I don't care who the messenger is, as long as he says the truth.
Constituents, converts and donations be damned. It's the truth we're after, and the truth is what used to make us the home of the free and the land of the brave.
The truth is that our society loves and glorifies illicit violence. Guns are weapons of war, and also weapons of peace. They're tools of patriots and tyrants.
Tools don't make a scene good or bad, but the men and their motives do. Gun control advocates are either hopelessly naive, or they are deliberately trying to disarm the people in order to control them for their own aggrandizement.
As long as Mr. LaPierre speaks the truth, I'll support him.
Sorry for all the one-liners
I think he is saying what is truth! The media is dying for him to agree to a ban on firearms or at the least "AW's".
Here's a fact, to say the 2nd amendment is an evolving document is totally not true. Fact the only way the 2nd amendment can be debated is not through bans/laws that infringe upon it but only by debating whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished or amended. (This is why the proposed ban violates the 2nd amendment)
Very little(if any) of the Constitution can be considered an evolving document. The writers of it somehow had the ability to make it a timeless document that could transcend the years and still be viable. The only evolution is to make new amendments but these new amendments should not simply be rammed through. The need the same thought put into them that the founding fathers did.
Yes, the Constitution evolves over time. Why? Because the Supreme Court decides how the Constitution applies to any particular situation and, at times, the "how" changes. The most obvious case had to do with whether or not the Constitution guaranteed equal education regardless of race. In the 1800s the Court ruled that the Constitution did guarantee that right, but that segregated schools were fine so long as they were equal in quality. In the 20th century the Court ruled that segregated schools were inherently unequal (Brown vs Board of Education). Same with the "Miranda warning" which appeared after a 1950s decision.
Now, does the Second Amendment protect the right to own, use and sell a high capacity magazine? Or to buy a gun without a background check? The answer is we do not know until the Supreme Court rules. When the Framers wrote the Constitution high capacity magazines and background checks did not exist. So, the Constitution "evolves" every time the Supreme Court rules. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not comprehend how the Constitution works.
There are 2 definitions to constitutionality:
1) whatever the judges say it is
2) what the document actually says, based on the principles by which it was written
The court may very well say that the 2A is unconstitutional someday. Does that mean we have no right to keep and bear arms? NO! That right is a human right which existed before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and even the Bible. The fact that it was reduced to writing in the Bill of Rights had everything to do with limiting the federal gov't and nothing to do with granting people their rights.
They might as well say that we have no right to breathe without their divine permission; than to say that we have no right to defend our lives by whatever means and tools we can conjure up.
Whether by dagger, arrow, cannon or machine gun; the tools matter not. All that matters is our will to live and the courage to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, based on the principles of freedom and responsibility that existed long before our nation did.
Supporters of the 2nd amendment over the years have passively went along with so called "reasonable" infringement and there many supporters that believe they are OK. Well its now time to lock our heels and resist any further infringements.
Here is my answer to the asinine rhetoric that there weren't any such weapons at that time. Of course there wasn't however one has to look at why we were given that right. It was given to us in case the government(including them) ended up like England and we could protect ourselves from them. Yes in their minds they could only base it on the weapon(arms) of the day. At that time the basic weapons of the combat soldiers where rather equal. With the 2nd amendment they wanted the people to be able to have like arms as an oppressor. While they had not way of knowing how weapons would change through the years I sure they were not so naive that they didn't think they wouldn't. So for the people present day to have the "evil" weapons of a basic combat solider fall within our 2nd amendment rights. BTW: aren't all weapons "evil" and "assault" when used wrongly. Actually when weapons are used for combat or self defense one could say that you had to "assault" that person to defend yourself.
He stood and faced a nation of everyone caving in around us. Historically supportive politicians caving in the huge wave of popular calls for gun control. He stood there in a pressure cooker and in an unwavering manner defended our rights and us as gunowners. You could put the best looking most popular motivational speaker up there and they would villify them immediately.
The first infringements took place in 1934 with the NFA. THAT is an unconstitutional pile of garbage, and is in fitting with the era in which it was passed. To say the Constitution is an "evolving" document is a blatant lie. It is simple ignored now, and the real fact is that unless the people value and honor it, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. If you're in the "evolving document" camp, look yourself in the mirror and see a big part of the problem staring back at you. As far as Wayne goes, we could do a lot worse than him. He doesn't appear to have sold us out in this latest battle, and for that he deserves credit.
Along those lines...earlier in the week on one of the news channels, there was a "discussion" on AWB. To paraphrase, the anti-gun pundit said "you people say 2nd Amendment this, 2nd Amendment that, show me where it says you have the right to have an "assult weapon"...the gun advicate replied, "show me where the 2nd Amendment says you can have a musket ball and flintlock"........."we'll be right back after this break...."Quote:
At that time the basic weapons of the combat soldiers where rather equal.
If you believe the constitution is evolving, then do you agree that it is alright to make a law limiting your right to own a gun, hi cap mag, or style? Its either yes or no, simple question.
I don't see arrogance or pomposity.
LaPierre has an incredibly tough job, no doubt. The gun-haters spew their venom at him with no mercy. LaPierre handles himself pretty well, but I must agree with some of the other posters - there is room for improvement in our NRA's front man.
Personally, I'd like to see someone like a Colin Powell.
I would guess many of us old-time NRA members are just spoiled. It's pretty hard to to beat Moses as your spokesman, LOLOL!
My son and I both saw his "presentation" and both of us were under-impressed. Stop a bad guy with a good guy? Eloquence for the concerned sixth graders? We both wondered that after a week of preparation time, that was the best the NRA could come up with?