NRA Press Conference (8am)

[bubbapug1]

I am not offended by it, I agree with it 100%. I shut off my cable about two years ago. I really didn't know I still got a few free TV channels until my daughter flipped through the remote a few weeks back. I was watching 60 minutes a few days ago and saw some of the shows they were promoting...Jesus, everyone had a gun in their hand and was shooting someone else. That kind of imprinting has an impact. The media certainly shares a bit of the blame (0.001%) for most of the increase in these types of shooting. So does the gun industry (0.001%). So does the car industry (0.001%) The oil industry (0.001%) and the computer industry (0.001%) as does Al Gore for Inventing the internet. (0.1%)

The shooter carries the remained of the blame.

Both Aurora and Sandy Hook had shooters who lived and breathed Call of Duty. Yet the Supreme Court struck down the California law outlawing sales to minors of violent video games due the the 1A.

Outlawing guns is also against the 2A, but for some reason its a different standard of proof entirely. Maybe because our industry doesn't pay enough bribes...that is the reality here.

Ultimately, there's a double standard regarding the 1st Amendment vs the 2nd. If a gun owners weapon is stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner is in some quarters held to be equally responsible as the perpetrator for allowing their weapon to fall into the wrong hands.

Yet, the media is given a pass when they air movies which glorify violence and criminal behavior for cheap ratings. Movie studios green light empty projects with little creative value and then wonder why kids emulate it. In the 50s and 60s kids emulated people like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. Not the cleanest of guys mind you, but there was moral and creative value to their shows and movies. A 1970s show like Shaft wasn't clean and tidy, but there was moral value in it that you won't find with modern TV shows.

Today we're bombarded with ads and media that show people screwing each other over , acting petty & materialistic and which shows the bad guys winning over the good guys, and the media isn't held to account for ANY of it. Guns get stolen out of an unlocked car, gun owner is held responsible. Media makes a movie that glorifies torture and death,and no one calls them out for it when they get around to bleating the gun control mantra.

I remember the producer for the movie Pulp Fiction making an anti-gun statement before CT happened, and we all had a good laugh on this forum because the guy's gotten filthy rich off of gratuitous gun violence. If civil rights demand equal measure of pesonal responsibility, then the 1st Amendment is in dire need of cultural and perhaps legal reform. Yup, I said it. If we're comfortable with background checks and CCW permits for carrying a firearm, perhaps we need to regulate movies and video games in the same way.

If that suggestion offends you, perhaps you should ask yourself why before typing a response to this.

[Cnynrat]

Yet to use the language of the anti's, what good is the 1A when its being used to kill people?

I'm a man who believes the government has no right to regulate half the stuff it does, including the 1st Amendment. Yet I share LaPierre's opinion that the media is to blame for a lot of the evil which happens in our society.

Rather then fulfill its mandate to serve as the watchdog of the public, the mainstream media today has sold its soul to idealogical socialism and commercial self interest. That's why a news channel which airs news segments demonizing AR15s and claiming "pass an AWB for our law enforcement" doesn't see the problem with playing a violent action movie like Heat right behind it showing bad guys using AR15s to kill cops. Big surprise that if you show lots of TV and movie events which show a lot of people being callously murdered, someone with mental health issues might decide its OK for them to do it too. Heck, normal people copycat each other all the time-that's why we have the saying of "keeping up with the Joneses".


The media's created a culture where everyone is just one ultra-violent massacre away from cultural immortality. Want to be instantly remembered forever? Take a weapon and kill lots of people in America, the media says. We'll put your name all over the place, blare your acts across HDTV screens constantly, and use your act of filth to make you famous. The shooter in CT would never be known to any of us if he lived a normal life, but because of his vile crimes his name will be forever enshrined in our culture. The shooter in Oregon will be remembered, but the law abiding citizen who helped stop the carnage won't be.

And then we wonder why people are killed en masse. Worse, the media has the nerve to play moralist afterward. The networks blare morally bankrupt material 24/7 365 days a year, and then have the stones to claim us law abiding gun owners are why bad things happen. Its like a spouse who commits adultery and then blames the wronged mate for violating their wedding vows.

To genuninely fix this problem not only requires a reform of our security measures ( buh bye gun free zones in schools and colleges!) , but a reform of how our media goes about its job. A gun owner his held responsible for acts with their weapon which result in bodily injury, death, or criminal behavior. The same rules should apply to Fox News, Paramount Studios and CNN.

Very well said.

And to those complaining about the focus on the media, gaming, violent movies, you should note that LaPierre did nothing more than point out the complicity of the media and entertainment industry as a significant cultural influence. Never once did he suggest that the government should step in and ban or censor violent games or movies. Like all of us, the NRA is well within their 1A rights to speak out and voice their opinion on these matters. One would hope that the leaders of these industries might think a little about what they are doing and put the best interests of society ahead of their own pecuniary interests for a change.

This is a very different reaction that what you get from the left, which is always to extend government power. Ban guns, ban sodas, ban transfats, ban this, ban that. The only solution they know is to force their will on others.

I thought the content of the speech was great. I love that they are contrasting their immediate action and putting our money towards this know with the government's plan to study the issue a while.

[Mister Demeanor]

Check out how the media is painting this now:

NRA goes on offensive as Americans mourn school shooting

Where were the "Anti's go on the offensive BEFORE even a funeral was held" articles?

MsNBC just did the same thing, convincing me that these vultures care little for school safety, but instead concern themselves giddily with the prospect of top copy.

I don't agree with the demonization of the media and video games, and I doubt the utility of an armed guard in every school, but that isn't the point.

It was a good statement. Making the school shield program a focus is a good strategy. Redirection of public discourse is the smart way to go.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree about the video game as scapegoat approach. As for armed security gaurds on school grounds, I feel this should've been the selling point. Not one, or even a group of security personel will gaurantee children's safety from an armed individual. However, just one, well trained, armed gaurd would deter most of these maniacs, even those with a rifle, who are not generally prepared to encounter a level-headed pistolero, in defense of innocents~Thank you.

[Wildhawk66]

My point is that no matter what he said it would be used against him. If he completely capitulated to the Brady Lobby and said all assault weapons should be banned, they'd say " NRA SUPPORTS HANDGUN VIOLENCE". There's no appeasing someone who's already made up their mind that you're the enemy.

Yes, again, I get your point. Your point is fine on its own, but since it was made as a direct response to my quote I will again point out that you are missing the my point of my posts whether or not you point makes sense on its own.

Here's the flaw with that reasoning-he's in office today largely BECAUSE of gun owners. There's 90 million weapon owning Americans , nearly a third of our national population. Had all of them voted for Romney Obama would be on the street, and he knows it. He knows the best way to ensure anti-gun legislation has Congressional support is to divide the 30-30 owners from the handgun owners from the AR15 owners. He can do that by taking the stance that he's not anti gun mind you, he just wants to do something about the violence. That stance goes out the window the moment he signs an EO which affects all gun owners.

Obama is a smart politician, there is no doubt about that. I disagree though that all 90 million gun owners are 100% against all aspects of gun control or the tightening of regulations related to background checks, importation, mag capacity, etc. I also disagree that Obama is so very concerned about what gun owners think. I think he will avoid doing anything that he thinks will nuke his party as was the case in 1994, but I do think he will toe right up to that line and do anything he can to further the antigun agenda.

I also think it was unwise of the NRA to make statements about how we cannot afford to wait, that we need action now, when that could very easily play into the current fear mongering, knee jerk legislative or executive order agenda.

[CALI SHOT DOC]

I thought the speech was good overall. I liked how he pointed out everything that is protected by armed guards yet the children are left unprotected. I also liked how he didn't give the protestors any attention and just continued.

It's sickening that this tragedy has been turned into a gun rights battle by the president, Feinstein, media and anti-2nd amendment activists. It wasn't a so called "assualt weapon" that killed those kids, it was a mentally unstable man. If they are going to blame guns then why not blame his mother, brother and friends who should have seen the signs and got him help? Re-enacting the assault weapons ban isn't going to solve anything, it didn't prevent the Columbine shooting from happening....

[Trenchfoot]

We're saying the same thing.

The problem however is that we cannot lay all of this at the viewers feet. Media channels are corporations today, so they obviously are playing a game of one-up with each other. Facts of the situation which don't fit the sensationalist creed-like a civilian ending a spree shooting- consequently get left on the cutting room floor, which defeats the entire point of the 1st Amendment as it was established to create a media which held EVERYONE accountable for their actions, including themselves. If that were still the case Obama would be in the middle of an Impeachment hearing on Fast and Furious.

Whats happening now is that our media is editing news stories to generate entertaining news articles, so as to sell more airtime and papers. That's akin to a gun owner illegally converting a rifle to a full auto SBR.Yet the media aren't held to account for their lying and slanted reporting at all, while the ATF would jump on the illegal gun owner like a Mac Truck running over an expansion joint.

The problem is that we don't want accurate news. We want the news to reinforce our worldview. People that only watch Foxnews or MSNBC don't care about facts, they just care about hearing about how the other side is destroying America.

[voiceofreason]

Cracks me up they way this board sways back and forth. I dont keep track of screen names, but it was not all that long ago (week or so) that the NRA was getting bashed all over the place. Now there are threads where we are lining up to perform felatio to the Wayne... I am sure that it is not the same people flip floping on the issue, but from it is strange the way group think takes over on ALL internet discussion boards.

Now THAT'S funny!!!

[Skidmark]

A Q&A session would be the real farce.

I'll save you the trouble and put the entire outcome of a Q&A session right here for you.

MEDIA STOOGE: "Mr LaPierre, Can you tell us how many babies you've killed today?"

A DIFFERENT MEDIA STOOGE: "Why did you kick out the righteous protester with the poster ? "

THE THIRD MEDIA STOOGE: "why can't you come to a common sense agreement with President Obama to encourage your membership to voluntarily disarm? "

No, the farce was L'Pierre calling a press conference and not taking questions. It's a farce when Obama does that, it was a farce when Bush did it, it's farcical when the chief lobbyist of the NRA does it. If you can't stand the heat of questions from the Press, then call the thing by its real name - a prepared statement - and feed it to the newswires.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Rather then fulfill its mandate to serve as the watchdog of the public

That's the root failure right there -- in your thinking. The media has no mandate to serve anybody else's purpose any more than you or I or the gun industry. Business is business, and if they feel the best way to profit is hate guns, that is, literally, their business, not yours, not mine, nobody's but theirs.

If you include Hollywood and their action pictures, the same remarks apply. There is no hypocrisy in making money with profit the primary goal.

Your theme that you know how they should run their business is EXACTLY the same as statists everywhere. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.

[Nor*Cal]

i think speech was great...

but a week to think about what to say,
should of been better i thought.

I thought the speech was just okay and the delivery a bit poor. I guess with a week to prepare I had higher expectations. I feel they could have done a much better job. Not impressed and I just do not think it was powerful enough.

[Brandsayer]

Here is a reposting of the transcript and video of the Press conference:

Press Conference Video

Press Conference Transcript

It would be nice if the OP could include these links in his first post.

[oldsmoboat]

A press conference that proscribed any questions from the press? What a farce.

I agree 100% with that tactic.
If the press asked questions they'd just make up lies and bash the NRA. By holding off on the questions it allowed the spotlight to remain on the message a little longer. And if that results in security/cops in schools and safer children, I am all for it.

[The Soup Nazi]

I don't agree with blaming violent media for violence.

On the other hand, I'm going to have at least 5-6 months between my EAS this year and attending university. I would be glad to volunteer to stand guard at the high school a block away from where I live.

[SilverTauron]

That's the root failure right there -- in your thinking. The media has no mandate to serve anybody else's purpose any more than you or I or the gun industry. Business is business, and if they feel the best way to profit is hate guns, that is, literally, their business, not yours, not mine, nobody's but theirs.

If you include Hollywood and their action pictures, the same remarks apply. There is no hypocrisy in making money with profit the primary goal.

Your theme that you know how they should run their business is EXACTLY the same as statists everywhere. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.

I'm referring to the medias mandate as another check against a government gone mad.The 2nd Amendment safeguards against tyranny by martial force,and the 1st amendment safeguards against the tyranny of information control. Without state control of the media,a totalitarian regime cannot stand. If the media is editing the news to fit a pre-concieved notion,it cannot fulfill the intent of the 1As Constitutional purpose.Its akin to a situation where gun companies agree amongst themselves to not sell to civilians.You can't have a militia to defend the security of a free state if the militia can't buy arms.

[putput]

This gallop poll shows support for most of those ideas...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx