December 21, 2012

NRA on Sandy Hook: more guns!

NRA finally proposes solution to future School Shootings: More Guns.

Update: President Obama’s response: no Change to Gun Violence without our Support.

NRA calls for more guns in order to combat guns (npr.org)

The best thing about this unspeakable tragedy? For the first time, ordinary Americans, parents across this nation, are openly searching for commonsense solutions so that fewer such tragedies continue to occur.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner: “I’ve had a NRA rating of an ‘A’ but, you know, enough is enough…There should not be a Democrat or Republican position on this”

No one wants to get rid of guns—but commonsense controls on ammo, waiting periods, other regulations may help slow the flow of blood from this, by far, most gun-violent nation on earth.

The NRA’s big secret: Nobody is actually trying to take your guns (baltimoresun.com)


RA’s statement on Sandy Hook: put an armed officer in /every school in America/. (cnn.com)

“We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security,” LaPierre said, reading from a prepared statement.

In other news, every time gun control is talked about by the NRA lobby, gun sales go through the roof. Good job, NRA!

Friday’s event was billed as a news conference, but LaPierre only read a statement; he took no questions…During the 2012 election cycle, the NRA donated $719,596 to candidates. Republicans received $634,146 of that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis of federal campaign data. …Click here for the rest.

Bonus: The NRA’s Facebook Page Disappeared Right After The Newtown Massacre (businessinsider.com)


Bonus: reasonable conversation from a gun forum on Reddit:


My wager: We support background checks for all purchases.


I was under the impression that all firearm purchases were already subject to background checks? I bought a .223 rifle recently and was background checked.


Private sales don’t require them. Even if they did require it I don’t know how it would work. I’m not trained to spot a fake ID nor am I will ing to be liable for selling one to a person who gave me a fake ID.


Oh, I hadn’t though about private sales. Only way I can think of is to require a background check to legally transfer ownership to another person. Of course, this wouldn’t stop anyone from just selling people guns under the table.

EDIT for clarity: required background check online or at an authorized gun retailer followed by paperwork signing to transfer ownership or some such nonsense.


Had this, among many other, conversations today. It would be pretty easy for them to enact very strict penalties for individuals who sell firearms registered to them under the table to others without legally transferring the firearm. This would help close the “gun show loophole” that we’ve heard bitching about for years, and personally I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I wouldn’t sell any of the firearms registered to me to anyone without transferring the name.


It would be easy enough to give sporting goods stores the authority to transfer gun licenses after a background check. Hell, gun shows could even have license transfer booths so you could still purchase your gun at a show, get a quick background check, and walk out with everything legal and safe.


Exactly. I see zero problems with this and it can silence the opposition on a point that clearly is a big deal for them. I think many gun owners can agree that some changes can be made, just not an AWB that affects more law abiding citizens than criminals.


This is how it happens in CA right now. Honestly, considering that the 10-day waiting period is a pain in the ass anyway, it could be worse.

Read 6 Comments and Reply

Read 6 comments and reply

Top Contributors Latest

Elephant Journal  |  Contribution: 1,510,185