But times have definitely changed, and LaPierre—predicting that he will be vilified for bringing it up, “but I don’t care”—told the audience that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”Welcome aboard. It's about damn time.
“Instant responders,” he said, alluding to armed teachers, school staff or in the case of college campuses, armed students, “are always better than first responders.
[Via Scott W]
8 comments:
I notice that it was Mr. Workman who brought up the fact that LaPierre's position was once the exact opposite of the one he now advocates. Wayne would seem to not want to acknowledge ever holding a position of advocating " . . . no guns in America’s schools, period."
Still, progress is progress, even without acknowledging where one is progressing from.
Is this where all the defenders of the NRA, Wayne, and the policy in question, now tell us they were wrong all along and they are sorry for all the ridicule they heaped on those of us who always held Wayne's "new" position?
Hey! Just asking.
Or is this where they pretend they know nothing about the helplessness policy and anyway they changed their minds?
Or is this where we hear from them about the art of the possible? And we were impossible, but now that they have joined us we are possible?
Hey! Just asking, because one can never tell where a pragmatist will avoid a stand, er, uh, I meant take a stand.
Having been deservedly snarky in my above comment, I still must say I am glad to see good sense replace what they were using before and have joined us.
The question; will this translate into a fair hearing over the next issue of disagreement between purists and pragmatists?
Personally, I don't think it will, but boy! would I like to be wrong.
I can't improve on what SA wrote above, but I am curious as to whether there was a lightning storm when he spoke...or perhaps the Earth shifted in its orbit....or...or..
Better late than never, I suppose.
He still hedged his bets and left himself some wiggle room:
"While the NRA doesn’t encourage firearms on campuses, 'we discourage bans,' he said."
An NRA that does not encourage an armed citizenry is an NRA untrue to 2A and the objectives of its own bylaws "to promote public safety."
[...] Codrea praises LaPierre [...]
Inch by inch, slowly I turned...
Membership is down and many past members are very unhappy with the direction of the NRA.
Sounds like not only is the writting on the way but so is the NRA's back.
Ten years late and oh, a thousand short. I thought I posted a comment on this thead. My apologies for any duplcate elsewhere.
Too often organizations espouse policies that are diametrically opposed to their stated mission. The most glaring example was the instructor in one adult literacy program for which I took the training who said "these people aren't ready to learn the alphabet."
There's various reasons this may happen. Improvements are unlikely, although, as straightarrow said, I would truly like to be wrong in this instance.
For years I thought US citizens needed a 12 step program of some kind. Being a semi-clueless New Yorker, it took quite a while to realize that said program should involve a shooting range and related training.
There's passage in the Al-Anon literature about "money property and prestige" as being potentially detrimental to getting the message across. I don't think it can exactly be transferred to a RKBA group (a range is property) but it's something to keep in mind.
cycjec
Post a Comment