“Instead of knee-jerk vitriol against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners they represent, wouldn’t it be something if the President, or folks at the Brady Campaign, called up Wayne LaPierre and said, ‘You know a lot about gun laws and gun owners. What can we work on together?'” – S.E. Cupp, Guns aren’t the problem – it’s the way we talk about them [at nydailynews.com]

79 Responses to Quote of the Day: Rainbows and Butterflies Edition

  1. Maybe she should pull her head out of her (sweet) ass. The Obama administration did contact the NRA and did sit down with them, and the NRA being the NRA snubbed them. Biden sat down with an NRA official on January 10, 2013, part of the 23 Executive (bullshit) actions.

    • The NRA did not snub them, they were very clear about this. The NRA showed up to the meeting and were lectured to about what Uncle Joe was gonna do…they had no input of any kinda, cause Joe didn’t want any. So they left the room.

    • The administration had no desire to listen to the NRA-s input. What they wanted (AWB, mag limits etc.) were a forgone conclusion. They just wanted the NRA to go along.

      The Dems were licking their chops when they heard about Sandy Hook. They could not care less about kids, or safety, or even crime. They just want ti make sure the civilians never, and I mean NEVER, have the ability to overthrow them. They want slaves who are scared of them and will beg not to be the recipients of no knock SWAT warrants. They want power and for people to fear them and their power. They are demigods in their own minds.

      That is why the NRA got no where in the talks with them.

      • Something tells me that any gun grabber reading your comment, about half way through, put their hands over their ears and started shouting, “I can’t hear you la la la la la la la la!”

        • @FortWorthColtGuy

          Gun grabbers certainly read TTAG. Perhaps not many of the low information rank and file, but you can bet the paid gun grabbers do.

        • “Do Gun grabbers even read TTAG?”
          You bet your sweet momma they do! It took MDA just minutes to pick up on Dirk’s comments and give him his moment of fame.

    • Yeah Mitch, demeaning, derogatory and insulting characterization of those you disagree with; typical; it’s like someone else said; gun grabbers don’t want compromise, they want capitulation.

    • S.E. is generally a strong and eloquent conservative voice, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt and actually read the article this quote was pulled from. It is well- thought out and decidedly pro-gun and pro-gun owners, focusing mostly on the deplorable state of mental health care in our country and that possibly this was where “gun-control” groups, and the regime, should be addressing their efforts.

      Unfortunately she has missed the simple point, as have so many people as far as Obama and all the other Progressives are concerned, that what they SAY they want to accomplish is not the actual goal they are working towards. As I am sure will be noted in a large percentage of the comments following this one, the ONLY reason they have any interest in controlling guns is to control the people who tend to own guns. Not save even one child’s life, not stop mass shootings, not ANY of the things they claim for PR purposes to gain constituency.

      Her quote begins with the “Wouldn’t it be nice if…” and is addressed at the assumption that both sides actually are working towards the same goal. It is an unfortunate intellectual error that I hope she will correct, and if she comes to this site and reads a bit she will probably understand this.

      As S.E. is generally speaking on our side and is vociferously opposed to the Obama regime I think we would do well to chastise her on this point without blowing her out of the water. She is not one of the bad guys.

    • Honestly, by simply observing the Obama Whitehouse you have to know that the only reason they would like to sit down is to find a chink in your armor and plunge in the knife. They have an agenda and are after all Chicago style politicians. You may not agree with the NRA but don’t ever think they just stepped off the boat.

  2. Shes wrong she is assuming that the aforementioned anti gunners want to stop crime all they care about is control it hurts the antis when crime goes down

  3. This COULD be done, heck, probably already HAS been done, mainly because the common ground between the NRA and the Brady-type groups will fit on the head of a pin. It could be done at a lunch meeting, while waiting for the server to arrive with the menus.

    The anti-gunners have poisoned the well of cooperation by constantly demonizing honest gun owners, always pushing for more restrictions even when the previous ones didn’t work, and referring to each new law as a “one more step forward”, while NEVER giving back an inch. It’s not a compromise if only one side gets something, over and over again.

  4. What could they work on together… I believe the bible foretold such a thing. Wasn’t it to mark the end of times/apocalypse thing? All jokes aside, I don’t think that hipster socialists have the capacity to work with others for the greater good. Besides the current fuehrer-in-chief’s current administration lacks the ability to effectively conduct diplomacy in any form. Its their their way or they won’t make a decision and place blame on everyone else. Just my $0.02’s worth.

  5. Probably because the NRA (and other gun rights groups and their members) are the problem, as far as civilian disarmament goes. They’d have a much easier time dismantling that needless old 2A if the NRA weren’t around. Which is why I’m an NRA member, even as I wish they’d be more bullish on eliminating existing infringments, not just curbing new ones.

    • Absolutely!!

      That’s a key distinction and an area where the NRA has been weaker than I’d like to see.

      Part of the problem may be that they are careful in how they allocate finite resources, that court challenges and political challenges take time and are expensive, and that there are so many legal challenges to be made because of the myriad of piecemeal anti 2A laws to be addressed.

    • I think they published it because they’re starting to realize “mental health” is the angle they’re going to need to go at for gun control.

      Once they get the ball rolling, they can move on the 40% of americans who have struggled with, or now struggle with depression, or have taken some form of anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication.

      • This exactly. Change the “conversation” to mental health and find the work around through vaguely written laws that still will have no effect on the criminal misuse of firearms.

      • Yep, you got it. They can also point to this piece if anyone claims they are biased and say “look, we publish pro-gun stuff too!” The author may be serious, I don’t know. Ultimately doesn’t matter.

  6. **blink**

    ….I tend to get riled up when I see the headline “Quote of the Day” in preparation for more anti-constitution rhetoric…it’s a bit of an adrenaline dump when the article in question is actually reasonable…

  7. “we must stop demonizing law-abiding gun owners with rhetoric that unfairly insinuates that we don’t care about gun crime.

    Gun owners are people too: we are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, church-goers and teachers. Publishing our names and addresses in newspapers like we are pariahs does nothing to assure us that gun control advocates want to have a meaningful dialogue about solving gun crime. We are not the people you are mad at.”

    Fellow gun owner, nice. Much better than the bridge troll and its droppings from yesterday.

    • I think it’s Spanish. Se as in yes. Pronounced “see” as in C cup.

      At least they look like C cups.

  8. A couple of years ago Caitlin Kelly wrote “Blown Away: American Women and Guns”. I had a conversation with her prior to reading the book. It was all “lets talk” and “we can find common ground”. Then I read the book. Basically it was a leftist diatribe against the evil gun culture, peppered with a few DGU by women. After having listened to Cupp for years now she is no conservative. She is a self promoter who rightfully belongs on MSNBC. I would never take her advice on “solving” the gun “problem”.

  9. I always wonder how any conversation can be started with the anti-rights types when right out of the gate they start with the “offer” of a “compromise” wherein they are oh-so generously offering to allow me to keep -some- of the Rights that I ALREADY have and offer me the “benefits” of additional restrictions (for which the administration and enforcement costs will be coming out of my pocket).

    Then again, most of those conversations end once I point out that “compromise” and “capitulate” do not have the same meaning.

  10. Obama showed his true colors ; they pushed for an AWB that included confiscation, that was a slap in the face to gun owners everywhere. They didn’t sit down with the NRA first and say lets come up with a bill, they let Di-Fi throw out her loony California style bill and proceeded to draw the battle lines.

    If the Obama Administration, right after Sandy Hook, had offered the people of the gun the ability to buy a firearm in any state through an FFL, National reciprocity for CCW, an end to places like NY arresting travels with firearms etc, he would have for sure gotten his universal background checks, no doubt he could have gotten some mental health stuff, maybe even a magazine ban. Instead he slapped gun owners in the face and told us to stop being such bitter clingers.

    Obama is no diplomat, he is a tyrant. He only knows how to do things the Chicago way and thankfully that doesn’t work very well in Washington.

    Also; if I remember right Di-Fi floated her little AW confiscation bill BEFORE Biden sat down with the NRA so it was obvious what they were going for.

    • Exactly, which is why nobody is falling for the “conversation” rhetoric that they’re trying to throw around now. They have an awful poker face and we’ve seen their cards…

    • Agreed. They didn’t sit down with the NRA until after they have met with all the civilian disarmament usual suspects. Biden’s group had drawn up all their plans already.

  11. Damn, she’s fine as frog hair. Anyway, I have said numerous times on my FB profile “Now is the time for serious debate about guns? Great let’s go but you’ve got to be able to tell the difference between a 1911 and a Glock as well as an AK and an AR.” Oh yes, arguments may not include “guns are scary.”

    • I’m happy to oblige the “now’s the time to have a healthy debate about gun issues” folks. “Ok, I’ll start. The time has come to repeal a bunch of existing gun control laws that make no sense at all and that only serve to divert resources from addressing the real problems….”

  12. It’s a reasonable enough thought, and a decent article. The problem is the opposition isn’t even close to reasonable. How in the hell could you ever sit down and try an discuss something with groups that would tear out your insides the second you put your guard down enough to talk?

  13. When I can walk into a gun store and purchase a fully-auto, belt-fed, short barreled, suppressed machine gun with under mounted 40mm mike mike (with HE rounds) then and only then will I entertain the thought of talks on “working together”

  14. Arapahoe County Colorado listened to the NRA, and, it worked. On the flip side, Barak, Bloomy, Thugs with Jugs, Biden, Feinstein, etc. have refused to listen to the NRA and have rather compared we NRA people to terrorist. They have an agenda, and the NRA does not fit there.

  15. What she’s really saying: “Let’s get into a room together where I can put you under my stilleto-heeled boot, where you belong.”

      • well you are all getting it for free from the feminists over at moms demand action right now. and have been for some time. and probably will be into the future, with an attitude like that (sorry.)

  16. There are many potential topics for discussion, here are a few:
    National concealed carry reciprocity
    Removing restrictions on semi auto weapons and magazine capacity
    Removing suppressors from class 3 restrictions

  17. It seems to me that every proposed gun regulation is just another click of the ratchet that will eventually lead to confiscation.

    Rights, once lost, must be taken back by force. By resisting any and all limits on our rights, we are preventing the need for calamity. We are saving the lives of our would-be oppressors. They should be more grateful.

  18. I like her sentiment, but I’m not sure what the NRA and the anti-gun crusaders can actually work on. We have far too many gun laws as is, and the anti-gun crusaders obviously aren’t interested in rolling back gun laws.

  19. Her final idea of starting on mental health because we agree on it is not possible since I don’t believe we agree on it.

    The problem is much bigger than she understands. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. When your are a professional legislator the solution to every problem looks like a new law. Laws and our political “leaders” are not the solution. What we need is moral leadership and perhaps an attitude shift. We have become so fixated on the political process that we are unwilling to consider other solutions or provide real leadership.

    Honestly, I don’t know the solution but I don’t believe our government as it stands is it.

    She also makes the assumption that we have a serious problem that needs addressed. In terms of a gun violence problem I don’t think I can even agree with that. We can’t even agree on what the problem is, so our chances of finding an effective solution are pretty low.

    • “What we need is moral leadership and perhaps an attitude shift. We have become so fixated on the political process that we are unwilling to consider other solutions or provide real leadership.”

      Precisely correct.

      What many of the “Gun Guys” here do not realize is that they have the one most important thing that is needed to get the party started: Balls. Which if you have not noticed are in very short supply these days.

  20. I think she’s entirely right.
    Of course, I don’t think “they” want to work with “us” but that’s a whole other debate.

  21. “We” talk.
    Libitards yell and tell us what we should do.
    The 2 can never meet in the middle, they wont let us.

Leave a Reply

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