NRA goes silent after Connecticut school shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) - Where is the NRA?
The nation's largest gun-rights organization - typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths - has gone all but silent since last week's rampage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 people dead, including 20 children.
Its Facebook page has disappeared. It has posted no tweets. It makes no mention of the shooting on its website. None of its leaders hit the media circuit Sunday to promote its support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms as the nation mourns the latest shooting victims and opens a new debate over gun restrictions. On Monday, the NRA offered no rebuttal as 300 anti-gun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.
After previous mass shootings - such as in Oregon and Wisconsin - the group was quick to both send its condolences and defend gun owners' constitutional rights, popular among millions of Americans. There's no indication that the National Rifle Association's silence this time is a signal that a change in its ardent opposition to gun restrictions is imminent. Nor has there been any explanation for its absence from the debate thus far.
The NRA, which claims 4.3 million members and is based in Northern Virginia, did not return telephone messages Monday seeking comment.
Its deep-pocketed efforts to oppose gun control laws have proven resilient. Firearms are in a third or more of U.S. households and suspicion runs deep of an overbearing government whenever it proposes expanding federal authority. The argument of gun-rights advocates that firearm ownership is a bedrock freedom as well as a necessary option for self-defense has proved persuasive enough to dampen political enthusiasm for substantial change.
Seldom has the NRA gone so long after a fatal shooting without a public presence. It resumed tweeting just one day after a gunman killed two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last Tuesday, and one day after six people were fatally shot at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August.
The Connecticut shootings occurred three days after the incident in Oregon.
"The NRA's probably doing a good thing by laying low," said Hogan Gidley, a Republican strategist and gun owner who was a top aide to Rick Santorum's presidential bid. "Often after these tragedies, so many look to lay blame on someone, and the NRA is an easy whipping boy for this."
Indeed, since the Connecticut shootings, the NRA has been taunted and criticized at length, vitriol that may have prompted the shuttering of its Facebook page just a day after the association boasted about reaching 1.7 million supporters on the social media network.
Twitter users have been relentless, protesting the organization with hashtags like NoWayNRA.
The NRA has not responded to them. Its last tweets, sent Friday, offered a chance to win an auto flashlight.
Offline, some 300 protesters gathered outside the NRA's lobbying headquarters on Capitol Hill on Monday chanting, "Shame on the NRA" and waving signs declaring "Kill the 2nd Amendment, Not Children" and "Protect Children, Not Guns."
"I had to be here," said Gayle Fleming, 65, a real estate agent from Arlington, Va., saying she was attending her first anti-gun rally. "These were 20 babies. I will be at every rally, will sign every letter, call every congressman going forward."
Retired attorney Kathleen Buffon of Chevy Chase, Md., reflected on earlier mass shootings, saying: "All of the other ones, they've been terrible. This is the last straw. These were children."
"The NRA has had a stranglehold on Congress," she added as she marched toward the NRA's unmarked office. "It's time to call them out."
The group's reach on Capitol Hill is wide as it wields its deep pockets to defeat lawmakers, many of them Democrats, who push for restrictions on gun ownership.
The NRA outspent its chief opponent by a 73-1 margin to lobby the outgoing Congress, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks such spending. It spent more than 4,000 times its biggest opponents during the 2012 election.
In all, the group spent at least $24 million this election cycle - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Its chief foil, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spent just $5,816.
On direct lobbying, the NRA also was mismatched. Through July 1, the NRA spent $4.4 million to lobby Congress to the Brady Campaign's $60,000.
The nation's largest gun-rights organization - typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths - has gone all but silent since last week's rampage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 people dead, including 20 children.
Its Facebook page has disappeared. It has posted no tweets. It makes no mention of the shooting on its website. None of its leaders hit the media circuit Sunday to promote its support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms as the nation mourns the latest shooting victims and opens a new debate over gun restrictions. On Monday, the NRA offered no rebuttal as 300 anti-gun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.
After previous mass shootings - such as in Oregon and Wisconsin - the group was quick to both send its condolences and defend gun owners' constitutional rights, popular among millions of Americans. There's no indication that the National Rifle Association's silence this time is a signal that a change in its ardent opposition to gun restrictions is imminent. Nor has there been any explanation for its absence from the debate thus far.
The NRA, which claims 4.3 million members and is based in Northern Virginia, did not return telephone messages Monday seeking comment.
Its deep-pocketed efforts to oppose gun control laws have proven resilient. Firearms are in a third or more of U.S. households and suspicion runs deep of an overbearing government whenever it proposes expanding federal authority. The argument of gun-rights advocates that firearm ownership is a bedrock freedom as well as a necessary option for self-defense has proved persuasive enough to dampen political enthusiasm for substantial change.
Seldom has the NRA gone so long after a fatal shooting without a public presence. It resumed tweeting just one day after a gunman killed two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last Tuesday, and one day after six people were fatally shot at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August.
The Connecticut shootings occurred three days after the incident in Oregon.
"The NRA's probably doing a good thing by laying low," said Hogan Gidley, a Republican strategist and gun owner who was a top aide to Rick Santorum's presidential bid. "Often after these tragedies, so many look to lay blame on someone, and the NRA is an easy whipping boy for this."
Indeed, since the Connecticut shootings, the NRA has been taunted and criticized at length, vitriol that may have prompted the shuttering of its Facebook page just a day after the association boasted about reaching 1.7 million supporters on the social media network.
Twitter users have been relentless, protesting the organization with hashtags like NoWayNRA.
The NRA has not responded to them. Its last tweets, sent Friday, offered a chance to win an auto flashlight.
Offline, some 300 protesters gathered outside the NRA's lobbying headquarters on Capitol Hill on Monday chanting, "Shame on the NRA" and waving signs declaring "Kill the 2nd Amendment, Not Children" and "Protect Children, Not Guns."
"I had to be here," said Gayle Fleming, 65, a real estate agent from Arlington, Va., saying she was attending her first anti-gun rally. "These were 20 babies. I will be at every rally, will sign every letter, call every congressman going forward."
Retired attorney Kathleen Buffon of Chevy Chase, Md., reflected on earlier mass shootings, saying: "All of the other ones, they've been terrible. This is the last straw. These were children."
"The NRA has had a stranglehold on Congress," she added as she marched toward the NRA's unmarked office. "It's time to call them out."
The group's reach on Capitol Hill is wide as it wields its deep pockets to defeat lawmakers, many of them Democrats, who push for restrictions on gun ownership.
The NRA outspent its chief opponent by a 73-1 margin to lobby the outgoing Congress, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks such spending. It spent more than 4,000 times its biggest opponents during the 2012 election.
In all, the group spent at least $24 million this election cycle - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Its chief foil, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spent just $5,816.
On direct lobbying, the NRA also was mismatched. Through July 1, the NRA spent $4.4 million to lobby Congress to the Brady Campaign's $60,000.
The government will not come to your door with guns to subdue you, it will wrap you around with so much red tape and laws that you can't blow your nose without a permit. It's called a soft dictatorship, and we're on our way. Keeping us under control with bread and circuses -- I mean welfare and TV sitcoms. The USA is a grand experiment, it should have a longer run than this.
Â
WOW. taking time to let people mourn and putting out a measured response instead of working people into a lynch mob. How irresponsible.
The NRAÂ has made a statement...
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/nra-shocked-saddened-and-heartbroken-by-newtown-shooting/?hpt=hp_t2
Â
They were being silent on this issue out of respect for those that lost loved ones.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel "
Â
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-obama-would-support-new-gun-laws-152297.html
What CAN the NRA say? Their rhetoric is believed by fewer and fewer people even before this tragedy, now they are running scared with their tail between their legs. The NRA is going to be the Grover Norquist of 2013, a once powerful force that Republicans are forced to ignore.
 @Superman_1967 your clueless let them take our rights a piece at a time you dumbass
 @Superman_1967 This is what the NRA will say. I will repeat it for you, however I cannot understand it for you. That much you will have to do on your own.Â
Â
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Â
Dont like it? call a constitutional convention and try and change it but be forewarned, once that process has been started the entire constitution is open to revision. Every single word of it. And lastly, there will be many not unlike myself who would consider the nation null and void once the 2nd amendment is destroyed.
Â
@Rick4001CS Because your entire world, in fact your entire existance is centered around guns. What a sad and pathetic individual you are.
 @Superman_1967 You're prettty ignorant. Without the Constitution, you would have no rights. Because of it, you get to shoot yer mouth off about stuff you remain willfully ignorant of. You have the freedom of speech as granted by the 1st amendment. Without the 1st we'd all be slaves to dictators. The 1st is 1st for a reason. The 2nd was penned to protect the 1st. It's the ONLY stopgap to keep tyranny in check. What Rick stated was the absolute truth. Without the 2nd, there is no 1st. Without the 1st, there is no freedom.
What's truly 'sad and pathetic' is people like you that choose to remain clueless.
 @Superman_1967 The problem with your wishful thinking approach is that the NRA membership is growing and their corresponding clout in DC is as well. As a whole America is becoming more accepting of guns etc. So, the problem we have here is that in reality America and the NRA are exactly the opposite of what you just said.
Don't worry NRA, our Pastor in Chief is all talk.
Abolish the 2nd Amendment! And also deal with folks who have mental disorders instead of sweeping them under the carpet.
Â
http://wh.gov/RuCb
 What Daddy did not play with you?
The people that says that guns could be useful to defend themselves if the government is taken down haven't thought it through. I lived in a country where the government was overturn, that implies defeating or conspiring with the government's army. Do you really believe any civilian can fight the US Army or an army that defeated the US Army???
 @Damian In addition to APenny's comment you need to remember that our military is fiercely protective of the constitution and are specifically setup to only obey lawful orders. If the government went astray the military would be the governments foe not the people's foe.
 @SeattleJoe  @Damian So what you're saying is that the people don't have to be armed because should the government go astray, then the military would be on the peoples' side and do the fighting for them?
@Indwangu1 @SeattleJoe No man, I'm saying the army will just crush them, so it is pointless.
 @Indwangu1  @Damian Not exactly. There will be some military people that will stick with the commander in chief causing most military assets to be in limbo as the military argues amongst themselves. But then we have the police force, the national guard, and whatever other government agencies that the people will have to contend with.
 @Damian Tories in 1775: Do you really believe that any colonist can fight the British Army?
Â
Anyway, the Second Amendment serves as a theoretical fourth check in the way government acts.
Unfortunately I lived through a government army using terror techniques against the people, you won't stop them, believe me...
@SeattleJoe Not, it was fighting the Argentinian, Chilean, Brazilian... All with US support BTW
 @SeattleJoe  @Damian If the American people could tear themselves away from Facebook, fruitloops, reality TV and the rest of the rich culture, the fight would be no different and no more desperate than that which happens in any number of dictatorships.
 @Damian You lived through a government that wasn't fighting the American people.
@Necrobio What I lived was a Latin America dictatorship. Some people tried to do something, they and their families were tortured, robbed, executed. That includes people that just tried to speak up peacefully. Very quickly people became afraid even of speaking up. Army against people creates a very uneven battle that sometimes ends in tanks against stones. If you really want to overturn a dictatorship you need a militia, not a few armed civilians. BTW, I moved to the US now, so I also really hope that it never comes here :)
 @Damian If that day ever comes in this country, I will surely try my best. I may not succeed, but I must try.
 @Damian Seems like the US army is having its difficulties in the operations they are currently in and lets not forget Vietnam. It is also not allowed for the US military to be deployed on US soil against US citizens though the Patriot act seems to allow similar things to happen currently.  Also look at the sheer number of armed citizens compared to those who serve in our military now imagine not all of the service members would go along.  The service members are sworn to uphold the Constitution from threats foreign and domestic.  Us being armed at least gives them pause and allows citizens a fighting chance.  To believe you have no power is exactly what a government wanting to rule over their people want.
@APenny4MyThoughts Unfortunately I lived through that and I clearly saw the "fighting chance" doesn't exist. You're right about how a very small group of people can subdue a larger group, it's not that hard, you terrorize the population. Sadly I witnessed state terrorism first hand and I know its power. In any case, if you look into the rest of the world, these shootings don't happen remotely as often as in the US, while people is much less armed. It is not logical to think that arming people further will fix the problem.
Reagan passed a law banning plastic/ceramic handguns in the 1980s.Â
Â
Dick Cheney, then a congressman, was one of 4 people to vote against it.
Â
Fast forward to 2004. Assault weapons ban, signed in 1994, expires and Cheney/Bush do not renew it.Â
 @lakeview ...So the ban expires in 2004....That means that Klebold shouldn't of had the TEC-9 he fired some 50+ times in 1999?
Â
Fact of it all banning something does very little to prevent criminals/ or criminally minded individuals from obtaining and using them.
Â
I hope that more logical minds are put together to create whatever "Meaningful action" Obama spoke of. I agree fully that something needs modified, but can not understand that the logic that making firearms illegal, will stop criminals from having or using them...or somehow lower incidents such as Newtown.
 @lakeview That's because the law against "ceramic and plastic" guns was based on hysteria not on facts. The media had the public believing that a terrorist could get a plastic gun past metal detectors at airports. The fact is that there is plenty of metal in all guns be they plastic, ceramic, or steel for any metal detector to detect.
 @Zanshin  @lakeview Correct. And people like lakeview conveniently leave out those important points. Much like the "assault weapons ban". It was a ban on firearms that are responsible for very little of the gun crime. Why would they ban something that wasn't a real problem? Politics and hysteria. Nothing more. Right now after the CT tragedy we are seeing the exact same thing taking place. Politics and hysteria are everywhere.
Oh and then Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face.Â
 @lakeview Yup. Cheney, Bush, Rove etc are the cause of everything that ever went wrong in the history of all mankind. Yes sir its all their fault.
@lakeview
So Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face with an assault weapon? Though ironic there is no relevance there.
Pretty much every president and most politicians have hurt this country in every measurable way. Not sure what socialism has to do with the NRA not saying anything but whatever.
 @Lord Farquad Just pointing out more proof that Reagan would be labeled a socialist by conservatives today and that the Bush/Cheney years hurt this country in so many measurable ways.  Â
 @lakeview At this point there should be Paul Harvey saying, "... and now you know the REST of the story. Good-DAY!"Â
Or maybe the NRA "unlike the media" is giving the mourning familys their due respect and letting the police complete their investigation instead of jumping to conclusions and having knee jerk reactions like some gun control whack jobs are.
 @Lord Farquad No, the NRA has ALWAYS released statements or sent out surrogates to do interviews in the wake of shootings.
Â
This one is different. Your explanation doesn't hold up because they have never respected the mourning families before.Â
Your absolutly right. This one is different. There hasnt been an incident like this one where so many innocent children were so senslessly murdered. I stand by my comment. And you are wrong in stating they "ALWAYS" release statements as they didnt in this instance.
@lakeview And again this is unlike anything else hense why they probably have not commented on it yet. The NRA does have compassion for the familys of these young children.
 @Lord Farquad "always released"Â
Â
Released= past tense.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @scychan to protect against tyranny of government and defense in times of national emergency/disaster.
Â
You want to make a worthwhile difference here? Push for better awareness of mental illness especially those instances prone to violence, and provide for the state to act. Also, push for Christian values to be returned to American life, like corporal punishment in our schools, and traditional family values. That would be a HUGE step BACK in the right direction.
Â
 @Rick4001CS  @scychan 10,000 thumbs up.
You just don't get it
Â
 @8nthegate The English language or the Second Amendment?
Simple solution.....Have armed guards for every school, mall, or anywhere masses of innocent people may be attending where carrying a gun is not permissable. Fill these armed guard positions with veterans returning from duty in Iraq, pay them a good wage.!!!!! Guard the american public in these times of Terrorism!!!!
 @8nthegate And what happens when one of your armed guards goes crazy and starts shooting people?
Â
Clearly, the only solution is for the entire country to sit in a big circle pointing guns at each other.Â
 @Sutekh  @8nthegate Grasping for just about anything here aren't we Sutekh?...
 @8nthegate check people's I.D. before they can go in those buildings.
 @scychan  @8nthegate And put up more signs saying it's illegal to shoot people!
 @scychan  @8nthegate And when we have to raise taxes to pay for all of that, you guys will be the first to complain.Â