.

After Newtown, NRA Ready to Make 'Meaningful Contributions'

Virginia-headquartered group issues statement about preventing future tragedies after shooting that killed 28, including the gunman, in Connecticut.

 

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?

Greg Coppes December 21, 2012 at 12:52 AM
DavethePragmatist 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?
Kevin Moore December 21, 2012 at 01:52 AM
Unfiltered Steve Simoneau 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.
Kevin Moore December 21, 2012 at 04:35 AM
Janet, have you ever purchased a firearm or filled out form 4473?
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:04 AM
Better reading, try the opinion piece from the L.A. TImes from the very conservative, Republican appointed judge who tried the Tucson shooter case - and comes out to say enough is enough. And Bob - DC v Heller is all about providing for one's self defense - since when are military style weapons needed for that? And why the irrational thinking that buyers of guns at gun shows should not have background checks. Come on Bob.
The Fool December 21, 2012 at 06:11 AM
Crikey, Greg. The main reason it was added was for armed self-defense against the government. Historically, no one has been able to withstand the superior firepower of the Fed. Government. The Civil War proved that. If we were truly being Constitutionalist about it, there should be no limits whatsoever. Every American should be entitled to defend themselves with the best available weapon, if their ultimate target is the Government. Accordingly, ownership of nuclear weapons is just reductio ad absurdum. But to dismiss it is also to dismiss the rationale to own guns, at least Constitutionally speaking. Let's face it, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has changed. It is indeed fair, after seeing, as Obama put it, the "price of freedom" to call BS on this question. As a parent I would feel safer if these things were outlawed and those kids would still be alive today. There is a lack of human empathy in dogmatic and theoretical arguments about our freedoms. The number of mass killings by gun just this year in the US, 7-8, depending on how you measure it, shows this. I am so tired of the 2nd Amendment absolutists placing principle higher than six year-olds. All amendments are limited by time, place, manner. I see no human reason why we can't and shouldn't do the same. The ability to dismiss mass violence on innocents for a legalistic point is sociopathic.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:15 AM
You fail to see that the vast majority of posters here, including myself, are not advocating for elimination of personal ownership of guns. We are advocating for personal and social responsibility. We are advocating for stopping the senseless and tragic events that happened last week. We are advocating for eliminating military weapons in the public's hands, we are advocating for background checks for EVERYONE including buyers at gun shows, we are advocating for no more willy nilly use of firearms. And by the way, the 1790s were a bit different than today - do you mistrust your standing army? Do you anticipate they will come to get you? Does everyone only use their firearm for self-defense? And which state do you want to talk about as far as the development of the language of the 2nd, for which the phrasing was changed during ratification.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:18 AM
Very selfish to say you don't want a ban on assault weapons because they are "fun". That is a tragic statement. It is not about "better punishment" it is about getting those needless weapons off the street. Punishment after the killing 20 is too late.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:22 AM
Why on earth should anyone in the public domain have an assault rifle. Senseless and tragic. Tell your logic to those families in Connecticut. Better yet, look at the faces of those taken and read your statement aloud. See if you feel anything differently.
G Man December 21, 2012 at 07:58 AM
Occasionally, people will say bad thing about others and those people feel so bad that they commit suicide because of the horrible things that were said about them. Should we repeal or modify the 1st amendment? 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
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:19 PM
Greg, as a teacher, you should be the first to rise up and say that we don't need military weapons in the hands of the public. This is NOT about taking away gun ownership, this is about being a responsible citizen and keeping our society peaceful and safe. This should not be about a Constitutional debate, this should be about preventing 6 year olds from facing a rapid fire rifle in their face. Come on Greg, be a real voice here.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Armed guards at every school? That is the NRA's response to help with stopping these senseless tragedies? SHAME on the NRA and its supporters. Guns against guns is NOT the answer. How about armed guards at every single public gathering spot? Day care centers, sporting arenas, the DMV, the grocery store. Where will it end. It is time for a REAL dialogue, it is time for gun owners to rise up and really develop a solid solution. The NRA is creating the United States of Somalia with such a tragic response to a tragic event. This is NOT ABOUT your right to owning gun. This is about our right to a peaceful and responsible society and allowing everyone a chance at a life without fear of gun violence on every corner.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:23 PM
Well said Ned.
DavethePragmatist December 21, 2012 at 06:29 PM
G-Man, "the people" are moving away from your stance. The younger generation will become the current leadership generation and will change this all together. Maybe you should move out of the 1790s and join the modern period. Our kids will not settle for senseless acts, for military weapons in the hands of the public. Come to the correct side of how history will be treating this event. Please stand up for the kids ahead of your right to own military arsenal.
Greg Coppes December 21, 2012 at 06:50 PM
DavethePragmatist 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.
Greg Coppes December 21, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Last I checked it is illegal to shot 6 year olds. Murder can carries the possibly of the death penalty. 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?
tony masi December 21, 2012 at 07:33 PM
I'm disappointed with the statement released today by the NRA's CEO. It did not address the concerns people have about the availability and prevalence of assualt weapons. The NRA had an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the discussion on how to decrease mass violence in our society, but failed dismally by sidestepping the issue at the forefront of most people's minds. Namely, how do we prevent assualt weapons from getting into the hands of the wrong people? 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?
Kevin Moore December 22, 2012 at 06:24 PM
I do not like Wayne LaPierre, the VP of the NRA. His hardliner stance has put off many gun owners like myself. That said, I did like what he did offer. Increased security at schools, look into the violence that media pushes out, and look into our lacking mental health services. 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.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Would you like to come over and confiscate mine, Regina?
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:26 AM
So are all mine Dbell, yet emotionally driven folks like Regina just don't understand the concept of self defense, the actual intent of the Second Amendment, nor the term "Never Again." They continue to either ignore or coddle those criminals as victims of society at large.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Janet, I have one of those "e-vil" rifles, and I intend to keep it handy, should it be needed as originally intended under the Second Amendment.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM
This National Rifle Association Patron Member agrees with you Belle. Pity the left could not do the same.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Dave, I AM the NRA, and it was NOT our fault. A deranged and evil criminal killed those children, as readily as those liberals who terminate their unborn children.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM
What would my answer be for you Dave, more fodder for denigration. You can go (you know what) yourself.
Mark Mathews December 23, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Good luck with that future armed criminal who takes you on, and the timely arrival of one of those gun owning friends of yours, doing the job of a citizen that you are too afraid to perform. I should think that you professing your ability to get a gun, loaded, in less than 5 minutes that you do not own should be an alert to the board editor, don't you think?
Doug Strickland December 28, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Can someone explain this: where there have been shooting incidents in concealed carry states, why haven't there been gun battles between armed citizens and the terrorist/shooter? Texas, Colorado, others permit one to "shoot back and defend". 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.
Steven Norwin December 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. For those of you who are afraid of guns then don't buy/own one. It's my God given right! For those of you who don't believe in God....That's your problem!
Thrasy Bulus December 28, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Seems like the "militia" is not being "well regulated" or we would not be having such problems with "the security of a free state."
Doug Strickland December 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Wow. Kevin just said something that I've never really considered before; there are a LOT of people that think there is going to be this big roundup/confiscation of guns. Like they are going to line everyone up and take them from their hands. 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.
Greg Coppes December 29, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Interesting, very good post. The court ruled that the "militia" means the "people" at a glance that means the people should be "well regulated". As to how that pertains to "the security of a free state" is now the question I can't answer. Looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks for the input.
Patricia King December 30, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Has your town or city had one of these school slaughters? Have you seen innocent little, sweet faces smiling at you from their headstones? On those five graves are candies, toys, sodas and other favorites of the dead child placed there by family and friends. These are the results of a horrible shooting of small Southeast Asian American primary kids and their teacher. Five were killed and 29 wounded and maimed just having lunch on their playground. Look up the Cleveland Elementary School murders in Stockton, CA in 1989. The same sort of killer, assault weapon, illegal purchase in OR. And suicide. That was 24 years ago next month. When will it ever end?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something