Four Years after Sandy Hook, the NRA Continues the Arming of America

by

by

Comments (7)

Comment Feed

"A third group organized by

"A third group organized by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pumped millions to back gun reform candidates."

So you can write that the NRA spent a record 38 million dollars on elections but when it comes to Bloomberg's efforts you go with a simple "pumped millions"? How about some honesty and fairness in your reporting... as in Bloomberg spent 65 million dollars on the 2016 election. Approaching TWICE as much as what the NRA spent.

Gdogs 103 days ago

LaPierre’s initial response

"LaPierre’s initial response to Sandy Hook shocked many people. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” he said, adding that if any adults at Sandy Hook had been armed, the children and educators might still be alive. His comments were described as “tone-deaf.”


Following the Sandy Hook mass shooting, the NRA recommended to have armed security in our nation's schools. At that time many politicians and the “press”, who were predisposed against firearms, dismissed this recommendation as extreme. Even though, in response to the Columbine High School shooting, then-President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress enacted a program called Cops in Schools. As a result, 23,000 public and private U.S. schools provide armed security for our children and many more are considering it as a result of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Inquisitor 104 days ago

He forgot to mention that her

He forgot to mention that her gun control platform is the primary reason Hillary Clinton lost the elections. Gun control advocates don't like to admit that. No gun owner that would like to keep their guns is going to vote for somebody that would like to take them away.

Jim Crawford 104 days ago

You are exactly right. I know

You are exactly right. I know many people, (who would prefer to remain anonymous), who voted for Trump, despite misgivings, just because they wanted to keep their guns.

Charlie Harper 104 days ago

Thank you for your commentary

Thank you for your commentary on the NRA and firearms in general. This is meant as a compliment . . . you're article is less biased against the NRA than many if not most articles published on mainstream media webpages. Your article has substance and objective information, which is not often the case with firearms related articles. I have become somewhat sympathetic to the NRA in recent years on many issues because of the anti-gun lobby's efforts in conjunction with the media. Many of my liberal leaning friends have as well (I'm a moderate who supported Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, and Clinton). The anti-gun lobby thinks their agenda is appealing to mainstream Americans, and I just don't think it is at all. At least the NRA appeals to my working class clients.

But I have always thought--well prior to Heller and law school--that the Second Amendment secures an individual liberty not connected with its militia clause--Heller simply established this. I have generally found the anti-gun lobby to be so profoundly out of touch with substance that they are worse than the NRA. While I don't own any firearms, I have researched the topic quite extensively. After Heller, I began to think what empirically tested policy prescription models and measures of gun safety and violence reduction yield significant results. I believe, and data supports, that a very limited and narrowly tailored strategy to achieve firearms related safety and a reduction in gun-related violence is ideal. This strategy does not limit firearms in anyway--no magazine ban, no assault weapon bans, etc. I believe the best policy is achieved by requiring a state, local, or national permit to purchase, own, and carry a firearm (carrying would require a more extensive check and training course). The issuance of such a permit is based on a fingerprint-based national, state, local background check along with a course of instruction on firearms safety, shooting instruction, and for those who want to carry, a course on carrying and the like. I would not have an issue with requiring minimum cognitive capacity such as scores on military entrance exams or a high school GED equiv. No state or local government could then limit a person of age, sound mind, no criminal record, who has completed adequate training from carrying via "good substantive cause" claims. This would be combined with heightened screening for gun dealers along with mandatory civil liability insurance approval to conduct sales and transfers (the insurance industry would reign in bad faith dealers in no time).

But neither the NRA nor gun control advocates would support this practical and tested approach. Why? Because the NRA is only happy with no restrictions and factions of the gun control lobby want a complete and total ban on the civilian ownership of firearms. Polarization prevents progress.

Ben 104 days ago

Connecticut had an “Assault

Connecticut had an “Assault Weapons” Ban and the 5th most positive gun control state ranking by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence when the mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook elementary school. According to the police report on the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting: Adam Lanza "was undoubtedly afflicted with mental health problems; yet despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms, he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies".

So, a mentally ill person, who was not adjudicated as potentially violent, murdered his mother, then took her firearms (including an AR-15 which was legally owned under Connecticut’s assault weapons ban), took those firearms to a local gun free school zone, broke into the school, murdered 26 people, then committed suicide. All of which are already against the law, but the only response was, and continues to be: “WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS!”.

Inquisitor 104 days ago

"LaPierre’s initial response

"LaPierre’s initial response to Sandy Hook shocked many people. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” he said . . ."


Regarding physical school security, following the Sandy Hook mass shooting, the NRA recommended to have armed security in our nation's schools. At that time many politicians and the “press”, who were predisposed against firearms, dismissed this recommendation as extreme. Even though, in response to the Columbine High School shooting, then-President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress enacted a program called Cops in Schools. As a result, 23,000 public and private U.S. schools provide armed security for our children and many more are considering it as a result of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Inquisitor 104 days ago

Support-The-Progressive_Dev_HouseAd
Built with Metro Publisher™