A Quote by Wayne LaPierre

The Internet, as the most open free-speech institution in history, has become a major factor in gun owners' ability to achieve success in preserving and protecting the Second Amendment.
As gun owners, my husband and I understand that the Second Amendment is most at risk when a criminal or deranged person commits a gun crime. These acts only embolden those who oppose gun ownership. Promoting responsible gun laws protects the Second Amendment and reduces lives lost from guns.
There is absolutely no disconnect between common sense gun safety measures and protecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
We are a country that believes in free speech and the open debate of ideas. We're a country that also believes in the Second Amendment and our ability to have guns. But we've got to figure out a way to keep America safe.
For years, I've gone on television and made the case for the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. I've pointed out that criminals don't follow gun laws, and I've defended the NRA and its members - law-abiding gun owners like me who have nothing to do with mass shootings or violent gun crimes.
I support gun safety measures, and I'll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.
I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.
Some claim that the Obama FCC's regulations are necessary to protect Internet openness. History proves this assertion false. We had a free and open Internet prior to 2015, and we will have a free and open Internet once these regulations are repealed.
I do not accept that we cannot find a common sense way to preserve our traditions, including our basic second amendment freedoms and the rights of law abiding gun owners, while at the same time reducing the gun violence that unleashes so much mayhem on a regular basis.
We are a great enough country to respect the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners and protect our children. And those things don't need to be in conflict.
All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.
I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved - which means no gun control.
The Second Amendment reflects the brilliance of our founders, who knew that no right is guaranteed unless we are willing to fight for it, and I remain committed to fighting for the rights of lawful gun owners as the senator for Alabama.
For Americans, with the advent of the U.S. invention of the Internet, free speech is not just open dissemination of ideas and information. It includes limitless instant access to those ideas and the ability to choose and search from among virtually unlimited sources. It is also the backbone of free enterprise and a vibrant global economy.
We have to ensure free and open exchange of information. That starts with an open internet. I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose. The internet is perhaps the most open network in history, and we have to keep it that way.
I wish that Google would realize its own power in the cause of free speech. The debate has been often held about Google's role in acceding to the Chinese government's demands to censor search results. Google says that it is better to have a hampered internet than no internet at all. I believe that if the Chinese people were threatened with no Google, they might even rise up and demand free speech - free search and links - from their regime. Google lives and profits by free speech and must use its considerable power to become a better guardian of it.
If you have an internet service provider that's capable of slowing down other sites, or putting other sites out of business, or favoring their own friends and affiliates and customers who can pay for fast lanes, that's a horrible infringement on free speech. It's censorship by media monopolies. It's tragic: here we have a technology, the internet, that's capable really of being the town square of democracy, paved with broadband bricks, and we are letting it be taken over by a few gatekeepers. This is a first amendment issue; it's free speech versus corporate censorship.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!