Conservative New York Daily News call NRA's Wayne Lapier "The Craziest Man on Earth"

The ever conservative New York Daily News with the 5th largest readership in the US called the NRA's Wayne Lapier "The Craziest Man on Earth"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/new-york-post-_n_2352203.html

The similarly conservative NY Post simply called him a gun nut.

Blaming everyone in the world, Wayne Lapier and the NRA a mouthpiece for the gun industry simply wants gun slingers all over the nation.

Here is a little tidbit for Wayne Lapier and all those that support his proposal. There are 100,000 public schools in the nation, not counting schools of higher learning. Putting 1 guard at each school would cost tax payers probably around $4 billion. Of course that doesn't do anything for the schools of higher education, where there would be needs for many many more such guards.

I'd suggest the NRA and all its supporters start raising that money.

Yo....all you teapartiers over here. Which ones of you are putting up some money?

Meantime citizens of Newtown are horrified by his comments. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/residents-fire-back-article-1.1225363


Once again it shows that the NRA is more interested in seeing guns sold than Americans living. Still one more conservative special interest puts its best foot forward showing its complete disregard for human beings.

 

Who cares? Guns aren't going away, and the last assault weapons ban was a failure. Even liberals are starting to acknowledge it, though it didn't stop Feinstein from asking for another go at it.

 

Liberals really do live in a fantasy / la la land.

Obama is going to snap his fingers and the 300 million guns in the US are going to disappear. He is the messiah!!!!

 

O.K., Earl, what is Obama's solution? How is he leading us out of this?

Let me put it another way - what are the chances of any Democratic senator or congressperson from the midwest getting re-elected if they vote AGAINST what Lapier proposed?

What is the re-election records of midwest Democrats who support gun control?

Isn't it odd, that Wayne Lapier's position on gun control is exactly the same as President Bill Clinton's in 1994? Do you think Clinton could be called "The Craziest Man on Earth" for FIRST proposing this?

 

Corwin:

radical extremist tea partyers will push virtually anything to support the one sided extremist perspective of the NRA. In 1993 Clinton pushed through all encompassing anti crime legislation. It included more cops, an assault weapon ban and monies for social efforts to try and fight crime. Actually subsequent to that crime rates diminished. In that regard it worked.

In other regards it was thwarted. The anti assault weapon language had enormous holes in it. It grandfathered certain weapons and enabled the gun manufacturers to make and sell virtually identical weapons to those banned. That was done with technical small changes. The newly manufactured weapons were just as deadly as those banned.

Cops were in support of the assault weapons banned. Cops were outgunned by crooks. Regardless it wasn't perfect legislation. But none is. It was an effort at compromise.

Clinton, following the 1993 anti crime legislation, kept pushing it. He pushed for more cops on the street over the years up through 2000, 7 years after the initial anti crime legislation, and 6 years after the NRA aggressively attacked the gun legislation, even as it had loopholes that made it relatively null in effectively banning weapons that kill.

All of which suggests legislation that is the result of compromise could often have holes subject to the negotiations to resolve a major issue. Regardless it was a strong effort to curb violence. It did result in statistical reductions on crime since that time.

The NRA, on the other hand, simply attacks all the other elements of crime and supports every single expansion of gun availability in every facet of society. It is both astoundingly easy to buy a gun and incredibly easy to buy a gun and ammo for any kind of automatic or semi automatic weapon. It is the result of the right wing NRA positioning the effort to curb violence as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Gun restrictions don't threaten the 2nd amendment. They try to curb violence. Its not a black or white issue as the NRA paints it. Few things are. Except in the eyes of radicals and extremists.

By blaming everything except guns the NRA maintains its extremist vision, is a block on maintaining safety for Americans, remains a shill for the gun industry and one more threat on any kind of reasonable compromise that America utilized for years subject to the nut cases that reflect radical extremes, like the current obstructionist tea party group.

If you support the NRA position I suggest you fork over $1-3,000 to pay for a cop in every public school in the nation. Continue to fork that money over every year. After all we don't believe the NRA should be responsible for forcing taxpayers to pay for a program that doesn't work all the time (think Columbine with an armed cop at the school)

All those willing to support the NRA proposal should put their money where their mouth is and start forking over $1-3000 year. Corwin would you like to be the courageous first? I see o-nation and gr have been willing to attack those that disagree with the NRA, but to date they are too cheap to put their money where their mouth is.

 

1-3k a year? Those numbers have the odor of being freshly withdrawn from your ass. In a school with 300 students, 1k a year would put the cost of an armed guard at 300k a year, even more if you consider the taxpayers with no kids in schools, since school taxes are taken out of property taxes. Sorry, can't afford propping up a union workers idea of a "middle classed life".

Here is a better idea. Get rid of public schools as we know them today and go with charter schools, vouchers, or better still, let the states tax and provide for their own public schools. That way I don't have to pay for all the gun toteing dimwits who populate the schools of DC and Chicago. With all the money we save terminating the teacher's unions, we could put a navy seal in every class.

 

ah o-nation. political extremist via mouth and the internet. cheapskate unwilling to back up his propaganda with actions. LOL

 

Radical extremist liberals will push virtually anything to support the one sided extremist perspective of the NRA.

Earl, I told you the first time, it was in 1994:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/the-1994-clinton-crime-bill's-firearm-p.aspx
It was called "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". 1994, Earl. You will notice that this is the EXACT same bill that the NRA supports now. Would you rather the NRA oppose this so you can act self-righteous to us?

To correct you again, the "more cops" provision was bullshit. As I recall President Clinton provisioned for 2 million more cops. Problem is you couldn't find an additional 2 million qualified people that want to become police officers! Being a police officer is not a job, it's a calling and qualified people aren't usually turned away. While President Clinton did a good thing and hired 50,000 more cops, the money Clinton set aside for all 2 million disappeared! POOF!

Now, as I previously mentioned to you, Democrats from midwest states that vote in favor of more gun control tend to lose their seats. So while on Sept. 13, 1994 President Clinton passed that bill, in the election just two months later many Democrats that voted for that bill LOST their seats, and the Republicans took both houses.

Every Republican incumbent won re-election. Thirty-four incumbent Democrats were defeated.

Now, Earl, are you expecting Democrats to risk losing their seats by passing a similar measure? Or do you expect them to run screaming from this issue and find a way to blame their cowardice on the Republicans?

 

If the extremist right wing truly believed Americans will vote Republicans over gun laws then they should be pushing hard for Obama to change them. If the end result is what they're saying it will be that is. Of course they may just be speaking out of their arses.

 

Bushie: Currently the Republicans are a right wing extremist party with extremist "interest groups" representing narrow interests playing the "mafia like" enforcer role to drive out moderates. Its an incredible sham played on the entire public.

For instance on the tax side the Club for Growth (CfG) threatens republicans that might vote for some kind of compromise legislation on taxes wherein only the wealthiest take a hit on taxes to try and get to a more balanced budget.

But the major funders of the CfG are extraordinarily wealthy people. They simply want to supplement their huge incomes with ever lower taxes. Currently they are moving the US to the fiscal cliff.

Top funders for the CfG this year come from this list: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00487470&cycle=2012

A tiny tiny number of hugely wealthy people are funding a political movement whose purpose is to preserve their enormous wealth. There are many who buy into this philosophy...but the philosophy is essentially one to promote the wealth of already extraordinarily wealthy people and damn all other consequences.

The CfG is totally focused on just Republicans. It strives to promote ever more conservative republicans who represent the interests of the uber wealthy.

On the gun side the NRA plays the "enforcer role" Much of its financings come from the $11 billion gun manufacturers. It promotes their interests and damn every other consequence. It will attack any politician who doesn't support its proposals. Right now its proposals want complete protection of every rule that has essentially made assault weapons easy to access and enables any nut case or vicious killer to freely purchase an arsenal of deadly weapons. Any politician who doesn't support these elements will be under attack using the "false claims" of 2nd Amendment Rights.

Rules to regulate guns are not infringements on the 2nd Amendment. They are simply an effort to save people's lives. They are regulations like we have on drivers licenses or purchasing medications. Unfortunately the Mafia like enforcer groups of the GOP take extraordinarily extremist positions supported by philosophies that might sound good to some but are either supporting killings or murders or an economic environment that moves ever more money into the pockets of the extremely rich at the cost to 99% of the population and the financial strength of the US.

 

Earl: Currently the Democrats are a left wing extremist party with extremist "interest groups" representing narrow interests playing the "Chicago like" enforcer role to drive out moderates. Its an incredible sham played on the entire public.

 

Columbine had armed guards. Evidently armed guards do fuck all to prevent school shootings.

Another epic fail by the morons who brought us "Mission Accomplished".

 

At Columbine, the armed guard fired, but missed. He then immediately called for backup. Had he hit the intruders we'd be telling a different story.

 

Which tells us just how good having armed guards at schools is. "Armed guards" are provided by security services - which pay little more than minimum wage to their employees, and you don't get a trained armed guard for $10/hour. You get a bonded clerk with a gun - who's less effective than a couple of high school kids - who hit what they aimed at.

Maybe arming the students would have been more effective. (A lot more dangerous, but more effective.)

 

That idea has merit, though perhaps better stated, maybe we should be arming the students who are not already armed.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Look it up - the armed guards at Columbine - who were they? Off-duty WHAT? And exactly how much were they paid per hour? (hint: a lot more than $10 per hour). Post what you find here.

And do you expect people to hit the target 100% of the time? Do you? From SIXTY FEET???

Stop making up shit.