After NRA speaks out, gun debate heats up

Last week's massacre in Newtown, Conn., in which a gunman wielding an AR-15 assault rifle killed 27 people, including 20 children, spurred a national debate about gun violence that hit the Sunday shows today.

Politicians and activists across the ideological spectrum agreed that we must do something, but precious little agreement emerged on what specific policy steps should be taken.

The National Rifle Association, on the heels of Friday's press conference at which NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre called for armed guards in schools but refused to acknowledge any role gun laws may play in gun violence, doubled down on that defiant message Sunday. NRA President David Keene told CBS's "Face the Nation" that his organization will continue to oppose a ban on assault weapons used for "perfectly legitimate purposes." Noting that the previous assault weapons ban "was allowed to expire," Keene argued that "The FBI, the Justice Department, and others who studied it said it made no difference."

Keene, when asked if NRA policies had contributed in the slightest to the massacre in Newtown, gave not an inch: "We don't think they have."

LaPierre echoed Keene's defiance on NBC's "Meet the Press", saying of a proposal to limit the size of ammunition magazines, "It doesn't work, and we're not going to support it."

LaPierre also pushed back on suggestions that the massacre in Newtown had sapped the NRA of any clout on Capitol Hill. "The American people, I know one thing about them, they value their freedom," LaPierre said. "When the reality of the consequences of what politicians in this town and the media and the elites want to do to their Second Amendment rights and take them away, I think they'll do what they've done historically, they'll defend the freedom."

"Our support is always the American people, decade in and decade out," explained LaPierre, saying his organization works not for the "rich and famous," but for "the average guy...and the average guy in this country values his freedom, doesn't believe the fact he can own a gun is part of the problem."

Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., who has been tasked with leading the NRA's "school shield" initiative, appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" and called more gun control laws "the wrong debate," adding, "I want to look for solutions for safety in schools, and that's not the solution." Hutchinson said that his solution, putting an armed guard in every school, could cost more than $2 billion.

Current Republican officeholders were less strident in their opposition to new gun laws, with several taking a wait-and-see approach but signaling that the solution may not be as simple as restricting access to firearms.

Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., just appointed to replace retiring Sen. Jim DeMint, said on "Face the Nation" that both the NRA's proposal to arm schools and proposals to strengthen gun control were "a bit premature," asking for policymakers to wait for the results of President Obama's new gun violence commission before rushing to judgment. "I think the president has just established a committee to take a serious, holistic look at what we need to do as a nation to make sure that our kids are safe," said Scott. "I think after we have the committee's report, we should take a very serious look at whatever it takes to keep our kids safe at school...understanding what happened and why - after we have those answers, we'll be in a much better position to decide the path forward."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned how effectual Congress can be in reducing gun violence, saying on "Meet the Press", "I don't know if there's anything Lindsey Graham can do in the Senate to stop mass murder from somebody that's hell-bent on doing crazy things." Referring to a 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, Graham argued that, at the time, "we had an armed guard in Columbine, we had an assault ban, neither of them worked."

While unsure of what Congress should do to reduce gun violence, Graham was perfectly sure of what they should not do: "I'm going to stand against another assault ban because it didn't work before and it won't work in the future."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., evinced greater flexibility on "Face the Nation", saying that she doesn't "object to having more armed policemen in schools," and that restrictions on the size of ammunition clips "need to be looked at."

But Hutchison said those proposals are "part of a big picture," adding that we need to examine violence in our culture - film, television, video games - as we reflect on the lessons of Newtown.

Democrats, for their part, voiced strong support for more gun control and seized the opportunity to bludgeon the gun lobby. Appearing on "Meet the Press", Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., blasted the NRA for a "tone-deaf" response to Newtown that is "turning people off," including those who ostensibly support the NRA's mission. LaPierre's call for armed guards in schools was "so extreme and so tone deaf that he actually helps the cause of us passing sensible gun legislation in the Congress," said Schumer. "Trying to prevent shootings in schools without talking about guns is like trying to prevent lung cancer without talking about cigarettes. He is so doctrinaire and so adamant that I believe gun owners turn against him as well."

• NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban
• Warner: "Status quo" on gun laws doesn't pass "gut check"
• NRA: Guns in schools would protect students

And Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who noted that he was "proud" of his "A" rating from the NRA, said on "Face the Nation" that any suggestion that "existing gun laws are enough, the status quo is acceptable, just didn't pass my gut check." Warner took issue with the NRA's proposal to have armed guards protect schools, asking, "Where do we stop? Are we going to go into preschools? Are we going to go into parochial schools?" Warner further noted that "there actually was an armed individual at Columbine years ago, and it didn't prevent that tragedy."

Warner argued that "we need a comprehensive approach" to reduce gun violence, saying that one potential solution - limiting the size of ammunition clips - does "not seem to be a an undue infringement."

Above all else, Warner said, we must seize the moment. "What I hope and pray is that, as we get into the Christmas season and the memories of this tragedy fade, we don't let this issue recede until six, eight, nine months, and we see another tragedy."

[Texanhunter]

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense . The 2nd Amendment is the citizens' last line of defense against tyranny . How can the government claim that the citizen's right to defend himself is at the discretion of the government ? Look at Germany , Russia , China , Somalia , Bosnia , Rwanda . These are all examples of governments or groups gone awry .

[Goblgobl]

Gun Free Zones are the problem. The media is absolutely heartless and terroristic. Back in the 60's you couldn't publicize acts or terrorism in newspapers because it was part of a terrorists plan which is to insert terror into the population. The mind manipulating media terrorists have this on the front burner! They induce copycat acts as well as bringing peoples attention to "problems" as to insight public fear resulting in the "demand" for tyrannical legislation and the destruction of the Bill of Rights! Watch this video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y4Pz64PCNE It's about a school district in Texas that has armed teachers in their schools. It's done right and very professionally. This feels post 9/11 all over again. What's next? A TSA style federal program at our schools with naked body scanners and very poorly trained personnel groping and strip searching our children. It still won't stop the shootings. WAKE UP PEOPLE. WERE BEING ENSLAVED!

[Things_To_Talk_About]

Um, I really don't know how to tell you all this but what should really be mediated is the media. The only reason that copy cats and other incidents occur is because the media publicly broadcasts them around the world. Many people think that china is doing an injustice by controlling the internet and media, this is where this would be very beneficial in our society.

Also for any of you not reading or looking up facts about guns, here are a few.
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Texas have over 3 - 1 gun to people ratio with Montana Leading with over 7 - 1. These are registered firearms.

Handguns, shotguns, and rifles have increased in sales by over 300% since Obama has been elected and expected to increase further.

Items to make bombs available on Ebay.com have been decreasing due to increasing demand.

Surveys done within the mid-west suggest that if gun owning rights were revoked or changed in anyway that would make it more difficult to purchase and license would be grounds for succession or war between the states and federal government.

[Fr0ntSight]

Couldn't agree more. The media has become pure evil.

[mjvr2c]

Ever wonder why it was the SECOND AMMENDMENT? Must have been pretty damned important. Of course we'll never need to worry about TYRANICAL GOVORNMENT these days.

[Fr0ntSight]

@Trout
Are you really giving him a hard time for misspelling tyrannical? That is pretty unnecessary bro.

FS

[PartyTimeMentats]

There is a difference between being unable to spell, and being unable to spell the key words of your sentence. The fact that out of "second amendment" and "tyrannical government", the only word that was spelled correctly was the one with two syllables, could easily lead one to believe that whoever made the comment might fall a few steps shy of "average intelligence". Besides, they stress the word "second" as if that means it was made into law any second sooner than the third or fourth amendments... or maybe it's because that is the only all-caps word they could spell.

[WhereisOT]

So the powerless, "think" they have power....
They truly believe the masses in this ever changing World will buy Intelligence Insulting bs from now till the end of time...

As the coward draft dodger/poacher spewed...
Why don't the do nothings but spread idiocy, head out to the poachers (nra board member) compound and "suck on" his "machine gun"...
While listening to stories of "mythical beasts" of the Great White Buffalo "saving" the rest of the herd...lol

Yes World, the insane of America put the Insane in your neck of the woods to shame...

[michaelamsterdam]

This "debate" should not be about the 2nd Amendment...or about unrealistic calls to alter it.

This is about an endemic national crisis that needs to be addressed...NOW!

The framers never said, "The right of every unstable whacko to arm himself to the teeth and shoot up schoolrooms shall not be infringed"

So for anyone, on either side to look for constructive, reasonable means to keep firearms capable of inflicting death on an industrial scale, out of the hands of those unfit to hold them is not committing sacrilege...just "promoting the general welfare" (to coin a phrase)

Both sides might scale back a bit on the impassioned rhetoric and actually try addressing the issue of too many massacred children...not indulging yourselves in all this knee-jerk condemnation, defiance and disdain for the views of others

[tvwatcher5345]

the democrats will crush the NRA, drive them before them, and hear the lamentations of their women

[MrLiterally]

The Democrats, the more Leftist ones, couldn't crush a paper cup.

The NRA is about freedom, in fact is the nation's oldest civil rights organization (1871). And Americans will not give up their freedoms (just go into a gun store and see merchandise flying off the shelves, if you don't believe me.)

[Type_Z]

My children are grown up, no grand kids yet. I'm trying to picture sending my kids to school this day and age. Could I even send them? They trust the adults in their lives to make the best choices for them. So what are the answers?

I have a hard time picturing a school with an armed guard. It seems like more things could go wrong, as opposed to going to right. One armed guard could be overtaken. I don't know what the answers are. It boils back down to recognizing those that make threats and having reliable help to turn to. There's no easy answer.

Something has to be done however.

[arthanyel]

Agree. I have two small children, 2.5 and 4.5, and I am dealing with it now. The bottom line to me is that they are far more at risk from a playground accident, a drunk driver, or household poisons than they are from guns - let alone a school shooting. And if anyone is worried about their child getting shot, it is thousands of times more likely to happen away from school.

So posting armed guards at every school is nonsensical. It would cost a fortune, create more problems than it solves, and be easily defeated. MUCH better to do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, which would make these already rare event seven rarer.

[Type_Z]

ARTHANYEL

I really appreciate your insights, approach, and sharing your comments. You should be leader of the pack on this. Something has to be done.

Last week my thoughts raced to thinking, homeschool, homeschooling could be an option if child was school age. Then it finally dawned on me, I could lock them up at home all day or all week, only to step outside and have some other problem happen. What good would it do keeping them home. It's just very difficult. You mentioned you have little ones. I will be a grandparent someday. Children live throughout my neighborhood. Something has to change and we have to fix it.

You are straight on about this.

[johnlockesghost]

Let's see what the crackpots in Washington come up with. Anything short of a constitutional amendment will not work and even that may not. The problem is not the guns themselves, but the combination of guns and the mentally deranged. Well you say, develop more comprehensive mental testing, of gun owners and purchasers. Okay, suppose you do. What happens when a week later or a month later or a year later, they become unhinged? You could test them periodically, but the problem still remains. You could try confiscation of all firearms, but you better have a newly enacted constitutional amendment and even then, such action might precipitate a revolution. You could try using sex, marital status and age as criteria for restricting ownership especially since a predominance of young, unmarried males committed a majority of these horrendous shooting events, but that might be challenged under the equal protection clause. So, it's complex and there just might not be any solution.

[Type_Z]

As normal humans, we want to stop this, all of it. Last week I heard someone say some of us just don't understand that pure evil exists and we really can't stop it. I think there is some truth in that unfortunetely.

[arthanyel]

You are correct - the problem is complex. And eliminating the Second Amendment will never happen. Some liberal friends of mine think they can - they are dreaming. you need 75% of the states to ratify, and all yo need to do is count the Red states to see that changing the Second Amendment is impossible. I wouldn't want to anyway, but that's not the point.

As for a solution, that's my post below. Imperfect, and will not stop every tragedy, but would make a dent in gun violence and puts the burden where it belongs - on keeping guns and ammunition (as much as possible) out of the hands of the wrong people.

Let's be honest - Nancy Lanza and all those kinds would be alive today if she had just locked up her guns. Or if she had locked up her son, who she KNEW was a deadly threat. She had the money and the knowledge - she just failed. And no amount of legislation will ever stop that kind of one in a million event. But if we can stop half the intentional shootings and 95% of the accidental shootings, wouldn't that be a good start?

[Cicero676]

How's this for heat?:

http://heartlandrevolt.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/14/barry-obummer-michael-bloombot-michael-three-cheeseburgers-m.html

Molon labe.