Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Who Does the NRA Really Represent?

Dear Madame L,

I watched part of the Chris Wallace's interviews on Sunday with Mark Kelly and Wayne LaPierre, but I couldn't stand to watch the whole thing. When Wayne LaPierre started talking about how Pres. Obama's children don't need more protection than most school kids in America, I freaked out. What's the story, anyway?


Don't Want the Government to Take My Guns

Dear Fellow Gun-Owner,

Madame L understands your desire not to watch a proven liar tell even more, and even more scandalous, lies on a supposed news show on TV.  Madame L did not watch the show (she never watches Fox News even if it's the only place where some supposedly important news story is on air). However, she found the transcript online and read it, surprised that the Fox News personality Chris Wallace actually challenged Wayne LaPierre and brought a little sanity to the issue. (Here it is, for your reading pleasure.)

Madame L also understands your fears about changes to existing gun laws, because she sees how these fears are being fanned into flames by people like Wayne LaPierre based on outright lies, subtle plays on concerns about big government, and big doses of ignorance. 

But what Madame L does not understand is why people are letting Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association, which long ago stopped representing American gun owners in exchange for representing weapons manufacturers, get away with these evil lies.

So Madame L was not just surprised but pleased to read these parts of the interview:


WALLACE: A couple of weeks ago, the NRA started running an ad that created a great deal of controversy. Here's a clip.
NARRATOR: Are the president's kids more important than yours? Why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?
WALLACE: Mr. LaPierre, do you regret putting up that ad?
LAPIERRE: The point of ad was this -- it wasn't picking on the president's kids. The president not --
WALLACE: It mentions them.
LAPIERRE: The president's kids are safe and we are thankful for it. The point of that ad --
WALLACE: They also face a threat that most children do not face.
LAPIERRE: Tell that to people in Newtown. Tell that to people --
WALLACE: Do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America? That's ridiculous and you know it, sir.

WALLACE: I understand there are lots of problems out there and this isn't going to solve all of them.
But you can't say, that -- first of all, the gangs don't commit the mass murders, Adam Lanza wasn't a member of a gang. James Holmes was not a member of the gang.
You talk -- one of the points of the ads that I want to ask you about, is you made it a class argument, the rich and elites.
WALLACE: They have bodyguards. They have security.
LAPIERRE: Sure. And Mayor Bloomberg has it. Mayor Bloomberg has bodyguards.
WALLACE: I'll tell you who else has security. You do.
LAPIERRE: Sometimes. Yes.
WALLACE: And, you have security. Today you have security.

Madame L knows this won't be the end of the issue, and Madame L does not claim to know what we should be doing to stop the violence in our country. But Madame L thinks that Wayne LaPierre is not the person anyone should be listening to.

In fact, a few moments' reflection and a look at what the proposed legislation actually intends shows that no one wants to take anyone's guns away. What sane legislators want to do is keep assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines out of the hands of criminals and insane people. Also, reasonable people recognize that when guns are in homes, they are most often used against the home-owners and especially against women.  

And apparently most other Americans agree with Madame L, including you, Dear Reader. Madame L hopes you and all of her Dear Readers will make your opinions known to your elected officials at the national and state and local levels. 


Madame L

1 comment:

AskTheGeologist said...

Does LaPierre have bodyguards?

I believe "security" in that transcript means that LaPierre HAS bodyguards.

The logical next question is why? To protect him from Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment rights??

Unwilling to exercise HIS own 2nd Amendment rights?

Like week-dead whale, this stinks all the way over to the next county.