Wayne LaPierre, NRA head, appeared on CBS' Face The Nation. He had a hard time trying to defend his organizations views on the easy access to guns in America. Read the Transcript. Excerpt below:
Since the assault ban has been lifted, Harry, 40 American police officers have either been killed or seriously wounded with assault weapons.
SMITH: All right. Wayne LaPierre, are the cops wrong?
LAPIERRE: The rank-and-file cops know this is a totally phony issue. And that’s why Congress doesn’t want to deal with it again.
You know, the governor sits up there in Philadelphia. Let me tell you the reality of the crime problem in this country. The former U.S. attorney said there’s simply no risk of a felon in Philadelphia putting a gun in his pocket and walking out in the street. The former -- the head of the FOP up there said the problem in Philadelphia is the revolving door criminal justice system. It lets the most prolific and violent criminals back on the street again and again. The chief of detectives of the Philadelphia Police Department has recently said there’s no reason to talk about gun control; they don’t enforce any of the gun laws they already have. He talks about no consequences.
SMITH: So you think that the assault weapons ban is just a bogeyman?
LAPIERRE: I think it is a totally phony issue. It was enacted -- and the governor is doing it again today -- on the basis of saying these were machine guns. That’s a lie. They were rapid fire. That’s a lie. They made bigger holes. That’s a lie. They were more powerful. That’s a lie. It was lie after lie after lie.
Congress found it out. That’s why they let it expire, and lies that are found out don’t get reenacted.
SMITH: The majority of Americans support the assault weapons ban. And here’s what a lot of people think, and one of the members of your own board has said, well, this whole thing about going to assault -- after assault weapons is just a way for them to take away our rights to carry shotguns. That’s what people --is that what people in the NRA really believe?
LAPIERRE: Harry, let me tell you, there is no functional difference at all between any of these so-called assault weapons the media talks about. Assault weapons are machine guns. They’re fully automatic. They spray fire. They’re rapid fire. That’s what our soldiers use. These guns we’re talking about, that the governor wants to ban, are functionally no different than any other gun. The performance characteristics are exactly the same. There’s no difference.
SMITH: OK. Governor. RENDELL: That’s just unbelievably untrue. That’s unbelievably untrue. The assault weapons that are used that are sold in sporting goods stores now because the ban has been lifted, they put out a tremendously high amount of fire. And remember, the ban not only banned these assault weapons. It banned large capacity ammunition clips.
Now I’d like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time. What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?
LAPIERRE: Governor, you know there is absolutely no difference between two 10-round magazines and three of another. I mean, and you just said something...
RENDELL: There’s a big difference -- it’s a big difference because someone...
LAPIERRE: ... you just said something plainly untrue.
RENDELL: It’s a big difference because someone has to change...
LAPIERRE: I want you to go to the range with me, and let’s get ballistics experts.
LAPIERRE: And CNN has footage on this, where they went to the range with police officers and they showed there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns...
RENDELL: See, and that’s the excuse all the time...
LAPIERRE: And it’s the truth, and you know it.
RENDELL: Harry, they use this excuse all the time, and everybody knows, everybody knows that every one of our amendments have limitations to it.
LAPIERRE: That’s...
RENDELL: You can’t you can’t cry “Fire” in a crowded movie theater...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Governor, hang on one second.
Mr. LaPierre, let me ask you this. Do the people in the NRA -- do the rank-and-file really believe the president of the United States is interested in basically overturning the Second Amendment?
LAPIERRE: You know what they’re trying to do right now? They’re trying to piggyback this whole phony issue of -- on the back of the tragedy in Mexico. I challenge the president of the United States and the media to prove that 90 percent of the guns used by the drug cartels are being smuggled.
SMITH: It may not be 90 percent. That certainly has been put in question. But there’s certainly plenty of these guns that are coming across the border.
LAPIERRE: You know, the only people that have ever put up their hand in the air and testified under oath on this is BATF, two weeks ago in Congress.
And let me tell you what they said. “I’m not sure where those institutes get these numbers. The investigations that we have...
SMITH: The 90 percent number?
LAPIERRE: Exactly. And the 2,000 a day.
SMITH: Nobody’s claiming the 90 percent number.
LAPIERRE: “And we see, for firearms seizures flowing across the border, don’t show us showing individuals taking thousands of guns a day flowing into Mexico.”
But the other thing, if there’s one gun, it’s already illegal. ICE, the customs people, enforcement people were asking Congress, do you need more laws? They said, no, we just need to enforce what we have.
SMITH: Let me go back to the governor. Because the thing that the NRA has said repeatedly, and was just said again this morning, is, why aren’t the laws that are on books enforced already, and that would alleviate most of the problem?
RENDELL: Well, first of all, number one, I agree with Wayne that we need to enforce existing laws better. But in Pennsylvania, we’ve gone -- in over a decade, we’ve increased our prison population on our state prisons by over 15,000 people.
We are enforcing the laws. We’re putting bad and difficult and dangerous people who use firearms to commit crimes in jail.
When I was district attorney, we enacted the first mandatory minimum sentence for people who use guns to commit crimes. We just enacted, in Pennsylvania, a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for anybody who fires a gun at a police officer.
But that is -- and I agree, we should enforce our existing laws better. And in fact, as Wayne will admit, he and I and Charlton Heston -- we combined on a tougher procedure in Philadelphia.
But having said that -- having said that...
SMITH: Quickly?
RENDELL: ... let’s go back to the original point. What blessed use is there for one of these assault weapons?
What American needs an assault weapon to protect themselves?
SMITH: Go ahead...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Go ahead.
LAPIERRE: It’s not an assault weapon. It’s no different than any other...
RENDELL: It’s an assault weapon.
LAPIERRE: But you know what happened in Philadelphia, Governor? When the cameras went away, you went away. But I’ll tell you what we ought to do this morning. Let’s agree on this. Every American city -- let’s put Project Exile. Every time a violent felon, drug dealer, gang member touches a gun, let’s prosecute.
1 comment:
"Assault weapons" are defined through entirely cosmetic features. Noting an arbitrary number of injuries or deaths by such firearms -- with no comparison to other causes of death or injury -- does not constitute justification for a ban on a subset of firearms based solely upon cosmetic features. Such incidents are regrettable, but they do not demonstrate that "assault weapons" cause a significant criminal problem in the United States.
"Assault weapons" are, generally, a subset of rifles. All rifles combined -- of which "assault weapons" are a necessarily smaller subset -- are less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, and in fact are less commonly used to commit homicide than are knives, blunt objects or "personal weapons". There exists absolutely no rational justification for a prohibition upon a subset of rifles based solely upon the presence of the cosmetic features that legislators -- who demonstrably have no understanding of firearms -- have arbitrarily assigned to "assault weapons".
Post a Comment