Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,989 posts)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:06 AM Jan 2013

The threat posed by violent extremism (Absolutism and LaPierre)

_________________________


Wayne LaPierre, the self-promoted leader of the 'cold, dead hands' fringe of gun enthusiasts around the country, took issue with President Obama's use of the word 'absolutist' to describe those who resist common-sense regulations for gun ownership, insisting that he really meant to call folks like him 'extremists.'

Buzzfeed:

"Obama wants to turn the term of absolutism into a dirty word," LaPierre said in remarks, televised on cable news and broadcast on the gun owners organization's website. "It's a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside down and no one knows the difference," he said accusing Obama of double-speak, adding that the term is "Obama-code for extremist.

LaPierre's remarks centered on a single line from Obama's 2,108-word speech . . . "



Here's what the President said in his address:

Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task -- to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. (Applause.)

For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.



LaPierre wastes no time proving himself as intolerant and extreme in his response as the President cautioned against:

"Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction — except those between criminals — will somehow make us safer," LaPierre said. "He wants to put every firearm transaction... right under the thumb of the federal government."

"We're not children who need to be parented or misguided "bitter clingers" to guns and religion . . . There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners —to tax them or take them — only two reasons," he added.


Aside from the obvious distortions about the administration's attitude toward violent offenders, LaPierre, himself offers no apparent condemnation of the aggressors, murders, and those among his ranks threatening violence in response to legislative action. Instead, he reserves all of his bitter venom and bluster to defend his self-promoted empire built on the dangerous and subversive fantasies of folks who insist they need to be capable of mobilizing armed resistance against the offices and agents of government.

The threat to society from LaPierre and his absolutist, extremist ilk is second only to that of the actual violent offenders. His self-serving defense against sensible gun regulations threatens to stand in the way of accountability for the flood of assault-type weapons into our society that he's encouraged and perpetuated with his anti-government demagoguery.

Perhaps, LaPierre is feeling the heat from this Homeland Security definition of the 'complexity of violent extremism' in the U.S..

"The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland."


That sounds an awful lot like this extremist; this absolutist promoting unfettered, unaccountable, and absolute access to the weapons used to kill our nation's citizens; children; parents; siblings; relatives; neighbors.

"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics," President Obama said.

"Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm."


Safe from extremists like LaPierre.
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The threat posed by violent extremism (Absolutism and LaPierre) (Original Post) bigtree Jan 2013 OP
Too bad this was posted at 3AM. longship Jan 2013 #1
ha! bigtree Jan 2013 #2
You're welcome. longship Jan 2013 #3

longship

(40,416 posts)
1. Too bad this was posted at 3AM.
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:25 AM
Jan 2013

Nevertheless, since I am awake and alert at 3AM, I can only support this post. Hopefully, when sun rises, others will also.

R&K

longship

(40,416 posts)
3. You're welcome.
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:25 PM
Jan 2013

I do the same thing, sometimes. Post an OP in the middle of the night. They tend to sink quickly.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The threat posed by viole...