NRA Up In Arms Over Obama Gun Control Legislation
Published by Freethinking on March 16, 2011 in US Politics-
6
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) undoubtedly the most powerful and influential lobbying force in America, refuses to meet with President Obama over gun control legislation. The N.R. A. wields such humongous clout within our borders that they are comfortable enough to tell our President, "No" we will not meet with you.
The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) founded in 1871 and undoubtedly the most powerful and influential lobbying force in America has snubbed their noses at President Obama and refuse to meet with him to discuss gun control legislation. The N.R.A. wields such humongous clout within our borders that they are comfortable enough to tell our president, “No” we will not meet with you. Seriously? This group can’t even have a discussion? They remind me of the spoiled little brat covering their ears yelling, “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you.”
Amendment II under the Bill of Rights states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Given the weaponry, ammunition, and the mass killings that occur all too often, I ponder whether our Forefathers would have written this historical piece, using the language they did had they been witness to the events of late. The N.R.A.s core principles are to protect the Second Amendment, promote gun ownership, hunting, marksmanship, self defense and firearm safety. Personally, I think this organization has failed miserably with gun safety, especially when you consider one of the top ten causes of death in the United States is due to firearms. Apparently their sights are set on more guns and ammunition and to hell with anyone or anything that gets in their way. Let’s face it, when you have a membership of over 80,000,000 people, how do you return fire on an equal battlefield of gun legislation?
In March 2011, President Obama wrote an Op-Ed piece published in the Arizona Daily Star newspaper. He states, in part, “A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.” President Obama went on to say, “He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.” What is so terrible that Obama is asking which has forced the N.R.A. to put in their percussion earplugs to block out his cacophony? Well, how dare he? The rebel President, who many say, want to take away their guns, is only asking for a three pronged look at keeping firearms out of the hands of law-breaking, irresponsible people.
Mr. Obama’s shotgun approach to gun control is so offensive and suggests such sweeping changes. I’m being facetious, of course. These are the three topics he wants open for discussion: 1. He wants to make sure that the National Criminal Background checking system is working properly and the information contained within their files is complete. This also involves enforcing the laws which are already on the books. 2. He wants States to benefit when they furnish the most comprehensive information. 3. He would like to see the system updated to be faster and more accurate in reporting back to gun dealers regarding background checks, thus avoiding the sale of guns to criminals.
Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association has decided not to focus his scope on the issues raised by Obama. Instead, Mr. LaPierre shoots off wildly with the same old rhetoric. Sitting in the hunting blind of his office, Wayne fires off his favorite shots at how the Administration is attempting to ruin the Second Amendment, discussions should be about the mentally ill and criminal element, and not guns. The N.R.A has an arsenal of lobbyists who hold both Democrats and Republicans in their over stuffed pockets and under no circumstances will these politicians be released from the money baited snares which have entrapped them. Loaded with an armory of philosophical thinking, Wayne LaPierre has flatly refused to meet with the President of the United States, even if it means saving the lives of the N.R.A. membership.
My analysis is, quite simply, my own opinion. However, I feel it just falls into line with the further decay of the United States. To not discuss major issues of concern with the President of our country is an assault on all Americans and I, for one, am ashamed!
WRITTEN BY: DENNIS L. PAGE
OTHER ARTICLES WRITTEN BY DENNIS L. PAGE INCLUDE:
http://socyberty.com/politics/24-hour-news-cycle-killed-real-news
http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/republicans-offer-a-cure-for-the-economy-they-ruined
http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/nastiness-of-political-commentary
It’s the old addage, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Pretty lame logic if you ask me. But with that said, why is it so unacceptable to keep guns out of the hands of the people who kill people?
Nice article, Thanks for sharing
This is outrageous! Anyhow, let us all hope for peace.
Dennis, an excellent piece yet again. In the UK we have had our own gun massacres over the years – nutters will always be able to get guns. We have very stricy gun laws in this country. we don\’t have them in the home for personal protection. The majority of our police force are unharmed, we have no need for guns. If you do wish to own a gun, you are allowed shotguns and rifles – you must be able to prove that you need them and you need a full police background check. The only people with legal guns in the country are soldiers, armed police units and farmers – their guns being for pest control.
Well-written article.
Hi Dennis,
I am all for gun ownership for responsible people, the problem is that the few bad apples who abuse weapons mess it up for the rest of us.
Regulation and Responsible use policy is needed. The issues raised are good.
I am not a fan of all Obama does, but I think the N.R.A need to @ least be open to discussion on this issue.
very well presented…
great post..:]
Wow this is a wasp’s nest (pun intended). The rest of the world cannot understand how much slaughter by legalised maniac shooters has to take place before some restraints are brought in. It seems that with every incident in which one gunman takes the lives of several innocents that the gun lobby cannot wait to praise the American right to kill one another.
Let’s hope the debate which follows this sincere article will explain how things are.
Sadly in this world in its present state too many are not looking at things in the long run and only being short sighted. All they care about is themselves and as long as they are ok they care not about anyone who may get hurt as long as their little (or in this case big) club is allowed to continue as it always has and to hell with progress or badly needed reforms.
Strong words my friend. In the UK its illegal to own hand guns full stop. No automatic rifles or semi-automatic rifles. A single shot hunting rifle is allowed to be used only at registered rifle ranges (Trust me there are about 10 in the UK!) If you own a rifle it must be kept in a metal box which is secured to the wall or ground. I grew up with fire arms (No bullets though) as my father worked for the Royal Small Arms Factory in my home town. I played with M16’s Colt 45’s Snub Nosed .38’s Derringers etc etc. No bullets and most likely my father had removed the firing pins. I have my fathers shooting tropheys from Bisley. I have a healthy respect for firearms and Obama has it right. Great article! LB
What a powerful piece here.. I’ve been a supporter of the NRA for almost a decade and even though at times we don’t see eye to eye, I still support it hands down… powerful? Of course..
The NRA speaks to the importance and fragility of the Right to own a gun.. Frank
Thanks for sharing
great post.
It is worrying that the NRA won’t engage in proper dialogue with the Government. More so that it wields so much influence. I am glad the UK has much more stringent laws on guns. Great post.
I agree with your point of view. I hear this arguement that it is the people’s right to own guns (in other word it is one’s right to kill since that is basically the puprose for guns). American need to wake up and understand that guns are deadly weapons that even kids are getting access to and killing with them. I read some where that since the Arizona shooting there have been 2,405 more gun killings and perhaps even more. Maybe one day people will wake and realise it was never worth it , but it will be too late.
Bullshit.
We are in the midst of two wars and therefore the country is on a ‘war footing’. That is one step shy of martial law.
Anyone who refuses audience with the President under those circumstances can legally be jailed for treasonous behaviour.
Powerfully written article and well expressed points of view, other than that I will not get into the debate. I could write a book with my opinions.
Interesting subject. In South Africa we have new gun laws, which make a lot of sense in theory, but still difficult to implement. One of the reasons is that police “lose” the firearms voluntary handed over to them – so one suspects that they sell these back illegally?
I should think that if the president ask you for a meeting, it is really very arrogant not to attend . .
Intriguing topic, Dennis. I can see both sides when it comes to this particular issue. It depends on certain factors.
Very thought full written article…When a individual or group fails to communicate with another group or individual we have a potential problem. I do not understand why one group NRA in this case does not want to speak with an individual – the President. It is the same old political game at hand.
The events in the Middle East are showing that nothing is sacrosanct. Sane people will know that the Forefathers would not have entrenched the right to own arms in legislation, if they knew that it would promote random killings, and put the weapons in the hands of madmen. If the law needs to be changed to restrict gun ownership, then it should be changed.
The United States is one country in the world where crime rate using guns is the highest. The US should amend laws regarding firearms ownership to minimize deaths related to gun violence.
a thought provoking article you got here my friend, whatever happened to the law that punishes people who directly disobey the one who rules the land?
Very well presented as usual and indeed a great share:)
Thank goodness the UK has just banned them, I don’t want anyone going around with a gun unless they have bears in their back yard. Guns have caused such destruction over the years… and for the most part, in my opinion, we would be better off without them. I think Obama has the right idea and shame on the NRA for giving their president enough respect to even sit down and talk with him!
Why should the NRA meet with Obama? They should meet with someone who’s in charge and that’s not Obama.
What is there to discuss with the NRA? Look at the three points:
1. National Criminal Background checking working and files complete.
The NRA is fine with background checks: problem is the Feds are too incompetent to perform the task.
#1 has nothing to do with the NRA.
2. He wants States to benefit when they furnish the most comprehensive information.
If making their citizens safer isn’t “benefit” enough for the States and they want some Federal bribery that’s between the Feds and the States.
#2 has nothing to do with the NRA.
3. the system updated to be faster and more accurate.
See #1.
#3 has nothing to do with the NRA.
————————————————-
In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required the establishment of the National Instant background Check System (NICS) where names of people ineligible to possess firearms are entered.
Jared Loughner passed the background check: was that the fault of the NRA, or or NICS?
Mind boggling is it not, that these comments from these limeys are so far from the truth they should not have even been posted yes they have gun control so bad that gun violence has risen up 400%,these poor souls have nothing to protect themselves, and do you think the IRA gave up their handguns, of course not, and the main fact Obama or Eric Holder has ever been invited to interact with the NRA regarding these issues, if Obama really wanted to save people and let them protect themselves he would have Eric Holder establish a national shall issue law, which would allow trained folks to be able to carry a concealed weapon after their background check and training was finished, people don’t you realize an armed society is a polite society, I was introduced at 4 years old to the world of firearms, I was taught the respect and awesome responsibility in the use of
these weapons, been through a law enforcement career, and I
now involved in private investigation and personal security protection along with being a security research analysis I know more about these things than some governmental official, so I
do not allow emotional blabber to sway my trained educated mind set on this issue, it is better to have a gun and not need it
then to need one and not have. Mr. Jarred was giving out the warning signs for a long time, before he even acted and nobody
was listening, now who’s fault is it,
AAT – I have WORKED several murder cases in Manchester, UK involving guns… which are OUTLAWED in the UK. So don’t pipe in with your Eurotrash commentary on how dangerous the US is because we have gun rights. It’s not like you haven’t been discredited on many other articles.
I once worked with a former Russian paratrooper who served in Afghanistan in the 80s. He told me the only thing that kept them from invading the US then was the thought that “every American home had a gun”.
The Second Ammendment is number 2 out of 10 for reason… it was the second most important thing to the Founding Fathers. I am no gun nut, but I’ll be damned before this US has a Government that seizes my right to self defense. And as a Cop, I will defend other’s rights to self defense as well.
The only thing gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals break the law anyway, what do they care. When you hippys actually work a murder case where innocent people had no way to defend themselves, then your opinion might be worth a s@it.
@Freethinker – Your case is very valid… but unfortunately violates the second ammendment. The “militia” as defined by the Founding Fathers can be formed by anyone, anywhere, so long as the purpose is to keep a Federal or ruling authority in check. When you make laws removing weapons from all citizens good and bad, you abandone the right of all to self defense. Just like the old Attorney saying goes “I’d rather see a few bad men go free, so the rights of one good innocent man are preserved”. We must also observe the rights of the whole, despite a few bad ones.
I agree on your argument, just not at the cost of the rights of all. Criminals do not observe the law anyway (Ex – UK crime stats), only good people. You cannot infringe upon the rights of the good for one or two bad apples. But your article is an excellent representation of the differences between right and left. I commend you for an intelligent piece and debate.
To IndGaVet: Without giving too much of my past history, let me just say that in the 70s I wore a Sheriff’s uniform. Back in those days we had a Smith & Wesson Model 10 caliber.38, six rounds in the weapon, 12 in the dump box, a pair of handcuffs and a nightstick. Nothing more, nothing less, except for the lead cylinder that filled the bored out center of my nightstick, topped with a lead ball, called a rib spreader. For too many years that I care to remember, I was in charge of all investigations, throughout the U.S. surrounding homicides, suicides, disappearances and accidental deaths, working for various insurance companies. I still have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. So, as the saying goes, “been there, done that.” The images burned in my brain are not from NYPD Blue, Blue Bloods or Hawaii Five-O, maybe more like those depicted on Criminal Minds.
My whole point to this article is really why can’t the good citizens of this country at least have a discussion about curtailing “cop killer” bullets, certain types of weapons and extensive criminal background checks? Why?
To DFC: If President Obama is not in charge, please enlighten the rest of the voting public and tell us who is…would that be the Koch Brothers? Hmm?
@ Freethinking – You raise some good and valid points and it is an invaluable article. This is an important issue and you did a good job at sparking the debate. I never questioned your background or experience on the subject, I question other’s (AAT’s). I know you both are on the same side of the political spectrum, but I don’t believe we (the US) need to take advice from people in the UK on American issues. Their issues are not our issues, and their solutions are not our solutions. We have always been different from the rest of the world, regardless of your ideology. My point with AAT is banning weapons from all citizens does not keep weapons from criminal hands. However, I do agree with you on vigorous background checks and other measures. But banning weapons from citizens does not stop Homicide. Working behind the blue line, you should know that better than anyone. Living in the UK, AAT should know that as well. Thank you for posting THOUGHT PROVOKING information rather than partisan crap.
@IndGAVet
Bowling for Gun makers… give us the stats on gun crimes and gun murders in the USA and UK (or any other country and USA), Seems you lot are overly represented when it comes to shooting innocent people dead.
Speaking as a proud member of the NRA and a gun owning Texan, obviously neither you or Obama has ever purchased a firearm. The screening is usually done on the same day, and the response is immediate. If people who knew the man who killed people in Arizona had done their job (like his Dr.’s) and reported the information they had on him to the state in a timely manner. It would have flagged his application and he would not have been allowed to purchase a weapon.
But like most liberals it is always someone else’s fault for your own weakness and inadequacies. So it wasn’t his Dr.’s or the state or even this crazy individual, it must be the NRA’s fault and gun owners in general. Maybe we are all crazy, I’m sure that is what you would try to have others believe.
And frankly because of people like most of you I’m glad that I do keep firearms in my house.
@AAT. Here they are from a \”UK\” think tank based on those countries \”WILLING\” to report.
I also find it interesting that a large percentage of the countries that are lower also are those being \”protected\” by the US Or have already had their ass saved by us or are just so small that people do not go there \”so to speak\”.
Belarus 27.26
South Africa 26.63
Brazil 25.78
Jamaica 18.23
United States 6.24
Estonia 6.12
Zambia 5.37
Philippines 3.61
Trinidad and Tobago 3.42
Costa Rica 2.57
Argentina (b) 1.50
Peru 1.06
Czech Republic 0.92
Finland 0.87
Republic of Moldova 0.63
Canada 0.60
Australia 0.56
Greece 0.55
Austria 0.53
United Republic of Tanzania 0.50
Hungary 0.47
Slovakia 0.36
Sweden 0.31
Poland 0.27
New Zealand 0.22
Germany 0.21
Malaysia 0.20
Spain 0.19
United Kingdom 0.13
Romania 0.12
Viet Nam 0.12
India 0.06
Guinea 0.03
Japan 0.03
AAT – You sure you want to debate this? Ok, let’s do it… there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
1. The most respected criminologists have published articles and studies that have shown irrefutably that jurisdictions that either completely ban or strictly ban gun ownership and possession INCREASE in violent crime statistics. Some shining examples… Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC (up as much as 134% in DC alone!).
2. Many organizations that study criminology and gun related homicide have repeatedly proven that victims of violent assault and/or rape are more likely to survive an attack when they are armed and fend off the attack with a firearm.
3. There is no solid evidence that banning firearms overall lowers crime statistics no more than other peripheral factors like social influences.
4. Interviews with violent offenders have shown that gun laws and bans would not have stopped them from obtaining the firearms for the commission of crime. In fact, criminals are LESS likely to commit a crime against persons they know are not armed or likely not to be armed.
So AAT, if you want to debate stats, that is fine. There are a million out there to be used anyway you choose. I only got a “B” in Probabilities and Statistics but the first thing we learned was they can be manipulated any way you like.
So I will go back to my original argument… should we ALLOW our Government (NOT the UK) to decide whether or not we have the right to self defense? The second ammendment is SECOND for good reason, the Bill of Rights is in order of importance. Let me remind you that unlike Michelle Bauchman, I know the “shot heard round the world” was catalyzed at the battles of Lexington and Concord because the British General Gage was sent to disarm the population. Other regimes have also sought to disarm populations preceeding oppression and genocide (Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia come to mind).
According to a quote in Thomas Jefferson’s ‘Commonplace Book’ – “laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” That is from the primary Founding Father… I rest my case.