The Left’s Renewed Assault on the NRA

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


While much of the country mourns the horrific death of the 26 children and adults murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut at the hands of an alleged mentally unstable individual who also killed his mother, the Left lost no time in shamelessly exploiting the tragedy.  In fact, Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY) used the word “exploit” in urging President Obama to take advantage of the Newtown massacre to prod Congress into passing stronger gun control legislation.

The Left’s avowed goal is to use what happened to galvanize support for cutting the Second Amendment into pieces and disarm law-abiding Americans. To accomplish that purpose, they are committed to discrediting and destroying the National Rifle Association.

Some unhinged leftists have taken to social media to literally call for NRA President David Keene and NRA members to be shot.

For those leftists who would not go quite that far, they have called for an all-out political war to take down the NRA. For example, in a clarion call to its readers, the progressive Daily Kos proclaimed:

After Connecticut, we can’t stay silent and just hope that something like it will never happen again. We have to stand up to the political power of the NRA, and we have to do it right now while their support is weakest.

CREDO, a progressive group, organized a march on NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C. These zealots blamed the NRA for the shooting. “To stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA,” they said in announcing their march. Evidently, these progressives have as little regard for the NRA’s constitutional right to petition their government under the First Amendment as they do for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The mainstream media is also jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon. “We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,” CNN anchor Don Lemon demanded during an anti-gun tirade. During the same tirade he said that mental health is a “secondary issue.”

Jeff Greenfield, a political analyst now with PBS who used to work for CBS News, CNN, and ABC News compared the Newtown shootings to the sinking of the Titanic, which cost 1,522 passengers and crew members their lives, and to the horrible 1911 fire that broke out in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan and killed 146 garment workers, mostly young female immigrants, who were trapped inside. In both of these earlier cases, Greenfield argued, the tragedies spurred tighter regulations. Now, Greenfield wrote, it was time to  “politicize the Newtown school shooting, starting right now” and clamp down on gun ownership.

The progressives who demand stricter gun control measures refuse to look at the consequences of their own actions that have made it very difficult to get mentally unstable individuals off the streets and institutionalized if they represent a danger to themselves or others.  The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the main culprits.

While the ACLU has little use for the Second Amendment, which it has said is only “a collective right,” despite the Supreme Court’s opinion to the contrary, the ACLU endangers communities by advocating the release of potentially violent individuals into society without adequate safeguards, monitoring to make sure they are taking their meds, and intervention if necessary. The ACLU even helped defeat a bill in the Connecticut Senate that would have allowed the state to institutionalize those persons whom it had reason to believe posed a threat to themselves or others. The ACLU charged that the bill would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.” Did the ACLU ever stop to worry about the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their business without the risk of coming face-to-face with an unsupervised mentally deranged shooter? Obviously not. Would the children and adults killed in Newtown Connecticut be alive today if that bill had passed?  We’ll never know, thanks in part to the ACLU.

There is room for honest debate on whether to tighten background checks and to consider more restrictions on the sale of military-style semi-automatic rifles. But the Left’s gun prohibitionists have no interest in reasonable dialogue or in seeking a sensible solution to prevent more carnage that addresses all relevant factors including mental health rather than focus single-mindedly on gun control. They are using the slaughtered kids as props for their radical anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • UCSPanther

    What makes the gun lobby so powerful?

    The answer is simple: Tons of grassroots supports from common citizens, and more than the leftists and their double agents can even comprehend.

  • Viet Vet

    For gawds sake capitalize Progressive. The progressive nature of Teddy Roosevelt's tenure is not the Progressive nature of the democrap party. Communist sypathizer (more likely communist) Henry Wallace, FDR's first VP, started a 3rd party movement in 1948, The Progressive Party. Progressive is on the first page of the communist playbook. It is now the nature of the democrqp party. They are Progressives, not progressives.

  • Viet Vet

    Oh, and they're not 'automatic rifles'. We are talking about semi-auto rifles.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah, idiots on the left rarely know what the hell they're even talking about when it comes to guns.

      It's bad enough when there are cops that don't know the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and an "automatic" pistol (which isn't at all like what people have in mind when they think "automatic"–such as the M-16).

    • Joseph Klein

      I stand corrected – semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are the more easily accessible weapons.

  • Tan

    This is it guys. The Left is at war with conservatives. They got their justification to do so (which had nothing to do with the NRA) by making the Connecticut tragedy into a declaration of war against law-abiding citizens of the US who respect the 2nd amendment. If they want a political war, then let's give them a political war. Where's Andrew Breitbart when you need him? If we started calling the anti-gun people Socialists or Communists, then maybe they will understand of how we feel when the NRA and others are falsely blamed for a massacre that they had nothing to do with.

    "These zealots blamed the NRA for the shooting. 'To stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA,' they said in announcing their march."

    But I say in order to stop the anti-gun Leftist thugerish against US citizens, we must first stop all far-Left groups and all of far-Left media's lies from taking over this country.

    “'We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,' CNN anchor Don Lemon demanded during an anti-gun tirade."

    No! We need to impeach Obama and the rest of the commies in our government so that they don't destroy the US.

    "Jeff Greenfield, a political analyst now with PBS who used to work for CBS News, CNN, and ABC News compared the Newtown shootings to the sinking of the Titanic…and to the horrible 1911 fire…"

    What a weak argument Jeff made. These incidents were not even committed by one murderer.

    "The progressives who demand stricter gun control measures refuse to look at the consequences of their own actions…"

    That's because until they realize that humanity is not born good, they won't look at their actions. They assume that everything they do is therefore good. Maybe they don't care about what's good and what's bad. For them, it's all about them. However, the Left can make the same argument against us by saying, "You right-wingers don't care about the safety of our children by putting restrictions on guns because it's all about you."

    • pagegl

      We need to advertise that the leftists want to do Hitler's and Stalin's work.

  • crackerjack

    The problem with the NRA is that it catagorically refuses to address the US gun violence problem. Homicides involving firearms in the US run at 29,8 per Million. Germany runs at 2,1. Canada 5,0. Japan, 0,09. Turkey 7,2. Egypt 6,3.

    Apparently the NRA agenda will protect your gun, but not your life.

    • Joseph Klein

      Chicago and Washington D.C have the strictest gun control laws in the nation and also lead in murders with guns. In the years following its ban, Washington's number of gun killings rose by over 150 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent.
      In the decade after Chicago outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

      Criminals will always find ways to get firearms to commit their murders – sometimes, courtesy of the U.S. government such as through Operation Fast & Furious. It is law-abiding citizens who will be rendered defenseless against such criminals and the mentally deranged.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Apparently the NRA agenda will protect your gun, but not your life."

      The NRA protects the right to own and use the gun that protects the life, when leftists don't interfere.

      • crackerjack

        The NRA agenda provides guns to everyone, the criminal and law abiding, the mentally ill and the sane, kid and the adult. the NRA protects guns, not citizens.

        • Gislef

          Could we see a copy of this "agenda"?

        • tagalog

          The NRA has a host of programs and instruction courses in which a person can learn how to use a firearm so as to defend himself and others effectively. Accordingly, it can truthfully be said that the NRA agenda is aimed at teaching people gun safety and protection of life. The NRA also teaches firearms accuracy and fire discipline, so that one who protects himself or others with a firearm is less likely to shoot himself in the foot or do harm to an innocent bystander than the average thug or disdainer of the NRA. We NRA types don't hold our handguns sideways. We don't care much about looking "cool;" our focus is on hitting our target.

        • HoR_Emperor

          Sheer fantasy. Grow up.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The NRA agenda provides guns to everyone…"

          Citation please. Somehow your subjective analysis isn't worth much around here.

        • Drakken

          Jesus H Christ! Are you effing bloody completely stupid? Or just being a pain in the azz? The 2nd Amendment is a God given right and if you effing leftist try to do away with it you will get revolution. Dumbazz!

        • Mary Sue

          The NRA is giving away firearms? Since when?

    • Darrell

      "Apparently the NRA agenda will protect your gun, but not your life. "

      It's not their job or responsability to protect my life. They protect my right to own a gun so I can protect my life and the life of my loved ones.

      When seconds counts, the police are only minutes away.

      How long did it take them to get to the school to protect the students? One armed Teacher could have saved several students while they waited for the police to arrive.

      • Ricky Michael

        15 minutes.

    • Noway2no

      You really don't know anything about the NRA or its policies do you?

    • Stephen_Brady

      No, the NRA will not protect my life. I do that, with my gun …

    • JacksonPearson

      The NRA didn't author, or write the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
      You still can't comprehend the 2nd Amendment…right cracked head!

    • JCS

      Great Crackerjack. If you believe that nobody needs a gun for protection then put a sign on every door and window of your house saying "I believe in gun control. There are no guns in this house." Since the only danger is from guns in the hand of honest gun owners you should be perfectly safe, right?

      • Mary Sue

        we all know what happen when they tried that in real life in Chicago! ;)

    • HoR_Emperor

      The "problem" is not guns, it is violence. Violent crime is actually in decline in the United States. And you're comparing apples to oranges in a very dishonest way, which isn't surprising from the Left.

    • Mary Sue

      The NRA is not responsible in ANY way for America's mental health (or lack thereof).

    • Manda Sterling

      As bad as it may sound, when you remove suicides and gang related violence, our figures for shootings are on par with other countries.

      THe overwhelming majority of shootings in the United States are gang related. Black man shooting another black man, or hispanic shooting hispanic. The crime figures have backed this up for years. They are responsible for most of the "gun violence" in the United States. Some of these statistics also factor in suicides, which while they involve a firearm, it's one person shooting themselves. Not another. Therefore, they should not count in the statistics.

      If anything, we have a minority culture problem. But the majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. And we don't need some stupid old dinosaur like Dianne Feinstein saying what we can and cannot own. SHe's also a hypocrite war profiteer.

  • UCSPanther

    Your comment says it all: A disrespectful, dim witted little punk who likes to talk smack on a topic he obviously knows nothing about.

    And in any survival of the fittest scenarios, you OWS beggars would be the first to be consumed. No one likes parasites, especially ones with attitudes…

    • Mary Sue

      man how bad was it, I missed out?

  • Mach1Duck

    What a statement, "Some unhinged leftists have taken to social media to literally call for NRA President David Keene and NRA members to be shot" If guns are outlawed what are they going to shoot them with, sling shots loaded with rocks…Oops, sling shots and rocks are next on the lits to be banned. We should ban doctors also, as there are thousand of deaths due to doctors, and how about cars…Doctors and cars kill more people than guns…Heck, aportion clinics kill more than guns do.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Weapons training is not something leftists want the citizens to have, we know the scenario,
    disarm the population and it is then defenseless against government tyranny, Stalin and
    Hitler did this. Not so surprising is the cause of problems that need personal weapons,
    at the base or root cause you will find leftist subversion. Insideous leftists if they were banned
    peace and a life worth living would be the result………………….William

    • Stephen_Brady

      Good post, William.

      Law-abiding sane people do not go on shooting rampages. You mentioned Stalin and Hitler. Case made …

  • Fred

    So they want to SHRED THE CONSTITUTION and get rid of the 2nd amendment. They is their main goal. Ask the 6 million Jews if they are sorry they give up their guns.

  • Mike

    We have a responsibility to protect our family and ourselves with the firearms we legally own. Keep the idiot left away from our freedoms.

  • Grenadier

    There are rumors the school shooter did not use the Bushmaster AR15 to murder the 26 innocents. Instead, some claim the shooter used handguns not the AR15 as reported. What is the truth? Does anyone have the facts?

    • Spider

      Yes The AR-15 was left in the car during the rempage and was not even used. CBS news lied about this fact and not only implied the AR-15 was used but described it as an "automatic weapon just like the ones the military uses" i.e they implied it was a fuly automatic machine gun. I just loved Don Lemons rant on CNN also saying we shoul ban all guns and ammunition or "get it of the streets" as he put it.

  • Asher

    Gun Free Zones are a magnet for mass shootings. Lanza broke every gun law on the book. Connecticut law requires a person to be over 21 to possess a gun..Lanza was 20, Connecticut requies a permit to carry a pistol on one's person, Lanza did not have one. Its unlawful to possess a firearm on public or private elementary school property, a staute Lanza ignored. Details of the Bushmaster rifle are still sketchy, its possible he many have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of assault weapons. He would have used a knife, a car, or box cutters, laws would not have stopped him. These shooters are there to committ suicide and take as many people as they can with them for the attention. Ban the violent video games that teach children how to kill, and put better security in schools, where alarm bells go off if there is a break in. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens allows the killers to have free reign in a society that disarms the innocent. Note how the anti-gun people couldn't wait to react and disarm everyone who is sane and has a right to defend themselves.

    • Questions

      Reality check: Video games do NOT "teach children how to kill." Specifically, "Call of Duty" and its sequels are regularly used by the U.S. military to train soldiers. And none of them depict the killing of civilians.

      You're right about everything else, though. A mere law is not going to deter a killer from carrying out his grim deed.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Gun Free Zones are a magnet for mass shootings. Lanza broke every gun law on the book. Connecticut law requires a person to be over 21 to possess a gun..Lanza was 20, Connecticut requies a permit to carry a pistol on one's person, Lanza did not have one. Its unlawful to possess a firearm on public or private elementary school property, a staute Lanza ignored. "

      We need more laws…making it illegal to break the law. That should do it, once the constitution is eliminated and 0'Bama is our leader for life.

    • Mary Sue

      don't you DARE ban the video games. You can't on one hand uphold one section of the constitution whilst trampling on another.

      I've played Mortal Kombat (the original) and I've not gone on any mass crazed shootings.

  • NAHALKIDES

    "Military-style automatic rifles" are already severely restricted, so there's really no need for further debate on them. And we should always be firm – no negotiation on the 2nd Amendment.

  • penny lane

    As the good book says……..He who lives by the gun, dies by the gun. A perfect description of the USA today. Americans obviously don't know their Bible.

    • Ricky Michael

      Uh, he that lives by the "Sword" dies by the "Sword." But, I do get your point.

      When the swords are beat into plows shears, then I will give up my gun. Until then I will protect myself and others from bad people who misuse firearms. The best defense against bad guys with guns are the good guys with guns.

      • Stephen_Brady

        You beat me to this fine response, Ricky.

        • Ricky Michael

          You can beat me to it the next time.

    • tagalog

      Yeah, I agree. I've always thought that the thugs who live by the use of weapons will one day pick a victim who refuses to be victimized and is armed and lets them have it, preferably right between the eyes.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yeah, I agree. I've always thought that the thugs who live by the use of weapons will one day pick a victim who refuses to be victimized and is armed and lets them have it, preferably right between the eyes."

        And that is exactly what the text is saying.

        • tagalog

          Okay, and I was agreeing.

    • pagegl

      Do not equate mentally unhinged murders with law-abiding, rational, responsible people.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Americans obviously don't know their Bible"

      Many know how to take quotes out of context to serve their political agenda, just as you do.

    • Drakken

      Those that beat their swords into plowshares always plow for those who don't.

    • Mary Sue

      Jesus said to them, "If you do not have a sword, go out and sell your cloak and BUY one." (they didn't have guns in those days but they did have swords!)

    • JoJoJams

      Ummm. David had his sling – and trusted in God that his aim was true. A good weapon in capable hands allows ANY "David" to take on ANY "Goliath" on EQUAL footing.

  • cynthia curran

    The problem with the NR it wants every weapon to be own by private citiznes. And doesn't want any background checks, well when you apply for a job there are crimmal and credit checks but the NRA states you can't have that for guns. crazy. The left is the other extreme if they had their way no hand guns or real bulliets.

    • Noway2no

      You really should get information before you form opinions. The NRA has been an advocate for background checks for decades. In addition, the NRA spends millions fighting for strict enforcement of gun laws and supplying safety training to people of all sort from law enforcement to housewives.

    • tagalog

      Things the NRA is on record as favoring:

      1. No gun possession or ownership for convicted felons;

      2. Background checks on new gun purchases;

      3. No gun possession or ownership by the mentally ill;

      4. Gun familiarization;

      5. Gun safety instruction beginning at early ages;

      6. Reasonable regulation of firearms, such as laws regulating carrying firearms into courthouses or other public buildings;

      7. Restrictions on possession/use of firearms on private property as the private owners see fit;

      8. Strict security for firearms, including keeping firearms unloaded and keeping ammunition in a separate location from the firearms;

      9. Advocating for keeping guns unloaded until ready to use them, keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot, never pointing a firearm at anything one doesn't intend to destroy, always treating a gun as loaded until it is checked for its status;

      10. Increased penalties for those who use firearms while committing a crime.

      There are lots of others, but those are the ones that come most readily to mind.

    • tagalog

      The NRA is all for weapons to be in the hands of the armed forces, not just private citizens.

      • Stephen_Brady

        ???

        What did you mean? You post doesn't make sense …

        • tagalog

          Cynthia Curran said, "The problem with the NR it wants every weapon to be own by private citiznes."

          I read her as meaning the NRA (as opposed to the "NR"), "owned" (as opposed to "own") and "citizens," (as opposed to "citiznes") and I responded by saying that the NRA is all in favor of having the military possess weapons, in addition to private citizens owning their firearms.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Thank you, and your post makes sense, now.

            The vast majority of our military are in favor of civilian ownership of firearms, based upon my experience, and that of my sons (one of whom is a colonel of infantry, recently returned from Afghanistan). And most would absolutely not obey an illegal order to fire upon American citizens.

    • HoR_Emperor

      Lying about the NRA only makes you look foolish and hateful.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The problem with the NR it wants every weapon to be own by private citiznes.And doesn't want any background checks,"

      I think background checks by local authorities would be a good idea, and give them the ability to search records without reporting details unless there is a problem.

      The problem with the federal government comes from giving them too much power to abuse. We already see why this is a concern.

  • Deerknocker

    The gun grabbers want to prohibit assault rifles but have no idea what an assault rifle is. Actually no one does. The phrase "assault rifle" has no precise definition beyond a rifle used in an assault. It is like referring to a knife as a "self-defense knife". Any knife could be used for self-defense, and any rifle could be used for an assault. For example, would a rifle with a wooden stock, with no pistol grip, no shorter than 43 inches, and firing from a clip holding a maximum of 8 rounds be considered an assault weapon? Most would probably say no. Assault weapons would be AR-15 types of weapons with 30 round clips. Weapons that look nasty. Well, the weapon described is the M-1 Garrand, the main battlefield "assault" rifle of WWII, capable of 40-50 well placed shots per minute in trained hands. If you can't define it, how can you regulate it?

    • tagalog

      The M-1 Garand is NOT an assault rifle, whatever an assault rifle is, and has never been classified as one by anyone. It was the standard issue U.S. infantry rifle for World War II and Korea, when it was replaced by the M-14 in 1956. The assault rifle of World War II was the first one ever made, by the Germans, the Sturmgewehr ("Assault rifle") 44. The U.S. "assault rifle," if you can call it that, for WWII and Korea was the squad "light" machine gun, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). The U.S. did not have an assault rifle during those two wars that I can think of. Maybe someone else here knows differently. In fact, unless you call the current standard issue U.S. rifle, the M-16 or M4, an assault rifle, we still don't have one, to my knowledge.

      The definition of "assault weapon" in the assault weapon ban statute addressed itself expressly to the cosmetic appearance of the firearm, not to the manner of functioning.

      The common definition of "assault rifle" used by people who actually pay attention to firearms is that an assault rifle is capable of full auto fire and uses an intermediate-power cartridge.

      • Stephen_Brady

        An M1 Garand, as pointed out, is capable of 40-50 well-placed shots per minute, and can mount a bayonet, in case the combat gets personal. One of the reasons the German developed the Sturgewehr 44 is because of the tremendous firepower of the Garand, as opposed to the Mauser.

        Every semi-automatic rifle is "capable" of full automatic fire. You just have to know how to make it happen.

        Is the "assault rifle" in the ban statute an assault rifle or not?

        For myself, I prefer long-range marksmanship (I was a sniper in Vietnam), and don't like the .223 round. I have several such semi-automatic weapons, which would undoubtedly be included in an Obama "assault-rifle ban", because they have pistol grips, bipods, tactical sights, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs.

        However, if those rifles were to disappear, I would still have my Winchester Model 70 which … with scope … could take out a blue helmet from upwards of 2000 meters. Believe me when I say that I can make such a shot, on a regular basis …

        • tagalog

          Yes, a semi-automatic firearm can be rigged to fire full auto.

          As you very well know, and were talking about before you decided to do some wiggling, was firearms that are DESIGNED to fire full auto, not guns that have been jiggered (as in filing down the sear on the M-1, for example).

          The assault rifle ban statute addresses itself to rifles that LOOK LIKE real assault rifles, so my answer is that the assault rifle ban did not prohibit assault rifles, but semi-automatic rifles that are replicas of military firearms.

          I like the Model 70 also. What scope do you like? I'm still not clear on the .308 vs. .30/06 debate. I grew up shooting .30/06, so I'm a .30/06 man so far. That's the caliber I'd choose for a Model 70 if I bought one. I've fired the Remington Model 700 in .270 a bit, and I like that one. Never had one of those alleged "mystery discharges" with the 700 and don't know anyone who has. Just keep it pointed down range when it's loaded, eh?

          I've been a rifle shooter all my life, but I got interested in handguns a few years ago, and I've focused on them in my later years. As they say, a handgun is what you use until you can get your hands on a rifle. Compared to rifles, they're so inaccurate, but I like trying to control my arc of movement and the other variables that affect accuracy. Not so easy in one's 60s. Or one's 20s for that matter. Rifles are so much more precise.

          • Stephen_Brady

            I don't think that I was doing any "wiggling". I understood your post and was just elaborating on what you had said.

            For my Model 70, in .30-06, I prefer the Zeiss Victory 6-24x56mm Rapid-Z 1000. Incredible optics, but prepare to pay large. However, in Vietnam, the scope was a very basic 8-power model that could be bought in the Sporting Goods Dept at any Wal-Mart.

            A handgun is good for close-in defense, but takes intensive practice on the range, in order to be proficient. I would much rather blast an enemy from 1000 yards with a .30-06 (about 200 gr). If necessary, I would use a .40-cal, and practice to make sure that within 50 feet, I can make a double-tap to center-of-mass, followed by a single round to the head. This assumes a single offender.

          • Drakken

            As one of those Marine Scout/Sniper in my day I prefer the Rem mod 700 in 7.62 Nato with a Smith and Bender 4-25 by 56 mm, my other choice is either a M-110 with same scope or a M-14/m-1a1 with the wood funiture stripped off and a nice glass beded composite stock. For a nice really reach out and touch someone a Inter-Arms 338 Lapua that is good for 2,500 meter shots. As for pistols I prefer a Glock 17/19r 9mm or G22/23 in 40 cal, What I have really enjoyed now is the FN 5.7 mm.

          • Stephen_Brady

            A man after my own heart, to say the least!

        • trickyblain

          I find it absurd that folks are trying to ban my AR, but my Garand is a-ok in their book. The Garand is far more accurate (long range) and roughly twice the power of a .223. Reloading is faster in able hands. One hell of a flash, though.

          I only wish I could mount my EOTech on it (kidding, that would be sacrilege).

          • Stephen_Brady

            Reloading a Garand is a matter of practice. My Dad's rifle … which I inherited … I will sometimes pump several hundred rounds through, on the range, just to get the feel of reloading quickly.

            The notion that a semi-automatic weapon with a fixed magazine of 10-or-less rounds is somehow "safer" is ridiculous. Of course, I'm not going to give them any ideas on how to make it less dangerous!

          • WilliamJamesWard

            I find it interesting that to ban personal weapons, it would take those who own them
            to take them away, ending legal sales is what the government is about under the
            leftist-communist regime, it is a start for them. Somehow I do not think this can
            happen in America, not until our generation goes through the pearly gates.
            William

          • trickyblain

            Snap-Caps come in handy for practice, too. And gloves!

          • tagalog

            So, as a Garand owner, what's your opinion on the en bloc clip the Garand uses? Is it a "detachable magazine" or not?

          • trickyblain

            Seems pretty detachable to me. I don't even have to detach it after emptying a clip, it does it for me. I guess it's "acceptable" because it holds less than ten rounds.

          • tagalog

            Is it a "magazine?"

          • trickyblain

            Good point. I guess it has a "auto-detaching clip."

          • Mary Sue

            that's because they don't know anything about guns.

  • pagegl

    Are there any statistics available for the caliber of ammo used to commit crimes in this country? If so, it should be very easy to show what types of guns are used to commit those crimes. I have a feeling that we would find the vast majority of crimes, including murder, are committed with hand guns.

    • tagalog

      I don't know about the statistics, but 9 mm. seems to be mentioned in the news reports very often. But I bet the .40, the.45 and .38s are fairly commonly used for crimes, too. Hand guns, I bet you're right about that.

      • pagegl

        I did some research (and we know how reliable internet research is) and most of the info I found indicated the 9mm and .40 were the most prevalent. Rifle calibers in almost everything I could find represented no more than 10 percent of the deaths attributed to firearms. And so, in the face of any reasonable data, the leftists are going to do the best to ban weapons that are involved in a small minority or murders. Yeah, they tend to be involved in the more spectacular incidents, but banning them will, as it did last time, have next to no effect on the murder rate.

        Instead of attacking tools, our politicians should try to figure out how to keep dangerous people from getting any type of weapons. Perhaps we need revisit how we handle people like Lanza and Holmes. Lanza's mother gave indications she knew her son was dangerous. Holmes also gave off warning signs. I wonder what the leftists would be saying if Lanza's mother did not have guns and her warped son had made and used a hamascide vest.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "And so, in the face of any reasonable data, the leftists are going to do the best to ban weapons that are involved in a small minority or murders. Yeah, they tend to be involved in the more spectacular incidents, but banning them will, as it did last time, have next to no effect on the murder rate. "

          Precisely. The last thing they want is to stop anywhere short of a total ban.

  • watsa46

    Handgun yes, semi-automatic NO.

    • tagalog

      That leaves revolvers, which, in the hands of an experienced user are just as effective as semi-auto pistols if not holding as many rounds, and have the advantage that you don't leave expended cartridge casings lying around for the investigators to collect and use to catch the bad guys.

    • Tan

      Why should citizens have less effective weapons when criminals and others have weapons greater than civilians. I'm not saying that civilians should have fully-automatic weapons (except in a major crisis such as a US invasion by Russia or the Middle East). I'm saying that in order for civilians to effectively protect themselves, they need efficient weapon systems, in this case semi-auto weapons. You must have been thinking about fully-automatic weapons, because handguns are semi-auto. People today don't use non-semi-automatic pistols for self-defense (such as the bolt-action pistols).

      • tagalog

        Until the Second World War, civilians routinely possessed higher-tech firearms at the individual firearms level than the armed forces in the United States.

        In support of that claim, consider how the Sioux and Cheyenne were armed vs. how the U.S. Army was armed at the Little Bighorn battle in 1876.

      • tagalog

        Sure they do. A lot of people prefer revolvers to semi-autos even today. Revolvers have the benefit that they are mechanically simple, and will fire every time you pull the trigger, given good ammunition and a properly functioning firearm.

        Modern semi-auto pistols are much better than they used to be, but they're still a bit finicky when it comes to ammo. They don't jam as much as they did in the past, but they still jam. Revolvers don't jam.

        Until the Federal Firearms Act was passed in 1933 or 1934, to deal with the Depression-era rash of hoodlums using automatic firearms (like the Thompson SMG or the BAR), it was legal for a citizen to own fully automatic firearms. The Auto-Ordnance company used to advertise the Thompson submachine gun for sale to farmers for pest control, believe it or not. I bet a burst of .45 rounds on barn rats played hell with the vermin population, by golly.

        The government trusted the general populace until the time of FDR.

    • Mary Sue

      You obviously have no idea what semi-automatic means.

      It does NOT mean "one trigger pull equals spray of bullets"!

  • Ted G

    I could barely believe what I was seeing on CNN. Less than two days after this tragedy and these poor families haven't even been able to bury their children yet and CNN was blatantly greasing the anti gun propaganda skids.
    These people are parasites on the belly of America. We should really start talking about treason in this country. Because its seemingly everywhere, especially in the halls of power!

    Any politician that speaks out against the U.S Constitution should be called out as traitors and treated as a such! When will we start to see some real leaders rising up for true freedom and liberty?

  • Chad

    Why does the President of the United States deliver eulogies at funerals? Is that one of his duties as specified by the Constitution?

    • Z. Conner

      The President of the United States preaches at funerals in order to smuggle in the idea–an idea that could not be taken seriously if stated explicitly–that all human tragedy is the result of some governmental failing; and that we can by legislation create a utopia in which death, sickness, and unhappiness no longer exist.

      • Bryan

        It's political indoctrination at the subliminal level. Very interesting!

    • tagalog

      In this instance, the President is acting in accordance with Rahm Emanuel's claim that a political leader should never let a "good crisis" go to waste.

  • VLParker

    In their mindless attacks on the NRA the libs never bother to look at the legitimate reasons for the second amendment based on history. Nor do they ever take into account human nature.

    Several previous posts have mentioned the Nazis, the Soviet Union and Red Chinese all disarmed the populace upon taking power. This is hardly a phenomenon of the 20th century. The Founding Fathers were well aware of this tactic of tyranny. The number of people murdered by governments, either their own or others, is astounding. The numbers are in the hundreds of millions, maybe even billions. Funny how the left never talks about that.

    As for human nature, we have a ban on cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines in this country and the stuff is all over the place. We banned alcohol for over a decade and alcohol could be found everywhere. And we can ban guns and the result will be the same. You cannot un-invent something and guns are not going to go away. As long as the bad guys have them the good guys better have them too or you end up with slaughter.
    If there had been armed security at this school the death toll would have been considerably smaller or the event may not have even happened at all.

    There is some nonsense out in cyberspace about the NRA being a racist organization and that they are affiliated with the KKK. It would be hilarious if so many fools didn’t actually believe it. The KKK was founded by racist, former officers of the Confederacy. The NRA was founded by former officers of the Union and General Ambrose Burnside was the first NRA president. Currently on the Board of Directors of the NRA are Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality and Karl Malone, former NBA star. I don’t think these two would belong to an organization that supposedly targeted blacks. What utter nonsense.

    • Mary Sue

      many liberals believe in tabula rasa, that the human upon birth is a 'blank slate' upon which anything can be 'written'—therefore natural good and natural evil don't exist to them except as exerted by mysterious outside forces.

  • Spider

    Yes The AR-15 was left in the car during the rempage and was not even used. CBS news lied about this fact and not only implied the AR-15 was used but described it as an "automatic weapon just like the ones the military uses" i.e they implied it was a fuly automatic machine gun. I just loved Don Lemons rant on CNN also saying we shoul ban all guns and ammunition or "get it of the streets" as he put it.

  • Ghostwriter

    I don't own a gun myself. But I'm not going to interfere with a law abiding person's right to own a gun,especially if he is a sane individual who locks his guns away from his kids.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    ABORTION AND BANNING GUNS IN MORALLY CRAZY AMERICA

    What are innocent children infrequently killed by gunfire in savage mass murder attacks compared to the holocaust of unborn children-one million a year-brutally murdered in abortion clinics? Which is worse? A senseless AK-47 that can’t shoot itself (and is neither good nor evil) but can be used to protect life from killers or take it in crime? Or an abortion doctor serially killing one unborn baby after another on a deadly assembly line? Now I’m no more for killing abortion doctors for their evil practices and crimes than are people on the Left for killing gun manufacturers or retailers who do nothing wrong when selling guns to law abiding citizens. But those who want to uphold the laws that keep mass murdering abortion clinics and doctors in business-and a president who pours out his heart over young Newtown victims but believes in live birth abortions (the most heinous kind)-are hypocritical for wanting to ban guns, any guns, because they could be used to kill innocent children or anyone. Where’s the moral sanity in this?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      I had the same thoughts, Obama is a baby killer, at the most innocent and helpless point
      in the childs life, his hypocracy is endless…………God's judgement which can not be banned
      is becoming emminent in America……………….William

  • Western Spirit

    Instead of going after guns we should be profiling those apt to use them because of mental health problems and make sure they are disarmed.

    • mlcblog

      OK. Then what about the people in the hood and elsewhere who will continue to shuffle illegal firearms between themselves, completely out of the sight or touch of the law.

      This is what so many forget to include. There are trunks full of illegal guns in every single city, stashes even. Get real, people.

  • K.Glenn Koons

    Look, the Left is on a trend to attack not only the Const. and the 2nd Amend. but the 22nd one too to enable Bama for a 3rd term. Watch. The Moron vote that won in Nov. is now behind all the propaganda and emotions offered by the MSM, DNC and the Prez. And it is working. It is scaring the Right , the GOP as ever the wussies, and Indies. Bama is riding high and has Joe B. ready to take on the NRA but more….all legal guns. Watch. The slippery slope is ….here. Reagan, C. Heston would both be appalled. But, so would Truman and JFK. Today's Dems are not only Moronic but mean and socialist and they are prevailing. The Right, the Evangelicals did not get enough voters to question Obama and the Dems and thus we have not only common sense conservs losing on the fiscal cliff but on Const. issues as well. Some here have good suggestions on mental health, carry laws, which I espouse, armed responders in malls, schools, govt. facilities including bases with liveammo, but the morons do not want this and Obama has cleverly used their inanity to move America even more Left than Wilson or FDR ever did.

  • mlcblog

    All the same to me. Glenn Beck had an excellent series on this when he was on Fox. I had no idea, had wondered.