NRA Says “NO!” on More Gun Control



US lobby issues point-blank ‘no’ on gun control (via AFP)

The NRA, the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, ruled out any support Sunday for greater regulation of firearms or ammunition magazines after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said planned legislation…



Author: Guest Voice

Share This Post On

24 Comments

  1. That’s of course what the NRA wants everyone to do….nothing. According to the NRA , there simply is no way out of this except to keep arming our citizens and place armed guards everywhere. Then we will have the kind of country envisioned by the NRA. Then everytime there is a mass shooting..or just a rise in gun murders, the NRA will call for more armed guards and point out failings in our soon to be formed” public defense system”. IN fact….the NRA could TRAIN them. Now you’ve got a war…..and the NRA supports both sides …WOW…cool!.
    Apparently, not enough people see how genuinely insane they are.

  2. Umm he didn’t say no he said the current plan was bs. And since the current plan seems to be a warmed over version of an old law that everyone agrees had zero effect on violent crime then he is most likely right that it’s fair to call the idea that if we do the same thing this time getting a different result, “phony” and will not work.

  3. ” He didn’t say no, he said the current plan was BS”. Thats a no, even where HE comes from.

    There are some readers here who think exactly like most of the NRA. You cannot make them see beyond their own gunsights to the real world around them, anymore than you can make LaPierre realize that a heavily armed nation loaded with heavily armed guards is a very dangerous and depressing place for people to live, and it’s all because of GUNS!!!

    Let’s just look closely at the 2nd amendment. If they want the ” right to keep and bear arms,” then give them the arms of the time in which it was written….muskets!! There you go…..someone breaks in, you keep a loaded musket in the closet ready to go. You want to hunt a deer…do what our forefathers did…take a shot with a musket. collect all the other weapons , handguns etc…give the police and military exclusive use of advanced weaponry and keep citizens away from it.

  4. I guess I just do not understand how an ORGANIZATION that supports the use of deadly weapons, can tell the government in which it resides what the policy is. This government has MANY amendments to consider, not just the freaking second one!!
    The GOVERNMENT should be telling the organization, ” here…yes you have the right to arms…and here are your arms. PERIOD”.

  5. Does everyone agree that the previous ban was completely ineffective? Does everyone agree that a new one would inevitably fail to help? No.

    In 2011 the Washington Post didn’t agree.

    Brad Plumer points out some of the facts about it ignored by the NRA and most of the GOP.

    Then, of course, the judge who sentenced Jared Loughner doesn’t agree that an assault rifle ban is a bad idea.

    When discussing the idea it must be remembered that the previous law was full of loopholes. Any new law, if it hopes to be effective, needs to have no exceptions for any kind of weapon that meets the definitions based on magazine capacity, rate of fire, etc. There can be no exceptions for weapons manufactured before the effective date of the ban. Any weapons or magazines in inventory then must be surrendered to the authorities and the owners will be reimbursed at the rate of 1/2 the retail value as of the date the ban passed. In addition no law enforcement agency at any level will be allowed to resell weapons seized by law enforcement. Those weapons, whatever kind they are, must be destroyed. There’s some ideas I had to increase the effectiveness of any ban.

  6. Hi Jim, yes, Australia did the same thing and has been extremely successful. The NRA doesn’t want to admit those cause and effect statistics exist.
    If our legislators don’t stop the psychos from dictating gun policy in this nation, we need to start openly protesting and asking for recalls. Unlike Australia, they did not have a powerful lobby running their government. They just don’t think money is more important than lives.

  7. Jim is correct about one thing.

    First, it is no secret that I am on record as 1) supporting gun control but 2) acknowledging that the the prior “assault weapons ban” was not successful.

    As an aside, if you have to argue about whether it was effective or not depending on how you massage the statistics, it probably wasn’t very effective.

    The very necessary point that Jim makes is that the last “ban” didn’t outlaw all mega-magazines, it only outlawed new manufacture. Existing magazines, some 24,000,000 of them were grandfathered in as legal and allowed to continue to be sold on the used market…often at premium prices because of the ban on new manufacture. Lord knows how many more have been manufactured since the law sunsetted in 2004. You’ve got to outlaw them all to have an effect, and that includes having the ones already in private hands turned in. Feinstein’s legislation doesn’t do that. Once again it is “prospective only” in her own words.

    The NRA “solution” of armed guards and armed volunteers turning our schools into prison-like atmospheres rather than centers of learning, and propogating a police state mentality in what is supposed to be a free country, is even more noxious than a sounds-good-but-doesn’t-really-do-much piece of legislation. My view. The serious preference would/should be legislation with teeth that will have a real impact, the kind Jim suggests.

  8. The NRA position is not realistic and of doubtful effectiveness. Statistics prove in other countries with controls have much fewer deaths from guns. The evidence is clear, what’s needed is the political will to address the problem. With the still large tea party and other gun supporting elements in congress it is doubtful anything will change. Of course even reasonable reforms won’t eliminate the problem completely, I’d settle for progress in the right direction.

  9. Nothing will change, it’s all going to be theatre until people get seriously fed up. Of course we all managed to do just fine before the NRA got taken over by the kooks and high capacity semi-autos became the popular culture wet dream, but how do you turn the clock back? The lunatics have been running the asylum for quite awhile now.

  10. Does everyone agree that the previous ban was completely ineffective? Does everyone agree that a new one would inevitably fail to help? No.

    Look there are partisans on both sides that ignore reality. If you really think raising the prices on high cap mags was what gave a temp dip in mass shootings then there is not much else to say. And right now the new law has the same loopholes. If you are talking about a different law then maybe it might make a difference but then that is a different discussion.

  11. Let’s just look closely at the 2nd amendment. If they want the ” right to keep and bear arms,” then give them the arms of the time in which it was written….muskets!! There you go…..someone breaks in, you keep a loaded musket in the closet ready to go. You want to hunt a deer…do what our forefathers did…take a shot with a musket. collect all the other weapons , handguns etc…give the police and military exclusive use of advanced weaponry and keep citizens away from it.

    That’s as dumb as saying there is no freedom of speech on the internet, tv, or radio. I mean they didn’t have it then so…..

  12. The very necessary point that Jim makes is that the last “ban” didn’t outlaw all mega-magazines, it only outlawed new manufacture. Existing magazines, some 24,000,000 of them were grandfathered in as legal and allowed to continue to be sold on the used market…often at premium prices because of the ban on new manufacture. Lord knows how many more have been manufactured since the law sunsetted in 2004. You’ve got to outlaw them all to have an effect, and that includes having the ones already in private hands turned in. Feinstein’s legislation doesn’t do that. Once again it is “prospective only” in her own words.

    Something like a total ban on new sales would have to take place but to be effective you would almost have to make the ones in private hands illegal. First it would be a nightmare to enforce, make criminals of previously law abiding people, and have virtually no effect on violent crime. It may limit the toll on mass shootings but even that isn’t clear. It would certainly not be any kind of panacea regardless.

    The NRA “solution” of armed guards and armed volunteers turning our schools into prison-like atmospheres rather than centers of learning, and propogating a police state mentality in what is supposed to be a free country, is even more noxious than a sounds-good-but-doesn’t-really-do-much piece of legislation.

    I don’t get this line of argument. Mind you I think the idea of having a cop at every school sounds expensive and difficult to manage but far from impossible with some work. I don’t like the idea of volunteers or untrained people being in the schools at all. That being said we don’t need cops for the job a security officer in every school could help protect students and doesn’t need to be there to enforce other laws and policies allowing them to be less expensive than a police officer but effective in that limited role. The worry that adding a uniform to campus will suddenly turn the US into a police state beggars reality. Almost every school district have a police presence already and high schools tend to have officers assigned to campuses regularly. Kids see cops everywhere, why adding a few more is over the top is beyond me. Certainly doing so is far from guaranteed to stop these type of shootings, but it is possible it could help and certainly doesn’t make the schools less secure, not only against spree shooters but other things as well. Really lets ban things, make more laws, turn people into criminals, but adding security to schools is going to far towards a police state.

  13. Statistics prove in other countries with controls have much fewer deaths from guns. The evidence is clear,

    Not really and it’s not that clear. Since you were so vague it’s a little hard to truly break it down but in most cases the countries had lower gun deaths before gun control also so the figures don’t really “prove” anything. Heck we have a higher non firearm related homicide rate than many countries so pretending that banning guns will solve anything is questionable. I also question the way people focus on gun deaths and ignore overall deaths. Like it’s ok to have a higher suicide rate as long as it’s not with a gun.

  14. EEllis,

    We see things differently. I’m ok with that if you are.

    Merry Christmas and blessings to you and your family in this joyous season.

    tidbits

  15. Ellis,

    I believe it was you who tried to discredit studies pertaining to countries that already had gun control laws, which were showing diminishing rates of gun deaths because this rendered new statistics meaningless. You implied that because one figure follows another, this does not necessarily convey that it means anything.

    Isn’t it also true that we don’t know how much new controls may have actually helped, because we compare them to previous statistics? What I mean is, isn’t it possible that new regulations might take effect as soon as violent crimes using guns, starts to worsen, so we never get a clear understanding of how BAD they might have become, without added regulation? In this sense, what statistics truly mean may dispute everything! This would be particularly true of the 24,000,0000 “grandfathered” weapons available to people despite a ban of new ones in the market. If more of these people, begin to use guns while committing crimes, it would obviously increase the frequency of gun assaults and probably gun deaths, even though the new regulations might actually be preventing some criminals from using guns that otherwise would have allowed them to kill individuals or even perpetrate mass shootings. Possible? Probable? Baloney? I’m just saying there could be several hidden effects on gun homicide rates!

    There really ARE many studies that reveal that, lax gun laws only increase crime rates. You can find some of them if you consult Google, but the main thing to realize is that, whether gun crimes increase of decrease due to some known or unknown factors, we are still in the throws of a gun epidemic—experiencing more than 11,000 gun homicides each year and more than 30,000 deaths when including suicides and accidental shootings! To me this is not a minimal number, and, the fact that we also have a high homicide rate involving the use of other weapons than guns, is nothing to write home about—if anything, these extra homicides only prove that we live in an extremely violent society, that should be all the more careful about who it allows to have guns!

  16. What tidbits said.

  17. EE, I just have a few questions that no one has yet to answer. 1. Why do citizens NEED to have guns? 2. Why do citizens NEED to have semi-automatic weapons? 3. Why do citizens NEED to have greater than 5 round capacity clips?

    One restriction on answering. You cannot say ” because it is a right”. That does not express a NEED for these items.

    Maybe I am missing something here that a pro-gun person can explain as to the necessity for these items.

  18. EE…you can hardly compare a CONSTANT in our constitution such as Freedom of speech, with a VARIABLE like guns in our constitution such as “right to keep and bear arms”.
    Speech is still speech….words…harmless no matter the technology of their delivery.
    Arms….change with the times…harmful….deadly….moreso with the advance of technology.
    Remember: Our forefathers put an addendum in the constitution itself to “amend” these rights when necessary.

    Well….Thank heaven for their insight because it’s NECESSARY.

  19. EE, I just have a few questions that no one has yet to answer. 1. Why do citizens NEED to have guns? 2. Why do citizens NEED to have semi-automatic weapons? 3. Why do citizens NEED to have greater than 5 round capacity clips?

    Ummm, I don’t know that I’m the one to speak to what people “need” and I also don’t think that’s the question anymore than we asked why people “needed” to go faster than 55. I just got to say when you get down to it we don’t need much at all. I can effectively argue we don’t need most of out rights but that doesn’t make me in a hurry to give any of them up. I will say that citizens have a right to have firearms including semi-auto ones. If we have a right to firearms then anyone who is put in a self defense situation would have a need . I guess you might want to limit firearms only to those, but it’s a bit hard to ahead of time and only let those people have firearms. So to ensure that everyone who needs to have a gun has access then we have to preserve the right for those who just want it. Heck I think the point is you can’t know ahead of time if you do need anything. I have yet to hear of a mag limit that I believe would effect any real difference in crime or spree shootings without going to a length I don’t believe american would be willing to support, (ie a total ban with jail time for someone who simple didn’t clean out his garage well enough) and could cause more problems than it might prevent.

    Speech is still speech….words…harmless no matter the technology of their delivery.

    Toss me a softball why don’t you. “A bullet is still a bullet”….. And isn’t the pen mightier than the sword. Weren’t there riots set off by a clip on youtube didn’t a president blame an assassination on that clip. Harmless my ass.

  20. Oh and Tidbits, I’m fine with that it would be a boring world if we agreed on everything. Thanks and best wishes for you and yours.

  21. I was trying to say “know ahead of time” but somehow missed it. Just for those who were wondering

  22. Wow….the logic is astounding. But it explains alot.

  23. There really ARE many studies that reveal that, lax gun laws only increase crime rates

    Bad ones.For the most part what you see are interpretations of studies leaving out the massive amount of factors involved and just repeating isolated facts. Like there is more crime in areas with high handgun ownership rates. OK but that doesn’t mean the guns caused the crime it could be people bought guns because of crime. These type of studies show that both happen they are not robust enough to show a direct, or hell indirect, connection most of the time. I don’t mean just here in the US I mean universally. For the most part guns don’t seem to be directly connected with the amount of crime that occurs. Now there can be exceptions like if there are criminal organizations and there is an imbalance on gun possession it may increase crime and homicides, and there is some evidence that who owns the gun is more important that if there is a gun. For the most part what really happens is these studies are too close to call and defiantly not something to be used as pollicy.

    I believe it was you who tried to discredit studies

    But part of that is how you use the study. I don’t need for them to show a causal link you do. Basically these studies can often rule something out even if they can’t prove anything and depending on what that is it can be pertinent. An example the fact that violent crime went down everywhere that CHL were liberalized. Now tho some push this connection as saying that CHL have lowered crime I think that is a unproved statement. I can say that contrary to the massive bs pushed by gun control advocates there has been no increase in gun violence crime or homicides shown because of liberalizing chl’s. So you can say in Aus the gun ban didn’t increase crime because well crime it went down (mind you it had been going down for the 10 years before it was passed), you couldn’t say that the gun bad cause the decrease in crime.

  24. And just for a point of info guns are used legally in self defense over 2 million times a year in the US

Submit a Comment