Not only did Mr. Wayne LaPierre, President and CEO of the National Rifle Association, double down on his statements from Friday, but in doing so envisioned a truly dark future for America. He once again emphasized a need for a policeman in every school and a national database of the mentally ill and that we can keep those 'lunatics' as he called them off the street and from being able to obtain firearms.
The eventual result is a police state where armed guards are every where and every one is plugged into one database or another. David Gregory was unable to get any sort of admission from the NRA chief that guns play any role in the epidemic of mass violence. Because Mr. LaPierre didn't answer Mr. Gregory's question about his statement and his answers on the program today are the ultimate dodge in not acknowledging guns, we will have to.
His answer was the ultimate dodge, and what he is really saying is that "I, Wayne LaPierre, let Pandora out of her box when it comes to guns, so just give it up ever trying to legislate against access." He never even took the perspective of trying to get the gun out of the bad guy's hands in the first place as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggested.
His perspective is the ultimate statement of denial, like an addiction, that everything else - the 'media machine' for example - is to blame (or plays a part) except my own view. It's a very obvious psychology. Even when presented with Mr. Gregory's magazine visuals, Mr. LaPierre ultimately stated that legislation on limiting capacity simply won't work and that the NRA wouldn't support it. Not to mention that he also feels that the assault weapons ban, spearheaded by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), is a "phony" piece of legislation that does not work.
Having outlined all that, we don't believe that heavily legislating gun ownership is the sole solution, but let's face it, it's a large part - the largest part - of the equation. So given Mr. LaPierre's sentiment that we should try anything to stop these kinds of mass-murder tragedies except trying to alter people's access to all kinds of guns, essentially eliminates him from the conversation in general.
Also, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was wrong when he said that limiting magazine capacity infringed on people's second amendment rights. Capacity is capability and by that rationale, one could own a tank and drive it around or should have that right. His answers were not even the least bit thoughtful. Conversely, Senator Lindsay Graham's (R-SC) rudimentary logic is a better example. He owns an AR-15 and shouldn't be denied the right to buy another one. He posed it as a question of would it hypothetically make America safer if he didn't have it, he explained. Fine, but our question is always - what do you need it for? After that, the Republican Senator basically shut down any compromise of legislating guns or ammunition. From Senator Schumer's tone, which pretty much mirrors the rest of the Democratic part of the Senate is that he knows there won't be heavy legislation on assault weapons or magazine capacity so he uses words like 'holistic approach' and 'compromise' but Republicans will not have it. And as this gets drawn out, once again, less will be done - we predict very little.
In Mr. LaPierre's equation, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one, and the first reaction that everyone has is why not eliminate guns from the equation all together? Also, implied in there is the solution of adding more guns into society to curb the violence. Chuck Todd pointed out if the White House agreed with the strategy of putting a policeman in every school, it could be something that the NRA and the Administration could get together on, but that's a difficult stretch, not likely. And Republicans' won't give any ground politically on guns, metaphorically sticking to them.
Where Republicans will be less successful standing their ground is in the 'fiscal cliff' negotiations, and we agree with Chuck Todd on the point that the President should go after the big deal one more time because one, they are almost at a deal point, and two, if they only go for the small deal then they'll cede too much political ground to the Republicans when they don't have to. For us, the American public, we want the long-term contract, this season to season stuff (to use the sports metaphor) is exhausting.
And what's also exhausting are cheap shots from Senators thrown at the President like the one Lindsay Graham lobbed today saying that the President has been a pathetic fiscal leader, when the lack of leadership is being keenly exemplified by the Speaker of the House, who conducted a vote the other night - his Plan B - and he didn't have the votes. We love how Andrea Mitchell summed it up - effective leaders in the House need to know how to count. Not to mention that Senator Graham simply doesn't understand the repercussions of his statement when he threatens to use the debt ceiling as leverage in negotiations. The stock market reacts negatively to those types of statements. Not to mention that it predicts that we will go off the so-called 'fiscal cliff' because if the deal were to get done, the debt ceiling debate becomes a non-issue.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
12.23.12: The Lead Up
Just some thoughts leading up to today's interview Meet The Press with the President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre...
In the two days since he gave what was billed as a news conference, but was actually a macabre infomercial, Mr. LaPierre has come under tremendous fire so today will absolutely be must see TV. We predict that he will double down today on his statements that he made Friday as it's only natural for someone to do so when he has backed himself into such a tight corner.
So much has been said in the past two days since Mr. LaPierre gave his speech, mostly commenting on his statement that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," and his proposed to put a policeman in every school.
Overall, the speech was very sad as Mr. LaPierre listed various causes - video games, Hollywood - of why these mass shooting occur, but like an addict he is in denial. He is addicted to a lie, and that lie is that the presence of so many guns in our society isn't detrimental to it.
We tried to figure out some kind of insight that Mr. LaPierre might have, and the only thing we can think of is that unlike the general public who just know that many people use many guns to kill other people, he has a more thorough knowledge of weaponry and therefore has a greater, traditional respect for guns. Obviously something that didn't come across. The reason it didn't come across is because those feelings are, in fact, not there. When Mr. LaPierre suggested that we inject more guns into the equation as a solution instead of less or that there should be any changes to existing laws or that there should be mandatory background checks for all purchases, he not only didn't show respect for the power of the gun, but also didn't show any respect to the people who were listening to him - all of us.
It should be quite an interview.
In the two days since he gave what was billed as a news conference, but was actually a macabre infomercial, Mr. LaPierre has come under tremendous fire so today will absolutely be must see TV. We predict that he will double down today on his statements that he made Friday as it's only natural for someone to do so when he has backed himself into such a tight corner.
So much has been said in the past two days since Mr. LaPierre gave his speech, mostly commenting on his statement that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," and his proposed to put a policeman in every school.
Overall, the speech was very sad as Mr. LaPierre listed various causes - video games, Hollywood - of why these mass shooting occur, but like an addict he is in denial. He is addicted to a lie, and that lie is that the presence of so many guns in our society isn't detrimental to it.
We tried to figure out some kind of insight that Mr. LaPierre might have, and the only thing we can think of is that unlike the general public who just know that many people use many guns to kill other people, he has a more thorough knowledge of weaponry and therefore has a greater, traditional respect for guns. Obviously something that didn't come across. The reason it didn't come across is because those feelings are, in fact, not there. When Mr. LaPierre suggested that we inject more guns into the equation as a solution instead of less or that there should be any changes to existing laws or that there should be mandatory background checks for all purchases, he not only didn't show respect for the power of the gun, but also didn't show any respect to the people who were listening to him - all of us.
It should be quite an interview.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
12.16.12: Today' Meet The Press Sandy Hook Elementary Special Coverage (Column Untitled)
Twenty children, ages six and seven, and 6 adults are dead. This is the horrible reality that we're faced with at this moment, trying to find any reason in the utterly unreasonable. It's our hearts that all rest heavier in our tightened chests that place all of us in Newtown, CT at Sandy Hook Elementary.
It is also the angry frustration in repeatedly asking the question, how many more times is this going to happen? A large part of this frustration, articulated most clearly by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is due to the fact that it is all too easy to obtain guns in America, specifically assault-type weapons and the large capacity magazines that go with them. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) called them 'weapons of war' that are on our streets. To this point, the senator offered a news item in as much as that she will be introducing a bill on the first day of the new Congressional session that will call for the ban on assault weapons. Of course there will be opposition to such a bill but as AFT President Randi Weingarten said, this is a tipping point for the nation and the direction of the conversation, and when presented with twenty names and ages those who oppose such a bill will have to take the temperature of their heart.
Mr. Bill Bennett, former Education Secretary, representing a conservative view certainly stood on a weak platform in defending 'pro-gun' views [The reason for the quotations is that it is a simplified descriptor and doesn't fully encompass an individual's or entity's viewpoint.], one of which proposed during the program that there should be someone in the school with access to guns in such an event. The base flaw in this argument is that bringing more guns into the situation is the solution when really the goal is to eliminate guns from the equation. However, being able to bring guns into more situations is happening on all levels in this country. The President made a genuinely tearful statement on Friday about the shooting, but he has signed laws to allow guns into national parks and on Amtrak as noted by Mayor Bloomberg. Mr. Gregory noted that when the Democrats passed the previous assault weapon legislation that they paid a political price for doing so, losing seats. However, that was in 1994 and since then circumstances have changed dramatically over those years with more mass shootings more frequently culminating in Friday's tragedy.
But let's be clear, this event will change things. Frankly, Republicans in the House will have a difficult time defending unregulated gun ownership in the face of these events, that are piling up. To that point, New York Times columnist David Brooks thought that the New York City mayor would be the wrong person to spearhead firearm regulation because of the very frustration that Mr. Bloomberg shows for any other point of view, and because he would spend mass sums of money to counter the National Rifle Association's 'pro-gun' arguments, an organization that he clearly called out during his interview challenging the organization's financial resources and it's actual power versus its perceived power.
Mr. Bennett couldn't hold up his argument to hold off the heaviness that was palpable in the studio that was evident even through a television screen. Everyone has been psychologically effected by this and while some would say that you need to distance yourself mentally before you decide to start legislating or changing things, but that would be the wrong time. In terms of Congress and legislating, they need to have it fresh in their minds as to why they are discussing what they are in terms of gun laws. Mr. Bennett also said that he wasn't sure how effective the assault weapons ban was when it was passed as if to bring up a speculative air that it is unnecessary - a passive aggressive argument that was ineffective.
The other part of the equation is our overall attitude toward mental health and its treatment. But the fact is that if you are a person who has taken medication for mental health and you put it out there for public consumption, you will be stigmatized. It's the unfortunate fact of the matter, but we need to step up the awareness effort and bring the discussion out so if anything, this could be a big step in that process. We've started to embrace and accept the notion a bit with the military and our soldiers coming home - the post-traumatic stress - so we are ready as a society to open up about it.
In the grieving process and dialogue, of which today's program was a part, Mr. Gregory mentioned that they reached out to the 31 'pro-gun' Senators and none would accept the invitation to speak on the program. That none of them could or would speak on the issue presumably because they are afraid of answering questions they find difficult makes us ask, why are you a public figure in the first place? Only lead when you want and not when the situation demands? Frankly, we find it reprehensible. This is the time we need to hear from them, especially them to help with reconciliation.
During the program, it was mentioned that in the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora, CO the state legislature called for more education, which standing by itself is a bit flippant, but when you heard Ms. Weingarten say that they have frameworks in place for more guidance and wrap around programs, but haven't been implemented because of budget cuts predominantly initiated from the right side of the aisle, we think about what they say on the debt crisis, and that is we're failing our kids in the future. However, aren't we failing them right now by not providing as many resources as we could?
Lastly, one question that Mayor Bloomberg asked rhetorically is sticking with us because we can see no rational reason for the answer to be 'yes,' and that is - do we need guns everywhere? Because tragically, they are.
Round Table: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); NY Times columnist David Brooks; President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten; Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; and Sociologist Michael Eric Dyson.
It is also the angry frustration in repeatedly asking the question, how many more times is this going to happen? A large part of this frustration, articulated most clearly by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is due to the fact that it is all too easy to obtain guns in America, specifically assault-type weapons and the large capacity magazines that go with them. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) called them 'weapons of war' that are on our streets. To this point, the senator offered a news item in as much as that she will be introducing a bill on the first day of the new Congressional session that will call for the ban on assault weapons. Of course there will be opposition to such a bill but as AFT President Randi Weingarten said, this is a tipping point for the nation and the direction of the conversation, and when presented with twenty names and ages those who oppose such a bill will have to take the temperature of their heart.
Mr. Bill Bennett, former Education Secretary, representing a conservative view certainly stood on a weak platform in defending 'pro-gun' views [The reason for the quotations is that it is a simplified descriptor and doesn't fully encompass an individual's or entity's viewpoint.], one of which proposed during the program that there should be someone in the school with access to guns in such an event. The base flaw in this argument is that bringing more guns into the situation is the solution when really the goal is to eliminate guns from the equation. However, being able to bring guns into more situations is happening on all levels in this country. The President made a genuinely tearful statement on Friday about the shooting, but he has signed laws to allow guns into national parks and on Amtrak as noted by Mayor Bloomberg. Mr. Gregory noted that when the Democrats passed the previous assault weapon legislation that they paid a political price for doing so, losing seats. However, that was in 1994 and since then circumstances have changed dramatically over those years with more mass shootings more frequently culminating in Friday's tragedy.
But let's be clear, this event will change things. Frankly, Republicans in the House will have a difficult time defending unregulated gun ownership in the face of these events, that are piling up. To that point, New York Times columnist David Brooks thought that the New York City mayor would be the wrong person to spearhead firearm regulation because of the very frustration that Mr. Bloomberg shows for any other point of view, and because he would spend mass sums of money to counter the National Rifle Association's 'pro-gun' arguments, an organization that he clearly called out during his interview challenging the organization's financial resources and it's actual power versus its perceived power.
Mr. Bennett couldn't hold up his argument to hold off the heaviness that was palpable in the studio that was evident even through a television screen. Everyone has been psychologically effected by this and while some would say that you need to distance yourself mentally before you decide to start legislating or changing things, but that would be the wrong time. In terms of Congress and legislating, they need to have it fresh in their minds as to why they are discussing what they are in terms of gun laws. Mr. Bennett also said that he wasn't sure how effective the assault weapons ban was when it was passed as if to bring up a speculative air that it is unnecessary - a passive aggressive argument that was ineffective.
The other part of the equation is our overall attitude toward mental health and its treatment. But the fact is that if you are a person who has taken medication for mental health and you put it out there for public consumption, you will be stigmatized. It's the unfortunate fact of the matter, but we need to step up the awareness effort and bring the discussion out so if anything, this could be a big step in that process. We've started to embrace and accept the notion a bit with the military and our soldiers coming home - the post-traumatic stress - so we are ready as a society to open up about it.
In the grieving process and dialogue, of which today's program was a part, Mr. Gregory mentioned that they reached out to the 31 'pro-gun' Senators and none would accept the invitation to speak on the program. That none of them could or would speak on the issue presumably because they are afraid of answering questions they find difficult makes us ask, why are you a public figure in the first place? Only lead when you want and not when the situation demands? Frankly, we find it reprehensible. This is the time we need to hear from them, especially them to help with reconciliation.
During the program, it was mentioned that in the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora, CO the state legislature called for more education, which standing by itself is a bit flippant, but when you heard Ms. Weingarten say that they have frameworks in place for more guidance and wrap around programs, but haven't been implemented because of budget cuts predominantly initiated from the right side of the aisle, we think about what they say on the debt crisis, and that is we're failing our kids in the future. However, aren't we failing them right now by not providing as many resources as we could?
Lastly, one question that Mayor Bloomberg asked rhetorically is sticking with us because we can see no rational reason for the answer to be 'yes,' and that is - do we need guns everywhere? Because tragically, they are.
Round Table: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); NY Times columnist David Brooks; President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten; Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; and Sociologist Michael Eric Dyson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)