NRA's LaPierre Blasts Obama: 2nd Amendment Is Absolute
Says president wants to either tax guns or take them away
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Jan 23, 2013 6:24 AM CST
Updated Jan 23, 2013 7:40 AM CST
In this Dec. 21, 2012 file photo, The National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre speaks during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting in Washington.   (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

(Newser) – One person who was not a fan of President Obama's inaugural address: Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the NRA. Yesterday at a Nevada hunting conference, LaPierre attacked the president's speech, specifically the part where Obama urged Americans not to "mistake absolutism for principle." That was an attack on gun owners who believe in an absolute right to bear arms based on the Second Amendment, LaPierre said, according to the New York Times. Highlights:

  • "I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined absolutes in favor of his principles," LaPierre said. "When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the US Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti."
  • Furthermore, there are only two reasons the government would want to expand background checks: In order to collect gun owners' names, and then "either to tax [guns], or to take them," LaPierre said. Obama wants to put "every private personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government," he added.
  • LaPierre also accused Obama of turning the word "absolutist" into "extremist," with a goal of getting law-abiding citizens to give up their guns "through scorn and ridicule."
  • If the president wins, LaPierre said, only criminals and rich people will be left owning guns. Ultimately, Obama thinks "the only principled way of making children safe" is making others less safe, LaPierre said.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
NRA's LaPierre Blasts Obama: 2nd Amendment Is Absolute is...
1%
1%
1%
52%
3%
42%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 376 comments
Lefty_Libby
Jan 24, 2013 12:28 PM CST
First, whenever LaPierre opens his mouth, I can't believe this crazy person is allowed the right to own a gun. Second, damned right we need a list to place heavy taxes on guns and ammo. The manufacturers and dealers are responsible for arming the USA to the eyeballs. The result: rampant gun violence so severe that a heavy TAX BURDEN is placed on homeowners to harden our schools with Resource Officers, metal detectors, emergency response training programs, and all manner of such nonsense. I am not interested in playing cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers, so why am I expected to assume the financial burden for the bad outcome of these stupid little boys running amok in the USA? Clean up your own mess, and that includes the responsibility of paying for it.
WeThePpl
Jan 24, 2013 9:47 AM CST
I can't believe all the frivolous arguments presented by sentient beings that can't see the forest thru the trees. You want to live unarmed? You have that right here in the Sovereign States of America. But if you truly want a lesson in living unarmed, go to Pakistan, Afghanistan even the U.K. where 35 ppl were killed w/ guns in a country where they are outlawed. Go to Mexico, guns are outlawed there! MEXICO CITY — A total of 34,612 people have died in drug-related killings in Mexico in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared an offensive against drug cartels, officials said Wednesday. The killings reached their highest level in 2010, jumping by almost 60 percent to 15,273 deaths from 9,616 the previous year. The rate of killings grew in the first half of 2010, but then stabilized and began to decline in the last quarter of the year, federal security spokesman Alejandro Poire said. src: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/mexico-drug-war-deaths-2010_n_808277.html Drug related? ROFL! Then legalize drugs and lets see how many deaths by guns in a country where they're outlawed!
WeThePpl
Jan 24, 2013 9:21 AM CST
I know that all you great American brains w/ your high school diplomas don't need a lesson in history as you've all been taught in depth the history of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone bringing forth the argument: "This is 2013 not blah blah blah...." Your argument is frivolous, w/o merit & w/o foundation! Most all suits delve into the history in support of an argument. In support of my argument the following: The Bill of Rights was first introduced in 1789 by James Madison, It later came into effect on Dec. 15, 1791 when it was added to the constitution. The 2nd Amendment, ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Above shows the year the limitation, Bill of Rights, was placed in the CONTRACT called the Constitution which is a limit on government in particular to this article, Washington D.C. and on point w/ the article: "NRA's LaPierre Blasts Obama: 2nd Amendment Is Absolute" [Copyright © 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Law Review. Originally published as 28 Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039 (1994). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209; 716-882-2600 or 800-828-7571.] THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT David E. Vandercoy A. The Establishment of the English Citizen Army Blackstone credits King Alfred, who ruled England from 871 to 901 A.D., as establishing the principle that all subjects of his dominion were the realm's soldiers.[11] Other commentators trace the obligation of Englishmen to serve in (p.1010)the people's army to 690 A.D.[12] Regardless of the beginning date, an Englishman's obligation to serve in a citizen army is an old proposition. Coupled with this obligation to defend the realm was the obligation to provide oneself with weapons for this purpose.[13] King Henry II formalized his subjects' duties in 1181 by issuing the Assize of Arms.[14] The arms required varied depending on the subjects' wealth, with the poorest freemen obligated to provide the least--an iron helmet and a lance.[15] The Assize required not only arms to be possessed, but precluded the possessor from selling, pledging, or in any other way alienating the weapons.[16] In 1253, the armed population was expanded beyond freemen to include serfs, individuals bound to the land and the land's owner.[17] Serfs were required to procure a spear and dagger.[18] Inclusion of serfs in the citizen army was related to the mustering of men and arms which occurred early in 1253 for purposes of crossing the sea to Gascavy and supporting the realm against the King of Castile.[19] Another general levy occurred in 1297, which directed all men possessing land to a value of twenty pounds to provide themselves with horses and arms and to come to London for purposes of service in France.[20] src: http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html There's a lot more history in this study of the 2nd Amendment if you can get passed the 10 planks you were taught when you were on the great path to your H.S. diploma. We The People's 2nd Amendment right to what ever we can afford in our defense is needed now more than ever! Why? Armed drones flying over American soil, NDAA, (prez-0 said he wouldn't sign), eugenics, eldercide, and the fact that right now on Earth the NWO's three city states: Washington D.C. (New Columbia) which is the world military police, the Vatican in Rome (spiritual city state) & London (the banking city state) have plans for you. Just take a look at the FEMA camps and the millions of coffins, not to mention the ammunition that the gov't just stock piled. The Dick Act of 1902 tells you clearly that the present gun laws are illegal. With the NWO taking control of the world's food supply shouldn't you all be very worried about your defense? Further study: DICK act of 1902 Title10 chapter 13 sec. 311 deals w/ the militia under UCMJ. Castle Doctrine Bill of Rights gives the People the right to change the government when/if it becomes destructive to the Republic created by the Founders.