Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) chief executive, arrived for his hearing on Capitol Hill in the organization’s trademark fashion: violently.
When he and his colleagues stepped off the elevator in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday morning and found TV cameras waiting in the hallway, LaPierre’s bodyguards swung into action. One of them, in blatant violation of congressional rules, bumped and body-checked journalists out of the way so they couldn’t film LaPierre or question him as he walked.
“You don’t have jurisdiction here!” a cameraman protested as an NRA goon pushed him against a wall. After the melee, congressional officials informed the NRA officials that, in the halls of Congress, they had to follow congressional procedures — which prohibit manhandling.
This must have come as a surprise to the gun lobbyists, whose swagger seems to suggest that they are, in fact, in control of Congress. In their world, nothing trumps the Second Amendment — not even the First Amendment.
From beginning to end, LaPierre’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was a study in vainglory. The written testimony he submitted to Congress came with a biography describing him as a “Renaissance man,” a “skilled hunter,” and an “acclaimed speaker and political force of nature” as he preserved freedom. “There has been no better leader of this great cause than Wayne LaPierre!” the bio boasted.
After his decades with the group, LaPierre is the public face of the NRA, and the man gun-control advocates most love to hate. His unsmiling manner, his snarling statements and even his memorable name are from villainy central casting. “Mr. LaPierre, it’s good to see you again,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said from the dais, recalling bygone fights with her nemesis. “We tangled — what was it? — 18 years ago. You look pretty good, actually.”
Usually, LaPierre comes out the victor in these tangles, and on Wednesday he was so confident of another win that he boldly declared that the NRA would oppose the most innocuous of proposals to reduce gun violence: criminal background checks.
Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) reminded LaPierre that the NRA once supported checks with “no loopholes anywhere, for anyone.” So does the NRA favor closing the “gun-show loophole” that allows people to avoid background checks?
“We do not,” LaPierre replied.
His reasoning, as always, is that existing gun laws aren’t being enforced — but he seems to have pulled the evidence out of his gun barrel. “Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases supposedly denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution,” LaPierre declared in his opening statement.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) looked up the actual statistic. “In 2012 more than 11,700 defendants were charged with federal gun crimes,” Whitehouse said, “a lot more than 62.”
LaPierre had been caught. “So those — the 62, senator, statistic, was for Chicago alone,” he clarified, a salient fact omitted from his original testimony.
His logic failed him as badly as his facts. “My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks,” he argued, unwilling to admit that deterring criminals from buying guns is a good thing, even if some eventually get theirs on the black market.
Surely LaPierre understands that, but much of his performance was about concealing inconvenient realities. When former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords made a brief and emotional plea for gun control at the hearing, LaPierre was hidden away a few rows back, in the last seat of the row. This minimized the chance that he’d be in the camera shot with the popular Giffords, who lost much of her ability to speak and walk when a gunman with a history of psychiatric disorders shot her in the head.
The NRA chief made all the well-known arguments against gun laws; he reminded senators that the founders didn’t want Americans to “live under tyranny,” and he agreed with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) that the proposed ban on assault weapons merely targets “cosmetic features” of guns. LaPierre also added the novel idea that people may need guns if they are “abandoned by their government if a tornado hits, if a hurricane hits.”
Most people don’t have such apocalyptic paranoia. But LaPierre’s job is to stir up the active minority who are frightened and resentful. “If you’re in the elite, you get bodyguards,” he told the senators. “You get high-cap mags with semiautomatics protecting this whole Capitol. The titans of industry get the bodyguards.” He said it’s only “the hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying American that we’re going to make the least capable of defending themselves.”
Minutes after that denunciation of the well-protected elites, LaPierre rejoined his bodyguards, who were waiting in a back room.
Comments (40)
Add commentAnybody that watched LaPierre spin his deadly yarns/lies
Most likely walked away with the feeling he would indeed misrepresent any facts that dont suit the purposes of the
gun lobby .
Im surprised he didnt suggest arming school bus drivers as another line of defense for school kids.
Where does the NRA get off thinking they know absolutely anything about law enforcement ?
Why does anyone even care what the NRA thinks ?
.
School bus driver killed; child taken hostage
Five days and a five year old is still being held hostage in the bunker of a deranged paranoid senior citizen. He has killed neighbors' pets, shot at their cars and families and threatened children for walking near his property. And still in the eyes of law enforcement in the south, his behavior has never warranted the removal of his guns!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/02/us/alabama-child-hostage/index.html
Tell me this?
How many more laws do you need? What will it take to convince you?
There is one law that covers all others that the liberal alarmist media conveniently forgets: It is against the law to murder people already. Why do you need more laws when you can't enforce that one now?
Murder is murder is murder.
lappierre 05/27/1999 and 01/30/2013
(The flip) lappierre 05/27/1999 "We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
(The flop) lappierre 01/30/2013 "“My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks
500 lb. Gorilla
Why isn't the Lefter Media
reporting on the armed guard at an Atlanta school stopping an attacker on Thursday?
This armed guard? Oops, guess not.
He left his loaded gun in the school bathroom!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/armed-school-security-gua_n_250...
Yes, I found the story, FNB
And I hope the child shot in the head lives.
Because NRA buffoonery attracts more attention, FNB
You have to understand how the NRA works and thinks. They are about seeking opportunities to increase members, make more money--first and foremost. True protection of gun rights is a distant second for them, and there's good evidence to suggest that's not even a goal at all.
If you have ever been a member, you know that the harrassing e-mails and mailings suggested every tiny issue is proof that big brudda gubmint is coming to knock your door down--or the apocalypse is coming--never stop.
If you have paid attention to gun issues carefully you would know that they refused to help and actually fought against bringing one of the most important gun cases to court--the case that cemented the 2nd as protecting an INDIVIDUAL right to protection.
They are doing more harm than good in the cause here, as I think there is sound footing to resist many of the new gun law change proposals. That sound footing gets even more slippery when legislators and most of the public see the NRA bufoons and those who insist government is coming to get us so we need to be armed as the typical american gun owner.
The sad thing is this will probably lead to more gun restrictions that will impact solid citizens a LOT more than the deranged or criminals--and the NRA will eat that up, as it insures many more years of member requests and funds coming in. That's their goal--not protecting the 2nd!
Rino,
it's because you Lefters never want to publish anything that disagrees with your regime's plans.
Tell Keith about it, FNB.
He'll write about it.
Thats ok
you commie leftists all vote with your thumbs.
Down.
Why isn't the Lefter Media....
"Why isn't the Lefter Media reporting on the armed guard at an Atlanta school stopping an attacker on Thursday?"
You mean THIS Lefter Media???
Shame on them for not reporting this story!!!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-s...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57567018-504083/atlanta-school-sh...
http://www.startribune.com/nation/189428361.html
http://www.twincities.com/ci_22496925/metal-detectors-at-ga-school-where...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/georgia-student-wounded-in-middle-s...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-atlanta-middle-sch...
All the nutjobs are out today
All the nutjobs are out today
All the nutjobs.....
"All the nutjobs are out today"
Do you perhaps mean the nutjobs that claim that the "Lefter Media" has not reported the "armed guard at an Atlanta school stopping an attacker" story, when they quite obviously have reported it?!?!?!
Is THAT the nutjobs you're referring to?
Not this paper
or MSNBC, Lefter Nutjob.
Also, page 9 in the second section doesn't count.
Only the first....
Only the first eight pages count?
That's a new one even from right wing-nutjobs!
ROFLMAO!!!
On another note,
only three of scary's six links even mention the armed guard! And for you southie, at least it was only one kid shot because the guard did his job, even though he was off duty.
As I said, Lefter Media cover-up!
We seem to have a disconnect.
One side wants to know all the facts, while the other wants to skew the facts to support their agenda. One side wants open and honest discussion about events and policy, while the other wants to quash it and dictate policy.
An armed guard stops a shooting?
Really?
Then I guess the kid that went to the hospital was NOT wounded, since the armed guard stopped the shooting, eh?
We don't know enough details to make an honest judgement call, so maybe the way to approach this would be to add a caveat like "I think", or "it looks like". "It looks like" an off-duty officer, at the school, may have prevented the shooter from firing any more shots at the single victim. We don't know if the shooter was intent on only a single victim, or many, or if he was practiced enough to hit his intended targets or was just spraying bullets.
I'm glad there was someone with some training available to stop it. But that really isn't what this thread is about, is it?
LaPierre has operated as if the NRA is the most potent political force there is. Their power is waning, and like a dying, caged animal, they are lashing out. Its too bad; if they had tried to stay current with public perception, tried to subtly manipulate it with finesse and grace instead of trying to overpower it with blunt force, perhaps they would have been successful.
But the once-most-potent-force for 2nd amendment rights may ultimately destroy the very thing they seek to keep. Perhaps they are not at all who they seem to be saying they are: perhaps they are an arm of our enemies, destroying the things we hold dear.
Sad, really.
Scary
they know who they are
EYOLF
I don't know if this is the way you intended or not, but your first paragraph could be thought by both sides of the spectrum
Dana Milbank
Could this be another biased article by Dana Milbank?
Dana is a bit on the wild left wing side.
Another writer that the liberals forget about when they whine about Keith
I didn't watch the hearings as I think they are mostly for the cameras. I wonder if they talked about all the murders in Chicago and how only a few have been prosecuted.
So they put a cartoon of Obama as a monkey
and all the libs cr(deleted word) in their jeans, but put the word NRA on same monkey and same people are happy as a college co-ed on dope! Speaking of dope, did any one see the picture of Obama shooting a gun at Camp David? Nothing like an idividual talking out of both sides of his mouth as once!
Did any one see the picture....
".....did any one see the picture of Obama shooting a gun at Camp David?"
Nope, the "Lefter Media" hasn't published any photos of President Obama shooting a gun at Camp David!!!
Well, maybe a few, but 3.5 millimeters smaller than they should have been!!! Right? Wing-nutz? Anyone???
http://www.startribune.com/local/189500791.html (Front Page!!!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-shooting-gun-photo-released-20130202,0,3991925.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/obamas-skeet-shooting-comments-draw-fire.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57567294-10391739/wh-releases-photo-of-obama-skeet-shooting/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/02/obama-skeet-shooting-photo/1885841/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/02/1184164/-White-House-releases-picture-of-Obama-shooting-a-gun-Let-the-conspiracy-theories-begin
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/50677706/#50677706
pdnet,
that was a fake photo they made to support another Obama lie. look at where the stock is on his shoulder and how many skeet shooters use that long of barrel?
I say LIE!
Let's trot a few of his "friends" that shoot all the time with him into Congress and have them testify under oath and prove they did. This one ranks with Clinton "never having sex with that woman"!
Rubbyk
Yes, you're right. And that was the point.
But Sadie jumps with both feet into the trap when she points out that Milbank is widely known as a liberal writer, and compares to Hansen here at the BDD. Milbank, like many more well-known writers, takes the facts and portrays them in a negative light, encouraging debate. Even some feel Milbank has protrayed their POV unfairly, she's stll talking about a POV...not persons. If the debate gets nasty, some may learn from it.
Hansen makes stuff up, lying as he goes along, and because he's visible, characterizes the thinking and discernment skills of all of us.
Let's trot.....
"Let's trot a few of his "friends" that shoot all the time with him into Congress and have them testify under oath and prove they did."
Or we could demand that congress spend it's time and resources fixing our economy, unemployment, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
I can hardly wait
for the impeachment.
How many skeet shooters.....
"...how many skeet shooters use that long of barrel?"
I guess the barrel was 3.5 millimeters longer than it should have been!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
eyolf?
Are you on some potent drugs? I ask because you used to at least attempt to be level headed and logical, now you have gone completely off the deep end and are as divisive and bitter as any liberal commie leftist could ever be.