Saturday, February 12, 2011

Wayne La Pierre - Flim Flam Artist

via Common Gunsense

When a guy, let's take Bob S. for example, misrepresents what his opponent says and calls the opponent a liar for saying it, that's pretty shabby.  But Bob is just a small fish in a medium-sized pool of gun bloggers.  Of course the big bloggers do the same thing.   And where did they all learn this arguing technique.  Well, it's a good bet they learned it from same place they learned that criminals will ALWAYS get guns and that guns in the home make you safer and that owning a gun is a natural human right.

The Media and the political elites want us to believe that if we just pass another law or two we can stop a madman bent on violence. That's dishonest. And you know it is.


  1. If we enforce the laws we have - like funding and complying with supplying names to NCIS, yes, we can stop people.

    Can we stop every single bad person from acquiring a gun? No. But we can reduce the number who do so legally now when they shouldn't. We can make it harder, and more expensive, for those who shouldn't get guns to get them.

    We aren't really trying now, at all, with 20 states no providing a single name to the NCIS, and another 9 only supplying just a miniscule, microscopic fraction of them. We aren't really trying if the data base can easily be circumvented by gun show sales either.

    And we can make it harder for bad people - like criminals, drug users, dangerously crazy people - to get guns without seroiusly intruding on any legitimate gun owner's 2nd amendment rights.

    La Pierre is just playing the boogeyman to the gun fetishists, like so many on the right like to do - playing to that lopsided amygdala that registers fear - because the right like to fear monger. They like emotional appeal, not the factual approach.

    They like it, because it works on the right. It doesn't work for the rest of us.

  2. That is pretty rich considering most gun control arguments are based on emotion.

    I mean we must stop the blood flowing in the streets. It is for the children after all.

  3. While I agree that some on both sides use fear to promote their side of the gun control debate, I look more at what fear they are using for an indication of what they're really selling.

    The pro-rights side promotes fear of losing rights. Fear of the right of effective self defense to be taken away. Fear of guns being banned for no good logical reason.

    The pro-gun control side promotes fear of lawful gun owners, fear of guns themselves, either by physical appearance, or their cost, or their power. They also promote fear of dangerous people getting guns, but they haven't provided any effective ways of actually stopping that.


  4. Orygunner: "They also promote fear of dangerous people getting guns, but they haven't provided any effective ways of actually stopping that."

    1. States reporting their mentally ill people to the fed.
    2. Background checks on all gun transfers.
    3. Licensing of all gun owners and registration of every gun to a particular person.

    There you go. Now we've provided the effective ways to stop it.

  5. Back when the speed limit was reduced to 55mph on the IHS, some states decided to give it a wink. The Feds said, "Fine, we'll just hold back some of your share of the Highway Trust Fund apportionment until you're in compliance. They could do the same thing with LE grants. So states with "citizen committees" of vigilantes would police their own locales and states that use their heads for something besides wearing shooting glasses and hearing protectors could get some of that never plentiful LE grant money.


    I never really thought about it until I was making this comment but I did a little googling to see if I could find a link to a comparison for "GunzRFreedom" zones and illicit drug labs. The reason I was curious is that it occurred to me that those "shadetree (or more likely, "doublewide mansion") chemists" seem to be proliferating in rural areas and having the ability to buy and display weapons, "without no havin' to worry about gettin' busted by the pigs!" is a good thing if your business model is one that depends on bein' able to blow up the revenooers when they come asnoopin".

  6. @Mikeb, Re: effective means to stop it.

    If a complete BAN has no proven effect (i.e. complete handgun ban in England), how is total background checks and registration supposed to do anything?

    You CLAIM your suggestion would be effective, and logically, it actually does seem like it could work, if you ignore how the black market on the street works. This isn't a bucket you can just plug all the leaks on, because criminals will either a) punch new holes in the bucket, b) scoop from the top of the bucket, or c) go find another bucket for their supply.

    The street isn't going to play by your rules, until you realize that, you're just chasing unreachable dreams.