May, 1999.....
"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.
We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."
No teachers packing.
No janitors packing.
No "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Just maintain gun-free school zones.
President Clinton sure was sticking to the liberal approach to gun control after Columbine, wasn't he?
One problem.
It was the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who said those words.
Oh my.
.
21 comments:
Unfortunately your handlers left you hanging in the wind on this one Rick. You really should not rely on them so much and should actually check original sources. Here is the original source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000312035941/http://nrahq.com/transcripts/denver_wlp.shtml
The 1999 NRA statement you quote *was explicitly addressing youth possession of firearms in schools* in the wake of Columbine. Here is the paragraph immediately following your quote, which was critical of the tolerance law enforcement had for youths with guns at schools:
"Of the 6,000 young people the President acknowledges were caught with a gun at school during the past two years, we believe all of them should have been prosecuted. But the truth is that only 5 were prosecuted in 1997 and just 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance."
In fact, if you actually read the entire statement, you would see that the recommendations for avoiding another Columbine in the NRA statement are all eerily similar to the executive orders Obama signed yesterday!
So you read that FULL 1999 statement, and now you must be scratching your head, hmmm...why is it that nobody listened to the NRA back then?
Now if you read that entire statement, and you still want to argue that the context of that speech had anything to do with arming teachers as part of the "trained security personnel" one way or the other, you have absolutely zero intellectual honesty.
But don't take my pwning you on this one personally Rick, you were just lazy. I know you just lifted from the progressive handler's talking points, and he/she really screwed you on this one.
By the way, three more acquaintances of mine just jointed the NRA, so keep up the good work!
Hmmm.
"Now if you read that entire statement, and you still want to argue that the context of that speech had anything to do with arming teachers as part of the "trained security personnel" one way or the other, you have absolutely zero intellectual honesty."
Speaking of ZERO intellectual honesty, Jewish Marksman is busy stuffing words down Rick's throat; at no time did Rick write anything that implied that LaPierre commented on arming teacher back in 1999. In fact, of that speech, he notes, and I quote, "No teachers packing."
In other words, Rick is tacitly stating that in 1999, Wayne LaPierre did not advance the idea of arming teachers in response to the shootings at Colombine.
And finally, we have to analyze the "missing paragraph" that Jewish Marksman claims changes the context of the speech.
So let's summarize each of the three paragraphs and see what we actually come up with:
1. Only trained LEO or security guards should be permitted to carry guns on a school campus.
2. People aren't allowed to carry guns onto airplanes, and the same standards should apply to schools.
3. We've done a very poor job of prosecuting people who bring guns onto campus in violation of the current laws.
As Rick pointed out, LaPierre did not call for more guns on campus at that time, and in fact supported a "zero tolerance" approach against those who brought guns onto campus who were not either LEO or security, and even went so far as to criticize the administration for not enforcing zero tolerance adequately.
From where I sit, Rick's summary is absolutely accurate, and the only party practicing "intellectual dishonesty" is Jewish Marksman.
Jewish Marksman seems to have missed THIS paragraph:
"We support restoring full and perpetual funding for the National Instant Check System, which was the product of this Association's determined effort. It is a federal crime for a felon to try to buy a gun. So for the quarter million prohibited buyers President Clinton claims were turned away, we believe his Justice Department should have prosecuted more than zero in 1996, zero in 1997 and zero in 1998. That's surely not zero tolerance."
Jewish Marksman/u know the original source that you so proudly cited is the same one cited in the post.
the rest of what you try to say is just as inaccurate. thanks.
Say, Rick -- do you really have "handlers" like Jewish Marxman says? Where do you find them, what do they charge, and where can I find out more about them? I tried going to "Dupes R Us" but it seemed like they were all from the wrong side of the aisle. Nice dining room tables, though.
Actually, I'm scratching my head and wondering what the hell I was thinking back then. But I just want to make sure that people realize that I want the exact opposite today.
CLJ-
Do you notice that in order to make your argument, you need to re-write and distort the 1999 message?
The 1999 message was critical of the failure to prevent and prosecute KIDS CAUGHT WITH GUNS AT SCHOOLS. The airport analogy was KIDS=PASSENGERS. Don't re-write the statement to include teachers or as you put it "people" because the statement explicitly addresses KIDS BRINGING GUNS TO SCHOOL. To the best of my knowledge, no teacher has ever gone on a rampage at a school, so the notion that the NRA intended its 1999 message to apply to properly trained teachers is questionable at best.
Further, there is nothing implicit or explicit in that message to suggest that teachers could not be part of the "trained security personnel" at the school. Don't re-write the statement to read "security guards" because the term "security guards" was never used. I would argue that "personnel" was carefully chosen wording that could be broad enough to include teachers or other staff in other roles besides full time security. For example, a gym teacher could pull guard duty during the hours he/she doesn't have classes instead of watching tv in the teacher's lounge.
Context matters. If you think the NRA would have objected in 1999 to a proposal by Clinton to arm and train teachers, you are kidding yourself. Think about it. If Clinton had proposed it would the NRA have said no? Of course not. Just a couple years later, did you hear the NRA object to training and arming pilots in response to the 9/11 hijackings? Of course not! What's the difference? None.
Why wasn't arming teachers explicitly proposed in 1999? Probably a) the NRA might have felt that after Columbine the country might finally get off its ass with respect to enforcing existing gun laws and addressing mental health so it wasn't necessary to bring up, or b) politically it might be viewed as overreacting because at that time, such tragedies still seemed rare (they are still rare, even if they don't seem that way).
So in 2012, a) above never happened, or if anything got worse, so the NRA proposed broadening the scope of adults armed at schools.
But hey, keep up your irrational demonization and hate speech directed at the NRA and gun owners. The NRA needs all the support it can get, and blog postings like this are partially responsible for the surge in members and funds needed to defeat gun ban measures.
I'm looking forward to your responses.
I totally agree with you, Jewish Marksman: LaPierre was just clarifying that the NRA doesn't support kids carrying guns to school. He had to make that argument just in case anyone thought otherwise, right?
It' so obvious. I don't know why no one else gets it here at this blog.
I also agree that Obama's executive orders are eerily similar to LaPierre's. That exactly why the NRA put out a video late yesterday that called liberals elitists, brought Obama's kids into the discussion, and was very critical of his positions on gun control.
It's so freaking obvious to me and you. Why no one else?
Anon-
"LaPierre was just clarifying that the NRA doesn't support kids carrying guns to school."
Wrong. That much was already obvious. LaPierre was clarifying that the NRA was appalled at the lackadaisical approach that schools and law enforcement were taking. 6000 kids caught with guns at school, only a a handful of prosecutions! If only 6000 were caught, imagine how many more thousands were (and probably are) carrying! So his point, at that time, was that more needs to be done about kids bringing guns into schools. He EXPLICITLY left room for guns in the hands of law enforcement and other "security personnel".
"was very critical of his positions on gun control."
Wrong again. There is agreement on some "positions" in principle. Certainly there is and will always be criticisms of any bans on semiautomatic rifles or magazine capacity. There is agreement on greater involvement of the medical community, but certainly disagreement and criticism as to exactly how that should function.
I guess if you want to be technical, Obama's executive orders are similar in principle to some of the things LaPierre proposed back in 1999.
And I might add, Rick and others on this blog have been opposed to any armed guards at schools (arguing they won't do any good whatsoever and cite Columbine and other events in support), yet for some reason Obama thinks otherwise. Why is Rick silent now, and not mocking and ridiculing Obama for pursuing the armed guards issue? Why indeed.
Armed guards at schools? Worst idea ever. I don't give a shit if God commanded it from on high, which she wouldn't, by the way.
" I don't give a shit if G-d commanded it from on high, which she wouldn't, by the way."
No, Hillary Clinton has been pretty quiet about the whole gun control issue. Too busy figuring out what excuse she's going to give on Bengazi.
But in any case, Rick and others here agree with you, but have not dared to criticize Obama (their G-d). They're too busy splitting hairs over what LaPierre said over a decade ago.
Splittin' hairs, JM? Kettle calling the pot black, me thinks.
The words of LaPierre are clear. I think I was pretty clear in the post what I believed he was saying. You think he said something different. Doesn't surprise me.
BTW, me and miaexile are in the same camp as far as armed guards in schools go. I've always believed that and still do.
.
WAIT A MINUTE!
Who Cares? gets clipped for saying
"Stinks like s__t"
But you let Jewish Marksman slide with
"I don't don't give a s__t..."
i mean, what's up with that, selective prudery?
Context.
.
No, Jewish Marksman, I didn't notice the thing I didn't have to do.
"The 1999 message was critical of the failure to prevent and prosecute KIDS CAUGHT WITH GUNS AT SCHOOLS."
Show me where I said that the message of the entire speech wasn't that.
"Don't re-write the statement to read "security guards" because the term "security guards" was never used."
The exact phrase was "trained security personnel." It was not "teachers." There is no place anywhere in the speech where he implies that he meant to include teachers in that category.
And that is the entirety of Rick's argument; that in 1999, LaPierre didn't call for arming teachers. And nothing you have spun has changed that fact, nor the accuracy of Rick's argument.
BTW, anyone with a lick of sense is against bringing more guns into schools. Schools aren't supposed to resemble penitentiaries. Teachers, by and larger, are not interested in becoming armed guards.
And that's as it should be.
Trust me, CLJ, it doesn't register with this guy. If it doesn't have anything to do with gunpowder it's way beyond his learning curve.
.
"And that is the entirety of Rick's argument; that in 1999, LaPierre didn't call for arming teachers."
Do you have a text based web browser? The title of the post is 180 degrees, there is a graphic of U-turn. Rick's argument is that in 1999 the NRA opposed arming teachers, and then in 2012 made 180 degree turn and says arm them.
I called BS, and conclusively pointed out that Rick had taken the 1999 snippet out of context, a result of obviously not having read the entire statement. (Lots of the progressive blogs have run the same snippet, have not seen a single one cite to the original, complete text). It seems to me, CLJ, the even you agree that the 1999 statement is silent on whether or not teachers should or could be armed. I agree with you that "in 1999, LaPierre didn't call for arming teachers," but I'm not going to read into that omission something ridiculous like Rick does.
"BTW, anyone with a lick of sense is against bringing more guns into schools."
Well I agree with you that generally speaking Obama lacks a lick of sense, but not with respect to the executive order he signed promoting the very policy you now lambast.
"Schools aren't supposed to resemble penitentiaries."
Hold the hyperbole please. Nobody says security has to be done in an overbearing way. Plainclothes officers with concealed weapons are but one way to do it. I've been mocked on this blog for pointing it out, but Vegas casino security is very good and effective, yet very discreet. 99% of the public has no idea and just has a good time.
"Teachers, by and larger, are not interested in becoming armed guards."
I agree it is inadvisable to put a person in that situation if they are not willing, and in many communities they will be able to find resources for non-teacher security. But at the end of the day, they work for the people and if certain communities decide that's the way to go because the community cannot afford another option, then those teachers can be fired and replaced. We don't pay our taxes to have public servants dictate the terms of their employment to us. But that's a discussion for another day.
I always love reading translations of my posts!
.
He was definitely talking about kids carrying weapons into schools, deploring both the fact that it was happening and the failure of authorities to punish offenders.
He simultaneously stated that the only appropriate circumstances for the presence of weapons in schools would be "the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
And yes, this differs dramatically from his December press conference (no questions accepted) where he suggested arming teachers. It is more consistent with his 1999 statement that "armed security personnel" in schools is acceptable, although it seems he dropped the "rare" qualifier, and now wants it ubiquitous.
So yeah -- it's a reversal, alright. The Dupe Collective represented by JM is just wrong, as usual. It might make more sense to point out that times change, and that what might have been right for 1999 won't work in 2013. Which brings up the question of Why, and here we go again about too many guns in the hands of too many people who shouldn't have them. Or no, wait -- it's the media and video games. I forgot.
Style Note: I see JM is okay writing the word "shit," but "God" needs a hyphen. Fantasy-infested values, anyone?
CLJ and Squathole...JM's got his own interpretation locked down and he isn't moving from it. So expect more of the same insistence. As Bark Bark Woof Woof likes to say, it's like talking to a dining room table.
.
"Style Note: I see JM is okay writing the word "shit," but "God" needs a hyphen. Fantasy-infested values, anyone?"
May the Fl--ng Spg-h-tt- M-nst-r crap on your birthday cake, infidel.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.