It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA goes on lockdown

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
Good thing I do not rely on any company or group to secure my rights.
I was born a free man, I will die the same.
I'm just hoping for a happy ending, by myself, maybe in my sleep, not wide awake on my feet defending my rights.


I want to go in my sleep, like my granfather, not screaming in terror like the other people in his car that day.

In all seriousness a very limited ban might come of this, something like the Brady Bill, which did nothing in the grand scheme. Companies couldn't manufacture certain items, but they were allowed to sell out the pre ban stock.

If there is a ban it will be silly and pointless.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I agree that trying to take away all the guns, especially in the south (coincidence? has to be haha), would likely cause our second civil war (or civil cold war) if implemented in an abrupt and violent way. I don't mean armed citizens resisting, I mean entire states breaking away from the country. This would hopefully end without anyone dieing, because I would think intelligent beings with free will would compromise and let each state decide for themselves.

Guns are not our true last piece of security though. The 1% depends on the 99 to provide just about everything. In essence, we are our last piece of security. I am not so worried about tyrants, we do have checks and balances. I am worried about corporate influence.

I doubt a gun ban would happen anyways.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
One of the NRA's most-often cited refrains regarding crimes of this nature is "if only the victim had been a gun-owner or had a concealed-carry permit, they could have prevented this tragedy..."

Well, Michael Moore made a poignant tweet about that:




Well made point. I believe in the Right to responsible gun ownership and access, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater in either direction is wrong, IMO.
Whatever happened to common sense, folks? Guns don't ALWAYS prevent crimes, hence Michael Moore's point, and guns aren't ALWAYS the cause of violence either. This is a mixed bag, it's not "black and white / this or that".
Some amount of compromise in both directions is what is called for, and of course, guns should not be banned.
The guns that already exist aren't going to POOF out of existence, and criminals and responsible gun owners alike aren't going to give up their firearms just because the law says they have to. It simply won't happen.
If you have nothing to hide, then a background check should not worry you, and if you have a pressing need to buy a high-powered firearm TODAY, RIGHT THIS MINUTE, perhaps you should be questioned more thoroughly.
It's called Moderation...you know, part of common sense....



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


This reply is to others as well as you, Mr. Tranny; regarding the NRA and the Sandy Hook school shooting, this is NOT their typical response. They are in full-blown lockdown, opossum mode.

They removed their Facebook page.

The US gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) has closed its Facebook page, which had 1.7 million “likes,” following uproar over the massacre of children at a school on Friday.
(source)


Stopped all activity on their Twitter account.

The National Rifle Association's main Facebook page isn't accessible, and its Twitter account is quiet three days after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
(source)


Their top gun lobbyist is accusing the NRA of "hiding like an opossum"

WASHINGTON -- Mike Hammond, chief counsel for the powerful gun lobbying group Gun Owners of America said the National Rifle Association, the nation's largest gun lobby, was hiding from the media like an opossum following the massacre on Friday of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
(source)


Does the NRA owe an opinion or explanation of their stance on gun control to the American people? They are the single largest entity fighting gun control out their, lavishing Congress with bribes to make sure gun control never happens. It's easier to get a gun in America than it is to get mental health care services. So when mass shootings happen, they owe some public comment on it, instead of tucking tale and hiding like cowards.

But it's not just the NRA ducking the issue, either. FOX News has issued an order to it's talking .s not to discuss gun control.
(Fox News Employees Ordered Not To Discuss Gun Control On Air)

All 31 "pro-gun" senators refused to talk to the press;
NBC: All 31 pro-gun Senators refused to go on Meet the Press today



 


This is not their attempt to "avoid politicizing" the events. It's their attempt to 'weather the storm', so when the national attention drifts to something else the NRA and gun lobby can go back to business as usual.


edit on 17-12-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I think the NRA has done well preserving the rights of ALL Americans and championing good legislation.


It's an initiative that chairman Gary Mervis says has proven its success. Gary Mervis, Project Exile, said, "We feel really good that here it's been 14 years and 14,000 guns have been taken off the streets of our community. Who knows what devastation those guns could have caused in our community had they been allowed to remain in the hands of the people they were taken away from."



When Project Exile started locally in 1998, Rochester was only the second city across the nation to participate. This is a program that is supported by both the National Rifle Association and Brady Gun Control Initiatives.


Project Exile holds annual report luncheon



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
One of the NRA's most-often cited refrains regarding crimes of this nature is "if only the victim had been a gun-owner or had a concealed-carry permit, they could have prevented this tragedy..."

Well, Michael Moore made a poignant tweet about that:



The guns were hers, so the complete opposite is true, if guns were banned and she didn't have any guns this would never have happened in the first place...

Are American people simpletons?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 



The guns were hers, so the complete opposite is true, if guns were banned and she didn't have any guns this would never have happened in the first place...

Are American people simpletons?


I think you missed the sarcasm in Moore's tweet. He obviously knows the AR-15 and other guns belonged to the mother. He's ridiculing the common pro-gun refrain "if only she had been armed, she could have stopped all this". Well, she was armed, she had quite the arsenal, didn't do her any good.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


From your first source........

Police are also investigating abuse of social media to spread misinformation about the shootings. A number of people have been pretending to be the attacker on Facebook, for example, and police said that these individuals will be prosecuted.

And you wonder WHY the NRA, closed down their social media pages? It couldn't have been the OVERWHELMING response by Anti Gun and those with a pro stance out there?

And you wonder WHY the Liberal Media, and Yellow Journalism surrounding it, has taken to blast the NRA?

Come now..........

Agendas be damned.......


So why would the NRA take down its Facebook Page? Because pro- and anti-gun citizens likely would have gone to war on its wall. In crisis situations, fans of Facebook Pages often come to the defense of their causes by arguing with those leaving angry remarks. Discussions could have taken an ugly turn, with those on either side leaving inappropriate posts and comments.

Those could have reflected poorly on the NRA, or forced it to prematurely make a statement about the shooting. It would have presented a nearly impossible moderation challenge, where the NRA would have had to tip-toe a very fine line between censorship and keeping the wall clean. Deleting or leaving up certain posts could have sparked even greater criticism.



Unpublishing goes a step further than shutting off the ability for people to post on the Page’s wall, which still allows it to be tagged, see how friends have interacted with the Page, and importantly, comment on old posts by the Page. That means the same flame wars could have erupted in the comments of previous NRA posts, such as the image it published Thursday celebrating the milestone of 1.7 million Likes. Unpublishing was the only way to totally avoid becoming a canvas for controversial debate at this sensitive time.


National Rifle Association Hides Facebook Page To Avoid Hosting Flame Wars


Flame wars....... Naw, thats not going to happen, is it????




edit on 17-12-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by sputniksteve
And? What do you want or expect them to say? Would what they say help anyone through this tragedy?


they have generally managed an expression of regret from previous multiple killings.

that they do not do so this time seems to be unusual and hence remarkable.


I fail to see how the failure of the National Rifle Association to make a statement is news or relavent.


I guess that is a shortcoming in your part then.


Such a lame attempt to make this about something it's not. Utterly ridiculous.

The media doesn't understand how a organization doesn't want to turn this into something about themselves? How fitting. So tired of it all.


how do you figure that gun killings will not be "about" the NRA...ever??




That post you didn't address all of my post, the one I was speaking about. In this same post you tell me it's the NRA`s fault, hence why you posted the thread and asked why they didn't comment.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by roughycannon
 



The guns were hers, so the complete opposite is true, if guns were banned and she didn't have any guns this would never have happened in the first place...

Are American people simpletons?


I think you missed the sarcasm in Moore's tweet. He obviously knows the AR-15 and other guns belonged to the mother. He's ridiculing the common pro-gun refrain "if only she had been armed, she could have stopped all this". Well, she was armed, she had quite the arsenal, didn't do her any good.


Yes I did, I thought he was being a typical American, solve everything by giving everybody guns... apoligies



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by roughycannon
 



The guns were hers, so the complete opposite is true, if guns were banned and she didn't have any guns this would never have happened in the first place...

Are American people simpletons?


I think you missed the sarcasm in Moore's tweet. He obviously knows the AR-15 and other guns belonged to the mother. He's ridiculing the common pro-gun refrain "if only she had been armed, she could have stopped all this". Well, she was armed, she had quite the arsenal, didn't do her any good.


Yes Yes every gun owner(NRA member) i know walks around with their guns(all of them) on their person early in the morning all day long even when they go to bed.

Seriously. meh in fact family members in their own homes are not even considered to be a threat.
edit on 18-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



You mean your pajamas dont have a built in holster for your Taurus Judge?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 



It wouldn't have? How do you figure?

Since there is a tragedy that happened, and we have facts surrounding it, we should likely stick to facts and not personally motivated supposition.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


In this post you have admitted that you feel the NRA is responsible for the killings? Or is that not how you feel?

What does the NRA have to regret here? Not pressing hard enough for people to be allowed to carry guns in schools?


More likely pressing so hard that every gun nut in the country is now considered a potential mass murderer.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


In this post you have admitted that you feel the NRA is responsible for the killings? Or is that not how you feel?

What does the NRA have to regret here? Not pressing hard enough for people to be allowed to carry guns in schools?


More likely pressing so hard that every gun nut in the country is now considered a potential mass murderer.


No guns would limit the potential to be


Meanwhile, protestors are marching on NRA HQ.

news.sky.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I do not blame them. I myself do not like people telling me I want children to die because I support the 2nd amendment, and believe the shooter would have shot less children had someone shot him first.


erhm, he would have shot less people if someone shot him first..


Quite the imagination you have really. "People telling you that you want to see children die" ,really? Who told you that or are you just attempting to project suggestion and emotions onto people.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I got an eerie feeling I've seen the hypothetical parachute flare in the distance. Like I said in another thread, everyone I've talked to in the last 2 days has had an argument with someone close to them over the issue of gun control. This will not end well.

That flame war explanation is probably the most plausible one. If that is the case, good on them but they need to make that statement. Remaining utterly silent like that is questionable.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

how do you figure that gun killings will not be "about" the NRA...ever??




So, if someone gets murdered by some sicko who pours gasoline on them and set's them on fire Organizations for cooks must immediately be on the defensive because they need fire to cook?...

Oh wait, nobody in the left EVER decries how fire and gasoline are being used to cause agonizing deaths to people, including children...

The NRA are not exploiting this like so many hate groups out there are trying to claim that these children wouldn't have died if weapons were banned...


edit on 18-12-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join