Previous Post
Next Post

Yesterday, I took the NRA to task for their Wimpy Skippy Special: a petulant but not pithy letter responding to President Obama’s Sunday editorial calling for a new spirit of “commonsense” consensus on gun control. Uh, gun safety. Law enforcement. Something. Anyway, our Ralph also felt that the NRA’s response was a tad too laid back. “What the NRA should have said is that POTUS is a mealy-mouth, two-faced, obfuscating, phoney-baloney empty suit with delusions of adequacy.” To which I added, “Even less deferentially, they could have reduced it to three words. The first being ‘go’ and the last being ‘yourself.'” Just hours later . . .

Said POTUS invited the NRA to the White House for a sit down to discuss the future of gun grabbing—I mean “sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.” At that point, Wayne LaPierre let the Prez have it with both barrels. So to speak.

“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” Wayne told the New York Times. ““It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people.”

Ah-ha! says New York Times scribe Jackie Calmes, consensus!

Despite his opposition to joining the administration’s table, by his comments in an interview Mr. LaPierre sounded at times like the White House.

For example, a White House adviser on Monday said Mr. Obama wanted to redefine the gun debate to “focus on the people, not the guns.” The president, in his column, cited the same policy areas Mr. LaPierre mentioned as fertile ground for consensus. And Mr. Obama emphasized, “First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books” — a line long used by the gun lobby.

Don’t you just hate it when so-called journalists sound like they’re angling for a job with powerful pols? Can you say “apologia”?

Mr. Obama is trying on many issues, including deficit reduction, to stake out a middle ground that appeals to independent voters. Aides said polls showed that the gun issue was not a big one for independents, but that they did abhor political fights and favored politicians who compromise. The president played to that sentiment in his op-ed article — and anticipated the rifle association’s rebuff.

“Some will say nothing short of the most sweeping antigun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby,” he wrote. “Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns.”

“But,” he added, “I have more faith in the American people than that.”

Yeah, we’re the cynical bastards. As always, I’ll let Ralph have the final word.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ‘Despite his opposition to joining the administration’s table, by his comments in an interview Mr. LaPierre sounded at times like the White House.

    For example, a White House adviser on Monday said Mr. Obama wanted to redefine the gun debate to “focus on the people, not the guns.”’

    When LaPierre says “dangerous people” Jackie Calmes and the Bamster picture us. That’s where the real breakdown in communication is.

  2. Robert, Really what happened to you. Were you a rabid fanatic before but just tried to cover it up? I’m planning to go back in your archives to find examples, but I swear you used to be somewhat reasonable.

    I figure it’s either, 1. carrying the CCW permit in your wallet and a gun at all times has driven you crazy, or 2. you’ve been hanging around with Ralph, The Rabbi and Joe, whatsisname, that Italian guy, too much.

    • Joe, whatsisname, that Italian guy

      Reminds of an A. Whitney Brown “Big Picture” on SNL in the 80’s. He said his grandmother couldn’t believe that Catholics were considered white in New York. But thanks for chiming in with the casual racism.

        • So, as an Italian living in Italy, you have no more standing to critique what Americans do in America, than I have to critique Italians in Italy.

          Further more, let’s get back to that Italian priest (in Italy) who was issued a concealed carry permit to defend himself against some local hoodlums. And oh yeah, he had to use it.

        • I should have said I’m Italian American, like I presume Joe is. And I have all the standing I need to criticize whatever I want. Don’t you think?

    • I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. –Barry Goldwater

    • As a supporter of stricter controls on weapons in the hands of private citizens what are you willing to concede in order to gain universal backround checks on firearms transfers?

      For most of those who believe that weapons in the hands of private citizens are a danger to society the answer is “nothing”. That doesn’t leave any room for compromise and creates a situation where it is a better strategy to take an equally fanatical opposite position. A “compromise” mindset against that sort of opponent just leads to a ratchet effect.

      So we end up with the model that we have now. Each side trys to force through whatever legislation that they can anytime they feel that the political will and support is behind them regardless of the other side’s objections or how reasonable the legislation actually is.

      What’s the point in being a “reasonable” member of the debate in that environment?

      • Sorry, I don’t think this should be a bargaining session. It’s not a business deal with that kind of give and take. What we’re engaged in is a matter of right and wrong, even more it’s a matter of life and death. So, no I offer nothing.

        Still that doesn’t make me the extremist that you guys seem to be in many of your exaggerated statements and positions. In fact, in spite of my not wanting to trade rules and regulations like so many baseball cards, my position is fairly reasonable and middle of the road. In my ideal world, most of you guys would have the same guns you do now. They’d be registered to you and you’d have to take full responsibility for them, you wouldn’t be able to give them away to brother-in-law Billy Bob, but you’d be in pretty much the same shape you’re in right now.

        • I have a problem with “…registered to you…”. Who’s keeping the list, and what will it be used for? I can only think of one reason, and it’s not acceptable.

          “Gun-safety advocates” want to create a new form of McCarthyism and it’s simply wrong.

        • Restrictions on what capabilities (weapons) are available to which members of a society is absolutly a matter of both right and wrong as well as life and death. We happen to disagree on where those lines should be drawn. And since you offer nothing what incentive is there for me to offer anything?

          I’m not calling you an extremist by any stretch but you are a fanatic. Belief without compromise. Without that compromise progress only happens (for either side) when one side can run roughshod over the opposition so that’s the tactic taken.

        • So not being willing to negotiate doesn’t make you an “extremist”?

          You keep using that word, but I don’t think you know what it means.

        • Although I’ll give MikeB this – he’s right about this being a fight between right and wrong. The only problem is that he’s got his solution set all screwed up. Being opposed to individual rights (that’re so obvious that even our lamebrained President can acknowledge them) is wrong, no matter how “reasonable” you make that opposition seem. Proposing totalitarianistic controls over those same rights is likewise wrong, no matter how much make-up you slather on it.

          I’ll leave it to you good schlubs to figure out what’s “right” in this circumstance…

        • Ryan that remark is total bullshit. My comments are perfectly relevant to the material, unlike your own which were a stupid unthinking stab at me because you don’t like what I’m saying.

        • “My comments are perfectly relevant to the material,”

          Oh really?

          “Robert, Really what happened to you. Were you a rabid fanatic before but just tried to cover it up?”

          That’s not relevant. That just looks like a stupid unthinking stab at Robert to me.

        • “…a stupid unthinking stab at me because you don’t like what I’m saying.”

          How convenient… that perfectly describes your personal attack against Robert…

    • So Mike,

      Please enumerate the Amendments you believe we should rabidly defend.

      The 1st? Should we silence those whack-jobs from Westboro Baptist? I don’t like the things they say, and besides, if there is one thing that makes people start grand wars and kill, it’s religion.

      The 3rd? We could save a bunch of real money to to support useful social programs like education by merely billeting troops at the homes of those close to military bases. It won’t be your house everyday, there will be a rotation. Sound good?

      The 4th? Well, you have your wish on that one Komrade. The police state can now stop and search you on the flimsiest of excuses. Frightened and poorly educated people have willingly traded the kabuki theatre of the safety machine, for their liberty. Of course, even if all the passengers boarded nekkid after a cavity search, there’s 50 ways to get ‘whatever’ onto a plane.

      The 5th? The “…private property for public use without just compensation.” part has been severely strained during the go-go days of building with fantasy money. That New Britain even went to court, let alone SCOTUS is simply wrong.

      The 6th? Well there’s a whole lotta meat there. Prosecutors and the gov in general have been incrementally diluting these rights as well, especially since many have become very accepting of a police state.

      I’d run through them all, but I don’t have time. I realize the dreadful inadequacy of basic education in many States, so please take a college history class or two. Maybe even a Constitutional Law class.

      There’s a reason that The Founders wrote the document the way they did. The BoR is there in reaction to things that the British gov was doing to control the citizens. The Founding Fathers wrote this document expressly to protect the people from the government.

      If you learn the history of the document and the language of the time, you will learn the phrase “well regulated militia” means that you and your neighbors shall not use your weapons to become local warlords. It is most certainly NOT about sanctioning creation of the current State National Guard system. More importantly “shall not be infringed” really means just that.

  3. Mr. Obama is trying on many issues, including deficit reduction, to stake out a middle ground that appeals to independent voters.

    The press has been trying to portray Obama as a centrist since the campaign. He is a product of one of the most liberal and corrupt (coincidence?) cities, in one of the most liberal and corrupt states (pattern?), in the US. They tried to do the same thing with Kerry in ’04. If they are centrists trying “to stake out a middle ground,” then so are Rand Paul and Saxby Chambliss.

  4. Good for Wayne. I wouldn’t talk to an administration that participated in gun smuggling just to inflate their numbers and push their agenda either.

    • Sorry, the NRA was defanged long ago. I lean more towards the other Gun Right Activist groups. Lapierre about bankrupted the NRA playing stocks and I prefer my activist group to have cojones and not just member numbers.

  5. I’d be more than willing to have a rational conversation with someone about what to do to stem violent crime. The problem is those who hold a myopic focus on guns as the issue, like the Brady Campaign, Joyce Foundation puppets etc. aren’t rational.

  6. In POTUS-world, compromise means give and take — we give and they take. Sorry, President Carter — oops, I mean Obama; I’m always getting those two mixed up — if the choices are a lean compromise or a fat lawsuit, we’ll see ya in court.

  7. Unfortunately you can’t sue for somebody being a liberal/socialist moron. Most of the judges and lawyers seem to feel insulted by that.. don’t ask me why. 😉

  8. Ralph sez: “What the NRA should have said is that POTUS is a mealy-mouth, two-faced, obfuscating, phoney-baloney empty suit with delusions of adequacy.”

    What would that accomplish? Besides making gun owners come across as ill-mannered dickheads, I mean.

      • I didn’t call anyone a dickhead. I asked: why make gun owners come across as dickheads? What’s the point of that?

        • Yes, we’re “dickheads” for wanting the Constitution followed.

          Can anyone tell me what “Magoo” adds to the discussions around here?

        • No, you will come across to the general public as dickheads if you address the president in a childish and petulant manner. You also demean the process and become a pain in the neck to everyone. Be disagreeable enough and even congressmen will stop taking your money, if you can imagine that.

  9. 90% of what is written here is extremist blather unrelated to reality. Tragic really, I come to this blog in hopes that there can be conversation rather than the usual near psychotic hatred of President Obama. Compared to the last one, he’s a gem.

  10. I think Chad has a lost grasp on reality. The current man filling the highest position in our country is the most liberal/socialist/left-wing POTUS we have ever had. He has not accomplished much of nothing except tee off a majority of the American public. I don’t think he has much of a grip on reality either.

  11. I love guns. I am a collector and an enthusiast as well as a believer in our 2nd Amend. rights So why I have torn up my NRA card and cancelled my membership?

    1.) The NRA drinks kool-aid of a different color than the liberals, yet it’s still kool-aid
    2.) As per #1, Mr LaPierre insists that straw purchases are not contributing to cartel arms inventories. As a resident of the Copper State, we are seeing numerous reports of significant straw purchases and arrests being made in several border cities. One shop alone sold nearly 300 weapons to ONE purchaser in a course of 2 months. These were not part of the ATFE sting operation. Mr LaPierre insists that the weapons buying process of the cartels must be massive operations employing 747’s jammed packed with AR’s, AK’s etc…. flying from U.S. destinations to Mexico. It’s a laughable theory.
    3.) As per #1, Mr Cox from the NRA insists that there exist no loopholes at local Gun Shows. As a Gun Show participant (there are usually 1-2 shows in AZ each month that I attend) I have witnessed numerous loophole purchases of firearms from one private seller to another private buyer – on the floor. No FFL, no ID check, no background check – and in some instances, no bill-of-sale was exchanged. This happens every weekend, 100’s if not 1000’s of times around the country. Mr Cox, like Mr LaPierre, needs to lay off the kool-aid and attend a Gun Show or two.
    4.) The NRA does a lot of good things, but when I see the very same extreme thinking that they blame the libs for, I say, enough. I will continue to support my fellow gun owners and our rights to bear arms. However, I will do this without allegiance to an organization that, IMHO, has fallen away from it’s core value – one that should be steeped in reality and not fantasy.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here