Listening to Wayne LaPierre testifying with feverish rage against something as common sense as background checks is causing me to rethink my position. This has been going on since Newtown and the frothing online gun nuts aren’t helping.
Up until now, I’ve been what I consider to be a moderate on gun control. I own a gun, and while I don’t like that people hunt animals with guns, I’ve been of the mind “to each their own”.
That position cost me a lot because I’m an animal lover. So I feel like I already gave a lot to get to “I’ll leave it to you if you stay out of my way.” Frankly, it’s always bothered me psychologically that hunters shoot deer when a deer’s face looks so much like a human baby’s face (I’m referring to studies about human survival; we have an innate instinct to protect our children, part of that is based on the science of facial characteristics). But I know plenty of good parents who hunt deer with a gun, so I let it go. I even allowed my brother-in-law to hunt on my property once so long as he hunted with a bow and not a gun. I don’t understand it and I don’t agree with it, but I’ve tried to respect it.
I’m not seeing any effort to return that respect of different opinions. Many of us have already expended a lot of energy trying to meet gun enthusiasts in the middle. And now we find that in the face of ongoing tragedy involving children, these same gun enthusiasts aren’t even willing to tiptoe onto the mat of compromise. Their violent rhetoric and sociopathic insensitivity is making it harder and harder to see them as anything other than out of control children.
Every time I hear Wayne LaPierre talk, I shift a bit further to the left of his craziness. Today Wayne LaPierre had the unmitigated gall to present gun owners as the “victims”. He went Sarah Palin blood libel, even as Gabby Giffords was testifying and her husband Mark Kelly testified. Even as a young girl was shot and killed in Chicago.
I’m a gun owner, and I don’t feel victimized by having to submit to a background check. In fact, I think it’s insane to suggest that anyone should be allowed to purchase a gun without a background check. I also think they should have to complete a gun safety test, just like we have to get a license to drive a car. Reasonable, law-abiding citizens should have no problem with this, because they would pass a background check.
So it hits me once again that this man has no conscience. I don’t mean that as hyperbole. I mean, quite literally, Wayne LaPierre has no empathy for other human beings. He expresses no awareness or shame or even vague recognition that perhaps today is not the day to argue against something as benign as background checks.
If the NRA won’t even consider background checks in order to honor innocent citizens’ right to live, why should I automatically concede to what the NRA claims are “rights”? They’ve been bullying people for so long that it never occurs to them that this argument is not, in fact, settled.
I’m beginning to imagine a country without weapons of mass destruction as the “right” of people who might better explore their contributions in other ways. I’m ready and willing to turn my gun in, because all I’m seeing is that guns are killing more and more innocent people. I also know that very few gun owners are actually able to use their weapons in real situations of self-defense (not the kind of vigilantism displayed in Wisconsin where a drunken woman discharged her gun after an argument with her niece, claiming the Sheriff told her it was okay because all citizens needed to arm themselves).
If you are hollering against background checks, then you obviously suspect you might not pass one, or rather, you suspect many of your customers might not pass one. So, the argument is that the gun manufacturers’ right to make a profit any way they can takes precedence over the rights of children to live (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyone?).
Wayne LaPierre wants to protect the profits of the NRA’s board members, so he keeps blaming video games for what guns do.
I believe that Police Chiefs know best what would work and they are for background checks and against assault weapons. I concede to their expertise, while Wayne LaPierre does not. LaPierre doesn’t have to face what our police do, and yet he feels he’s an expert. He’s not in the line of fire created by his rhetoric. Does he care about that? Obviously not. Obviously it doesn’t bother him one bit.
Yes, I realize this will only enrage people more but frankly, I don’t care. The bottom line is that the gun nuts are enraged no matter what, and the more they scream as if their life is over because sane people want background checks at gun shows, the more it’s looking as if they are completely unwilling to compromise or even acknowledge the rights of other citizens.
It’s been my experience that trying to negotiate with people like that is pointless. They’re going to scream like they’re dying, as if they are a two year old and you just took away their blanky, so you might as well make it count.
You’re going to have to listen to them screaming bloody murder, so ask for something that matters. Give them something to scream about. To that end, I’d like to propose that we go about this differently. Instead of trying to make the case why we would like these gun manufacturers to allow us to force people to have a background check before they buy an assault weapon, I’d like to put the burden on the NRA.
I’d like the NRA to argue in court that the Second Amendment comes before all others. After they win that court battle, then we can continue this debate. They need to prove that even dangerously mentally ill people’s rights to own an assault weapon comes before all other citizen’s right to live, because that is the position they are taking.
If they lose that battle, they need to defend the right to own a gun, starting from the beginning. Wayne LaPierre is bringing down the gun lobby. Sane, responsible gun owners are not being represented by this man. Each time he opens his mouth, he loses more support for the alleged principles behind the NRA.





Shadowulf
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
And as for The Nutso Republican Asshats are concerned my violent videogames are the reason I have not landed in jail because they are my therapy. When the stupid jacktards of the world have me at breaking point I crank up a little Pantera and go snipe so grunts on Halo or run a chainsaw through some grubs rather then go out and beat someone to death with their cellphone. So lay off my games NRA
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
That is true. The more you concede that there is some right to use some guns some of the time, the more windily they queef. Understandably, rural people need guns for some uses, including self-defense if police are unavailable or untrustworthy. And what your fanatics will do if you say that much is to demand the unfettered, unquestioned right to own RPG’s, machine guns- you name it- and use them how they please. Some of these people are paranoid. A lot of them are bullies. A few are Adam Lanza.
loading...
mariteri
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
I am finding that trying to have any type of reasonable discussion with these people is more difficult than communication with the dead. Any suggestion of any sort of tightening of background checks, or mandatory registration sends them into a screaming rage about how Obama is going to declare himself dictator and they will need their guns to protect themselves. After all, if you don’t submit to a background check, and you don’t register any of your weapons (most of these people have in excess of three), then the goverment won’t know that they have them, and if they don’t know they have them, then they (the evil goverment) can’t take them. Michigan may be a “blue” state, but Oakland Counnty, (where I live) is, sad to say, blood red.
loading...
lageorgia
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Why not have every gun owned in private ownership carry private insurance? You want to own a weapon of death? Go ahead but you will be paying every year for insurance on every piece you own. The insurance companies can do the background checks and clear you for your AK 47 assault rifle. Can’t pass the clearance? Then it looks like the insurance company isn’t going to allow you your weapon. If your weapon is used in a crime then there is a payout to the family of the victim(s). Yes the insurance will be expensive and it may of necessity limit the amount of arms one person can actually afford but this way the government is not demanding anything from the gun nuts. And since these self same crazies are the ones always screaming about freedom from government now only have to answer to a private for profit insurance company.
loading...
Jeff
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 9:16 am
I love the insurance idea.
One thing i’ve noticed living in the city is that those most concerned about having a gun for protection don’t live in the areas where they actually need one. Those of us who live in areas plagued by gun violence aren’t being made any safer by the easy access to guns, just the opposite. Those who supply the guns used in crimes are breaking the law, and if we can’t get changes to find out who the straw purchasers are then let the insurance companies do it. put another way, if you keep getting your car stolen then you can’t get insured, it should be the same with guns. and holding the gun owner financially responsible for whatever damage his gun causes may help stop the illegal transfer of said guns to those who use them to wreak havoc in our neighbourhoods.
somebody on the right made a comment about banning baseball bats because somebody got beaten to death by one. that may be true, but you could 20 kids with one like you can with a gun. somebody would have stopped you long before then.
loading...
Becky Sarwate
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Sarah…thank you so much for this important piece. This echoes a lot of my own experience and sentiments. I do not own a gun nor have I ever fired one but I too have held a “live and let live” opinion of what others do with their rights, even if I disagree. But as you say, the more insane and intractable the gun lobby becomes over the tiniest of reasonable measures designed to save lives, such as background checks, the less sympathetic their cause. Also your plan to rectify the situation is nothing short of genius. Yes let them prove that the 2nd amendment should be placed before all others. Well done.
loading...
Catherine
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Thank you Sarah for the well written article. The problem is the head of the NRA lives in fear and he wants everyone else to live in fear. I love how he said we need to arm the good guys. In a shoot out how will the police determine who the good guy is? Will the good guy be in white and the bad one in black? What if someone who has dark skin and is in a shoot out with a person who has light skin, is the light skin person the good guy? How will the police make that determination? I believe in protecting yourself in your own home. I do not want people who are not trained out in public trying to save the day.
We need to take lessons and a test to drive a car. Why not the same for having a gun? Also we can’t have race cars on city streets. Why are people allowed to have high powered high capacity rifles? The only ones that should have those are law enforcement and the military. Those type of guns should be banned. If people want to shoot those type of guns special ranges can be set up for people to do so. Just like they do for race cars or high performance sports cars where you can go as fast as you want on a closed track. We need common sense gun laws. It scares me how many gun advocates are so against even common sense laws. People like the leader of the NRA and his ilk scare me more than the criminals.
loading...
TigerLily
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
The man looks insane and speaks insanity. He should not OWN a gun EVER! He’s ready to snap a twig if he doesn’t get his way, as you can see and hear in his voice. DESPERATION! He’S really working this with all his might. He needs to. His million dollar industry is in danger of not making money over lost lives. I PRAY we can stop the NRA ONCE AND FOR ALL. When did NRA have the power to run our country anyway?
loading...
Americal
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 5:48 pm
To the one insisting on insurance for guns, replace “guns” with contraceptives (abortifacients), cigarettes and French fries. Let’s see how you react then.
loading...
Tom
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
should we tax guns like we tax cigarettes? Great idea.
loading...
majii
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
I don’t hate to disappoint you, but some healthcare insurance already factor in lifestyle choices which includes smoking. Contraception is also already covered by many health insurance companies. More health insurance companies are keeping an eye on their policyholders’ diets, including blood pressure and cholesterol, which could be affected by consuming a lot of fried foods. I have United Healthcare, and a nurse calls me periodically to check on these measures which are definitely related to the foods I eat. In summation, the things you mention that you think would get our knickers in a twist are already things we pay for via health insurance and/or things which are regulated by our health insurers.
loading...
majii
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Meant–
“some healthcare insurance companies already factor..”
Today seems to be one of my bad typing, brain skip days. LOL
loading...
Jeff
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 3:08 pm
why would we insure french fries? what would we insure them against? being eaten?
loading...
Anne
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Wayne LaPierre is beyond any hope or redemption. He is tone-deaf, short-sighted, and focused on profits from gun sales at the expense of any reasonable dialogue. The more he talks, the more he makes a compelling case for sensible gun control measures. He is the embodiment of the kind of foolish, dangerous sociopath whose love affair with guns has caused him to lose any semblance of perspective.
loading...
LookingForward
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Thanks Sarah, I am not as understanding as you are in regards to hunting…I think anyone who enjoys and gets pleasure from killing animals is a Sociopath. Unless you are poor and have to kill to feed your family.
The more Wayne appears on TV, the better the chances of getting some gun regulations passed. He’s running on auto pilot, staying on message no matter how crazy he sounds!
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
If you knew the way our meat animals are raised and slaughtered, *skilled* and *ethical* hunting is actually a far more humane and wholesome way to get meat.
loading...
LookingForward
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
I do, I have a family member that used to Inspect slaughter houses. We are Vegetarians!
My problem is with people that do it for fun or (sport). I do think they are Sociopaths!
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Well, yeah, in general, if you aren’t planning to eat it, and it isn’t planning to eat you (or yours), don’t kill it.
loading...
alice
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 4:01 am
wayne lapierre should run at of town with his own guns he say no one should have background check he said it was all right in the 1990s he a moron
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 9:55 am
Leave it ms.Lindsey to put it in perspective for you tofu eating,patchouli wearing pacifists
Graham: Americans Will Need Guns Due to Budget Cuts Leading to Fewer Cops
The logic just cannot be explained
GRAHAM: Well I hope your right, but I can tell people throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less [SIC] police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response time are gonna be less, not more. So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily “say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, the people who own them are the kind of people we’re trying to combat to begin with.” There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here.
SMDH
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/graham-argues-against-gun-control-because-of-budget
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:00 am
in other words America cannot afford to move forward. Lindsey Graham asked for death in the streets committed by citizens against citizens
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:07 am
You Betcha!!!
loading...
Eykis
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 10:17 am
We should have federally mandated and federally gun and ammunition liability insurance. No registration, no gun or ammunition sales without proof of insurance at EVERY SINGLE PURCHASE. Anyone found to be in possession of guns or ammunition without insurance, automatic federal fine and incarceration.
loading...
oldenuf2know
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:01 am
Remember the new world order? Have you thought about what happened in Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Turkey and nemerous other countries after they disarmed their population?
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 11:32 am
Who is being disarmed? What fact do you have to compare us to them?
loading...
Jeff
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 8:08 pm
On the flip side look at the UK where gun ownership, and gun crime, is rare. Nobody claims jolly olde Englnad isn’t free……
loading...
Janet Androsac
Jan. 31st, 2013 at 3:51 pm
EYKIS, I like your idea about liability insurance and the automatic fines. Not sure about the incarseration . But it’s a start of a sound idea to consider if and when something is done with gun control. I can only hope.
loading...
KarenJ
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 1:40 am
Sarah Jones, you’re being too kind when you call them “gun enthusiasts”. They’re gun FANATICS.
And I think if we’re going to call anybody anything, call him Wayne LiePierre.
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 8:46 am
Irony At Its Best
Idaho gun-nut lawmakers are very disturbed about an armed man who walked around the state Capitol building, alongside a tour of Cub and Boy Scouts, in part because he was armed.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/27/2428082/armed-mans-intrusion-unnerves.html
loading...