The Raging Paranoia of Wayne LaPierre

LaPierre thinks background checks are a trap door leading to gun confiscation.

“Don’t you be fooled, there is nothing universal or reasonable about it,” LaPierre said at the 2013 Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This so-called universal background check… is aimed at one thing: It’s aimed at registering your guns. And when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”

There have been reports indicating that background checks, the smallest-ticket item in the menu of new gun control laws, enjoys enough Republican support to pass. Considering LaPierre’s increasing loss of shpadoinkle, I don’t know if that’s entirely true. In fact, watch for congressional Republicans to begin repeating this in 5… 4… 3…

We’re going to have to fight like hell just to get the most likely new gun regulation passed.

  • trgahan

    The logical explanation of LePierre’s argument is that most of the people he represents would A) likely fail said background check and not be allowed to own a gun, B) traffic in unregistered, unlicensed guns and/or C) own/need an unregistered, unlicensed gun because their lively hood has legality issues and they need something untraceable to “take care of things.”

    He is literally arguing to keep free and unlimited fire arm access to a certain criminal element of the U.S.

  • MrDHalen

    If the second amendment is so unquestionable, then why are American citizens not aloud to purchase tanks, fighters, and warships? I want an Republican congressman to explain that to me. If we can’t regulate AR-15’s because of the second amendment, how can we regulate other larger assault weapons?

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Well, obviously. Everything leads to “confiscation.” The whole purpose of gun control, in all its forms and iterations, is confiscation.

    Background checks? Conficscation!
    Registration? Confiscation!
    Insurance requirements? Confiscation!
    Licensing? Confiscation!
    Training/safety course requirements? Confiscation!
    Serial numbers? Confiscation!
    Ballistics testing? Confiscation!
    Gun-free school zones? Confiscation!
    Metal detectors at airports and public buildings? Confiscation!
    Eliminating the product-liability exception? Confiscation!

    I understand the need to feel victimized and therefore heroic. But I wish someone espousing the above would answer these questions:

    1. How can anyone “confiscate” your guns if you can simply use those guns to shoot them? If the whole point of having those guns is so you can shoot anyone who tries to “confiscate” them?

    2. If someone you love is killed by a gun, why would you not want the police to be able to trace the gun that did it and find the killer?

    • IrishGrrrl

      La Pierre and his followers are all a bunch of Chicken Littles. How do you get them to not think the sky is going to fall?

      • Brutlyhonest

        No shit, right? I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again: Is there anything these tough-guy, chikenhawks aren’t afraid of?

    • bphoon

      La Pierre’s been shrieking this for at least a couple of decades. I’ll say it again: freedom of movement, assembly and association is at least as fundamental to a free society as the right to keep and bear arms. We’ve been having to register–and pay taxes on!–our automobiles for nearly a century now. I don’t believe I’ve heard of any government plans to confiscate those. The idea that universal background checks–or even mandatory registration–is a certain prelude to confiscation is utter bullshit.

      La Pierre has a vested interest in keeping people cowering in fear of our government. The threat of confiscation has worked pretty well so far, so, from his perspective, why change it? Until, of course, he becomes the new Chicken Little.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Gun fans would be quick to point out that car ownership is not explicitly protected by a Constitional Amendment, but what if it were? What if the Second Amendment read, “A well-regulated transportation system, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate motor vehicles shall not be infringed.” ? Which of the following elements of the current tyrannical, oppressive, car-grabbing motor-vehicle regime would be unconstitutional, or lead to the widespread arbitrary confiscation of automobiles?

        1. driver’s licensing
        2. motor vehicle registration
        3. liability insurance
        4. driver’s ed./testing
        5. periodic review & renewal of license, registration & insurance
        6. headlights, taillights, mirrors, turn signals, &c.
        7. fuel-economy standards
        8. emissions standards
        9. periodic emissions & safety inspection
        10. seat belts, air bags, safety glass, crumple zones, &c.
        11. crash testing/rating
        12. speed limits
        13. traffic laws
        14. traffic lights
        15. traffic signs/signals
        16. one-way streets
        17. highway patrol
        18. radar
        19. breathalyzers
        20. traffic tickets/fines
        21. roadblocks
        22. sobriety checkpoints
        23. road closures/detours
        24. toll roads/bridges/tunnels
        25. weigh stations
        26. impact barriers
        27. parking rules/restrictions
        28. parking tickets/fines

        29. the DMV
        30. the NHTSA

        • bphoon

          Well, to me the operative phrase that the NRA and their ilk seems to conveniently forget is “well regulated”. Seems the founders were in favor of federal oversight of militias…

          • GrafZeppelin127

            The honest ones regard the “well-regulated militia” clause as explanatory (and therefore superfluous), not conditional. The dishonest ones just ignore it.

            I’ve been having some fun lately with gun fans by arguing that charging me money for my gun infringes my right to have it. The best they can do, apart from accusing me of wanting “free stuff” (imagine that), is argue that cost is not an infringement because (a.) it’s not the government imposing the cost on you deliberately, and (b.) consumer goods costing money is just a fact of life that everyone understands and accepts, whereas the law is a deliberate effort by bad people to infringe the God-given rights of virtuous, heroic citizens (i.e., cost is “passive,” gun control is “active”). It’s a false and meaningless distinction.

            No gun fan has yet to explain why the law can prohibit you from having an M109 howitzer or a Tomahawk missile or any quantity of hand grenades, but it can’t prohibit you from having an AR-15. Neither have they explained why they don’t feel oppressed and victimized by laws (or costs) that prohibit them from having howitzers, missiles, tanks, grenades, fighter jets and nukes.

            There’s very little internal logic to the whole gun-nut continuum. Their only organizing principle is their own personal virtue and heroism.