NRA News Conference

[Sierra]

Ok this is my second attempt to post this, my internet connection got weird on me. (Hopefully it doesn't appear twice.)

The NRA is having a news conference Friday.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/StatementAdvisory.pdf

I already composed and sent a letter expressing my strong disapproval regarding the removal of their Facebook page in response to last Friday's tragedy.

[Ohio farms]

I feel that the NRA is right. This truly a time to mourn the loss of innocent lives, not to discuss issues and point blame. I would be nice if the media could, for the moment, not focus on an agenda, but rather mourn with the rest of us for now. The NRA is taking the high road.
There will be a time for discussion.

[Sierra]

I agree that the NRA should not have immediately formulated a response. Mourning is most important. I do disagree with the removal of the page. That was the only forum they really had for their members to share their outrage at this attrocity and discuss. I believe they took it down expecting a flood of anti-gun sentiment. So no, an immediate statement would have been hugely insensitive, but cutting its members off from communication as a result was also not wise. IMHO.

[Scoutfish]

I understand them doing it, and honestly, I think it's a good idea too.

But let me explain why.

JUst for arguements sake,. lets say there are 1 million members of the NRA.

MOst are probably great , outstanding people >

But you know how it is........in every group and in every crowd...there is at least a handful of people who will stand up, talk louder and be seen more than anybody else.

And they are idiots!

And they DO NOT represent the majority.

Take hunters for example: Most are thoughtful people who hunt only what they need or can handle, have respect for their prey as well as the environment. They understand conservation, species preservation, and presenting a good public image of hunters.

BUT..then you have 'ole Uncle Cletus who will not even begin to hunt without taking a 12 pack of beer with him, will plow through private fields and protected areas in his 4X4 truck of 44" mud tires, shoot animlas just to kill them ( but not collect or use them) and will be the first to stand up at a public meeting and state why it's his Constitutional right to use an M-60 machine gun and dynomite to hunt squirrels...and dares anybody to try to pry his weapons from his dead cold fingers.

Not the person you want to represent you right?

WEll, you know that just as soon as one gun control proponet make s a comment, that - "That" kind of NRA member will stand up. , and even though he may be one voice in a million....you know he's the one the media will latch onto.

The damage is almost unfixable.

I personally know some people who are NRA members and trust me...I doubt the NRA wants them to be the image that represents the NRA.

Likewise, I know somepeople who are NRA members and they NEED to be the ones on the news doing all the talking.

Thing is, which one does the media use to sell a story?

Which one does the gun control lobby use as an example of why more gun control is needed!


Shouldn't have to be this way, but alot of things shouldn't have to be the way they are.


JUst my own opinion , mind you.

[Sierra]

I agree with scout and Ohio as well, just wish there was a balance between showing respect and standing strong.

[kellory]

"Tis better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt."
The NRA is showing more class, than the opposition. I understand there is already a AR-15 ban bill headed the the Senate, Under the theory, that no tragedy should go to waste.

Scoutfish, your reasoning is sound. We can choice who we will emulate, but most of those who represent us are chosen by the opposition.and it's usually our bad apples.

[Ohio farms]

My son in law sent me this the other day. My read on it was that our FIRST priority and thoughts should be to comfort those who lost those innocent lives in such a brutal and tragic manner, not to worry about gun control. Those issues will be dealt with in time, but not in this moment.

[Deebz]

^^ very true

But if you ask me, when the first reaction by Obama/Liberals is to use these tragic shootings as a springboard for shoving their gun control agendas through Congress shows that their priorities as human beings are the equivalent of black holes of suckage...

[unclebuck]

^^ very true

But if you ask me, when the first reaction by Obama/Liberals is to use these tragic shootings as a springboard for shoving their gun control agendas through Congress shows that their priorities as human beings are the equivalent of black holes of suckage...

Than when would be a good time to do it? Maybe after the next shooting?

[Deebz]

There's never a good time to implement the types of gun control our liberal administration would like to see.

I know it's been said many times, but passing laws limiting access to guns absolutely will not curb any violence. If a person is going to buy a gun with the sole intention of committing a crime, they are going to find one whether it's purchased legally or not. If they can't get a gun, they'll use something else.

The only type of gun control that can help to prevent/minimize these types of occurrences is to put guns INTO the hands of responsible and sane people, then teach them how to properly control that weapon with training not only on the range, but also in combat skills.

It is impossible to prevent these types of things from happening. There is evil in the world. Evil will do whatever it can to destroy that which is good in the world. The only way to minimize the effect of these attacks is to be ready for when they happen and be able to respond in a manner that will end the threat.