Opponents Protest in Face of NRA Silence on Sandy Hook Shooting

[HansTrappist]

I will submit to a ban on my guns and weapons (excluding my rosary) if Obama and his followers will submit to a ban on abortion. Oh, and the other stipulation in this deal is that before any domestic gun control would take place here, Obama must immediately begin disarming the Islamic extremists he has armed as part of the Arab “Spring.”

Until Obama bans the legal murder of children in this country (abortion) and until he disarms the al-Qaeda-infested “rebels” (some of the most violent, dangerous men in the world), beginning in Syria, he can’t be taken seriously on the issue of domestic gun control.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I will submit to a ban on my guns and weapons (excluding my rosary) if Obama and his followers will submit to a ban on abortion. Oh, and the other stipulation in this deal is that before any domestic gun control would take place here, Obama must immediately begin disarming the Islamic extremists he has armed as part of the Arab “Spring.”

Until Obama bans the legal murder of children in this country (abortion) and until he disarms the al-Qaeda-infested “rebels” (some of the most violent, dangerous men in the world), beginning in Syria, he can’t be taken seriously on the issue of domestic gun control.

That does not make gun controls unjust. I say gun controls, because I have yet to see a specific call for bans. Also, two separate issues. We shouldn’t hold one ‘hostage’ for the other. Take every little win we can and keep moving.

 

[mystagogia]

Folks, read this. It says that the police have no duty to protect you at all, unless you have developed a special relationship with them. As incredible as that seems, this is the law of the land (or rather, how the law is interpreted). You might be protected by the police, literally, should they deem that convenient or perhaps beneficial to THEM.

I hope folks who are adamantly opposed to all guns are starting to pay attention now. When you cede your protection onto others, you’ve put yourself at the mercy of others. Did you know beforehand that you had to have a special relationship with the police in order to receive full protection? Well, you do now. Let’s hope you maintain that, for your own sake.

Listen, the gun, far from being a barbaric force, is actually a civilizing force. That is why the right to bear arms ranks higher in Constitutional parlance than even the right to vote. In the course of human affairs, brute strength rules the day. The power of guns is a great equalizer. Guns make the weak strong, the old strong, the make the minority strong against the majority. In the world of the brute, sheer power rules the day. Guns are the very thing brutes fear most. Guns stand as a check on brute power.

If you have a gun in hand, they need to persuade you to go along with the program. If you don’t have a gun, no need exists to persuade you of anything. Terms can be, and will be, dictated to you. Wouldn’t you rather be persuaded than forced? Wouldn’t you rather have a civilized debate rather than a raft of orders?

If you are in favor of civilized debate, you will favor an armed citizenry.

That is why the second amendment is the second amendment.

It is a tonic against tyranny.

 

[HansTrappist]

That does not make gun controls unjust. I say gun controls, because I have yet to see a specific call for bans. Also, two separate issues. We shouldn’t hold one ‘hostage’ for the other. Take every little win we can and keep moving.

Not two separate issues.

We have a President calling for gun control due to the fact that 20 children were killed by a man with a gun.

Yet, on the same day that the 20 children were killed by a man with a gun, over 2,000 children were killed by abortion. Yet, there were no speeches given, no news conferences, no protests, and no calls to ban abortion.

The only logical conclusion is that the President and his followers are more interested in banning guns than they are serious about stopping the killing of children.

If saving children was the top priority, they would be spending all their resources and the power and prestige of the Presidency, to draw awareness to the killing of the 2,000 innocent children that occurs EVERY DAY.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

 

[Bogurodzica]

Not two separate issues.

We have a President calling for gun control due to the fact that 20 children were killed by a man with a gun.

Yet, on the same day that the 20 children were killed by a man with a gun, over 2,000 children were killed by abortion. Yet, there were no speeches given, no news conferences, no protests, and no calls to ban abortion.

The only logical conclusion is that the President and his followers are more interested in banning guns than they are serious about stopping the killing of children.

If saving children was the top priority, they would be spending all their resources and the power and prestige of the Presidency, to draw awareness to the killing of the 2,000 innocent children that occurs EVERY DAY.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

Well said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not two separate issues.

We have a President calling for gun control due to the fact that 20 children were killed by a man with a gun.

Yet, on the same day that the 20 children were killed by a man with a gun, over 2,000 children were killed by abortion. Yet, there were no speeches given, no news conferences, no protests, and no calls to ban abortion.

The only logical conclusion is that the President and his followers are more interested in banning guns than they are serious about stopping the killing of children.

If saving children was the top priority, they would be spending all their resources and the power and prestige of the Presidency, to draw awareness to the killing of the 2,000 innocent children that occurs EVERY DAY.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

I don’t know, it just seems the topic of the mass murder is being minimized by some gun right activists, who are not willing to see any controls in place, much less a ban of some weapons that mass murderers are attracted to. That also seems to be hypocritical. We could express our pro life stance more effectively, if we show ourselves pro life in all instances, from conception to natural death.

Also, I know there are several threads of the same topic, the moderator has posted a request on one of the threads that abortion be discussed on other threads, there are numerous, because this is a different topic.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Not two separate issues.

We have a President calling for gun control due to the fact that 20 children were killed by a man with a gun.

Yet, on the same day that the 20 children were killed by a man with a gun, over 2,000 children were killed by abortion. Yet, there were no speeches given, no news conferences, no protests, and no calls to ban abortion.

The only logical conclusion is that the President and his followers are more interested in banning guns than they are serious about stopping the killing of children.

If saving children was the top priority, they would be spending all their resources and the power and prestige of the Presidency, to draw awareness to the killing of the 2,000 innocent children that occurs EVERY DAY.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

I think it was nearly 4000 children that were aborted, not 2000

 

[SamH]

I don’t know, it just seems the topic of the mass murder is being minimized by some gun right activists, who are not willing to see any controls in place, much less a ban of some weapons that mass murderers are attracted to.

Why not change the place that they are attracted to? The Aurora, Colorado shooter drove by no fewer than three movie theatres to get to the one that banned CCW on its property - Why?

The Sandy Hook shooter went to the one place that he knew he would be safe and his victims would be defenseless - Why?

Perhaps you are not considering the real issue here.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know, it just seems the topic of the mass murder is being minimized by some gun right activists, who are not willing to see any controls in place, much less a ban of some weapons that mass murderers are attracted to. .

But very few mass murders have been done using assault weapons. So what exactly do you mean by 'mass murders are attracted to"

pistols and shotguns seem to be the real weapon of choice, but I haven’t heard of any calls for additional controls on those.

Is that what you are proposing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But very few mass murders have been done using assault weapons. So what exactly do you mean by 'mass murders are attracted to"

pistols and shotguns seem to be the real weapon of choice, but I haven’t heard of any calls for additional controls on those.

Is that what you are proposing.

The most recent shooters, that made the national news, used military replicas; the Gifford shooter, the theater shooter, the mall shooter, the school shooter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why not change the place that they are attracted to? The Aurora, Colorado shooter drove by no fewer than three movie theatres to get to the one that banned CCW on its property - Why?

The Sandy Hook shooter went to the one place that he knew he would be safe and his victims would be defenseless - Why?

Perhaps you are not considering the real issue here.

The real issue is the danger presented when a shooter picks a specific type weapon. Look at a major sporting event, or concert, and let’s allow concealed weapons. How many people could still die from an AR15 with multiple 30 round clips. They shoot about 45 per minute, and in an extremely congested area.

These guys aren’t afraid of getting killed, evident by the suicides afterwards.

 

[exnihilo]

Folks, read this. It says that the police have no duty to protect you at all, unless you have developed a special relationship with them. As incredible as that seems, this is the law of the land (or rather, how the law is interpreted). You might be protected by the police, literally, should they deem that convenient or perhaps beneficial to THEM.

This is a very important point that few seem to grasp. The police have no duty to protect the average citizen. About the only way to get protection is to be arrested. The politicians who will vote on this law have special police to protect them. The wealthy liberals in the media who advocate this probably have armed guards that protect them and certainly can afford to hire protection, which would actually be obligated to protect them. The average person is left with no tools for defense and no obligation by the police to protect them. When people say the police will protect you they don’t really understand the law.

Perhaps you are not considering the real issue here.

The real issue might also be the psychiatric drugs these mass shooters often are on. This seems especially important to consider since many of these drugs actually have the terrible side effect of inducing psychosis. The fact that this is not even considered by the politicians and the media is very troubling.

 

[gilliam]

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

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.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

---

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.
nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/12/important-statement-from-the-national-rifle-association.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

 

[styrgwillidar]

No but it remains wholly true, and wasn’t funny the first time either. The point is simple: several brave souls can rush a shooter who is in close distance like a classroom who has a shotgun. Someone will die, but then it ends. Same scenario only the shooter has an assault rifle, everyone dies.

Well, technical capabilities of weapon or individual aside (there are detachable magazine shotguns, both pump and semi-auto. Valtro PM5, RAAC ADKAL (sp?), Saiga-12…). All more devastating at close quarters than a .223 AR and as easily reloadable).

Why should they have to rush the kid at all? Why isn’t it possible for someone to be armed? Isn’t that a better plan and deterrent than depending on having unarmed folks rush someone with a weapon?

Police response to the Sandy Hook shooting, according to CNN was 20 minutes to arrive from receiving the first calls. Regardless of choice of firearm, a lot of damage can be done in 20 minutes.

The oregon mall shooter killed himself after being confronted by a CCW holder (who didn’t fire because of innocent folks behind the shooter). .

 

[SamH]

The real issue might also be the psychiatric drugs these mass shooters often are on. This seems especially important to consider since many of these drugs actually have the terrible side effect of inducing psychosis. The fact that this is not even considered by the politicians and the media is very troubling.

But it’s much easier to make the law abiding citizens bow to their wishes so they can slap each other on the back and say “Look what we did” even though they accomplished nothing.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Ok, what protection do you have to stop government forces if they decided to come inside your home?

A Marlin .35 today and in the next week or two a S&W M&P 40 or 9, depending which the wife handles better.

I haven’t decided on anything misclassified as an "assault rifle’ yet.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A Marlin .35 today and in the next week or two a S&W M&P 40 or 9, depending which the wife handles better.

I haven’t decided on anything misclassified as an "assault rifle’ yet.

Compare it to one tank shell…

Want a more fair scenario? 5 snipers and a crew with fully automatic ‘assault weapons’.

Now, a lot is being said about mental illness. Paranoia is a form of mental illness. Why do people think the government is going to raid their home and take their weapons? If the weapon is in your home, for protection, the government will more than likely never know you have it, if that weapon is kept secure from someone who has set their mind to make trouble.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Compare it to one tank shell…

Want a more fair scenario? 5 snipers and a crew with fully automatic ‘assault weapons’.

Why? Do you think the government will send in tanks?

Who’s paranoid?

 

[SamH]

Why? Do you think the government will send in tanks?

Who’s paranoid?

I have to wonder why people are so scared of law abiding gun owners.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to wonder why people are so scared of law abiding gun owners.

The public is afraid of your guns falling into the wrong hands, as was the case with this most recent shooting. The mother was a law abiding gun owner.