Saturday, March 16, 2013

Wayne La Pierre at the CPAC

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ironically, Wayne seems to be relying on an emotional appeal.  That's what they always accuse us of, but in the opening minutes of this speech, it was all about emotion.

One big lie was that today gun ownership is at an all time high.  Another was that the NRA is responsible for bringing gun accidents to an all time low. Imagine the hubris of taking credit for that.

At 7:00 he begins talking about background checks.  Amazingly, La Pierre is still claiming they will never be universal because criminals won't participate. He and his listeners know very well that's not what is meant by "universal," yet they keep on with this straw-man. "Universal" means private sales included not that criminals will comply.

And of course no discussion of background checks would be complete without the insistence that the government's true motive is to have a gun registration. This is another straw-man as well as another emotional appeal.  The CPAP crowd loved it.

Mental health records will never be a part of the system, says Wayne La Pierre.  The crowd cheers in agreement.  I guess they're purposely forgetting what happened in California the other day.

Sarcastically, he mocks the government's supposed attempts to stop gun violence by "building a list of all the good people."  The problem with "all the good people" is twofold. 1. that group includes many who are not good. Every day we see them, the previously law abiding, behave badly with guns. In fact, most of the mass shootings are done by hidden criminals who, since they too are innocent until proven guilty, qualify just like everyone else for lawful gun ownership - Loughner, Holmes and Lanza to name just three.

And 2. "the good people" who own guns are the sole source of guns that flow into the criminal world.  Through theft and above all through private sales, guns flow from the good guys to the criminals like the Mighty Mississippi. With sarcasm and mockery Wayne is trying to ignore the obvious fact that "the good gun owners" need to be controlled and regulated.

Furthering the straw-man argument that the government wants to register all guns, which is not the issue, we're talking about requiring background checks on private sales, La Pierre steps up the scare tactics with mention of The Mexicans, The Chinese hacking our data bases and the newspapers who will print the names. He actually says this is the governments ostensible reason, which makes no sense at all.  Their real reason he insists with a catchy slogan is " to tax 'em, or to take 'em."  The crowd loved it.

The reason is obviously something else, which the NRA is absolutely opposed to.  It's to hold gun owners accountable when something wrong is done with their guns.  It's that simple.


  1. So we're lying and making an emotional appeal when we point to what happened in California the other day and say that your side really wants registration along with background checks.

    But then in the next paragraph you attack and accuse us of not paying attention to California. We were paying attention and we don't want to see that happen anywhere else.

  2. 1. Gun ownership is on the rise. Your constant attempts to deny this flies in the face of evidence.

    2. Universal implies every gun sale, regardless of who's doing it. The fact that criminals won't run a background check means that such checks won't be universal. If you'd call it the "Background checks only on people who already comply with laws" bill, you'd be telling the truth.

    3. Gun control freaks do see themselves as better than us. Then you beg us to go along with your schemes. Ever wonder why that doesn't work?

    4. There's nothing obvious about saying that to stop criminals, you should punish the law-abiding. Yes, your proposals are a punishment. You want us to go through the same burdens that convicted felons deal with. You want us to register and be monitored. You want us restricted in where we can go. You want us to meet with the equivalent of a probation officer regularly. The list goes on and on.

    5. Napolitano's video acknowledges that a weapon is a good idea. Scissors or a gun--both are a weapon when used against an active shooter. Since we've already agreed that a violent response is the answer to criminal violence, why not also agree that an effective weapon is the best solution?

    6. Newspapers have printed names of registered firearms owners. Have you missed those stories. It happened in New York and here in Arkansas.

    7. You've seen the acknowledgement by the government that "universal background checks" won't work without registration of all firearms. You want registration. Now you're trying to say that registration isn't the real goal here.

    8. You say that the sole source of guns for criminals is good people with guns. You say that in the face of facts that contradict your statement. If cocaine can get in, guns can get in. It's that simple.

    You got anything else?

  3. More guns are being sold, but a smaller percentage of Americans own guns.
    A criminal will fail a background check, thus be denied the right to buy a gun.
    No one is being punished because the government puts restrictions on the purchase of a product like alcohol, or guns, or explosives, or cars, etc.
    If it's public record, it can be published. We publish crime records, wedding records, birth records, and other government records.
    Criminals cannot buy guns, so they steal guns from legal owners. Why not track those criminal thefts like any other criminal activity?

    CPAC wants to send a message to the nation, so they include Trump and exclude Christie. They include the NRA, but exclude their gay members. They blame Obama for everything, but take no responsibility for their policies that have built our 17 trillion dollar debt.Etc., etc.....Message received.

    1. "no one is being punished"? I guess you haven't read Schumer's bill which would create tens of millions of felonies. I'm not exaggerating.

    2. When rights are infringed, punishment is one word for it. Violation is another. But Anonymous, are you honestly comfortable with the government publishing lists of private citizens for any reason? If so, post your name and address in a follow-up.

    3. It wouldn't create anything, TS. If the laws change, law abiding people will have the same choice they have now, to comply or not.

    4. And if the law required voters to have ID, people who were contemplating voting would have the choice to bring the documents or not. If the law banned gay sex, people would have the choice to comply or not. If the law banned Islam, people would have the choice to believe or not.

      You're so easy-going about one basic right--how would you feel about others being infringed?

    5. Mike,

      He didn't say create felons, he said felonies. It would turn thousands of normal, legal transactions today into felonies overnight.

      Do you really think something so restrictive is a good idea?

    6. Felonies or felons, it boils down to the same thing, doesn't it?