Wayne LaPierre resigns from the NRA ahead of his corruption trial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

This kind of common sense is lost on the gun nuts. And I do just call them gun nuts. Anyone who thinks unfettered gun ownership is “basic human and civil rights” (but you know 100% believes abortion should be illegal to punish the sluts, damn the consequences) is not playing with a full deck or a willingness to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

This, 100%.

--Gun owner, grew up with hunting as a way for my parents to feed our family, husband and I both still hunt today. And take part in some shooting sports, including target and skeet. But assault style rifles available to anyone and everyone? Hell no. Guns need training, licensing and insurance requirements equivalent to driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

I agree, except for: “but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses” - driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the Constitution. Plus: extend your logic to voting: should that right require a test and license like driving? How about a literacy test for voting? It’s only “ common sense,” right?

And, you said: “I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks.” Hmm - extend that to freedom of expression. Before someone is allowed to speak to others, shouldn’t they go through a background check, and have their mental health checked? (and who exactly decides on mental health? What if .gov decides “all liberals are insane.” Trust the government then?).

But also, you said: “I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.”

OK - extend that to expression: certain types of expression are dangerous, like yelling “fire.” Isn’t it common sense to restrict “dangerous speech?” Maybe we should have a government board or organization to evaluate an idea you want to express, and require .gov approval before people can be “allowed” to express themselves ? Remember: .gov needs to control expression, because the pen is mightier than the sword or gun, right?

And: “The general public” obviously can’t be trusted with certain words or ideas like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” so only The Government should be allowed to exercise that right, correct?

Your arguments show you have little to no understanding of what our constitutionally protected rights are, and why they are protected by the Constitution and BOR. educate yourself, and you will have to retract every idea expressed in your reply (unless you are completely dishonest).

I am, however, happy to hear you wholeheartedly agree with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

I agree, except for: “but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses” - driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the Constitution. Plus: extend your logic to voting: should that right require a test and license like driving? How about a literacy test for voting? It’s only “ common sense,” right?

And, you said: “I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks.” Hmm - extend that to freedom of expression. Before someone is allowed to speak to others, shouldn’t they go through a background check, and have their mental health checked? (and who exactly decides on mental health? What if .gov decides “all liberals are insane.” Trust the government then?).

But also, you said: “I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.”

OK - extend that to expression: certain types of expression are dangerous, like yelling “fire.” Isn’t it common sense to restrict “dangerous speech?” Maybe we should have a government board or organization to evaluate an idea you want to express, and require .gov approval before people can be “allowed” to express themselves ? Remember: .gov needs to control expression, because the pen is mightier than the sword or gun, right?

And: “The general public” obviously can’t be trusted with certain words or ideas like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” so only The Government should be allowed to exercise that right, correct?

Your arguments show you have little to no understanding of what our constitutionally protected rights are, and why they are protected by the Constitution and BOR. educate yourself, and you will have to retract every idea expressed in your reply (unless you are completely dishonest).

I am, however, happy to hear you wholeheartedly agree with me.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

I agree, except for: “but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses” - driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the Constitution. Plus: extend your logic to voting: should that right require a test and license like driving? How about a literacy test for voting? It’s only “ common sense,” right?

[…].

I have yet to see Republicans give the Postal Service the respect it’s due and it’s in the body of the Constitution, not the amendments. You’re hard to take seriously for that reason alone. DP.

[Anonymous]

Wayne LaPrick, oops, mean LaPierre, that great patriot was a draft dodger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

I agree, except for: “but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses” - driving is a privilege, not a right protected by the Constitution. Plus: extend your logic to voting: should that right require a test and license like driving? How about a literacy test for voting? It’s only “ common sense,” right?

And, you said: “I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks.” Hmm - extend that to freedom of expression. Before someone is allowed to speak to others, shouldn’t they go through a background check, and have their mental health checked? (and who exactly decides on mental health? What if .gov decides “all liberals are insane.” Trust the government then?).

But also, you said: “I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.”

OK - extend that to expression: certain types of expression are dangerous, like yelling “fire.” Isn’t it common sense to restrict “dangerous speech?” Maybe we should have a government board or organization to evaluate an idea you want to express, and require .gov approval before people can be “allowed” to express themselves ? Remember: .gov needs to control expression, because the pen is mightier than the sword or gun, right?

And: “The general public” obviously can’t be trusted with certain words or ideas like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” so only The Government should be allowed to exercise that right, correct?

Your arguments show you have little to no understanding of what our constitutionally protected rights are, and why they are protected by the Constitution and BOR. educate yourself, and you will have to retract every idea expressed in your reply (unless you are completely dishonest).

I am, however, happy to hear you wholeheartedly agree with me.

Why have any laws at all? Honestly, pure anarchy is the only way to have rights. Any law, no matter now minor, will lead to slavery and totalitarism.

(that's what you sound like to me)

And we all know that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

Grow up and accept that civilization requires we limit our "rights" in the interest of civilization. How much we limit them is to be debated and changed. But no limits is anarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a gun owner, I am extremely relieved to hear of Wayne’s resignation.

He was far too weak and ineffective at fighting gun control. His departure paves the way for a true champion of the Second Amendment to emerge; a real fighter who will effect major change.

Ineffective? Given that there are more guns than people in this country and that there has been no meaningful gun control despite all the horrific school shootings, what kind of "major change" are you looking at? Even more guns? Zero gun control of any kind? Military-grade weapons for every citizen in the country? What more do you want that you don't already have? I don't get it.

You have it backwards.

The NRA isn’t driving the gun nuts. The gun nuts are driving the NRA. Most gun nuts think the NRA doesn’t go far enough.

I get that but what more do the gun nuts want? I mean, they've won. What does more winning look like?

All anyone wants is for their rights to be respected and not infringed on by our government, as envisioned in the BOR.

Is respect for basic human and civil rights too much to ask??

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe that full, unfettered access to guns, as promoted by the NRA, is counter to your last statement. I believe that gun ownership should be preserved, but that we should have required education and licensing, much like we have for driver's licenses. I believe we should have background checks and mental health checks. And last I believe that we need the ability to restrict types of guns that are marketed to the general public. Rapid fire weapons and modifications are far too dangerous to the public safety and should be restricted.

I am all for preserving our access to guns, but I believe that the current lack of gun restrictions is counter to your last statement. I think is shows a complete disregard for basic human and civil rights to allow people to own and carry any weapon out there including military style weapons. There is no point to having bump stocks and military grade weapons and rapid fire weapons other than to deprive others of the basic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our Declaration of Independence states.

The thousands of people that have been killed in the mass shootings over the last 10-15 years is evidence that we are depriving many of their basic human right to life.

Wait - are you arguing we should make it as difficult to buy a gun as it is to vote in the US ?