Skip to main content

When Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association, hugs his loved ones at night he says a prayer: “Please keep them safe.”  And he means it.

And he's a goddamned hypocrite.

When Wayne LaPierre hugs his loved ones at night he says a prayer: “Please keep them safe.”  And he means it.

And he's a goddamned hypocrite.

He knows that it's only a matter of time before a few dozen more Americans are killed by some maniac with the same dopey  James Holmes look in his eyes.  Wayne LaPierre prays “Please keep them safe” for his loved ones, because he is counting on the odds, which are good, that his loved ones will not be in the same place as the next maniac with legally acquired assault weapons and ammunition when he begins to shoot. He's banking on that.

He knows that if his loved ones were killed by an assault weapon, he'd have a big decision to make: “How do I play this?  My child has died.  If I say the wrong words I will lose my beautiful thing here at the NRA, the seven figure income, the power over politicians, over congress.  How do I play this?”

Wayne LaPierre prays that his children or grandchildren never get hit by bullets out of an assault rifle – we all want our loved ones to be The Safe Ones.  But unlike you and me, as long as his loved ones go unharmed – and I hope they go unharmed – he stands shoulder to shoulder with each maniac who sprays a thousand bullets into a movie theater, or on a college campus or shopping mall.  

Wayne LaPierre, and frankly every American who defends their "right" to own assault weapons, should write a note to James Holmes thanking him for not killing their own loved ones, for killing someone else's loved ones instead.  For not forcing them to rethink their cherished position on assault weapons.

Lovers of assault weapons righteously quote the Constitution: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Great.  And exactly which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I think I know.

They're all in the James Holmes Militia.  It's not even slightly regulated, but they stand with that bastard, shoulder to shoulder, even now as they pray that their own loved ones aren't the ones in the line of fire of the next maniac whose right to bear assault weapons they defend so fecklessly.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Very productive. (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    Now we can go back and forth pinning the massacre on one another.  Soon someone will soon be along screaming "you murdering bastards robbed all those victims of any hope of defending themselves."  Then we can hurl "blood libel!" at each other and pretend to be offended.

    So let's just cut to the chase.  Your dreams of throttling my Second Amendment rights are dead.  They've been dead over a decade now.  They'll stay dead for the foreseeable future.  Pick a new hobby.

    •  Sorry about hitting that nerve, Pete (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandy on Signal, Beelzebud

      Your Elmer Fudd hat seems to have popped up in the air, flipped and landed right back on your noggin.

      Tell your guys to be vewwy vewwy quiet when they go hunting wabbit at the movie theater.

    •  OK, lets cut to the chase (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Second Amendment, as presently defined, provides the right for an American citizen to possess a functional and accessible firearm at home.  

      All other aspects of firearm ownership - what types of weapons, how many you can own, how you have to safeguard the weapon from theft or negligent use, what ammunition you can use, where you can possess one outside your home and so on - are open to regulation and are so in many instances.

      You can advocate all you want for an expansion of the current definition of the parameters of the Second Amendment but in making firearms more accessible for yourself, you do make them more accessible for people like James Holmes, Gerard Loughner, and others on the far too long list of maniacs who have and will continue to slaughter innocent people.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:03:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Firearms are already accessible. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, happy camper

        They will remain so for the foreseeable future.  This is a good thing.  What's not so good are laws and customs that prevent people from taking steps to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their neighbors.  

        I expect the courts to continue to expand upon Heller and McDonald in ways you'd probably find irksome.  But even better, I look forward to federal and state legislative action as a growing American majority in favor of liberty takes to the polls.

        •  No, what I find irksome (0+ / 0-)

          is folks who misstate the Second Amendment and when called on it, slip off into a tangent.

          You said:

          Your dreams of throttling my Second Amendment rights are dead.
          To which I responded with an accurate description of the parameters of the Second Amendment after Heller and McDonald.  Then you moved the goalposts and changed the topic to the accessibility of firearms.

          You can expect the courts to expand Heller, but I would not hold my breath if I were you - there have been over 200 separate lawsuits filed in a range of jurisdictions to do just that, and with the exception of one district court in Maryland, all have failed.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well that's a lie. (0+ / 0-)

            I certainly didn't misstate the Second Amendment, and I certainly moved no goalposts.  Is this going to be a pattern with you?

            Certainly you can rejoice in lower court decisions principally concerned with the right as applies to felons, suspects facing weapons charges in addition to other felony charges, and respondents under restraining orders.  I imagine those three at least will pass muster.  You can even take some solace in the fact I'll be disappointed when the Court doesn't find constitutional guarantee for a ex-convict to restore his or her Second Amendment rights (or any other, for that matter).

            But that has nothing to do with the fact that your dream of throttling my Second Amendment rights are dead.  Even if Heller had the gone to the dissenters, you've lost any hope of achieving your ends politically.  You're certainly not going get the courts to find the expansion of a legislative rights to self-defense unconstitutional.  I doubt you'd find the courts friendly to the argument that S.2188 doesn't pass constitutional muster.

            We've won.  It's that simple.  Now please, find something else to champion before you hurt the party even more.

            •  Conversation over (0+ / 0-)

              You exaggerated the Second Amendment, I called you on it, and you then switched to firearms accessibility - and you call me a liar?

              Incidentally, I fully support your Second Amendment rights to own a readily accessible firearm in your home.

              S.2188?  It is you who is dreaming if you think that will pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

              Do not pretend to know anything about what I think or want.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:55:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where did I exaggerate the Second Amendment? (0+ / 0-)

                -I don't know if you're a liar.  I just know you've lied three times so far.

                I don't know if S.2188 will garner 60 votes in the Senate, but I'd wager a majority exists for it.  If it goes south, we can always revisit it as a rider to give the wobblers some cover. And what reason do you have to believe the President wouldn't sign it if it came to his desk?

                I don't have to pretend to know what you think or want.  I have your own words.  Keep dreaming.

  •  Saw this cartoon at a comment today (0+ / 0-)

    Had a Wayne La Pierre figure standing beside a pool of blood and he said "Gosh, too bad, hope  no guns were harmed".

    Here's the cartoon LA TImes

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site