Wayne LaPierre's Speech Opposes Gun Control with a Dark Vision

We've been hearing a lot from the Parkland Students, site of a terrible mass shooting that took 17 innocent lives and injured 17 other victims at Marjory Douglas Stoneman school. A group of Parkland students have given many stunning speeches about gun control, often blaming the National Rifle Association for opposing all forms of gun control. I blogged about one of their speeches a few days ago. A program of "March for Our Lives" has spread across the nation and gained enormous media attention. But the anti-gun control advocates have not been silent, and we should listen to them, too. 

Bulgarian rifle, ATF photo

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor Maryland a week after the shooting. Going well beyond gun control, he painted a dark picture of wide-ranging evil forces that sought to destroy American freedom. In his speech, guns were the last resort to preserve freedom. To LaPierre, gun control was an enslavement plot, and gun freedom was an absolute right. By the time he was finished, the cheering crowd had heard him describe a nation gone amok, with socialist forces determined to crush the country's life. LaPierre reduced guns to a small part of a massive evil vision--should we call it a vast conspiracy?--to crush freedom.

His hard-hitting speech complained that the NRA had been slandered by liberal politicians--he named Democrat Nancy Pelosi--and the national news media. He accused them of evil motives:

"They hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom. In the rush of calls for more government, they've also revealed their true selves." He said that the anti-gun forces "care not one whit for America's school system and school children. If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them." 


What LaPierre implied was that liberals were using the school shooting to justify a general assault on American freedom. Unwilling to acknowledge that gun control advocates might be motivated to keep guns away from criminals, he instead felt that the school shooting was merely an excuse to attack personal freedoms. He neither considered nor refuted any idea that gun laws might prevent school shootings. This was, of course, the whole point of the March for Our Lives agenda. Instead, he implied that evil forces, such as Nancy Pelosi and national news media such as the New York Times had formed a previous desire to attack freedom, with the school shooting giving them an excuse to do so. He construed this as a desire to destroy the entire Bill of Rights, as he clearly explained:


"They care more about control...their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our  firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedom. What they want are more restrictions on the law-abiding. Think about that. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of families, the failure of our mental health care system, the unbelievable failure of the FBI."

That latter comment referred to the FBI's failure to act on warnings that the shooter, Nikoas Cruz, had been exhibiting threatening behavior. In general, many conservatives believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect them against tyranny, a view that I discussed in an article a couple years ago. From that standpoint, removing the Second Amendment would erode all other freedoms, which many conservatives believe to be under threat. A slide down the slippery slope could not be stopped.

"So many existing laws were ignored," LaPierre continued, allowing illegal criminal to cross borders, gang violence, and drug crime to flourish. He mentioned Chicago (which seems to be conservatives' favorite target) and said that every major American community faced problems due to opiods and "Chinese fentanyl." This was a different twist, implying that society was falling into chaos and people needed extensive capabilities to defend themselves: "No wonder law-abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment to protect themselves more than ever." He warned that gun restrictions were part of a trend to exert "more control over people."

Not without solutions, as we will see in a moment, LaPierre insisted that "The NRA does care." He did, however, warn that background checks on gun purchasers could could cause mental health records used for gun checks to be added to a government list. He warned that veterans who told their doctors that they had trouble sleeping might be unable to buy firearms. What if people needed to be interviewed to buy firearms? Who would interview them? He warned of the danger that law-abiding gun owners could be falsely accused. Were these likely? LaPierre didn't say. His point is that they were possible if the attack on freedom were to continue.

The dark vision grew: in LaPierre's speech, there was an organized enemy: "socialists" who opposed "all of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. They don't like free speech any more than they like the Second Amendment."  He complained about college free speech zones: "Try going to Berkeley and speak out in favor of conservative causes." He warned that in a controlling, socialist state, the government would "squeeze" information out of children, such as what their parents fed them, what TV shows they watched, and their gun ownership, so that the controlling government could collect lists. By this point, he had gone far beyond complaining about background checks or concealed carry classes.

Nearing his conclusion, LaPierre's dark vision warned of greater depravity: "It's just a short hop to the destruction of our most basic freedoms." He warned of risk to free market economy. He took a brief moment to assure the audience that he did not advocate armed rebellion. He complained that national media were hiding the truth and spreading falsehoods. What falsehoods? He didn't say. He did, however, mention that firearms were the "one freedom that protects us all in this country."

Solutions? LaPierre urged the arming of school personnel. He warned that schools were "soft targets" that deserved the same protection as banks and jewelry stores.

LaPierre ended by repeating the slogan: "To stop a bad guy with a gun it takes a good guy with a gun." The NRA and their supporters have always been about slogans, so, fine.  "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." "Criminals don't obey gun laws." And so forth. Slogans are much easier than analytical thought.

Overall, LaPierre's speech was full of speculation and dark threats, and very short on proof. Nevertheless, he had a sympathetic audience. Many conservatives are convinced that freedom is in danger, and oppose any further interposition against their rights. While liberals feel that reasonable gun restrictions might reduce violence, conservatives often feel that the slightest encroachment can only lead to a downward slide. Thus, while liberals might find LaPierre's vision implausible, if not outrageous, many conservatives would take his perspective to be obvious truth. 

I reviewed yesterday how the Founders deliberately wrote an ambiguity into the Second Amendment. I quoted the Founders at length. This got me some angry pushback on Twitter, with one poster accusing me of attacking the entire concept of freedom while harboring a desire to destroy the Bill of Rights and opposing free enterprise. LaPierre might have felt the same way, in that the NRA has, in recent years, advocated absolute, unrestricted gun rights and has sold much of the nation on the view that that the Second Amendment allows no restriction on gun ownership. As my post yesterday explained, they may be right. Or not.

P.S.: Given LaPierre's conspiratorial view, readers might want to look at my old post about how to evaluate conspiracy theories that appear in speeches.