NRA: Gun control proposals "will fail"

WASHINGTON Banning some assault weapons and requiring background checks for all firearms purchases aren't a serious attempt to reduce gun violence, a top National Rifle Association official warned Tuesday as Congress geared up for the year's first hearing on the subject.

Play Video

NRA speaks out, reignites gun control debate

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said the country must instead focus on boosting security at schools, enforcing existing gun laws and taking more steps to deny guns to people with mental illnesses.

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families," LaPierre said in testimony that he planned to deliver Wednesday at a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

LaPierre's statement, released Tuesday by the NRA, came nearly seven weeks after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults. The horrific slayings have revived the national debate over gun control, with President Barack Obama proposing a range of restrictions last week and members of Congress introducing legislation on the subject.

LaPierre's testimony was similar in substance but somewhat milder in tone than remarks he made less than two weeks after the mass shooting. Then, he attacked the "media machine" for blaming the gun industry for attacks like Newtown and said what was needed to prevent the next massacre were armed guards and police in every school.

• Gun control bill faces long odds in Congress
• Newtown, Aurora, big city police chiefs meet with Obama

"We need to be honest about what works and what does not work. Proposals that would only serve to burden the law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in the future," he said in his prepared remarks.

A ban on some semi-automatics considered to be assault weapons was tried from 1994 to 2004 and failed to reduce crime, he said. He also said background checks will never be universal because criminals won't submit to them. Both are among measures that Obama is seeking.

Play Video

Feinstein: NRA as powerful as in the 1990s when assault weapons ban passed

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has already introduced legislation taking similar steps to Obama's proposals, including banning assault weapons and magazines that house more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

She said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying to the Judiciary panel on Wednesday are "skewed against us." Feinstein is a member of the committee.

Despite the momentum gun-control advocates have gained since the Newtown shootings, it will be difficult for them to prevail in Congress this year because of the popularity of guns in many states - including several represented by Democratic senators - and the formidable muscle of the NRA on Capitol Hill, lawmakers and other say. Among other obstacles, the Republican-run House has shown little immediate interest in making dramatic changes in the laws.

"It's hard," Feinstein said of gun legislation prospects. "I know it's hard. It doesn't mean I shouldn't try."

[dcooper0011]

Send a shock wave to the extreme left and Dianne Feinstein. Sign the petition to repeal Senate Bill SBX211. When the entire Los Angeles Superior Court Judges face possible felony charges for accepting money that was NOT authorized by law. That should put them back on their heels for a while.
Google SBX211 and sign the petition.

[stupa5]

Some one should put this dyehydrated frenchman LaPeeAir out with the trash!

[commonsense59]

Let's get past the hysteria and stop trying to get around the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution needs to be proposed and let the states ratify it or not ratify it and stop playing games with Executive Orders and regulations. Any executive order that goes against the Constitution should be declared unconstitutional anyway. All Presidents, including Obama takes a oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. Any President, including Obama that issues unconstitutional executive orders should be looked at for impeachment. Let's follow the guidelines set forth by our founding fathers to change the Constitution. Start the process to change it or shut the hell up, all of you.

[NRASucks]

So let's pick apart the picked apart comments from "ThoughtfulguyJ13."
The definition of a terrorist organization is a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals. This is by definition the NRA. As far as capitalizing nouns, that is the purvue of the writer for emphasis. The rest of your comments are subjective. I don't think anyone posting here is looking for an editor, lol.

P.S. From your activity on this page, you must have lots of time to spend on the internet. I suggest you get a real job.

[ThoughtfulguyJ13]

Lets pick your comment and analyse it again.

Lol, excuse me for having two days off. I have no idea why you are so concerned with what I do since you are not my owner. And by the way some people write, you would figure that they could not have graduated from farther than high school... so being an editor is sort of a bonus for my comments.

Let me continue with suggesting that there is no form of "terror" that is being used by the NRA. If anything, they are handling things in their own way. Yes, they are suggesting that the anti-gun persons want to take guns away. Is that a form of terror? Not necessarily unless you take it that way. I personally do not believe that. The NRA could handle the situation in a different way. There is always another way to debate something.

I am not going to argue to you that people are way too sensitive now a days and fear is almost everywhere. One good example is the fact that you cant just say certain words any more in public without being deemed a "terrorist". So in a lot of ways, many entities from small organisations all the way to the big white house itself could use a form of "terrorism" to sway people to support their cause. I support the idea of logic in this whole issue not just pro-gun. No one person has suggested logical evidence that could truly prove that these laws will help. When I submit a suggestion, I either get no retort or the comment is skewed to the point that doesnt answer the logical suggestion at all.

[rodzzzzz]

The problem is that both sides are basing their positions on opinion rather than fact, because the research hasn't been done. This is partly due to the Congress ban on federally funded research on gun control, but also due to the problem that it is impossible to see whether gun bans would help unless some States are actually allowed to implement them. There needs to be a means for comparing States with guns to those without them. See http://rationalexaminer.com for a discussion of the problem. The website also puts to rest the NRA's mistaken view that bans on semi-automatic weapons is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.

[mj6837]

The issue with Feinstein's Bill is that it will indeed not stop the carnage. It only stops sale and new production. Hence these firearms will still be availabe to nut jobs in some way, form or fashion. Then...after a few more atrocities Liberals will demand full blown confiscation. This is the death by a thousand paper cuts gun owners fear...and no one needs the NRA to point that out...it's playing out before our eyes. Guns and ammo have been sold at record levels since Obama's re-election...and the NRA had nothing to do with that either. The NRA is just a convenient scapegoat...if true public opinion for bans was as strong as hack polls suggest, you'd have your ban. It's incredibly disturbing we have such mentally unstable people out on the streets...we can't legislate a padded cell around them by stripping others' of their rights. Joen Biden's argument of how great a double barrel shotgun would be in a riot aftermath of a natural disaster just shows how completely out of touch our elites are. Time for new direction and understanding of root causes.

[NRASucks]

The NRA is a National Terrorist Organization, it's no different that the domestic terrorist organizations in places like Ireland and Palestine. This group should not be included in any adult conversation about gun control, because including them is negotiating with terrorists. Their one and only agenda is to make as much money selling guns and ammunition to absolutely anyone who wants it, without any regard to the rest of society.

[ThoughtfulguyJ13]

Lets pick apart this comment shall we?

The NRA is a national terrorist organisation (btw, you dont need to capitalize those words). You come to name calling for starters and that is just rude and childish. I include childish since only children resort to name calling when they can not come up with anything else.

Now, could you explain to me how the NRA is a terrorist org.? I ask because it only seems like you try, and fail I must add, to prove this by going with their capitalist ideas. I only use the term capitalist because in a free market, capitolism is how our many organisations such as walmart and the rest function. Without trying to sell to everyone as much as they can, the businesses would go out of business. If walmart started selling more guns and ammo than they do now and had isles devoted to selling weapons and ammo, would you consider walmart a terrorist org. and you stop shopping there for food or whatever else?

This is a continuance since the last paragraph was getting lengthy. Now, if you were to go to the NRA shop online, you would be sadly mistaken that they do not actually sell guns. They sell holsters, gun cases, jackets, and other knick-knacks but not guns or to my knowledge ammo. So, could you also be a little more accurate in what they do?

[zenia5]

Yes, ANY attempt to pass even the more MODEST measures will fail simply because a lot of politicians are warm and comfortable in the pockets of the NRA....their votes are bought and paid for already.

[RickB2400]

Why is it that anyone that is pro-gun, is a "gun freak", part if a "cult", etc .. etc ... etc. ??? Can anyone ... ANYONE ... Make a point without insults and name-calling ?

[WhereisOT]

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families,"

Says one sorry sob who spews lies hate fear for cash...
World hating nothings...Fear your neighbor, fear your Government, fear the UN...Fear all those "others"...

While never being taken to task by some people who do the same, spew BS for cash.....when their number 1 responsibility should be to inform the Public with the Truth....And they can't even do that much....
Have to debate right and wrong...because wrong just might be right..
All for show....all for ratings, all for highly overpaid talking heads to "earn" more $$$$$..
Pathetic...

The fricken gunnuts actually need weapons of war to "protect their families"...From who? Oh the Peoples Government...thats the idiocy lapi$$ and the rest of the nra "leadership" push for more profits....Thousands of rounds, dozens & dozens of weapons...
The idiots do realize they only have two hands, right...

Give the cowards some tanks and have them say when they want to try to "take this Country back"