Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Wayne LaPierre Hits Back During Hearing: ‘Background Checks Will Never Be Universal Because Criminals Will Never Submit to Them’

Jan. 30, 2013 1:25pm Madeleine Morgenstern

NRAs Wayne LaPierre: Background Checks Will Never Be Universal Because Criminals Will Never Submit to Them

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. (Getty Images)

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre on Wednesday assailed universal background checks and other new proposed gun regulations, declaring that “law-abiding gun owners” won’t take the blame for “violent or deranged criminals.”

In his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee following last month’s elementary school in Newtown, Conn., LaPierre called on lawmakers to enforce “the thousands of gun laws already on the books,” rather than create new ones.

“Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms works,” LaPierre said. “Proposing more gun laws while failing to enforce the ones we already have, it’s not a serious solution for reducing crime.”

LaPierre delivered his statement shortly after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords urged her former congressional colleagues to take “bold” action to prevent more gun violence. Giffords was seriously injured when a gunman shot her in the head during a 2011 shooting spree that left six others dead in Tucson, Ariz.

President Barack Obama earlier this month signed a number of executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence, but has called on Congress to act on a new “assault weapons” ban and universal background checks for gun buyers.

“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals, nor do we believe that government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families,” LaPierre said Wednesday. “We need to be honest about what works and what does not work.”

He said semi-automatic weapons have been “around for 100 years,” are among the most popular for hunting and protection, and that many studies “including one from the Clinton Justice Department” have concluded that banning them has no impact on crime.

“When it comes to be background checks let’s be honest,” LaPierre said. “Background checks will never be ‘universal,’ because criminals will never submit to them.”

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (117)

JerseyGuy
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:29pm
Going with Joe-the-Patriot here…I’ll bet that Obama thought he had a slam-dunk on getting this ban through after the shootings. It appears that no such ban will be approved by Congress in the near term. I’m certain that he’s got his Black Ops guys working on a few more staged events and, on his own, declare Martial Law for the common good. Where he gets the troops to enforce it is another matter. The man is evil.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gold Coin & Economic News
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:51pm
  Oh who cares that they don’t work, they came from the Messiah Obama, it doesn’t freaking matter:
  http://www.isthatbaloney.com/creepy-newsweek-cover-calls-obama-the-second-coming/
  
  Report this comment
- Joe_The_Patriot
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:09pm
  All this administration and it’s supports do is stir the pot.. Every chance they get they use any excuse to pit groups of people against one another…. He’s got the gun-grabbers fighting us pro 2nd amendment defenders, the poor fighting the rich, racial divisionism and now the illegals fighting the legals citizens for the right to stay here after they broke a federal law to come here..
  NOBODY has the right to come here, it is a privilege and should be treated as such. If your not a citizen the bill of rights does not pertain to you. the bill of right does not give anyone the right to become a citizen. There is a path that people can take to come here legally, You wouldn’t break a windows in someones house and climb through because they didn’t open the door fast enough, but that in essence is what the illegals argument is…
  Obama wants to take our rights away like we are criminals and give rights to illegals who are criminals.. that doesn’t make sense… send em back and let them get on line..
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:54pm
  JOE Spot on. Where do I sign up
  
  Report this comment
- NewMedia
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:32pm
  Am I a bad person for thinking Ms. Giffords should go home with her troll husband and shut the heck up? These people are so disgusting the way they use people like her to push their agenda. Never let a crisis go to waste, just like Mr. Al Gore with his massive hypocrisy earlier this week.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfZi7PPFSU
  
  Report this comment
- P4cooler
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:35pm
  The entire Sandy Hook story stinks. I notice the media changed the name to Newtown. They never mention “Sandy Hook”. Who were the two guys running into the woods. We could see them from the helicopter video. Was this some UN goons (Obama hit men) creating an emergency to continue the overthrow of the United States? How does a young disturbed guy (Adam Lanza) with little experience get 26 bulls eye hits all dead with only one injury. Sounds like trained professionals to me. Then again, we didn’t see any bodies, jus a few funerals. Keep in mind the other school tragedies had a huge amount of injured. This kid walks into a school, kids frantic running screaming…and he gets James Bond type perfect kills. Why was the parking lot, driveway, and even the road for 1/4 mile away from Sandy Hook choked with cars (no ambulance could get near Sandy Hook) that looked like the movie “Day After Tomorrow”. Sandy Hook was a giant FEMA stage play for Obama’s anti-gun agenda. Sandy Hook is Bull SXXX Any conservative media outlet that suddenly is discrediting Sandy Hook conspiracy, has probably been threatened. ** Thank you Wayne Lapierre for your real life suggestions (something Democrats are not capable of).
  
  Report this comment
- Yogibearwatcher
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:43pm
  The NRA and the GOP and all conservatives need to come out with “agendas” everyday that keep these people guessing or defending themselves. For example, ” Adam Lanza was suffering mental stress from being bullied as a student”. He had a teacher who was not nice to him or abused him. Has anyone interviewed his Dad? Make up hypotheticals that they have to answer to, and stick together. This is not about guns.
  
  Report this comment
ejeff
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:19pm
Giffords was a progressive and anti-gun before she was sadly shot in the head. It does not make her an expert on gun violence now that she has survived a head shot; a sympathetic figure, yes, but no expert. The progressives are going after the low-information, feelings based citizens. None of what is being discussed regarding gun control would have prevented what happened to her. What would have helped is to have had more armed people around her for protection when the shooting started. Loughner used multiple hand guns and everyone there were sitting ducks, until his gun jammed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:34pm
  His gun didn’t jam Ejeff. He emptied his 30 magazine, then he was subdued as he tried to change magazines. If he’d only been able to fire 10 rounds, then he’d have killed and wounded less people, probably 2/3 fewer.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:36pm
  This will not go anywhere the legitimate way. It is as toxic an issue now as it ever was.
  Political suicide for blue dems in rural areas of middle America.
  
  Now you have to wonder how far the chocolate king will push it in NON legit methods.
  
  My only wish is that the same vociferous objections were put behind defeating everything else about this tyrannical regime.
  
  Report this comment
- bannedfromCNN
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:40pm
  Gabbi was overhead to comment, “I’ve got half a mind to ….uh, where am I?”
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:49pm
  Loughner used a single Glock 19 9mm pistol, you spawn of the Lord of Lies Fly guy Obama.
  
  Report this comment
- marybethelizabeth
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:16pm
  It is worse to rely on the testimony of a paid lobbyist than a citizen whose life will be effected by legislation.
  
  Mr. Beck today played part of the testimony of a father of a child killed at Sandy Hook. He heckled the man’s testimony hiding behind a microphone and at the same time criticized NBC for editing the man’s testimony, just as he was doing.
  
  He said the testimony was edited by NBC to make opponents of the father’s testimony look bad. That is not true. The edit was clearly heard. NBC doesn’t have to make assault weapons advocates look bad. They do that all by themselves.
  
  One man making assault weapons advocates look bad is Ted Nugent, denying that there are people who want to take up arms to defend their right to take up arms. And people like Glenn Beck who are lying saying that plans are in place to disarm the American public.
  
  Each conservative lie is a step down the path to defeat.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:38pm
  @SENDTHEMETEORSBACKTOSPACE
  
  Magazine capacity doesn’t make a difference. He could have used up a 30 round magazine in under five minutes or one minute. Who the hell knows. No one. We’re talking about seconds here. He could have tripped over a cord, or had a mosquito strike his eye, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that he had obvious mental issues but thanks to the (closet communist) ACLU his “rights to privacy” prevented Government officials from taking him into custody for evaluation. And due to political correctness, no one called him crazy and petitioned a Court to get him treatment. They didn’t want to offend his parents or hurt his feelings. Instead, we’re here today, debating whether a 10 round magazine could have prevented a madman loose on the streets from committing evil atrocities. Idiots.
  
  Report this comment
- bilcarter
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:08pm
  Sendthemeteors – That’s where you libs always screw up the argument. “Smaller magazines would mean fewer deaths”. That is a ridiculous position. I propose that a lot fewer people would have been shot if an armed law-abiding citizen had been in the vicinity with his own 30-round magazine. Loughner would have been taken down right away.
  
  If you want to prevent another mass murder, you don’t reduce the number of bullets in the perp’s gun, you increase the number of bullets in the guns pointed at the perp.
  
  People who want smaller magazines have never had to pass a firearms qualification under duress. Guess what? You miss a lot of shots when you are stressed out. Even the “easy” ones. Having more bullets is a GOOD thing. What if there are three bad guys and only one good guy with a gun? Again, you want more bullets.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:27pm
  Banned
  You killed me with that one.
  
  BarryMeth
  “The edit was clearly heard”. Uh, what? If you clearly heard something, wouldn’t that preclude editing? Is it a wee bit early to be this far into your cups?
  “We cannot afford free training for teachers”…ring any bells not tanked already?
  
  Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:18pm
Until Colt introduced the .45, everyone was a potential victim. The colt was called the great equalizer for a reason. This is a war on equality against women, the elderly, handicapped and the weak in general. They become easier targets. NO to inequality~!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:46pm
  My 1911 is my favorite side-arm….unfortunately, its a little bulky for conceilment. I’m in the process of deciding on a small conceilable weapon and think I have come up with a good choice. In my state, when it is time for me to make the purchase, I will go through another background check, just like I did when I got my C&C and every other weapon I purchased. It has been said that even though I fill out the form every time to make a purchase, the weapon that I am purchasing is recorded on the form, that the “feds” do not keep that info in a database, but the FFL dealer has to keep it on file. If the FFL goes out of business, all those forms get sent to the feds and then they photograph the forms and archive the paper. Don’t know if I believe that they don’t keep that information in a database, but it is what it is.
  
  But I imagine, if I were to head down to Atlanta, dress like a gang-banger, I could probably find the weapon I want available on the street and purchase it illegally within 4 hours from some low-life criminal….who probably stole it.
  
  Yeah, Universal Background Checks work real well……Georgia requires a background check, but one would be delusional to think the thugs would comply.
  
  Report this comment
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:14pm
Watch this movie and send it viral…Urgent profound message that all must see, hear and know.
http://www.geniusthemovie.com God Bless America and save our very souls.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KernelOfTruth
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:08pm
Good question, Wayne!

Why should law abiding citizens pay for the misdeeds of criminals by giving up a God-given right to defend themselves?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- marybethelizabeth
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:19pm
  No one is asking you to give up the right to defend yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- AlaskaismyEden
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:24pm
  Once again, your full of it, Mary Beth… you start giving up rights and the government keeps on taking, taking, taking them. What part of ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ do you NOT understand. People like you make me sick. You refuse to recognize the fact that gun control DOES NOT save lives: Chicago and other gun control areas are perfect example. You like gun control so much? Move to a country that has it and see just how happy you are. The rest of us will stand by the constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- jeffersonian1776
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:39pm
  MarybethElizabeth, Uh, yes they are. Did you not hear Feinstein’s comment concerning all guns (if she would have had a majority in the Senate), “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in!” Your telling me that none of them want to take away all “personal defence weapons?”
  I thought I’d use the term “personal defence weapons” just like the DHS uses when discussing guns (AR-15′s) in their hands; yet, in our hands–the “civilians”–that is, they are “Assault Rifles.”
  Hey MarybethElizabeth, how large of a hole does an AR-15 make? Is it a military gun, or is it a “military style” gun. How much damage does it do compared to a semiautomatic 12 gauge shotgun, with a slug versus birdshot? What about the “ArmaLiteRifle”-15 (notice it’s not “assault rifle”), compared to .45 ACP? Do you know that the AR-15 makes less than half the size of a hole in a target than the .45 ACP does? Look, if they go after something with success that is no much larger than a BB (yes I know it’s much more powerful than a BB gun, but that is nt my point), then they darn sure can come an get all the rest of the guns that do much more damage, that is my point.
  
  I’m just hoping that you will relay some of “skeet shooting” knowledge and skills for us. You always sound so wise.
  
  Report this comment
Bill Wallace
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:08pm
Who does this guy think he is, to sit in front of a Senate committee and use logic and reasoning to further his point when the Senate lacks either, and understands neither?

He might as well be peeing on a volcano, hoping to stop it from erupting, for all the good logic and reasoning has on a liberal.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Verceofreason
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:07pm
Stupiest comment ever.
Listen Wayney, if they won’t submit to a background check –
then they won’t be able to get a gun – LEGALLY.
At least it’s a barrier. Kerk.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ares338
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:46pm
  You are a complete dumbass boy…..why don’t you just sterilize yourself so you can’t have kids…never mind you’d just abort them!
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:54pm
  I fail to understand what logic your are pursuing. The whole point Wayne is making is that Universal Background Checks do not work because criminals who want a handgun do not want any kind of record of the transaction. In Georgia, background checks are done to purchase a firearm. I have had a background check when I got my C&C, and a seperate background check for each weapon I have purchased. I think its a great way to keep track of law abiding citizens weapons inventory. Makes it real easy to know where to go to confiscate them.
  
  However, I could likely drive to Atlanta and purchase a weapon from some thug on the street within 4 hours of arrival…..and of course, the thug is NOT going to do a background check on me….other than maybe try to ascertain if I’m an undercover cop. No, Universal Background Checks will not help to solve gun violence in the least. And that, Sir…is Waynes point.
  
  Pull your head out of your **** and THINK!
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:54pm
  versesofignorance writes again. One thing we can always count on is for the inability of the stupid to recognize their stupidity.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:51pm
  I said it was a ‘barrier’.
  Not a solution.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:06pm
Dog and pony show. It’s not going anywhere, and likely not even getting a vote in the Senate. Go ahead, we’d LOVE to hammer you in the pro-gun states on your anti-freedom vote. Hear that Claire?! In 6 years people will still remember your vote, we’ll make sure of it. They won’t remember the knee jerk emotional feelings, as it will be replaced by logic. Go ahead, Claire, vote for it. I relish you voting yourself out of office.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- John.Galt
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:14pm
  If you live in Maryland, you have NO HOPE of replacing Clair… too many govt. employees live in the socialist republic of Maryland…
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:18pm
  No greater sacrifice than to go down in order to prop up BHO.
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 10:03pm
  GALT: You think Maryland is bad try living in New Jersey.
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:01pm
what about the 40 that were murdered in Chicago this month already.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:07pm
  7 in one day in a highly restrictive gun control environment.
  
  Report this comment
- effenmontero
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:08pm
  the question you SHOULD be asking is how many of these shootings involved: (1) illegal, (2) convicted felons or (3) members of gangs
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:58pm
  effenmontero, what a cretin! All of the above. Gawd, you can’t fix stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- Sgt_Rock
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:38pm
  @EFFENMONTERO.. You forgot one; (4) Stolen guns.
  
  You are spot on with your assessment. Most of the homicides in Chicago are gang related. Primarily Latino and Black gangs.
  
  Report this comment
Derek01
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:56pm
Good article
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Nevermind
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:55pm
Great so lets do nothing right? Background checks do work and here do you think criminals get guns from? From legal gun owners. Perahps a policy of strict background checks coupled with the owner that makes the purchase be 100% liable for what happens with that gun. Alot of folks form the south come up to northen states and sell legally puchased weaons to criminals, if you dont think that is true i could met you in Baltimore and show you several folks that come upevery month doing just that.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Detroit paperboy
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:03pm
  @nevermind……..yeah right, those criminals will run right out and register all those stolen guns they have…. Probably do it when their on their way to the local welfare, foodstamp, medic aid office…we have guns NOT for hunting deer…..but for hunting welfare zombies………..home invaders , and crack heads…….
  
  Report this comment
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:05pm
  @ Never (had a) Mind
  
  Simple consideration here: anyone that sells firearms to a felon is himself guilty of a felony (Straw purchasing). Rather than being a smart4ss about it, report those parties to the ATF. Stop whining about the problem and fix it. You have the power.
  
  That said, the bulk of criminal attainder in firearms is through illegal means: theft, straw purchasing, or black-market purchasing. Adding extra background checks will not impact these illegal means of firearm transfer, and anyone who believes they will is smoking an otherwise illegal material.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:08pm
  If it’s one small step to stop a criminal from getting a gun, what’s this jerks problem?
  He making the opposition’s point. Submit to a check or get a gun illegally.
  
  Report this comment
- HisNameWasRobertPaulson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:14pm
  @Nevermind – Great suggestion! Let’s take it to its logical conclusion, and hold YOU responsible for whatever happens to a car after you sell it to someone. If that someone kills someone with that car, let’s hold YOU responsible for that! I LOVE IT!!! YOU will be in prison for something YOU did NOT do. Isn’t that awesome! Because THAT is what you are suggesting.
  
  Report this comment
- Joe_The_Patriot
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:20pm
  @NOmind
  If you can show proof positive illegal transactions then why don’t you call the ATF and have the criminals apprehended.. If they are breaking the current law then those people need to prosecuted.
  Lets enforce the laws we have and put the criminals in jail.. Pretty simple….
  
  We the people trusted to gov’t to take money out our pay checks and put it into a social security fund that was supposed to be held for our retirement and they squandered it and screwed it up… I’m not going to trust the federal gov’t to keep good acctounting records of who has what gun.. I can see a lot of innocent people being wrongfully accused and convicted of crimes they didn’t commit because the gov’t screwed it up… NO THANKS
  
  Report this comment
- sickofthelibs
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:52pm
  Well then, said folks are breaking the law and as a matter of fact, you not turning them in for selling to criminals is aiding and abetting.. Ummm let’s try enforcing what’s on the books now..and apparently you could help there!
  
  Report this comment
- Sgt_Rock
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:02pm
  Well, you are right.. criminals DO get guns from legal gun owners…they STEAL them!!! So perhaps we should have burglars submit to a background check when they are about to go out and caper. Just have them call in and see if it is legal for them to possess a gun after they steal it…. How naive is that!
  
  La Pierre isn’t making an argument against background checks… he is just pointing out that criminals don’t buy their guns…so what good does a background check do to catch them. I do about 100 background checks a year on potential gun owners for concealed pistol permits. I find maybe one person a year who doesn’t qualify for the permit, usually because of a domestic violence arrest. Yet our cops are taking guns from felons every day…stolen guns.
  
  Report this comment
PANAPAL
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:55pm
I dont know y people dont take some personal responsibilty for thier own safety and at least find out who the felons are in the area they live.
http://www.felonspy.com/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RightUnite
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:14pm
  And what will you do with the knowledge??
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:43pm
  And make sure their kids cant unlock the gun cabinet
  And that they are not in an abusive relationship
  And that no one in the house suffers from depression.
  
  Report this comment
- JerseyGuy
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:20am
  I need to chime in here. A woman was murdered last week in Philly. She was scheduled to testify as an eyewitness in a shooting. I am certain that the neighbors in Philly, Chicago, et.al. know who is doing these shootings…but to speak up and be a “snitch” is a virtual death sentence; especially if the defendant plea bargains and is out in 6-months. Fear is a powerful thing.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:54pm
What’s really disturbing me about this debate is how many ‘conservatives’ are talking about mental illness identification being part of the solution. That’s BS! It just gives the state another tool to disarm us using the subjective opinion using pseudo scientists that they train and license in the first place.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:10pm
  Mental illness is labile, subject to change with each edition of the DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
  
  If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done for stressed vets, alleged abusers and, now, the mentally ill.
  
  Good people are armed with wits, guns and the Truth. MOLON LABE Lord of Lies Fly guy
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:15pm
  Yes. You go to the doc. for a cold or sore thumb.
  This doc doesn’t like your looks and starts asking strange questions like, do you like hunting or do you watch hunting shows. Then he writes in his Obamacare folder that you’re a potential pyscho and potential gun owner. A few months later, you get a visit by FBI agents. Give’em up or go to jail.
  With that said, this is all a ‘Big Distraction’ to keep Congress from looking into the BENGHAZI gun running, by the WH, to further Saudi Arabia’s M. East agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- Rowgue
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:57pm
  The whole point is we have to get away from the pseudo science and back to common sense with mental issues. Nobody needed a quack doctor to diagnose any of the individuals that have been involved in any of the most recent mass shooting incidents. They were all obviously mentally compromised. In almost every case the perpetrators families and friends had been begging for and trying to get them help for years prior. Some being terrified of their own child or friend and not being secretive about it.
  
  Besides who said the mental facilities should be run by the government?
  
  Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:53pm
You would make a bigger impact if you would have given your position with some speech. Then after the speech, stood up as a group, looked this group of lawmakers in the eye, and said:

“Molon Labe”

then walked out without looking back.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:03pm
  What an image. If only.
  
  Report this comment
Beavis.45
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:51pm
Recently rejoined the NRA after letting it lapse for a few years. I apologize for my complacency. Also had my son join. There is no more important right than the right to be able to defend yourself and your family. In fact it is more than a right, it is our responsibility! The government will NEVER take this away from us. They have no idea what they are about to stir up. None.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:00pm
  BEAVIS.45, From somebody who became a life time member back in the early ’80s at the urging of my father for good reason, I had my time of not paying attention for a while too. Good for you, and may God bless for your decision.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:27pm
  They bought up over 600 million hollow points last year, before the rigged election. They have a clue, but considering the stupidity of the average gov. worker, that’s about all.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:44pm
  Did ya get the new discounted rate?
  To tilt the nimbers
  
  Report this comment
Joe_The_Patriot
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:48pm
I thinks its disgraceful the way the left paraded giffords up there.. The left has no shame.. They’re taking a tragic event and a seriously injured woman who was shot by a total wack job and are using it to try take away our right to bear arms…

Wayne is 100% correct.. criminals do not follow the law and the only people in which more gun control measures will affect are the law abiding citizen….

I highly enjoy my AR-15, it’s a ton of fun to shoot, highly accurate and a great choice for competitive timed shooting events, dueling tree competition and with a 22 conversion great for plinking and practice..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- floridaborn
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:57pm
  I thought that about Giffords at first too, but then realized she did it willingly….she is part of the left!
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:31pm
  They also ‘used’ her to vote for the debt deal because they weren’t sure they had the votes. She retired right after that fraudulant vote. They would sell their grandmothers into prostitution.
  
  Report this comment
- ares338
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:49pm
  She was part of the left before she was shot and what’s left of her still is. Sad but true.
  
  Report this comment
- mac410
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:43pm
  I heard Kelly say time after time that he and Gabby were gun owners and gun users. Said it so many times that they must have been on the sheet of talking points he was reading from.
  
  I sure wish someone would have asked him if he thought that Gabby was mentally competent to own a gun. Also if he had reported her to the National Background Check system.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:54pm
  Oh I know, Next they’ll be digging up those 6 year olds.
  And showing films of their funerals.
  Big changes are a coming folks.
  
  Report this comment
beardedjesse
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:46pm
The point he made about criminals obviously not caring about background checks and/or other laws on the books is a good one. Obama is again talking out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about him wanting a “level playing field” for everyone…Well, if his proposal calls for taking some of the same weapons away from me (a law abiding gun owner) that a criminal would, no doubt, use on me if given the opportunity…then how is that a level playing field? This just proves that Libs are for a so-called level playing field if & only if it serves to benefit their political agenda(s). I think ultimately, they seek to use the “chip away” technique until ultimately they think that one day they can confiscate all guns. Hell, Feinstein & some other brilliance from the Left has already said they would do something like that if given the power/votes. There has been a tape released from 1995 of Feinstein saying that if it was up to her, all of them would be taken from everyone in this country. Someone has to stop that kind of thinking because it is completely backwards from what is common sense. At the end of the day, Feinstein, Obama, Biden & whoever else from the government can stand up on a platform & wave their hands around in the air trying to make the biggest scene they can, playing on emotions & the stupidity of the constituents that voted for them, but I will not be complying with any of it. They can come try.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:46pm
President must not have checked the records on Bill Ayres, Van Jones and other ones he put in office. However, if he did why did he hire them? Leave the 2nd Amendment alone. If Mayor Bloomberg and all the other government employees can’t do without protection then why should our families?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:51pm
  Your life, according to government, is expendable. Political lives, according to government, must be protected.
  
  Sad but true.
  
  Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:45pm
Is it really that difficult to understand that criminals do not comply with laws? Rather than spending our money on researching shrimps on treadmills, perhaps some money could be spent on discovery why liberals are so damn stupid. Oh never mind… I don’t care.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:45pm
Let’s amend the Constitution so that whatever limit you put on 1 of the Bill of Rights you put on all of them.

“Do I really need an AR-15?”

“Do you really need pornography”

Seems fair.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:48pm
  I think our two party system already accomplishes that.
  
  Report this comment
AmericanStrega
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:41pm
Mr. LaPierre is correct. But, all the pro-second amendment groups and average American citizens who are pro-second amendment and use their voices will never be considered. The federal government has their agenda and will not be swayed from it. We can talk until we’re blue in the face and nothing will change. The average pro-second amendment Americans are going to have to make some really tough choices here in the near future. The government IS going to try and disarm you. What are you going to do about it? Sure, we can say they will not take our guns from us and we will fight them as they come house to house to confiscate our guns and we’ll take a few of them with us when they kill us, but when it comes down to brass-tacks, how many of us will really do it? My feeling is I will fight and probably be killed. But, if they someway take my husband and use him as leverage for me to give up my guns, will I really fight? That question is really hard to answer when I know he may be taken and made to pay for my “infraction” against the government. See, they have us by the short-hairs. Unless we can find a way to be a well coordinated fighting force against them. They’ll use our families, and any other means, to disarm us. Don’t think for a second they’ll “play fair”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:49pm
  It will not take many incidents of them holding uninvolved persons to really ramp up resistance. Also, consider that they will probably go unopposed for a few days on collection efforts, but the first siege action on the news will galvanize resistance.
  
  Report this comment
- Joe_The_Patriot
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:00pm
  I see it happening like this… They will do it when the schools are in session, they will lock down the schools, they will shut down communications. Those who have kids in school will have their kids used as a leveraging tool.. the rest will be taken by force or they’ll be waiting for you at your house when you come home from work…things will get ugly and martial law will be declared… among other tactics these are very feasible.. look at what they did during Katrina… This gov’t CANNOT be trusted look how they have stripped our rights one after the other…
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:30pm
  Joe, Rifle and American
  Who will come for them? The National Guard? (my friends) The FBI? (not enough of them)
  I do not see the US Military raiding our homes for weapons. Don’t get me wrong, I am very concerned and am proud of our PA Legislature inroducing PA Bill 357 http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfmsyear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=0357
  I just do not see my local police force, sherrifs office, constables, or prison guards doing this. I want to know who to prepare to for and how well they will be trained and will they be lethal and or ready to or be killed?
  What do you think????
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:44pm
  You may be assuming too many people are cowards. I don’t think so. They’re buying more guns than ever. We outnumber them. This scenario didn’t exist in Russia in 1917. Peasants didn’t have guns. This week, a cop was shot here in a drug raid. Multiply that by the millions of gun owners. If they try extortion, people will understand anarchy has arrived and will act accordingly. If my family was taken, I’d assume they were already dead or would be killed. Russia proved this rule 90 yrs ago. Then I’d look to even the score.
  Benghazi is what matters here. This is their(congress) way of distracting everyone.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:44pm
  There are none so blind as those who will not see.
  
  Report this comment
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:45pm
  PA Patriot
  
  Perfectly legit question. Remember that this will be a numbers game — the likelihood that everyone will give up their guns is 0, the likelihood that 50 percent will give up their guns voluntarily is very high (at least 80 percent that half will play the proper sheeple). If they can get half to give up their guns, they can marginalize and intimidate the other half until someone snaps, then they clamp down with the support of the media.
  
  As to whom will do the disarming, the initial push will be voluntarily turn in your guns. After that, the operation will be handled by the ATF, FBI, DoJ, DHS, Federal Marshalls, with a sprinkling of sycophants of other departments. Force of numbers will be used, and you will see a few repeats of Ruby Ridge and Waco for them to drive home the point. It becomes a game of psychology, who is more willing to die to get their job done, all the while the Press will be cheerleading for the gun-grabbers.
  
  They win by way of incremental stripping. You cannot eat an elephant in one bite, you must take it out in little nibbles. I will leave methods of defense to other, more qualified persons.
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:52pm
  Ohio,
  Makes sense. But as my neighbor to the west, you know that there are many MANY here in central PA that will never volunteer their firearms to the Feds. I think your logic has traction in the burbs, but not here.
  
  Report this comment
MDECKER
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:40pm
Wayne LaPierre spoke Greek to these numbskulls in the Senate today. There wasn’t anything he said that registered in their feeble minds.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:47pm
  Zip. Their minds were made before any “hearings”. We shall see. Something about a tree needing to be watered on occasion-
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 2:51pm
  They have circled the wagons around their annoited one, BHO. They don’t care how foolish they look, as long as he furthers Saudi Arabia’s agenda and. in the process, continue to prop up the Petro Dollar.
  Next stop, Tehran.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:47pm
  Mr or Ma MDECKER,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Every time Wayne the Flaming Frenchman speaks, an angel gets shot in the head.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:40pm
Come on you criminals, play ball. We put the rules out and you have to play by them. Be fair, stop cheating, unless you join a union, then we will let you cheat. Come on, get cereal.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:46pm
  I’ll take a bowl of Lucky Charms, if you will.
  
  Report this comment
OhioRifleman
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:36pm
It makes too much sense. Liberals will shrug it off because it just does not register that criminals, by definition, DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

Glad I signed up for the NRA the week after Obama was elected the first time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 1:35pm
He has a good point. Only the law abiding abide the law.

Gun regulation is as effective as regulation of heroin and cocaine and all malum prohibidum.

Good people are armed with wits, guns and the Truth. MOLON LABE Lord of Lies, Lord of Flies

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:03am
  Although from the Big Legowski, the Dude abides.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.