NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any chance for national unity on U.S. gun violence appeared to wane a week after the Connecticut school massacre, as the powerful NRA gun rights lobby called on Friday for armed guards in every school and gun-control advocates vehemently rejected the proposal.

The solution offered by the National Rifle Association defied a push by President Barack Obama for new gun laws, such as bans on high-capacity magazines and certain semiautomatic rifles.

At a hotel near the White House, NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre said a debate among lawmakers would be long and ineffective, and that school children were better served by immediate action to send officers with firearms into schools.

LaPierre delivered an impassioned defense of the firearms that millions of Americans own, in a rare NRA news briefing after the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting in which a gunman killed his mother, and then 20 children and six adults at an elementary school.

"Why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?" LaPierre asked in comments twice interrupted by anti-NRA protesters whom guards forced from the room.

Speaking to about 200 reporters and editors but taking no questions, LaPierre dared politicians to oppose armed guards.

"Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's gun owners," he asked, "that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal?"

Proponents of gun control immediately rejected the idea, hardening battle lines in a social debate that divides Americans as much as abortion or same-sex marriage.

A brief NRA statement three days earlier in which the group said it wanted to contribute meaningfully to ways to prevent school massacres led to speculation that compromise might be possible, or that the NRA was too weak to defeat new legislation.

"The NRA's leadership had an opportunity to help unite the nation behind efforts to reduce gun violence and avert massacres like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School," said Democratic Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. She supports new limits on ammunition and firearms, and universal background checks for gun buyers.

WAITING FOR A COMPROMISE

Adam Winkler, author of "Gunfight," a history of U.S. gun rights, said he expected the NRA might yield on background checks. About 40 percent of gun purchasers are not checked, according to some estimates.

"The NRA missed a huge opportunity to move in the direction of compromise. Instead of offering a major contribution to the gun debate, which is what they promised, we got the same old tired clichés," said Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Monday showed the percentage of Americans favoring tough gun regulations rising 8 points after the Newtown shooting, to 50 percent.

Inside the NRA, though, attitudes might not change much.

"The anti-gun forces which are motivated by hysteria and a refusal to deal with the facts are going to be facing a counter-attack here that is going to be very, very effective," said Robert Brown, an NRA board member and the publisher of Soldier of Fortune, a military-focused magazine.

During the news conference, LaPierre laid out a plan for a "National School Shield" and said former U.S. congressman Asa Hutchinson from Arkansas would head up the NRA's effort to develop a model security program for schools.

The NRA is far and away America's most powerful gun organization and dwarves other groups with its lobbying efforts. In 2011, it spent $3.1 million lobbying lawmakers and federal agencies, while all gun-control groups combined spent $280,000, according to records the groups filed with Congress.

ECHOES OF COLUMBINE

Ken Blackwell, another NRA board member, said NRA leaders were discussing how to react to the Newtown shooting on the day it happened, helping LaPierre formulate a position.

"He and the team of lawyers around him are very bright and they understand the Constitution," said Blackwell, a Republican former state official in Ohio.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008 guarantees an individual right to own firearms, though it allows for some limits.

While LaPierre's proposal to arm schools came as a surprise to those who hoped for compromise, it is not new.

Former NRA president, the late actor Charlton Heston, made a similar proposal after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre near Denver that killed 12 students and one teacher.

"If there had been even one armed guard in the school, he could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps ended the whole thing instantly," Heston said in April 1999, according to The New York Times.

Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy who exchanged gunfire outside the school with one of the two teenage killers, according to a Jefferson County, Colorado, sheriff's office report. The deputy was unable to hit or stop the student, who was armed with a semiautomatic rifle, from entering the school, and the deputy stayed in a parking lot with police, the report said.

Protesters at the news briefing on Friday accused the NRA of being complicit in gun deaths.

"If teachers can stand up to gunmen, Congress can stand up to the NRA," said Medea Benjamin, co-director of the peace group Code Pink, who was escorted from the news conference.

NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns - Yahoo! News
 
I'm not particularly for or against more gun laws, I'm def against armed guards at schools. Most schools don't even have enough teachers!! This doesn't even happen often enough to be this huge problem that requires huge expenses like this. AND it is not focusing on the problem.

This sentence...."A man killed 20 children and 6 adults with blah blah blah" it doesn't matter what he killed them with okay. What he killed them with is not the problem. We are having a problem with people shooting people with guns, what should we do?? Get more guns!!! How does that quote go.....you can not solve problems with the same thinking that created created them. What is Grummer's siggy? Am I close?
 
Stupid NRA. Are they losing their minds?????

I think people should NOT own guns made to kill. Who needs to sell guns that can load 100 bullets in a minute? These guns should be for military use only, not for civilians.
 
About 40 percent of gun purchasers are not checked, according to some estimates.
What?

I thought the federal law required all buyers to be checked.

Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy who exchanged gunfire outside the school with one of the two teenage killers, according to a Jefferson County, Colorado, sheriff's office report. The deputy was unable to hit or stop the student, who was armed with a semiautomatic rifle, from entering the school, and the deputy stayed in a parking lot with police, the report said.
I clearly see that an armed guard wouldn't be helpful if the attacker has a semi-automatic (assault) weapon.
 
Stupid NRA. Are they losing their minds?????

I think people should NOT own guns made to kill. Who needs to sell guns that can load 100 bullets in a minute? These guns should be for military use only, not for civilians.

same thing with Porsche, Ferrari, etc. who needs to own a car that can go 200 mph? that's a lethal machine especially if you're drunk or distracted.
 

not really. it doesn't matter if a gun shoots 20 bullets a minute or 200. people still die anyway. sawed-off shotgun is illegal but it still happens. we're focusing on wrong thing. it's not the gun... it's the person.

you know what kills children the most? cars. so should we ban Porsche? BMW? Hummer? or do we focus on reckless/drunk drivers?
 
Stupid NRA. Are they losing their minds?????

I think people should NOT own guns made to kill. Who needs to sell guns that can load 100 bullets in a minute? These guns should be for military use only, not for civilians.
Yeah!

Please check this out. Why would someone own a military-style rifle? - CNN.com

Un-fucking-believable!

IMO, the 2nd Amendment was created at the time assault weapons were not available so those kinds of guns are not part of the 2nd Amendment. Period.
 
See my signature below.

"Grand Theft Auto IV: NRA Edition is available."
 
Yeah!

Please check this out. Why would someone own a military-style rifle? - CNN.com

Un-fucking-believable!

it's different. these rifles mentioned in the article is not the same as military rifles. that's why it said "military-style"

here's an example -

9jmyqg.jpg

10gh4co.jpg

2v83ble.png

24v4kya.jpg


these are 12-gauge shotguns. they're all basically nearly same thing... just that it looks different and there are a couple of different things such as longer barrel and ammo capacity but bottom line - all these shotguns shoot same shells - 12-gauge.

1st Pix - Tactical Model
2nd Pix - Regular Model, I think. typical home defense type
3rd Pix - Hunting Model
4th Pix - Regular Model - same as 2nd Pix

The assault rifle mentioned in the article uses .223... military-version uses 5.56 (plus full-auto capability). big differences.

IMO, the 2nd Amendment was created at the time assault weapons were not available so those kinds of guns are not part of the 2nd Amendment. Period.
no you missed the point. it does not matter what kind of weapon they had at that time when the Constitution was written. the whole point is allowing citizens to bear arms so that they can defend their home country against tyranny - both domestic and foreign. hence.... "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."

Once you strip away Amendment Two and limit it even further.... it's a very very slippery slope to Police State or worse.... and we citizens won't be able to defend ourselves and we would be at mercy at dictator just like any other countries.

Example - the law clearly stated that the American government is strictly forbidden from spying on American citizens.... and yet they did via Patriot Acts. You getting the picture now?
 
no you missed the point. it does not matter what kind of weapon they had at that time when the Constitution was written. the whole point is allowing citizens to bear arms so that they can defend their home country against tyranny - both domestic and foreign. hence.... "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."

Once you strip away Amendment Two and limit it even further.... it's a very very slippery slope to Police State or worse.... and we citizens won't be able to defend ourselves and we would be at mercy at dictator just like any other countries.

Example - the law clearly stated that the American government is strictly forbidden from spying on American citizens.... and yet they did via Patriot Acts. You getting the picture now?
What do assault weapons have to do with protection for citizens?
 
Bad example! Because they are not assault (military-style) weapons.

you missed the point. just because it LOOKS like a military weapon doesn't mean it FUNCTIONS like one.

bottom line - military-version is illegal to purchase. period. the rifles mentioned in the article is nothing like military-version.

I'll make it simpler for you to understand - can I buy Nascar car? obviously no cuz it's not street-legal. but can I make my car looks like a Nascar car? sure why not! (to a certain degree)

FYI - 3 shotguns from my previous post are currently used by both police officers and soldiers. exactly same. the only difference? different type of ammunition strictly available to LEO and military.
 
There you go!

I was referring to NRA's agenda. and I was being sarcastic.

It's not my official stance and I don't believe everybody should be armed because bunch of them are incompetent dumbass or incapable.
 
It is as tho' the arguing quickly becomes just one of caliber and the use of laser sights. It may soon drop down to how many guns to thrust into the hands of 2nd grade teachers. No doubt, some folks who make that argument are the same who would kick out the educators if they dared to join a union.

Yes, I've followed the threads on this forum but contributed no comments other than on the 1st, Newtown tread.

There is a very vocal gun-loving group on Alldeaf. Doing a search for something like "AK-47" is a little astounding. I imagine that any preceived risk of losing the chance to buy whatever is wanted at a gunshow (without background checks) would, at best, be met by arguments about people running stop signs, and such.
 
Back
Top