NRA promises to help prevent school shootings
WASHINGTON (AP) - After four days of self-imposed silence on the shooting that killed 26 people inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's largest gun rights lobby emerged Tuesday and promised "to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The National Rifle Association explained its unusual absence "out of respect for the families and as a matter of common decency" after Friday's shooting that left dead 20 children, all ages 6 or 7.
The group - typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths - went all but silent since the rampage. As it faced public scrutiny online and in person, the group left many wondering how - if at all - it would respond to one of the most shocking slayings in the nation's history.
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement. "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The group said it would have a news conference to answer questions Friday, the one-week anniversary of the shootings.
Almost immediately after it became clear the extent of carnage, the group's Facebook page disappeared. It posted no tweets. It made 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 antigun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.
Yet on Tuesday, the NRA re-emerged, albeit more slowly than normal and with its somber statement.
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 is prepared to weaken its ardent opposition to gun restrictions but it did hint it was open to being part of a dialogue that already has begun.
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 had 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.
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 antigun 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.
(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
12/18/2012 2:27:05 PM (GMT -8:00)
The National Rifle Association explained its unusual absence "out of respect for the families and as a matter of common decency" after Friday's shooting that left dead 20 children, all ages 6 or 7.
The group - typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths - went all but silent since the rampage. As it faced public scrutiny online and in person, the group left many wondering how - if at all - it would respond to one of the most shocking slayings in the nation's history.
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement. "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
The group said it would have a news conference to answer questions Friday, the one-week anniversary of the shootings.
Almost immediately after it became clear the extent of carnage, the group's Facebook page disappeared. It posted no tweets. It made 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 antigun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.
Yet on Tuesday, the NRA re-emerged, albeit more slowly than normal and with its somber statement.
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 is prepared to weaken its ardent opposition to gun restrictions but it did hint it was open to being part of a dialogue that already has begun.
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 had 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.
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 antigun 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.
(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
12/18/2012 2:27:05 PM (GMT -8:00)
I try to be a realist,so I believe it's ridiculous to think we can ban guns in the USA, but can't we at least agree that we need to ban military style weapons from being owned by just anyone?  What purpose do they serve? What do the owners really think they need to protect themselves from? And, if they are that deluded, shouldn't someone be looking into their mental health?  I would be curious to know how many NRA members actually own those types of weapons and what they think their purpose is.
Â
I would also suggest we put a tax on guns, and the funds should be used to provide education and mental health services to families who need it. We tax alcohol, gas and tobacco, why not license guns and tax them?
 @justmyopinion "what they think their purpose is."
Well, these are the fastest growing market in guns today. Why? Is it because people don't feel safe and need a mental health check? Nope.
1. Hunting. People are finding that if their first shot is an issue they can have a quicker second shot for a more humane kill. Also, in some instances varmint hunters have numerous targets and rapid fire is important.
2. Competition. There are several competitions that employ these rifles.
3. Defense. How can you know what kind of defense situation you will be in? If a carload of guys are breaking into your home you would probably be really glad to have a semi-auto with a 30 round mag regardless of whether you use it or not.
The Second Amendment, in my opinion, was designed for a different era and is no longer relevant in modern times. Look at Japan and other civilized countries that have been around longer than ours--their citizens don't need guns, nor are card-carrying "NRA" (nationalistic retarded americans) members, nor have a desire to even own them. Those who actually have a need (such as for hunting) must abide by very strict guidelines involving the storage, locking, training, and safety of their allowed weapons. In most cases it's almost an inconvenient hassle to try to obtain a weapon in those countries.
Â
So, let's do this and see if we can come to an agreement between both sides (libs and gun flaunting jesus folks):
Â
-Repeal the Second Amendment with a new amendment that overrides it and states that firearms are to be limited to the military and law enforcement agencies, however gun ownership is possible, regulated by federal laws as follows:
Â
a.) A clear need to have a gun (hunting for sustenance, requirement for employment [aka security or sky marshall]) backed up with a background check, no criminal history, mental evaluation and drug testing. No anti depressants or scheduled drug users allowed, even if prescribed (say hello to the FAA, folks).
b) Mandatory government endorsed training for proper handling, safety, and securing of the weapon
c) Routine and random inspections by government of gun owners ensuring compliance with locking up the weapon
d) Limited ammunition availability for gun owners
e) No reloading of ammunition
Â
Owning a gun is not a "god" given right, it's a privilege, based on citizenship and need. Free speech, on the other hand, is.
Â
I'm sure folks are going to say, "what about crossbows, compound bows, etc... Well, those will be regulated, too, and allowed for hunting purposes. What about swords and knives?? When's the last time you've heard of a sword wielding maniac cutting down 20 children in a school?
Â
Flame me, hate me, report me, whatever. It's the FIRST AMENDMENT, baby! This country really needs to GROW UP and catch up with the rest of the world. Most folks in this country are still living in caves with their heads buried in the sand while watching Jersey Shore or Family Guy. They have no idea that Tokyo is actually a city in Japan and not part of China, or that Swedish Meatballs are really an American screwed up culinary disaster from the 1970s. Part of this is due to the fact that we're separated on two sides by oceans, to the North by pacifists, and to the south by Mexico. Lots of folks in this country let their religion dictate how advanced their brains get and can't see past that big book with them ten rules in it.
Â
We're not the world's police force. We're not the ONLY nation on this planet. And if we don't grow up as a nation and catch up with other more advanced nations, then we're doomed to be "stuck on stupid". Throw away that musty old book written by despots and go outside once in a while. Smell the air (unless you live in Tacoma), look at the flowers, and say hello to your neighbor without telling him to move his car 3 inches off of your property line. Read books by Dickens, Steinbeck, and Hemingway and turn off Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo. Tell someone important in your life how much you love them and don't take things for granted. And most importantly, what most of you "christian folk" forget--learn to love and FORGIVE one another, because you never know--that stranger next door may save your butt one day so save your pride for your coming out party.
Â
Ok, let the fun stuff begin.
 @Donkey Kong No flames or hate needed. Simply put, just because you don't see the need for firearms (and hence personal defense etc) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have a post full of hate towards pro-second amendment people and their values so why would people bother to argue with you. Most people aren't going to engage in "fun stuff" with you, they are simply going to move and and ignore you. If you want solutions come to table respectfully and try to understand reality.
 @Donkey Kong While it looks like your heart is in the right place, your post shows that you really have no understanding of the history of the 2nd Amendment, or any understanding of the nature of tyranny and oppression, or freedom and property rights. In short, you don't have the foggiest understanding of the nation's founding and history, and this is not the forum for such an extensive hunk of education. Find some good books on the history of the country, civil rights, and early political debates, go over them with a couple of different people, then check back.
 @Donkey KongÂ
Donkey dong.. you don't have a clue as to why the 2nd was even written...
tyranny has been around throughout history..
your false sense of security will be all of ours downfall...
keep your head in the sand and sing cumbyeyah all you want..
Â
 @vadersith You obviously don't get out of your shack very often, do you? While you sit at home and watch Honey Boo Boo while you clean your gun and count your bullets, the world is passing you by.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
@vadersith The Swiss argument is not relevant. Switzerland has a conscription based Army, meaning all physically eligible males are required to perform military service. They are all weapons trained and they get to keep their weapons. This is why they have weapons. People who are not fit for service, or who are psychiatrically disabled are NOT issued guns. These people are restricted to gun laws of Sweitzerland which are more restrictive then the US. They also audit ammunition levels of their citizens....again something that does not happen here.
Â
So in essence you have a military trained group of people who are allowed to have guns. That does not exist in the US. Mentally ill people are not allowed to have guns. You see where this is going? It does not relate or translate in any way. You put these laws into effect in the US and gun violence will go down.
 @bacon_pants  @vadersith OK. lets go where you suggest. Everyone in the US who wants a firearm needs to have the government train them and those that can't such as the mentally ill don't have them. Its going to be interesting to see an elderly couple who need protection being run through a military training but hey I see your point...
*yawn* @vadersithÂ
 @Donkey Kong  @vadersith Your response is proof that you really don't understand history or the underlying philosophy behind gun rights and property rights.
Laws,laws,laws,blah,blah blah. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter, people are going to do what they want, no writing in the world will stop it. Human nature is cruel and violent. I feel it immoral and unethical to deny anybody a means of self protection and the tools to best utilize it. Goodnight.
The NRA engages in cult like behavior and will not willingly change. They are willing to trade countless lives, children included, so that any one can possess all the killing machines they want. There are about 4 million NRA members and 300 million other Americans. Society can win this fight.Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 guns don't kill people, people kill people. placing the blame on an ar-15 is like saying my car got me my DUI.......
 @Citizen#3457899654 "They are willing to trade countless lives, children included, so that any one can possess all the killing machines they want. "
Gotta love the wild baseless hyperbole that you engage in. Look its ok to make all these outlandish claims,heck thats first amendment. People will just see that you are just another raving lunatic and move on but if you want "society to win this" shouldn't you at least try to come across like you are sane?
 @SeattleJoe  @Citizen#3457899654 "Gotta love the wild baseless hyperbole that you engage in."
And how is that any worse than much of the rhetoric coming from the gun rights nuts? Arm teachers!? Guns don't kill people, people kill people!? Arm Everyone!? Defend "MY" right to own all the guns I want, even if it costs the lives of kids!?
Â
"if you want "society to win this" shouldn't you at least try to come across like you are sane?"
That goes both ways, Joe...
 @Citizen#3457899654 3 prospective members from one comment, thats pretty good. Sorry, I'm already one, but it did make me feel like I should get around to signing up for a lifetime membership. They should hire you to write some literature for trying to enroll new members.
@DrOrpheus --- Even though I'm a gun owner, and I respect the 2nd amendment, I will not become an NRA member. It's not a new sentiment by any means.  How dare I not believe in the NRA? Simple.   They have become far, far to political, far too entrenched in thier 'our way or no way' mantra, and the executive leadership has gone over the deep end. For the last few years, they have claimed that Obama has had a secret agenda to destroy the 2nd amendment - thier only proof? The absolute lack of any action or talk on gun control during Obama's first term.   http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11920/obamas-secret-plan-to-destroy-the-second-amendment-by-2016/
Â
Now that 20 children and 6 adults are dead, he's moving forward with something.  It sounds to me like he's trying to formulate a rational, reasonable measured response to the situation. We will have to wait to find out what he does though. This hardly sounds like someone bent to destroy the 2nd amendment.
Â
And if we don't like what he or Congress proposes, then instead of just spouting hate, how about coming up with a reasonable alternative?Â
Â
We need to have an adult conversation about violence committed with guns and about what can be done to try to prevent it.   We cannot have this adult conversation when you guys are dead set on peeing the highest on the wall.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @DrOrpheus Well stated - thanks!
 @Citizen#3457899654 make that 4, and counting, I'm going to "like" your comment
 @Citizen#3457899654 There are approx 4.5 Million N.R.A .members NOW. There are approx 150 Million gun owning citizens in this country who are NOT NRA members. Fastest way to make the NRA's membership rolls grow? Try to take away our guns. I'll join in a heartbeat. As a matter of fact, after hearing all of this liberal "blame it on the GUN, and not the defective HUMAN" crap I've heard in the past week, I think I'll join anyhow. Unlike our government, the NRA takes the best interests of it's members to heart.
 @Wolfen So, you're saying the horror that happened in CT. is the best thing that could have happened for the NRA? Because people are now ready to discuss the gun problem we have in the US, short sighted people like you will now want to pay up and join the NRA.
@Wolfen @Citizen#3457899654 -- "As a matter of fact, after hearing all of this liberal "blame it on the GUN, and not the defective HUMAN" crap" --- What's funny is that I have heard not one person blame the gun.  We've heard lots of people blame 'the person with the gun', but not one that blames the gun.  Â
You guys are the ones twisting that into 'blame the gun'.  Many people are taking the position of 'remove the gun from the person and these mass shootings will not happen' and while that's a true statement, it's not practical to achieve in real life.
Â
Instead of seeing who can pee highest up on the wall, we should be trying to have an honest adult conversation where we get to the real root of the issue AND leave the rhetoric, the mantras and the political 'my way or no way' behind.Â
Â
What's the absolute right way to fix this problem? We don't know because no one will stop demanding that thier way is the only way.
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt
Your the ones that want to change the laws.. the bill of right's and constitution were written by men much smarter then anyone on this board.. Us gun nuts just want the rights giving to us by the founders..This right is to ensure tyranny never takes hold in America cut and dry.. Were not demanding you give up anything you grabbers are..So yes we'll defend it
 @Citizen#3457899654 Congrats, you made me want to join the NRA. Seriously, I was a member of OpenCarry.org and didn't really feel like joining the NRA since it costs money, but if you keep spouting off with your lack of logic you make me realize I have no choice but to join it. You'd probably be surprised how many people feel this way. Keep it up, you are making their ranks grow.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist  @Citizen#3457899654 I know that I'm going to join now.
 @Citizen#3457899654 Why are you people so bent on giving up a right that countless Americans died for? Just like that? Begging the government to just erase it from the constitution like it never happened. Why not take away the first one? Perhaps the 4th one as well. In fact, I'd gladly trade in our First to guarantee protection of the 2nd, just for the specific reason I wouldn't have to read any more crap spewing from you idiots! I'm sick of all these tragic events in the news turning into these bickering matches, it's never going to go anywhere, there's no changing the minds of imbeciles. I'm done!
@DrOrpheus ---- "Why are you people so bent on giving up a right that countless Americans died for?" --- Only the extremists want to force people to give up thier right to own a gun. They are just like only the extremists on the other side are saying "to hell with the lives lost to violence committed with a gun, the right to life that was taken away from them doesn't matter as much as my right to own whatever gun I choose".   We need to have an adult conversation about guns, violence committed with guns and what can be done to solve this problem. Even if what can be done is a gun law change - or a non-gun law change.  We have to be adult enough to have the conversation instead of just peeing in the coffee of those that don't have the same attitude about it as you (or me). We have to be willing to accept that the end result might, or might not include gun law changes.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @DrOrpheus Well said.
 @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 "Begging the government to just erase it from the constitution like it never happened."
Well, there is the amendment process, and studies show that there are more who favor limiting guns than there are those who oppose it...
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
 @OrcasThunder I completely see were you are coming from, but it opens a door that says only certain people are afforded their constitutional rights based on what? The "opinion of a trained mental health professional"? You have to check all the right boxes, say all the right answer, and not appear to be to distressed? I know this is specifically about the 2A, but it's a stepping stone to say if it is done on this one, why can't they limit other Constitutional rights of people for arbitrary, unscientific, and unprovable reasons? This day in age mental health professionals are all to eager to throw around diagnosis like depression because people are sad, and bipolar because people are having a bad year.
Â
Like I said, I'm all for reducing gun violence and keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, but passing an assault weapons ban or limiting what and where law abiding citizens can own and carry is ridiculous and will not solve any issues. Gun free zones do  not work.
 @the unvarnished truth  @Gadsden  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 "Criminals don't attack police stations"
I've heard of it happening, but can't find the link.
Anyway, it's still not a valid comparison - cops in the police station don't have 20 or 50 very young children to keep under control while trying to aim and shoot...and kids in this shooting DID run right in front of the shooter. What is the teacher to do then? What if the shooter drops to the floor and takes a position to fire on her...and fires through the kids?
Â
"If the mentally deficient (not the democrats) were made aware of the danger of attacking schools and movie theaters"
OK...and you don't understand that the "mentally deficient" often don't see danger in the same perspective that "normal" people do? To some it would simply be an added level of gaming.
In fact, since few of these guys really expect to survive, adding armed teachers MIGHT just become an attraction - it could become a target of glory for the shooters, something to add to the score.
Â
Your whole problem in this is that you are trying to make these shooters into thinking, rational people...they are not. You are equating the gangstas and regular crooks who want to steal and create mayhem (but survive) with people who are not going to care if there is an armed military squad on the other side of that door. In their world, it's just a bunch of Orcs they are hunting.
 @Justaguy Yes and no. From all accounts she was qualified to own them.
BUT, if there had been strong requirements regarding how and where she stored them, she might not have been shot by her own son - which, by many reports, she strongly advised people NOT to leave unguarded - even to go to the bathroom. Knowing that, why did she have the guns where he could get his hands on them?
 @Gadsden  @tampadawg  @the unvarnished truth  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 "Honestly tell me what good banning all semi-automatic firearms and "clip" size would do."
Well, we could take them off the street as we came across them, and punish those who use them even harder. Don't you law and order gun rights folks agree that we should punish these people more?
Please, point out how many people in this nation have defended their homes with use of massive firepower (and avoided hitting their neighbor's house in the process) in the past 20 years...
 @FormerMarineSgt     Â
We REALLY need a multiple like button...!
 @Gadsden  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 "How would stricter gun control laws have done a lot to prevent the violence at Sandy Hook?"
A fair question. And I really do not have a complete answer.
By themselves, probably not...but as a part of an overall restructuring of the system, including both the controls I mentioned and increased screening and treatment of the mentally ill, yes - I do think that would have reduced the likelihood of this episode. One change of one factor i not the answer...it needs to be a complete, controlled, coordinated effort on all sides of these issues. We need to find a way to locate and treat those who may have this potential - a rational, cooperative, logical and compassionate way...that does not rush to judge every person with emotional or mental problems (that would be a huge majority of people in this country) and also does not penalize those who fit the criteria to possess firearms.There are pro and anti gun people on all sides - this is not a political issue, let's not make it a political campaign. There IS no rational reason for a law abiding honest emotionally secure American adult to not be allowed ownership - but there is also no reason of the same level for that person to object to having to register the sale or purchase of a gun. Don't mutter about "lists", because the only "list" that will matter is the one with the names of those who should not be allowed to own them. If you buy from a dealer, you should already be on an approved list - why not when you buy from a private individual?
This is an issue that we MUST work together on. We simply cannot afford not to.
I think the logic is that if there were stricter gun control laws then the mother wouldn't have had the guns in her posession to be stolen and used by her son.
Â
Not sure it is actually that simple in real life, but that is the arguement.
 @tampadawg  @the unvarnished truth  @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654Â
Â
Honestly tell me what good banning all semi-automatic firearms and "clip" size would do.
Â
First off if you people are going to argue a point at least get your terms right. Clips are already very limited in size, and I have no problem limiting "clip" size. After all, I only have one gun that uses a clip.
Â
There are so many semi-autos already out there that banning the future sale of them would do nothing except be a knee jerk reaction to ease peoples fears. It would do no good. If you honestly look at the old assault weapons ban, it was idiotic.
Â
Limiting magazine size? Why? A novice person can change a magazine in under a second.
Â
This Country would not be what it is today with the firearm. We would not be free, and you would not be posting your opinion on the Internet. Like it or not the firearm helped give you all the freedoms you enjoy today.
@tampadawg @the unvarnished truth @Gadsden @OrcasThunder @DrOrpheus @Citizen#3457899654 -- "Sure, that's what we need, teachers with guns. That's the most idiotic notion of all these specious arguments the gun nuts are putting out" --- No, the most idiotic notion out of these specious arguements is coming from the religious right wing - where they are blaming Americans for taking God out of the classroom for this.Â
Â
Basically saying that God let 20 innocent young children die because he's a vindictive bastard who doesn't care about the lives of innocents 'because we pushed him AND GUNS out of the classroom' - Huckabee and some well known Christian leaders are taking thier own emotional reaction and using that as if they know what God's plan is.  It's -the most pathetic mis-use of God by Christians that I've heard in my life.
Go look it up. It's "Christian" right wing gun supporters twisting God to meet thier personal biases and it's pathetic.   I don't consider anyone to really be a Christian who is willing to twist God into something he's not in a way that they have no way of actually knowing if it's true or not - just to manufacture something that meets thier own biases.   http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15996725-fierce-debate-after-newtown-school-shootings-where-was-god?lite
Â
Fortunately some Christians are fighting back against these false Christians and showing how wrong they are to be making these claims.
Â
@the unvarnished truth @Gadsden @OrcasThunder @DrOrpheus @Citizen#3457899654 -- simplistic answers to complex issues usually fail.Â
 @the unvarnished truth  @Gadsden  @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 Sure, that's what we need, teachers with guns.  That's the most idiotic notion of all these specious arguments the gun nuts are putting out.  Ban all semi-automatic rifles from private ownership, limit clip size, and quit worshipping the almighty firearm.
 @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus  @Citizen#3457899654 How would stricter gun control laws have done a lot to prevent the violence at Sandy Hook?
 @Citizen#3457899654 I'm not an NRA member now..............but I support our 2nd amendment rights with all my heart. Maybe I should join if that will help ensure that my rights do not get trampled on.
Does everybody recall that the theater where the last crazy attacked was also a gun free zone. We are actually creating more easy targets people!! We dont want fewer armed people, we want better prepared and responsible armed people1!
 @Susabelle Agreed.
Let's face some facts here folks - the NRA is going to lose influence on this. They finally woke up to a situation that carries the weight of the deaths of 20 children, and they simply know that they either bend - or they break.
Some of the bending they can do, with little loss of control:
Â
1: Mandate a total background check for ALL gun buyers. If the gun is ever involved in a shooting, crime or not, require the proof of the check be presented. If it does not exist, felon time and no guns.
Why would any law abiding responsible gun owner abject to that?
Â
2: Mandate that EVERY gun sale be registered by BOTH the seller and the buyer - just as is done when a motor vehicle is sold. Then apply the same rule as #1 if the gun is ever used.
Why would any law abiding responsible gun owner abject to that?
Â
3: Mandate serious time for processing a gun without either #1 or #2.
Why would any law abiding responsible gun owner abject to that? It would allow the proper people to own the guns they want, all they need is the certified proof of #1 and #2.
It would soon get all of the good law abiding people save from gun confiscation, and all of the non-certified owners on notice regarding such violations.
Would it remove all of the bad guns from the bad people? Not right away, but it would get a lot of those who are now of that kind thinking 3 times before running the risk.
Besides, now that pot is legal, who else is going to fill all those private prison company cells? Helps with gun crime, and gives large corporations a boost...a win-win...
 @OrcasThunderÂ
1. Background checks: Â If you can do it in a manner that does not accumulate a database of gun owners for the government to use for confiscation then great. If not, no go. Amend the constitution to say that the government can never under any circumstances confiscate peoples guns except for if they have or will commit a crime then maybe. The problem is the government and its anti-gunner friends are tricky and would come up with some way to make gun owners in violation of the law somehow making it lawful to confiscate them. Also, presenting proof does nothing to stop the crime as it is after the fact. The crime is already done. What possible good would it have done. At most it may stop a person for a while as they do time but it didn't stop the original gun crime.Â
2. See number 1. People fear the list.
Â
Basically, to date no one has ever attempted to create a situation where gun owners are protected from confiscation in order to allow for some reasonable laws to be enacted. Come up with real protection with actual teeth, something that an executive order or after the fact law cannot override, then you might get somewhere. The anti-gunners have one goal: no guns. Until they give up that goal the NRA and every other freedom loving citizen will or should oppose them.
 @SeattleJoe "Come up with real protection with actual teeth, something that an executive order or after the fact law cannot override, then you might get somewhere."
I agree - that goes without saying.
I am not "anti-gun", I used them in the Army, I used them for target shooting, I might even - someday - own another one myself.
But I do not find them comforting or interesting or attractive in any way, I simply do not feel the need to own one. I could if I did, but they have no appeal for me. And I have other ways that have worked in the past to keep me and mine safe.
I just want to be sure that the person I walk past on the street is responsible enough to own and carry one, if they choose to. I also expect that he will respect my rules about no guns on my property - without getting all hot and angry...in other words, the very person who should not own one.
Face it, there is either an effort to reach a middle ground in this, or only one side will win. And regardless of who that is, the loser WILL have access to guns.
 @SeattleJoe "2. See number 1. People fear the list."
Then work through peaceful means to get a government you don't fear.
 @Susabelle  @SeattleJoe And it can be amended.
 @OrcasThunder This is where the anti-gunners come in. If they stop trying to take them all away we could accomplish much. As it is they cause the NRA and any pro-gun person to dig in.
 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe It's called the 2nd Amendment ;)
 @SeattleJoe "1. Background checks:  If you can do it in a manner that does not accumulate a database of gun owners for the government to use for confiscation then great. If not, no go."
There are already such lists. Some are known and legal, some are not. I would rather have one that is legal and controlled than one with no controls.
Face it, every time you use a credit card to buy a gun, that is recorded. The store will have a video record of the sale.
And there really is no mandate in the Constitution against recording gun sales - only against the people being denied the right to own guns. And, even that is not an absolute - we already don't allow some people to do so, and we DO keep that list - don't we?
Or do you think these people SHOULD have guns?
 @OrcasThunder 1. Wow, so if there's a bureaucratic error then jail-time? Wonder how'd you feel about that for bill of sale on borrowed cars involved in vehicular manslaughter since that kills MORE PEOPLE THAN FIREARMS.2. Require buyers to keep their receipts forever or face jail-time? For something as cheap as a gun? The only reason buyers hold onto bills of sale for cars is for paying off a car loan or proving its theirs to get it back if stolen.Â
Â
3. Great, why don't you mandate serious time for processing baseball bats used in crimes since they kill more people....You have no clue about anything. Â
 @NorthwestEconomist "baseball bats used in crimes since they kill more people"
Irreverent. We are talking about guns here - don't misdirect the discussion.
@NorthwestEconomist
"Funny, I thought we were talking about violent deaths"
Where does it say that in the title?
And how is the NRA involved with baseball bats?
 @OrcasThunder Funny, I thought we were talking about violent deaths, guess you just hate guns so much you don't care what really is causing the most death...
 @NorthwestEconomist "Wonder how'd you feel about that for bill of sale on borrowed cars involved in vehicular manslaughter since that kills MORE PEOPLE THAN FIREARMS"
Actually, if the seller does not register the sale, they ARE liable for anything that vehicle is involved in - from parking tickets to vehicular homicide. They can be sued, and they can be charged with contributing to a crime.
 @NorthwestEconomist "Wow, so if there's a bureaucratic error then jail-time?"
That's why we have lawyers, to redress miscarries of justice - the same as for ANY person wrongfully accused and/or convicted.
The legal system is not perfect, but then neither is gun training, or the NRA.
 @NorthwestEconomist "Look at Switzerland."
Nice mountains...
 @OrcasThunder You don't get it do you? In your crazy world you can just legislate everything and somehow it will solve the problem....NOTHING you suggested will lower gun violence. The only people who obey gun laws are law abiding citizens who never had any intention of breaking the law. I guarantee there aren't any psychos who would be dissuaded from a massacre because they couldn't go out and buy the weapons you want to ban. They'd either steal them or use other forms of violence, and possibly more destructive types. Like I said, we are entering the truly modern age. You haven't even yet begun to see the horrors that will come: chemicals, cyber-warfare, bio-agents... and you want to worry about projectile weapons.
Â
You cannot legislate a solution, you can only use technology and education to effect culture. Look at Switzerland.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist  @OrcasThunder The thing is, owning a car is not covered in our Bill of Rights. Guns are. Pretty simple really, you start registering every weapon should we ever have to use the 2nd to preserve our rights the government will know right where to go to round them up....kind of a catch 22 if you ask me.
 @Susabelle  @NorthwestEconomist The reason it has not worked well is that there are too many holes in the system.
What would you suggest to keep the mentally ill from having guns? Would you screen everyone for such illnesses? Once you ID'd them, would you put them in hospitals?
Would you pay for the facilities and staff? Would you include treating them?
Or would you simply leave them on the street, where some gangsta could sell them the gun?
Oh, and your name is already on a list. Do you really think that using your screen name hides you from the people who read the lists...?
 @OrcasThunder  @NorthwestEconomist We do need to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals, but we disagree that the way to do that is through stricter purchasing laws. That has demonstrated to have little effect since most of the guns used in these attacks were not obtained legally anyway. I'm against putting my name on a list.Â
 @Susabelle  @NorthwestEconomist "The thing is, owning a car is not covered in our Bill of Rights."
How does this deprive anyone we agree should own a gun from doing so? ALL it does is work to prevent those who should not own a gun from doing so.
Or are you in favor of allowing anyone to own one, even the mentally ill and unbalanced? We DO that already, you know - we just need to do a better job of it.
@OrcasThunder If you are going to have that add:
Â
IF you designate an area a GUN FREE ZONE then you are personally responsible for the security and wellbeing of people in that zone. That means if a shooting happens and people die, even if the shooter is insane - *you* are going to jail for negligent homicide since you failed to provide adequate security. This includes lawmakers and congressmen who vote for the creation of gun-free zones.
 @gregr  @OrcasThunder Don't forget people like Orcas who advocate for the gun free zone, better hold them responsible the same way he's trying to hold the NRA responsible.Â
 @OrcasThunder The problem with this is that the guns that are used in these cases for the most part were not used by the people who bought them in the first place! This typed of law would not have prevented the current atrocity. The weapons that his mother bought would still have been purchased. All it does is make people feel better about these laws, but it does not solve anything. The reality is we as citizens have to advocate education and safely securing our weapons, until it is second nature to anyone who owns a weapon.Â
 @Susabelle "The problem with this is that the guns that are used in these cases for the most part were not used by the people who bought them in the first place!"
But wouldn't the risk of being held accountable for a gun being stolen mean that the responsible owner would have taken reasonable measures to secure the thing? And eliminate those who don't follow rational rules about owning them?
If a gun is stolen from what should have been a secure locked place, and then used in a crime, then all 3 apply to the thief. Only if the gun was not secured would they apply to the owner in any way. The law abiding owner would have no risk, the careless one would.
Why would any law abiding responsible gun owner abject to that?
 @OrcasThunder  @Susabelle Please elaborate because what you have so far makes you look like an idiot.
 @SeattleJoe  @Susabelle Why should your lack of control of your situation be my problem?
 @OrcasThunder  @Susabelle Realistically there isn't much objection. The only real one is availability. When seconds count, guns that are locked away are often too slow to get to. Biometric locks often fail, or allow non registered users to open. Keyed locks require the keys to be readily available. Combination locks are susceptible to people forgetting the combo when the fear factor sets in during an event. Its a difficult situation to overcome. I think if they come up with a really good lock that addresses these issues and is affordable etc then it would take off.
 @OrcasThunder Why not institute gun safety and marksmanship programs in schools? Teach kids how to be responsible with guns and not to fear them as some tools of the devil? It may cut down alot on accidental shootings amongst youths rather than create this cloud of curiosity around guns that leads to unnecessary deaths. Has almost nothing to do with this particular case, but the more people that treat guns with care and respect, the better off we would be as a society and be able to fight back against crime.
 @DrOrpheus "Why not institute gun safety and marksmanship programs in schools?"
Well, for starters, doesn't that just mandate gun use by EVERY child? Including those of parents who don't want their kids around guns? Doesn't that amount to a one sided win for the gun folks, with no option for the rest?
My system allows those who want to - and should be able to - own guns do so, and lets the rest of us who don't see the gun the way you d to feel a bit safer that those who own guns are at least reasonably screened to eliminate those who shouldn't?
It seems to me that the only people who would object to such screening - that protects EVERYONE - would be those who would not pass the test,,,
Â
And isn't that the point of making sure those who own guns are responsible?
 @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus It's not about guns or sex. It's about someone who thinks themselves an authority to decide who should or shouldn't be "allowed" to have the freedom of ___________that should be protected under the______ammendment. As long as you aren't convicted of ______, you shall be able to maintain your rights. Getting back to earlier points I was trying to make, guns and sex are both realities people will eventually face, do you want them making ignorant decisions, or be educated about the dangers and risks involved?
Â
It's not so much about the guns to me as just the idea of people wanting to desecrate the constitution by saying X ammendment is no longer relevant, we dont need it anymore, lets strike it from the bill of rights, etc. It'd be the same as saying a new law will pass limiting your freedom of speech, it'll be the same as it is now, you just wont be able to say things that will paint a poor picture for the current administration. That won't hurt anyone, everyone will have nothing but good things to say about the government and all will be happy. Freedom of religion causes nothing but civil unrest amongst different cultures, maybe we should make it so everybody shall be a part of X religion and stop all the insanity. It's for our own good, no more violent religious attacks.
 @DrOrpheus Somehow, I can't think of guns and sex at the same time, in ANY while...
But then, I don't NEED a gun to have sex.
 @SeattleJoe  @DrOrpheus "What I clearly stated is that those idiots that think putting their head in the sand is a solution is completely moronic"
The same can be said of those who think that simply adding more guns is a solution.
If you see a stranger walking around openly carrying a firearm, how do you KNOW that they are they levelheaded, rational, watch your back individual you assume they are? Don't madmen carrying a weapon also look like Johny Be Good until they pull the trigger?
 @SeattleJoe  @DrOrpheus "Its because I'm talking gun safety"
Even for you that's a flimsy argument.
What good is teaching how to handle a gun safely if they never handle a gun? That's like trying to teach a blind person how to land an airplane, in a strong crosswind, with out ever getting into a cockpit..There is no standard gun, every one has differences as simple as how do you check to see if it is loaded - without doing something that fires it.
 @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus I figured you'd take the easy way out on that one. No, Im not equating sex and guns, just think about it for a while.
 @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus Complete BS. What I clearly stated is that those idiots that think putting their head in the sand is a solution is completely moronic. Its not a matter of whether they disagree with me its their moronic approach to danger.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @DrOrpheus "f they do not fire it, how will they understand recoil? If they don't handle it, how will they remember how to check to see if it is loaded or not, or the safety is set?"Â
Its because I'm talking gun safety not usage. Aside from gun function and even that to a degree, the videos are sufficient. Not the best option but sufficient given most gun safety for kids is don't touch, get an adult, etc. If people want their kids knowing more than the basic safety rules then they can get additional training at the parents leading.
 @SeattleJoe  @DrOrpheus "As for parents that don't want their kids around guns: I can't think of a bigger bunch of moronic idiots ever."
So...anyone who disagrees with your POV is an idiot?
So much for the hope of an honest discussion...
 @DrOrpheus "I didn't say mandate it, could be elective as per the parent's choice."
Then let the parents pay for it privately themselves. Why should I have to help them...?
And if you equate guns and sex, please don't own a gun.
 @SeattleJoe  @DrOrpheus "The kids don't have to use guns to be trained in gun safety. They can see guns, they can see videos etc but there is no need to "use them"."
Than let the parents show them the videos.
"Training" without handling is worse than no training at all.
If they do not fire it, how will they understand recoil? If they don't handle it, how will they remember how to check to see if it is loaded or not, or the safety is set?
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @DrOrpheus The kids don't have to use guns to be trained in gun safety. They can see guns, they can see videos etc but there is no need to "use them".Â
As for parents that don't want their kids around guns: I can't think of a bigger bunch of moronic idiots ever. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that guns don't exist is about as stupid as you can get. These people shouldn't be parents. They should be saying "How can I keep my kids safe?" and one of the best answers is "Teach the kids how to be safe.". Â The head in the sand approach just boggles the mind.
 @OrcasThunder I didn't say mandate it, could be elective as per the parent's choice. BUT, whilest we're on the subject, do you think it's a bad idea to have sex education in school? Wouldn't it be better to reasonably screen people before allowing them to have sex?
 @OrcasThunder Well said and Rational. A nice change from the fearful all-or-nothing rantings on this subject from both the pro-guns who feel the need to protect the NRA from pointy comments and seem afraid their guns will be confiscated and they'll have to face the big scary world without protection, and also from the knee-jerk anti-guns with delusional thinking that going back to throwing rocks will cure all ills. It's a start.
 @thinkNW "It's a start."
It could be...but it will take rational people to make it work.
 @OrcasThunder  True.  but let's not give up hope.