It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:57 PM
or maybe the NRA
1. has been detained by the NSA so they don't interferer with what's going to happen next
2. is at DC trying to fight the gun ban.
3. is having a meeting with the heads of the Militia Movements to..........nvm too many spooks in this site

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by thePharaoh
i dunno...but there are a million ways....make a bespoke one that works for all of the licence holders....its up to them to contribute, or others (like me) will contribute for you.

do your part, or someone else well....out of touch people like me lol...but i admit i know squat about gun laws!! lol

If people accept the premise of your argument, then they have already lost. Anyone that knows anything about firearms knows that regulating them, and controlling them is impossible.

They are simple mechanical devices. It’s like the ban on using a still to distill alcohol. It is not workable, no mater how much law enforcement you put into it. Anyone can get the parts at the local hardware store to make one. The cats out of the bag, you can’t put him back in.

To accept your premise that we have to contribute to helping craft new firearms control regulation is nonsensical to us, because we know that any attempt to do any controlling, is shear absurdity.

There is only two ways to help reduce the chance of this happening again.

1 Be more proactive on mental care for people that are prone to do such things.

2 Give the people that will be attacked the ability to defend themselves.

Considering that number 1 is never 100 percent effective, and there will always be people that slip through the crack, that leaves you at number 2 as the last defense.

The problem is you dismiss number 2 off hand.

You say we need to contribute, but you automatically dismiss the only logical suggestion we can give. That means you don’t really want our help, you just want to give the appearance of being willing to negotiate, when you are not.

It is a sad state of the world where we force a teacher to use their body to shield their students from an attack because we refuse to allow them to carry the tools needed to defend themselves, and the students in their care.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Usually it has no problems expressing its condolonces - which I do not doubt are always genuine.

but the enormity of the Sandyhook shooting tragedy seems to be a bit much even for them as some normally staunch "gun supporters" are beginining to waver in their support for "guns at any cost" (see the links for a couple of examples, and yes I know those are not "proper" terms that is why I put them in quotes)
(visit the link for the full news article)

Non-story. Look at the track record of the NRA after other high-profile shootings and they generally wait out the hype and keep pretty quiet for a few weeks.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:54 AM
The guilty often remain silent on the gallows.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by thePharaoh

Why don't you start with Eric Holder and all the automatic weapons he was traffiking to Mexico?

Why don't we start with the illegal arms trading their doing in the rest of the world? How about the violence their perpetrating through the CIA drug war?

We, citizens, are going to hand our weapons over to these people? and trust them to "protect" us?

They have a really bad record.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by Happy1

In my opinion, this school shooting just reeks of psyops, one in which everyone involved were acting, no children died, they just took their money and will go away.

I think this was based on the upcoming Libor hearings, and it was the PTB giving a shout-out to those who know what kind of criminal things they all have been doing...... and to the NRA, senators and congressman, bankers and stockbrokers..... We will do this to you. We could kill your children, if we wanted to.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by nottelling

The Washington Post admitted in the editorial page - the day after the AWB was passed - that the AWB would do nothing. It was a stepping stone for further bans and regulation. That is the same thing they are hoping for now. They are hoping that this is their moment to push back against rifles. They know that it will make little difference in the overall crime rate. So, next you go for waiting periods, then tighter restrictions on who can purchase a gun, then licensing, and on down the slope.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by EarthlingSpelunker
The guilty often remain silent on the gallows.

Huh? What specifically is the NRA 'guilty' of? Not doing interviews with the press isn't a crime.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:23 AM
Looks as if the NRA is going to keep silent until this upcoming Friday. I was thinking, while on the train back to Tokyo from Yokohama, what night the NRA say about the CT shooting. What will they say in defense of unregulated, and uneducated, gun ownership. They are going to have to choose their words very closely in order to avoid a mega backlash this go round. When a lobby group like the NRA is responding to 20 little kids shot dead right at the same elementary they attended, using the same old arguments are not going to cut it.

Yet, have seen a few hardcore 2nd amendment leaders from Capital Hill break radio silence and judging from what they have said I am starting to think the NRA might say something similar as they did in the aftermath of the VT shooting.

Remember the whole, `If the students had been armed it all could have been prevented` argument?

Well, I get the feeling the NRA is going to respond to the CT shooting with,`If the teachers had been armed it all could have been prevented.`

Well, I am a teacher and I can tell you that the last people you want armed around kids are teachers. I have met so many good caring people in the teaching profession. Yet, these same people are still human. Teachers are paid pretty low wages compared to admins, and in the private teaching sector, are getting fleeced while company brass laugh all the way to the bank. Yet, they still love their jobs. Teachers usually deal with loud, spoiled mean spirited kids daily. It is a very high stress job apart from the low pay and often poor treatment from admins and managers. Someone could break under the pressure if they are not pretty rock solid mentally and emotionally. For these reasons I do not want any of my fellow teachers, including myself, to be packing a gun at any school for any reason. I also do not want the police at the school daily to provide security as it will make the kids feel as if they have done something wrong all the time and need to be watched like little gangsters.

If we MUST have any type of armed security at schools then I offer an alternative. A nationally funded program, by way of the department of education, for the school to direct hire their own small security forces. Not a mandate and not a requirement. Exclude all current and former police and military persons from being hired by schools who choose to accept the federal money. For any school to be able to develop their own security force there must be a vote by the local community in overwhelming majority(80% would be a good number to set). There must be an extensive interview process which included a criminal background check, as well as, an extensive mental health evaluation and mental health background check. Every school board must also form an oversight group of teachers and parents to watch the security force management very closely. You need people who are rock solid to be able to be armed in the school environment.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by freedomwv
For any school to be able to develop their own security force there must be a vote by the local community in overwhelming majority(80% would be a good number to set). There must be an extensive interview process which included a criminal background check, as well as, an extensive mental health evaluation and mental health background check. Every school board must also form an oversight group of teachers and parents to watch the security force management very closely. You need people who are rock solid to be able to be armed in the school environment.

Lets look at that statement for a bit.

Before the gun free zones were instated, gun possession around schools was pretty much unregulated. During hunting season, you would even have students that would drop their rifles off at the principle’s office, and pick them back up again after school.

Those gun restrictions were instated with a simple majority vote.

Yet, to turn that law back to any degree, with background checks, mental health exams and all, you want an 80 percent super majority.

That is the working definition of an “unlevel playing field” Again, like the other poster, you want to act like you are willing to compromise, but you set up an unlevel playing field in such a way that you know you will win. Then you will feel good that you were open minded enough to let the opposition try their idea and it didn’t work. That also allows you to feel good in the idea that you were right all along. Even though you actually didn’t give their idea a chance.

And on your comment about not trusting your fellow teachers. That is a whole different ball of wax all together. If you don’t trust the other teachers that far, then we have a major trust issue all it’s own to deal with. Either your fellow teachers should not be there, or you have a seriously unfounded lack of trust issue with your fellow teachers.

In school we often used solid steel scissors with blades over 9 inches long. We also had a paper cutter we jokingly referred to as “the guillotine” . By your own statement, the students should not of trusted the teachers having access to such stuff around the school, incase they may snap, and went on a scissor rampage, or started cutting the hands off their students.

I think your issue may be more “projection” than anything else. Ideas of things you would be tempted to do, run through your head, and you automatically assume that other people would be tempted to do the exact same thing. So, you don’t trust them with specified items, because you don’t trust yourself with those items.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by thov420

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You are absolutely right, that is up for contention here. How do we define assault rifle? Mine looks exactly like an M4, shoots the same diameter bullet as an M4, it just shoots a bullet that isn't as long, has much less gunpowder behind it. So is it just lethality? Anyone that knows anything about guns knows a .22 LR isn't as lethal as a .223/5.56 Nato round but does that mean a wood stock bolt action .223/5.56 or .308/7.62 are assault rifles? They are just as lethal as an M4 or AK variant? I mean they shoot the same bullets?

So where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? Do you only look at functions in conjunction with each other? If it has semi auto fire, a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and carry handle? Well what if it has all those things but only shoots a .22 LR?

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by sputniksteve

I think step 1 is to re-educate the public on terms like "automatic rifle". An automatic rifle is not a machine gun. It is a gun that you have to squeeze the trigger for each round being fired. Semi-automatic is a machine gun. If we can clarify that among the populace, then we might a) know exactly what they are talking about, and b) be assured that people who don't even know the verbage used aren't making decisions for the rest of us.

Beyond that, hearing the term "clip" used is as obnoxious as it gets. It is a magazine, not a clip.

TV and their poor grasp of reality tends to alter the language as it relates to guns.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Does it happen to be a 10/22 because a buddy of mine had one when I was younger and it was a super reliable/dependable rifle. I've wanted one myself ever since.

No, the Ruger 10/22 is the premiere .22LR. No matter who else has made one, that Ruger is a tried and true, outstanding rifle. My only complaints about it is the magazine is a big of a pain to reload. So in shooting competitions you have to have your magazines set up properly.

The one he bought is a Ruger gun, outsourced to a Brazillian company. I would have to dig it out to give you information.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Actually it is the opposite from what you wrote, I think you just mixed it up. Semi Automatic requires single trigger pulls, Automatic fire classifies it as Machine gun.

I know semantics, and it IS confusing.
edit on 12/19/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:05 PM
To those "believers" in Michael Moore's tweet where he sarcastically remarks that if the mother of Adam Lanza was a gun owner she could have prevented this.

1) If she was physically carrying her gun on her at the time, she very well could have. It seems to me that Adam simply went and got the guns without her knowing and she was unarmed when approached and shot.

2) In response to Michael Moore: If Nick Meli, a CCW holder in Clackamas, Oregon WASN'T carrying his weapon at the mall that day, the shooter with an AR-15 very well could have killed FAR more than 2 innocent people.

Instead of people giving examples of where guns have very well SAVED lives, people are simply condemning them because of the Newtown shooting....after all.. it is much easier to simply condemn guns and look like the good guy.

The cops are only MINUTES away.....when seconds matter.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by sputniksteve

Busybusybusy at work...mistakes were made. LOL

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I just read on msn news that nra and people from government will be discussing a new bill in early January!

I think a new legislation bill needs to be implemented for your gun controls (i'm in England so thats why I say your).

But at the same time I think it's too late.... you have way too many guns on the streets.... how will they go about this?

What if the new bill stats only one gun and no assault riffles?? What if they decide on NO guns at all?

Will all you who have guns be receiving a knock at the door asking to search your house? (as all details of who owns guns are kept on computers). What will you do?

Personally, I think if a person goes through tests which prove the owner is reliable, stable and in good health once a year then they should be allowed but on the other hand anyone can snap at anytime as we've seen lately. and what about all the gangs and thugs with guns? I cant see them handing over their weapons!!
edit on 19-12-2012 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

I agree. I don't see them getting rid of guns here. People paid for those guns legally with money they worked hard to earn. I doubt people will be so willing to just say "Ok. Here you go. Have a great day, officer!"
They're going to want to be compensated for their property. Also, when Australia did their gun ban, it cost the TAXPAYERS over 500 million dollars, I believe, and that was to round up a mere 600,000 something guns.

In America, citizens hold over 300 MILLION guns. America is in enough financial trouble. They don't need to be spending money on this, whether it comes from government $$$ or taxpayers, and then on top of that, as I stated before, people are going to want compensation for their guns.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by Mr Tranny

Okay. I am up for the Pepsi challenge.

I don`t know whose `side` you think I am on but I am simply looking at material conditions and human nature. Being `open minded` has nothing to do with my thought process at all. Having guns at school and having shape scissors at school are two totally different things. I have never heard of anyone look at a pair of scissors at school and think, ` that would be a good weapon to stab little Johnny in the hand with.` Although, given the complex nature of the human condition, at least a few people have thought about it and maybe even attempted it once. Yet, we don`t have reports of mass scissor stabbings at school but we do have many reports of mass shootings at school. So, it is much more likely for someone to snap at school and start shooting kids than it is for someone to snap and start stabbing someone with a pair of scissors. It is important to focus on what is more likely to happen.

As far as not trusting teachers goes, well in a capitalist driven society in which people are becoming more and more separated and isolated from each other, it is becoming harder to understand each other and develop a natural sense of trust which common social interaction should allow for. We keep our feelings and personal issues with each other far too secret for fear of not being able to keep a job and chase the almighty profit agenda. Due to this sad reality of social conditions, I do not trust my fellow teachers to be packing heat at school. Nor would I trust anyone with experience as a police officer or has served in the military to be carrying guns at school because they have been trained in a manner in which they are to look at every person as a enemy and a target. Some schools have enough thugs and do not need anymore(I am aware that there are some good people working as police officers and serving in the military).

Yes, requiring a `super majority` is needed because we are talking about having people carrying guns around kids all day. That is not something to be taken lightly. An extensive background check as part of a larger, and even more extensive interview, is not asking too much. Every person who is going to be at school with guns must be ensured to be solid as a rock. We need people who are so not prone to violence that the likelihood of them going off and doing a mass killing is super low.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by Mr Tranny

so instead of removing guns...have more!!??

tut tut

as for regulating manufacturing...the government can have an official position....when they find people in breach of those conditions...they can then make some money, for the costs and compensation of gun crimes

saying its impossible is defeatest
no one is telling you to disarm...just not to manufacture so many, i mean, there isnt that many licence holders, to begin with....why make enough that it trickles down to criminals?? and have residential homes with armouries??
edit on 19-12-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in