NRA Responds to President Obama's Gun Control Proposals

According to the National Rifle Association, "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation."

Wednesday afternoon the National Rifle Association sent out the following response to President Barak Obama's call for universal background checks and other restrictions on gun ownership earlier in the day.  

NRA Statement:

"Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership.  Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.

"The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law.  We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.

"Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation.  Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

Teleman January 17, 2013 at 02:14 AM
Agreed Frank, while I may not agree with every position they take, I will continue to support them-especially the NYSRPA and WCAFO. Obama has sold more guns in the past couple of years than any gun companies ad department every could. Police departments across the country are actually having trouble obtaining ammunition because it's all sold out. Funny thing is even with the massive increase in purchases of new firearms, violent crime continues it's 20 year decline.
Chris Marengo January 17, 2013 at 01:51 PM
I'm amazed that some people, mainly liberals or progressves if you like, just willingly give up their constitutional rights on the insipid "fast tracked" and ineffectual laws passed by corrupt politicians. Obama surrounds himself with chiildren as show props liike the demagogue that he is; Cuomo has this childish need to trump Obama to show his 2016 Dem credentials as he clearly wants to be the next leftist president after Obama has is way with us. Acting on emotion and for the moment is anti-American. Out founders fought to have the Bill of Rights (not the Bill of Needs). The least we can do is teach our children why we have the Bill of Rights, why we have a Constituional Republic, and why we shouldn't rush into bogus political manouvers. We are rapidly becoming a country that relies on imperial presiients...more dictatorial than presidential.
Robert Guttman January 17, 2013 at 02:27 PM
The NRA insists upon stridently trumpeting only PART of the 2nd Amendment, the part that says, "The People's right to bear arms shall not be infringed", while completely ignoring the first part, the part that says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". That is actually the ESSENCE of the bill, and why it is completely obsolete and irrelevant today. After the Revolution the Continental Army stood down. The country had almost no standing army, and no law-enforcement agencies as they are known today. the security of the nation was thus in the hands of the Militia, which was sort of like volunteer firemen with guns. However, we are living in the 21st century, not the 18th century. There is no Militia, and there hasn't been for 150 years. We now have police forces, and the largest all-volunteer standing military force in the world. All that the 2nd Amendment accomplishes today is to make the job of law-enforcement more difficult by enabling criminals to get firearms more easily.
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 02:36 PM
One of the truly magnificent things about the constitution is that it does provide for change - the problem here is that change can't come from a bunch of liberals who say certain provisions are "outdated" the document provides for a process to change and adapt. Anti gunners wont do it that way though because they know it will never happen.
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 02:54 PM
If you read the federalist papers and writings of the founders you will have to come to the conclusion that after taking up arms against a tyrannical ruling government, freeing themselves and trying to create a system of government that wouldn't allow it to happen again, that the second amendment is very much about keeping the citizens armed so as to protect themselves from the .
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 02:55 PM
If you read the federalist papers and writings of the founders you will have to come to the conclusion that after taking up arms against a tyrannical ruling government, freeing themselves and trying to create a system of government that wouldn't allow it to happen again, that the second amendment is very much about keeping the citizens armed so as to protect themselves from the government .
joe January 17, 2013 at 02:55 PM
Abby Normal is abnormal. Only someone who has no regard for her constitutional rights would be so willing to give them up under the false pretense that this would mean that criminals also would abide by these new laws. Remember; "The government can only help you as much as it can control you" - Ben Franklin.
joe January 17, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Robert, please re-read. There is a comma between "the people's right......and "a well-regulated malitia" which means, in addition to. It's part of English.
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 02:59 PM
And the Military act of 1903 states there are 2 militias - the organized ( national guard) and the unorganized ( EVERY able bodied man aged 17-45) so those who are not in the national guard are already in the unorganized militia. There for have the right to arms.
Abby Normal January 17, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Joe, All constitutional rights have their limitations. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you can liable others. Freedome of religion doesn't mean you can have animal sacrificial. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a movie theater. The right to bear arms is already limited. You cannot own a machine gun, a cannon or a missile. You cannot affix a firearm to your private aircraft or conceal a weapon on your person without a permit. There is no constitutional right to own an assault rifle or a 100 round magazine. All these things can be regulated and in my opinion, should be. I have no problem with you owning a firearm or defending your family but that can be done with a lot of other weapons. I personally prefer of 12 guage shotgun and if I miss my target which dosn't happen quite often, I'll know that the round won't penetrate the walls of my house and kill my neighbor. So you see we disagree Joe. That doesn't make me abnormal, crazy or a communist. This Country was built on disagreement and the people that are enacting these laws were elected by a majority of the people. That's what we call Democracy.
Adrian Berezowsky January 17, 2013 at 04:00 PM
Chief Justic Guttman, I had no idea you were appointed to where you are in a place to make such a determination. Not only is you opinion on how to read this entirely irrelevant, unfortunately it is completely NOT in keeping with the current law.
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 04:19 PM
The problem I see with the argument is common sense is lost in the details - assault weapon is a made up political term assault rifle by its true definition is a select fire rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Those were banned in the 1930s because the police were outgunned. Now the definition of an assault weapon actually includes semi auto handguns and 22 plinking rifles. Let's not even mention the fact that what is classified as assault rifles are used in only a fraction of gun crimes.
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 04:26 PM
If this is so common sense and cut and dry then why was the NY bill drafted in Only 2 days,debated in secret in backrooms of the state capital, the 3 day public comment period waived and voted on in the middle of the night -severa senators didn't even get to read the bill. This is OK?
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 04:41 PM
What type of ammo, Abby? Everything but birdshot will penetrate walls. Don't talk about things you know nothing about. At the very least do some research or talk with a responsible gun owner, or God forbid, take a course, learn to shoot and be a responsible gun owner, or not as is your choice. Don't be so quick to give up rights in the misguided belief that you are "saving just one life". If that was the case, we would have to ban everything. Not just guns. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Ryan Buncher (Editor) January 17, 2013 at 04:46 PM
I know this debate tends to get heated, but let's keep this civil and leave the name-calling out. Thanks.
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 04:56 PM
To those who say " why do you need a high cap mag", ask them what kind of car they drive. Regardless of their answer you will have them. Tell them more people die every year in vehicle accidents related to speed than die in gun related violence (especially with "assault rifles w/high cap mags". The speed limit (generally) is 55 mph. All cars go considerably faster. So why do you "need" a car that goes faster than 55 mph. How would they feel if we banned such vehicles and you were required to surrender them to the government to be melted down. They will say "I'm responsible, I don't drive 100 mph, why take my car. It cost a lot of $" And you can say "exactly, why should any responsible person be deprived of their personal property under the guise of saving lives after an event where an irresponsible person abused such property and caused the death of another. That is how we feel about our guns and our mags." Of course if they persist you can say "don't you care about children?" just like they do.
Ken Dalton January 17, 2013 at 04:58 PM
What do you think the National Guard and Reserves are?
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 04:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cj3v78UPK3A Hypocites refuse to post a sign on their lawn proclaiming that their home is "proudly gun free" Well done Project Veritas
joe January 17, 2013 at 05:04 PM
I only called Abby Normal abnormal...that's civil, ain't it?
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Buy a shotgun for home security. They can still be found in gunships and online (gunsamerica.com, Budsgunshop.com, etc) though thanks to our idiot governor you will have to complete the sale over the phone. Get yourself a nice pump action 18 inch 12 Gauge, a box of birdshot, to prevent wall penetration, and a box of 00buck. No waiting period or permit required, just an instant background check by the FBI with the help of your FFL. Make your last two shots buckshot, first three bird. If someone doesn't leave you alone after three rounds of bird, that buckshot will finish the issue. I would also advise anyone hiking about or getting ANY gun to take a safety class and train on that weapon when you get it. Be safe, don't be a victim, and make your feelings known by writing your representatives.
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 05:10 PM
Yeah The most powerful lobby in the country is irrelevant. Pure wisdom
stephany January 17, 2013 at 05:15 PM
you answered your own question NY, the backroom capital of the world I also think you got it backwards with who read the bill before voting. i would be surprised if several senators actually read the bill in total before voting
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 05:17 PM
Criminals break laws. If you are going to commit a crime, do you think a new gun law will prevent you from getting a weapon or breaking more laws? All these new laws do is create more victims, but make the leftists feel good that they are "saving kids" and beating the political right. These laws have nothing to do with either. Sheeple.
stephany January 17, 2013 at 05:17 PM
it depends, are you liberal or republican. i called harriet cornell old and was sent an email by RT to keep it civil.
coder January 17, 2013 at 05:24 PM
One has to wonder....Drugs have been illegal for ever. Most American citizens don't posses them or use them. However, they are still on our streets and still in our schools. If you take the right of legally owning firearms away from the general public does this guarantee the criminal element won't have access to them. The answer is no. Law enforcement has been trying to stop illegal drugs for ever...and they can't. So you ask me to give up my right to own firearms? Never ever. It is my right.
MJ January 17, 2013 at 05:33 PM
Ask the parents of the victim babies of Sandy Hook who viewed autopsy photos of their six year olds ripped into pieces, riddled with bullets from a magazine that instantaneously tore their babies apart...lost faces, decapitations, bodies almost cut in half...all while they huddled together in terror so this free American could use this weapon of mass destruction. Your "car: argument is absurd and insulting in light of these facts.
Gannicus January 17, 2013 at 06:01 PM
@ Son of Liberty, Well said my brother! Excellent analogy!!! But they still won't comprehend.
Son of Liberty January 17, 2013 at 06:31 PM
@MJ How about all the children who have died in car accidents? Are their lives worth less that the poor kids in Newtown? Was their parents grief less than those parents in Newtown. Death is horrible, but it is an inescapable byproduct of life. You want to punish everyone for the actions of very few. The magazine didn't do it by the way. The gun didn't do it. Adam Lanza did it. He could've used a number of deadly means to commit this atrocity. The Car analogy is perfectly valid because it points out that millions of responsible people own these things, and in relative terms a very small number cause horrible death, especially when used by a psychopath. And the whole argument of the wounds inflicted are grossly exaggerated to inspire horror and this feeling that the lib's want you to feel. Bullets cause proven wounds that you can research online. The type of gun used does not change the physics of the bullet. You cannot cut a person in half with .223. (its a very small round) All I hear are make believe terms like "spraying" "high caliber" and "weapon of mass destruction". They are all wrong and misleading, but the sheeple grab on tight cause they want to believe such nonsense. I'm sorry I even had to go there but that is fact. You are being lied to. We are all being lied to. You need to ask yourself one question. "To what end?".
Teleman January 17, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Funny how none of the anti-gunners are mentioning the more important common thread with almost all of the mass shootings- the purpetrators have almost all been on various anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs. Going after the guns and taking rights away from law abiding people is not going to stop these things.
Son of Liberty January 18, 2013 at 03:21 AM
“These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapons, can only kill people, and in fact, they are threats to national security. The young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado, with the arsenal he had, he was right near the airport, right near the runways in Denver. He could shoot down airplanes, so this is a matter of homeland security as well.” -Jesse Jackson If you believe that...


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »