February 14, 2013

Nope, LaPierre isn't just another right wing nutjob

You can read all of it here::
Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it. 
Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.

Obama is evil.  He will use any future mass murder as an excuse for a "tsunami of gun control."  Be very afraid of Mexicans, Muslims, and the fact that Obama is supposedly ruining our economy (perhaps on purpose).  No.  Buy a gun. Buy three.  Get ready to shoot your neighbors because we are descending into chaos because of anti-gun liberals and Obama.

Jesus.  This is the gun culture we fear.  This is the gun culture that thinks that Ted Nugent is a good spokesman.

26 comments:

WJB said...

Streak, you forgot that crone - Mother Nature. She is certain to unleash hurricanes and tornadoes, so you better buy a gun to fend off the inevitable May twisters that harass I-35.

Oh yeah - and the brown people.

Streak said...

Oh yeah. The brown people. Exactly.

Streak said...

And you are right. No need to address climate change. Just buy more guns.

Smitty said...

Nothing deters a malicious tornado or earthquake like a DPMS AP4.

steves said...

You forgot neighbors who let their dogs poop in your yard. I have a secret cache of assault rifles with giant clips just for that purpose.

President Obama has firmly cemented his place as the greatest gun salesman of all time. According to the FBI, the past two months have seen record numbers of background checks. Just the hint of a ban has caused a frenzy. Hell, you can't even buy ammo right now.

.45-70 for an earthquake or tornado.

steves said...

Oops, I meant Wayne and Ted. People buy guns because Wayne and Ted tell them to. I am sure of this.

Streak said...

Not the point, steve. Again. Not the point.

Streak said...

And yes, Obama is a great gun salesman. Because the gun culture is fucking paranoid. And you defend that?

steves said...

Obama doesn't want a ban? Do you really believe that? At one time, I don't think it was a priority for him, but he keeps talking about banning assault weapons and magazine restrictions.

I certainly can't speak for everyone buying a gun, but I would say that most of them are buying things that face some risk of being banned.

I read Wayne's article again. It is his typical over-the-top stuff. Not a huge fan of that and I usually skip his stuff when the magazine comes. One thing that I find so strange about it is that he seems to want people to buy guns. Why would a spokesperson for a gun group want people to buy guns. Does this seem odd to you?

All snark aside, just be pragmatic for a moment. The NRA probably wants to increase it's membership and get money for lobbying and similar activities. They aren't going to get new members/gun owners by saying, "hey, guns are fun to collect...go out and buy that Chilean Mauser." How about, "you NEED a gun for hunting or target shooting?"

The reality is that most people buy guns for self-defense. Hunting has been on a steady decline for years and competitive shooting is a not all that popular.

Smitty said...

I sorta though Steve's comment from 1:49pm today was a joke...not a debatable point...

But since we're here, I like this from Balloon Juice sorta sums up where I think LaPierre is off his nut. Not that he's ever been NOT off his nut.

Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.

Survival, Wayne?? From WHAT? Jesus, we live in America. I have been to countries where survival is paramount. It's the only thing they do all day. Their day job in some war-torn places I've been to it is Survival Specialist, or Assistant to the VP of Staying Alive One More Day. But for fuck's sake...we live in AMERICA. I fed my kids eggs, sausage, and toaster waffles this morning with NO fear of being mugged or murdered. I watched my kid cross the street for the bus without a fear that an RPG was going to stop his bud abruptly.

LaPierre wants more members. He benefits from the perpetuation of fear. We've discussed that in the last few threads.

Do this: write the organization. Explain why fear as economic incentive is bad. Tell them what you believe: that, in your words, "It is his typical over-the-top stuff. Not a huge fan of that and I usually skip his stuff when the magazine comes."

Skip no more!

Using fear as an incentive is almost an insult to the countries around the world who do fear that their kid's bus will explode.

Streak said...

I understand I have not been in the best of humor of late, so if I miss intended humor, I apologize.

But I think this is the crux of this entire argument. Steve wants gun owners and gun rights to be respected as reasonable and rational and responsible and constitutional and all that. He resents being lumped in with crazy gun owners who shoot people over stupid reasons or take loaded guns to gun shows. He resents being lumped in with people who talk crazy about guns.

But, he wants to defend the NRA as a reasonable organization responding rationally to gun issues. He defends, and rightly so, the efforts made by the group to train shooters and gun owners.

But here is the rub. As everyone here acknowledges (Steve included), the NRA's publica and political face is more in that first group than that second one. The NRA is irresponsibly encouraging paranoia and fear. They are telling their members to hate their government and to distrust them--and have been doing that as long as Obama has been elected, and they did the same thing under Clinton (one good tip to the partisan nature of this). They are not encouraging people to build communities and to find non-violent solutions to crime--they want people to buy guns. Reasonable for an organzation devoted to gun ownership. Not necessarily the same thing as good for public policy.

And let's not forget what WJB pointed out so well. This was a largely racist dog whistle response as well. Watch out for brown people coming over the borders. They are coming to kill you if you don't have a gun--and it is all Obama's fault.

Don't ask me to respect that. And don't ask me to just dismiss it as pragmatic organizational tactics. This is encouraging racism and racist responses. This is the definition of irresponsibility.

This is the essential problem. The responsible gun owners are enabling and even chuckling at the crazy. Then they get mad when they are lumped together.

That isn't my fault.

steves said...

WTF?!?!

First of all, I agree that I don't like being lumped in with crazy folks. For the most part, I don't get the feeling I am being lumped with them, so I really have no complaints in this area.

What seems to confuse me is when you say the NRA encourages people to hate the government. There is no support for this. I suppose you will point to some statement that they made encouraging people to buy guns to defend themselves, but that doesn't equate with hating the government.

As for the racism complaint, some places have problems with Mexican gangs. Heck, Mexico has serious problems with Mexican gangs. That is not the same thing as telling people to buy guns to shoot brown people. Sometimes I think the dog whistle response is just down to shut down any reasonable discussion with racism accusations.

As for reasonable, community building solutions, they are the National Rifle Association, not the National Community Building Love Fest Drum Circle. They exist to promote gun skills, gun rights, and gun safety.

As for public policy, the people supporting an AWB don't give a shit about saving lives or public safety. I was reminded again the small number of deaths attributed to assault weapons...it is around 200, which is less than half of number of people killed with hands and feet.

Streak said...

Impressive. About as much bullshit as I have read on my own blog. Starting with the assertion that all of us who support a AWB ban don't give a shit about saving lives. We may be mistaken about its effectiveness, but to suggest we don't care? My original edit had a word before "you" in it. I still feel it, but decided to shelve it.

As for the rest, I trust, Steve, from our previous conversations that you are smarter than this. Hell, you would have to be. Because if you read that bullshit from LaPierre and don't hear a deep distrust and dislike for government, then you simply aren't paying attention. If you don't hear the tribal whistle of right wing paranoid politics, then you aren't paying attention. If you don't hear a clarion call to be very, very, very afraid of everyone, including and especially your President--then you aren't paying fucking attention.

Your comment about community is just fucking dumb. Purposefully dumb. The NRA doesn't have to encourage and flog and absolutely sound the drum of paranoia to push its case. You fucking know that. Or you should. That, right there, is your blind spot with the NRA. It is ok for them to encourage, irresponsibly, paranoia and fear because it is all in order to swell their membership and sell more guns. As if that is a good thing. If you seriously think that is a good thing, then you don't understand community.

You just don't get it. The NRA is the gun culture I hate. And I don't hate it because it likes guns. I hate it because it relies on fear and paranoia to push its case. It suggest (regardless of your naiveté) that a big reason to have a gun is because of brown people. No warnings there for white supremacists who actually do kill people in this country. No warning for all the white people who kill people in this country. Nope. Watch out for mexican and muslim people.

Jesus fucking christ.

Streak said...

BTW, since you are being so smug about who cares, let me note that my opposition to the gun culture is to stop people who lack the responsibility or temperment from buying a gun.

But to call those of us who want to reduce access to military style weapons after Sandy Hook uncaring about gun violence?

That is a crock. Call me misguided all you want. Call all gun control people misguided. I love how you will disparage them but just laugh off LaPierre and Nugent.

Fuck this.

steves said...

While some supporters of an AWB are genuinely concerned with saving lives, there is a logical disconnect between those two things. It is easy for people that don't own those types of guns, but supporters of an AWB are calling for legislation that would negatively effect millions of people, while likely having no real influence on increasing public safety.

No, I don't hear a serious distrust of gov't from Wayne et al. I hear his usual rah rah, send us money, but I tend to not really listen to him as much as you do. I am by no means a prepper, but after watching what happens in events like Katrina and Sandy, I have an idea as to what could happen. I think it is prudent to take some steps to be able to fend for yourself for a short period of time. This doesn't mean that I hate or distrust the gov't, but rather that I believe emergency services are going to have to prioritize what they do. This is assuming that I still have phone and electricity.

The NRA doesn't have to bang the drum of paranoia because people are already willing to panic buy. I saw this 5 or 6 times in the past 30 years. In several of those instances, the NRA supported the legislation that caused the buy, so I don't believe they are needed to cause a panic. While I am sure a fair number of NRA members are participating in this latest panic, I would guess that many are not members, nor are they people who have listened to Wayne.

White supremacists? That is so 1980's. MS-13 is what is happening now. If you read the FBI's 10 most wanted, I think 5 of the 10 are related to Mexican gangs. FBI, ATF, and Treasury have also dedicated fairly large task forces to dealing with this problem and I doubt it is based on a hatred of brown people. As for Muslims, Wayne said terrorists. According to the DHS, this includes people who "support limited gov't, tax dodgers, and right wing extremism," among many other non-brown people groups.

I agree that some people should not have access to guns and I have never opposed reasonable steps to stop them from having guns. As for restricting access to military style guns, I do not support this being done to law abiding people.

Streak said...

That is exactly how this works. You filter LaPierre through your lens where the NRA (even Ted Nugent) is not offensive. You would have to. Because not only did LaPierre note potential natural disasters, he accused Obama of bankrupting the country and essentially said that we were headed for bankruptcy and disaster. Everyone else who has read that oped with any honesty sees and reads the message "be very afraid because government will not help you." Obama is the cause of those terror threats, btw, as he is for the brown people coming over the border.

You read very literally, yet missed everything he said. Because you have to, I guess. But cognitive dissonance is cognitive dissonance, whatever the flavor.

Every time you defend the NRA, you lose credibility. I am not the only one to say it. I am just the only one you give shit about it. When Smitty or Bob says something very similar, you take it seriously.

steves said...

Cognitive dissonance. I see an unfortunate number of people throwing out this term when people disagree with them on the net. While I agree that some people are guilty of CD, I think it way overused. I think you are just projecting your own fears in your filtering. See, I can use the a similar argument, plus I have two degrees in "psychology."

An author I follow had this to say the other day:

"There's apparently a "Right to feel safe," and my owning a gun destroys it, because I might shoot someone. However, if I say a gun makes me feel safe, I'm paranoid and insane."

This is interesting. Wanting a gun for personal protection is somehow irrational and paranoid, but being afraid that an otherwise law abiding person will shoot some random stranger is reasonable? Yes, I know it happens, but if you look at the stats from various states that monitor lawful gun owners (such as the ones that track CPL holders), you will find they are incredibly rare.

As for Smitty and Bob, I give them a hard time and we have certainly had some heated discussions.

As for Uncle Ted, I have said more than once that I don't like him and that he is a poor spokesman for gun rights.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Steve, if you are going ot criticize me, could you criticize me for what I argued? Is that too much to ask?

My comment about CD was not that owning a gun made you paranoid. Your cognitive dissonance is suggesting that LaPierre's comments about needing a gun were not aimed at the government nor at Obama. You want to suggest that his comments are just innocent and rational observations on the need for protection during a natural disaster. Instead, he was suggesting that Obama was going to cause an economic disaster and that he was responsible for allowing brown people over the border who want to kill you. So you better buy a gun.

If you don't respect me, fine. But at least don't put words in my mouth.

Jay said...

Steve,

I think the quote you cited from an author you follow expressed very well where my personal frustration lies with this whole issue. There are different sides, different opinions, and different takes on what is said by spokespeople for all facets of the debate, which is normal and I can deal with that. But my understanding is that there IS no "right to feel safe" while there is a "right to bear arms." If I don't feel safe around someone legally bearing arms, I have no legal recourse. I just have to accept it.

But if I can't accept it we (meaning me and gun owners) are at an impasse that cannot be broken without rewriting some of our laws and rights. I just have to deal with the fact that I will always feel unsafe.

The realty, of course, is that I am not actually that unsafe. And you are not actually much safer than I am in any measurable statistical sense. In an unmeasurable sense, I believe you are very slightly more likely to be shot than I am, just because you have a gun in your house. I think it is also true that none of the legislation being considered is likely to have any measurable impact on our relative safety.

But you have piece of mind. And I don't.

And that encapsulates my frustration.

steves said...

Fair enough. I understand that you interpret Wayne's comments as telling people to hate/distrust gov't. I was offering an alternative viewpoint that I believe is a more reasonable interpretation. I do not believe that my interpretation requires me to ignore reality or is somehow not based on facts.

There are plenty of genuine nutters that say not to trust gov't and I have gotten links to them. If Wayne is going to speak to them, he needs to change what he is saying.

steves said...

Jay, I agree. I think gun owners need to be more respectful of this, which is why I am not a huge fan of the Open Carry movement or one of those people that feels the need to be "in your face." I also agree that, statistically speaking, I am not really a whole lot safer with a gun, but I look at it as a tool much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt. It is better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

This is just my opinion and I am certainly not saying people have to have a gun.

Streak said...

I think your interpretation is artificially more reasonable, and only so because you have excluded whole sections of LaPierre's rant. His assertion that Obama is bankrupting the nation, allowing terrorists and Mexican gangs in--and that he is doing that to give him the cover to take away all your guns. Yes, if you exclude that part, then he is suggesting a more reasoned "take care of yourself, because government cannot always do that."

I understand, btw, that my fear of gun owners doesn't come with rights. I wish that gun owners would be a little more respectful of that, but I understand that it isn't covered by an amendment.

But my bigger point all along has been not to suggest that more legislation will fix that (though I am a supporter of some limits and certainly of at least having all sales include background checks), but trying to urge through public discourse that we not talk about guns in the paranoid fashion of LaPierre or Nugent, nor urge irresponsible people to buy guns. We should not be in the business of, and please don't ask me to respect the practice of, flogging fear and paranoia to build NRA membership and sell guns.

steves said...

I readily admit that I am biased on this issue and have no doubt it influences how I perceive things.

I agree that the public isn't in the business of encouraging gun sales, but I don't see a problem with the NRA doing so. I don't get the impression that the MSM likes the NRA, so it isn't like they get all sorts of free publicity or favorable coverage (except on Fox).

Streak said...

They have every right to promote gun safety and rights. To suggest that they are responsible citizens by promoting fear and paranoia amazes me. Just because what they peddle is legal doesn't make me hold them in any less disgust.

As I have said, I understand your concerns about even the AWB. Your defense of this kind of fear mongering amazes and puzzles me.

steves said...

Let me try this, then. While I don't want dangerous, irresponsible, or insane people to buy guns, I would like other people to do so and I am glad a lot of new people are getting into shooting and buying AR style rifles.

Why, you ask? These same people will look at any prospective ban and say, "wait a minute, I just bought this gun/magazine/accessory and now __________ wants to ban it...@#%# that!" They then pick up the phone and call their Rep. and tell them what they think.

IIRC, Harry Reid has already said he is not interested in an AWB. I am hoping that support among most of the other Democrats is just as low.

Streak said...

I am find with you opposing the AWB. I disagree with you, and find absolutely no pity for people who fear losing their military style weapons. I have very little concern for people who want to go play army.

But we can agree to disagree on that. What I don't respect is defending LaPierre's paranoid borderline racist rants. I don't respect his fear mongering, and I fear that you are fine with it.