Daily News calls Wayne Lapierre A Terrorist

[kpete]

[leftofcool]

1. Well, if the foo shits...................

[juxtaposed]

13. the old foo bird comparison

[libdem4life]

39. Nice one.

[valerief]

2. I'm starting to love the NY Daily News. nt

[shenmue]

12. Me too

I'm from Queens and I remember how shitty they usually were.

[malaise]

14. Yes indeed

They do keep it real

[NCjack]

17. Oh my yes! Good newspaper.

[Warpy]

3. The editorial staff know their readership

and a majority of New Yorkers are rabidly antigun, having been caught in crossfire too damned many times. The same thing is true of Boston and I'd guess most bit east coast cities.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

4. Who is responsible for more deaths?

[2naSalit]

5. More of this stuff from the media!!!

[SunSeeker]

6. So true. nt

[WillyT]

7. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Paladin]

8. That's a suitable place for LaPierre.

And "a sick gun jihad" is about as perfect a description of the NRA's activities as I've ever come across. Well done, Daily News.

[jtuck004]

9. Sweet!! K&R. n/t

[IggleDoer]

10. Can we get LaPierre and the NRA board on the TSA terror watch list?

By restricting their travel, their ability to spread fear and hatred will be limited.

[lastlib]

29. Teddy Shittypants should already be on it......

...in view of his raving-mad rants and threats toward the president (not to mention his child molestation record.....)

[Erose999]

11. Wang la Prick.

[lastlib]

30. aka "Wayne LaPeeError" eom

[jpak]

15. kick

n/t

[LibDemAlways]

16. He is a terrorist. He is the head of

a terrorist organization that actively promotes the sale and use of weapons designed for no other purpose than to kill. He doesn't give a flying fuck for the victims. Rivers of blood on his hands.

[linuxman]

18. Ah, the daily news. The daily mail's American cousin.

There are actually only three terrorists on that cover, but who really gives a damn about facts when hyperbole sells?

[lark]

20. People who commit mass murders or who enable them aren't terrorists?

What's your definition and which don't fit that description?

[linuxman]

21. .

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The definitions set forth by the atf, fbi, and Cia are all fairly similar and give the best scholarly and generally accepted defintions. Those are all readily available via google. I'm on a tablet right now, so I'll let you look them up. I tend to go with these definitions, as they make the mist sense, create a difference in plain murder and terrorism, and are the generally accepted defintions I was taught and used when I earned a degree on the subject. You can find other definitions, but the ones from professional organizations who hunt and prosecute terrorism as their bread and butter are the ones I recommend to you.

The aurora and Sandy hook shooters don't meet the definition. No cause, no ideology, no demands, no agenda, no nothing. Terrorists are defined by that, quite literally.

For all the hate Lapierre gets, he isn't a terrorist, nor a terrorism enabler. If Lapierre knowingly provided funding and guns to terrorists with the intention of having them carry out an attack to further his aims, then yes, he would be enabling or funding terrorism. As of now, he shares as much responsibility as the plant that made Lanza's ammo, or the company that made the bonds that the aurora shooter used to seal the theater door. He is a convenient figurehead as the head of the nra, but I don't think that anyone with any intellectual honesty truly believes he is a terrorist. Come to think of it, nobody ever lays out a case for it as far as I can remember. I'd like to read their argument.

[world wide wally]

25. Naive apologist for LaPierre and the gun lobby ^

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

41. I see him in several threads on different topics defending the indefensible.

[world wide wally]

45. I'm going to start pointing out known gun trolls whenever I see them in here.

I wonder how much he gets paid for each post.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. The frequency of their posts seems to indicate 25 cents or less.

[Elmergantry]

27. Hi There!

Fellow member of the Reality Based Community! Good to meet you

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

32. Oh look, an NRA supporter!

Why are you here?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

42. Guns should be banned and confiscated at this point.

Americans are too dumb to have such an open-ended amendment. We need to replace the 2nd with something that makes sense for THIS country in THESE times. Sorry about your toys. Maybe take up model airplanes?

[beevul]

43. On the contrary. Americans prove every year, that the supermajority don't misuse firearms.

Americans are too dumb to have such an open-ended amendment.

On the contrary. Americans prove every year, that the supermajority don't misuse firearms resulting in gun violence.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

44. It does t have to be a majority to produce worse than we are seeing now.

[branford]

50. If your campaign to repeal or alter the 2A

professes that "Americans are just too dumb," you'll need a lot more than luck to achieve your objectives.

It's also elitist garbage like this that sends people in droves to the Republican party and causes Democrats, many of whom are gun owners and support gun rights, to sit-out important elections.

I just hope you don't further erode Democratic electability with you anti-gun crusade.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

53. I'm not on any crusade. I have no objectives. That was just my unvarnished, frustrated opinion.

I'm only asking for common sense gun control measures. The problem is the fucking R's. I personally think the 2nd amendment is not interpreted by the courts correctly. If you read about the creation of the constitution and the people most involved, it was purposely worded as a right of the states to have their own militia. They believed (and how right they were) that having a standing army was a threat to democracy. The phrase "the people" was a reference to the people of the state, that they should be able to enlist as a formal (and well-regulated) militia member. This included "keep"ing at their home, and "bear"ing that arm when called upon by the state.

That is how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. Read the History.

At the same time, the writers of the constitution put that amendment in for the purpose of guaranteeing the right of the states to have a state militia. They were not considering normal folks that used gun to hunt for their food, protection from intruders and other varmints, etc., because that's what everyone HAD to do. They already thought that every man or woman had the right to possess a weapon, so it was just assumed fact.

What that means is the state or federal governments DO have (or should have) the ability to control access to guns. That is what an amendment could bring about. It will not nullify the 2nd amendment, as that applies to well-regulated militias organized by the states.

[branford]

54. I've not only read the history, I've studied it in law school.

I, most legal scholars, and the Supreme Court, disagree with you. However, the constitutional history and intent discussion is entirely immaterial (and your position also ignores the 2A state constitutional analogs ratified almost contemporaneously with the Constitution).

The vast majority of current gun control regulations have and would pass constitutional muster post-Heller and McDonald. What they lack is sufficient popular and electoral support for passage in Congress and most state legislatures. You want firearms bans and confiscation when a Democratic Senate couldn't even pass UBC's despite claims of 90% popular support, images of 20 dead children, and a Democratic president practically begging. Suggesting Americans are too dumb for the 2A is hardly a winning strategy to change the current political reality, no less repeal part of the Bill of Rights.

Although I appreciate your frustration, and respect our difference of opinion, politics is still the art of the possible. If you and others want more gun safety regulations, you will not only need to compromise, but understand that all draconian suggestions like bans and confiscation accomplish is totally poison the well in any negotiations. Just as we generally, and quite correctly, oppose Republican efforts at "reasonable" restrictions on abortion access because we know full well the insidious strategy of incrementalism, conservatives are also aware of similar Democratic strategies concerning firearm rights.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

55. First, thank you for that information, and understanding.

I am just one frustrated person with a dream. I have no one to negotiate with. I have a vote, and sometimes I wonder about that. I just don't understand who is going to ever do anything about these daily mass shootings. I can only imagine it will get worse.

[branford]

56. I believe the first thing to do is not focus gun control efforts on mass shootings.

No matter how terrible or newsworthy, they still represent a very small minority of gun deaths, including crime, accidents, and suicide. Rifles, not just "assault rifles," are also present in a tiny minority of gun crime.

Mass shootings run the gamut of motivations, demographics, instrumentalities, etc., everything from workplace violence and racist acts to international terrorism, and given the psychology of many of the perpetrators, their carnage could have just as easily been accomplished with a pipe bomb, pressure cooker, or automobile.

One thing to focus on is the fact that we've managed to cut all violent crime, not just with guns, by about 50% over the last few decades, all while the number of guns increased substantially. We should study what programs have actually worked, such as increased policing, better social programs, increased access to healthcare, etc., and improve and expand them.

Demands for draconian gun control, at best, seek to control the symptoms of a disease, i.e., American violence, and at worst, are expressions of elitism and regionalism that fail to respect rural and other American regional cultures, acceptable gun use in hunting and sport, and the fact that out of the 80-100+ million legal gun owners in the USA, the percentage that ever engage in any criminality is not even a rounding error.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. You're a supporter of the NRA????

The NRA hates Democrats and liberals. Even non-"wimpfuck" ones, whatever that means. Is that some term you Wayne lovers use at your cabal meetings?

Why are you here?

[murielm99]

34. You are making too much sense for

a lot of people who post on DU these days.

I understand it, though. There is much anger and hurt over the escalation in the numbers these shootings.

We need to find a way to deal with this situation honestly. We haven't arrived there yet.

[olegramps]

36. Would agree that he is an enabler? He provides the means to obtain weapons designed to kill people.

What is the extent of his liability when he blackmails Republicans to vote against any sane measure to protect us? This includes background checks, banning assault weapons and unbelievably the Republicans recent vote in congress against background checks and restrictions of the sale of these types of weapons even to those on watch lists as potential killers.

[Duval]

19. Hurrah for The Daily News! Finally someone has

the guts to call this guy out! Great post kpete (but yours are always good..IMO)

[niyad]

22. wow--a paper actually doing journalism!!!

[Cayenne]

51. No that's a paper doing hyperbole

Post 21 lays out why.

[niyad]

52. well, since I am well acquainted with that particular poster's viewpoint---- no.

[CharlotteVale]

23. K&R

[spanone]

24. K&R...

[MrMickeysMom]

26. Effing A

Fuck you, Mr. La-P... You fascist bastard

[Thespian2]

31. K & R !!!!

Sad realization is that this murderer will never take responsibility for the blood-bath he has foisted upon the American people...

he is never able to see the blood continuously flowing from his hands...


May his soul remain in continuous fire in Dante's Inferno...

[lobodons]

33. Spade is a spade

afterall

[Tarc]

35. NY Daily News has spot-on lately

Between this and calling out the GOP candidates for their mealy-mouthed empty prayer bullshit, this is a great run this week.

[Javaman]

38. finally, I have been saying this for a while now. nt

[libdem4life]

40. IMHO...maybe we could have one 22 per household...For protection and food. We'll never get rid of

them, afraid that's pie in the sky, but a 22 or some similar weapon, for people who are afraid or need to hunt. I see nothing wrong with that. Also we wouldn't need the NRA. Let each of them take their one rifle and go home.

[DLevine]

46. Yes he is a terrorist, absolutely.

Lots of blood on his hands.

[workinclasszero]

47. He is a terrorist and the NRA is the leading terrorist organization in America

If the shoe fits...

[Initech]

49. Man the NY Daily News has been batting 1.000 lately!