Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

what isthe NRA on Gun Debate is now after mass shooting ?

The National Rifle Association, whose mission is to protect gun rights that are now being questioned, put out a brief statement offering thoughts and prayers to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other victims in the shooting. But other than that, the group has remained on the sidelines. This morning, for instance, the NRA declined to appear on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown," to debate a gun-control advocate, show host Chuck Todd told viewers.

At first glance, the NRA's messaging -- or lack of it - might seem an odd move in an age where rapid-response is so often the strategy.

Your thoughts.


Asked by emilysmom1966 at 9:03 PM on Jan. 14, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 18 (6,228 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (51)
  • "If everyone there was armed he wouldn't have had a chance to take a second shot."

    That's their argument right there.

    Answer by LindaClement at 9:06 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • Honestly, I don't think that rapid fire response is always the best way to go. All too often, it's really less strategy and more just knee jerk reaction. And this feeling applies to many things - not just to this particular issue.

    Honestly, I think that as tragic as this was, getting rid of guns is like prohibition. It only stopped the honest from having it. Those who want to use one to commit a crime won't be stopped.

    I look at this horrible event and I see a man who is a nut job, and I don't think "why do they sell guns". I think how is it that with all these warning signs (is bizarre question of her previously, kicked out of college for the reasons he was, the statements that he made about the govt, etc) - nobody picked up on the fact that he was crazy and make any sort of effort to intervene.

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 9:12 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • I would imagine they would be where they have always been, on the side of the second amendment.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:25 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • I am not sure but, I would think they need to keep themselves out of the angry discussion where fingers are being pointed at them by MSNBC.

    Answer by goodwitch399 at 9:46 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • Gun laws should not exist to screen for mental illness. The majority of the mentally ill won't bother with a gun anyway. Why not make laws that address mental illness directly instead of trying to make it someone else's problem? If he'd been screened and turned down for a permit, he still would've showed up with an unlicensed gun or a homemade bomb or some other plan, and he still wouldn't have gotten any help because nobody gave a damn until his problem inconvenienced them.

    Maybe if the school that expelled him, the army that rejected him, of the parents who chased him down the street that morning knowing something was up and couldn't even be assed to call the police had done something, this wouldn't have happened. No gun law in the world would've changed it.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:21 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • but the founding fathers DID NOT in any way shape or form write against reasonable regulations


    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


    Answer by Carpy at 12:31 AM on Jan. 15, 2011

  • It may not, but you can't deny that you wouldn't think twice about selling a gun who is obviously mentally ill or suspicious. Could be a terrorist. I think , If I had a choice between being shot with a gun or stabbed with a wooden pencil... emilysmom

    Dead is dead. If a gun isn't available when someone feels like killing someone, there are many other weapons to be had. You say you would prefer the wooden pencil. Fair enough, we all have the right to make our own choices. Mine is to be able to defend myself if necessary ~ with something other than a wooden pencil.

    I live in the woods. We have snakes, feral dogs, coyotes and fox, even the occasional alligator and bear ... not to mention the more prevalent meth heads. I doubt the wooden pencil or even a baseball bat would cut it. Not all gun owners are irresponsible or crazed killers. Most are not, but you want to punish them because you fear the crazies. That's wrong.

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 2:58 AM on Jan. 15, 2011

  • i think it should beone law for one country. Hence, the UNITED States.

    That would be a violation of the constitution. Congress is only allowed to rule over the states in regards to national security, interstate commerce and diplomatic relations with other countries.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:43 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • what would be an acceptable answer from them? ~ emilysmom1966

    An acceptable answer (and a sane, logical, reasonable one as well) would be that everyone should be in control of their own lives, whether they have guns or not, and that if people spent as much time worrying about (and taking care of) their own lives as they do trying to control other people there would be far less crazy people slipping through the cracks.

    Take care of your self, your spouse, and your children. Be involved with them and talk to them. Spend time with them. If there seems to be a problem find out what it is rather than ignoring it or excusing it. Unless you are already doing that you're part of the problem. If you ARE doing it, you likely don't have time to be out trying to dictate what anyone else does/doesn't do.

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 10:44 PM on Jan. 14, 2011

  • Well...a clip that held LESS ammu would have saved some lives....

    Because he wouldn't be capable of having either a second magazine or a second gun? Is that a new law or some cosmic force at work?

    Answer by NotPanicking at 11:40 PM on Jan. 14, 2011