NRA Veep Vs. David Gregory: Good Guys With Guns Are Go

Wow! It lives! In the aftermath of the U.S. Navy Yard spree killing, NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre wakes-up and fires on all cylinders in his head-to-head with the David “Hi Cap” Gregory. Finally. That said, I’m still not OK with the NRA being OK with background checks. The system is inherently flawed. Its existence is an expensive, ineffective infringement on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But punting the FBI’s NICS check isn’t politically possible. So, here we are.



  1. avatar Major says:

    This guy passed a background check. OBVIOUSLY we need more background checks through the same system!


    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      His security clearance check is completely different from a NICS check.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        He bought a shotgun and sawed it off. I guess he didn’t know he needed an ATF stamp for a SBS.

      2. avatar Runnerzdad says:

        Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of they are doing the .gov background checks wrong. The company that did the WNY shooter also did Snowden’s background check. When the company that is doing the background checks for the .gov is doing something wrong in their checks it makes you wonder.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Good point. Or, alternatively, it could have been deliberate, and not a “mistake”.

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Do you really believe that felons should be allowed to own guns RF?

    1. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

      What kind of felon? If a guy does a couple years for say mortgage fraud, should he not be allowed to own a firearm for self defense? If a violent felon gets out and wants a gun you better believe that a background check is not going to stop him from getting one.

      1. avatar Hal J. says:

        Laws against the ownership of firearms are rather pointless, aren’t they?

      2. avatar Vhyrus says:

        It won’t stop some people but to say the background check does nothing is a bit extreme. Black market guns are considerably more expensive than legal ones so it may at the very least slow some criminals down.

        And no, I don’t want the horse thief mortgage fraud guy to have a gun. Let him be a victim for a change.

        1. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

          I agree that background checks could stall someone from getting a gun as fast as possible but it wont stop someone that has nothing but bad intentions. I used mortgage fraud as an example of white collar crime that makes you felon. Point is that just because you are labeled a felon doesnt make you dangerous in reality and you shouldnt be denied your right to legal self defense.

        2. avatar JeffR says:

          Black market guns are not more expensive than legal ones. Ask any 15-year old on the streets of Chicago, and they’ll tell you that they can buy a gun for less than $100. And the reason why they’re cheaper is pretty simply. If a criminal steals a gun, whatever he sells it for is pure profit. If a criminal goes through a strawman purchase, he has to sell the gun for more than he paid for it to make a profit. Even criminals aren’t stupid.

        3. avatar DrVino says:

          Not sure that black market guns are more expensive.
          Here in CA, I was offered an Arsenal milled receiver AK. It’s on the CA list of banned guns and the guy was looking to get rid of it. He was not looking for top dollar. It would have been a bargain. Probably a devil’s bargain, so I did not take it.

        4. avatar Jason says:

          I agree that not all felonies are created equal and stripping someone of their rights “semi-permanently” for non-violent crimes is a stretch. They possibly can have those rights restored, but it is very expensive. It really affects the poor more than the rich. Gun laws really affect the poor more than the rich.

          On the topic of black market gun prices. My best friends little brother was killed with a Colt Commander that was purchased on the streets. The killer traded the equivalent of $150 in marijuana. The marijuana was traded for an Xbox which he stole from a neighbor. I think this may be pretty common place on the streets. I hope this offers a little perspective. This is not 4th hand information. This is information that was part of the murder trial.

        5. avatar Blue says:

          In some case they are, but not average guns.

      3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        I know a few felons I would take hunting or shooting with me any day of the week. Unfortunately, I can’t. In Oregon, you can have your record expunged for most felonies if you stay cleen for a prescribed amount of years. I just helped a friend of my son do that. Now I can take him shooting.
        IMHO, certain felons should never be allowed to own a gun. Ever.

    2. Anybody can be labeled a felon. A felony once meant violent crimes.

      In NYC it is a felony to poses more then $10,000 worth of bootleg music and videos. That is a JOKE of a law.

      A bad driving record is grounds for denying you your gun rights in NYC. Bloomberg will tell you that if you can’t drive the way he wants you to drive then you should be denied your Constitutional rights.

      Stalin labeled all his political enemies “criminals”. Hitler labeled them “insane”.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      Do YOU really believe that passing any number of gun laws or background check restrictions is going to keep a felon who wants a gun from getting a gun? Do you really think that just because a person was tried and convicted for committing a felony (we won’t even discuss all the felonies that are committed without being caught or those that are plea-bargained away) loses his natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (self defense) FOREVER? I guarantee the felon doesn’t.

      The correct answer to the problem of felons or mental health challenged persons is NOT allowing government bureaucrats to make up ever more restrictive and arbitrary list of citizens who are no longer allowed to exercise their RKBA (“…shall not be infringed.”) but to get the government entirely out of any such unauthorized activity.

      The “problem” is self-correcting. If citizens are allowed to exercise their RKBA as the founders intended, either concealed or open carry, how much damage can a mentally ill person with a gun do before he is stopped? If any significant percentage of the population can and does carry a weapon for self defense don’t you think this will significantly effect the plans and activities of persons with felonious intent? Under the current system (no clichés here, please) the felon is very likely to be the only person in the vicinity that DOES have a gun.

      If you will take a look throughout history draconian, tyrannical, authoritarian governments were NEVER able to prevent people from obtaining weapons entirely and when by absolute violent repression they were able to confiscate enough weapons to prevent insurrection they inevitably became murderous dictatorships.

      Civilian Disarmament DOES NOT WORK as a means to control criminals, has never worked as a means to preserve a free society, and will never work so long as men yearn to be free.

      1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

        Hey, man. That is good stuff. Bravo.

      2. avatar Blue says:

        I think is obvious that the Navy Yard Shooter wasn’t concerned about breaking any laws. He killed an officer to obtain a handgun. Bank robbers and armed bandits aren’t concerned about breaking the laws either. Robbery and murder are major violent crimes.

    4. avatar dale says:

      There are always exceptions.

      True story. A co-worker’s son (17) was seeing a girl (16). The girls father didn’t like him and really didn’t like their plans to get married. Along comes the boy’s 18’th birthday…whammo the girls father presses statutory charges. Boy has a bad lawyer and the whole thing goes south to the point of a felony conviction. Eventually girl turns 18, boy and girl get married and convince legal system that the “crime” was a bad prosecution and get charges dropped…but there really isn’t a functional system for restoring the rights of a convicted felon even if the ruling is reversed.

      This guy (now in his late 20’s and still happily married to his “victim” shouldn’t have his rights why?

    5. avatar Nick says:

      if a person is a felon then they are incarcerated, in my opinion if they are freed from jail then they should regain every single right back. if we as a society don’t believe they are ready to be a full member of society again then why would they be released from jail?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        To make room for another prisoner.

  3. avatar Mark says:

    Uh, black market guns can be be really cheep. It’s called the five finger discount or following a cop around waiting for him to leave his gun in the John.

    1. avatar Major says:

      No… that would never happen.

      Sorry, what?

      OK I’m being told that at least 3 instances of this have been featured on TTAG.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      And if you’re tired of waiting you can just wait for him to be inattentive and knock him down and take it, or burgle a house where there are guns, or take down a gun shop (it has happened). There is a huge black market supply of guns in every urban gun free zone and from the reports I’ve seen they are never all that expensive. Sometimes a guy is willing to sell a gun hot from some crime to someone who doesn’t care for $50. Unlike drugs, at least for now, guns are something people want, a tool, not an addiction, so the price can seldom be artificially inflated. If restrictions on gun ownership become sufficiently severe, THEN the prices will start to rise. This has been the historical result for any commodity the people want that the government decides to tax or restrict out of the market. That resulting increase of potential profit for trafficking in the restricted commodity is also what energizes the criminal element.

  4. avatar sota says:

    there needs to be an overhauling of what a “felon” is, or at least a segregation of a “white collar” felon (the aforementioned mortgage fraud person) and a “violent” felon. the latter certainly shouldn’t have firearms. but then there’s argument of “if they’re so bad they shouldn’t have firearms (or the right to vote, or other rights) upon release, why are they being released in the first place!”

    (god the commenting sucks when you can’t reply in the right place.)

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      That’s a beef of mine also.

  5. avatar Gun_Chris says:

    I’m disappointed LaPierre didn’t pick the low hanging fruit and trot out Gregory’s law breaking.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      I was waiting for that as well.

  6. avatar Angry AZ says:

    Do felons lose their first amendment rights…. on some level a right is a right and I am not so sure how I feel that it is something which the government should be able to take away.

    if the NRA want’s to be relevant I want to see a full court press on ending the ATF NFA and NCIS
    even a small infringement is still an infringement


  7. avatar Leadbelly says:

    Aside from the issues, I’m kind of impressed with the old Triceratops – his manner of speech, at least, was far more measured and persuasive than his usual style.

    The question of mental health in relation to gun rights is far from simple. Does anyone really want to see every person who ever needed an anti-depressant barred from gun ownership? How about someone prescribed Wellbutrin to help them stop smoking?

    We now live in a society where doctors default to a pharmaceutical solution for ANY complaint. It would be far too easy to write a law banning half the population from firearms ownership with one stroke of the pen.

    I sympathize with the anti-big-pharma activists in some areas, but, at the same time, I know quite a few people, including gun owners, who have been taking anti-depressants for decades with good results and no anti-social behavior changes whatsoever.

    I don’t have an easy answer to this one, and I don’t trust anyone who says they do.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The answer is easy: “…the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Short and sweet, the government has no authority to restrict this natural, civil and constitutionally protected right from ANY citizens, under any circumstance. They have no authority to create lists of things that people might do, or mental defects they might have, that will void their RKBA. THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

      The solution, however, is bound to be chaotic and sometimes even messy, because people have gotten out of the habit of defending themselves and defaulted to relying on an imperfect system of calling the cops when things go south. Should the government(s) be made to see reason on this issue and forced to rescind all their unconstitutional laws there WILL be chaos, for awhile.

      But tell me, in too many places in this country (Chicago, Detroit, etc.),, are they not approaching chaos even now? Otherwise why would we even be having this discussion?

  8. avatar Rambeast says:

    I guess some people forget the right to defend yourself is a natural right. Not to be denied, EVER. If a violent criminal hasn’t been rehabilitated, then they should not have been released. Denying someone this right because you don’t feel comfortable with it is the same argument used to disarm all of us. Get your priorities straight.

  9. avatar DrVino says:

    Is it me, or is Wayne coming out swinging a bit here?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Maybe he’s feeling the backlash of us POTG who are NRA members who have told him we want more for our money or the money stops.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Just to clarify, membership dues don’t go towards this sort of thing. That requires donations to the NRA-ILA to counter the Gun Ban Lobby.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Membership dues go to paying his salary and bennies.

      2. avatar Blue says:

        Are you sure some of his salary comes from the dues? At least part should come out of the ILA funds. But the point I was making is that a lot of people assume that just because they paid dues, they are funding the NRA-ILA which is not the case. .

  10. avatar Blue says:

    Gregory is a giant dumb-ass (Walter voice off). Sometimes the good guys get injured or killed. Look at the LEO that stopped the treasonous bastard Maj. N. Hassan. The MIT LEO was killed by the Boston brothers. Gregory needs sent out to do some street journalism.

  11. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    They did call the Navy about this guys mental health. The navy did nothing.

  12. avatar Blehtastic says:

    My only problem with him this morning was that he never mentioned how we need a system to get the crazies/terrorists off the crazy list when they prove themselves reformed.

    Led way too much into the “well if you want a gun you must be crazy argument.”

  13. avatar Anonymous says:

    David Gregory: When does it stop?

    It doesn’t stop. It has never stopped. It will never stop. The only means for it to stop is everyone to be homogeneously, robotically the same type of people with no differences, who are harshly and strictly regulated, who do what they are told, question nothing, and smile incessantly. (Your typical Brave New World/1984 story). I would rather live in a place where there are 30,000 gun deaths each year out of 300,000,000 people, including the possibility of my own and my family’s, than to live in the kind of place above mentioned.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      The 30,000 gun deaths is a skewed number that includes 18,000 suicides. There were 8,855 homicides by firearms in the U.S. in 2012 and of those ~ 600 were justifiable by LEO and citizens as per the FBI UCR. Furthermore, there are as many more suicides by other means as there are by guns. Removing guns would mostly just shift the method. There were 12,775 homicides including knives, fists, clubs etc. but those 4,000 homicides and other 18,000 suicides by other methods doesn’t seem to bother Gregory and his ilk.

  14. avatar Accur81 says:

    I think LaPierre did a terrible job. There are a number of people, as well as a number of questions that could have knocked this little discussion out of his park. For example, just how “Gun Free” does a “Gun Free Zone” inside a “Gun Free City” need to be before the *criminal* becomes so impressed that he obeys the law? Why can’t our military and civilian support personnel be trusted with firearms? This administration doesn’t trust people with security clearance to carry firearms? Why are we leaving our own military bases defenseless? Is there a more ideal place for a terrorist or mass shooter to attack than a Gun Free Zone? Did the law stop you, Mr. Gregory, from illegally carrying a 30 round magazine into the television studio during our last discussion?

    Colion, Ice-T, Ralph, RF, Matt in FL, the Rabbi, Rand Paul, etc. could have knocked this out of the park. Heck, I could have done a lot better than LaPierre, and I don’t look like a zombie in a suit.

    If I was LaPierre’s boss, I’d flat out fire him for speaking engagements like this. A $650 K / year salary ought to buy a whole lot better speaker.

    1. avatar Jimmy says:

      ^^This indeed! +1

      Overwhelming failure by Wayne “Death Becomes Her” LaPierre. The argument should have been over before it started but he is guilty of the Obama response. For Obama, blame the gun. For LaPierre, blame mental illness. It is a slippery slope. To whom is the honor bestowed of determining “Mental Illness”. It will not be you or I and; if the Terrorist Watch List is any indication, an allergic reaction to morphine will end up as an overdose on the books. Rights removed immediately so you don’t harm yourself or others.
      There should have been an uncomprising response about the thumbscrew put to these “victims” in gun free zones. Period. End of story.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        +100,000. I’ve been saying for almost as long as LaPierre ascended to NRA chief that he’s a lousy fifth-columnist bent on selling American gun owners down the river. After I realized that, I never gave the NRA another cent.

        1. avatar Blue says:

          And Dubya flew planes into the towers . . . and Joe Foss and Marion Hammer were Soviet “Moles.”

          ***sarcasm warning***

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, because there’s never been such a thing as an “operative” or a “mole”.

        3. avatar Blue says:

          Joe Foss would have been the best “Mole” in the history of the world. LMAO. Barry is more likely a mole.

    2. avatar Andy says:

      Couldn’t agree more!! I was shouting at the TV as he glossed over the “it’s happening more often” generalization. He didn’t make the peeps of the gun look any worse, but he did nothing to put us in a more normalized light. I hate to say it, but he seemed like any other politician on that show.

      I will not join the NRA with him at the helm or as hype man or whatever.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        Bloomer, Feinstaink, Shotgun Joe, Barry, Shoomer, Commie-O, Moon Bean, Rhambutt, Quinn et al. are glad to hear it.

  15. avatar Morseus says:

    I’m active duty AF. Let me carry on base. Rescind that stupid Clinton-era policy.

  16. avatar Mediocrates says:

    It’s the proverbial if we don’t fix what’s wrong, they are going to fix it for us.

  17. avatar Azrael says:

    Here’s an idea lets make the NICS system accessible to all who purchase and sell guns not just the FFL’s. I am sure lots of gun owners and sellers would jump at the chance to use this system to check their buyer out. Voluntarily!! Which means that its not required.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email