NRA criticizes Obama's reference to 'absolutism'
RENO, Nev. (AP) - A top National Rifle Association official on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of seeking to redefine the rights of gun owners, telling a hunting and wildlife conservation group that the president's use of the word "absolutism" in his inauguration speech was an attack on law-abiding citizens who own firearms.
Obama said in his speech Monday that Americans shouldn't "mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
The remark was interpreted by the NRA as a reference to the organization's steadfast opposition to any new gun regulations.
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told a Weatherby Foundation awards ceremony that the Second Amendment gives Americans the unfettered right to own a firearm, but the president wants to redefine that freedom.
"Absolutes do exist, words do have specific meaning in language and in law," he said.
The president wants Americans to believe that "putting the federal government in the middle of every gun transaction" will make them safer, LaPierre said. But the NRA believes people have the right to defend themselves and their families with semi-automatic firearms technology, he said.
"No government gave them to us and no government can take them away."
Obama last week unveiled a set of legislative proposals and executive actions on firearms that were formulated in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead.
The NRA responded to the proposals by posting a Web video that labeled Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed guards while not embracing a proposal - supported by the NRA - that would place armed guards at all schools. The organization has also planned an aggressive lobbying push to thwart new gun regulations and has been raising money in response to the outcry for new gun laws.
LaPierre's speech on Tuesday was billed as a response to Obama's inaugural address.
Obama said in his speech Monday that Americans shouldn't "mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
The remark was interpreted by the NRA as a reference to the organization's steadfast opposition to any new gun regulations.
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told a Weatherby Foundation awards ceremony that the Second Amendment gives Americans the unfettered right to own a firearm, but the president wants to redefine that freedom.
"Absolutes do exist, words do have specific meaning in language and in law," he said.
The president wants Americans to believe that "putting the federal government in the middle of every gun transaction" will make them safer, LaPierre said. But the NRA believes people have the right to defend themselves and their families with semi-automatic firearms technology, he said.
"No government gave them to us and no government can take them away."
Obama last week unveiled a set of legislative proposals and executive actions on firearms that were formulated in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead.
The NRA responded to the proposals by posting a Web video that labeled Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed guards while not embracing a proposal - supported by the NRA - that would place armed guards at all schools. The organization has also planned an aggressive lobbying push to thwart new gun regulations and has been raising money in response to the outcry for new gun laws.
LaPierre's speech on Tuesday was billed as a response to Obama's inaugural address.
both side have nothing intelligent to say. the pro gun people are afraid of knee jerk politics, and the anti gun people blame the tool these people use. in 1999 Tom Selleck hit the nail on the head. suicidal kids back in the day just killed themselves, today they see how many people they can take with them. when I was a police officer we had 23 teen suicides in one year in a small town. when are they going to focus on the cause not the symptom or the tool, make so they can't use a gun they may become the next suicide bomber.
All obama wants to do is disarm american citizens so that way the people that would stand up to him and fight back cannot do anything.
I really don't give a hoot what the NRA has to say. When one of their officers makes the statement on national TV that had the slaves been given guns, there would have been no slavery, you know you're dealing with a bunch of morons.
We do know that the Vice President of the NRA will not live forever right?? Who will stand up for the NRA in the near future?? So many want to enforce gun control by wiping out the NRA blaming them for all bad things, but when the man who sticks up for the NRA will not always be around to do so!!
We all should remember that we need to have the right person in the future to continue his legacy! OR WE WILL SINK!
Wayne LaPierre and NRA members, the time has come!! Viva the sane thinking citizens of this beautiful country and viva the freedom to feel safe in our society!!!
 @Socialjusticeforall Right this way, Your train is now boarding.
Wayne LaPierre makes two million dollars annually ($1 million in salary and $1 million in speaking fees and endorsements). Of course, he is worried about his HIGH PAYING job. And the sad part is that struggling citizens continue to pay their dues to keep him and the other OVER-PAID officials in place. What a country!
 @Socialjusticeforall ..and Bill Clinton made almost 14 Million in 2011 for his speaking fees...is your point that someone is making a 7 figure salary..or that some is making 7 figures giving speeches? Or are you just micturating in the wind?
NRA is a bunch of bullies
 @ark NRA is no different than the other side of the political fence. Extremes on both sides...because it doesn't line up with your ideals doesn't make them bullies.
When I heard Obama's words, I thought the same thing. Responsible gun owners know there must be reasonable concession, thus they have allowed restrictions on RPGs and fully- automatic firearms. So, there has been compromise. Now, Obama want's further compromise, and in a direction that affects law abiding gun owners while having shown to have no effect on crime or criminals. I know someone is going to start screaming, "No one is trying to take your guns!". Well, yes, they are. I don't own an AR-15, but if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to get one legally, thus, it's been taken away. Mr. Obama has shown from his stance in Chicago that he IS about absolutism, he doesn't believe any citizen needs a gun and they certainly shouldn't carry one in the community, and this whole spectacle of gun debate IS about politics. If Obama wanted to deal with the violence issue, why isn't he talking about the mental health issue? Why is he attacking law abiding gun owners, when it's not the law abiding gun owner who is at issue? He told Sarah Brady in his first term that he would work on gun control, but he would have to 'fly under the radar', until his second term. That is now coming to fruition.Â
 @SargeMcC The mental health issue? You didn't see his executive orders that addressed that in several different ways then.
The feds can get in the middle of every transaction regarding a firearm.....but until the criminals on the streets tell them where and when they are trading guns for dope or stolen property they will only affect law abiding citizens.
"...mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
Â
Too late, though it is funny for Obama to chide his own party and supporters.
From the article:
----------
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told a Weatherby Foundation awards ceremony that the Second Amendment gives Americans the unfettered right to own a firearm, but the president wants to redefine that freedom.
Â
"Absolutes do exist, words do have specific meaning in language and in law," he said. ... But the NRA believes people have the right to defend themselves and their families with semi-automatic firearms technology, he said.
----------
Here's my question. Does LaPierre believe that fully automatic firearms should be legal? In other words, do gun rights advocates and/or the NRA consider restrictions on full-auto rifles to be unconstitutional?
Â
If the answer is no, then I am left scratching my head, because the words "semi-automatic" do not appear in the Second Amendment.
 @Sutekh The words "abortion" doesn't appear either but they are legal. I can give you about a billion words that are not in the Constitution does that mean that since those words are not there they should be outlawed? What a stupid line of reasoning. Man I wish people were required to take a debate and logic course before typing their opinions! BTW...the Constitution specifically does say that if something is not in it, then it is not the Federal Government's business...therefore since the word "semi-automatic" is not in the Constitution, it is none of their business!Â
 @sometimesright How typical. You don't understand my point, so you spew abuse in a futile effort to cover your shame.
Â
Here is my question again, rephrased for a third-grade education level:
Â
The Second Amendment does not say anything about "semi-auto," "full auto," "select fire," "burst fire," etc. It only mentions "arms."
Â
Therefore, by the NRA's logic:
Â
(a) restricting ownership of full auto etc. weapons is an unconstitutional "infringement" of Second Amendment rights,
Â
or
Â
(b) there are some restrictions on gun ownership that the NRA and/or gun rights advocates see as necessary and correct.
Â
One of these two things has to be true.
Â
Most people think machine guns should remain illegal, so advocating position "a" tends to make you look like a gun-crazy fanatic. That leaves position "b."
@Sutekh Full autos are legal, it they are highly regulated Class III NFA firearms (and not allowed under WA law). I'm not sure of your point...sure there are limits placed on what guns people can own, but trying to parse semi-automatic rifles into "assault weapons" and "not assault weapons" based on cosmetic features as a proxy for presumed lethality is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Surely we are smarter than this? All guns are potentially lethal, and we need to focus on keeping them out of the hands of criminals, mentally ill and unsupervised children.
"...but they are highly regulated". Stupid no edit feature.
 @Sutekh Yes, they should be legal in the hands of responsible citizens. They are still legal but no practical; even the military do not like fully automatic guns....