Mark Kelly Responds to Wayne LaPierre

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Via Talking Points Memo, Mark Kelly: The Time For NRA’s ‘Extreme Rhetoric Is Over’:

Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, said in a
statement Friday the National Rifle Association "chose narrow partisan
concerns over the safety of our families and communities" during a press
conference earlier in the day:

Gabby and I are extremely disappointed by the NRA's defiant and
delayed response to the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy
Hook Elementary School. The NRA could have chosen to be a voice for the
vast majority of its own members who want common sense, reasonable
safeguards on deadly firearms, but instead it chose to defend extreme
pro-gun positions that aren't even popular among the law abiding gun
owners it represents. Today, the NRA chose narrow partisan concerns over
the safety of our families and communities. The time for this kind of
extreme rhetoric is over. We must have a real conversation about
preventing gun violence, because when it comes to protecting our
children, families, and neighbors, we can't wait any longer.

0 responses to “Mark Kelly Responds to Wayne LaPierre

  1. Oh, Lord. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

    5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

    This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

    Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

  2. True enough that the only gun was a musket although from what I’ve read the main point was to allow the people to overthrow the government if it got totally out of hand as the English King had done. If we fast forward to today, if the government only had muskets then the people would only needs muskets, but such is not the case.

  3. Francine Shacter

    When the second amendment was written, the only gun was a musket which had to be reloaded after a single shot was fired. That musket was the basis for the second amendment. No one knows what the founding fathers would have written in the second amendment had they known that guns would eventually include those which could fire many, many bullets before being reloaded.

  4. Interesting post which does update the situation in Israel and Switzerland although I think the idea this change isn’t so much “mythbusting” as a change from what used to be.

    However, when it comes to mythbusting, Japan is candidate as many people think it is relatively gun-free which is not been the case. First, ordinary people can own hunting guns as long as they and their ammunition are kept separately in different room. And then you have the yakusa, especially in Tokyo and Osaka, which are beyond the law but allowed.

    As for fact-free argument, one thing lacking in BlogForArizona is images as sometimes pictures speak louder than words.

  5. Hmmm, I don’t see the link to the full transcript.

    As or the consensus of editorial opinion, I haven’t found that: instead I’ve found both sides. The longest and most complete writeup I’ve found is on the NY Times (which has links inside to more details which in turn have more links):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/us/nra-calls-for-armed-guards-at-schools.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

    As for why I don’t write about this on my own blog, I haven’t updated that blog for who-knows-how-long as it didn’t get a lot of traffic. Instead, I’ve spent the time researching and sometime shooting photos for my wife’s blog and for articles she writes for Shukan Kinyobi, a weekly magazine in Tokyo. Here’s the first paragraph on here latest article on her blog which is about Newtown: http://www.newslogusa.com (in Japanese naturally):

    銃規制は進みそうにない米国の現実
    By マクレーン 末子 on December 19, 2012
    14日コネティカット州ニュータウンの小学校で起きた銃乱射事件は全米に衝撃を与え、各地で追悼会は開かれ、学校のセキュリティー強化や銃規制論議が始まるなど、その波紋は広がっている。市民の間では銃論議は活発となり「銃規制すべき」「もっと多くの銃で犯罪は減らせる」といった意見に加え、元州知事による「神をないがしろにしたから事件は起きた」というコメントまで飛び出している。

  6. I posted a link to the full transcript of LaPierre’s performance art in the post “The NRA holds a press conference, is unapologetic,” and quoted from it at length.

    The consensus of editorial opinion around the country regarding LaPierre’s performance art has been particularly damning.

    I notice you do not write about this at your own blog from which your comments originate.

  7. Ooops, this just came in: Why we don’t see school shootings in Israel.

    http://actual-life.com/images/2010.11.13%20Growing%20Salt-2/Israeli.school.kids.400×300.jpg

  8. Hmmm, kind of tricky to understand. AZBlueMeanie quotes Mark Kelly saying “chose narrow partisan concerns over the safety of our families and communities” in statement Friday the National Rifle Association. Where is the original statement by the National Rifle Association?

    I ask that as one of the first (or maybe the first) statements by the NRA was on Al Jazzera:
    “The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million mums and dads, sons and daughters and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown,” the group said in its first public statement since the shootings, released Tuesday.

    “Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.”

    Doesn’t sound like narrow partisan concerns to me.

    Another posting by AZBlueMeanie has New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accusing leaders of the NRA of “a shameful evasion of the crisis facing our country” at Friday’s press conference. Again, Where is the original statement by the National Rifle Association?

    Huffingtonpost he reported the following:

    The group’s top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference that “the next Adam Lanza,” the man responsible for last week’s mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said.

    He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

    “In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes,” LaPierre said.

    I have a hard time thinking this is the statement that Mayor Michael Bloomberg considers the NRA “”chose narrow partisan concerns over the safety of our families and communities.” But there’s not way we can tell as it’s not shown.

    According to my understanding of English communication, what’s happening here is unsupported (emotional) allegations are being lodged against who-knows-what as the original words are left out and we can’t decide that they mean. This is of critical importance if we are to come to some mutual understanding and thus take action, maybe not to “Solve The Problem” but at least head in that direction. If not, as an old friend used to say, it’s “Nothing but a cheap dog fight.”