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…



Guest Voice
Sort by:   newest | oldest
sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago

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.

sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago
” 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… Read more »
sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago

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”.

JIM SATTERFIELD
Member
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago

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.

tidbits
Guest
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
Willwright
Guest
Willwright
3 years 9 months ago

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.

zephyr
Guest
zephyr
3 years 9 months ago

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.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago

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.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago
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,… Read more »
EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago
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”… Read more »
EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
tidbits
Guest
3 years 9 months ago

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

petew
Guest
petew
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
dduck
Guest
dduck
3 years 9 months ago

What tidbits said.

sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago

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.

sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago

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.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago

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.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago

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

sheknows
Guest
sheknows
3 years 9 months ago

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

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago
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… Read more »
EEllis
Guest
EEllis
3 years 9 months ago

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

wpDiscuz