Skip to comments.Time for Congress to stand up to NRA
Posted on 12/22/2012 3:50:12 PM PST by Olog-hai
If Congress is going to make a meaningful attempt to reduce gun violence, it will have to stand up to the National Rifle Association. The NRAs cynical and insensitive response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre is motivated more by self-preservation than public safety.
President Barack Obama has provided a reasonable framework for beginning to tackle the complex nature of gun violence. It will require the courage of both Republicans and Democrats to ignore the NRA and put meaningful reforms in place that honor the 26 children and adults killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Apologies to all: Missing Emesis Alert.
Fools. It isn’t about the NRA. It is about self protection against criminals - official/authorized and otherwise.
Time for the people to stand up to Congress!
They always subliminally set the premise that more gun control would actually reduce violence.
Gun control as we know it is kinda like trying to solve drunken driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.
The NRA has nothing to do with gun control anyway. They just represent many people who own guns and join them.
Guns are protected by the 2nd. Amendment, and in order for Congress to do anything about that they will have to ignore the Constitution.
It isn’t a battle with the NRA as turds like this think, it is a battle for Freedom, the Constitution and Americans rights to bear arms.
An armed country is a free country, and unarmed country is a country of Government slaves. People like this will find that out if arms are ever banned.
The Tampa Bay Times is the new name (last year) of the St. Petersburg Times which is fondly referred to in this area as the “Sun Coast Pravda” although this is probably now an insult to Pravda. Reliably liberal tending to the far left of the political spectrum, it is owned by a foundation that cares little for truth (IMHO).
The NRA doesn’t provide rights to gun owners.
The Constitution does.
It doesn’t matter what the NRA or anti gun groups want.
The constitution is the law of the land.
How will any laws (new or old) make law breakers (criminals) to abide by the laws and give up their guns?
They are law-breakers....hellooooo....laws do not affect them.
The anti-gun people have never shown me how they propose to confiscate guns from criminals.
So it will be armed criminals versus disarmed law abiding citizens.
Time for Congress to stand up against the COnsitution.
What do these people think “reasonable” gun laws would look like? Connecticut already has “reasonable” laws, and that didn’t prevent the killings in Newtown. 6 year old girl killed in the Newtown shootings buried today in my Connecticut hometown, BTW.
Is there anything the politicians are talking about doing that would have prevented those killings? No. The only thing that might have prevented those deaths is exactly what the NRA is suggesting; armed guards or armed teachers.
Let Harry Reid pass a bill in the senate and see which democrats
vote for it. Remember, these Rats can’t even pass a budget.
Lets see who votes for gun control.
Olog-hai ~ :” Wow, how far left is that. Putting President Barack Obama and reasonable in the same sentence. “
The hypercrits in the White Hut saw no harm in providing automatic weapons to the Mexican Cartels.
The hypercrits in the White Hut saw no harm in providing shoulder fired rockets to the Mooselimbs .
And now they are going to tell us that we can’t defend ourselves ?
Look at history and see which countries became unarmed , and then see the pogroms , mass executions , and missing persons which followed (ie.:Armenia , Cambodia ,Germany, etc.) .
What are the odds the Tampa Bay Times wrote this article the night of the massacre?
Isn’t Pelosi packing heat wherever she goes? Let’s start with her gun.
Don’t want to link to it, but,
Lawrence O’Donnell: NRA’s LaPierre A “Lobbyist For Mass Murderers” (MSDNC host, The Last Words)
Gun owners = Mass Murderers, you see the Left ‘logic’?
>> meaningful reforms in place that honor the 26 children and adults killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School
Reforms that honor the murdered? Wouldn’t it be better to reform mental health care to prevent future massacres by overprescribed, misdiagnosed, and abandoned sociopaths?
How many Leftwing rags are discussing the broken family?
Go ahead reps and senators, self select for being voted out of office. Makes it easy.
I think the left may be making a serious mistake going after the NRA for no apparent reason. I just wish the GOP had the sense to counter attack and force a fight on our terms. It doesn’t have to be guns and may be better if its completely unrelated but important enough to drag them off off message.
I personally think right to work is a great fight to force them into at the state level. It certainly bruised them in Michigan. Two or more states doing it at once would send them round the bend.
“The NRA doesnt provide rights to gun owners.
The Constitution does.
It doesnt matter what the NRA or anti gun groups want.
The constitution is the law of the land.”
As far as I’m concerned, the Founders `AFFIRMEND’ our God given rights for the right of self defence and liberty/property. They did not give it to us. They could repeal the 2nd and it would not make any difference to me. I will follow God’s law and defend myself from those that wish take those things away.
Tampa Bay Times...
There is a reason why I never wanted a subscription to that rag. And they prove me right every day.
It is, unfortunately, the largest selling paper in the Tampa Bay area, and probably in the whole southeast. I’d rather get my “news” from the internet.
It is said, jokingly, that, if you read it on the internet it must be true. When it comes to the internet, I’d rather believe everything there than anything in the Tampa Bay Times.
What Congress? You mean this joke of a group of “representatives” we have on Capitol Hill now? Bwwwaaaaaah,,no one stands up to anything unless King Obama tells them to.
After that, we can demand that MS-13, the New Black Panthers, and every gangbanger in the ‘hood give up THEIRS!
If Congress is going to make a meaningful attempt to reduce gun violence, it will have to stand up to the National Education Association and the Brady Campaign. The Left’s cynical and insensitive response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre is motivated more by self-interest than public safety.
President Barack Obama has provided a rediculous framework for pretending to tackle the complex nature of gun violence. It will require the courage of both Republicans and Democrats to ignore the Administration and put meaningful measures in place that honor the 26 children and adults killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Thanks for adding some class to the joint
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Time for Congress to stand up to NRA, Olog-hai wrote:
Apologies to all: Missing Emesis Alert.
Emesis = vomiting
Hey Tampa Bay Times..FU!
The “outdoor editor” (a whining leftie turd) of my local paper put an anti-gun piece in yesterday’s paper. I sent emails to him calling him an idiot and to the editor cancelling my subscription and telling him why.
Interesting that this newspaper is advocating the confiscation of legally held property by people who have done nothing wrong. How fair is that?
The comments at the link rip the author apart.
Bwahahaha!!! The house can't stand up to gramma! Bwahahaha!
This is a ONE party system. It's the Republicrat Party. This is a futile effort.
That's right! To hell with LaPierre's "good idea." Who the hell wants another claque of Federally funded unionized goons with weapons and police powers over other people's children?
Deputize the teachers under the local sheriff, fire those unwilling or unable to complete the necessary training, and hire nonunion vets with combat experience to replace them.
Ol’ Barry Soetero stated that he would deal with it, upon his return, after the New Year.
The author of the piece is a crackpot.
“Eat the Rich (lynch the rich)”; “Eat the NRA (lynch the NRA).
Who is next? Will we even have historians around later to record this time of utter evil and madness?
President Obama wins another..
SCOTUS: Inalienable Rights Are Unconstitutional
Inalienable rights are religion.. only human rights granted by government are Constitutional.
This is ridiculous!
This isn’t about guns.
It’s about people.
People like Lanza who, in reality, should have been locked away for the public good.
Eric Holder, who was once quoted saying we have to Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,
I myself think the goverment was behind this whole Sandy Hook killing....I don’t trust any of them..and what way
to get the people behind them is to kill innocent little children!!
This is for the U.N. AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER... THE BUNCH OF ANTICHRISTS!!
The title should read Time for the people to stand up to the Goverment!!!
the goverment is for the people by the people and of the people!!! and if the people don’t like what the goverment is doin we have the right to change it!!! not for the goverment to change it!!!
Revoultion is the solution...and don’t you think the goverment hasn’t been thinking the people would stand up and rise against .
They are destroying the Constution.and they don’t care and no one in Congress is stopping them...we need 10 million people to surround d.c.and fight for our rights...
I prefer to couch the arguments in the only terms that many on the left understand; the emotional:
We use guns to protect our politicians.
We use guns to protect our movie stars.
We use guns to protect our rock starts.
We use guns to protect our banks.
We use guns to protect our bankers.
Aren't our children at least as important?
The left also wonders why we need an "assault weapon"; why when need so many guns; why we need high capacity magazines.
How much effectiveness should we be limited to when protecting our families and our children?
I’m using that anywhere I can.
“The NRAs cynical and insensitive response”
If you really want to hurt a lefty’s feelings, call him “insensitive.”
This calls for an insensitive shooting/hunting anecdote.
It’s a cold day during duck hunting season down in the bayou and Boudreaux and Thibodeaux are sitting in their flatboat with trusted houn’dog, `Boudain’ waiting for ducks.
Thibodaux turns around and notices Boudreaux reaching out his hand and sticking his index finger into Boudain’s rear-end, then pulling it out and calmly rubbing the finger across his lips.
Surprised and shocked, Thibodaux averted his eyes, couldn’t speak and thought to himself, “What in the worl’s he doin’?”
An hour went by and again Thibodaux notices Boudreaux reaching his index finger into the retriever’s bottom, pulling it out and rubbing it across his lips.
This time Thibodaux could not contain himself: “Boudreaux!” he says, “`ow come you done stick your finger in dat dog’s smelly sout’-end, den you pull it out and rub it cross your lips like dat?”
“Well”, Boudreaux responds, “you know I done got me dese really bad chapped lips, and dat’s the only thing that helps.”
“It helps? You mean it makes them better?” asks Thibodeaux
“Well, no.” answered Boudreaux, “But it keeps me from lickin’ ‘em.”
Tampa Bay Times - voice of the obamanation.
Looks like “Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals” are in full force against the NRA. We’ve seen them work like a charm on the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and others. Gee, what people ought to be ridiculing, like Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, etc.; they aren’t, and decent people they ARE ridiculing. Up is Down, Down is Up, Good is Bad, Bad is Good. It’s nutty.
The Facts about Mass Shootings - Its time to address mental health and gun-free zones.
National Review Online | December 16, 2012 | John Fund
A few things you wont hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that gun-free zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, dont work.
First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings. New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobsen have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement? asks Professor Jacobsen. I doubt it.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a helpless-victim zone, says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage, Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasnt the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks, Lott told me. A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.
Lott offers a final damning statistic: With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. Thats about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with shall issue laws.
Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a gun-free zone revert back to what critics would characterize as a wild, wild West status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.
In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns arent allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problem,s they face as they carry out their evil deeds.
The NRA may not be all things to all people, but it has its place, I think.
It is said that the NRA has at least four million members. Imagine the clout if it had 12 million in time for the next election.
There's not much I can do about this. I'm a Life Member. So is my wife. So is my daughter. So is my best friend.
Perhaps you could do something. It would be a shame if the liberals in their ignorance committed more infringements, not knowing that there are more than four million Americans who oppose destruction of the Second Amendment.
And well you might, sir! My poor pyloric sphincter nearly ruptured from the pressure peak .... I'm going to have to have a 500-psi artificial brass one installed next week!
This is the part that I brought up to a friend this evening (before I found your post):
"magical thinking behind gun-free zones"
I brought up that same thing today, because it is the problem with people who do not want to know about evil and war --- they want to deny what "good, and sometimes very rough men" have to do in order to protect people including the deniers.
The deniers of the statistics re mini-holocausts about which Dr. Lott keeps tabs, in addition to their denying what good people do nearly every day when they use a weapon to protect their family, their home and property, themselves or some other person(s), yet the deniers want to believe that "something must be done about it*" in order that "this never happens again.*" (*Ripped from the recent headlines.)
Yet, it does happen again.
What is really troubling them, is that they have a duty:
a) to pick up Arms and then fight against "the hood" / violent gang members / Islamic jihad, or
b) at least be in support of those of us who accept the greater burden of shouldering Arms.
Instead, the deniers believe that they can, by using magical thinking, strip others of the ability to fight, then *the deniers* themselves have an excuse: "Hey look! I cannot fight because I'm not carrying any _____!" ... and thereby be relieved of the responsiblities of standing up.
They *are* holocaust deniers.
We all wish that the last holocaust "would be the last," but history has proven that disarming responsible people has *never* made that so; to the contrary, disarming people has made them most often victims in larger numbers.
In the U.S.A., there are many 10's of millions of responsible people who are armed, and they do not commit any of the crimes for which they are unjustly accused with political charges uttered from socialists who are determined to define so many good people, as being criminals.