According to the latest polling, 91% of Americans support closing the gun-show loophole and creating a universal background check system. That poses a challenge for the National Rifle Association, which used to support expanded background checks, but now has to characterize them as gun-grabbing radicalism. How does Wayne LaPierre argue against an idea that 91% of Americans endorse?
According to his speech at CPAC, by repeating some of the silliest paranoia imaginable.
"It's gonna be people like you and me. That's who they're tracking. That's who they're after. The names of good, decent people, all across this country, who happen to own a firearm, to go into a federal database with universal registration of every lawful gun-owner in America. That's their answer to criminal violence? Criminalize 100 million law-abiding gun owners in a private transfer? Build a list of all the good people? As if that would somehow make us safe from violent criminals and homicidal maniacs? That's their answer? Are they insane?
"What's the point of registering lawful gun-owners anyway -- so newspapers can print those names and addresses for gangs and criminals to access? You know that's happened before! So the list can be hacked by foreign enemies like the Chinese, who recently hacked Pentagon computers? So the list can be handed over to the Mexican government that, oh by the way, they've already requested that list from our government? In the end there are only two reasons for the government to create that list of registered gun owners: to tax them, or to take them."
As Robert Schlesinger joked, "I guess maybe he's watched 'Red Dawn' one time too many?"
Keep in mind, LaPierre is creating an imaginary threat to an imaginary proposal. His entire fantasy is built on the notion that a background check system necessarily means a national registry -- that there is no effort to create such a registry in reality is an inconvenient detail he prefers to ignore.
Once the non-existent registry is up and running in this make-believe world, the Chinese and Mexicans -- working separately or together -- will want access to it, presumably as part of some kind of invasion plan. Because if there's one thing China and Mexico want, it's an understanding of exactly which 35% of American households have firearms.
This isn't paranoia, so much as it's a stupidity sundae, featuring a layer of paranoia spread over asinine syrup, served on a plate of crazy.
"Are they insane?" Is that really the question Wayne LaPierre should be asking?
Leave a Comment:
"This isn't paranoia, so much as it's a stupidity sundae, featuring a layer of paranoia spread over asinine syrup, served on a plate of crazy."
And yet it appears so normal given the source and the ones who would believe it. #favoritequote
There are two main things about this that scare me.
1) Yeah, those people who will believe it without question and add it to their alternate universe.
2) That the NRA / LaPierre crazy has become so common it's just more of the same and I regularly don't notice it, the idiocy no longer shocks or upsets me.
I use to get a "tickle" in my mind while reading Wing Nut Lunacy that would electrify me into tearing the argument apart and forming rebuttals while reading it.
Now it's "Ho Hum, wonder what the next stupid thing will be".
Because there will be more stupid to come.
.
And the trolls here will be vociferously supporting it.
" an imaginary threat to an imaginary proposal. "
Or, as some call it, the Republican Platform.
" an imaginary threat to an imaginary proposal. "
Selling fear of a made up threat. Hubris all over again.
> Selling fear of a made up threat. Hubris all over again.
Same play by the NRA all over again as well:
Are you saying the Republican Parties Platform is built of Straw Men?
.......
Can't hardly argue that one with you.
.
Before Obama arrived who would have thought that, GM would be nationalized or an American citizen would be killed by a robot without due process. Given Obama 's penchant for control, not being paranoid would be negligent.
The usual fact-free drivel from The Blank.
LaPierre is nothing more than a pimp for the gun manufacturing industry.
the pimped out repubers represent a clear and present danger to the reality of what is america to americans. it is becoming more obvious that every time the repubers speak, they are telling their follower to prepare for a pre-emptive strike in defense of their offensive treatment of real human beings. at the same time, following their insurrection attempt and upon their arrest and charge, it is clear that they will plead insanity.
Translation: Quick! Buy more and more guns! Buy so many that they can never find them all to take them all away! Buy! Buy! Buy!*
* Brought to you by Remington, Colt, Smith & Wessen, etc.
Why Wayne the next thing you know, they might give you a number at birth and track how much money you make.
“Stupidity is the same as evil, if you judge by the results.”
Psst. Wayne. Are you aware of the fact that the government already has a list of ALL 18 - 25 year old males? It's called the selective service. You remember them. There the group that handles draft dodgers such as yourself.
You're concerned about fighting our own government, but you couldn't stand up to fight in Vietnam. Your only way out would have been to get a deferment. Hmm.
So I can assume you're not worried about that government list?
what i find amazing is that all republicans assume that they are the only people in america with guns. ain't so! some of us have owned guns a lot longer than most of these so-called patriots have been alive. most of us use guns to hunt with, target practice, or skeet shoot. non of use needs a gun capable of shooting 20 rounds in 5 seconds. anyone owning a gun like that is trying to show everyone they know that they are 'tough and manly'. if you need a weapon like that to prove how macho you are; i have a suggestion. join the army, marines, or the navy seals. then when you come home i will gladly stand in line to shake your hand, and welcome you home!
That is funny, isn't it?
I'm in the gun shop looking to buy a target rifle, Owner says to another customer he hasn't met anyone who voted for Obama or they've all bee too scared to admit it. And he chuckles.
I butt in and tell him he has now. Romney? Really? A Corporate Raider?
I brought up LTV Steel and asked if he remembered what happened there. He forcefully told me he use to work for LTV so I don't have to tell him about it ... apparently not true.
LTV was suffering from failure to be modern and steel imports. The management of LTV secured a Government loan to remain open and "modernize" But the LTV Execs skimmed 1/3 the loan, drove the company into the ground , harvested LTV and made this guys pension disappear.
Romney may have not been directly involved but the Romney mind set sure was and this gun shop owner never made the connection.
So now I'm known as the guy who voted for Obama.
When asked if I'm looking for 223 ammo my answer is "No, I have a penis*".
(* not exactly the word used but cleaned up for family consumption)
.
I'm calling BS on this whole post. Rob, Everyone that reads anything you post knows full well how you feel about the second amendment. If, in fact you really did enter a gun store you probably thought you were entering starbucks. You turned right around and ran out of there.
"This isn't paranoia, so much as it's a stupidity sundae, featuring a layer of paranoia spread over asinine syrup, served on a plate of crazy."
Aw, c'mon Steve, tell us how you really feel!
funny how Madcow always uses polls when they favor her opinion but dismisses them when they don't. as an example lets look at gay-rights. when a poll is taken and the majority of the public is against gay-rights, that's when Madcow reminds us that rights aren't subject to polls and the majority can't remove rights from minorities. but when it comes to second amendment rights, well then we need to rule by polls. the hypocrisy of Madcow is amazing.
The fact that you are dumb enough to insinuate that there has even been a poll about 'gay rights' in general kinda says it all. There have been poll about gay marriage, about gays serving openly in the military, about laws concerning domestic partner eligibility for benefits and many other things, and I've never seen Rachel refuse to show results of any of these polls, even when they show that the people polled do not support the gay position. But let's be clear, I have never seen a poll asking 'Are you for or against gay rights'. A high school psych class wouldn't be dumb enough to create a poll that generic, unscientific and useless.
thanks, typical liberal response. deflect then insult, or in your case, insult then deflect. call it gay-rights, gay-marriage, civil rights, whatever. when the polls don't favor you, you scream to high heaven about the tyranny of the majority. here's one of Madcow's rant, read it for yourself.
"This is why your Constitution wants to protect minorities from the tyranny of majority rule by suggesting that certain rights are inalienable. Because every time you put questions to a vote where the majority is against a minority’s rights, the minority loses. Because it’s a minority. It’s a simple matter of math."
so Madcow understands that the majority can't take away the rights of the minority, but when it's her cause that's in the majority, well then that rule goes out the window.
what you got now mr. smarty pants?
Sounds like every other question on an Ed Schultz poll...
just saying...
Nanny Nanny boo-boo Mikie!
lol, great reply dawn, it's great to read enlightened liberals........................
You and Stormtrooper don't deserve any better than the back of our hands.
Just sayin'. (heh)
yelp, disagree with a liberal, and they want to slap you. funny how you guys say it's gun owners that we need to worry about.........
and still no actual debating of my point, only typical liberal name calling, implying how smart you are, and of course now you threaten violence. typical liberals.....
Polls are opinions and they opinions change with information. At one time only white land owners could vote in this country, this was the majority, and then some of the white land owners started to change their mind as they recognized that all white men have the right to vote, they started out in the minority and became the majority. The same with the black vote, with the women's vote. An issue will start out in the minority and as more people come to recognized the positive direction then more become the majority.
If you are pissing about “O the big bad government are going to come get my guns” second amendment rights thing. If I have to submit to a background check to get a f******g job then you can just shut the f**k up and comply to get your dam toy.
Between Wayne LaPierre and Donald Trump, CPAC has reduced itself to a showcase for loonies. Unless the media is going to cover the many other deserving cults and fringe groups, they're giving unfair attention to this one.
Wayne should be thrilled. At least there will be items around to create a registry for (as opposed to my plan which involves eliminating all of those items)
So wayne, do you wanna do my plan or the current government plan? Do you wanna do background checks for items that we don't really need or do you wanna just get rid of them totally?
When Wayne finds out he's on the government's side, he'll flip!
The "see how crazy gun owners are" epithet doesn't work anymore when the anti-2nd amendment crowd have already showed their hand.
In the state of Washington, Democrats proposed legislation that would allow the police to search the homes of gun owners at any time without a warrant, in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html
Democrats in Missouri proposed house bill 545, which doesn't grandfather in weapons already owned. The bill would require virtually every gun owner in the state to hand over their weapons within 90 days are be considered a class C felon.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
In the state of Maryland, Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the mandatory fingerprinting of gun owners, as if they're criminals.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-26/opinions/37307795_1_gun-buyers-gun-violence-rogue-gun-dealers
And in the state of New York, requiring that a gun magazine can only have 7 rounds is particularly insidious, since almost no pistols come with a 7 round magazine. With few exceptions like the Bersa 380, this is a defacto ban on the vast majority of pistols and even some revolvers.
Gun owners names have already been printed, violating the privacy of every gun owner in the state.
What few seem to realize is that background checks are a sort of defacto gun registration. Any gun that was purchased through a federal firearms licensed dealer can be tracked back to the gun shop it was purchased from and the person who bought it. This has become enough of a concern that some gun shops are getting demands that they destroy their records.
And while a large number of people will say yes to "universal background checks", when asked if they want "more strict gun laws" you get entirely different results.
From the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/gun-control-poll_n_2860099.html
> And while a large number of people will say yes to "universal background checks", when asked if they want "more strict gun laws" you get entirely different results.
I don't think you're reading that right. Majorities favor both background checks and stricter regulation. I wouldn't call that "entirely different results."
grape...
But the "anarcho-syndicalist" would because it suits his Gun Cult agenda to do so.
Alva,
I have no interest in owning a gun and would probably not take one if someone wanted to give me one, just because I have no interest in them.
I do have a problem with the NRA and LaPierre saying I should have one to protect myself. Protect myself from who? Probably someone that shouldn't have one in the first place.
I'd just like to see the NRA take any step forward in protecting innocent people without screaming about the slippery slope.
I have many friends and co-workers that enjoy hunting and I wish them continued pleasures. Hunting is not my thing.
Alva,
Just some random thoughts I have had this evening. In 2006 or 2008 the Supreme Court decided you can own a gun and keep it in your home. Can you prove that you own your guns? If someone had it in for you and turned you in for hoarding weapons, can you prove they belong to you? How would you do that? Hope you saved the receipts. Might have trouble selling something that you can't prove you own.
Grape, poor wording on my part. It seems that 52% is a lot less sure of a thing than 91%. And since we're talking about rights here, and not something more mundane like budget disagreements, I don't think we should act with haste.
Tom, I totally understand not wanting to own a gun. I didn't want to own one either until a few years ago.
I only own 3 guns at the moment, so it's not like I'm hoarding them. I have a family member who is a bit of a hoarder, and he has many, many guns. But no one's can really "turn you in" for that.
I write down all the serial numbers of the guns I own.
Always thought this guy had an extraordinarily large mouth. Perhaps he should be connected to a hot-air balloon. Up there he could watch for them thar' furrin' invaders.
That's not his mouth. His digestive system is wired back-to-front.
get ready Alva. you dared to challenge liberals with reason, get ready for their childish replies.
you'll notice though, none will debate you, only ridicule you. liberals don't like it when you use logic to debate them..................
Bwahahahahaha! What a combination of self-pity and self-congratulation!
thanks for making my point for me entropy.
I'll repeat (and expand upon) what I said in the section started by your verbal vomit directed against Ms. Maddow...you know the one that got (deservedly) collapsed: You (and all others of your ilk) deserve nothing better than the back of our hand. You are not even deserving of civility, much less courtesy. Among your many other character defects, you are totally hypocritical.
ok, i get it entropy. Madcow can call reps all the names she wants but you are offended by my calling her a name, i get it.
and as for the back of your hand, i am glad you said it, shows exactly how you liberals feel about honest disagreement, just slap anyone who disagrees, that's what they deserve. lol, thanks entropy, you are making my point so much better then i could have, thanks for the assist.
and what civility have you shown, other then insulting my intelligence and threatening to slap me? as your Senator Fienstein says, "why can't you respect my views?"
Because your "views" are helping to kill 10000 to15000 people a year?
Because the people who say government can't do anything right and therefore shouldn't be involved in health care, Social Scecurity, environmental protection or even providing education for our children are the very same ones, such as yourself, that are trying to justify not passing legislation because the, now omnicompetent, "government" will take away allllll your guns! Maybe that's why?
Insults, such as shown in your earliest posts, are not a good method of showing your willingness to have a reasoned discussion. In other words, you haven't demonstrated that you're presenting your argument in good faith and there's no reason for us to have to presume you are doing that.
And your complete inability to read and comprehend a compound sentence, even that sentence was written in 1790...
wooo there buddy, kinda going a little off topic aren't we. and i'm sorry if my opinions are somehow in your mind responsible for 10000 to 15000 deaths a year, wow, we better outlaw free thought i guess.
and since i've not stated how i feel about any of the issues you presented except gun control, how, other then assuming, how do you know how i feel about those issues? kinda assuming a lot there, and painting with a very wide brush. and please read my comments. the only one i insulted in any way was Madcow. if she didn't make it a point to call reps every name she can think of then i wouldn't return the favor. but since she likes to insult reps to make her point, then i figured turn about is fair play. you'll notice i tried to debate the people who responded to me, however after they insulted my intelligence and told me i only deserve the back of their hands, yeah, i started to insult them back. but i notice how you only chastise me, you seem to miss the insults that were hurled at me first. funny how that always happens with liberals. you throw the first punch, then cry when you get beat up.
and what part of a sentence from 1790 didn't i understand? the part about the right of the people to bear arms or the shall not be infringed part? since no one even wrote the words, i'd like to know where i got it wrong.
and honestly, maybe you should tone it down a bit. my "views" "are helping to kill 10000 to 15000 people a year." really, i always though sticks and stones can break bones but words will never hurt me, boy was i wrong. we better shut Fox down, because if my views are killing 10k to 15k a year, they must be killing millions.
your dribble may make you feel good, and it sounds good, but it's a complete load of bs, and if you stop drinking the kool-aid you might be able to see that.
Mike. The number one rule of the vine is: Thou shalt not insult the host. You've managed to do it twice. My hope is that rather than colapse you, they ban you. they've done it to others for calling Dr. Maddow the same thing.
Are you serious Larry? Mike (and very few others) are trying to have a debate and you're talking about having Mike banned for insulting Ms Maddow? Do you not see how thin skinned you are? Do you not see how not one person, not one, had debated Mike on an actual issue, rather has focused on the fact that he didn't genuflect to Rachel Maddow?
What's this "government takeover" these people always talk about?
The way I see it, there are two types of takeover. Physical and intangible.
Physical takeover: Imagine government officials physically coming into your home and taking over your life. First, you don't need a gun for defense and second, I don't think you would need a gun to fight back against a 70 year-old person. But mostly, there aren't enough government officials to take over everybody's home.
Intangible takeover: Let's say the government does take away your right to practice religion. What is a gun gonna do in that situation? How does having a gun get back your religious freedom? Remember, religious freedoms are kind of vague. It's something you can't see or hold.
The government takeover chant is either a scare tactic or paranoia. Neither of which is based in reality.
Most of the government removing weapons from citizens happened 300 years ago in I think England and Europe. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment there was talk about the need for a citizens militia to put down an unjust federal government that had 20,000 to 30,000 in the federal army. The thinking was, the citizens militia could number 500,000.
Not mentioned is that the southern states needed a well regulated militia to control the slaves. Slave revolts were a problem.
The wording of the 2nd amendment reflects the slavery problem. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. James Madison 1st draft from what I have read said country instead of state. The southern states feared that the northern states had too much power and had the word country changed to state.
Another take (down):
http://jezebel.com/5990830/nra-ceo-wayne-lapierre-needs-to-stop-pretending-he-gives-a-@!$%#-about-rape-victims
"Paranoia strikes a beat into your mind it will creep."
Yes Wayne La Pierre is making me think of 60s protest songs
This may be nit-picking, perhaps, but the lyric goes
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
ER
I guess that's another mis-heard song. Just like "There's a bathroom on the right"
Perhaps the most famous mishearing is "'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy."
This is the result of Red Dawn marathons (the 1984 version and the recent remake), spending your day on FNC AND Fox Nation, and quite possibly roaming on conspiracy theory websites. And having the complete collection of David Icke and Alex Jones podcasts, books and ancillary...
Steve -- since Rachel has pointed out several times that the NRA is a heat shield for gun manufacturers, and LaPierre puts out outrageous statements in pursuit of that strategy, can you please post contact information for gun manufacturers, and link to it in every post about the NRA?
I don't object to posts about LaPierre's lunatic comments, but if we don't want to be complicit in the "heat shield" strategy, we need to have the info about the real culprits on hand.
Why not bring terrorist and manslaughter charges (from We the People) against
the top few at NRA and GOP?
i propose that they be charged with treason, arrested for treason, and tried for treason. alson with pimped out gov snyder who does not realize that democracy is a problem solving method but who prefers to be like bashar al-assad.
dollars to donuts the piece of sheet gov brings out military force and shoots his first protester.
Why not bring terrorist and manslaughter charges (from We the People) against
the top few at NRA and GOP?
Mr. Thompson, first of all are you really trying to compare CIVIL rights with gun ownership? The reference to "gay rights" polling was in response to Chris Christie saying that same-sex marriage should be put on the ballot for voters to decide. And you are correct that Rachel did say that inthese matters the minority will almost always lose to the majority, which is why most people try to get CIVIL rights matters to go through the legislature. There is a huge difference between civil rights and the right to own a 30-round clip for a semi-automatic weapon. Even though we have amendments, we also have to have limits. The first amendment guarantees you can stand up in a crowded theater and shout "This movie sucks!" or even "My penis is huge!" but you can't yell "FIRE!". There have to be limits or else you'll just have chaos.
Secondly, Rachel has never, ever called anyone names. She is a professional. She may say what someone is doing is dumb or unbelievably weird, but she does not need to resort to name calling. She wisely leaves that to O'Reilly and his ilk at Fox News.
When she makes a mistake, she corrects the facts at the earliest opportunity. Her research is always top rate and insightful. She takes what she does seriously and we applaud her and her staff for it.
only because you're not here buddy, if you were i'm sure you'd be trying to back hand me like i deserve, right?
I was speaking rhetorically, but you knew that and chose to pretend that I was speaking literally, when I couldn't be speaking literally because this is a blog. Your crass dishonesty is quite remarkable, really. But by all means, continue to play the "macho, macho man".
you are the one who goes with the whole i'll give you the back of my hand, but i'm the one being macho macho man. do you even read your own comments? keep back peddling there entropy............
Mike. Just like many righties, hear things that weren't said. But please continue. You're quite comical. Not the brightest bulb in the pack, but comical.
Mitt Romney signed 1 more assault weapon ban than the President ever will. I honestly believe he might have been more anti gun as he would be whatever is politically expedient at the moment.(I believe he said as much regarding the Ma ban)
Maryland advanced a screwy anti gun law and Arkansas and North Dakota did the same with abortion. We either follow reason or this will go on endlessly. There would be 24 hour internet disclosure of political donations already even according to Scalia if we could all just be sane. The supreme court has upheld abortion, gun rights, obamacare, and corporate political donations all with caveats and all recently at that lets find some balance and move forward.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense 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
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
― Patrick Henry
FYI Patrick Henry was only converted to support the Constitution, after it was to his personal benefit. As for properly being documented, show me.
Give me Liberty, or give me Death!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_Liberty,_or_give_me_Death!