Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: NRA supports reasonable regulations. LaPierre speech

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043

    First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

    We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.

    Of the 6,000 young people the President acknowledges were caught with a gun at school during the past two years, we believe all of them should have been prosecuted. But the truth is that only
    5 were prosecuted in 1997 and just 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have always supported holding adults responsible for wilfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms.
    Just as every kid should have a guardian who knows where he is and keeps him safe, every firearm should have a guardian who knows where it is and keeps it safely stored.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alamance county, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    104

    Post imported post

    This speech is from 5/1/1999 - scroll almost to the bottom (oldest speeches) on this page:

    http://www.nra.org/speeches.aspx?sid=38

    More than just a bit dated, yes? And certainly *not* a response to the recent VA Tech shooting. Why post it here?


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Monroe, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    Thats the end of my membership.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    This is an old speach - date? circa Columbine?

    I think the NRA position became a little more pro-guns in schools since then.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Rochester, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know where the NRA stands on this issue to date and if so, could
    they post it here, please?
    Thank you,
    Robert

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Nancy Pelosi says "Jump", and NRA says "How High?"
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820513/posts

    What happens when the NRA jumps higher and higher for Nancy? Well, you might just see a situation in the U.S. where you have to get a permission slip from a psychiatrist to own a gun. Don't believe it?Learn how similar techniques were used to transform England in a matter of decades. This is a long article, but it's quite educational.

    http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

    I also was thinking about cancelling my NRA membership. After rethinking things, it seems that a more prudent course of action might be for NRA members to do unto Wayne LaPierre as we did to Jim Zumbo. Here's a message someone posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-ccw/message/42293

    I attended the 1999 NRA convention in Denver where LaPierre gave that speech. I remember that to his statement of support for "gun-free schools" he received a response of silence and weak applause.

    I think the membership back then clearly realized the folly of such an approach. I would hope that the NRA would now show some backbone and renounce such stupidity.

    For some reason, I'd guess mostly political, they can't admit that if concealed firearms carried by responsible, law-abiding people is a good thing, then it's a good thing almost anywhere and everywhere.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    packin_NC_79 wrote:
    Thats the end of my membership.
    Raise cane first. Demand some explanations. See if you can get whether it is current policy. See if they clarified that in any way.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I urge others to send a message to the NRA at the following address: https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp

    This is the message I sent them:

    I recently learned of Wayne LaPierre's speech which called for gun owners to be arrested and prosecuted for entering school grounds:

    http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043

    "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."

    The blood for the 32 dead students at VT is all over Wayne LaPierre because he opposed the right of students with concealed handgun licenses to defend themselves.

    I am requesting that Wayne LaPierre resign his position with the NRA, or that he publicly repudiate his previous speech.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The root of the problem with NRA (and LAB) is that the directors don't listen to the market to which they pander and their market is too complacent to rebel.

    The League of American Bicyclists have labreform.org, the NRA's tiny voice of dissent, nrawol.com is gone. Both have gone down a similar dark path.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post

    Ilong ago realized that a fewpeople on this board like to spend time playing "holier than thou" with the NRA. If you hate the NRA that much, Resign, please! You don't have to tell us you are resigning from the NRA every time you get frustrated (how many times can one person resign from the NRA, out of curiosity?), please just do it.

    First, thatsnippetof aspeech is 8 years old, and its only a snippet of a speech.It is wildly out of context. My opinion is that anyone who draws conclusions about the NRA based on that snipper via what happened at Va Techis being dishonest.

    Would those of you who hate the NRA rather it not exist? I am asking a serious question, not being sarcastic. I am a member of the NRA, VCDL and GOA, and they are different organizations with different focuses and my opinion is that we all benefit from multiplepro-gun organizations. Would we be better off without the NRA? Would the assault weapons ban have had an expiration date? Would the mayor of New Orleans have been held in contempt? Would gun makers be shielded from liability? Would Norm Coleman have won election? Would we have Tihart? Etc Etc Etc.

    The reaction to this tragedy by the NRA has been extraordinarily honorable. They have NOT used thistragedy to raise money or act defensive. I am on the Brady email list ("know thy enemy") and have been receiving solicitions for cash everyday via email. The NRA, on the othr hand, released a simple, respectful statementthat focused on the victims of the tragedy.The NRA is a Virginia based organization, and besides the NRA's actions being the right thing to do, it also is politically astute at this time. Would you rather the NRA use this tragedy to raise funds or make a shrill statement comparable to those coming from ABC News, the New York Times and the Brady people?

    As far as the NRA coming together with others (pro and anti gun)to see if there is a way to use technology to prevent mentally unstable people who are already currently precluded from obtaining guns from doing so, I have no problem with the NRA being involved in that discussion. Quite frankly, I am glad Nancy Pelosi asked them to be involved. It is better than "our side" not even having a seat at the table.The fact that the NRA was asked to be involvedis a sign of the pro-second amendment lobbies STRENGTH, not weakness. Would the NRA have been asked to be involved in this limited discussion even 10 years ago? No. Many Democrats have simply awakended to the political realities of the gun control issue.

    I have been shocked at how many pro-self defense stories have been "out there" - and how muted the calls for gun control have been, all things considered.

    (Now, if we can just get every national media organization away from saying it is "illegal" for people to carry a gun on a Virginia campus!)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    SicSemperTyrannis wrote:
    Ilong ago realized that a fewpeople on this board like to spend time playing "holier than thou" with the NRA. If you hate the NRA that much, Resign, please! You don't have to tell us you are resigning from the NRA every time you get frustrated (how many times can one person resign from the NRA, out of curiosity?), please just do it.

    First, thatsnippetof aspeech is 8 years old, and its only a snippet of a speech.It is wildly out of context. My opinion is that anyone who draws conclusions about the NRA based on that snipper via what happened at Va Techis being dishonest.

    Would those of you who hate the NRA rather it not exist? I am asking a serious question, not being sarcastic. I am a member of the NRA, VCDL and GOA, and they are different organizations with different focuses and my opinion is that we all benefit from multiplepro-gun organizations. Would we be better off without the NRA? Would the assault weapons ban have had an expiration date? Would the mayor of New Orleans have been held in contempt? Would gun makers be shielded from liability? Would Norm Coleman have won election? Would we have Tihart? Etc Etc Etc.

    The reaction to this tragedy by the NRA has been extraordinarily honorable. They have NOT used thistragedy to raise money or act defensive. I am on the Brady email list ("know thy enemy") and have been receiving solicitions for cash everyday via email. The NRA, on the othr hand, released a simple, respectful statementthat focused on the victims of the tragedy.The NRA is a Virginia based organization, and besides the NRA's actions being the right thing to do, it also is politically astute at this time. Would you rather the NRA use this tragedy to raise funds or make a shrill statement comparable to those coming from ABC News, the New York Times and the Brady people?

    As far as the NRA coming together with others (pro and anti gun)to see if there is a way to use technology to prevent mentally unstable people who are already currently precluded from obtaining guns from doing so, I have no problem with the NRA being involved in that discussion. Quite frankly, I am glad Nancy Pelosi asked them to be involved. It is better than "our side" not even having a seat at the table.The fact that the NRA was asked to be involvedis a sign of the pro-second amendment lobbies STRENGTH, not weakness. Would the NRA have been asked to be involved in this limited discussion even 10 years ago? No. Many Democrats have simply awakended to the political realities of the gun control issue.

    I have been shocked at how many pro-self defense stories have been "out there" - and how muted the calls for gun control have been, all things considered.

    (Now, if we can just get every national media organization away from saying it is "illegal" for people to carry a gun on a Virginia campus!)
    I don't hate the NRA but I don't support every thing they have done in the last several years, and I did drop my membership, this does not mean that I do not Support gun rights and gun policies, but I just don't support everything they say and do just because they are the NRA.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The speech in its on-line entirety downloaded 0650 Sunday 22 April 2007 for its context, content and to point out that the Nasty Regulators Ass have had years to repudiate the policy and the spokesman and have done neither. Indeed, there is the Dingel article floating around 'out of context' with the Nasty Regulators Ass cooperating to further infringe the Second Amendment.

    Compromise is failure on the installment plan. Compromising that which shall not be infringed is taking half-steps to tyranny. As to the ad homina, they are just that; posturing for d' masses 'bandwagon.'

    http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043


    Good morning, and thank you for coming today.

    Because of recent events, we've experienced unprecedented requests for our Association to express itself on a variety of related and unrelated issues. Out of solemn respect, we have remained silent.

    But the policies of the National Rifle Association have become so widely mis-characterized that America can't keep in focus a clear understanding of what our principles are.

    So I would like to take this opportunity to clearly state our positions in a comprehensive way.

    More than anything, I want to frame my remarks as part of a constructive, respectfully-conducted discourse that will surely follow in the weeks to come.

    I wouldn't stand before you today if I didn't believe, and I couldn't prove, that our common-sense policies can have a more immediate impact on violence, and make more citizens safer, than anything that anyone else is proposing.

    So I'd like to speak in response to the President's recent press conferences and news appearances. And please, listen not just for what we've done, but for what more we can all do.

    First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

    We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.
    [Emphasis added]

    Of the 6,000 young people the President acknowledges were caught with a gun at school during the past two years, we believe all of them should have been prosecuted. But the truth is that only
    5 were prosecuted in 1997 and just 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have always supported holding adults responsible for wilfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms.
    Just as every kid should have a guardian who knows where he is and keeps him safe, every firearm should have a guardian who knows where it is and keeps it safely stored.

    That's why, for over a century, we've written the book on safe storage of firearms. We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, trigger locks, gun safes, or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them. We have always condemned anything less.

    (pause)

    But we believe that the most effective gun safety device is education. And the NRA does more about it than anybody, investing millions of dollars in our Eddie Eagle gun avoidance safety program that has now reached eleven million children. Even President Clinton agrees it has been effective.

    Fatal gun accident rates are now lower than ever in American history. And if any American school wants the program, we'll find a way for that school to have it -- with or without NRA's name on it. But we call on the President and Congress to provide funding to put the Eddie Eagle program in every elementary classroom.

    Still, we believe the real problem is unprosecuted criminal access to guns.

    So we believe in zero tolerance for anyone illegally buying guns for juveniles.

    We encourage the vigilance of everyone to keep illegal guns out of the hands of minors. But more importantly, of the thousands of criminals who bought guns for juveniles, we believe the Clinton Administration should have prosecuted more than just 5 in 1997 and 6 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    We believe gang bangers caught carrying guns shouldn't be let go just because they're under 18.
    So we support mandatory penalties for juvenile criminals caught carrying guns. But out of the thousands of these armed teen thugs, we believe the Clinton Justice Department should have prosecuted more than just 3 in 1997 and 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    We believe that even if violent juvenile felons get a second chance at going straight, they should never get a second chance at owning a gun. Some call it Juvenile Brady -- we call it common sense. We support barring all juveniles convicted of violent felonies from owning guns, for life.

    We also believe that criminal records of violent juveniles ought to remain open indefinitely, not expunged in the middle of their crime spree. They shouldn't get a clean criminal slate to splatter with blood again just because they turn 18 or 21.

    We support restoring full and perpetual funding for the National Instant Check System, which was the product of this Association's determined effort. It is a federal crime for a felon to try to buy a gun. So for the quarter million prohibited buyers President Clinton claims were turned away, we believe his Justice Department should have prosecuted more than zero in 1996, zero in 1997 and zero in 1998. That's surely not zero tolerance.

    We believe that people adjudicated mentally incompetent should be prevented from buying guns. That's the law. But it can't be enforced because those records are often sealed. So we advocate that records of court-declared mental incompetents be unsealed and made available to the instant check system. Believe it or not, insanities like John Hinckley's would not prevent a gun purchase today because most mental records are invisible to the instant check system. Let's close the Hinckley loophole!

    We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live. The truth is, very few actually choose to carry a gun -- but the bad guys don't know which few they are.

    We believe freedom should never be diminished for those who abide by the law. On the contrary, freedom should be diminished only for those who break the law. That is the principle upon which we stand opposed to waiting period proposals and one-gun-a-month schemes.

    There is no evidence waiting periods work. And if there is authority to say one gun a month, there will eventually be authority to say none.

    We believe it is felons who should get no guns any month. So of the thousands of criminals who bought guns for felons, we believe the Clinton Justice Department should have prosecuted more than just 13 in 1997 and 24 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    The National Rifle Association has never agreed that magazine capacity has any relationship to the criminal misuse of firearms. We cannot support pointless initiatives. It's as useless as trying to restrict the number of guns a criminal can carry, or the number of loaded magazines he can pack, or for that matter, the number of pockets he can lug his bullets in -- when chances are, he should be wearing prison fatigues in the first place.

    We support reversing the Clinton Administration policy of not prosecuting felons with guns. We advocate national adoption of Project Exile, a zero-tolerance project that began in Richmond, Virginia, but can't seem to get the support of President Clinton's Justice Department. Any felon caught with a gun, no matter what he's doing, goes to jail for 5 years, period.

    District Attorneys tell me they've never seen a program have such an immediate effect on violence. So instead of not funding Project Exile, we call on the President to support providing 50 million dollars for nationwide implementation plus 25 million dollars to publicize awareness of it.

    Finally, we believe that firearm freedom can't exist if firearms aren't as affordable as the free market allows. So we condemn the attempt of predatory lawyers and mayors to drive gun makers out of business and drive up costs of guns with frivolous lawsuits that make honest people pay for the failure of the criminal justice system.

    Americans oppose it, and we support state and federal legislation that prohibits this abuse of the courts and our freedoms.

    Incredibly, we've been asked if we would support an instant check on explosives purchasers.Well, we're not the National Explosives Association. But we would not oppose such a background check, as long as it does not include the traditional reloading powders used by millions of budget minded hobbyists. Trying to include those reloading powders is like imposing an instant check on matches, because they're made of basically the same stuff.

    Lastly, I want to talk about gun shows.We have always supported the American tradition and right of private sales of firearms between lawful adults, friends and family. Gun shows are simply an extension of that freedom. But the NRA insists on absolute adherence to the law, with zero tolerance for any unscrupulous or illegal activity at gun shows, just like anywhere else.

    We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops demanding new gun taxes and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers. Government list-keeping surveillance of law-abiding citizens is never a good idea.

    That's where we stand on these issues, and why. The solutions are far more a matter of collective resolve, than of resources. If we have twelve billion dollars to fight violence overseas, surely we can find a few million to defeat violence at home.

    It's my hope that the cruel and unfounded accusations against this association can be replaced by a civil and constructive debate. As discussions continue in the weeks ahead, we will take our responsible place at any gathering that seeks meaningful solutions as long as they do not erode, not even a little, the freedoms this Association exists to preserve.

    Thank you for your attention in these most trying of times. The policies of the National Rifle Association have always been, and will always be, totally invested in preserving the safety and the freedoms of all Americans.

    Thank you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    I will add this thought, Since Charlton Heston left the NRA there has not been the tight stick to your guns approach to a lot of issues, and seems to be more and more compromises on Gun issues that is the reason I have droped my membership.

    They just are not the NRA I joined several years ago they have gone soft, but they sure do not lack in requesting money two or three times a week, it seems they have become what they have been fighting all these years; Polititions, not supporters.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I sometimes have felt they have become a giant beauracracy. "Politicians" fits to a certain extent, too.

    Can anybody else provide info to support or refute my impression?

    Given the potential severity assaults on the 2A in light of recent events, I'd rather be a little careful before I write them offmyself.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I sometimes have felt they have become a giant beauracracy. "Politicians" fits to a certain extent, too.

    Can anybody else provide info to support or refute my impression?

    Given the potential severity assaults on the 2A in light of recent events, I'd rather be a little careful before I write them offmyself.
    Call me stupid, but I don't get what the problem is!?!

    This was the "after Columbine" speech, and concealed carry hadn't reach as many states<as in: shall issue permits>.

    The NRA stands a better chance than ever from pulling off "college carry", and they haven't issued any re-hashed Columbine statements.

    The facts are on our side, and on the side of the NRA.. Virgina is gun friendly, politicians fear the NRA<with good reason, we all vote>, and"allvictims"at Virginia Tech were dead before the police could enter the building.

    I don't agree with the NRA, but they're the "biggest dog on our side"

    On an totally unrelated issue, I'm a ham operator and the only lobby for ham radio("Amateur Radio" to be correct) is the "ARRL" and they are the most corrupt SOB's out there, but they are the only people on my side with a voice in Washington.

    Do you think you're better off by yourself, or with a force that politicians fear?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043

    First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

    We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.

    Of the 6,000 young people the President acknowledges were caught with a gun at school during the past two years, we believe all of them should have been prosecuted. But the truth is that only
    5 were prosecuted in 1997 and just 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance.

    The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have always supported holding adults responsible for wilfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms.
    Just as every kid should have a guardian who knows where he is and keeps him safe, every firearm should have a guardian who knows where it is and keeps it safely stored.
    Doug, we know your Anal retentive about the NRA, but if you objectively read the whole speech, which is very old by the way, you will see it is an "et Too Brute" Speech akin to the one offered by Mark Anthony following the death of Caesar on the ids of March. It is not so much about guns in schools but rather about the lack of enforcement and punishment of people who break laws and use guns while they do it.

    This same speech could be given about Virginia Tech. It people had prosecuted this idiot for all the bad things he had been doing or the hospital had reported correctly about his mental problems, he would not have been able to buy the guns and he would probably been in jail.



    My $.02



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    I just bought NRA life memberships for myself, my wife, and my three sons. No other organization is a more effective 2A special interest group than the NRA. Their tactics sometimes involve triangulation and incrementalism, but I'll tolerate that for the long-term benefits.

    Meanwhile, because schools are "gun free" as well as education free, my kids don't go to school. Schools aren't actually about education anyway -- they're a microcosm of liberal idealism, a tool for creating good liberal citizen worker-bees. School is a proving ground for social policy initiatives. That's why you come out of school thinking global warming is a problem, oil companies have too much money, and maybe we should apologize to native americans.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Two personal anecdotes do not data make.

    Read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte thomson Iserbyt (Conscience Press, Ravenna, OH, 1999) ISBN 0-945019-73-4 or as an 11MB .pdf download from http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.pdf

    It contains, among other things, a further demonstration of the folly of expecting different effects from the same causes, the same-ol' same-ol'

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •