The nation keeps learning more about the National Rifle Association. First came the bizarre, animated press conference at which its vice president, Wayne LaPierre, insisted that “good guys” be armed to protect themselves from bad guys with guns. Then, last Sunday, NRA president David Keene blithely vowed to block all progress on gun control in Congress, as if issuing orders to an army of robot congressmen. And now comes an NRA video calling President Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having Secret Service protection for his daughters while failing to embrace the NRA’s demand for armed guards in every school. It’s been a lesson that voters shouldn’t forget — about the extremism of the NRA’s gun advocacy; about the extent to which certain powerful lobbies have twisted feckless politicians around their fingers; and about how crass the NRA can be in attacking those who dare to defy it.
On Tuesday, Obama signed executive orders to tighten the federal background check system, beef up firearms tracing, and study gun violence through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As expected, he urged Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, require criminal background checks for all gun sales, and limit the sale of high-capacity clips. All are sensible measures that do little to disrupt any law-abiding person who wishes to buy a gun for hunting, collecting, target practice, or self-protection.
Comments
The NRA is one of the most malignant political entities that exist in this country, subsisting on brinkmanship and provoking paranoia amongst an ever growing extremist base.
THE most malignant entity in this country is the anti gun group. One is not paranoid when they are, in fact, out to get you. FBI statistics indicate that a person can "be got", rather brutally and permanently. Only a fool thinks they are living in Utopia. But the anti gun groups would like to disarm everyone and let the truly evil beat, club and stab decent human beings to death, with no means to protect themselves, other than their own fists, clubs and knives. Sounds to me like the anti gunners would like this to be more along the lines of the stone age.
@History: nuance, please. Gun safety is what we are talking about. The minute you take any reasonable provision for making us safer and equate it with an absolute ban, your arguments are obviously nonsensical. I personally like the idea that gun owners should be able to own any kind of gun they like, but that they'd have to carry liability insurance.
The NRA does not worry itself over public opinion polls. They concern themselves with appealing to an ever increasing, mentally unstable base of extremists and effective lobbying for gun manufacturers.
Do you have any stats on the "unstable base of extremists" the NRA has, or did that just sound really good to you? I suspect it was the latter, which makes it pure blather.
This comment has been removed.
At the founding of this nation some of the founding fathers expressed concern that we may not be able to maintain this republic that we might be incapable of self-rule. I am beginning to think that their concerns were indeed justified. Watching this gun regulations debate has shown a certain segment of the public that lacks any self control let alone a capacity for self-government. It has shown a portion of the public that seems incapable of rational discussion regarding some fairly simple laws to control certain actions that a minority of people might carry out.
While one may disagree with certain aspects of the proposals put forth, say banning military type weapons, there must surely be agreement on such things as background checks and insuring that the mentally ill don't obtain guns. Yet we hear nothing except a flat out refusal of all proposals. As a gun owner the NRA surely does not represent me in its philosophy or actions. What we seem to have here is an organization that represents a certain segment of the society that supports no attempts to pass the laws that regulate certain actions in order to maintain a civil society.
In other words these folks are anarchists at best or nuts at worse.
Attaturk, I would agree with your points, however. The politicians talk reasonable, but when they actually propose legislation, it becomes anything but reasonable. In the case of Pres. Obama, I can go along with most of what he is proposing, not all. But at a state level? If you have been following NY and MA, things are out of control. Three words: poorly crafted law. Explanation: 7 round limit passed on magazines in NY, proposed in MA. No mention of caliber, no mention of type of weapon, rifle or pistol. Therefore, the magazine limit applies to all types of firearms, rifles and pistols, all calibers. Many .22 caliber rifles used for target shooting, squirrel hunting, plinking are 10 round magazines with no 7 round magazines available. Same can be said for some of the most popular .22 target pistols used for competition. I won't belabor my point, I am sure you get it.
This type of action is why the NRA does not want to give any ground whatsoever. If you notice, the politicians like to say "We are sure gun owners, hunters, etc can agree...blah, blah, blah" then they pass legislation as I outlined above. The NRA cannot agree with a politician and then have them say "The NRA agrees...blah,blah, blah" and pass that type of stupid legislation.
In other words, politicians are not people that should be trusted, EVER.
@History: if consumers demand smaller magazines, because their larger ones are illegal, the gun producers will step up and happily sell them to you.
The NRA came out and said we need to put armed guards in our schools, shame on them. Barbara Boxer came out and said we need to put armed guards in schools, she got a pat on the back.
It's too bad that that is not what happened.
I dunno, I saw it happen. Right in front of me. On my great big honking 55 inch screen. Someone in denial here?
Yes, yes, the proposed legislation is sooo reasonable. Meanwhile, Cuomo subverts the democratic process in NY by ramroding a bill through without virtually no public discussion. Patrick decides he needs to one up Cuomo and starts to add to our already confusing, twisted gun laws that even a Harvard law professor cannot comprehend. They both tout that their legislation is reasonable. So does Obama. But now, four .22 caliber firearms that my wife and I use for target shooting will be rendered illegal. Weapons of these types have never been used in mass shootings, are not used by gang bangers, and are typically laughed at by criminals.
Both governors are now happy to dump what they, and some of you, consider to be very dangerous items, high capacity magazines, on other states. They will sleep soundly knowing that children in other states have been put in peril (according to their logic concerning magazines) by their legislative actions. You wonder why the rest of the country thinks MA, NY, et al are places to be shunned, derided, and scorned?
So it is not really "for the children", is it? Oh, maybe only the children of NY and MA. Just like only the elitists have armed guards for their children.
As gun owners, we like the NRA, they are just as radical as the governors of NY and MA, we like the balance.
Actually under the proposed legislation and the legislation in NY your weapons are not illegal. They merely may not be sold or transferred. As a gun owner myself I have no real problem with the President's proposed legislation. I don't keep up with Mass proposal as I don't live there any longer.
Attaturk, you quibble, the magazines that came with my target weapons do not have 5 or 7 round magazines available. The magazines are part of the weapon as far as I am concerned. If the magazine is illegal, it renders the weapon worthless. Splitting hairs is a waste of time.
But you do bring up a good point. This is exactly what the authors of this type of legislation intended. Remember, the original statement of ALL of these pols is to prevent future Sandy Hooks. But the effect of this legislation will render huge numbers of rifles and pistols that are not even close to being "military style weapons" useless.
See how this quickly became an overal gun ban? Do you understand now why the NRA does not like to give an inch?
Hopefully all the parents, grandparents and those responsible for the care of our precious children will put more pressure on their Congressperson to pass the necessary gun control measures. The NRA stances are extreme and self serving.
The operative word in your comment is "neccasary". If you were familiar with the MA gun laws, you would find them to be bizarre and virtually incomprehensible. Even lawyers have difficulty understanding them, moreover, they will tell a person that interpretation is pretty much like spinning the roulette wheel. Now we have Patrick trying to just modify them with additions, deletions, corrections, etc. In the process, what he is attempting is a first stage backdoor weapons ban via the magazine. It does not matter to him and his cronies that they are effectively banning target rifles/pistols that are not used in mass murders, drive by shootings, etc. It does not matter that the law he proposes will effectively ban many home defense weapons (pistols which have a magazine cap over 7 rounds). In fact, that is his intent.
AttaTurk: The 7 round mag limit was not just arbitrary, it was carefully conceived. It avoided annoying the hunters (which also allows the states to reap all the revenue that brings in) and also effectively renders many weapons (both rifles and pistols) worthless. You stated that you thought manufacturers would manufacture 7 round magazines. Probably not, what we are experiencing is a NorthEast phenomenon, the market probably isn't big enough to make it attractive enough. Many manufacturers already ignore these markets with their additional regulations by just not bothering to sell here.
Like you, I do not have a problem with most of what Obama would like to do. I am really curious as to what will be learned about the effect of games and possibly movies on these occurences.
Another note, like you, I was not all that enamored of the M16 from my early experiences with it either. My leanings were always towards good old wood and steel hunting rifles. But recently I fired a modern AR15. I was quite pleased with the improvements. Also, I am not sold on the idea of needing a ten round magazine that holds centerfire rifle ammunition. But then, there are those that want to use the AR15 for home defense. That still does not sound like a good idea to me, given the velocity of the bullet, and the thin walls in a house. But that is what I meant by poorly crafted laws, in the pols rush to make a name for themselves, they are busily writing laws that make no sense and will have no effect on the problems they are trying to solve.
The pro-gun movement believes that people need to own guns so that they can prevent the government from taking away their guns. Think about that for a moment. When some of these radical right-wing ideologues start ranting about the 2nd amendment, whining and crying that people should be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, they are traitors committing an act of sedition. It is highly dubious that at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, these founding fathers thought even for a moment that the “security of a free state” meant that citizens would ever have a need to protect themselves from their own government! They had just gone through the war of independence from Britain, and were articulating the need for citizen soldiers to be able to arm themselves and defend themselves from foreign powers. For these modern day antigovernment militias to promote this ridiculous fantasy that the United States government might become a tyranny against its own people is sheer demagoguery of the worst kind. The response to this stupidity is to laugh in the face of such nonsense, and to hold it up to ridicule. The catch-22 is that if the government were to arrest these traitors and bring them to justice, it would appear to confirm their worst fears. This preposterous nonsense is so absurd that one is hard-pressed to understand why they insist on maintaining this paranoid myth. Just follow the money. The NRA, GOA and the pro-gun forces are financed by-guess who?- the gun manufacturers, of course.
It is unfortunate that you did not do some research before making your post. There are many documents, quotes, and the Federalist Papers contain writings that indicate the founding fathers were very much concerned with the idea that people should be armed to prevent a tyrannical government.
“A free people ought...to be armed”
― George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
― Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
So, it would seem that you are in error?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Do you think those feckless politicians would be so intimidated by the NRA if they didn't have to worry about getting re-elected? The solution is term limits.
Wouldn't that solve a whole host of problems! I am all for it. I am also for stopping campaign contributions. Set up some method where a candidate gets enough signatures, then is given the same amount of money as all the other candidates to run on.
How is the NRA pointing out that President's Obama's children are protected by armed security more inappropriate than President Obama surrounding himself with chldren while promoting his gun control policy?
This comment has been removed.
24 year olds are children now? BTW, when I was a 17 year old child, I was in the military. Next caller.
Nothing Obama had Biden come up with for recommendations would have stopped the tragedy from happening in Newtowne. The NRA is being taken out of context and everything they say has the liberal media putting a spin on it. The NRA is alive and well to protect the right to bear arms. The government doesn't even know how to define an assault rifle. To most of us in the know, an assault rifle has an automatic setting much like the M-16 the military uses as their primary combat weapon. The rifles that Obama and others want to ban fire semi-automatic and should not be classified as an assault weapon. If you don't like guns then don't buy one. Don't infringe on my right to own an AR-15 or similar weapon. Over 10,000 people died last year in alcohol related car accidents. So, I guess we should ban all alcohol and go back to prohibition and ban all vehicles and go back to horse and buggy.
This comment has been removed.
"History" Like you I agree the comments section is there for folks to comment. So as far as I'm concerned as long as the comments are "civil" which yours are, comment away. As to the issues you raise. We are probably not far apart on the gun reg. issue. I see no need for AR munitions being available to the public, yet I recognize some very legititimate folks like to have the possiblity of collecting or using them. You make a good point regarding NY and Mass. in terms of mags which is a pretty solid reason why these regs should be national and not state.
Again I do not see the NRA serving gun owners like yourself and myself well if they simply refuse to sit down and help write legislation that is beneficial to national safety and to gun owners. I find it beyond the pale that they won't discuss background checks, reasonable mag limits and what I believe to be most important munitions. To me their current position in the long run will do more to damage gun rights than anything any President will do.
AttaTurk, thank you for your comments. We are definitely not far apart on the gun reg issues. You have mentioned munitions before? I do question whether a .223 that is typically sold to the public is the same as 5.56 (.223) used by military, but more importantly, does it actually cause more damage than rounds like .300, 30-06, .270 with bullets that have been carefully designed for maximum expansion and killing effect on large game animals that weigh 2000 lbs.
I wholeheartedly agree that these regs should be taken out of the hands of the states. States like NY and MA are actually creating black markets by passing regs that are "tougher" than neighboring states, then complaining that the neighboring states are the problem. It is also apparent that states like NY give short shrift to the democratic process which we witnessed earlier this week when no public discussion was allowed before the impending legislation was voted on.
The NRA has become more and more intransigent as the anti gun groups have made various end runs around our democratic processes. I was not fully aware of how bad the situation had become until moving to MA and seeing what had occured here. Who started it? It does not matter in my opinion.
"At least 30 people were arrested today as part of a crackdown on two feuding street gangs - centered in Dorchester - believed to be responsible for a number of shootings and murders in Boston in recent years, officials said." Right out of today's glossy Globe! I'm not 100% sure but pretty damn sure that their local police chief didn't approve any of their requests for a gun license. Oh, that's right none of them applied but we need stronger gun laws for people like me and some of my friends below. Good luck when crackhead Sh'atequa and his pals rob your store with Uzi's and all you have is a 7 shot rim fire .22 because that's all the Government will let you have.
This comment has been removed.
Uh, if he attacks your store with an Uzi I'd suggest giving him the money. Where do all these John Wayne types come from.
"lesvalseuses" While "History" and I often disagree I have to partially defend him on the age thing. I went into the Army at age 17 back then it was sometimes suggested to young men of my inner city upbringing that it was our best choice. I took it. I landed in Viet Nam on my 18th birthday because you had to be 18 to be in a combat zone. So his allegation is probably quite accurate and he is not painting some tough guy picture.
This comment has been removed.
Lesval: let me assure you that there is nothing "hard core" or "tough guy" about an 18 year old when he finds himself standing in a combat zone and the reality sinks in. To give you a better picture, I graduated HS at 17, at that time, if you did not go on to college, your chances of being drafted were about 100%. By enlisting, I had the opportunity to control my own destiny to a very tiny extent. As AttaTurk explained, one had to be 18 to be in a combat zone, like him, I found myself in Vietnam when I was 18. I am not sure what I "smell" on you.
This comment has been removed.
Why do you think someone needs to be afraid to "need" a gun? That seems to be your theme. There is a difference between an obsession and an interest, obviously you are obsessed, because it is apparent you have started to stalk me. I would appreciate if you stuck to discussing the issues rather than trying to make this a personal discussion.
This comment has been removed.
To comment about this article: a phrase referring to an army of robot congressmen was used. Isn't that what the legislature could be called over in NY, an army of robots? They did not even entertain any public debate, they just fell in line and voted the way Cuomo wanted.
The whole issue about armed guards in schools has become ludicrous. Obama made himself and family a target by inviting children to his press conference, using them as props. But more importantly, the media crucified LaPierre for his suggestion (not demand) to put armed guards in schools. But lo and behold, that is exactly what is happening in many school districts. Indeed, one district in PA accelerated their plans, with over 800 families involved, only 1 family dissented. So in reality, it is ALL theater, theater by the NRA, theater by the President.
Reinstate an AWB, much tougher than the last? That is because the last one did not work at all! What is not said is that it does not just address Assault Weapons. It is Dianne Feinsteins laundry list of over 900 guns she wants banned, the anti gun lobby is trying to roll the public. That is why this is given little chance to suceed in the Congress, the NRA is going to make sure that congressmen know what is IN that bill, not just the "feel good" the President is feeding the media and public.
If I had to do this, I would not put all this stuff together in a big "one size fits all" bill. Each item should be floated separately so that it can be voted on, that would allow gun owners to get behind all of the stuff that makes sense.
Certainly the Globe would never advocate an extreme position on any issue on any subject. Everyone of their editorials have been fair and balanced. Telling people both sides of the story without their own personal bias...... Hello pot, kettle calling!!! Obama has a backdrop of little children as he signs. Carvel said it best, never waste an opportunity to exploit a tragedy!!!
LesVal: I am here to discuss issues. Where you get the idea that you are here to interogate people who comment is beyond me, it has grown tiresome.
This comment has been removed.
Time to ignore the troll.
As I have pointed out I am a gun owner. I do not see anything in these proposals that threaten my gun rights. Even if one were to ban so called "assault weapons" it has no effect upon the weapons that I own. To ban those particular weapons is not to deny me a "right", the right still exists. What it does do is limit my options of purchase. But I am limited in my options of purchase with a great many things. I can't drive certain vehicles upon the road. I cannot buy or sell certain drugs. There are many limitations to "rights" without the elimination of those rights.
I fully understand the concerns of some regardng mag limitations or weapons limitations. However, limitations are not the elimination of rights. No more than limiting the degree of "speech" has limited free speech. Frankly there are those who honestly fear some vague slippery slope and others who are frankly just over the edge. It is at such times as those that those of us of a moderate position need to take the lead and find some common ground. This country has to many absolutists and to few rational people for its own good.
The governor of CT has proposed to limit gun to single shot. How are you with that? You still have your "right" to own a gun, but it would only be a single shot if you lived in CT. I believe this is the "slippery slope" you mentioned. Would this governor be one who is "over the edge" on the other side of the mountain?
As I have pointed out that is why I think the regs should be established on a national level, not the state level. I would say that the Ct. governor is overreacting, but I do understand that the feelings in that state would run higher. But on a purely technical ground yes indeed you would still have your "right". Now proposed at this moment that type of legislation might pass in Ct. because of the emotions involved. Yet, wouldn't the odds of something like that even being proposed be far less if the NRA sat down and explained or developed legislation that could meet the needs of the state. To me that is the problem with the NRA they add nothing constructive. That is the problem with the Obama haters and the 'no" compromise folks on either side, they offer nothing constructive.
BRAVO! I wholeheartedly agree that the NRA's posture in the wake of this recent tragedy is not only distastefull but conerning in that they are responding with cheap jingoism to a serious societal problem.
I am not so sure Jingoism is a good word to use here, but I understand your intent. I would not be "concerned" with it given that we now live in a period of extreme theatrics, sound bites, etc. Until recently, we would never have seen a President involve children in a matter of this importance. Many people view the use of them as props to be despicable at best. We only used to see children around a President when something really good was happening, or a child was being honored for an excellent accomplishment. If all of us had any sense at all, we would write the NRA and the White House a letter that said "Knock Off using the children!"
This comment has been removed.
An automobile has the ability to take lives and as such we require that drivers have a training period and pass a test to get a driver's license. The test also shows a basic level of literacy and mental competence. It also gives a qualified instructor time to evaluate a prospective new driver for psychological difficulties. At the very least, a prospective gun owner should take a training program and standardized test administered at the local permitting level and yes why not require them to have liability insurance just like an automobile owner would have. There should also be a statement in the application of the reason for "needing" a gun. The second amendment needs rethinking, it was designed to protect us from a foreign power. If nothing else, the word "privelege" should be substitued for the word "right".
MA does require gun owners to attend classes and they must be licensed. Then they must bear the scrutiny of their local Police Chief. Not sure what the "liability" insurance is going to do to solve any of the gun crime issues? Would the gang members be forced to get it too?
No, the 2A was not designed to protect us from a foreign power. The writings of the founding fathers are very clear about that, I will only quote a few:
“A free people ought...to be armed”
― George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
― Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
There is no provision in the Constitution to start rewriting the Bill of Rights by subsituting words. The BOR was a gaurantee of rights to the people, not a "this is what you get now, we will change it later if we feel like it" document. You would certainly not like it if someone wanted to change your right to free speech and make it a "privilege".
Since the BOR provides for the RIGHT to bear arms, there is no reason anyone has to provide a "need" to anyone to own a gun, simple as that.
BTW, in your comment you mentioned that a test would show basic literacy. Tests like these were used in the South to prevent Blacks from voting, also to prevent them from owning guns to protect themselves.
You state: "The second amendment needs rethinking, it was designed to protect us from a foreign power". You are correct Marie...unfortunately, that "foreign power" rules now in Wahington.
This comment has been removed.
Marie- I suggest that you do some reading about the evolution of thought that led to the creation of the Second Amendment. Your statement about "...foreign powers..." simply doesn't stand. You might want to begin with the English Bill of Rights of 1689. If the people wish to change the Second Amendment the Constitutional mechanisms exist. That's why we are a nation of laws, not Executive Orders.