Tuesday, May 1, 2012

More Nonsense from Wayne La Pierre

Media Matters for America reports

In an April 25 op-ed for the Daily Caller, National Rifle Association CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre took to the opinion pages to once again deploy faulty logic to claim that the reelection of President Barack Obama will precipitate an "all-out war on the Second Amendment." 

LaPierre's primary piece of evidence concerning what he calls "the web of lies spun about the president's phony, claimed support of the Second Amendment," is that current Chicago mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been "tapped as the star co-chair for Obama's re-election effort." LaPierre claims that this is "no honorary job" but rather "real power linking Obama's re-election with Emanual's fanaticism for destroying the Second Amendment." But if Emanuel wanted to work with Obama to push gun bans nationwide he most certainly missed his best chance, which would have occurred when he worked in the highest levels of the Obama Administration.
What's your opinion? Is Wayne lying through his teeth or is he completely paranoid? I don't see a third choice. Do you?

Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. Weenie LaPew's nonsense is so transparent that nobody who isn't a fact averse moron would be dumb enough to believe it--which is precisely why it works so well. I'm gonna guess that not everyone who listens to Glennie Bek, Rushbo and the rest of the reiKKKwing's talkingshitheads is a member of the NRA but I'm betting that most of Weenie's audience listents to those guyz and takes their rants at face value. Weenie don't know jack about Obama, but he definitely knows the IQ* and bigotry of his audience.



    * Indignorance Quotient

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only a gun grabber could believe that Emanuel and Obama support the Second Amendment. You've posted articles on Emanuel's gun control efforts. You even posted an article that exposed the gun banner's secrets. You acknowledged on at least two occasions that Obama will impose gun control if he gets a second term. You realize that he'll get to nominate at least two justices to the Supreme Court. All of that being said, why can't you accept that a third possibility exists: LaPierre is correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. La Pierre is not correct in the need for you guys to panic. That's his message. He's a shill for the gun manufacturers and you guys are his dupes.

      My hope is that Obama takes a major turn around in his lack of gun policy so far, and that with a change on the Supreme Court, proper gun control will finally be realized.

      But, and this is a big but, all that would not affect you much at all. You'd still be able to own guns just like you do now.
      If Obama does everything I'd like to see, only the unfit and irresponsible gun owners would be directly affected.

      Delete
  3. MikeB: “Is Wayne lying through his teeth or is he completely paranoid?”

    What does that make you? You said you agree with Wayne.

    MikeB (Apr 15, 2012 11:41 PM): “It'll all change in Obama's second term. I think the carney hustler La Pierre is right to be afraid.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/04/difference-between-gun-rights-movement.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget this one:

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-gun-control-laws-i-can-live-without.html

      He makes exactly the point that LaPierre makes. When the NRA says it, it's wrong, but if a gun grabber says the same thing, it's The Truth (TM).

      Delete
    2. TS please see my comment to Greg above. I hope Obama does something next term but that will never be "coming after your guns" or "destroying the 2A." That's the part that's paranoid or manipulative. There's no need to stock up on guns and ammo but you guys are doing just that. La Pierre is a con man and you are the marks.

      Delete
  4. Media matters is funded by the Joyce Foundation, so they're not a credible source of information on guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And Weenie is funded by people inimical to his stance on teh gunz?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning what, exactly? He's doing what I want done.

      Delete