After days of silence, the National Rifle Association, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia has released a statement on the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn., saying it will make "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
In the release, the organization begins to explain its silence, saying: "Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting."
Critics called out the group in the days following the shooting: As citizens and legislators began to fall on either side of a debate about what, if at all, should be done about gun laws, many wondered why the group was absent from the conversation.
The organization released its statement Tuesday to the press.
The organization announced it will hold a press conference Friday in Washington, D.C.
More details on Friday's press conference will be released when timing is deemed "appropriate," according to the statement.
The statement comes after President Barack Obama said he wanted to tighten gun laws in light of last Friday's shootings.
On Northern California Patch pages, readers have debated the issue of gun control laws since the incident occurred.
Early Saturday morning, a Patch reader named Joellen wrote: "Gun control will only work for citizens that follow the rules & observe the laws. If people want to kill they will find a way to get an illegal gun. Just because you set gun control doesn't mean it will be obeyed by criminals."
Reader wolfone wrote: "We need gun control and licensing and high tax on Ammo. Also ban clips over 9 rounds & assault rifles. Gun shows need to be outlawed."
And Patch reader Mike wrote: "There are several millions of people in the USA who legally own firearms and offer up no threat to the safety of anyone. In the overwelming majority of cases where criminal acts are committed (even this one) the suspect is not in legal possession of the firearm. So, what people need to understand is that criminals and people with malicious intent do not care about the law (that is why we have the word OUTLAW), and it is unrealistic to believe that anyone will be able to create a "gun free society."
So what do you think? What should the NRA say at its press conference Friday?
I did read it and the opinions of the justices. The one that gives the most insight is the dissenting opinion. I have been to the seminars on the second amendment. Including the ones on the Heller case. You did however see your error in your interpretation of the second amendment as it pertains to personal ownership of guns. You being a self appointed expert on the second amendment. Can you tell me why it was even added to the constitution? Why was it deemed so important it was made a right?
I have no interest in knowing specifics of your resources. I was just pointing out if there is a firearm confiscation, your resource may vanish. FYI: If you borrow a handgun from a friend, you need a Handgun Safety Certificate. As for legally purchasing a firearm, there is a 10 day waiting period, so 5 minutes is out there. When there is a gun crime, I always want to know there the firearm was obtained from . This is important to me as I want to remove the source. Was it a strawman sale or from a burglary. So many commentators say, "Oh, you can get a handgun on any street corner." I think they are just repeating hearsay. As for hunting, I too think it is a more troublesome way to get meat, but the animals have a greater sporting chance of living than animals that are killed in a slaughter house. I know a lot hunters that think the meat has fewer chemicals in it than meat from cattle.
I want to personally thank Dave the pray for being able to decide who wins arguments before they are even done. Good job, dave! Regarding the 2nd amendment, who do you think "THE PEOPLE" are? Did the US need an amendment to declare the nation's right to have a militia? No, the people, are you and me. We have the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment isn't a self-defense amendment. Everyone inherently already has the right to self-defense. The 2nd amendment was added to allow the citizenry to fend off a tyrannical government, the likes of which our founding fathers had seen many of. The likes of which we have witnessed in OUR lifetimes as well. We have seen what happens when only criminals and government have guns (Mexico) and we have seen what happens when only government has guns (Cambodia). If the whack-a-doodle in CT stole his mom's car and drove it into a classroom of kids, would you be calling to have a "discussion" about locking up car keys or limitations on just who can own cars? BTW, I've never been able to purchase a gun without a background check and waiting period. Can you tell i can avoid all that? It would be so much easier. There's so much more to say but frankly, doing all this on a smart phone is tedious
You keep trying to change the debate. You stated the 2nd amendment didn't give individuals the right to keep and bare arms. You ask for an interpretation. I figured the Supreme court would do. Will you now acknowledge you were wrong on that "fact" Now once you admit to being wrong on that "fact". We can move on to rest of your "facts" Also just because you post something it doesn't make it a "fact".. Some of us post Facts you post opinions Nothing wrong with that. I realize you need to vent. Wouldn't want you to pick up a gun and do something stupid. Then blame me and the other lawful gun owners for it.
The law of the land is the US constitution. The supreme court rule in 2008 not 1770's That we the people have the right to bare arms and restricted the limitations that can be placed on that right.. Lets use your logic, First I ask you and Dave are you saying that the mass killings have increased over the past 40 to 50 years or longer?
And armed guards in every one of our schools is not the solution that will ease people's fears. It did not stop the killings at Columbine where the teenagers outgunned the initial law enforcement officers on the scene. Unfortunately, I'm thinking eventually we might just have to look at the uncomfortable question of how much reasonable firepower should we as citizens have the rights to possess?
I was sorry he didn't offer any changes on the "gun owner" side. Thinking about it, he is not about to offer changes and open up the organization to admission and lawsuits. It's a a political game. Hopefully, he will accept proposals coming from other sources. I have a list of changes that I will support, starting with closing the "gun show" loophole, which has been closed in California for a long time. People can still by firearms at gun shows. The same paperwork is filled out as buying from a deal and the waiting period is the same. The firearm is picked up from a licensed dealer after the waiting period.
Why haven't we heard about these gun carrying protectors coming to the aid of the innocent in malls, theaters, and other places where legal concealed guns are allowed? I'm being sincere, I am genuinely curious. Seems to me that statistically we should have seen at least ONE incidence of this.
Does anyone really think this would happen? I'm actually curious. Our government has trouble with DUI checkpoints, how on earth could we (so quickly) organize something so broad and complex? It just seems like one of those things they turn into fears to somehow influence us.
Looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks for the input.
When will it ever end?