No drunk driving convictions (maybe have a threshold, since we allow driving after 2 DD offenses), No drug convictions
Perhaps we add passing a national test before obtaining a gun permit...
Pardon me, are you brain dead?
Lanza could easily have bought a gun if he was willing to wait for the background check- there was nothing listed in his background to say he wasn't "responsible".
OK, so now someone is deemed "irresponsible" and his guns are put away on a "high shelf" - you think THAT would have stopped Lanza if by some wild chance he was deemed "irresponsible"?
Who is to say what is responsible? Most mental illnesses are undiagnosed until the person does something "crazy". Lanza wasn't diagnosed as "mentally ill", even though now we know he was.
All you are offering is CHEAP platitutes that DO worse than NOTHING!! Cheap platitutes keep people from taking responsibility! It allows them to "pass the buck".
"S/he was always so nice; quiet, not violent or angry, a great neighbor. No one knows what happened. S/he just snapped!"
How many times have we heard that after the fact?
I see you are trying to be rational, BigJayNJ.
Problem is, in many of these national cases, the first instance where an individual "snapped" involved mass murder. There was no defining pre-cursor in which to take the person's toy away. In this case, the toys weren't the shooters to begin with.
Most here seem to agree that "the first instance... an individual snapped" could be when they use a gun for violence, it's all the more reason to reduce the number of guns in circulation.
You never know when the "first time" is going to happen, and to who... so, more guns, more chance the one who "snaps" either has one, has ready access to one, or can quickly purchase one, or steal one (like Lanza).
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ask the Question ... how would this guard in school operate? Would they automatically shoot anybody in all black? Would they wear full body armor so they can survive to shoot ...would they have to be at every access to the school? what would be the criteria to shoot? Will they be governed by normal police procedures? Unless the AR is in full view, or that high capacity magazine is obvious, how will they know to shoot? It seems that the simplest questions on how this would work would show it up for the completely insulting "meaningful contribution" it is. I'm disgusted ... I am already a issue voter
and would not vote for anybody who opposes a woman's right to choose ... and I will now add that I will not vote for anyone who opposes sensible gun contol and safety.
I think this dolt LaPierre thinks that having cops around will discourage these kind of tragedies. What he isn't understanding is that for a human being to go and shoot 20 elementary school kids to death, you have to be crazy.
You can watch violent movies and video games all day long, but to do something like this you have to be a sociopath. Playing Grand Theft Auto isn't going to make you do something like this, and neither is having guns around. Having cops at schools won't prevent anything either.
The United States has mental illness rates that are three times higher than other first world nations. Perhaps the best way to prevent these kind of tragedies is to first investigate why we have so many crazy people here in the USA, and do something to prevent the onset of mental illness.
What percentage of guns end up in the hands of criminals and drug lords? How much profit does the gun industry make off those guns? And bullets supplied to those gun owners?
Schools are already being sapped of funding in every way possible. But we can certainly afford to pay security guards... Not to guard the kids, but to protect the rights of gun owners from the embarrassment of school massacres.
Justice Jackson famously said the Constitution is not a suicide pact, which conservatives like to repeat when defending intrusive search and surveillance laws. But the Second Amendment as suicide pact doesn't seem to bother them at all.