NRA: Don't read this

Matt Westerhold
Dec 23, 2012

But most people cannot look away. They can only watch and grieve for those families, for those parents whose lives will never again be normal.

For now this tragedy is embedded in the American consciousness. For now. Perhaps the images of those beautiful children and courageous educators will stay embedded and we won't forget. And as a nation, maybe, just maybe, there will be forward movement that begins to address this persistent problem; this persistent debate.

The National Rifle Association weighed in on Friday, suggesting the solution to the epidemic of mass shootings should be addressed by placing armed guards at every school door. If it's a war you want, it's a war the NRA is willing to back.

The founding of the nation came from the end of a musket, and the fascination with weapons is natural and has grown. There is little need to regulate the very clear right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons. Yet there is still a need.

*Get the Sunday Register today at a newsstand near you or buy the e*Paper here for the rest of the column.

Most people would agree that private individuals should not be allowed to develop their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. By way of the NRA's logic in it's support of semi-automatic weapons and 60-round magazine ammunition, that's a violation of the Second Amendment.

Comments

Dr. Information

Bahaha....why is it liberals want to blame everyone but the shooter. I've yet to see one word from the liberal posters on here about how messed up this kid was and that he was to blame. They want to blame Hollywood, video games and guns. Take away semi auto rifles and one will just use handguns next time like the guy at VA Tech did. Take away handguns, they will use shotguns....and on and on and on.

Liberals = do not address the real problem, they just want to ban everything and "hope" it doesn't happen again. Liberal way = knee JERK reaction, more laws that do nothing but say the exact same thing as the laws we already have.

No proof or stats from anyone on the left on here, just OPINIONS.....Bahahaha....love it.

BTW, no gun laws will be changing.....the media isn't even talking about this stuff anymore. Two more weeks and its old news for 99.999999% of the nation.

Blowfish

The kid is dead. His divorced mother is dead. No one "directly" responsible to lash out against.

Contango

Another case of: When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.

Centauri

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/...
"A gun advocacy group in Ohio has offered free firearms training to teachers as a response to the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting earlier this month."

I feel that this is a good idea. Whether an intruder to the school uses a gun, knife or baseball bat, who will stop these intruders? Recall Columbine, Virginia Tech and other places where police came and hid behind trees. The police went in after the carnage was over. The idea of armed teachers and police school resource officers is a good idea.

Laws do not stop people from killing children and people in general. Our country is at war with Islamic terrorists. Does anybody remember the school shooting in Russia?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-...
"Russia school siege toll tops 350"

2cents

I have no problem with firearms training, you need to train to drive a car so a basic 12 hour CCW class to purchase or own a firearm is ok with me. The class is very informative. I have been shooting all my life and learned a number of good things from it as well as up to date with the laws involved. It would be nice to be able to take your picture ID to a gun store and be able to purchase without question. You are now responsible for that firearm!

The Big Dog's back

So you want a police state. Interesting.

Centauri

I don't want a police state. I have been fighting for years for American rights to freedom. The police state is already here in America. America has the most prisoners in the world that include political activists who are jailed for their free speech and criticism of judges and government officials. You have the internet. Use it to inform and educate yourself. Don't take the American news media as gospel and the complete truth. The government uses the news media to help silence, eliminate and imprison the people who are very vocal about their rights. The simpletons stand on the side lines silent or they post comments in agreement of the government taking the freedoms and rights of Americans away.

Read all about the police state in America. I have made it easy and provided some links. Do your research because there are thousands of internet sources that show the police state in action.

http://tinyurl.com/9687w7x
"It's Official the US is a Police State"

http://tinyurl.com/d4xdl8l
"Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous"

http://truth-out.org/news/item/1...
"The image that most people hold of a “police state” is a representation of extreme power dynamics, and repressive tactics to maintain them, at specific points of history. The current political climate in the United States is unique in many ways, and distinct from those eras. However, it shares core attributes that we generally associate with a “police state”:"

wiredmama222

Ok, I have read some of this with absolute abash, not seeing one word that made much sense when it came to the mentally ill laying their hands on a bushmaster at the second hand gun sales. What about those sales? Who is going to regulate those? Why does the NRA shy away from the discussions at hand about the sales of the secondary markets?

I have yet to see a MEANINGFUL discussion with one person from the NRA about that. There is no background check, not one really regulating them and yet you can buy the bushmasters and other semi automatic guns at these easily without anyone checking a single background.

So if the people and the government want them stopped, why is the NRA so fearful of taking a stand one way or the other. I call your attention to an interview given last night, Dec 26th, with the vice president of the NRA on "out front" who did not want to say one way or the other what position the NRA took on this matter.

Why is that? Personally, if these sellers are unable to do a viable background check on their buyers, they shouldn't be allowed to sell guns.

Dr. Information

@wired. If you read everything, then obviously you would have read where this kid that shot all these innocent school kids WAS turned down from buying a gun by a gun shop. So he stole from his mother. Guess what, the background check worked. So let me get this right...you and a handful of other posters want the NRA to be responsible for mental health checks before guns are sold? You want the NRA to be responsible for this kids theft of his moms guns?

If so, you need to back and support mental checks for driving a car. I see countless elderly people that shouldn't be driving each day. I see countless young people who arent ready to drive but are because they are 16.

As much as you say that some people shouldn't own a gun (which I somewhat agree with), I on the other hand say that there are many people that shouldn't get their drivers license and be in a 4 wheeled mass murdering machine. Some people shouldn't own chainsaws. Some people shouldn't own 4 wheelers...etc.

The NRA and gun shops can only do so much. They do a federal background check. If its clean or a person doesn't have anything on their record, they can buy a gun. What else do you liberals want? A year long mental evaluation (tax) on everyone interested in buying a gun? That wont happen. You can't force people to go see a shrink before buying a gun.

Gun responsibility, locking your guns up...etc is about the only thing you can do.
The NRA cannot be held responsible for gun theft. The NRA cannot be held responsible for a handful of idiots over the last 10 years that went on a mass murdering spree.

If you think the NRA is responsible, then GM should be responsible when a person steals a car and totals it into another car and kills someone. Or Ford should be responsible when someone drinks and drives and kills someone. Thats the comparison you people are trying to make.

sanduskysteve

Again an NRA supporter that refused to answer the question that was asked. I don't think that the NRA should be responsible for anything you mentioned - they are not a regulatory agency and have no responsibility as one. But what wiredmama asked was not mentioned or answered in a single work you posted. You only kept repeating a bunch of BS about cars and drivers. Stick to the questions asked. But again, I have asked repeatedly questions that are receiving no answers as well so I'm not suprised at the lack of concern for Wiredmama's question. I have the same question actually. And if you can't check a person's background, then don't sell them the gun - it's really pretty simple. Gun theft should be the responsibility of the gun owners and it will only happen if there is proper registration. If someone steals your car (since you like to do comparisons that way), and wrecks the car, unless you officially report it stolen, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. Guns need to be registered and there should also be a test fired round kept with that registration so they can have osmething to identify the owner almost immediately. If that owner did not transfer registration or report the gun as stolen, that owner weill be held expressly responsible for what happens with that gun. I don't see anything wrong with that either - what is your response to that idea? Tell me how that won't help with someone stealing an unprotected gun. There ARE really good ideas out there, but the NRA supporters are turning a blind eye to them and insisting it's the same as a car, knife, or bicycle. They are not the same.

Now, how about answering wiremama's question. NRA can't, and you won't either.

BW1's picture
BW1

There's a simple 2 part solution to second hand sales, that doesn't require any government coercion.

Part 1: Make the instant background check system accessible to anyone, not just FFL holders. Have a toll free number and a website, where a private seller can enter a prospective buyer's vital information, and get a yes or no response, plus a confirmation number that can be used to recall and verify the check.

Part 2: Pass a federal law indemnifying sellers who can produce a valid background check confirmation number, thus proving they took the same steps required of dealers, which are the prima-facie standard of prudent gun sales. No one is forced to do anything, so there's no concern about exceeding the government's enumerated powers. Performing a background check confers a valuable benefit, giving sellers an incentive to do it.

One of the gun rights supporters' objections to background checks is that records can be kept which are effectively a database of gun owners that could be used to facilitate future confiscation. This plan overcomes that objection, because anyone could call in a background check on anyone else, whether the person checked is buying a gun or not, making it possible to flood any database with the names of non-gun owners and nullifying any concerns about the government abusing the information. Plus, who wouldn't like to know if their new neighbor is a convicted felon, whether the neighbor owns a gun or not?

2cents

http://fox8.com/2012/12/27/gunma...

FOUR ROUNDS TO THE HEAD? Similar MO.

ORANGE VILLAGE, Ohio –The Orange Village Police Department identified the man accused of shooting a woman in a hotel parking lot as David Fields, 59, of Cleveland.

Fields will be charged with felonious assault and aggravated robbery among other charges.

He is on parole after serving 30 years in prison for aggravated murder and has been arrested in the past for offenses such as armed robbery, receiving stolen property and grand theft auto.

Multiple police departments responded to the Courtyard Marriott Hotel on Orange Place on Thursday morning, where Fields reportedly shot a woman in the parking lot.

vicariouslyAlive

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Remarks advocating illegal or violent actions.

BW1's picture
BW1

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

Mr Bean

Just two questions-----

• Would the World Trade Center still be standing had the pilots of those two planes confronted box-cutter-yielding terrorists with a firearm?

• Might any of the 20 Sandy Hook school children still be alive had the principal immediately pulled a pistol from her desk drawer and returned fire at the assailant?

BUD COHAN/Columbus Dispatch

John Harville

@Mr. Beanj... would the WTC still be standing if the flight training school had acted on suspicions because the students didn't want to learn how to land, only how to fly? And what wold pilots have done with guns? Discharge them? That would haved caused a crash... killing hundreds... and the attackers only regret would have been that they didn't fly into a building.
The principal should have had a gun lying loose in her drawer, not locked (no time to get the key), available to anyone who came into her office?

BW1's picture
BW1

" That would haved caused a crash."

Another one commenting from ignorance. Pilots can be armed now, and there are armed air marshals. Anyone with half a brain would surmise that there was a way to fire a weapon on a plane without causing a crash. Someone with two halves might even take a minute of googling to find out what that was, and that it's been known since long before 9/11.

But no, you just spout ignorant assumptions, just like all the others of your view.

John Harville

What is your reaction if I tell you I'm armed? Good night.

BW1's picture
BW1

No reaction at all. So you're armed. Are we supposed to freak out or something?

2cents

You never tell anyone you are armed, you use your firearm as required.

vicariouslyAlive

it's a no win situation for the NRA, so forcing an answer won't happen. with the way people twist words around, if they fully support the idea of putting a gun in the hands of everyone with a clean record and mental bill of health, later on down the line when someone snaps that was previously seen as healthy, as i mentioned above, the NRA will be held accountable for the proposition they made... so there's loss one.

loss two comes where if they advocate the use of guns the media will see it as a by proxy of they lack remorse for the people that die because of guns... which isn't true by any measure... i'm a gun owner and i pray for the people that think they're going to walk into my home and try to take them, but at the same time i am remorseful for the actions that other people make. im remorseful because some people don't value human life, im not angry at the tools used, that'd be ridiculous, tools don't use themselves... so how can you be mad at it? so that's loss two...

loss three would be if they say regulate guns.. which would be a complete about face on everything the NRA stands for, which is the right to bare arms... that's pretty easy to spot there...

the whole situation can be broken down easily... you're a kid and you're starving... you walk into the store and steal a loaf of bread... the cops arrest you for stealing... then the whole community jumps on the arresting officers back for arresting a child for breaking the law... so how does the officer defend himself in this situation? does he do his job and defend the law to it's finest letter and let the kid starve? or does he turn his back on the law to help the kid survive and end up losing his job? it's a no win situation when the media is involved, because the media sins things into a black and white mentality for the simple minded people to understand... and in most of the situations like abortion, welfare, and gun control... it's not as easy as the black and white answer that the simpletons are looking for... it's just not that easy even though some people think it should be...

so sanduskysteve, there's the sought after attention to wiredmama's irrational and unfair question, complete with an adequate and equal example. hope it helps.

Mr Bean

Mr Hartville: The idea that firing a weapon on a plane would cause a crash is rediculous in the extreme.---My questions were not guarantees, they merely offered opposing solutions, designed to make you THINK. Thinking that better results could not have been planned for, is also rediculous in the extreme.

Pages