Maddow summed it up perfectly in a tweet:

The NRA has rickrolled the whole country into watching just another standard Wayne LaPierre stump speech saying we need more guns.

Wurble wrote: This is the first time in a long time I'm relieved we have a Republican House. No ban of anything could possibly pass the House. Any Republican passing gun control will get eliminated in the following primary and they know this. What is so stupid of the Democrats is that even getting such a bill to the floor would be suicide for them. 2014 could wind up being 1996 all over again. When will they learn?!

I was thinking the same thing. We shall see.

Fukshot wrote:Maddow summed it up perfectly in a tweet:

The NRA has rickrolled the whole country into watching just another standard Wayne LaPierre stump speech saying we need more guns.

Yep. I had high hopes, but at this point I should not be surprised that he's a raving lunatic.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I think we just got trolled by the NRA. Blaming violent video games again now are we? As someone who plays them everyday and who is studying the math behind the programming of making them, good job in alienating more from your cause. Then again, they do not really represent my interests anyway.

whitey wrote: And again with the incessant wet dream of EVERYONE being armed. This fucking loon has no shame. Not everybody wants to own a gun, get it thru your fucking head Wayne. Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!!

In Wayne's world, people who choose not to go around armed deserve what's coming to them: grisly, violent death.

Xela wrote:

JoeW1911 wrote:...And the big plan? More guns in schools and a new program called "The National School Shield". I'm sure they will be more then happy to offer all the training they can...for a fee...

From the transcript,

"Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this
the best program in the world for protecting our children at school,
and we will make that program available to every school in America
free of charge."
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

Xela

As I said on another thread, NRA's big bucks don't come from member contributions or course fees. They come from mega-donations from the gun industry, in exchange for NRA boosting gun sales -- in this case through encouraging armed guards in every school.

larrymod wrote: In Wayne's world, people who choose not to go around armed deserve what's coming to them: grisly, violent death.

That's a bit much

ProGun wrote:

larrymod wrote: In Wayne's world, people who choose not to go around armed deserve what's coming to them: grisly, violent death.

That's a bit much

OK, overstating for effect.

But when his only answer to gun violence is "more guns", that's kind of the logical conclusion, isn't it?

I have a feeling that what we heard and saw in LaPierre this morning will be marked as the death knell for the NRA. In the past his lunacy was evident only to those who would take the time to listen to him, which didn't amount to much on the grander scale of things. Today nearly everybody was listening and he came across as a raving lunatic. And it has been said many times, where LaPierre goes, so goes the NRA.

It is unfortunate that such reflects upon all gun owners but that is the nature of the beast. It is equally unfortunate that the NRA seems to set itself as the voice of all, when the truth is that their 4 million members represent only a small fraction of US gun owners.

I confess I held some slim hope, early this week, that the NRA would come out of its huddle with some useful contribution, which in turn could lead to them being "at the table" when upcoming legislation is hammered out.

Remember, many surveys have shown that most gun owners and even most NRA members support common sense steps, like better background checks and closing certain loopholes, that the NRA steadfastly opposes.

Instead, they apparently doubled down on there most extreme and politically infeasible positions to please their base (which, remember, is not gun owners but gun manufacturers), rather than to try to accomplish something useful.

That will lead to the Obama administration doing the same (playing to their anti-gun base rather than proposing something workable and useful).

From our perspective as Liberal/Left gun owners, this is the worst possible outcome -- polarizing the issue further and getting nothing useful done.

Is there still a window for someone, maybe a bloc of pro-gun Dems, like maybe Reid, Tester, Sanders, etc., to push this in a useful direction? That could have the additional benefit of undercutting the NRA and Rethugs?

What could that useful direction look like? Off the top of my head:

1. I agree with others that a ban of military-style semiautos (aka "assault rifles") is a nonstarter. Too many already in circulation, too entrenched in our culture ("21st century musket"). Plus, there is a progressive case for civilian ownership of modern weapons, but that's not an argument I'd make in Congress or in the mainstream press.

2. Close some of the loopholes mentioned above. Use modern computing and communications tech for serious background checking.

3. Require secure storage of some kind, with civil and criminal charges as appropriate.

4. Something or other about mental health, but I don't know enough about this to make an intelligent suggestion.

5. Better data and research into violence and its possible causes. I have read, but can't cite a source, that the NRA has blocked this in the past.

(By the way, I agree that violent cultural artifacts like games, films, sports, don't CAUSE violent behavior. But I think it is plausible that some external factor or combination of factors causes people to (a) seek out depictions of violence and (b) sometimes enact violence. Splatter flicks don't cause murder; but why do people "enjoy" splatter flicks?)

Anyway, for a couple of days after Newtown it seemed like we had a small window to an intelligent step forward. Let's hope that window has not closed with the latest NRA idiocy.

The NRA is going to do for gun ownership what Gavin Newsom did for gay marriage. Newsom's ego and tone-deafness helped pass Prop 8 and the NRA is going to get us an AWB.

With friends like these...

larrymod wrote:(By the way, I agree that violent cultural artifacts like games, films, sports, don't CAUSE violent behavior. But I think it is plausible that some external factor or combination of factors causes people to (a) seek out depictions of violence and (b) sometimes enact violence. Splatter flicks don't cause murder; but why do people "enjoy" splatter flicks?)

It's a mighty fine line, Larry, and a blurry one at that. We all know people who have trouble telling what they see on the TV or movie or computer screen from reality.

As for drama, why put the effort into good writing when you can make a dramatic impact with outrageous behavior? No wonder we're becoming desensitized.


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

larrymod wrote:I confess I held some slim hope, early this week, that the NRA would come out of its huddle with some useful contribution, which in turn could lead to them being "at the table" when upcoming legislation is hammered out.

Remember, many surveys have shown that most gun owners and even most NRA members support common sense steps, like better background checks and closing certain loopholes, that the NRA steadfastly opposes.

Instead, they apparently doubled down on there most extreme and politically infeasible positions to please their base (which, remember, is not gun owners but gun manufacturers), rather than to try to accomplish something useful.

That will lead to the Obama administration doing the same (playing to their anti-gun base rather than proposing something workable and useful).

From our perspective as Liberal/Left gun owners, this is the worst possible outcome -- polarizing the issue further and getting nothing useful done.

Is there still a window for someone, maybe a bloc of pro-gun Dems, like maybe Reid, Tester, Sanders, etc., to push this in a useful direction? That could have the additional benefit of undercutting the NRA and Rethugs?

What could that useful direction look like? Off the top of my head:

1. I agree with others that a ban of military-style semiautos (aka "assault rifles") is a nonstarter. Too many already in circulation, too entrenched in our culture ("21st century musket"). Plus, there is a progressive case for civilian ownership of modern weapons, but that's not an argument I'd make in Congress or in the mainstream press.

2. Close some of the loopholes mentioned above. Use modern computing and communications tech for serious background checking.

3. Require secure storage of some kind, with civil and criminal charges as appropriate.

4. Something or other about mental health, but I don't know enough about this to make an intelligent suggestion.

5. Better data and research into violence and its possible causes. I have read, but can't cite a source, that the NRA has blocked this in the past.

(By the way, I agree that violent cultural artifacts like games, films, sports, don't CAUSE violent behavior. But I think it is plausible that some external factor or combination of factors causes people to (a) seek out depictions of violence and (b) sometimes enact violence. Splatter flicks don't cause murder; but why do people "enjoy" splatter flicks?)

Anyway, for a couple of days after Newtown it seemed like we had a small window to an intelligent step forward. Let's hope that window has not closed with the latest NRA idiocy.

^This.
All that being said I hope that food like Tester take some ateps here to prevent this from being a disaster on the left as well.

If the only people that the president assigns the nra listen uto it's the most extreme crazies on the respective sides, this will not end well


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I just got online and began reading the transcript. Page 1..,1.5,...2...mmm okay, reasonable enough so far. 2.5...wham! Jackpot...I mean Crackpot. "...a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry"..video-game-industrial military-liberal media-prison complex. And then "American Psycho"? From 13 years ago? You know, the satire? Can anyone be more out of touch with modern culture and society? His "research department" apparently staffed exclusively by Walt Kowalski. If any NRA members still don't feel like suckers after this...whatever

Xela wrote:

JoeW1911 wrote:...And the big plan? More guns in schools and a new program called "The National School Shield". I'm sure they will be more then happy to offer all the training they can...for a fee...

From the transcript,

"Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this
the best program in the world for protecting our children at school,
and we will make that program available to every school in America
free of charge."
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

Xela

Yep. The program will be free to the schools. But what about the training course necessary to train the armed guards? I recall hearing when I watched the conference he said all the guards would be trained volunteers. How many communities are going to let armed civilians into their schools to play rent a cop just because they took some half baked "course" sponsored by the NRA? How many police departments do you thing are going to let that happen in their communities? How many Schools? The NRA is too polarizing an entity and today was a disaster for all of us. If they were serious they would have been asking for a seat at Joe Biden's table next month and coming up with real ideas not based on fear tactics and playing the blame game while distancing themselves from the problem....again. Basically the NRA tried to ride in like a knight on a white horse and ended up falling face first in the mud.

edit: No offense meant to actual, trained security guards.

larrymod wrote:

Xela wrote:

JoeW1911 wrote:...And the big plan? More guns in schools and a new program called "The National School Shield". I'm sure they will be more then happy to offer all the training they can...for a fee...

From the transcript,

"Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this
the best program in the world for protecting our children at school,
and we will make that program available to every school in America
free of charge."
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

Xela

As I said on another thread, NRA's big bucks don't come from member contributions or course fees. They come from mega-donations from the gun industry, in exchange for NRA boosting gun sales -- in this case through encouraging armed guards in every school.

Don't forget how much Crossroads GPS dropped in the ILA coffers to be shredded for zero gain.

JoeW1911 wrote: Yep. The program will be free to the schools. But what about the training course necessary to train the armed guards? I recall hearing when I watched the conference he said all the guards would be trained volunteers. How many communities are going to let armed civilians into their schools to play rent a cop just because they took some half baked "course" sponsored by the NRA? How many police departments do you thing are going to let that happen in their communities? How many Schools? The NRA is too polarizing an entity and today was a disaster for all of us. If they were serious they would have been asking for a seat at Joe Biden's table next month and coming up with real ideas not based on fear tactics and playing the blame game while distancing themselves from the problem....again. Basically the NRA tried to ride in like a knight on a white horse and ended up falling face first in the mud.

edit: No offense meant to actual, trained security guards.

Do you know something about the "course" that the rest of us don't ?

Didn't you have to take a "half baked" course to get a LTC in Massachusetts ?

NRA courses are the most widely accepted methods in states to receive a concealed carry license.

So please tell us what we don't know, but you do.

Depends, if you take our course in MA it is decidedly not half baked. On purpose.

Inquisitor wrote:Depends, if you take our course in MA it is decidedly not half baked. On purpose.

I am so looking forward to 2013. I get vacation time and can head to Paladin's and get trained up so I can expand our courses westward.

JoeW1911 wrote: Yep. The program will be free to the schools. But what about the training course necessary to train the armed guards? I recall hearing when I watched the conference he said all the guards would be trained volunteers. How many communities are going to let armed civilians into their schools to play rent a cop just because they took some half baked "course" sponsored by the NRA? How many police departments do you thing are going to let that happen in their communities? How many Schools? The NRA is too polarizing an entity and today was a disaster for all of us. If they were serious they would have been asking for a seat at Joe Biden's table next month and coming up with real ideas not based on fear tactics and playing the blame game while distancing themselves from the problem....again. Basically the NRA tried to ride in like a knight on a white horse and ended up falling face first in the mud.

edit: No offense meant to actual, trained security guards.

Volunteers? Hmmm....

As somebody said in reference to that sketchy ex-Marine who wanted to guard the school in CA, "The guy who volunteers to guard your kid's school is probably the guy you don't want guarding your kid's school."

If he is armed, even more so.

whitey wrote:

rglad wrote:This quote ticked me off the most-

"Only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

How about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place?

And again with the incessant wet dream of EVERYONE being armed. This fucking loon has no shame. Not everybody wants to own a gun, get it thru your fucking head Wayne. Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!!

And the incessant wet dream of preventing all criminals from gaining access to a gun. Equally silly.

EDIT; This is an article in the Huffington Post -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 46967.html

I think that with this speech the NRA will lose more members.

I thought that everything that he said was self-serving and contributed nothing for the solving of the issues that have arisen with this tragedy.

ProD wrote:Do you know something about the "course" that the rest of us don't ? NRA courses are the most widely accepted methods in states to receive a concealed carry license. So please tell us what we don't know, but you do.

In the course my wife and I took we were the only ones who could actually put holes in the targets during the final test. EVERY other person in our group - 9 of 'em, IIRC - had a pristine sheet of paper after firing 5 or 6 rounds. The NRA instructor said, and I quote: "I don't care if you hit the wall or the ceiling, if it's a good tight grouping, I'm happy." And everyone in that class got their NRA certificate afterwards.

When I shared this story on another board, I suggested that this was irresponsible at best, homicidal at worst. And the wingnut loonies immediately piled on to suggest that I was a fucking douchebag liberal who didn't know shit. Only ONE person there agreed that the NRA instructor was wrong for signing off on airball shots. The rest were just thrilled that nine more guns were being carried concealed, and that was all that mattered. One guy even flamed me for bragging about what great shots my wife and I were - totally not my point.

And that's how I came to find LGC as an oasis in the fiery desert.

Point here is that if the NRA is gonna train security forces for every K-26 in the land, there are gonna be unethical, irresponsible instructors like the one I had. Lots of them. And a whole lot of "security" volunteers will be shooting everything but a shooter if one comes through the door.

He is confirming that the NRA (corporate) is completely out of touch with reality....

I think it's perfectly logical that if armed guards where placed in these so called "gun fee zones" then a lot of these tragedy's would be, at least far lessened in severity, if not outright prevented. Also allowing CC by capable citizens would further protect these places. So the commentators in that video where either "playing dumb" or simply arguing semantics.