Type to search

Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

Featured Post Memo Pad Politics

Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘Normal’ Is Gone For Good?


Maybe conservatives are done with dog-whistle politics.

After all, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre traded his dog whistle for an air horn at a recent gathering of the gun faithful in Washington, D.C. “I have to tell you,” he said, “eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough.”

Subtle, it was not.

Still, as insults go, it was a rather neatly crafted twofer. On one hand, it demeaned the nation’s first African-American president and welcomed the day the White House is, well… de-Negro-fied. On the other hand, it also demeaned the candidate seeking to become the nation’s first female-American president and promised to save the White House from, well… woman-ification. Evidently, LaPierre wants America to get back to normal; “normal” being defined as “the president is white and male.”

So out come the air horns, blatting Woman! Woman! Woman! seeking to reduce a former senator and Secretary of State to the sum of her chromosomes. Now the race is apparently on to see who will be first to tag the former law professor, senator, and Secretary of State with which crude, sexist epithet. Oh, the suspense.

The blazing irony is that conservatives have at least two “demographically symbolic” candidates vying for their favor: Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American senator from Florida and Ted Cruz (does no one else see Joe McCarthy staring back when they look at this guy?), a senator from Texas whose father was born in Cuba.

So the “normal” LaPierre seeks is threatened, regardless.

Not that he is the only one tripped up by Clinton’s woman-ness. Consider, a recent piece from Time magazine which argued that Clinton is “the perfect age to be president” because, at 67, she is “postmenopausal.” Granted, the essay, by a doctor named Julie Holland, flatters Clinton and women of her age, assuring us that, having been freed from the “cyclical forces” that “dominated” the first half of her life, she emerges with the “experience and self-assurance” to be president.

Still, could you not have happily gone the rest of your days without contemplating Hillary Clinton’s “cyclical forces”? More to the point, can you imagine such an essay being written about a male candidate? Marco Rubio is 43, which means he’s probably already had his first digital prostate exam. Will anyone analyze how that factors into his readiness for the presidency? Rick Perry is 65. If he jumps in, will anyone speculate on how possible issues of erectile dysfunction might inform his foreign policy?

Here’s the thing about “demographically symbolic” presidents and candidates: They tend to function like Rorschach inkblots. Meaning that what we see in them reveals more about us than them. Where Barack Obama is concerned, the right-wing panic over birth certificates and fist bumps and the left-wing tendency to idealize and canonize his every exhalation revealed the rank bigotry and messy irresolution beneath our “post-racial” happy talk. Where Clinton is concerned, these very early indications suggest her woman-ness will likewise be a minefield for friend, foe and media — even more, perhaps, than in 2008.

And that’s not to mention Cruz and Rubio. Who do you think will be the first to wear a sombrero to a Cruz rally in misguided solidarity, or to tell the Miami-born Rubio to go back where he came from?

Point being that in America, markers of identity — gender, race, ethnicity — have a way of becoming identity itself, of blinding us to the singular, individual one in front of us. And campaigns tend to magnify that failing. To put that another way: Strap in. It’s going to be a very long 19 months until the 2016 election. Even so, one thing is already clear, and it should please the rest of us, if not Wayne LaPierre.

“Normal” is gone for good.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132. Readers may contact him via email at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Leonard Pitts Jr.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a nationally syndicated commentator, journalist, and novelist. Pitts' column for the Miami Herald deals with the intersection between race, politics, and culture, and has won him multiple awards including a Pulitzer Prize in 2004.

The highly regarded novel, Freeman (2009), is his most recent book.

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila April 20, 2015

    Wayne LaPierre represents everything that is wrong with our society. In addition to demonstrating an intense hatred towards ethnic minorities, he does not hesitate to voice his opposition to what, in his little brain, is the ultimate manifestation of decay: a female President!
    To succeed, Wayne and the organization he represents, use fear as the tool to achieve their goals. A proposal to change the Reagan’s Brady Act to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun becomes evidence of a nefarious plan to take guns from law abiding citizens. The election of an African American is highlighted as something that can never, ever, be repeated. The culmination of his exasperation is, clearly, the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. For him, the audacity of a person whose designate role in society is procreation, cleaning the house, and baking cookies is beyond comprehension, and something that must be averted at all cost.
    The world need fewer Wayne La Pierre’s if the goal is the survival of the species.

    1. CPAinNewYork April 20, 2015


      If you want to get your point across, you have to be more direct in expressing your opinions.

      Which is it: You like or don’t like Wayne LaPierre? By the way: Are you aware that “LaPierre” is French for “the rock”? I just thought that I’d throw that in.

      1. latebloomingrandma April 20, 2015

        Perfect surname for describing his brain.

      2. Dominick Vila April 20, 2015

        As far as I am concerned Wayne LaPierre is a scumbag and an opportunist.
        I still remember enough of my high school French to be dangerous. šŸ™‚

      3. ps0rjl April 20, 2015

        The name may mean “the rock” but this rock certainly avoided service when he was a young man. Too bad he is such a brave man now. We could have used his bravery in defending this country in Vietnam.

        1. CPAinNewYork April 20, 2015

          Sometimes our forbears burden us with names that don’t fit our personality or appearance and sometimes the names are interpreted literally or incorrectly, thus embarrassing us.

          For example, the name “Coward” is hardly one that we would covet, having such an unpleasant connotation. However, it’s really a contraction of “cow herd.” Again, “Harlan” sounds innocuous enough, but since it’s a contraction of “hard land,” it may denote an impecunious ancestor whose life was one of penury and backbreaking labor.

        2. TZToronto April 20, 2015

          No one should have had to go to Vietnam to support the U.S. government’s misguided policies there. And no American fought there to protect his country, even though most who went there probably think they did. (And I have nothing but respect for those who went there on the orders of the U.S. Military.)

          At least McNamara apologized for his role in that fiasco.

          1. ps0rjl April 20, 2015

            I was an outspoken critic of the war in Vietnam, but I had read the Crito and I believed just like Plato that so as you accept the benefits of a state, so must you also accept its responsibilities. I knew the war was wrong but unlike many educated young men, I knew I had to do my duty. Whether you supported the war or not, you still had a duty if called upon. It just makes me angry though to hear guys like LaPierre who talk about defending the Constitution and knowing he took a coward’s way out to avoid serving. I guess the farther you are away from the fighting, the tougher you are.

          2. TZToronto April 21, 2015

            When your government is wrong, you have a responsibility to oppose its actions. The U.S. government was wrong about Vietnam and the Domino Theory. Many people knew it, and their opposition to the war was instrumental in ending it.

    2. tdm3624 April 20, 2015

      I’m not a Wayne fan but I don’t recall him ever displaying hatred towards minorities or women simply because of their race or gender. In the case of Obama and Clinton it is their gun policies (or support of policies) that make them anathema to to his audience.

      1. CPAinNewYork April 20, 2015

        Neither have I. I think that Dominick is betraying his own ethnic biases in his tirade against LaPierre. Another of Dominick’s ethnic biases is his sympathy for the illegal aliens.

        As I’ve said in the past, I suspect that Dominick Vila’s real objective is to turn America brown.

  2. The lucky one April 20, 2015

    “does no one else see Joe McCarthy staring back when they look at this guy?” Thank you Mr. Pitts. That is exactly what I thought the first time I saw his ugly mug. I also saw a striking resemblance between Dubya and Alfred E. Neuman of Mad magazine fame “What, me worry?”. Maybe there is something to physiognomy. There seem to be striking correspondences here other than just looks.

    1. Elliot J. Stamler April 20, 2015

      Ah, you are dating yourself and are probably a senior citizen as I am. I dare say anyone born after 1945 would not personally remember Sen. McCarthy. I do..I remember him vividly–I was in junior and senior high school and my first year or so of college during his tenure. I immediately saw the striking physical resemblance between him and Cruz. And Cruz is infinitely more dangerous because he is much smarter and not a drunkard.

      1. Daniel Jones April 20, 2015

        Give it time, Cruz will crash and burn.

  3. paulyz April 20, 2015

    Can’t Leonard Pitts “ever” write an article without “always” making it a racial or gender issue?

    1. johninPCFL April 20, 2015

      Sorry. LaPierre opened his mouth about it. Maybe you should complain to him first.

    2. CPAinNewYork April 20, 2015

      No. Leonard Pitts is a journalistic hack who plays the racial card for all it’s worth.

      1. latebloomingrandma April 20, 2015

        I’m a senior citizen white woman and i thoroughly enjoy Mr. Pitts’s opinions. So what if he writes about mostly race and culture?. He is very articulate, has loads of common sense, an accurate picture of history, and i appreciate his point of view through his racial lens and experience. I definitely would not call him a hack.

        1. CPAinNewYork April 20, 2015

          You’re entitled to your opinion, as I am. I find him boring and one dimensional. I still think that he’s a hack.

    3. Dave April 20, 2015

      Paulyz, You didn’t know that if you disagree with Obama you are a racist/ bigot. Now if you disagree Killery Clinton you have a war on women.

    4. Daniel Jones April 20, 2015

      If there’s no racial issue in what he notes, then no racial issue is in the article.

      If such elements are always there, well, that should tell you something.. like, just maybe, the matters of race and gender aren’t isolated incidents but, rather, are persistent issues?

      1. paulyz April 24, 2015

        Just in his mind, & those that use it for an excuse.

  4. Julieann Wozniak April 20, 2015

    I would not use the word “normal” in association with Mr. LaPierre. Creepy, craven, soulless, and bigoted are apt.

  5. Darsan54 April 20, 2015

    Oh for the love of god, thinking about erectile dysfunction and Rick Perry ?!?!? There is not enough bleach in the world to erase that image from my mind !!!!

    1. charleo1 April 20, 2015

      Okay, put horned rimmed spectacles on that image, and see if it helps any? I’ve tried, therapy, gin, pot, crank. meth, & shrooms. I’m now considering a lobotomy!

  6. 2ThinkN_Do2 April 20, 2015

    Wow, all that negative thinking from one comment he made? Interesting how writers are capable of distorting everything beyond recognition. As for “normal” being gone for good . . . who decides what normal is and how does one determine if we’ve reached it?

    1. Bud Friend April 20, 2015

      Normal is normal. I’m normal, aren’t you?

  7. ps0rjl April 20, 2015

    Quick question for all you NRA and LaPierre supporters. If LaPierre is such a supporter of our Second Amendment and Constitution, why as a young man did he hang on to that 2S deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam? Seem someone with his need to protect and defend our Constitution couldn’t have waited when he was a young man to sign up. I guess the farther away from combat he is, the tougher he is. Or it could just mean he is fanning the flames so the NRA and he can make more money.

    1. Elliot J. Stamler April 20, 2015

      Not fair. Much as I dislike LaPierre, I was 2S’d when I was called up at the earliest period of Vietnam and for very sound medical reasons. 2S if I remember correctly was 4F except in time of war or natl. emergency. Before I was called up, I was in ROTC for l year and then declared ineligible for the same medical reason I was later 2S’d.

      1. ps0rjl April 20, 2015

        No, 2S was a student deferment for when you were in say college. What you are referring to was a 1Y which is unfit for military service except in time of war. The 4F was a medical deferment for someone who could not ever be called up. I had a 2S deferment while I was in school and then I got a 1Y because I crushed my right leg. Later after it healed I got out of school and was 1A. Another great defender of this nation is the windbag Rush Limbaugh. He was 1Y either because of a cyst on his but or an old high school football injury. His story always keeps changing. When they got rid of the 1Y classification he somehow managed to get a 4F classification. I just think that guys like LaPierre and Limbaugh are a little hypocritical because they seem to be great defenders of this country, the farther they are from the guns. By the way, I went from a 1Y to 1A without a physical and was drafted into the marines without a physical. Vietnam Vet 1969-1971.

        1. Elliot J. Stamler April 20, 2015

          Yes, thank you, memory is faulty, it was more than 50 years ago-it indeed was lY. I had such extreme myopia (and astigmatism) my ophthalmologist (who’d been a WWII combat physician) told me if they gave me a gun I would most likely shoot myself or my buddies (i.e 20-1500 eyesight.)

        2. TZToronto April 20, 2015

          I’ll say this about draft classification. I had a 2S deferment but was ineligible for an additional deferments because, at the age of 18, had to sign a Form 104, which waived further deferments after completion of my BA. (Cheney managed to get several deferments, somehow.). Anyway, I had a friend who was 1A. He had his pre-induction physical, and he passed with flying colours. Instead of waiting for the army to come get him, he tried to enlist in the Air Force. His Air Force physical revealed a disability in his left arm, due to a fall from a loading dock. His classification was changed to 1Y. The whole draft system during the Vietnam era, was ridiculous. Local boards were rubber stamps, and the idea of knowing who young men in their jurisdiction were was ludicrous. Those who had the good fortune/bad luck to actually meet with their local board were treated to simplistic thinking and evasion of responsibility for fear of committing legal errors that would invalidate induction orders–and there were many,many legal errors caused by board members failing to follow their own rules. The sad thing is that for every educated young man who managed to get around the system through deferment, delay, or outright evasion, there was an almost unlimited supply of black and Hispanic young men who had no way to escape from the draft system to take his place.

    2. charleo1 April 20, 2015

      All that doesn’t bother Ted Nugent one bit. And we all know what that chester did to avoid military service. Sorry, but this is their heroes. Chickenhawks. Or
      chicken, somethings.

    3. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

      I took a deferment to get a degree, does that make me a coward too?

      You sound like one of those pukes who “spit on” returning Vets.

    4. 2ThinkN_Do2 April 20, 2015

      Supporting our Constitutional Rights has nothing to do with serving in a war you may not believe in. They are two totally different things.

      1. ps0rjl April 21, 2015

        You’re right. They do have nothing to do with each other. My point though is that anyone who is so patriotic about defending what our Constitution stands for would have been equally enthused about serving in our military. Otherwise they are a little hypocritical about their defending stance.

        1. 2ThinkN_Do2 April 21, 2015

          That’s the beauty of the USA, we are each entitled to our own opinion. We are not forced to serve in the military (not currently anyway). Defending the Constitution has nothing to do with serving in the military in a foreign country. I would be he’d stand up to serve if we were being attacked in the USA, I imagine there are 100’s of thousands (possibly millions) that would; yet they would not be interested in going to another country to fight.

          1. ps0rjl April 21, 2015

            I still believe though that anyone who used their 2S deferment to avoid serving during Vietnam should for the rest of their life hold that same opinion for all other wars. If you came of age during Vietnam and were unwilling to serve, then you should never support sending other young men and women to fight for this country no matter what the reason. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

  8. Peter April 20, 2015

    Obviously a left wing leaning site I stumbled into. Quite a bit of “twisting” of Mr. LaPierre’s words in order to claim it was racial and sexual prejudice. The words quoted said nothing of the kind. And I wonder if the author of this “hit” piece knows how many women are now members of the NRA…and who vote? I expect to see and hear much of this same drivel in the many coming months. Then, again, the right side will be doing much the same. A pox on them all.

    1. oldtack April 20, 2015

      Agree. Too bad we all can’t find a middle ground to engage in meaningful dialog without our left or right wing prejudices.

  9. plc97477 April 20, 2015

    It may be going to be a long 19 months but it will be funny. Find a good seat and watch the comedy.

  10. bobnstuff April 20, 2015

    The NRA was once a very good group that believed in gun safety and hunting. It has set the standards for training people to respect gums and use them safely but now it has become the tool of the right wing and the gun manufacturers. It’s leaders of late have taken away logic and replaced it with mindless prattle. Mr LaPierre is feeding in to the lowest points in people and his followers are swallowing it.

    1. Dave April 20, 2015


      The NRA still is a very good group that believes in teaching firearm safety. They offer many different type of firearm safety training.


      1. JPHALL April 20, 2015

        But they no longer stress safety! Gun possession is now more important.

        1. Dave April 20, 2015

          Wrong, they have a program that is called Eddie Eagle that teaches kids on what to do if they see a firearm, to go get an adult. Even Gabby Giffords husband Mark Kelly says that is a good program.


          1. JPHALL April 20, 2015

            Yes, they have several programs like that. What I was saying is those programs are no longer stressed like in the past. What is now pushed are gun sales and stopping anything that might restrict the possession of guns to criminals and the mentally incompetent.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          2. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

            You need to stop spreading wrong information or dis-information.
            You don’t know what you are talking about.
            You are just saying what you want to believe or just push your agenda. Or get people in here to “like” you.
            This issue is difficult enough to try to reconcile without outright lies clouding the issues.
            Fact is – you aren’t just wrong, you are dead wrong.
            Safety and training are “stressed’ every-bit as much as ever.
            And I am in a position to know the facts, where you “apparently” are not.

          3. JPHALL April 20, 2015


          4. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

            You said “… those programs are no longer stressed like in the past.” re Safety and training programs.
            At the operating level within the NRA these programs(Safety and Training) are the Heart of the NRA and what they do. Probably 99% of the NRA organization is involved in this type work. You are looking only at the Political fight at the top which is fought mostly by a very few people at the top.

          5. bobnstuff April 20, 2015

            It’s all about image. Their leaders are the ones that create that image and I have not heard anyone of then pushing safety and if you can show me where the leaders are doing it I will be surprised. Yes they still have great training classes, in fact my brother teaches one of them but it’s sure not what you think of when the NRA is mentioned anymore.

          6. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

            I once fought the Fed Govt over an environmental disagreement.

            I had little to no experience working at the National Level so I talked with a guy who did.

            Told him we were willing to compromise in certain areas, etc.

            He told me, HELL NO, DO NOT Compromise on anything until it comes time to and you are forced too as a last resort.

            I think this must be the strategy the NRA is following at the national level of this issue.

            Especially since most members have done and don’t argue with background checks, etc.

            The problem is over-reaching registration to confiscation. It has already been done in few places in the N.E.

            And re-instating gun bans, like the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.

            Bans only disarm the honest gun owners and leave them vulnerable.

          7. bobnstuff April 20, 2015

            This were I see the disinformation coming in. At one time the NRA supported back ground checks. Limiting the sales of weapons is not disarming people. If you like your gun you can keep it if you aren’t a felon or mentally ill. No one is coming for your guns. I think it funny that people are lining up to buy guns that twenty years ago you could get for next to nothing. The AK 47 is a out of date cheep gun that is made in places you wouldn’t buy anything from if you thought about it. Steel jacketed bullets rip the heck out of your barrel and the back stop and don’t have the stopping power of a hollow point. The NRA pays for political ads but I can’t recall the last gun safety ad I saw. They never mention that if you have a gun in your house you are three times more likely to have some one in your house shot then if you don’t have one And yes you never start out compromising, the first one who makes an offer loses.

          8. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            I read a report of White house meetings where the following was discussed as a desire of various policy developers in the current admin – this was reported by a left wing news source : To summarize: The future desire is to work toward banning weapons and a national registry to work toward future confiscation.

            From the Biden Commission but mostly from other staff meetings.

            This part was not reported openly.

            If this had come from a right wing source I would have doubted its veracity.

            But it came from a left wing source.

            How do you turn 80million good people into criminals in one document?

            Not many know this happened but the NRA does.

            You will be facing a new revolution with trying this. In some ways it has already started – the verbal part anyway.

            I have not seen much progress made on this but if Hillary is elected, many of the same people will remain in power there and the next school killing we have I expect the same thinking to come back to the surface.

            They may not be coming for our guns, yet, but they sure do “want too”.

            And with 4-8 more yrs in power, they will likely try.

          9. bobnstuff April 21, 2015

            You will never see a mass taking away of guns in this country, with or with out the NRA. It can’t be done. We don’t have enough police to keep people from speeding so how would we take guns away? Have you ever meet a liberal police mans? All gun control has to be done at the point of sale and manufacturing.

          10. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            On that we agree.

            But when I hear of semi-private high level meetings of the current admin talking like that I wonder.

            And those same people will still be there if Hillary is elected.

            And the level of visceral hatred, in here, of gun-owners (in the past).

            It scares people who fear they may be disarmed or denied access.

            They don’t seem to understand the criminals will always have access to a world wide flood of AK47’s, as you mentioned.

            By far the most popular weapon, world wide. And a gang and criminal favorite.

            In the US the favorite rifle is the AR15 – but not with the gangs and drug people. It is too expensive and not as easy to operate for them.

            Personally, I am older and cant fight off predators like I once could and I have been shot at 3 times in the past (no fault of mine)(out in the country) and me with no gun. Figured my luck has run out on this so got guns and got highly trained in their use(even more then average cops and soldiers). I now shoot competitions.

            And confiscation, of these(AR’s), had been done in some states in the NE. Due to the Sandy Hook shooting. Even though AR’s account for only .05% of gun crime.

            The problem is not the guns. It is the level of violence propagated by the drug trade and psychtropic drug use by young men. And, as you say, irresponsible parents.

            All the school shootings have been done by young white men(16-26yo) on anti-depressants.

            Not to mention the record suicide rate of returning Veterans who are also now treated with anti-depressants.

            The overall gun crime rate is down(still dropping) while the number of US guns is at an all time high.

            The gun “control” argument does not have a logical, supportable basis in fact.

            Control of psychotropic drugs(especially with young white men) and the need for gun training does have a basis in fact.

            I am all for required training and mental/criminal checks etc to own a gun but limiting to denying my access-that I will physically fight for.

          11. bobnstuff April 21, 2015

            We have talked about this before and are on the same page in most of it. This was once the NRA’s stand also. The group that was shouting the loudest for gun control after Sandy Hook has changed their view and is now shouting for better mental health services. They figured out it’s not the guns but the crazy people with them that is the problem. I’m a gun owner and my Dad bought me my first one for my 12th birthday. The gun I would like to own that I don’t is a M1 Grand, I shot one and fell in
            love. The gun that I had the most fun shooting is my brothers 93
            caliber flintlock. The best quote about the AK 47 is it’s good

          12. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            Have you checked out the Govt sponsored program to sell M1’s to the public.

            They are clearing out that inventory.

            I think it is still running but may be about to end.

            I have the M1 Carbine.

            Has power and range limitations but, one of the best “feeling” guns ever made.

            Also if you like the M1, you should try to shoot the newer SOCOM M1 Variant.

            I liked it even better than the original M1.

            Great feeling and shooting gun.

          13. bobnstuff April 30, 2015

            Check them out, They are out of stock on field grade which is what I would want. It’s just as well since my Tracker just took all my fun money for brakes. My wife doesn’t understand why I want another rifle. ā€œYou don’t shot the ones you have now.ā€ She just doesn’t understand. Thanks for the link.

          14. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            The homes where people are 2-3 times more likely to be shot are not homes where NRA training and rules have been followed.

            Get some training and follow NRA safety rules and no one will be accidentally shot.

            I do believe anyone who owns a gun should be properly trained in its “safe” use.

          15. bobnstuff April 21, 2015

            You can’t make people get training to own a gun, that would be like gun control wouldn’t it? My father trained me on gun safety, he hated guns but know more about them then most NRA trainers. I trained my sons and will train my grand children. The problem is the gun owners are not held responsible for what is done with their guns. If someone gets hurt with my gun I’m responsible if I didn’t have my guns stored in a way to keep it from happening.

          16. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            Agree. “I” think you should be required to get training to own one. And criminal and mental checks For you own safety, your children, your neighbors, your country. ie the common good. Why the NRA fights this is a mystery to me. Especially since they have all the training programs. And I am a member. I like the Swiss model, train everyone who is qualified.

          17. bobnstuff April 21, 2015

            If we are going to have guns in our society we need to teach everyone the safety rules at least.

            This is my gripe about the New NRA, they should be spending their money on education not politics. Take way the fear of gun ownership and it becomes a non problem. It’s all about power and self importance now, guns are just a tool.

          18. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            I agree.
            I still think if Hillary is elected, gun owners are in for a big fight and some real problems with this.
            Yup, knowledge is power and with guns – safety, and a tool not unlike a chain saw.

          19. Dave April 20, 2015

            Defender 88,
            I hope all is going well with you and all of your loved ones.
            Back in November you had given me info on the NRA Instructors programs. Well, I just finished The Basic Pistol Instructor glass and the personal protection in the home Instructor class. They both were very informative and I learned a lot. I will be taking the outside of the home Instructor class next. I am trying to get a place now to teach some classes on the weekends. I well be volunteering with some other more advanced Instructors to work on a good teaching methods in the mean time.

          20. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

            Great, good for you, congratulations.
            Sounds like a good plan.
            Now you know what I meant about Home Defense being about a lot more than just shooting.
            Good luck finding a place.
            Have you looked any at finding the closest IDPA, 3Gun or IPSC matches.
            Fortunately we have these matches at my local range and I shoot every month.
            If you want to learn to shoot at several levels above even police or military practice, try any of these out.
            It is really good(about the best) training for the real thing. And you meet a lot of like minded people from all walks of life.
            ps As “you know” the NRA stresses Safety but the Competition matches take it(Gun Handling) to an even more stringent higher level at the matches.

          21. Dave April 20, 2015

            Thank you, I had a good group of three Instructors teaching our glasses. They have been working together for about fifteen years teaching classes. We had people young and old from all walks of life with very little experience to some that are DHS or personal bodyguards.
            The IDPA looks like it would be a lot of fun, I have watched some YOU Tube Videos on it, I will have to try it out. They have some matches at Peacemaker National training canter. We live about 45 minutes away.

          22. DEFENDER88 April 20, 2015

            In 3Gun you load everything up to max and shoot hell out of everything:)

            Its more like military training.

            I like it but it does not have the practical defensive training value of IDPA.

            For IDPA I suggest you go and watch a match 1st time, look at the gear, and talk with the match Dir about shooting in a future match and what he would recommend – gear, practice, study etc.

            In IDPA you will learn and practice combat tactics including CQB at light speed.

            (ie how to stop threats without getting shot yourself or shooting a bystander)

            But there are a lot of rules/ procedural & safety related rules you need to know and follow.

            Muzzle discipline, magazine capacities, rules for mag changes, loading, un-loading, etc etc

            A lot of room clearing, proper use of “cover”, shooting while moving, moving threats, non-threats(no-shoots), shooting with weak and strong hand, all positions, prone, kneeling, you name it.

            At times you will be shooting in the range of 4-5 shots/second.

            Draw and fire a head shot in 1.5sec. at 20ft.

          23. JPHALL April 21, 2015

            So show me the info. You know, the source of the info not your opinion or interpretation. Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          24. DEFENDER88 April 21, 2015

            I don’t have to guess, I have been thru some of the courses.

            You do believe that if someone owns a gun they should get some training in its “Safe use” don’t you?

            Most Conceal Carry Permit Courses in the US are based on NRA developed training systems and info.

            As a certified instructor – (on a volunteer basis) –
            I have been thru the training and
            I have taught some of the courses.
            Pistol, Conceal Carry Permits, Home Defense and more.
            And Gun safety and handling are stressed/taught more than anything else – Based on current NRA training, procedures and methods.

            In our state – you have to take the NRA Instructor course before you can be a “State Certified” Conceal Carry Instructor.
            That is the 1st step. You have to 1st be “NRA Certified”.

            They also maintain the courses for Law Enforcement. That most all LEO’s have to take to be certified.

            The courses are taught by thousands of “NRA Certified” Instructors and Police all over the country but all are developed and maintained by the NRA. And they(the NRA) insist on strict adherence to their safety standards.

            So on the national political level the leaders are busy trying to keep guns and ammo from being banned, or confiscated, but down here in the trenches the Safety Standards they develop, maintain and teach us are: Required course info, Taught 1st, heavily emphasized and must be adhered too.

            The course listings are much too long to post here.

            Some Categories:

            Black Powder
            LEO’s (Police, etal)
            Home Defense
            Personal Defense
            Shooting Sports

          25. Dave April 22, 2015

            Well said Defender, if JPHALL would have just clicked on the link that I had given bobnstuff he would see all of the safety training that the NRA offers. They teach most of the safety training on the range or in the class room hands on. The only thing I would add to your list is ALL of the youth’s hunter safety training is based upon the NRA’s guide lines also.

          26. JPHALL April 22, 2015

            As I originally said, show me where LaPierre or the leadership of the NRA have stressed gun safety. I never said I was against gun ownership or that the NRA did not support gun safety.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          27. DEFENDER88 April 22, 2015

            Again, not true.

            Originally you did not mention the “Leadership”.

            You originally said:

            Your 1st Post: “The NRA was once a very good group that believed in gun safety and hunting.”

            And 2nd Post: “Yes, they have several programs like that. What I was saying is those programs are no longer stressed like in the past. What is now pushed are gun sales and stopping anything that might restrict the possession of guns to criminals and the mentally incompetent.

            Neither time did you mention the Leadership.

            And both times you were “Fundamentally” Dead Wrong.

            Apparently – You just don’t know.

            And Apparently – You don’t Want to Know.

            It was not until your 3rd Post that you mentioned you were referring to just the “Leadership”.

            Anyway I have showed and explained to you how the NRA(Thousands of instructors working every day)(and many in the offices – ALL NRA Trained) still focus on and teach gun safety and stress and insist on it in ALL their many programs which are still taught daily all over the country.

            Apparently you have never taken an NRA class or you would know this.

            ALL NRA classes start with a Safety Lecture. And it continues thru the class.

            While the “Leadership” at the top concentrates on the National fight to keep guns and ammo from being banned or gun rights from being curtailed.

            Your Question HAS been answered here and in my last post, before this.

            The fact you don’t want to understand or accept it is YOUR problem.

            Let me try to summarize for you:

            1) LaPierre and the leadership are fighting the national political fight to keep gun rights from being curtailed.

            And to keep guns and ammo from being banned or worse.

            All of which is under serious attack. Even or especially by many in here.

            2) The Core of the NRA, the program developers and operations people and the thousands of Instructors all over the country teaching every day are Required to stress Safety. It is the beginning of every course taught. And every NRA gun related activity.

            You seem to have never had any Real gun training like the NRA offers, otherwise you would know how strongly safety is stressed and how ignorant your “original” question was.

            Note I did not say you are stupid I said “ignorant” as in – You just don’t seem know the facts “on the ground”.

            Safety IS being taught and stressed where it is most relevant – to the people who “want” to hear and learn.

            Would you prefer it the other way around with the thousands of Course Developers and Instructors(the Core of the NRA) concentrating on the political fight and just the Leadership teaching safety?

          28. JPHALL April 24, 2015

            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          29. DEFENDER88 April 25, 2015

            Initially you were saying the whole NRA was not talking about safety anymore.
            Essentially disparaging the whole NRA organization.
            I hope you at least have that straight now.
            It was not until your 3rd or 4th post when you settled on just the leadership.

            As for the leadership, you would have to ask them.
            Since I don’t operate at that level I don’t know exactly why they don’t talk safety, so NOW I AM Guessing.
            I suspect they actually do from time to time.
            If not – I suspect/”guess” it is because of the following.
            And I am also guessing you have actually figured this out for yourself.
            1st – The leadership directs what the NRA does and the NRA provides more gun safety training than any organization on earth.
            I suppose they are leaving the fundamental principals of gun safety to the people who are interacting, daily, with the people who “want” to hear about gun safety. People who are learning and want to know how to handle guns “properly”(which includes keeping them away from those who should not have access to them).
            The gun grabbers will not listen to that anyway. Its mostly a waste of time on them. Even I know this from experience in here.
            The NRA trying to talk gun safety to Bloomberg and Fiensten would likely be a waste of time.
            LaPierre and the leadership are involved in the national political fight for gun rights with people who mostly don’t want to hear about how well the NRA stresses “anything”. Many just want guns and ammo banned no matter what they say. And are already convinced or trying to convince others that the NRA is mostly motivated and driven by gun and ammo makers – which is false(that I do know).

            Lastly, technically, the leadership talks about safety, daily, thru the thousands of NRA instructors under their direction and purview.

          30. JPHALL April 27, 2015

            SO WHY ARE YOU REPLYING IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE LEADERSHIP THINKS? Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          31. DEFENDER88 April 28, 2015

            Again, to begin with you were not talking about the Leadership, you were talking about the NRA as a “group” as mentioned by Dave.

            Perhaps your intention was to talk about the Leadership only but that is not what you said in your 1st 3 or 4 posts, your writing, right or wrong “implied” that the whole NRA was not stressing safety.

            From “NM”

            From Dave:

            The NRA still is a very good group that believes in teaching firearm safety. They offer many different types of firearm safety training.


            JPHALL Dave ā€¢ 7 days ago

            “But they no longer stress safety! Gun possession is now more important.”

            “Yes, they have several programs like that. What I was saying is those programs are no longer stressed like in the past…”

            1st I Want you and anyone else to know safety is still strongly stressed throughout the NRA Organization.

            Again: Why the leadership does not mention it as often, I don’t know.

            2nd You try to degrade the whole NRA organization for not stressing safety.

            3rd When you are “called” on that, you switch to the Leadership.

            Or so it seemed at least.
            ie the organization has and still does stress safety.

            Perhaps you meant the leadership only all along, but that is not how you started.

            4th Usually the leaders are ultimately held responsible for or credited with what the organization does.

          32. JPHALL April 28, 2015


          33. DEFENDER88 April 28, 2015


            You never did answer my question, which was “essentially”:

            What are your feelings about the Leadership and the NRA Organization as a whole now?

            And additionally:

            What is your position on gun and magazine, etc bans? Confiscation? Ownership?

            ps As a NRA and State Certified CC Instructor(volunteer retiree), I like to think I am doing my part(“responsible ownership and use”. ) as part of the solution to some of the gun problems we are having in this country. As is the NRA since there are many more like me.

          34. JPHALL April 29, 2015

            I CARE LESS THAN NOTHING TO CONTINUE THIS ONE SIDED CONVERSATION. Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          35. Dave April 20, 2015

            The NRA has been spending more time and money fighting the gun control groups lately. People like Michael Bloomberg and others, if they would just back off and let the NRA continue to put more focus on teaching firearm safety in our schools and in our homes you would hear more about all of the programs that they offer.

          36. JPHALL April 21, 2015

            You still have not answered my statement on why the NRA leadership no longer talks safety. Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          37. Dave April 20, 2015

            They also have a good Mentor program to help individuals with firearm safety.


          38. JPHALL April 21, 2015

            You have not answered my question. I stated that they have safety programs, but the programs are not stressed by the leadership since LaPierre took over.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

          39. 2ThinkN_Do2 April 20, 2015

            No, they still stress safety, the thing is; the media and anti-gun folks speed nothing but the bad stuff, so that is what people focus on.

          40. JPHALL April 21, 2015

            Finally, someone comes near to answering my statement. Still, Why does not the leadership provide the media with safety soundbites like they do against gun control? I see the group’s publications and have read about the fight to preserve the 2nd amendment rights, yet there is little or nothing about gun safety.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

        2. incontru April 21, 2015

          I think gun possession enhances my personal safety.

          1. JPHALL April 21, 2015

            What does that have to do with gun safety and its empathsis or lack of by the NRA
            Subject: Re: Comment on Will Someone Tell Wayne LaPierre ‘ Normal’ Is Gone For Good?

  11. incontru April 21, 2015

    Many people voted for Obama at least in part because of his key demographic characteristic, i.e., higher melanin levels than previous presidents. His presidency has been a failure on every measure.

    1. CrankyToo April 21, 2015

      I see your own key demographic characteristic is “Moron”, with a secondary key of “Bigot”. Were that not the case, you’d understand that Barack Obama’s presidency has been a success by any rational and unbiased standard. He’s achieved a great deal, despite a concerted effort by dirtbags of your ilk to undermine his work and hinder American progress. One can only imagine what good he might have accomplished had he not been constrained by a seditious GOP.

      The good news for you, I suppose, is that you’re not alone. There are millions of Turd Party knuckleheads just like you walking around with their heads up their a$$es. Fortunately, for those of us who actually do love America, you’re still in the minority and becoming less and less relevant with each presidential election cycle.

      1. incontru April 21, 2015

        You’re a brave man at a distance, just like most other leftist sissy Obama-slurpers. Traitors like you would never have made it through the first American Revolution. Once the Obasm has taken his rightful place as the President who bumps Carter up one notch from the bottom of the league table, may you continue to benefit from all of the non-progress this idiot preezy has produced.

        1. CrankyToo April 21, 2015

          You might find I was a brave man close-in as well….

          Insofar as my being a leftist is concerned, you’re wrong again, Squire. I’m not only a life-long Republican, I hit the sweet spot of GOP demographics: white male, over 60, ex-military security professional, heavily armed with guns and bibles, and living comfortably on a modest little portfolio (thanks to a lifetime of effort and some help from Barack Obama). I don’t have a care in the world, partner. Hell, I could be the poster child for the whole Turd Party philosophy – “Phuck you; I’ve got mine”

          Apart from the fact that I have a conscience, the other big difference between me and the vast majority of others who identify as Republicans is (apparently) intelligence – I’m just not stupid enough to pull the lever for any “R” anywhere on my ballot – not until the GOP stops serving up greedy guts and assorted goobers and starts standing up statesmen who give a $h!t about the average American.

          I no longer vote Republican because the Greedy Old Pricks are morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt. And because Dubya and his merry bunch of a$$holes almost destroyed the retirement I’d worked my whole life to enjoy. And Barack Obama, the man you rage against for no apparent rational reason, saved my a$$ – along with my legacy to my grandkids and, by the way, the entire phucking US economy. If ever in the modern era there was a president who actually deserved to be despised, it sure as hell isn’t Obama; it’s his predecessor. But you probably loved his sorry a$$, didn’t you?

          Obama’s done a lot of good for this country, despite being hamstrung by a seditious GOP. But people like you have neither the cognizance, nor the conscience, nor the compassion, nor the plain old phucking intestinal fortitude to admit that your whole ideology is just plain wrong. Not to mention the fact that disrespecting our president because you can’t abide a black man ascending to the office is reprehensible on several levels; not just because it’s racist.

          Incidentally, if you don’t want people to think you’re a racist, don’t talk like one. If you don’t want people to think you’re a moron, don’t act like one. It ain’t rocket surgery.

          And don’t be a hit and run troll. if you’ve got something to
          say, don’t just spit out some stupid sh!t and haul a$$ like you stole something. Throw out some facts to support what you’re saying; engage in some reality-based conversation with
          people who don’t think like you. You might learn something. You might even teach something. You might do neither, but at least you’d show that you have the courage of your convictions. Are you familiar with that kind of courage?

          On the other hand, if one of you wingdings ever said something sensible, I’d probably sh!t a green brick.

          1. Publius Scipio April 22, 2015

            Of course you’re a Republican.
            And I’m a Chinese fighter pilot.

          2. CrankyToo April 22, 2015

            You actually followed me here? I’m flattered.
            What’s the Chinese word for “kamikaze”?

          3. ralphkr April 23, 2015

            Well, Publius Scipio, your claim to be a Chinese fighter pilot is as close to truth as anything else you have ever posted.

          4. Publius Scipio April 24, 2015

            Brilliant, I know!

          5. charleo1 May 6, 2015

            A little slow on my reading. But very well said, and describes a lot of true Country loving, thinking Americans! Thanks.

          6. CrankyToo May 6, 2015

            Cheers, Bro. See you at the polls next year. I predict the Turd Party’s gonna get a beating it won’t soon forget.

        2. ralphkr April 22, 2015

          Well, incontru, you have once again displayed your ignorance of US Presidential ranking. The worst presidents in history were Buchanan, Harding, Andrew Johnson, Pierce, Harrison. As of 2014 survey Obama was only ranked as the 18th BEST president which puts him well ahead of Ford, Nixon, & G.W.Bush(35 place). I always considered Fillmore one of the worst of all time closely followed by Nixon, Grant, G.W.Bush, Hoover, & Reagan.

          1. incontru April 23, 2015

            What were the criteria for the rankings and who determined them? Do you think the rankings might just reflect the politics of the people doing the ranking?

          2. ralphkr April 23, 2015

            Criteria was how good a job a president had done & the effect upon the US according to political & historical scholars. War time presidents did better than peacetime ones. Republican & Democratic scholars did differ on ranking for Obama & G.W.Bush but seemed to agree on all other Presidents. By the way, of the presidents since 1900 Obama was ranked 13th legislative, 11th diplomatic, 10th integrity, 10th military skills. The best ones in history were Lincoln, Washington, the 2 Roosevelts, Jefferson, & Truman. Most overrated ones by the public were Kennedy, Reagan, & Jackson. Most underrated by the public were Eisenhower, G.H.W.Bush, & Truman.

    2. Michael Ross April 22, 2015

      You morons have been chanting that crap for six years nonstop, and it still hasn’t ever caused a failed Obama presidency to be magically willed into reality by any measure.

      No, tea-bagger, we did not vote for him because of his demographic characteristics. We voted for him because he was smart, well-intentioned, and charismatic — the exact opposite of George W. Bush, the guy you party-before-country traitors declared to have been “divinely appointed” to the presidency.

      The fact that he was black, frankly, was just an added bonus, and only because of how amusing it was to watch you democracy-hating cowards flip out over it.

      1. incontru April 22, 2015

        Gruber described voters like you to a tee. Completely uninformed and ignorant of reality, suckered by a teleprompter jockey and all of the propaganda spewed by the lick-spittle media. You are a completely hopeless waste of carbon because you will never admit the failure of Obama, even when interest payments on the mountain of new Obamadebt inevitably crowd out all of your precious government hand-outs to similarly clueless Democrat voters.

        1. 2ThinkN_Do2 April 22, 2015

          Whether anyone wants to believe it, there were many that voted for Obama the first time, because they did not want to vote for McCain, it wasn’t like either choice was desirable.

          1. incontru April 22, 2015

            Well that’s true. Both parties are two sides of the same coin.

          2. CrankyToo April 22, 2015

            Yeah, except one side is heads and the other tails. You’re on the tail end.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.