My favorite thing about this video is Biden’s speech claiming that “not one” thing in the proposed legislation would infringe on people’s second amendment rights. “This is not about anybody’s constitutional right to own a weapon” he says. Classic BS from the White House. It was a softball pitch to LaPierre, who swings and misses completely. Instead of immediately refuting the statement, talking about how the legislation would indeed infringe on U.S. citizens’ rights by banning common firearms, LaPierre goes into a speech about how the AR-15 is underpowered compared to “hunting rifles” and how the AWB didn’t work. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and David Gregory calls him on it. At which point LaPierre picks up the scent and gets back on track. It’s like herding cats with this guy, not even Ted Cruz can get him to connect on an obvious and simple set-up. He gets to the point eventually, and finishes strong, but I still think there might be a need to look into swapping him out.

Recommended For You

68 Responses to Wayne LaPierre Whiffs on Meet The Press

  1. Oh, my .308 Howa with a Nikon scope can reach out and touch someone at just shy half a mile away rather easily? Better ban hunting rifles too. That’s the progression they will take.

    • Yup. First it was Automatic, now they want Semiautomatic rifle with magazines. After that it will be ALL semiautomatic rifles AND pistols, followed by bolt action hunting (sniper) rifles, ending with ALL remaining firearms of any sort.
      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  2. He made have had a stroke a few years back? He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t think. He just, apparently, tries to remember one of his lines. Or so it seems to me.

    • Having just listened to the entire interview with David Gregory, rather than snippets, I think La Pierre actually did reasonably well. Gregory seemed upset with the moderation, doubt, expressed by Bloomberg. I hope the NRA has a deep bench ready, but the interview was by no means a disaster.

    • I think the NRA intentionally puts up a mediocre fight. They are financially dependent on political threats to the 2nd Amendment. If they are too effective, then Wayne’s $900,000 salary is in jeopardy. It’s a conflict of interest.

      And BTW, 40% of all donations go straight to fund raising.

  3. I don’t understand why he’s still the default NRA spokesman. He’s had a good, long run, but I think it’s time he’s replaced by someone who can follow the topic of a conversation.

    • I agree with Nick and Lucu and other posters below. Mr LaPierre is missing the obvious responses that would both present a more intelligent and diplomatic face for the NRA and get information out there. On the other hand, that might be more boring and less likely to attract the left-loons in the MSM, who look to score points and attract viewership to their rapidly sinking ships. So the NRA may need its attack-dog to stick around for that alone, if only to give Old Crazy Joe some company on TV.

      I think every organization needs to update its tool-box once in a while. So heres my one member vote for the NRA to consider finding one (or two) newer fresher faces that can be more nimble, and appeal to younger libertarian type voters. Look how well Cruz did vs Feinstein, or Rand Paul vs Harry Reid, simply by comparison.

      Remember that WLP is not the NRA. The NRA is much more than one person- its hundreds of people doing the detail work state by state affecting the legislation in committee, by getting the local voters involved. That is huge and critical. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Having said that, we Armed Intelligentisa need more than one tool in our toolbox too- I’m looking at my SAF certificate and belt-buckle that arrived in the mail last week, thinking I wish they had spent all my $150 for the lifetime membership on Alan Gura for more of same success on the legal front, but hey- no organization is perfect, and they have to raise money too.

  4. Go on the offensive. Ask why these anti-gunners want to take away the ‘womans’ rifle, a low recoil semiautomatic tool that can most effectively keep women from being raped. Go on to show the video of girls failing to shoot a shotgun while explaining that assault rifles are only used in the military because they are fully automatic, then again ask why the grabbers want to ban a semiautomatic, low recoil, medium powered ‘womans’ rifle.
    You could try to talk about the second amendment needing the semiautomatic/magazine interface as a minimum for the sitizenry to engage in asymetrical/guerrilla warefare against future tyranny, but I dont think Wayne could handle it.

    • This administration needs to be mocked, and MOCKED hard

      I like the womens rifle lingo. It would be so easy for the NRA to whip this video content into a 60 second ad that would make Biden look like the total dumbass that he is.

      I’d wager that Biden and the whole gun-grabber storyline could be devastated by a simple ad like this. The average non-gun owner doesn’t have the F’ing faintest idea of how stupid Biden is on this and a simple video like this would open a lot of eyes and put a BIG SEED OF DOUBT in most minds about the veracity of Biden/BHO.

      Mockery 1 =>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-WcafGjbM

      Mockery 2 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXIW1GKAvMM

  5. The NRA occasionally stops repeating their mindless lies about what rights are given to them by the 2nd Amendment, but this website never does.

    Gun laws do not infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights, and guns are not explicitly protected by the Constitution. It is a sad sign of the times that even Biden has been so cowed by the NRA that he is willing to repeat these same talking points, even when the NRA falls off the wagon and actually tries to stick to the facts.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    That is pretty clear.

    • “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Sounds pretty solid to me.

      And going by the latest rulings in the Supreme Court, which held that “commonly owned firearms” cannot be banned under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, I’d say that the banning of AR-15s (the most common rifle in America) would qualify.

      Also, rights are not “given” by the bill of rights. They are protected. The rights listed in the first 10 amendments are natural, fundamental rights that the founders thought were so obvious that they didn’t even need to list them. But then decided to anyway, to keep them from being infringed by power hungry statists.

      • “District of Columbia v. Heller” was exact;y the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do. In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language — “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” — which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically authorized by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense, not individual defense.

        But even though the 5-4 ruling makes an detour around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (that includes government, by the way) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

        On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by right-wing activist Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”

        It is “… not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

        “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

        “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

        The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “… to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

        The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of a military weapon. Governments can ban it, even under the language of DC v Heller.

        • @Dave, i am not sure how you justify some semi-auto rifles being banned while others of the same caliber with a fixed stock and no pistol grip are not banned. Take the venerable 110 year old M1-Garand. Not banned, very clearly protected under Heller and Miller.

          Instead of a 7-round clip, I give it a detachable magazine. For a small framed individual I add a collapsible stock.
          Now I add a pistol grip (this part is optional).
          Now, to prevent overpentration, I reduce the power of the round to a .223 instead of 30-06.

          Where exactly did I cross your line?

          WIth 5 minutes, a shooter can wreak just as much havoc with an M1 Garand as with an AR-15.

          I hope you hang around and actually learn about firearms.

        • DWB, For me, it was when you added a clip that carried more than ten rounds. I understand what you are saying, though. I agree that an AWB is not likely to work, for the same two reasons that you point out.

          First, there are issues with the definition, and second, there is the obvious fact that people don’t need assault weapons to commit terrible crimes.

          So do we overturn all laws that are not effective? Do we eliminate every regulation that depends on minor distinctions?

          The speed limit downtown is 45, yet everyone drives 50. Should we change the law? Should we prevent police from enforcing the 45? Or should we take the trouble to enforce existing laws fairly and evenly?

          The law against murder hardly prevents all murders. Should we eliminate that law as well?

        • Quote: “The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of a military weapon. Governments can ban it, even under the language of DC v Heller.”

          Sorry Dave, but no. Being a “version of a military weapon” does not fit the “dangerous and unusual” test. Quite the opposite actually. The AR-15 is IN COMMON USE. In fact it is the most common rifle in America by a wide margin. That would make it EXEMPT under the Heller decision. There’s nothing particularly dangerous or unusual about an AR-15.

          Your grasp of the law and of the circumstances seems tenuous, at best.

    • Ah, we have a dirty, filthy, commie libtard rat (dave) on the forum. Your words are those of a traitor and/or fool. Go to your god (Big Gov) and stop trying to make your fellow citizen take a fake shower, only to huff Zyklon-B.

        • Bob, there is a difference between reading books and worship of government. If you don’t understand the difference, I don’t have time to explain it to you.

          Pat, I flush smarter writing than yours. Just because you can fill up a sentence with insults does not make you a better person. Actually, it just makes you look like a low-life, hate-filled, right-wing jackboot.

          Maybe i am wrong about you. Maybe you are some great guy who I would like if I met you at church. But I doubt it.

          People who use words like “libtard” are usually just rejects.

    • umm, well, Dave, SCOTUS is also in on the big TTAG lie about the 2nd amendment so you better talk to them. They seem to think it confers the right to self defense, with a gun, in the home, and protects guns in common use. I would call Kagan and tell her 2A does not protect her hunting gun. good luck let me know how that goes.

      • DWB: I quoted from the DC v Heller decision above. LaPierre did not quote the same sections, but he must have read them.

        • “in common use”

          the AR-15 has been on the civilian market since 1963. Also, see my note above. Once you admit at least one semi-auto rifle with a fixed stock is not banned, any other differences are cosmetic.

          also, you may be interested in the fact that the same 4th circuit court that upheld the concealed carry law in maryland also noted and applied a different standard to self defense in the home for law-abiding citizens (strict scrutiny). And thats a LIBERAL court. Strict scrutiny means 99% unconstitutional. If the NRA and SAF are digging in their heels, its because they clearly have the courts on their side.

        • Dave, you clearly are not able to understand 6th grade English. A remedial course is needed.

          “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,”

          This is the subjective clause and cannot stand on its own.

          “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

          This is the substantive clause and can stand on its own. This has been stated quite clearly by countless professors of the English language. All of your twists and contortions cannot change the meaning of this Amendment.

          A sample of an equivalent sentence:

          A well educated electorate, be necessary to the the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

          Your argument is an epic FAIL. It would appear you also like to distort history to fit your agenda. I dismiss your arguments as fallacious and convoluted.

        • Bill,

          The Second Amendment is one of the few that includes the reason for the law. The reason does not have to stand on its own. The reason was put there to describe the appropriate purpose and interpretation of the Amendment. If the Amendment were meant to include all purposes, then the reason could have been, and would have been, omitted.

          I always hear people on this board quote the law, but frequently they leave out the purpose. It would be like saying: “You may own a horse”, and leaving out the sentence that says: “since you need it to get to work”.

          The part about owning the horse would be construed an an absolute right. But the rest of the sentences clarify the purpose. Once cars were invented, the absolute right to own a horse might not apply any more.

          The constitution also mentions slavery. It was not considered to be an absolute right, and it was later overturned.

    • “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Tell us how it DOESN’T infringe. All these weapons that are on the Ban list are Arms in the strictest sense of the term. The SCOTUS has determined the right to bear arms is an individual right as well. How is restricting what we can and cannot have in arms not infringing upon our rights (if we so choose to own them or not)?

      • Will, The Founding Fathers used to muster everyone in town who owned guns. Anyone who refused to fight in the revolution got their gun confiscated. Even people who fought got their gun registered.

        The SCOTUS was aware of this infringement, and ruled that it was patriotic, but would have been unconstitutional (once the Constitution was written, of course.)

        The SCOTUS ruled that gun owners have individual rights to their guns, but not unlimited rights to own any gun they want. Society still has a right to regulate, just not a right to deny.

        • can you provide evidence that anybody under the jurisdiction of the Founding Fathers confiscated weapons during the Revolutionary War? As far as I am aware, it was the British who were confiscating weapons, which lead to more “revolution”.

          SCOTUS didn’t even come into existence until 1789, correct? and handed down its first decision in 1791.

          The truths of the 2A are self evident. We the people don’t need any servant of the Federal government to define for us the esoteric meaning of the words and/or their “interpretation”. While your last paragraph makes sense, there are no express powers granted the Federal government under the Constitution to ban anything.

        • Medio: Read, for example, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America”, by Adam Winkler. It wasn’t just slaves that were prevented from owning guns by the founding fathers, it was Loyalists, too.

          I should also admit that much of my interpretation of DC vs Heller comes from the same book.

    • Dave, you are not going to get very far here if you start off with broad-brush mis-truths, and then follow up with personal insults, when people engage you on the facts, especially when you loudly proclaim how much smarter you are than the rest.

      • Righton: I am not the one who used the word “libtard”. I rarely sign on this board just to call someone intellectually deficient. But in Pat’s case, I will make an exception.

  6. Nick,
    I don’t disagree. I like Wayne and think he’s done a decent job in a difficult situation.I can’t help but think that replacing him would be exceedingly difficult but perhaps would pay long term dividends. However, I’m concerned that the antis would see his departure as a success for their strategy of driving a wedge into the membership.

    That being said, I honestly don’t know who we could find-obviously from inside the Beltway-who would have the juice and the contacts to replace him.

  7. Perhaps an even bigger question than how articulate he is, is whether the post-Newtown strategy he devised is the right one. I was worried that pushing back too hard on the background checks might backfire, but so far the strategy seems to be working – there is a fair chance (never a guarantee) that the AWB and the magazine restrictions may not make it, and whatever background checks might pass would not be as bad as Schumer’s bill.

    • This Dave sounds nothing like the one immediately prior to Nick, two separate guys who share a name? The first one sees the NRA as mindless, yet this one seems to not mirror those feelings.

  8. I missed the show. Did David Gregory wave any high powered automatic assault clips in front of the camera? Or just a bloody shirt.

  9. The problem LaPierre has is that he can’t make even the slightest inflammatory comment.

    Especially against Obama or Biden.

    Why ? Because our media is trademarked property of the Progressive agenda. A comment pointing out Bidens hypocrisy would be a declaration of war against the media;and we’ve got enough problems where that topics concerned. 24/7 media propaganda against firearms ain’t what we need right now, not with outstanding anti gun bills sitting on the Senate and House docket.

  10. LaPierre has to go. The NRA should have a representative of today’s shooters – not the shooters of the 1980’s.

  11. The NRA doesn’t support gun ownership. It supports its own lobbying efforts. It exists to empty the coffers of its members so that it can toady up to legislators to make it seem powerful. Being effective and actually restoring any gun rights robbed from us in 1934 and 1968 is not even part of their agenda.

    • The proliferation of “shall issue” carry over the last 30 years is a major expansion of gun rights. I would imagine the NRA had a role to play in that movement.

  12. He can’t even hit pitches from “Slow Joe” thrown down the center of the plate.

    Please, God, just give him a silver parachute, a nice retirement party, and send him on his way home.

  13. Lapierre is getting older, he should look at retiring.

    But do keep in mind, if there’s one man who deserves credit for preserving gun rights it’s Wayne, prior the Wayne’s tenure as Ex VP the NRA supported virtually every federal gun control law that got passed. The NRA was more concerned about hunting and traditional outdoor sports and populated with Fudds, Wayne transformed the NRA into a world class lobbying machine to protect the second amendment.

    in the 1980s the NRA wouldn’t sponsor tactical handgun training for police officers or private citizens, they would only teach safety and traditional marksmanship, when Wayne took the helm NRA instructors began to forumlate training classes dedicated to tactics and winning gun fights.

    So while he’s been less then stellar recently, he doesn’t deserve our scorn on the count of all the work he’s done to preserve the second amendment and provide the best services possible to LEOs and LACs

    • +1

      I don’t think Wayne should go. I think he should keep on with the lobbying, schmoozing, and arm-twisting (or, “reminding various elected officials of the views of their constituents”), and let some new blood take over the role of ‘public face of the NRA’.

      I don’t really give a damn about how much Wayne gets paid. Yeah, it’s a lot more than I make. But at ~4 million NRA members, his salary would be about 25¢ per head. Considering that AWB2 is dead, “universal background checks”, i.e., a federal firearms registry is on life support, and the discussion of magazine capacity limits has suddenly gone quiet, I think we’re getting our money’s worth.

  14. Hell, I’ll do the job. And I’ll do it for a fifth of what he’s pulling in.

    Yeah you heard me. I’ll take the job at 20 PERCENT what they’re paying him. And no side perks or bennies either. Just a regular old fashioned paycheck–or better yet, cash.

    I’ll have their effing heads spinning.

  15. Nick is right, Wayne comes across as evading the issue and then trying to change the subject. And all to raise talking points that aren’t particularly compelling.

  16. Only one problem for the Wayne haterz club:

    He wins. With all his rhetorical faults he wins. Politicians still fear him. His results speak for themselves.

  17. In the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook I thought getting rid of Wayne was a bad idea. But now that we’ve weathered the initial barrage I’m more open to the idea of a more charismatic figure to lead the counter attack.

  18. I thought Wayne did a pretty good job. Most people would be quite mad (Batshit, really) if forced to talk to so many screwball libtard traitors over the years.

  19. Agree 100% – he has to go. There are better spokespersons inside the organization, and several very good ones outside who are NRA members.

  20. Can someone…anyone…please fire this bozo? Every time we make one step forward, Wayne carries us two steps back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *