NRA Condemns Newtown Shooting in Statement

eatingdogfood December 19, 2012 at 01:40 pm

Too much common sense confuses liberals like Nyack Res.

Tommy DeVito December 19, 2012 at 02:11 pm

When you use the term "Assault rifle" you label yourself a moron. First off, gun-bans DO NOT DETOUR CRIME. Second, the worst school shootings were committed with 2 handguns and dynamite ya flippin moron. I'll give you a rifle with a 20 round clip. I'll take 2 Glocks with 2 xtra mags. Who's got more firepower now ? Besides 2 handguns are easier to carry than a rifle. Point is the type of firearm MEANS NOTHING. They're all assault weapons. You libs no nothing about guns ands its irritating. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.

B December 19, 2012 at 02:14 pm

The Obama Administration seeking to ban assault weapons after encouraging the illegal sale of more than 2000 of these guns to Mexican drug cartels via Operation Fast & Furious redefines the word ironic.

Blaue Vogel December 19, 2012 at 02:24 pm

That same hypocrite, who's the most pro abortion President in history, who also supports infanticide said: "if there is even one step we can take to save another child...then we surely have an obligation to try".
Over one million babies were murdered by guns this year in America. Oh, excuse me, I meant abortion.

mark December 19, 2012 at 02:32 pm

To those who favor no restrictions or nearly none on guns, what would you have to be convinced of to start to think maybe this stuff has gone to far and needs change? Is there anything that you could be shown. Dont repeat the bill of rights etc, we all know what it says. Even the NRA is shifting their stance because they know that standing firm will cost them everything.

mark December 19, 2012 at 02:35 pm

when i look at proposed fox lane school budgets i see too much stuff like fix the entrance, fix the 'stadium'.

John December 19, 2012 at 02:42 pm

Good ones, B and Blaue.

Walden Macnair December 19, 2012 at 03:59 pm

Isn't it time that the people realized that the NRA (No Responsible Adult) works for the gun manufacturers and couldn't give a hoot about your 2nd amendment rights, other than they will lose a very profitable market if assault weapons are banned.
Look at the history of what these patriotic Americans have fought. 1) Banning cop-killer bullets designed to pierce bullet resistant vests worn by our police officers. 2) Micro-stamping of ammunition to make bullets and casings traceable by law enforcement. 3) the Federal Assault Weapons ban which they were instrumental in allowing it to expire 4) Got firearms permitted in National Parks and Wildlife Areas. NRA does not represent us. The NRA has 4 million paid members and that just means it has 296 million Americans who are not. Now the NRA is pounding its chest because they're proud of their heroic stance of condemning the slaughter of children. If they were in the room with me, I'd b*tch slap them. Banning assault rifles is the right thing to do. They are designed for maximum destruction of soft tissue in a combat setting. There is no reason for a civilian to own one of these weapons. None!

GC December 19, 2012 at 04:13 pm

Since Nyack is so fond of trashing the freedoms our constitution affords us, I'll join in: Idiots like you really shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't grasp it's pointless to explain it to you. Better to just let you live in you simple little fantasy world.
As usual everyone is wasting their time wrapped up in debating the cure for symptom, and not focusing on the disease. But why not Nyack? It's so much easier that way, right? "Take away the guns! Problem solved!" "Hooray for me, now I can sleep well!" In the end you're only fooling yourself.

NorthCountyHound December 19, 2012 at 04:34 pm

I love how people who never held a weapon in their hands are suddenly experts on them. FYI it's rare that 2 states can agree on what constitutes an "assault weapon". Some states even consider a pistol grip shotgun to be an assault weapon despite the fact that most are 5 or six shell pumps. Making any mags with more than 10 rounds illegal is very easy to get around (simply removing a rivet that acts as a governor on the amount of rounds). Anyone predisposed to mass murder can get around this very easily. If people want to have a meaningful conversation about what to make illegal, first you would have to have the legislators and the gun manufacturers agree on the nomenclauture and categorization of weaponry. This is probably impossible given how little congress can agree on. Furthermore the gun business is a big business, lots of money and lots of jobs. In this economy not many congressman want to take the lead in eliminating jobs in their districts. I predict there will be alot of caterwauling and some irrelavant legislation will be passed that does absolutely nothing. It will take time during which pople will stockpile guns and ammo ayway that will be grandfathered and unaffected by the new laws.

NorthCountyHound December 19, 2012 at 04:39 pm

not every gun owner is a member of the NRA. Your 4mm members pales in comparison to the 300mm guns in priate hands. Most people who have weapons with large capacity magsa fear the collapse of society and /or the tyranny of government. Read history. It happens all the time. If you think it can't happen here, think again.

B December 19, 2012 at 05:09 pm

Walden the real problem here is that the mental health system is broken. There is no debate that a gun in the hands of a mentally incompetent individual is a very dangerous thing. This is true whether the gun is an "assault weapon" (in reality just a mean looking semi-automatic rifle), a shotgun, a bolt-action rifle or a handgun. If we are serious about the prevention of future massacres, we must first determine the best way to keep any potential weapon out of the hands of incompetent individuals. This will not be an easy task given the reticence of our society to abridge the rights of any citizen, even those that have exhibited incompetence and a propensity towards violence. The problem with the proposed banning of "assault rifles" will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future school massacre. As long as mental incompetents have access to firearms or knives or bomb-making materials, the risk of such a massacre will continue unfettered.

GC December 19, 2012 at 05:36 pm

Ok so let's say we ban and confiscate all weapons. What would have happened? As the facts come out it seems that this mad man targeted the children of that school specifically. Without a gun, what might have transpired? He still could have stalked abducted and brutally killed one of those poor children, even if it was with his bare hands. If you feel satisfied with a trade off of one child's life rather than 20 as acceptable, then you really are lacking and have some soul searching to do. Especially you, Nyack.

BG7 December 19, 2012 at 05:49 pm

The Constitution is amendable, thats what the amendments are Jenga. The framers realized it was an imperfect document, so they provided a means to change it, i.e. improve it. I presume you think you know better than them?
The 2nd amendment is one of the worst written parts, everyone can see that, whether one is in favor of guns or not. Its ambiguous and vague. It apparently says you can own and keep arms, but does not actually state that the arms themselves (ie the object as oopsed to the right of owning) cannot be regulated, it doesn't deinfe them either. Whether or not its wihtin or without a militia is not clear, the Sup. Ct has had to decide that. Frankly, its a mess. You think if Jefferson were here now he wouldn't want to make it more clear? The amendment could be repealed and replaced by one which permits each state to specify whether gun ownership is permissible. It could be amended to specify what the arms are (no-one thinks it includes hand grenades for example). The Sup. Ct. can rule to specify what arms are reasonably included in your uninfringeable right to own. If you think you've got the monopoly on the correct understanding - you haven't. That evolves, as the Sup. Ct decision have shown.

Tony B December 19, 2012 at 06:04 pm

When the constitution was written the semi-automatic weapons we have today were not available. To protect your home and family perhaps you have the need for a handgun or rifle, which is reasonable. That is your choice and right. However, the need for 20 - 30 round clips is not reasonable. Perhaps the limit to 6 or 10 rounds is acceptable to most gun owners and will reduce the carnage should someone go crazy again. We are not on a battle field and any real sportsman will not use a machine gun to take down his game. Be realistic and save lives.

NorthCountyHound December 19, 2012 at 06:53 pm

The Benghazi story is much bigger and more important than this and yet it gets no traction. This country is close to imploding. All we need is for the dollar to tank and inflation to soar. When that happens you will see why so many people have so many guns. They will be all that is left bewteen them and the looters and rapists.

Mr. Dobbs December 19, 2012 at 06:54 pm

"First off, gun-bans DO NOT DETOUR CRIME. " You mean -- DETER crime. Looks like somebody took a detour around high school English class.

Ann Fanizzi December 19, 2012 at 07:08 pm

If you look up the decision of 2008, the Supreme Court agreed that guns could be for self defense. The case involved a gentleman who lived in a crime-prone area of Wash. DC and believed he needed a gun to protect himself and his family. The decision did not extend the right to self-defense to assault weapons and ammo that resembled those used in war and those engaged in mass murder.

BG7 December 19, 2012 at 07:18 pm

"The Benghazi story is much bigger and more important than this "
Sorta just dismissed yourself as a reasonable person. Call your next witness counsel.

B December 19, 2012 at 07:20 pm

If I have a semi-automatic "assault weapon" rifle locked up in a virtually impenetrable safe and I have no children or family in my home, would you still want to confiscate this gun from me?

joshua tanner December 19, 2012 at 07:21 pm

"The Benghazi story is much bigger and more important than this and yet it gets no traction."
Obama once apologized for Koran burning in Afghanistan because he said the violent protests endnagered US troops (4 Americans had been killed in protests). Yet he lied about there being a protest over at Benghazi when in fact there was an Al Qaeda attack. Obama spend weeks riling people up over a video that nobody had really seem. Obama basically endangered people according to his own logic when he promoted a video as an excuse for an Al Qeada attack

GC December 19, 2012 at 07:39 pm

That's why you are part the problem in this country. You're blabbing "guns! guns! guns!" to selfishly satisfy your own conscience without regard to actually protecting children. If I truly believed that gun control was the answer, I'd be for it. But responsible adults: parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, have to recognize reality, which I've said before: you don't. You're distracting the conversation by talking about the means of violence, when there are those of us that want to solve the why. If you're not part of the solution Nyack, you're part of the problem. And if I did get to you, if I've managed to wake you up and make you think, I'm glad. You've needed a good dose of medicine.

Aidan December 19, 2012 at 08:12 pm

Well said, GC ... the issue isn't guns ... it's sick people. You cannot shield the world from them. This twisted whack-job had an agenda. Our agenda should be to spotlight these socio-paths BEFORE something like this occurs. But that'll require all sorts of now-muzzled folks to be blunt in their assessment all along the way. How likely is that? Not in this world of cushioned-speak and the everlasting rummage for the mystical "root cause".
This murderer is the product of a society that has declared war on reality. He grew up in a world that demanded that his oddness be accepted. He was aided and abetted by his parents, the schools, and even the medical community. Part of that inclusion nonsense insists that the vast majority MUST forage to find the value in everyone ... because everyone has value. Who made that slop up? Now the anti-gun folks demand that we all sign on to their Eden fantasy. No thanks. You cannot make this world over. It is what it is. Stop asking all of us to hoist our arms and surrender. Never thought I'd say this ... but I'm in the market for a gun. I protect the people I love. That's my job.

GC December 19, 2012 at 08:35 pm

Thank you Aidan, at least there are some folks left that give me hope for this country. As for you Nyack: good riddance.

NorthCountyHound December 19, 2012 at 08:59 pm

If you are so afraid of other peole having guns, wouldn't it be simpler to get some yourself and level the playing field instead of hoping that the cops show up before you are blown away. Why put your life in other people's hands? I know guys who carry w/o a permit and their rationale is that it's better to face the judge than the undertaker. Life is all we have. It's everyone's duty to protect their own and their loved ones. Laws don't stop crime. They simply create a more fertile killing ground for criminals to romp in. The people who will applaud gun control laws the most are the criminals bacause it's makes their jobs much easier.

BG7 December 19, 2012 at 09:00 pm

And if you don't restrict guns?
How many assault weapons will there be in the US in, say, 2022? How ever many extra tens of millions of guns in the hands of jo schmo sure as hell will make these kinds of events more likely, not less likely. Reasonable people, gun owners and gun shunners, see there is a middle ground that we need to get to, and the current status is not that place. Changes will happen.

BG7 December 19, 2012 at 09:07 pm

"The people who will applaud gun control laws the most are the criminals bacause it's makes their jobs much easier"
Remember this? Criminals. POLICE CHIEFS URGE SENATORS TO PASS BRADY BILL http://www.deseretnews.com/article/168155/POLICE-CHIEFS-URGE-SENATORS-TO-PASS-BRADY-BILL.html?pg=all

Chris Clement December 19, 2012 at 10:18 pm

And there's no constitutional protection against Internet trolls.

NorthCountyHound December 20, 2012 at 01:27 pm

you don't listen not me. Go thru the state laws and you will see that "assault weapon" has a different definition in many states. Are we supposed to use yours. The first step is to have agreement on the def between the states and the manufacturers. Only then can you have a federal law that covers what you want. I say ggod luck with that. Congress can't agree on anything. Why do you think they will agree on something as arcane as gun laws.

Nummy December 20, 2012 at 02:01 pm

172 comments of mass confusion, making it imposable to comprehend what if any have a valid point or points.