NRA desperate for ways to pretend it’s under attack (Atlanta Constitution-Journal)

The sad truth is, LaPierre’s salary and the NRA’s bureaucracy and fund-raising depend on maintaining the illusion that there can be no consensus about common-sense gun laws. “You’re either for guns or you’re against guns,” as the saying goes, and if the test of being “for guns” is to support ever more nonsensical gun legislation, as it has become here in Georgia, the NRA is perfectly willing to make that claim stick.

NRA Misfires on Gun Policy Decision (New Jersey Star-Ledger)

The arrogance of the National Rifle Association is breathtaking. An invitation from President Obama to join a discussion about gun policy was dismissed out of hand by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president. Obama had the temerity to seek consensus by bringing together gun control advocates and the NRA. It’s the kind of civil discourse Americans say they crave. But apparently not the NRA.

Why the NRA Won’t Talk Gun Control with Obama (CNN.com)

A top advocate for gun control in Congress, New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy calls LaPierre’s refusal to join the meetings “foolish.” …The nation’s porous background-check system allowed Jared Lee Loughner, the suspect in January’s mass shooting that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer despite indications he was mentally ill. His background check at the dealer came back clean. LaPierre vehemently opposes any attempt to close the “gun show loophole,” saying it wasn’t a factor in Tuscon.

Obama Should Stand Up to Gun Control Bullies (Seattle-Times)

Obama observed last week that “bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people.” It can also have destructive consequences for politicians. The president could set a good example by standing up to the bullies of the NRA.

Obama, Guns and Media Control (Reuters)

Common sense has not been in abundant supply in decades of on-again, off-again debate on guns and violence. As to finding common ground between the leading gun lobby and advocates of better controls, the NRA’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, says his group will “absolutely not” take part in the sort of meeting envisaged by Obama. Such a meeting, he said in a series of media interviews, would be with people opposed to the constitutional right to bear arms.

Talking to people of different views is obviously not a concept the politically powerful gun lobby intends to embrace.

Gun Control Legislation Needs to Be A Reality (The Loyola Phoenix)

For the next two weeks, Justice Department officials will be meeting with gun control advocates in Washington. I urge these government administrators to forget about the NRA’s bantering and to take more action to close the gun show loophole by encouraging states to push for mandatory gun licensing. Legally buying a gun shouldn’t be as easy as going to your neighborhood garage sale.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

22 COMMENTS

  2. Gun control means hitting your target, not banning all guns like these idiots want the govt. to do. The NRA won’t meet with the gun haters because you can’t reason with these fools. Guns are here to stay and no law or ban can ever change that fact.

  3. Big whoop. The anti-gun left and the media (but I repeat myself) is up in arms (pun intended) that the NRA won’t quit while they are way, way, way ahead. They are trying to accuse the NRA and gun owners (again I repeat myself) of running up the score. They forget that there is no slaughter rule in politics.

    We don’t merely wish to move the ball a few yards downfield. We want to crush our opposition so badly that no one ever tries to screw with us again. I won’t be satisfied until Paul Helmke is reduced to holding a cardboard sign begging for food in Central Park while I walk by open carrying.

    There’s no possible benefit to the NRA sitting down with these bigots and negotiating a surrender. We aren’t going to surrender, and we don’t need to negotiate terms with people losing so very badly. Washington DC is pretty much irrelevant in the current gun rights climate. Bigots like Paulie are trying to nationalize the debate while all the action is happening at the state level. The anti rights bigots don’t have the troops or the money to stop us in each state and are trying to fool us into bringing the fight to one central location. We aren’t buying the deception.

      • It isn’t smarts Joe, but thanks. What state do you live in? Are you involved in State and local politics? I used to live in Pennsylvania, and in order to learn more about PA’s gun laws I got hooked up with the state firearms groups. I went to the Capital Building on the state lobby day and I met my local legislators. What I found is that US Representatives, and Senators generally ignore you since you are one in literally a million. Your state level Reps and Senators can’t ignore you, they are literally your neighbors.

        I used to think that national gun politics was where the action is. What I found out was that almost all of the laws that affect your daily life, gun ownership, and carry behavior were written at the state level, where you can pressure, cajole, and convince the representatives to do what you want them to do.

        The Paul Helmkes of the world want us to fall into the trap of Thermopylae. They want us to fight them on ground favorable to them. Unlike the Persians, we don’t have to march through the narrow pass to invade the rest of the country. We already live here. We can attack the provinces directly. What are their 300 anti-Spartans going to do then? Their 300 sure looked like a formidable force in the funhouse mirror that was the media, circa 1994, but now the internet allows the rest of us to see how tiny their forces really are.

  4. What is it about “shall not be infringed” that’s so difficult for these people to understand? Four simple words make all the difference in the world.

  5. It’s about time the NRA showed some real balls. Hey, Obama, let Americans take care of America. You can keep yourself amused by taking care of Libya.

  6. I’m starting to realize this was a brilliant move on the NRA’s part. By attending they had little to gain. By refusing the way they did, look at the increase in bonding and comradery they’ve caused. Of course the reason that’s so is because many of those who applaud the decision are incapable of rational thought and truthful analysis. One example is Joe Mefafome who not only thinks Sean is “one smart man,” but said this:

    “Gun control means hitting your target, not banning all guns like these idiots want the govt. to do.”

    “Banning of all guns,” huh Joe? The attendees of that meeting want that because THEY’RE so unreasonable, is that it?

  8. Refusing to talk to someone is not something to be proud of. If I say the moon is blue, and refuse to speak to anyone who’d try to argue to the contrary, I’m just a fool.

    If I’m a 2nd amendment rights advocate and I’m convinced the president is out to grab guns, and I refuse to speak to him, I’m just a fool. Especially when the evidence to date indicates that the president, generally speaking, is not out to grab guns.

    Discourse is the heart of any progress, and by sticking our heads in the sand, we do nothing good.

    If talking to the man reveals that there are irreconcilable differences, so be it. If one is firm in their beliefs, it’s hardly as if talking to someone else will magically corrupt them.

    • We hardly need a new conversation to know what POTUS and his whole crew are all about. And there’s no point in talking to anyone who won’t listen. We spoke at the polls. Conversation OVER.

    • “Discourse is the heart of any progress, and by sticking our heads in the sand, we do nothing good.”

      I’m not interested in the kind of progress that would come out of this meeting. Do you think that nationwide concealed carry or anything of the sort is going to be discussed? I really doubt it. Most likely the topic of discussion would be how much are we willing to give up.

    • It’s not the president but actually his underlings that are doing all of the dirty work. When you’re the captain or the leader and somehow your team messes up, the first thing they look at is YOU. Why didn’t you keep that thing from going out of line? Why didn’t you restrain that troublemaker?

      Obama is not doing it by himself but he is the head of not only this country but of his cabinet and all of his advisers. He has power over all of their jobs so sometimes its in their best interest to not tick him off. By letting stupid crap like Project Gunwalker through the responsibility is on him – why the heck did he let the ATF or at least who was in charge do all of that stuff? When the truth about Gunwalker comes out it is going to seriously damage his reputation as well as smack those responsible so hard it will make Charlie Sheen’s damage to Two and a Half Men look tame.

      http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/03/gunwalker-scandal-why-where-did-it.html

      Democrats are horrified when Holder lets slip about another AWB. Guess who’s Holder’s boss? Obama. Did HE make a statement about it? No. Suspicion of complicity rising…

      And considering that when news of the scandal first broke, Napolitano raced desperately to try and cover things up…gee I wonder why Madam Secretary?

      In closing, when you are the leader, you also represent the overall sustained or major actions of your entire group, whether you participated in them actively or turned a blind eye. Not doing anything to stop trouble is basically the same as causing it.

    • Mark’s first mistake is assuming there is something to talk about. Obama used this same strategy during the health care debates. Invited both sides to create an air of bipartisanship and then refused to listen to those he fundamentally disagreed with.

      If the NRA shows up it’s lending an air of legitimacy to what will be a one sided conversation. They know this.

Comments are closed.