What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kynoch

member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
1,481
Location
California Coast
What if the NRA pushed it's own "NRA Secure-Citizen Proclamation" from the very beginning of this crisis stemming from the Newtown Massacre? A ten point plan (feel free to add, subtract or change items as you wish) that was crafted to truly focus on reducing gun related crime?

Begin the Monday after the massacre which happened on a Friday. That is plenty of time to show respect for the fallen. It could have been taped in a studio and released without the carnival atmosphere of the "press release" where questions were not taken anyway.

Pound away with this proclamation! When anyone says "so you're not willing to address gun-related violence?" The immediate response would be that the facts show (and have them ready!) that attempts at gun control do not work so we created a "Secure-Citizen Proclamation" -- something that will actually help to reduce gun-related crime.

If the NRA would have chosen 10 (plus or minus) important and salable points (I didn't include national shall-issue CCW permits for instance) and continually pounded away at them since the massacre, I think the anti-gun people would be driven back on the heels by now AND something positive would be getting accomplished.


NRA Secure-Citizen Proclamation​

1.) Address and reform our country’s failed mental health care system. A long-term but most critical step in reducing crime.

2.) Ensure states have the legal freedom and means to comply with all National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reporting requirements. Then assure continued compliance with these requirements.

3.) Make the NICS more accessible and less difficult/expensive to use.

4.) Prosecute those who legitimately fail (felons, insane, etc.) the NICS during the process of attempting to purchase a firearm.

5.) Prosecute all violent, gun-related crimes to the full extent of existing laws.

6.) Prepare and make available the NRA School Shield Safety Program. (They did mention this.)

7.) Prepare and make widely available the NRA Firearms Safety Program for All Citizens. Offer gun safety training in all levels of education. Dramatically increase the application of the NRA's Eddie Eagle gun safety program into elementary schools.

8.) Repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.

9.) Work with gov't and the media to establish firm guidelines so any future gun-related criminals are not lionized in the press.

10.) Have the FBI establish and maintain a database of stolen firearms. Allow it to be accessible by the public so potential buyers can ensure that they are not purchasing stolen property. Integrate with NICS?


It seems to me that if the NRA went on the offensive against gun crime with such a proclamation that it would not only take the wind out of the sails of the anti-gunners, it might actually lead to reducing gun-related crime!
 
Last edited:
The "mental health" thing is scary. Who determines ones mental state? A doctor paid by ObamaCare or is possibly anti-gun? As it is now, I could easily see a large portion of legal gun owners denied their rights simply for taking a certain medication.

"Mental health" is very broad and could easily be abused. I'm sure you are thinking about the people who are criminally insane, but where is the line drawn for liberals? Bipolar? OCD? ADD? Anxiety? Suriphobics? Also, what about doctor patient confidentiality?

What if I have an angry ex-girlfriend that wants to screw with me? All she needs to do is tell the police I threatened to kill her and they would come and take all of my firearms. So what if she lied, there's no reprocussions for her lying and my guns are tagged and gone until I retrieve them after a month (this happened to my brother).

After the next mass shooting, will they add a psychological evaluation to a new bill and add that to the UBC system? Give them an inch and they'll hang you by it.

I think it's fair to say the current laws are fine, insofar as they're enforced. A crazy person will kill you with whatever is handy, be it a gun or a plastic bag.
 
What I'd actually like to see:

1) Repeal gun free zones. Make GFZ a private option if so desired, but allow that establishment to be sued if an attack occurs on their property without armed security present.
2) Open up the machine gun registry. They're already regulated under NFA, might as well let us have them.
3) Repeal 922r. It's basically a "buy American" law, which buying American should be a choice due to patriotism or (hopefully) because the product is better, and not because of the law.
4) Take silencers off NFA. They reduce noise pollution and provide hearing protection.
5) Promote (as the NRA has) education of gun safety and training of those who care for kids. This will protect our kids better than almost any other law I can think of.
6) Remove the idea of the "gun" being the problem. Someone shoots someone he is a "gunman". Someone stabs, beats, strangles, or bludgeons someone he is a "killer". Someone attacks someone with a knife it is "assault with a deadly weapon". Someone attacks someone with a gun it is a "deadly assault weapon." Focus on the violence, not the gun.

If they were willing to do some of these, I might consider there to be some room to compromise on background checks, because then it would be an actual compromise.
 
jwh336 said:
The "mental health" thing is scary. Who determines ones mental state? A doctor paid by ObamaCare or is possibly anti-gun? As it is now, I could easily see a large portion of legal gun owners denied their rights simply for taking a certain medication.

"Mental health" is very broad and could easily be abused. I'm sure you are thinking about the people who are criminally insane, but where is the line drawn for liberals? Bipolar? OCD? ADD? Anxiety? Suriphobics? Also, what about doctor patient confidentiality?

What if I have an angry ex-girlfriend that wants to screw with me? All she needs to do is tell the police I threatened to kill her and they would come and take all of my firearms. So what if she lied, there's no reprocussions for her lying and my guns are tagged and gone until I retrieve them after a month (this happened to my brother).

After the next mass shooting, will they add a psychological evaluation to a new bill and add that to the UBC system? Give them an inch and they'll hang you by it.

I think it's fair to say the current laws are fine, insofar as they're enforced. A crazy person will kill you with whatever is handy, be it a gun or a plastic bag.
Click to expand...

The courts would. There are many now who are legally adjudicated to be insane and thus not able to legally own firearms but that information often doesn't make it into the NICS.

In any event I was asking about what would happen if the NRA had offered an actual plan, not necessarily the contents of the plan.
 
Sadly you both are missing my primary question.

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning? The discussion I was hoping for was not an analysis of what I offered but an analysis of what would have happened if the NRA has offered a plan from the very beginning?

As it is now when someone asks "so, the NRA doesn't support any measure to reduce gun-violence?" it's often met with a grimace and mumbling from WLP.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.
 
Skribs said:
What I'd actually like to see:

1) Repeal gun free zones. Make GFZ a private option if so desired, but allow that establishment to be sued if an attack occurs on their property without armed security present.
2) Open up the machine gun registry. They're already regulated under NFA, might as well let us have them.
3) Repeal 922r. It's basically a "buy American" law, which buying American should be a choice due to patriotism or (hopefully) because the product is better, and not because of the law.
4) Take silencers off NFA. They reduce noise pollution and provide hearing protection.
5) Promote (as the NRA has) education of gun safety and training of those who care for kids. This will protect our kids better than almost any other law I can think of.
6) Remove the idea of the "gun" being the problem. Someone shoots someone he is a "gunman". Someone stabs, beats, strangles, or bludgeons someone he is a "killer". Someone attacks someone with a knife it is "assault with a deadly weapon". Someone attacks someone with a gun it is a "deadly assault weapon." Focus on the violence, not the gun.

If they were willing to do some of these, I might consider there to be some room to compromise on background checks, because then it would be an actual compromise.
Click to expand...

With the exception of #1 and #5, none of what you offer even remotely addresses the issue of gun-related crime...
 
> 1.) Address and reform our country’s failed mental health care system.

You might want to consider the words of H.P. Lovecraft:

"Do not call uppe what you cannot put downe."


Do you *really* want the Fed to be able to decide what "mental health" is?
 
1.) Address and reform our country’s failed mental health care system. A long-term but most critical step in reducing crime.

Subjective, emotional statement without facts to back it up.

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning?

The NRA would be guilty of the same emotional finger pointing as the Liberals.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.

The NRA is made up of individuals. What, may I ask, are you doing to in your words "to get out in front on this one?"
 
Kynoch, I like the thought. Of course the items could be adjusted and re-phrased, but I think it's a great foundation. Maybe it's more or fewer, but having a clear platform is a good idea. No compromising and include language that calls out 2A pretty clearly too.
Suggestion: call it "The NRA's 6-shooter Bullet Points."
 
Kynoch, you are correct. It does not address the problem of gun-related crime, because gun-related crime (misnomer, by-the-way) would not be affected by repealing those statutes. It addresses the problem of gun rights.

The problem isn't that the NRA didn't offer a plan. They did offer one. It just wasn't the most logical option available, and now they're taking flack for it. If they would have made a suggestion which is much more economical (providing training to arm teachers and removing GFZs) they would have had a much better response from us and the fence-sitters. They went to the extreme, however, and suggestion something that isn't really logistically possible, especially with more and more budget cuts.
 
Sorry for not sticking to the question.

"What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning?"

Nothing. The anti-gun people don't want a solution unless it is the manner in which guns are disposed of. So the advice from the NRA would have carried as much weight as it does now.
 
TRX said:
> 1.) Address and reform our country’s failed mental health care system.

You might want to consider the words of H.P. Lovecraft:

"Do not call uppe what you cannot put downe."


Do you *really* want the Fed to be able to decide what "mental health" is?
Click to expand...

Courts already adjudicate who is insane. There would be no change there.

The change comes in addressing how to treat such people and to ensure the prohibition of owning firearms (via adjudication) makes it into the NICS.
 
Last edited:
OptimusPrime said:
Kynoch, I like the thought. Of course the items could be adjusted and re-phrased, but I think it's a great foundation. Maybe it's more or fewer, but having a clear platform is a good idea. No compromising and include language that calls out 2A pretty clearly too.
Suggestion: call it "The NRA's 6-shooter Bullet Points."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments and you are absolutely correct -- the outline I offered is not set in stone. It's a construct offered to invoke discussion.

I would give it a very "catchy" name and I would continue to refer to it.

The key would be to offer something that couldn't be objected to by anyone. Something that would overwhelm the chants for gun control. And most of all, something that might actually help to reduce gun-related crime.

I appreciate that you "get it" and that you're not negative in your response. Thanks.
 
Skribs said:
Kynoch, you are correct. It does not address the problem of gun-related crime, because gun-related crime (misnomer, by-the-way) would not be affected by repealing those statutes. It addresses the problem of gun rights.

The problem isn't that the NRA didn't offer a plan. They did offer one. It just wasn't the most logical option available, and now they're taking flack for it. If they would have made a suggestion which is much more economical (providing training to arm teachers and removing GFZs) they would have had a much better response from us and the fence-sitters. They went to the extreme, however, and suggestion something that isn't really logistically possible, especially with more and more budget cuts.
Click to expand...

No they did not. The offered the "school shield" project. That was it.
 
Why is it that the NRA should get involved at all with solving what criminal activity goes on ?

Why should the NRA have to come up with solutions to criminal activity simply because they are advocates of 2nd amendment rights, and the shooting sports ?

The gun grabbers want to disarm us period. Doesn't make much difference what we say, or what the truth is .
 
That's pretty good.

As hindsight is always 20-20 I'm sure the NRA wishes it had done some things differently.
 
Kynoch said:
No they did not. The offered the "school shield" project. That was it.
Click to expand...

Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.
Click to expand...
+1 BR; I (almost) wish NRA had not said anything beyond a shocked/saddened/prayers statement, because parading WLP out hasn't exactly been a stellar strategy. While WE get the facts and understand the statistics, the antis do the Rorschach test every time - having a reasoned logical debate with them is mostly impossible. Most of them are simply not interested in facts - they already had both barrels of legislation loaded and Sandy Hook was their excuse because it was babies lying on the floor and an AR in the perp's hands (ignore the fact that V Tech was pistols and more dead).

And Congress? Ugh....
 
Last edited:
We could try fighting fire with fire and use emotion to further our cause. That unfortunately would show the firearms owner in the same light as the ANTI in most peoples minds however. The way to prevail is to stay the course in a slow, steady, TRUTHFUL way. I often council my friends that their divorced partner that is poisoning their children against them will ultimately be shown to be the idiot for spouting their emotional views when the children grow up enough to face the reality of the situation as individualistic thinking young adults. As said before time is on our side, we just have to prevent more incidents in the vein of what happened in the NY state political (circus) arena. Couple that with a media that is out of control today. They made far far too much out of things like Y2K and 12-12-12 for even the most gullible individual to actually believe them most days-----but most people (sheeple) generally believe what the main stream media spout off as truth these days sadly. And the media outlets are choosing that demonizing guns and all firearms owners with their stale rhetoric gives them power. I am betting most normal citizens will eventually see the truth in the long run, but unfortunately not before irreparable damage has been done to the 2A I am afraid.:uhoh:

Remember that old saying:
Keeping your mouth shut will have some thinking you are stupid but opening it may well prove them right.

I agree sometimes it is best not to try to counter emotion in an expedient manner. And as always YMMV.:)
 
Kynoch said:
Sadly you both are missing my primary question.

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning? The discussion I was hoping for was not an analysis of what I offered but an analysis of what would have happened if the NRA has offered a plan from the very beginning?

As it is now when someone asks "so, the NRA doesn't support any measure to reduce gun-violence?" it's often met with a grimace and mumbling from WLP.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.
Click to expand...
Sorry...... as much as I would LIKE to get alongside the NRA, and yes I am a member, they do not speak for me and have not for about the last 30 years! LaPierre has waffled in his opinion over the last 20 years, especially concerning implementation and justification of NICS. The board for great part sound pretty much like the antis in my opinion. I'll continue to say my own piece and not rely on the NRA. They sold us down the river in the 90's and likely will do so again! One thing that speaks much louder than all the useless "compromise" pandering I see in the forums is the Waking up and sales in the last month of much much more than your average target enthusiast or the like. You can "talk" all ya want but you're not going to talk around the sales reality on the ground!
 
First this one:

9.) Work with gov't and the media to establish firm guidelines so any future gun-related criminals are not lionized in the press.
Click to expand...

"Firm guidelines" for Media established with the hand of the Government is called censorship. No.


1.) Address and reform our country’s failed mental health care system. A long-term but most critical step in reducing crime.
Click to expand...

I give as much stock to the NRA's position on mental health as I do the American Psychiatric Association's position on self defense. Zilch.
The NRA is not a mental health organization, the leadership knows jack squat about mental health and should stay out of it.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.
Click to expand...

They should have offered as much as possible -- all that made sense to counter the "let's ban guns" mantra.
 
FROGO207 said:
We could try fighting fire with fire and use emotion to further our cause. That unfortunately would show the firearms owner in the same light as the ANTI in most peoples minds however. The way to prevail is to stay the course in a slow, steady, TRUTHFUL way. I often council my friends that their divorced partner that is poisoning their children against them will ultimately be shown to be the idiot for spouting their emotional views when the children grow up enough to face the reality of the situation as individualistic thinking young adults. As said before time is on our side, we just have to prevent more incidents in the vein of what happened in the NY state political (circus) arena. Couple that with a media that is out of control today. They made far far too much out of things like Y2K and 12-12-12 for even the most gullible individual to actually believe them most days-----but most people (sheeple) generally believe what the main stream media spout off as truth these days sadly. And the media outlets are choosing that demonizing guns and all firearms owners with their stale rhetoric gives them power. I am betting most normal citizens will eventually see the truth in the long run, but unfortunately not before irreparable damage has been done to the 2A I am afraid.:uhoh:

Remember that old saying:
Keeping your mouth shut will have some thinking you are stupid but opening it may well prove them right.

I agree sometimes it is best not to try to counter emotion in an expedient manner. And as always YMMV.:)
Click to expand...

Who said anything about emotion? Laying out a proposed outline would have been one helluva lot better than WLP grimmacing followed by him being tongue-tied.
 
It's sad that most didn't comprehend my posting...

I didn't seek critique about the outline I posted. It's nothing more than a construct to aid discussion. I thought my comment "(feel free to add, subtract or change items as you wish)" would make that clear.

I was curious about what would have happened had the NRA laid-out a honest-to-goodness outline of what it felt needed to happen AND THEN continue to reference that outline every time the antis made a comment like "so you feel there is nothing we can do about gun-related violence?"

Maybe this thread is a good example of why the NRA is not doing a better job right now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Question: Does The NRA Charge For Eddie Eagle?
Replies
2
Views
366
Quiet
Q
K
  • Locked
The NRA's Target
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Robert Hairless
R
A
  • Locked
Latest NRA Grass Roots Alert
Replies
0
Views
344
alan
A
HKGuns
  • Locked
Interesting Police Survey Re: Gun Control
Replies
4
Views
716
sidheshooter
S
C
  • Locked
"Vital Enhancement in Firearm Safety: NRA To Offer Gun Safe Using Biometric Tech"
Replies
6
Views
1K
Waitone
W
Back
Top