Wayne LaPierre’s Good Guys
We all remember a time when families could go to the mall, enjoy a nice afternoon shopping, have lunch in the food court and, other than an occasional police officer, never see anyone with a gun. Thanks to the open-carry movement, backed by Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, all that is changing. Now we have people walking around in public with AK-47s slung over their shoulders and 9mm pistols strapped to their hips.
Wayne LaPierre and his “good guy” open-carry people think this is a good thing. With all these good guys walking around with guns in plain sight, it just stands to reason the bad guys will behave themselves or, better yet, stay away from polite society altogether. Right?
Some of us have a serious problem with that logic.
First, we don’t think a good guy walks around in public places with a rifle slung over his shoulder or a pistol strapped to his hip. A strange guy? Yes. A good guy? No.
Second, if it’s going to be legal for these so-called “good guys” to carry guns whenever and wherever they want, then it’s also going to be legal for the “not so good guys” to carry guns whenever and wherever they want since the same laws apply to everyone.
Good Guys vs. Not So Good Guys
A “good guy,” as defined by Mr. LaPierre, is any American citizen who has not been convicted of a serious crime and has not been adjudicated as mentally ill. According to LaPierre and his disciples, since that “good guy” is legally entitled to own a gun, he or she must be permitted to walk around in public places with that gun.
Who are the “not so good guys?” They’re people who are legally entitled to own guns but who may pose a very serious threat to the general public if they do so.
Gang members, for example, are legally entitled to own guns – as long as they have not been convicted of a serious crime. Mentally unstable people who have not yet been diagnosed by a mental health professional are legally entitled to own guns. And there are people who, for whatever reason, routinely exercise poor judgment in their daily lives. All these people may legally own a gun.
How do we differentiate between the “good guys” and the “not so good guys?”
People aren’t born all good or all bad. It’s a sliding scale. Hitler is on one end of that sliding scale and Mister Rogers is on the other. The rest of us are somewhere in between. There are also sliding scales for mental health, intelligence, sound judgment, anger management and more.
For Wayne LaPierre to simply define a “good guy” as someone who has not committed a felony and who has not been adjudicated mentally ill is not good enough. What about all the people who meet those criteria but rate two out of ten on the anger management scale? Or three out of ten on the good judgment scale? Or those who are clearly mentally ill but have not yet come to the attention of mental health professionals?
LaPierre’s definition of a “good guy” has clearly failed when it comes to deciding who should or should not be allowed to own guns. Twenty six children and adults murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut should be more than ample proof. Thirty three dead at Virginia Tech. All these people were killed with legally-owned guns. And the list goes on and on. School shootings have actually accelerated since Sandy Hook and are now a regular occurrence in the United States.
The deaths of all those innocent children and adults apparently mean nothing to Wayne LaPierre and his followers. They aren’t satisfied with having as many people as possible owning guns. They insist those people have the right to carry their semi-automatic weapons in public places, concealed on their person or out in the open. And they’re winning.
Some of us now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing public places with “good guys” and “not so good guys” with guns – legally armed people who inhabit very different places on the sliding scales of goodness, mental health, intelligence and sound judgment.
What happens when gun nuts walk around in public with firearms? Bullets fly and death ensues.
Welcome to Wayne LaPierre’s America.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Dave
Dave is the webmaster of StrangerAmerica.com, a website devoted to the greatness that is Dick Cheney.
He is also the creator of RonnieReagan.com, a site devoted to a man considered by some to have been one of the better B-grade actors to portray a U.S. president.
You will find the complete writings of Dave at LookAmerica.com, including his quest for the perfect meatball and his encounters with Pat the Nazi and the Psycho Dentist.
64 responses to Wayne LaPierre’s Good Guys
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
William July 23rd, 2014 at 08:42
I wonder if Wayne came up with that slogan all by himself, or if it was a group effort by the NRA board of directors, which of course includes Ted Nugent and Larry Craig.
William July 23rd, 2014 at 08:42
I wonder if Wayne came up with that slogan all by himself, or if it was a group effort by the NRA board of directors, which of course includes Ted Nugent and Larry Craig.
Budda July 23rd, 2014 at 08:56
“Guns don’t kill people”….well, that’s a stretch but people with guns do kill people.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 09:25
Guns don’t kill people.
It’s those tiny little bullets.
Budda July 23rd, 2014 at 08:56
“Guns don’t kill people”….well, that’s a stretch but people with guns do kill people.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 09:25
Guns don’t kill people.
It’s those tiny little bullets.
lcdrjsm July 23rd, 2014 at 09:06
The guy in the black shirt is about to have his brains blown out.
lcdrjsm July 23rd, 2014 at 09:06
The guy in the black shirt is about to have his brains blown out.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 09:37
Let’s be a little bit less disingenuous.
Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used at Sandy Hook, nor did he even own the ammunition. He did not legally purchase them, he stole them from his mother.
Seung-Hui Cho passed the legally required background checks to purchase his weapons through a lie of omission on his application.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 09:52
Who is being disingenuous? The guns used were all legally purchased, as stated in the article. Did you read the entire article, including the parts about poor judgment? Did Lanza’a mother use good judgment when she kept guns freely available in the home she shared with her son? Adam had foil over his bedroom windows to protect himself from who knows what. He was clearly disturbed. Yet his mother continued to buy firearms and to accompany her son to the shooting range. Good judgment?
And Seung-Hui Cho lied on his application. The laws, as presently written, aren’t working, are they?
Jeremy Legg July 23rd, 2014 at 09:55
Thank you, Abby. You said it better than I was about to!
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 10:36
The implication is that the gunmen abided by the laws in the acquisition of their weapons. Theft and perjury are not legal means of acquiring weapons.
If you steal my gun and use it — it’s still technically a legally purchased weapon. By me, but not by you.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 10:45
Did Adam steal the guns from his mother? They lived in the same house. She bought the guns but felt no need to secure them. She and Adam went to the shooting range together. If anything, she encouraged her son to use them. I see no sign of theft in this case. Legally purchased guns were used to commit mass murder. It’s pretty straightforward.
I doubt he had to ask her permission to use the TV. Or the coffee pot. Or the stove or refrigerator. There is no reason to believe, since they shared the same home, it would be any different when it came to using her guns.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 10:53
Is he required to have a license to use the appliances in the house? Is he required to have a license to operate his mother’s car? Has any child who lived in the same house with his parents been arrested for stealing the parental car?
Your argument is full of false equivalencies. That’s supposed to be what I get accused of here.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 11:05
Now your argument is completely off the tracks.
They lived together in the same house. He was obviously used to sharing many if not most of her possessions – the home, the appliances, the furniture and, it would seem, her guns. She didn’t lock them up. The two of them went to the shooting range together. We don’t know what kind of agreement, if any, they had about the use of her guns. Since she allowed Adam to use her guns on a regular basis and didn’t secure them under lock and key, there is no evidence to support your claim of theft.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 11:24
I’m not denying she showed poor judgment. Her guns should have been locked away (although she’d likely leave the keys out where Lanza would know where they were, or shared the combination with him).
I am claiming that he too an item that was not his, for which the owner must be licensed (which he was not), and removed it from the house — which constitutes theft, pure and simple.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 09:37
Let’s be a little bit less disingenuous.
Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used at Sandy Hook, nor did he even own the ammunition. He did not legally purchase them, he stole them from his mother.
Seung-Hui Cho passed the legally required background checks to purchase his weapons through a lie of omission on his application.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 09:52
Who is being disingenuous? The guns used were all legally purchased, as stated in the article. Did you read the entire article, including the parts about poor judgment? Did Lanza’s mother use good judgment when she kept guns freely available in the home she shared with her son? Adam had foil over his bedroom windows to protect himself from who knows what. He was clearly disturbed. Yet his mother continued to buy firearms and to accompany her son to the shooting range. Good judgment?
And Seung-Hui Cho lied on his application. The laws, as presently written, aren’t working very well, are they?
Jeremy Legg July 23rd, 2014 at 09:55
Thank you, Abby. You said it better than I was about to!
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 10:36
The implication is that the gunmen abided by the laws in the acquisition of their weapons. Theft and perjury are not legal means of acquiring weapons.
If you steal my gun and use it — it’s still technically a legally purchased weapon. By me, but not by you.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 10:45
Did Adam steal the guns from his mother? They lived in the same house. She bought the guns but felt no need to secure them. She and Adam went to the shooting range together. If anything, she encouraged her son to use them. I see no sign of theft in this case. Legally purchased guns were used to commit mass murder. It’s pretty straightforward.
I doubt he had to ask her permission to use the TV. Or the coffee pot. Or the stove or refrigerator. There is no reason to believe, since they shared the same home, it would be any different when it came to using her guns.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 10:53
Is he required to have a license to use the appliances in the house? Is he required to have a license to operate his mother’s car? Has any child who lived in the same house with his parents been arrested for stealing the parental car?
Your argument is full of false equivalencies. That’s supposed to be what I get accused of here.
Abby Normal July 23rd, 2014 at 11:05
Now your argument is completely off the rails.
They lived together in the same house. He was obviously used to sharing many if not most of her possessions – the home, the appliances, the furniture and, it would seem, her guns. She didn’t lock them up. The two of them went to the shooting range together. We don’t know what kind of agreement, if any, they had about the use of her guns. Since she allowed Adam to use her guns on a regular basis and didn’t secure them under lock and key, there is no evidence to support your claim of theft.
The article is mainly about judgment or lack thereof. There is no evidence to support your contention that the guns were stolen from Mrs. Lanza. There is ample evidence to suggest Mrs. Lanza exercised poor judgment.
R.J. Carter July 23rd, 2014 at 11:24
I’m not denying she showed poor judgment. Her guns should have been locked away (although she’d likely leave the keys out where Lanza would know where they were, or shared the combination with him).
I am claiming that he too an item that was not his, for which the owner must be licensed (which he was not), and removed it from the house — which constitutes theft, pure and simple.
Red Eye Robot July 23rd, 2014 at 17:46
Boy oh boy! Dave sure knocked the stuffing out of that straw man! Pretty sure Wayne might include “law abiding”. Just ignoring the fact that the murder rate is half of what it was in the 1970’s while gun ownership has increased, and concealed carry has increased over 20X demonstrates all appeals for gun control are based on lies and distortions
Sko Hayes July 23rd, 2014 at 21:03
Gun ownership has actually decreased in the last 20 years. The high numbers of firearms in the US are because people who own guns usually have several.
And the dropping crime rate has never been attributed to gun ownership, sorry.
There are actual studies out there you can read instead of depending on the propaganda of the NRA.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:42
More b s.
All crime is down yet we still lead the developed world in gun deaths…by a lot.
Did I say by a lot?
Anyone claiming that more guns curbs gun deaths has no sense of reasoning. The main fact is still; an area with the most guns always has the most deaths by guns…anywhere in the world.
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 16:15
Houston and Chicago are 2 cities of similar sized population.Similar median household income, Chicago has severe restrictions on guns, Houston does not. Chicago had 440 homicides last year Houston had 201
Red Eye Robot July 23rd, 2014 at 17:46
Boy oh boy! Dave sure knocked the stuffing out of that straw man! Pretty sure Wayne might include “law abiding”. Just ignoring the fact that the murder rate is half of what it was in the 1970’s while gun ownership has increased, and concealed carry has increased over 20X demonstrates all appeals for gun control are based on lies and distortions
Sko Hayes July 23rd, 2014 at 21:03
Gun ownership has actually decreased in the last 20 years. The high numbers of firearms in the US are because people who own guns usually have several.
And the dropping crime rate has never been attributed to gun ownership, sorry.
There are actual studies out there you can read instead of depending on the propaganda of the NRA.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:42
More b s.
All crime is down yet we still lead the developed world in gun deaths…by a lot.
Did I say by a lot?
Anyone claiming that more guns curbs gun deaths has no sense of reasoning. The main fact is still; an area with the most guns always has the most deaths by guns…anywhere in the world.
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 16:15
Houston and Chicago are 2 cities of similar sized population.Similar median household income, Chicago has severe restrictions on guns, Houston does not. Chicago had 440 homicides last year Houston had 201
madashellnow July 23rd, 2014 at 18:15
Aren’t there laws against killing and shooting people? Pray tell, exactly what law has ever stopped a murder? Criminals will be criminals. That’s why they are criminals….they don’t obey the laws. Chicago and DC two areas with the most stringent gun control laws…and two areas with the highest crime rate. I know, don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up and we need to punish law abiding citizens and give criminals a break. Let’s let more criminal, gang member into the country as ILLEGAL aliens. Yea, that should help the situation.
Sko Hayes July 23rd, 2014 at 21:00
The reason that guns are so freely available in places like Chicago and DC is because it’s easy to buy multiple guns in states like Virginia and Indiana and then take them into the city and sell them to criminals.
We should be concentrating on stopping all straw purchases and instead of firearms dealers looking the other way, they should be reporting straw purchases to the ATF.
Red Eye Robot July 24th, 2014 at 00:32
easy to get guns in indiana cause crime in chicago ….but not indiana? funny how that works.
Sko Hayes July 24th, 2014 at 06:50
Selling those guns illegally is a crime. You also might want to check out the murder rate in cities like Gary, which is higher than in Chicago.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:37
Anybody can buy a gun in those cities by driving an hour or so to get one. Anybody can buy a gun online no questions asked so stop the Chicago and DC
b s argument.
The highest percentage of gun deaths is still in the southern republican states. It’s where you are more likely to be killed by a gun.
Show me the stats on illegal immigrants shootings. Of course you have none.
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 16:05
This is why the left has so utterly lost the gun control debate. ” Anybody can buy a gun online no questions asked so stop the Chicago and DC b s argument.” Sorrrrrrrrry but, you can’t buy guns online without transfer to a licensed FFL dealer. You also can not buy a gun outside the state you live in.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 12:40
Another lie. See above.
madashellnow July 31st, 2014 at 20:42
That’s not exactly accurate. When I purchase a gun on-line, it has to be shipped to a FFL. He calls and tells me the gun has arrived. I go to pick it up. Before he give me the gun, he has to run a NICS check on me. If I don’t pass, he does not give me the gun for which I paid before it was even shipped. It’s not a BS argument. You need to learn more before you open your mouth.
There are a lot more babies killed by abortion than those killed by guns. Perhaps that should be stopped.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 12:46
‘AN INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL ONLINE GUN SALES’
http://fixgunchecks.s3.amazonaws.com/191/6b/c/683/1/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf
NY undercover investigation of gun sellers on line:
Fix Gun Checks: Delete Online Outlaws is a response to the national undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York. Investigators uncovered a vast, unregulated online market for illegal guns,
where 62% of sellers on classified ad websites were willing to sell to individuals who admitted they couldn’t pass a criminal background check. Verified by recorded conversations.
Sting: Undercover investigators contacted 125 private sellers from 14 different states advertising guns on 10 websites, including Craigslist and KSL.com. These represent a fraction of the more than 25,000 guns for sale on the websites investigated.
Scope of Problem: Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, but because of a gap in the law, so-called “private sellers” do not need to. It’s estimated that more than 40% of gun sales are private sales. These sales are increasingly made on the internet, a haven for illegal guns according to the investigation. It is a federal felony to sell a gun to someone believed to be prohibited from purchasing a gun, such as a minor, a criminal or anyone declared mentally unstable by a court.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 12:51
Well, they don’t get any more non-biased when it comes to guns than Mayor Bloomberg.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 13:01
Did you really post the most stupid comment ever?
Read the report instead of making stupid comments.
It’s from the N Y police dept.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 13:47
Did you really post the revelation that you didn’t even read your own link? It’s from the City of New York, with data obtained through a private consulting firm, Kroll. (“Investigator” doesn’t always mean “Police.”)
Lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 13:59
As usual, just ignore the facts found and call it biased like you’re told to do. The fact that they were taken from actual conversations seems to mean nothing to you.
Here: ‘Americans can buy guns on over 4000 web sites.’
“NY police alone found ads for 25,000 guns on just 10 web sites.”
Actual conversation:
Investigator: “No background checks?”
Seller: “No, I just take cash, and there you go!”
Investigator: “…That’s good because I probably couldn’t pass one of those things.”
Seller: [Laughs]
That’s a real-life exchange between an undercover investigator and the seller of a Ruger assault rifle listed on one of the thousands of websites that offer online classified ads for guns. Worse, it’s a snapshot of illegal guns sales that happen every single day.
Your next argument will be that the investigators were all wearing red shirts which is a sign of communism.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 14:09
I read all that, including the exchange of an undercover Kroll employee with a seller.
So what?
So what?
Okay, now there’s a problem with that seller that needs to be addressed. That’s not an indictment of online gun sales, it’s an indictment of this seller.
madashellnow July 23rd, 2014 at 18:15
Aren’t there laws against killing and shooting people? Pray tell, exactly what law has ever stopped a murder? Criminals will be criminals. That’s why they are criminals….they don’t obey the laws. Chicago and DC two areas with the most stringent gun control laws…and two areas with the highest crime rate. I know, don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up and we need to punish law abiding citizens and give criminals a break. Let’s let more criminal, gang member into the country as ILLEGAL aliens. Yea, that should help the situation.
Sko Hayes July 23rd, 2014 at 21:00
The reason that guns are so freely available in places like Chicago and DC is because it’s easy to buy multiple guns in states like Virginia and Indiana and then take them into the city and sell them to criminals.
We should be concentrating on stopping all straw purchases and instead of firearms dealers looking the other way, they should be reporting straw purchases to the ATF.
Red Eye Robot July 24th, 2014 at 00:32
easy to get guns in indiana cause crime in chicago ….but not indiana? funny how that works.
Sko Hayes July 24th, 2014 at 06:50
Selling those guns illegally is a crime. You also might want to check out the murder rate in cities like Gary, which is higher than in Chicago.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:37
Anybody can buy a gun in those cities by driving an hour or so to get one. Anybody can buy a gun online no questions asked so stop the Chicago and DC
b s argument.
The highest percentage of gun deaths is still in the southern republican states. It’s where you are more likely to be killed by a gun.
Show me the stats on illegal immigrants shootings. Of course you have none.
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 16:05
This is why the left has so utterly lost the gun control debate. ” Anybody can buy a gun online no questions asked so stop the Chicago and DC b s argument.” Sorrrrrrrrry but, you can’t buy guns online without transfer to a licensed FFL dealer. You also can not buy a gun outside the state you live in.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 12:40
Another lie. See above.
madashellnow July 31st, 2014 at 20:42
That’s not exactly accurate. When I purchase a gun on-line, it has to be shipped to a FFL. He calls and tells me the gun has arrived. I go to pick it up. Before he give me the gun, he has to run a NICS check on me. If I don’t pass, he does not give me the gun for which I paid before it was even shipped. It’s not a BS argument. You need to learn more before you open your mouth.
There are a lot more babies killed by abortion than those killed by guns. Perhaps that should be stopped.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 12:46
‘AN INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL ONLINE GUN SALES’
http://fixgunchecks.s3.amazonaws.com/191/6b/c/683/1/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf
‘NY undercover investigation of gun sellers on line: 25,000 guns for sale on just 10 websites. 62%, no questions asked.’
Fix Gun Checks: Delete Online Outlaws is a response to the national undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York. Investigators uncovered a vast, unregulated online market for illegal guns,
where 62% of sellers on classified ad websites were willing to sell to individuals who admitted they couldn’t pass a criminal background check. Verified by recorded conversations.
Sting: Undercover investigators contacted 125 private sellers from 14 different states advertising guns on 10 websites, including Craigslist and KSL.com. These represent a fraction of the more than 25,000 guns for sale on the websites investigated.
Scope of Problem: Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, but because of a gap in the law, so-called “private sellers” do not need to. It’s estimated that more than 40% of gun sales are private sales. These sales are increasingly made on the internet, a haven for illegal guns according to the investigation. It is a federal felony to sell a gun to someone believed to be prohibited from purchasing a gun, such as a minor, a criminal or anyone declared mentally unstable by a court.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 12:51
Well, they don’t get any more non-biased when it comes to guns than Mayor Bloomberg.
lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 13:01
Did you really post the most stupid comment ever?
Read the report instead of making stupid comments.
It’s from the N Y police dept.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 13:47
Did you really post the revelation that you didn’t even read your own link? It’s from the City of New York, with data obtained through a private consulting firm, Kroll. (“Investigator” doesn’t always mean “Police.”)
Lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 13:59
As usual, just ignore the facts found and call it biased like you’re told to do. The fact that they were taken from actual conversations seems to mean nothing to you.
Here: ‘Americans can buy guns on over 4000 web sites.’
“NY police alone found ads for 25,000 guns on just 10 web sites.”
Actual conversation:
Investigator: “No background checks?”
Seller: “No, I just take cash, and there you go!”
Investigator: “…That’s good because I probably couldn’t pass one of those things.”
Seller: [Laughs]
That’s a real-life exchange between an undercover investigator and the seller of a Ruger assault rifle listed on one of the thousands of websites that offer online classified ads for guns. Worse, it’s a snapshot of illegal guns sales that happen every single day.
Your next argument will be that the investigators were all wearing red shirts which is a sign of communism.
R.J. Carter August 8th, 2014 at 14:09
I read all that, including the exchange of an undercover Kroll employee with a seller.
So what?
So what?
Okay, now there’s a problem with that seller that needs to be addressed. That’s not an indictment of online gun sales, it’s an indictment of this seller.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:50
The arguments from gun enthusiasts are like that of a child who knocks a vase off the shelf and it breaks on the floor. When his mother asks him if he broke the vase he says, ‘No, the floor did.’
Gun nuts use the same kind of logic.
lindsncal July 24th, 2014 at 03:50
The arguments from gun enthusiasts are like that of a child who knocks a vase off the shelf and it breaks on the floor. When his mother asks him if he broke the vase he says, ‘No, the floor did.’
Gun nuts use the same kind of logic.
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 15:58
One of Wayne’s good guy’s with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun again. This time a Pennsylvania Psychiatrist with a concealed carry permit http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-furious-close-range-gun-battle-pennsylvania-hospital/story?id=24716727
Red Eye Robot July 25th, 2014 at 15:58
One of Wayne’s good guy’s with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun again. This time a Pennsylvania Psychiatrist with a concealed carry permit http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-furious-close-range-gun-battle-pennsylvania-hospital/story?id=24716727