NRA
 

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case.

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well.

-spence

I agree and disagree. Their response was out completely out of touch and not well thought out. They need to have an adult conversation and appear unwilling to do so. On the other hand, I think you will see membership soar, along with the huge surge in handgun license applications and weapons purchases this past week. Personally, I joined a gun club after the election (before Newtown) and their applications were up 300% since Obamas re-election. Unfortunately, this event will polarize rather than unify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:fishin:

strictest gun laws in the nation I think...Obamaland

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...391_story.html

And the Democrats response hasn't been predictable ???
Strange we didn't hear much from the media about the Washington Mall shooting. The one where an armed civilian put a stop to a potential mass tragedy. Banning "assault weapons" is symbolic and might make you feel better bit it won't solve anything.
But then it never is about fixing the problem now is it ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean exactly the same response as the "fingers-in-their-ear, only the police and military should have guns, ban all guns" crowd has been for the last week?

The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to have a conversation. Anything other than the NRA saying "yes we agree. Those scary black guns that are not at all 'military-style assault rifles' should be banned." will be met with cried of how the NRA wants more children to die.

Here's the #1 clue that the anti-gun crowd is operating on emotion, as opposed to reason:
They use catch phrases like "common sense", "reasonable reform" and "win-win" without any empirical support because none of the factual statistics support their emotionally-charged, irrational claims.

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.

Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...

By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?

-spence

I've not heard anything that resembles of what you speak.

Perhaps you've been reading too much MoveOn?

-spence

you didn't actually read any of it...did you?

What have you heard then Spence? I have been waiting for the response from your credible sources.(other than knocking the NRA)

Why yes, I actually did.

-spence

Response from? Not sure I understand the question.

What I have heard is a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action. What that really means is certainly up for debate.

-spence

I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A very horrific tragedy...lets hope it never happens again

Spence:La Pierre mentions to put cops in schools and you and your progressive party call him a nut case...where was your group when Bill Clinton mentioned putting cops in schools...he even appropriated monies to do it..."cops never placed.'...

News media reports that an automatic weapon was used...now your president keeps saying he wants to band automatic weapons scaring the mis informed public....it is hard to get a permit for an automatic weapon....need a class 3 license....weapon used not an automatic...just as much damage would have been done with a Klock

What R cops going to do at the school...it will provide a falsehood of being safe....there was an armed guard at the columbine tradegy...a cop will not be alert for 8 hrs....they R not alert doing road duty...we expect them to sit for 8 hrs.reading a news paper and or take a break to urinate or smoke break...if correct the guard at columbine took a break at the time of that shooting spree.

you went from..

"Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case."

and then this:

"Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc..."



I asked for examples...Murdoch has long been a gun control advocate and
Steele said this...

“I don’t even know where to begin. As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms,” Steele said on MSNBC immediately after LaPierre finished his comments.

in respose to Lapierre saying this:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, The ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

LaPierre stood by remarks he made at an event Friday billed as a news conference -- though he took no questions -- in which he argued for armed guards in schools.

"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," he said on Sunday.


"We're going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school," he vowed.

I guess Steele didn't listen very closely...:confused:

so what are the "conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"? etc....etc....because I haven't seen it and I actually read conservative papers


I don't know how effective having security at schools will/would be, I know that it's a likely deterrent, I know that many schools already have security and those are probably the schools that most of our politician's children happen to attend...:uhuh: if you are a progressive democrat...just look at it as an opportunity to create another bureaucracy with new union members:)


...Merry Christmas to all of you!!!!

just a sidenote....Politico then took Steeles comments and titled their article on the subject to claim that Steele called Lapierre's comments "haunting and very disturbing" ....you see how it works:uhuh:

you should have seen the lines at the gun counter at Cabelas last night.

I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...

I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

Regulating guns is different than regulating people. The second amendment is not about regulating guns. It is about the right of the people to own them. If it were possible, and it may be, to regulate the manufacture of guns to only fire when used by those legally issued to own them, that would go a long way to prevent gun violence by those who steal them, borrow them, or buy them illegally.

As far as the NRA not engaging in a reasonable debate, I am sure that it believes it is being reasonable and that the anti-gunners are not. To dismiss, out of hand, statements and positions of the NRA as being unreasonable, seems unreasonable to me. To accuse them of not being able to have an adult discussion, then dismissing their suggestions without debating them, seems very unadult. Their so-called banner of the protector of the second amendment, if there is such a thing, has been well-earned. What other interest group has been influential enough, and engaged enough to fly such a banner? The NRA's position, if I understand it right, is that the goal of those who wish to further restrict gun ownership IS the repeal or re-interpretation of the Second Ammendment . The putative reason for banning what are called "assault" rifles is that they allow the user to kill larger numbers in a shorter time. I have not understood what the acceptable number of victims is before "something must be done." People have been arguing that "something must be done" about handguns for a long time. And handguns have been used to kill far more people in this country than those killed by "assault" weapons. The whole argument has long been about criminals killing people, not how many. And if you can set a precedent that some guns can be used to kill larger numbers and so must be banned, the door to banning "less" lethal guns will be opened a crack more.

I don't know where reason stands between the second ammendment and an adult or reasonable discussion about it. Arguments about what it means or what types of arms it means are like most other arguments about what portions or clauses of the Constitution "mean." That is, discussion of constitutional meaning , except by strict constructionists, are about how the Constitution can be bent or changed to fit the preference of majorities, or interest groups, or judges who feel their position to be above the law and are thus empowered to write it.

There is nothing in the unammended Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to regulate private gun ownership. The Second Ammendment was not needed in that regard. Madison warned against such ammendments. The Constitution, as written, limited the central government to certain enumerated powers. The restriction of private gun ownership was not mentioned as a power or was not a part of any enumerated power. The Constitutions "silence" on the issue "means" that the Federal Government does not have the power. Madison warned against amendments that "gauranteed" rights which were already inherent in the Constitution because it would open the door to a discussion of those rights as being limited by the strict wording of the ammendment rather than being unlimited or unalienable against the power of the central government. Even worse, he warned that future mischief could be done to the entire body of the Constitution by the addition of a bill of rights because that bill could be construed as the limit of the people's rights rather than the people's rights being the vast majority which are left to them by limiting the government to the few enumerated powers. He reluctantly wrote the first set of ammendments so that the States, whose reprentatives vehemently wanted a bill of rights, would all agree to and accept the Constitution. What he feared has to a great extent happended. SCOTUS judges most often now only give strict scrutiny to Federal infraction of a few rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Constitution having been re-interpreted to mean whatever five or more judges wish it to mean. And even those rights in the Bill of Rights have become weaker, including not only the right to bear arms but also freedom of speech and religion. And the massive changes and effective negation of the Constitution have come about by "reasonable" jurisprudence.

let's see..."...."papers" and republicans rethinking their positions, a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action, usual conservative "papers" are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"


just stick with vague and broad :uhuh: when did "papers" start drilling and (re)thinking :confused:

I've been waiting for this thread.

This is truly the thread I can separate the political fanboys from those who actually have a clue and know wtf they are talking about.

:lurk:Bring it on boys.I know there are two representing either side of the aisle who say equally some of the dumbest things that could be uttered on this subject.

C'mon guys don't fail me now.I need to truly be disappointed by some real stupidity.

Here is my 2 cents, The media in this country sucks. They try to one up each other, and never wait for the facts to come out, often erroneously reporting facts. They originally reported he used an AR, but the police stated they found 4 handguns in the school, and they found one long gun in the trunk of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo
In the video of them opening the trunk of the car, the long gun in question appears to possibly be a tactical shotgun. Feinstein let it be known long before the election that she was going to push an assault weapons ban again, and they are using the erroneous news reports to push her bull#^&#^&#^&#^& agenda. Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted, you need a class 3 license to buy one, then the guns usually are in the thousand of dollars, on top of that is the large tax you pay to own them.

Should there be some regulations on guns absolutely, but these regulations should not be made by people who are largely uneducated with regards to firearms.

Some things that need to change, in the south most states only require you to be a resident and show a drivers license to buy a gun. This need to change, they need to make people get a gun license, and pass a strict background check, period. I know of stories of people from down south that come up here, with 10 handguns serial numbers obliterated to sell on the street, these are your straw purchasers. They usually come up to visit relatives, but their primarily reside down south.

I am all for a magazine restriction, no one really needs 100 round Beta mags.

Institute a tax break or incentive for people to buy gun safes. I have a combination lock gun safe and I can get into it in under 5 seconds. Again no big deal.

The type of gun has no meaning, a gun is a gun , is a gun, they all go boom and can all kill you so banning a certain type is not going to solve anything, and it would take a very long time for a gun ban to go into effect. Btw the governments own studies show that the 94 law was largely in effective in reducing gun crime or deaths. So does it really work?

What will work tomorrow or right away? Armed security or police officers in the schools will work. This can be implemented right away, temporarily use current police, and hire a new armed school police force. Cost should not be a factor, we spend millions upon millions of dollars in foreign aid, lets cut that back and take care of our own kids.

the "apoplexy" that Spence speaks of is actually on the part of the main stream media and their political allies defaulting to a predictable emotional narrative that ignores facts and drums ahead with a political agenda...it shouldn't be surprising....

41-47% of a
Americans report owning a gun. Pretty high percentage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that the NRA is the bad guy every time some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& comes into possession of a "high capacity weapon" that shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. Every gun shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. If someone shoots six people with a model 28-2 .357 magnum and then reloads with a speed loader, archaic as that sounds, some journalist would call that a semi-automatic as well. There are magazines that hold less rounds than thirty, but if your practiced, whether it holds thirty or ten rounds your going to kill a bunch of people. The NRA isn't the problem here by a long shot, but it works out great that the knee jerk reactionaries think they are because it takes the heat away from the electorate.

And by the way, several years ago in Massachusetts the Mass Teachers Assoc. had thier members do a little in the classroom polling. The teachers were instructed to have the children in the classrooms, lay thier heads down and the children were asked to raise thier hands if there was a gun in the house. 75% of the children raised thier hands. This way about twenty years ago this happened. Thats why the legislators never do anything against gun ownership. They don't want to anger a 75% majority.

The NRA needs a new spokesperson. The only person worse would be #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

I donated once to the NRA and then they bombarded my house asking for money. I promptly told them to stuff it and have never donated since. I would give money to GOAL first.

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

Could be but I think it's a much larger issue................
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or exactly the opposite. Why couldn't the Dems be saying, "Listen, we want XYZ immediate restrictions of firearms and on the flip side, we'll agree to tax cut extensions."

Then, the Dems get to come out like heroes because "See, guns are a major issue and look how quickly we are willing to fix them *and* avoid the fiscal cliff". While on the other hand, the Republicans avoid pissing off one voting base while enraging another.

Either way, whatever comes from any of this will be forgotten by most voters when the next set of elections come in two years.

True.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.

Police probe gun magazine incident on TV show - Arts & Entertainment - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -



TELL ME HOW THOSE GUN LAWS ARE WORKING SPENCE?

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:
Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

Now we would be logical. :D
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Johnny D, why is it unreasonable to assume that if you eliminate high capacity magazines, you can lower the body count?

Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.

To me, the flaw in the argument for banning those magazines is, you can't confiscate the ones that are out there. So maybe it's 15 years from now before that has any effect, because a then-18 year-old can't get a high-capacity magazine.

I lso feel that any discussion around gun control is, at best, going to lower the body count after these attacks happen. Better to discuss what causes them in the first place, but liberals won't want to talk about looking at movie violence, video game violence, committing folks who appear to be insane, and family values.

I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.

You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

It seems like most shooting sprees end when the shooter puts a bullet into his own head......maybe if we can just get them to start there 1st.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.

I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds - YouTube

I was waiting for someone to chime in on this..It does not matter what the gun is. If a psycho wants to kill a bunch of people they will find a way weather its a gun, knife, vehicle, bomb, poison/chemical, fire, whatever.

I am not going to debate gun control but we all know it wont keep the criminals from getting them or finding even more destructive ways to carry out there sick killing schemes :(