HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Open letter to Wayne LaPi...

Tue May 27, 2014, 01:35 PM

Open letter to Wayne LaPierre

Open letter to Mr. Wayne LaPierre

I take note that Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, stated in a open letter to the parents of the victims of the Isla Vista shooting last week that "Your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights."

He is wrong. It's time to change this discussion.

Once upon a time, the NRA supported the concept of background checks. Since you came on the scene, the NRA has become an extremist organization bereft of common sense. Criminals having guns and lunatics shooting up schools, churches or movie theaters is not a reasonable price to pay for the freedom to own a gun. Period.

What's that you're saying, Mr. LaPierre? The only thing that stops a bod guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? That is an argument so stupid only a high-priced attorney could think of it. That argument would sound a lot better if it didn't come from some jackass who called federal agents "jackbooted government thugs" following a standoff with an armed cult whose leader thought he had a god-given right to fuck any twelve or fourteen-year-old girl who made his prick stiff. You clearly don't know the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.

We have allowed people like you and Mr. Wurzelbacher and other gun worshipers to frame the conversation about Waco for too long. Federal agents on the scene may have botched the operation and made it end far worse than it should have, but they had every right and good cause to be there. They were the good guys with guns. Some of them were killed or wounded by armed cult members. I don't know if a background check would have been helpful in this particular situation, but it couldn't have hurt.

Oh, you have something else to say, Mr. LaPierre? The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right? So they have. They have also ruled that corporations are people and money is speech. That is the Supreme Court you're talking about, isn't it? The Roberts Court is bought and paid for, just like Congress, just like the Justice Department, just like the Pentagon, just like any other department or agency of the executive branch whose regulators come from the industry that they regulate and then return to it after gutting the regulations, spending billions on hardware that the military doesn't need or want, or failing to prosecute crooked businessmen. We know the federal government is corrupt. We also know that it is you and people like you who have corrupted it and still don't think it can ever be corrupt enough.

It makes absolutely no sense to promote a freedom that destroys so much. I've raised two children. Although neither is any longer a child, if anybody who belongs in prison or a state hospital with a gun did something to either of them that might have been prevented with a simple background check, I would react just as Richard Martinez has. You, Mr, LaPierre, and the "rudderless politicians" of whom Mr. Martinez speaks have worked in concert to deprive too many parents of their children. The blood of those children is on your hands and those politicians' hands. The least you and they can do is sit down and shut up while more public spirited people, humanists rather than corporatists, set things right and pass reasonable measures to prevent a criminal or a mentally ill person from possessing a gun.

/s/

Jack Rabbit

14 replies, 1636 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Open letter to Wayne LaPierre (Original post)
Jack Rabbit May 2014 OP
onecaliberal May 2014 #1
sellitman May 2014 #2
pansypoo53219 May 2014 #3
beevul May 2014 #4
Jack Rabbit May 2014 #5
oldhippie May 2014 #7
Jack Rabbit May 2014 #8
oldhippie May 2014 #9
Jack Rabbit May 2014 #10
oldhippie May 2014 #11
etherealtruth May 2014 #6
Erose999 May 2014 #12
Jack Rabbit May 2014 #14
spanone May 2014 #13

Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Tue May 27, 2014, 02:22 PM

1. Thank You

This letter speaks for many...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Tue May 27, 2014, 03:54 PM

2. Mine wouldn't have been as kind

The NRA is a bloodthirsty murderer.

Belonging to them makes it's members as guilty


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Tue May 27, 2014, 04:16 PM

3. doesn't the 2nd amendment say something about WELL-REGULATED + not a fucking free for all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Tue May 27, 2014, 05:48 PM

4. Um..

 

"Once upon a time, the NRA supported the concept of background checks."

" I would react just as Richard Martinez has."

The shootings being discussed, happened in California.

California has:

Waiting periods which the shooter went through.

Universal Background checks (background checks on ALL gun sales) which the shooter passed for every single firearm.

Registration. The shooters guns were registered.

Magazing capacity laws. He used CA legal magazines.

An assault weapons ban.


What do you expect congress to do beyond those, which would prevent such tragedies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #4)

Tue May 27, 2014, 07:01 PM

5. I would say that California's measures failed

I live here, by the way. Thank you for the reminder that we are a bit ahead of the rest of the nation on that matter.

Perhaps the problem was in the background check? Was the problem of his mental illness examined?

I am mentally ill. I have major depression. A few years ago, I was thinking very, very seriously about suicide. I am more of a risk for suicide than homicide. Apparently, that has something to do with my being an introvert. I'm a short man and I know what it's like to be bullied. I also know what it's like to go through high school unable to buy a date. It hurts a lot and I feel for the killer and I understand the anger and frustration and pain that he went through. It doesn't excuse what he did and I don't certainly approve of it, but I understand it better than most people. Unfortunately, Elliot Rodger's way of dealing with his problems was to lash out and kill six people he didn't know. My way of dealing with it is to stay in the house and not talk to anybody. I can't say for certain, because I am not a psychologist and I didn't know him, but my gut tells me that the biggest difference between me and Elliott Rodger is that I am an introvert and he was extrovert. That is what makes me suicidal and what made him homicidal.

Now, I told you all that just so I can say this.

Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. I've never thought about it that way, because I have never had any desire to own one. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to own one. I would probably just kill myself next time life deals me one blow after another that gives me a very strong feeling that the world isn't fair and can be quite malicious. Elliott Rodger also thought the world was unfair and malicious. He was just a little be different from I, and that made all the difference. Perhaps his mental state should have been looked into before he was allowed to buy that gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #5)

Tue May 27, 2014, 07:25 PM

7. "Was the problem of his mental illness examined? "

 

No, it probably wasn't, because it hadn't been a problem yet. He hadn't been adjudicated.

Do you want anyone that someone (a pissed off neighbor perhaps) thinks mentally ill involuntarily committed to a mental institution for evaluation? Would you like Sheriff Joe to have that power? Or Ted Cruz, a former Attorney general? Do you really want someone other than a judge, under due process rules, committing you to an institution or depriving you of your rights? Who do you want to be able to decide you are not sane enough to have all of your rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #7)

Tue May 27, 2014, 08:26 PM

8. You're right, I wouldn't. Now, this is a matter for discussion

This breaks down to the right of privacy against public safety. Of course the decision should be made by someone competent to make the decision. The problem we're running into here is how does one get the case before the judge? How can we do this in a way that removes the stigma from mental illness, so that mentally ill people get the help they need without feeling like they will be committed to the state hospital in order to keep them away from a deadly weapon? How do we determine that someone is sane enough to live in the community but not sane enough to handle a gun?

Is there a way of doing that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #8)

Tue May 27, 2014, 08:32 PM

9. You won't get much discussion on it ....

 

... based on my 10 years of observation here. Look what just happened to Bjorn Against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #9)

Wed May 28, 2014, 11:26 AM

10. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction

Please click here.

What happened to Bjorn Against? According to his profile, he's still active.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #10)

Wed May 28, 2014, 12:01 PM

11. they posted a GBCW post ...

 

... And said he wouldn't be posting anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Tue May 27, 2014, 07:15 PM

6. This is wonderfully written, thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 01:02 PM

12. I propose that henceforth Wayne LaPierre be referred to as "Wang LaPrick" in all correspondence.


All in favor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #12)

Wed May 28, 2014, 01:42 PM

14. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the name "Wayne LaPierre"

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . to refer to a man's gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 01:04 PM

13. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread