LaPierre: 'How Many Bostonians Wish They Had A Gun Two Weeks Ago?'

[michigandem58]

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre sparked controversy on Saturday when he asked, "How many Bostonians wish they had a gun two weeks ago?"

The comments came in the middle of his speech at the annual NRA members meeting in Houston, Texas.

LaPierre explained that during the Boston lockdown that took place while police were chasing the bombing suspects, "frightened citizens [were] sheltered in place with no means to defend themselves."

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/wayne-lapierre-boston-marathon-bombings-guns-nra_n_3215449.html

[hunter]

1. I don't know. But I'm glad they didn't.

Fearful people with guns are dangerous.

Some innocent bystander or a police officer searching for the suspects could have been shot.

[Warpy]

77. Boston is a pretty antigun city

People are sick to death of punks with guns.

That being said, nobody knew those bags were bombs until they blew up and then the brothers weren't anywhere near them. What good could a gun possibly have done anyone?

LaPierre obviously needs his screws tightened.

[LiberalFighter]

99. Too many (if not most of them) are not sane enough.

He probably thinks they could back in time and mow them down with a machine gun.

[freshwest]

2. Where I live, like Boston, we pay people to do that for us. No thanks, Wayne.

[Electric Monk]

3. Yeah Wayne, wouldn't it have been awesome to have a free for all gunfight after those bombs went off

[freshwest]

106. Yup. A target rich environment! Kill 'em all, let Gawd sort 'em out!

[kelliekat44]

157. I really have to check my thinking about this man and gun-lovers...my thoughts are evil. nt

[markiv]

4. yup - just shoot at unidentified bomb suspects, after the bombs went off

nra needs a new spokesman

[Skip Intro]

5. Valid question. I bet the answer is most of them.

Not to shoot wildly at shadows, but if you got a person so dangerous the entire city is shut down, and you're ordered to stay in your home, what do you do if the perp busts down your back door - ask him to sit and wait quietly until you can get the cops there?

[Electric Monk]

8. It turned out that Dzhokhar wasn't even armed, just running away and hiding, though

[Skip Intro]

11. Luckily it did turn out that way.

Sadly, it didn't turn out that way for these victims:

Police: Man Shot, Killed in Home Invasion in Southeast Houston
News 92 FM-3 hours ago
Police say a man was shot and killed during a home invasion at a southeast Houston apartment complex overnight. Channel 13 reports it ...

Amarillo police identify man killed during home invasion robbery
LubbockOnline.com-May 2, 2013
Amarillo police have taped off a house in the 800 block of South Kentucky Street while they investigate a shooting on Wednesday, May 1, 2013.

Man Killed During Md. Home Invasion Identified
W*USA 9-Apr 30, 2013
Investigators believe the stabbing took place at the Boddie's home during a home invasion in the 3800 block of Regency Park Court with a ...

Man Killed in Apparent Home Invasion Stabbing
NBC4 Washington-Apr 29, 2013
A man whose friend crashed a vehicle while taking him to the hospital with several stab wounds Monday afternoon has died. News4's Shomari ...

James 'Snoop' Johnson accused of killing Pekin man during home ...
Peoria Journal Star-Apr 30, 2013
James “Snoop” Johnson is biracial, and it was a darker-skinned man whom Justin Siebenthal's mother saw firing the gunshots that killed her ...
abc11.com

Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner
Fox News-Apr 13, 2013
Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner. Fayetteville Police tell ...
WRTV Indianapolis

Teen pleads guilty to murder in deadly home invasion
ABC 57 News-by Melissa Hudson-May 2, 2013
ELKHART, Ind. – The teenager charged in the death of 76-year-old Norma Hopper, who was killed during a home invasion, pleaded guilty ...
WXIA-TV

Man gets death for killing elderly man during home invasion
Chronicle-Telegram-Apr 26, 2013
MEDINA — Convicted murderer Steven Cepec was sentenced to death Thursday for killing a 73-year-old Chatham Township man during a ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=killed+home+invasion&oq=killed+home+invasion&gs_l=serp.3...61014.67794.0.67968.32.26.5.0.0.0.134.2267.19j7.26.0...0.0...1c.1.12.serp._xHZgylGJw0
--------

Again, I'll bet the majority of those locked in their homes who didn't have a means of self-protection wished they had.

Now, you surely have the right to have a gun in your home or not, but you don't have the right to tell me that I may or may not. Sorry.

[Electric Monk]

13. I also have the right to tell you that it's a dumb thing to do, and increases the chances of your

being killed by firearms by 72%, but yes, you do still have the right to act dumb if you want to. Because FREEDOM! Duh!

[Skip Intro]

14. rofl

yes, posting an image means you are correct, at least in Electric Monk land.

Sorry the idea of freedom and people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions is so disquieting to you.

[Electric Monk]

15. I like cjeek dgg

[Skip Intro]

17. These intelligent conversations with you are quite invigorating.

:yawn:

You just don't know what to do without Meta, do you?

How's that purge list of yours coming, btw?

[Electric Monk]

19. Actually, since you bring it up, 4 of the 5 I listed have since been shitcanned. Here's the latest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=171399&sub=trans

[Skip Intro]

23. 3 questions:

Was that the list a board admin called a witch hunt and asked you not to associate with his name? The one you said leaving my name off of was a mistake?

Or is this a different list?

And do you find it healthy to obsess about an anonymous message board to the degree that you create lists of users you'd like to see banned?

[Electric Monk]

31. Re-read this subthread. You're the one who started making it personal (post #14).

[BainsBane]

30. good job

Which others?

[freshwest]

108. Oooooh, EarlG is the greatest! Reason given:

Aside from the avalanche of NRA talking points, holdencaufield seems borderline aroused by armed insurrection fantasies.



My HERO!!

[CreekDog]

148. You alerted your own thread about me, you shouldn't be criticizing anybody here.

you have no room to talk.

just a few months ago:

you started a thread calling me out in Meta, by name.

after you started getting called out yourself in that thread, you alerted on yourself

the content of your alert showed that you were pretending to be someone else, and someone who liked me, which you don't, obviously.

so don't even lecture anybody on how to behave.

[freshwest]

104. Thank God I printed that epic before Meta shut down. Still good for a belly laugh.

[Electric Monk]

105. I wish I'd saved a copy :( It didn't occur to me that meta might be disappeared. nt

[freshwest]

107. It started the night of the Mayan Apocalypse and lasted 2 days. 321 posts.

Creek Dog is Stalking Skip Intro was the title I gave it. I thought it was running along just fine and was sorry to see the party end. Sigh.

[Walk away]

82. That is your idea of freedom? Guns?

I hope that you realize that as time goes on, more and more people will shun you for owning one. The gun culture has gone too far and people are waking up to an America with a fringe group of people who think it's just great to give their seven year old children real guns and bullets.

Most people think that is crazy and their numbers are growing. Just like slavery and segregation, gun ownership will be marginalized.

[LiberalFighter]

100. The problem is that too many people (would) make bad decisions that could harm others.

And just because people think for themselves doesn't mean their decision should be be followed when their is the issue of the harm it may caused.

[LanternWaste]

120. I'd re-frame the answer I'd been given into something complete different too

"hinking for themselves and making their own decisions is so disquieting to you..."

I'd re-frame the answer I'd been given into something complete different too if I had nothing else except bumper-stickers and la Pierre quotes to fall back on.

[Skip Intro]

133. My words come from me. No bumperstickers or talking points.

What I say comes from me.

A foreign concept to a few here, it would seem.

[rl6214]

113. Got a link to that 72%?

[Electric Monk]

123. Here's where that quoted % came from, I think

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
Which cites
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502

[Pholus]

16. Yes they died wishing for guns...

because gun huggers denied them the chance to have the problem mitigated beforehand, with reasonable background checks. Awesome!

So all of us sink to the level of frontier justice. USA! USA! USA!

[Skip Intro]

22. They probably did.

I guess explaining to the perps (who couldn't give a damn less about what gun laws are passed), that they were safer without a gun in their home didn't work.

It is fantasy that increased background checks (and the gun grabbing push was for much much more that that) would make gun violence disappear.

How strict are the gun laws in Chicago?

All firearms must be registered and licensed. Safety courses are required. Background checks including fingerprinting are required. "Assault weapons" are banned. Gun sales in Chicago are banned. Magazines are limited to 12 rounds. Residents must immediately report stolen or lost firearms.

All "common sense gun control," right?

How has that worked out?

Over 500 murdered last year.

Check this headline from two days ago:

-------
3 dead, 17 wounded in shootings across Chicago overnight

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430_1_6800-block-stroger-hospital-23-year-old-man

At least three people were killed and 17 wounded in shootings across Chicago overnight as the city saw its warmest weather in seven months.

In one of the fatal shootings, three men were shot in a parking lot across the street from the headquarters of the UIC Police Department, police said. The shooting happened around 10:40 p.m. in the 1000 block of West Maxwell Street, Police News Affairs Officer Amina Greer said
--------

That is reality.

None of those stringent laws stopped any of those murders, any of those shootings.

And the big idea is to implement such stringent laws across the nation?

No, won't happen. It will fail every time. As it should.

Don't want a gun in your home? Don't have one.

But who the hell are you to try to make that decision for me?

My rights, my freedom, don't come from you.

Sorry.

[billh58]

32. Your support for

the right-wing NRA, and it's gun manufacturer shill Wayne LaPierre, is duly noted. Thanks so much for your input, and I'm sure that your Gungeon buddies and Uncle Wayne are so very proud of you.

I look forward to the day when you big, brave, RKBA protectors-of-all-freedoms, will stand up to our mean old Democratic Party and silence the "grabbers" once and for all.

[Pholus]

55. What a big, unfounded, assertion there sparky!

I'm amused how you gunners love to describe yourselves as the "nonemotional, logical" ones even as you spew "truthiness" filled homilies such as this. So okay, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, Genius. You pointed at a year with 500 "successful" murders as proof that gun laws "fail every time." Of course, according to Crain's Chicago Business there were 7,400 illegal guns seized in the same period of time. Your assertion is unfounded but provable -- all you have to do is convincingly show that those 7,400 guns would not have increased the number of murders and it's YOU FTW!!!!! You can't of course. That's why you're full of bullshit here.

But I can't stop marveling at your your inductive masterpiece. It's the gundamentalist gift that just keeps on giving! Intellectual laziness is only my first charge against you. The second charge, sir, is nihilism. So let me trivially extend your argument to show you why it is unworthy of a passing score even in an InstandDegrees.com freshman comp class.

So you just took a list of murders and used them as proof that stringent gun laws don't work.

Similar arguments can be made:

So a handful of successful tax cheats mean tax laws fail, right?

And a handful of successful speeders do the same for speeding laws, right?

And a handful of successful pedos do the same for child sex laws, right?

And a handful of successful drug lords do the same for drug laws, right?

I henceforth dub your completely moronic argument "the Crowley" because you simply have tried to conclude that the existence of any crime means laws have utterly failed. So we have to go back on Mr. Crowley's version of what the whole of the law is. Of course, in our brief association I figure you actually would consider that a feature and not a bug. My advice, dude, is that "Mad Max" was a movie. A very old, very bad movie. Come out into the daylight once in a while.

And about your all-so-important rights you're mewling about. Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Keep that in mind and we might get along. But the past years have shown that you guys are waaaaay too self-absorbed to keep your end of the bargain.

[Skip Intro]

56. Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that?

That reminded me of a sucky rollercoaster.

The line, "So okay, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, Genius," cracked me up though.



Overall a D, and that's being generous.

btw, am I trying to snip away at your rights or you to mine? You're the one swinging your arms man, and whining because others don't roll over and accept it.

And I don't make the gun figures up for Chicago. Your argument is that it would be worse without those laws? If that's the case, with seemingly nightly shootings continuing despite every gun restriction save confiscation, don't you have to wonder if you're really identifying and addressing the actual problem? Because clearly, it isn't about passing restrictive gun laws. The problem persists at an extreme level despite those.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

66. A jury voted 3-3 to Leave It Alone

At Sat May 4, 2013, 10:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2799745

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Multiple ad hominem personal attacks.

"Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that?
That reminded me of a sucky rollercoaster.
Overall a D, and that's being generous. "

because he doesn't want to address the content of what he's replying to. Also deliberately (I think) misinterprets the part about 'your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose'.

Quite rude = hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 4, 2013, 11:17 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: 2 authors going after each other, if one comment is to be hidden, then so should the other comment. Leave it alone, or hide both. I choose to err on the side of caution. Leave it alone.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Snarky, but not hidable, IMO.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh please...must everything be written as if it is to appear in the Sunday Church bulletin?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Skip Intro]

70. Thanks for the info. n/t

[Pholus]

75. That shouldn't have been alerted!

Certainly I am disappointed that he didn't respond to the specifics but frankly I can't see how he could. I wrapped my position pretty neatly and I don't think its easy to crack. I do get intense, but that's part of the fun of the exchange.

[Electric Monk]

112. Half the jury disagreed, and thought it should have been hidden, as did the alerter. nt

[datasuspect]

89. they got owned

then they went and cried to the alert system.

nuts.

i generally stay out of the guns sewer on DU - will continue to do so.

[Pholus]

71. Whatever. You already lost.

Really. A sucky rollercoaster? That's your best comeback?

Sorry to tell you this Sherlock, but that was the just pit forming in your stomach when your NRA-approved cut and paste about failed gun laws in Chicago got ripped out from under you, placing your position in free fall.

So 500 murders got through. Sounds bad. But what WOULD it have been?

The key point is that 7500 illegal guns were also confiscated during that period DUE to the laws. C'mon you pride yourself on your logic so go ahead. The 500 murders are not caused by the gun laws -- it's caused by people who break laws. You know, those guys you say have guns regardless -- you know, criminals. The confiscations are the direct result of the laws and given the grounds for confiscations those guns were also taken from -- wait for it -- criminals. For your "failure" conclusion to be correct you simply need to prove the now absent guns made no difference to the murder rate.

Except you can't. You know it, and I know it. I'll take a moment to mock you now: Bwahahahhaaha.

Whew, that felt good. I'd say "epic fail" but frankly it's kind of a "feeble fail" in this case.

Actually I find you kinda of humorous as well. Certainly, you helped me coin the "Crowley Rule" which neatly describes the fallacy of the whole meme. Certainly YOU had no comeback to that other than to lamely exclaim "Well you *almost* fail too -- with a D."

In the end, your rights end where mine begin. What you obviously don't get is how that works. I attribute that to your arrogant self-interest. You claim the Second Amendment is not abridged by anything -- by implication you mean MY RIGHTS don't matter. So in your bleating about your rights I hear the faint sound of jackboots and you not giving a rat's ass when it comes to mine. I certainly know most gunners do tend to have that authoritarian bent when they talk....

[Skip Intro]

72. Ok, nite nite. n/t

[0rganism]

126. no, but you might want to shore up your arguments afterward

seeing as how Pholus just tore you a new one.

[Skip Intro]

129. How do you get that, though?

First, to me, his reply was slightly incomprehensible. But when you start off by calling someone Wiley Coyote, I mean, are you really wanting to be taken seriously?

At any rate, no one really answered the Chicago aspect. All the gun laws anyone could want are in effect there, except for blanket confiscation. And the murder rate and gun violence are outrageous. Those are facts. That is reality.

So I posed, and still do, the question: are even stricter gun laws than we have now the answer to gun crime? If so, why isn't that tactic working in Chicago?

In light of that reality, is it so far-fetched to think that maybe more restrictive gun laws are not the answer?

I've been attacked personally here for having a minority view on gun control. Other Dems share this view. Other DUers share this view. But instead of discussing the issue in a reality-based manner, we get slings and arrows for deviating even slightly from the program.

Are we all to be simply led around on leashes, told what to say, think and do? And to attack anyone who disagrees?

Is that what this is here?

I don't accept that.

I don't think a vocal, nasty few who demand conformity speak for the greater DU community.

You've been here a while.

Tell me where I'm wrong here?

[CreekDog]

149. you're saying that gun laws are proven to work or not work based on one city which borders Indiana?

borders Indiana, which has little if, any restrictions to speak of on guns.

you're saying that gun laws are proven effective or ineffective based on the example of Chicago alone.

or will you come back and post the name of another city with gun laws that is just a few miles from a state with loose gun laws?

[Skip Intro]

151. Traffic must be hell from Chicago to Indiana and back.

I'm not gonna walk down bs lane with you again, CD.

I've seen all there is to see there.

[Electric Monk]

58. If we applied Gun Lobby Logic™ to other issues....

[Pelican]

62. Doesn't matter...

You'll be told that the reason it is so violent there is because of the lax gun control in the surrounding areas.

Now, if we could clamp down on those folks, then everything would be much better.

[Skip Intro]

65. Yeah, I've seen that one before.

Just a little more authoritarianism and rainbows will sprout from the horizon while we all dance with unicorns.

Striking to me how eager some are to freely and with much enthusiasm toss away long-established rights. Ridiculous that they demand we all do the same.

[LanternWaste]

121. As is striking to me how many people defend the Right-wing PAC NRA yet lack the courage of their own

As is striking to me how many people defend the Right-wing PAC NRA yet lack the courage of their own convictions to come out do so in an obvious manner rather than stating something along the lines of "it's a valid question" in response to a question posed by the NRA...

six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

128. You're a smooth smoothie, you know.

[Skip Intro]

143. I think I'm really more like a shot of Whiskey.

Straightforward and unpretentious, with little room for bs and drama.

[Electric Monk]

144. "with little room for bs and drama" like alerting on yourself while pretending to be someone else?

It really takes a special sort to be their own internet stalker.

[Skip Intro]

145. Speaking of stalking...

[Electric Monk]

146. For correcting your assertion? What definition of "stalking" does that fall under?

"engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to—

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."


Are you suffering emotional distress over this, Skip?

[Kingofalldems]

94. NRA all the way!

We should all bow down before them.

[billh58]

36. Did it ever dawn on

you and your Gungeoneer buddies that there are other solutions besides guns? Better locks, stronger doors, better outside lighting, security systems, dogs, etc., etc., would help prevent home intrusions and reduce the need for guns.

Better home security is not the ultimate answer, but neither are guns. Gungeoneers are so obvious when they advance guns as the cure for crime and self-protection. Millions of Americans take preventative measures and precautions against being victims, but you guys seem very anxious to look for "justification" to shoot someone.

[Skip Intro]

46. All of those are smart measures.

I don't see anyone pushing guns as the only safety measure, or looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Yet there is an endless list of people killed in home invasions who might otherwise have survived had they been armed and able to fight back.

That's reality.

[billh58]

48. That response

dances around the issue of taking precautions against home invasions by favoring the option of shooting someone who was not deterred or prevented from breaking and entering in the first place.

If more people took home security more seriously, there would be fewer people killed and the need for guns would be reduced.

[RetroLounge]

37. Do you still like cjeek dgg?

RL

[billh58]

33. So basically what you

are saying is that Bostonians are too stupid to realize that they need a gun until some bombs go off and a mad man is on the run?

Don't you think that those who wanted guns had them, and those who chose to allow the police to protect them and did not see the need for a dangerous weapon in their homes, did not have a gun? Or is that too far outside of the "all gunz, all the time, for everyone" credo of the NRA and the Gungeon for you to comprehend?

[Skip Intro]

42. No, I'm saying what I just said. Why get insulting about it?

My guess is that many of those in Boston who did not have a gun in their home while the city was locked-down and a murderous terrorist was on the loose probably wished, at that point in time, that they did have one.

It's a pretty simple statement.

No need to be insulting.

[billh58]

45. And I'm saying that

if they had wanted a dangerous weapon in their home, they would have had one. I believe that it's insulting to imply that they were too stupid to realize a "need" before it arose. Those with alarm systems and strong locks were most likely not all that concerned, especially when there were multitudes of police cruising around.

[2ndAmForComputers]

124. And what you just said is what billh58 said you said.

[Skip Intro]

131. No, that just is not factual.

We are in reality, yes?

That poster accused me of saying I thought unarmed Bostonians were stupid.

I did no such thing.

[2ndAmForComputers]

135. It's the logical conclusion of what you said.

[Skip Intro]

138. No, it isn't a logical conclusion at all.

It seems more like an attempt to skirt the hard realities of the issue by casting aspersions upon those who don't walk in lockstep on this particular issue.

[2ndAmForComputers]

139. Let's get back to basics.

OP: Wayne LaPierre said some extremely nutty, extremely right-wing, extremely hateful, extremely anti-liberal thing. (Like he often does.)

You gave your thumbs-up to the aforementioned thing.

Simple as that.

[Skip Intro]

140. I think it was and is a valid question.

USA Today posed the same question recently.

It isn't fringe. It's reality.

It would be a NORMAL reaction, in such an extreme situation, for an unarmed person to wish he/she had an equivalent means of protection as the murderous terrorist who shut the city down and was roaming through neighborhoods.

It isn't a sick and twisted question.

It isn't a sick and twisted reaction.

But let's get even more back to basics.

You say the question is sick and twisted.

How so?

[2ndAmForComputers]

141. I came to the conclusion your worldview makes it impossible for you to see how so.

Therefore, bye. Gotta sleep.

[Skip Intro]

142. Not much in way of explanation, but ok.

Goodnight.

[RetroLounge]

39. So you are in agreement with whackjob LaPierre?

Why am I not surprised.



RL

[Skip Intro]

41. When people make a valid point, I agree that it is a valid point.

[RetroLounge]

59. of course you do

RL

[Skip Intro]

60. You're so meta. n/t

[RetroLounge]

61. You like Cleeqk dggg?

huh?

RL

[Skip Intro]

64. As if to prove my point.

childish mumblings in place of substance

[Electric Monk]

67. The "childish mumblings" are paraphrasing your EPIC FAIL in meta that will never be forgotton. nt

[RetroLounge]

96. "childish mumblings"

Is that a phrase you learned over on your other web home?

Keep digging freep, no one here is fooled.



RL

[CreekDog]

156. "I like cjeekdgg" were YOUR WORDS, which you wrote in an alert to the hosts

pretending to be someone else.

yes, what YOU did was childish, you alerted on your own stalking thread about me to get it shut down when people called you out for posting it.

you alerted by pretending to be someone else then claimed it was your "friend" that typed it into your phone.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. Par for the course for good old skippy

I don't know why he doesn't just post on free republic and get it over with. Everyone there would completely agree with his right wing talking points. I don't really know who he's trying to convert here.

Maybe he does have a freeper account. Who knows.

[RetroLounge]

95. +1000

He's gotta get his talking points from somewhere, why not freeperville.

RL

[Gormy Cuss]

43. Having lived in Boston, I'd say very few.

It's just not a shoot'em up town. Sure, they'd lock the windows and doors, maybe even barricade them and look for makeshift weapons like frying pans, baseball bats, and knives. Plus we paid for good law enforcement and expect good response.

[cui bono]

44. I'd take that bet. You know what I bet they wished for more?

Taggants.

They could've known who the bombers were within hours if the NRA would "allow" us to use them. There would never have been the circumstances you describe above, inaccurately I might add as people were never "ordered to stay" in their own homes, and they would never have had to wish they owned a weapon with which they would be more likely to kill themselves or one of their loved ones.

[rl6214]

114. Tag giants for what?

The fireworks or the pressure cookers they used to make the bombs?

[cui bono]

122. The fireworks. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

49. There's over 600,000 people in the city of Boston

The odds of Dzhokar coming and knocking on your door were extremely slim.

[Uzair]

73. Do you enjoy having your wet dreams?

The most likely scenario to play out when a gun is in a household is an accident, or a domestic murder, or a suicide. THESE ARE THE FACTS AND THEY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.

But keep on having your fantasy of "taking out the bad guy". You're enabling the thousands of deaths that happen every year because you haven't grown up yet from your adolescent wet dreams.

[2ndAmForComputers]

111. Only in the head of a sick, twisted person.

Real Bostonians are not like you'd like them to be. Thankfully.

[Skip Intro]

130. Only a sick, twisted unarmed Bostonian would wish

he or she had a gun to protect himself/herself and his/her family while the city was on lock-down and a murderous terrorist roamed through neighborhoods?

That Bostonian would be sick and twisted to wish he/she had gun for self-protection in that situation?

Sick and twisted?

Really?

[2ndAmForComputers]

132. You know what I was referring to. Not any hypothetical Bostonian.

[Skip Intro]

136. Just flat out BS. You are clearly talking about Bostonians.

You are clearly saying that only sick and twisted people would wish they had a gun while the city is on lock-down so police can find a murderous terrorist who was roaming through neighborhoods.

You're clearly talking about Bostonians.

You say "real Bostonians" would not be so sick and twisted.

Sheesh, it's right there.

Yeah, I know what you're saying.

You said it very clearly.

[2ndAmForComputers]

137. No. I was talking about Wayne LaPierre's sick and twisted implication about Bostonians.

[CreekDog]

147. How about WillPitt?

think he wanted a gun right then?

what did he say?

[Skip Intro]

150. No idea.

Maybe you should ask him.

I will tell you that I am amazed that a few here would spend such effort to ridicule what, to me at least, appears to be a logical question.

Who wouldn't want to be able to protect himself or herself when faced with the scary and real possibility of coming into contact with a terrorist who had just killed several people?

What is the alternative? Offer the perp some cookies and reruns of Scooby Doo in hopes he'll chill out until the cops get there?

In which scenario would you feel safer?

Is it sick and twisted to want to protect yourself and your family?

For us this is just pushing words around on a virtual page. But for them, that was real. It was happening. Surely there was fear. Surely there were some who didn't have a gun in their home who wished they had.

This is reality. Human nature. Nothing wrong with it.

[CreekDog]

152. because you ridicule us, our president and our values

at almost every opportunity.

what, you expect a medal from DUers after you've worked to undermine them on issue after issue?

[Skip Intro]

153. Why do you do that? That isn't true.

I haven't worked to undermine anyone.

I merely speak my mind, and I have a strange compulsion to call out bs when I see it.

I've been that way since I joined DU.

People were allowed to have differences of opinion back then.

You remember, right?

Everybody doesn't agree on everything all the time.

And it is bizarre to demand everyone pretend they do.

I'm merely talking reality as I see it.

And look at the personal attacks on me here, far removed from the topic at hand in this thread.

What is that?

For holding a minority opinion on this issue I get insults rather than discussion. Only by a few, but still - wtf is that?

Baffling.

But, I'm going to speak my mind as long as I'm here.

I'm not going to walk in lockstep or have others think for me.

I'm always open to discussion if the other person can get beyond the knee-jerk, adolescent name calling.

It does crack me up, though, to see the freak-out by a few when they encounter an opinion that differs slightly from their own.

[CreekDog]

161. We aren't asking you to "agree on everything all the time", you disagree with us ALL THE TIME

or at least, that's all you post about.

you think that's our standard? yeah, you know that's not true, you are just trying to justify your existence here.

most of us liberals here disagree all the time, but we are often disagreeing to the left of each other and in lots of different ways.

you disagree with almost all of us from the right, all the time on multiple issues and nevermind that you when a racial issue comes up, involving our president or Trayvon Martin or any other black person, you are there to chime in to say that it's not racism.

have you ever posted to say, "oh yes, this is racism, that's terrible"...only when the victim was white.

this is why you don't belong here.

you don't even like us or anything we stand for anymore. for your own sake, stop torturing yourself, go to FR where your posts will be agreed with.

[Skip Intro]

163. Oh, you've determined I don't belong here, eh?

You know, maybe you could ask Skinner to let you form some approval committee that you can chair which will decide which of us can be here and what we can think and say, and what we cannot.

Explain to him too how the DU Community Standards, which allow for a wide variety of center-left opinions, are just too permissive.

I'm sure he'd be willing to bow to your judgement on the matter.



Here's a news flash, cd - Nobody here needs your approval or permission to post. Nobody has an obligation to justify anything to you.

News flash 2: Meta is closed and the purity police have been disbanded. You and your pals can hurl insults and give Shatner a run for his money for melodrama, and start whiny threads in ATA, but it won't change that. The poll-traps and witch hunts have ended.

Climb down from your imaginary throne and get over it.

[Electric Monk]

164. kick nt

[HangOnKids]

159. Oh Poor Skip He Just Speaks His Mind

[Bake]

158. I'd bet that more than a few of them DO have one or more guns in their homes.

Just a SWAG ...



Bake

[CreekDog]

166. looks like you're wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022812796

[OneGrassRoot]

6. Here is my reply:

[Cha]

26. Ohh, I'd never seen that before.. thanks,

OneGrassRoot! What a survivor.

[Cha]

27. Have you thought of making that an OP, OneGrassRoot? Seems like

a good one.

[OneGrassRoot]

90. I did a couple of weeks ago...

I may do so again soon.

Thanks, Cha.

[Jamaal510]

7. Hey Wayne,

I happen to live in one of the most crime-ridden cities in America, yet for my entire life, I have never needed to stay strapped. I can catch the bus and go to school as I please because I have enough sense to know to stay away from the roughest parts of town whenever possible, and to not wear anything too flashy. This is what we have police and the military for--to be armed and protect civilians.
You and Alex Jones are not going to get somebody like me to become all paranoid and turn into a coward.

[freshwest]

109. +1. Not dealing with the crime ridden part, but all the rest.

[Marr]

9. How many do you suppose wished their *neighbors* were armed and

on a hair trigger two weeks ago?

[spanone]

10. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a pressure cooker is a good guy with a pressure cooker.”

fuck you insane wayne

[moondust]

12. I can think of two

who probably wished they'd had MORE guns. And some assault rifles. Maybe even a suitcase nuke or two. The Second Amendment does not prohibit suitcase nukes! MY FREEDOM TO OWN A SUITCASE NUKE HAS BEEN INFRINGED!!!!

(Maybe somebody should sue the gubmint for violating their right to own a suitcase nuke.)

[Initech]

18. The NRA: Proving once again how completely clueless they are.

[slor]

20. Wow...he really is a vile

man.

[nobodyspecial]

21. Is gun ownership banned in Boston?

Why would he assume that everyone was unarmed?

[quaker bill]

88. my B-I-L teaches CCW permit classes in the Boston area

I am pretty sure he will teach anyone qualified to carry, so, I am sure guns are not banned there.

[hack89]

92. Very easy to own a shotgun

little harder to own a revolver. Can be very hard to own a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. They have three types of license and only one is "shall" issue. In many towns, a person can be denied a license to own a handgun "just because."

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm

[Cha]

24. Again.. some idiot who wasn't there is attempting to speak

for Bostonians. Let's ask them. Not, someone with an agenda to sell every last gun in the world whether it's to a criminal who has mental problems or not.

[reformist2]

25. It is a valid point, but it's astonishingly rude and insensitive given what just happened.

[Turbineguy]

28. Yeah

they could have shot the bombs before they went off!

LaPierre moves to the top of the "10 Dumbest Motherfuckers on the Planet" list. He takes Michele Bachmann's spot.

[onenote]

29. Hey Wayne, ask the guy who was carjacked by the bombers if he wished he had a gun

My bet is that he's quite happy he didn't have a gun, since if he did, he almost certainly would be dead now.

[Frustratedlady]

40. And, Collins(?) who was killed when they couldn't get his gun out of the holster?

How do you explain that, Wayne?

I'm beginning to think the entire NRA operation needs to be investigated. What is the framework, who are the backers, what is their real purpose? I personally don't think it has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment or gun ownership. I'm beginning to think it is much more sinister.

[dkf]

34. I'm not handy with a gun so I don't want one...

But if there is a terrorist running around I know who I would run to. I just hope he has room in his house for me

I will fight for his right to own a gun, but really it's self serving.

If the rest of you want to rely on the few police we have that's your choice of course.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. Where were you, Wayne, you f*cking coward.

Probably hiding behind a toilet somewhere.

Gawd, that man makes me ill.

[Politicalboi]

38. Yeah I'm sure the SWAT teams would have

Loved to enter homes with massive guns. Or had been shot by someone who thought they heard a noise outside, and shot first and looked last.

[struggle4progress]

47. Coming up next: Arming WTC janitors with handguns could have prevented 9/11!

NRA Solutions will be right back, after these important messages

[SummerSnow]

86. haha. I would like to see his response for that one.Anyway he can get it?

[freshwest]

117. Arming firemen turns them into freedom fighters! Runners can shoot their way to the finish line!

Quarterbacks need to carry for protection against those aggressive linebackers trying to sack 'em!

Doctors need armed bill collectors to make sure they don't go broke!

Delivery drivers need guns to shoot out those oppressive red lights on their routes slowing them down!

Employees need guns to stand up tall with their bosses and get a raise!

Cranky people need to take strong actions to keep people off their lawn, guns will do that!

Derp, drool, burp....

These suggestions for better living in America were brought to you by the proud patriots of the GOA, since the NRA isn't tough enough!

Do I need a thingie?

[Rex]

50. How many Bostonians wish you would just shut the fuck up?

The death peddlers are getting tiresome...can't someone shame them enough to stfu?

[smirkymonkey]

98. Thank YOU!

My sentiments exactly!

[liberal N proud]

51. Violence begets violence

[Pisces]

52. Imagine how many brown people would have been shot at the race if the lunatics were armed. Reddit

proved how easy it is to mistake guilty looking people who are actually innocent bystanders. People with guns is the last
thing we would have needed in this situation.

[etherealtruth]

102. Completely agree

[Buzz Clik]

54. Paraphrashing:

My guess is that ALL of Boston was saying: "I wish those bastards didn't have bombs."

Not sure what good a gun would have done them.

[newmember]

74. I think the poster is saying during the lock down when the media

was saying the person has killed one policeman already.
He's armed , dangerous , desperate and possibly hiding in the neighborhood.

[Buzz Clik]

76. Ah. So the asshole was attempting to prey on people's fears. Nice.

[newmember]

78. Him and the media but it was an intense situation , real or blown out of proportion, take your pick

I have never seen a manhunt like this conducted in America before. ..Have you?
And I'm sure neither had the people in Boston .

[freshwest]

118. Imagine how much longer the marathon would have been if all the runners were carrying a piece as

they looked for possible terrorists along those 26 miles of road.

Isn't that really what Wayne is advocating? Every human being carrying a gun at all times, in all situations? A constant focus on nothing but their own safety from other armed humans, and little focus on the tasks of life?

No such thing as and unarmed safety zone to get anything done of any kind, with attention being diverted to protection all the time? Living in a war zone?

Inefficient, not conducive to higher cortical functioning, just operating at the visceral level.

[Marrah_G]

57. He is an idiot

All that would accomplish would have been innocent people getting shot.

[RagAss]

68. HAhahahhaaaaa !

[newmember]

69. He's probably right in some degree

You probably had some people that had a firearm tucked away in a small safe
or on top of a closet and had never touched or thought about for years.

They probably took it out because of the lock down and the news media saying a terrorist is loose
in the area.
And I'm sure some of the people did have a thought of wishing they had a firearm
in their home at that moment of terror when they were in lock down.


It would be dishonest and silly to argue that some residents didn't have that thought.

I know I have a large spray can of pepper spray and would have had it out handy within arms reach.
If I had a gun I would have probably done the same instead of grabbing a spray can.

[JI7]

80. from what i hear most of Boston was not frightened, but they were trying to help law enforcement

catch the terrorists . it made it much tougher for the 2 brothers to get away and do more damage without having more people, vehicles etc to mix in with.

seems like lapierre was hoping for a bunch of paranoid freaks to shoot at anything they suspected of being a bad guy.

[Life Long Dem]

81. Like the MIT officer?

[samsingh]

83. and how would the guns have stopped the attacks?

[winter is coming]

84. How many people wish they had a gun every time this yahoo opens his pie-hole? n/t

[flvegan]

85. None. We're Bruins fans.

"Frightened citizens" indeed, LOL!!!

[6000eliot]

87. Because the best defense against a BOMB is a gun, right?

[rl6214]

116. Come on, you know he was talking about the manhunt after the bombs.

Even he's not that clueless.

[6000eliot]

134. Oh, of course.

It makes even more sense to have the police, the public, and the bombers all firing at once.

[rl6214]

154. Well the police sure weren't too proficient, it took the younger brother

Running over the older brother to stop him, and they fired hundreds of rounds at the younger brother and only hit hima couple of times.

[ileus]

91. Hopefully most of them had one already.

at least one...

[gulliver]

93. A bunch will get them, so the death toll from the bombings will climb.

I'm not against people buying weapons for self defense. I'm just pointing out that the statistics are not in their favor. A bunch of Bostonians who would never have brought home a gun for self defense will likely do so now. And the statistics will have their way.

[Logical]

97. If people were not in danger then why did the POLICE shut down the WHOLE FUCKING CITY?? Of....

course people would want a gun.

[Skip Intro]

155. Exactly. Thank You. n/t

[CreekDog]

162. ok, name some Boston area DUers who said they wanted a gun b/c they didn't have one

name one or two. should be easy if your logic is actually logical.

oh but you can't because it isn't.

[CreekDog]

165. seems like you don't know what you're talking about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022812796

[Skittles]

101. only the cowards

[Enrique]

103. yeah they could have shot that Saudi guy

[TeamPooka]

110. How Many Bostonians Wish the bombers couldn't buy their guns Wayne? nt

[rl6214]

115. I would think anyone that wanted to own a gun already had one.

They are not entirely banned there like other cities.

[Sheepshank]

119. LaPierre's an out of touch idiot. It's more like "How many Bostonians wished there were one less..."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. Wha......?

The only way to stop two bad brothers who sneakily place bombs in a crowded area and then set them off from a distance is a good guy with a gun?????

And given that the only two people who were shot in the ensuing manhunt were armed police officers, I think guns had very little to do with it.

[Deep13]

127. Yeah, next time, shoot the bombs!

There's a remote chance it will work and an even more remote chance that you'll know there are bombs.

[treestar]

160. The guy who found the younger brother

did not have a gun.