Indians For Guns

Hello IFGNs,
Here is the latest in washington d.c.


"''The only thing that stops a bad guy with a GUN is a good guy with a GUN";;;;;;;;; NRA executive vice president Wayne La pierre in his first public remarks before press in WASHINGTON D.C..after Connecticut school shooting, and blamed blood soaked movies and voilent video games like "kinder garden killers"....and suggested schools to be armed with security personnels...

Aloha,

Here is the transcript of the speech

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

The Anti 2A crowd and the media didn't

so it must have been great.

With volunteers, there will be no cost to tax-payers or take away from the school's budget.
In most of rural America and suburban America, there won't be a problem with getting volunteers.
It will be difficult in the inner cities though.

The NRA said it will train all volunteers for free .

This is the only concrete workable plan that I have heard from anyone. There will be no need to pass useless laws that will do nothing.
Of course, the media will totally ignore this plan and advocate for the same old "tougher gun laws" that have proven worthless in controlling crime.

i watched this on CNN in the airport. My own opinion is that CNN has a political bias based on one thing and one thing alone: money. They trip over themselves, trying to present both sides of a story so much that I have seen them put up absolutely ridiculous positions, just so they can say they have presented both sides.

But when it comes to pounding anything having to do with gun rights, they have been slamming us every opportunity they can.

So I saw LaPierre speak, and I thought he started OK. Then some protester with a large red banner saying something about NRA killers spread that banner across the screen. He clearly knew where to stand, as I never saw him until they hauled him away.

The camera man helpfully zoomed his camera back so the entire banner and nothing else was visible on the TV screen. Thats how everything sat as this guy ranted on. After a bit, two security guys came and hauled the protester off, and the camera dutifully followed him out of the room, into the hall, and out. Finally, when the protester had his complete say, the picture switched back to LaPierre (who I thought we were supposed to be hearing all along) and the minute he started to speak, they cut him off and went to something else.

Regarding the idea of volunteers protecting the schools, I am not in favor of that at all. That, in my view, is the government's duty and I would not change my mind on the matter. However, I think it is a crime that, even for what little time LaPierre was given on the air, they spent half of his time on some crackpot, rather than at least giving one side its fair say on this matter.

What a bunch of rubbish!

I am glad that LaPierre was able to say a few words, because for the most part, he sounded reasonable.

My wish though, is that the NRA would select a spokesman for these kinds of national exposures that didn't sound like a gun person. I would rather have some reasonable, articulate person who even antigun people would have to admit is smart and persuasive (and no, not that dope head Ted Nugent, either!) I think that this would put a better foot forward on the public stage.

I quite agree with most of what you say, Tim.
However, I do have a problem with the Government being in every aspect of our lives. I would much rather see volunteers (like parents of kids who actually go to the schools concerned) like retired LEO's, Firefighters, EMT's and even local people in good standing take care of this. Especially since the NRA says they will provide training free of cost. For one thing it will be cheaper and free of bureaucracy. If the Government tries to handle this, they will set up another alphabet soup agency with all its attendant waste. Economically, we really can't afford any more Government.

As to the bias exhibited by the press (it wasn't just CNN, it was a lot of networks), I guess we didn't expect anything else. They weren't interested in LaPierre's message, they were there for the show.

LaPierre's been at the NRA for a long time and there are too many anti's who aren't going to pay attention to a word he says. As you said, I would also very much like the NRA to get a coherent, articulate and charismatic figure to be their spokesman. Oh! How we miss Charlton Heston at times like this.

XL, my view of the volunteer/government thing is a bit different. I see people having to pay for the protection as a way to force people to take responsibility. The whole basis of public education is that everyone, from the parents and kids, the businessman who wants an employee who can read, add and subtract, the unmarried or childless who go to the nursing home and want someone to know what a 3ml syringe is, etc, profits from having an educated population. The volunteerism is nice, but somebody has to manage the people who are going to be armed guards. We don't need to open the doors of our schools to a bunch of armed Jerry Sandusky types. We will need a national database of licensed and trained personnel, and the database needs to work better than the one the Immigration Service uses. What LaPierre proposes is good, and I like his logic: we're willing to furnish protection for politicians and many others. Why leave the kids as sitting ducks in a "Gun Free" zone?

Regarding Charlton Heston, as an actor, he made a lot of movies I really like, such as The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, The Mother Lode, The Big Country, Soylent Green, and so forth. I also appreciated his lifetime of work for RKBA. But I felt that his "Cold Dead HAnds" speech was unfortunate. For the believers like you and I, it was a good way to motivate and energize the troops. But as a public relations move, it was a disaster, and made our movement into a caracature in the eyes of many. When he blew up in his famous faux pas on Letterman (I saw it) after Columbine, and when he was skewered by Michael Moore in the Bowling for Columbine movie, he may have appealed to gun people, but he looked to the American public like a replay of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey Trial.

The sad part of this is that the NRA treated Heston like Elijah Muhammad treated Muhammad Ali -- he was left in the ring too long, after his skills dissipated. Heston had Altzheimer's and having had some close and unfortunate exposure to that awful disease that threatens so many, he was left to represent us in public after his presence became a liability. This is not to denigrate the man at all -- it is to note that the NRA did us or Heston no favors.

What we need now is a younger man, maybe an actor or maybe a well recognized military or sports figure who commands a lot of respect among our youth. He should be articulate and not resort to the buzz words we in the gun community do. He should be the sort of guy who can go on Charlie Rose or Fareed Zakaria and skewer the heavyweight antigun forces, but then go on The View and charm the ladies, as well. We don't need someone to preach to the choir and repeat ad infinitum what we all believe, anyway. We need someone who can go out to the non-believers and the unsure and show them the face of gun ownership that the media is not fairly presenting.

For instance, the news media reported (CNN again, I believe) that 75% of NFL football players owned guns, and reported it in a way that made it sound like these players were secret Al Queda members. Rubbish! Just today on the news there was this article on the news, showing JJ Watt, star defensive end for the Houston Texans football team, doing all kinds of really neat stuff for physically challenged kids. A couple of guys like that taking physically challenged kids out to shoot would be a wonderful way to show the fun of shooting to some really neat, but unfortunate kids.

That's the sort I would like to see on the public podium being the face of gun owners.

For India, the first person that always comes to mind for me is SRK -- he's always been someone I'd like to have over for supper and an evening visit, and he speaks very intelligently on TV. Or maybe a famous cricket player.

But the point is, spokesmen need to be someone that people find easy to accept, not someone who is abrasive. I hardly think too many people are swayed by vicious argument, or if they are, they may not hold the ideas very deeply. We need someone who people can relate to. I am reminded of the story of John Wayne, who famously supported the US involvement in Viet Nam and made a movie about it: "The Green Berets." Wayne was invited by a Harvard student organization to appear before them and speak. Wayne, of course, knew that the students intended to embarrass him and won them over. Read this if you are not familiar with the story:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 21,1300482

That's exactly the sort of spokespeople we need right now: someone who can take a ribbing, laugh at themselves, but stands up for our values in such a way that people admire him, even if they don't agree.

As to the bias exhibited by the press (it wasn't just CNN, it was a lot of networks), I guess we didn't expect anything else. They weren't interested in LaPierre's message, they were there for the show.

Many of the news networks are controlled or funded by the global elite/ bilderberg with an agenda for global control and power. They are out to brainwash the people into becoming disarmed and servile servants.

Aloha,

Here is a government program that fits in with what the NRA proposes

http://www.usamilitarybenefits.com/troo ... chers.html

If these troopers served in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they have been exposed to Harsh

Rule of Engagement and can well operate with in a school system.