General Question

flo's avatar

What is the consequence of the speech by Wayne Lapierre of NRA on Friday?

Asked by flo (12904points) December 23rd, 2012

What is with the not talking questions from journalists, and not addressing the problem of criminals with assault rifles and the semi automatic weapons in the speech?
Did you or did you not think that the NRA was going to agree with the gun control side in that nobody needs assault rifles and the semi automatic weapons?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

Sunny2's avatar

It will be interesting to see, won’t it. I don’t think I can make an educated guess because I’m already anti-guns and would be biased.

flo's avatar

One more thing: He said the only solution is “a good guy with a gun” after he pointed at the movies video games music videos etc. as part of the problem.
@Sunny2 your biased against NRA,s biased. So it would be even.

SadieMartinPaul's avatar

The gun lobby’s position can be distilled to one principle—that more guns, including assault weapons, will be the answer to all problems. Such a lack of logic and sanity doesn’t hold up to scrutiny; hence, no questions allowed.

RocketGuy's avatar

Our guns must be bigger than their guns, and we must be able to fire off more rounds too.

filmfann's avatar

It was fun to watch him suffer through protesters with huge banners blocking most of him from the cameras.

ETpro's avatar

The NRA is a trade association, a lobbying group for a specific industry. Who in their right mind thought that their chief spokesman would walk out and advocate for any policy that might limit profits for any of his constituents, the gun, ammunition and gun accessory manufactures and retailers? If he thought he had a chance of selling the concept that every adult in America should own a Rocket Propelled Grenade Launcher and as many rockets as they could carry, he’d claim nothing short of that would make us safe. If he thought he could convince Americans that we can’t possibly be safe till we all have nuclear weapons, he would claim that was logical. Having all Americans armed with nukes is, after all, the reductio ad absurdum of the NRA’s current position on gun ownership.

By the way, there was an armed guard at Columbine when Dylan Kliebold and Eric Harris succeeded in killing 13 and injuring 24 more in that school shooting. The best that could come of posting armed guards in every school in America is the transfer of mass shootings involving children to playgrounds, sporting events or amusement parks, game arcades and other places where kids gather. The worst is shootings by guards who go nuts, and shooters “neutralizing” guards as their first action after entering a school.

zenvelo's avatar

The NRA essentially opted out of what will be a conversation by making such a ridiculous statement. Now they can’t be taken seriously.

Response moderated (Spam)
bossob's avatar

His speech showed that the management of the NRA is totally owned by the weapon manufacturers, and that they do not represent the interests of the members.

An armed guard in every school would cost well over $6 Billion annually; he forgot to say how he would pay for it. Let’s expand his reasoning: we’ve had mass murders in churches, too. Therefore, as a parishioner, I should not only volunteer for usher duty, but also take a turn as an armed guard at the door during services. Seriously?

Take bribery and blackmail (via money) out of our political processes, and a lot of our national problems would be solved.

Strauss's avatar

While watching “The Ed Show”:“”(left-wing bias alert!) yesterday evening I noticed a description of LaPierre on a tweet in the “crawl” along the bottom of the screen…

(LaPierre) is…“as subtle as flatulence in an airlock”

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther