Comments for: Is the NRA being honest?

Posted Dec. 21, 2012, at 3:37 p.m.

The National Rifle Association blamed everyone but itself for gun violence Friday during a news conference to announce its proposed solution to protect schoolchildren: more guns and armed police officers in schools. The lobbying group had an opportunity to use its influence to make a positive difference, but instead Executive …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Well written article. Perhaps the shock associated with the tragedy has put Mr. LaPierre in his current state of denial.

  • Anonymous

    To answer the title question, emphatic NO (as usual). I’ve commented elsewhere that the NRA should assume total funding for their armed guard proposal (which i don’t really agree with anyway).

    • Anonymous

      Of course you wouldn’t. That is no surprise. I never met a liberal that liked a gun.

      • ive never known a liberal that likes the united states, have you??

        • pbmann

          Clueless

  • Anonymous

    Is the NRA being honest?
    Is that a serious question?
    The NRA are gun industry advocates who put profit ahead of people’s lives.
    They are parasites. They are a virulent social disease.
    They are moral criminals of the first order.
    They make money from the deaths of children.
    Lying is so far down the list of their immoral acts that it barely rates a mention.

    • Anonymous

      Pro-choice advocates in Washington have cause more child deaths in a year than the NRA in its entire existence.

      • Anonymous

        Being in control of your reproductive freedom means that somebody else can’t tell you that you CAN’T have a baby and force an abortion. The door swings both ways. You right-wingers are always talking about the Gubmint having too much power…and then you want them to have more via the control of whether you can or cannot reproduce.

        • Murder should never be legal

          • Anonymous

            Says the guy whose picture shows him holding the horns of an animal that he just shot and killed for fun.

          • Anonymous

            Tell that to Obama and his drone program. Oh, and the hundreds of civilians he’s murdered

          • Anonymous

            Like you even care.

          • Anonymous

            What? I think it’s the other way around….

            I brought the subject up. Care to respond? Do you have an answer for Obama and his drone kills?

            Nice try

          • Anonymous

            That’s why it’s illegal Duh.

        • Anonymous

          So being in control of you “reproductive freedom” gives you the right to murder an unborn child (late term abortions)? I’d say you libs are good at calling the kettle black.

          • Anonymous

            Murder is the taking of a life. If something isn’t born, it isn’t alive by definition. I think that is the crux of the matter, people disagree with when life begins. Staunch catholics believe that life should be protected even before conception (every sperm is sacred). However, we can all agree that the children at Newtown were alive, and thanks to weapons supported by the NRA, they are now not.

          • Anonymous

            How about life begins when you can hear a HEART BEAT

          • Anonymous

            According to whose definition? If we pump a heart in a lab with electrical current is that a living entity?

          • Anonymous

            Where did you get the heart form?

          • Anonymous

            My Definition, I could care less if you are 18 or older the its your choice, abort away, the person has to live with that choice not me, but do not take my choice away from me either, When my daughter was 14 she could not get an aspirin at a hospital without parents permission, but can walk across the street and get an abortion, that I do not agree with.

          • Anonymous

            They are more concerned about the unborn than anything else it often seems. They don’t show enough concern about these young children who were killed in CT.

          • Anonymous

            EXACTLY RIGHT. They care nothing about dead children but only about the unborn. No less important, they generally love the military and support wars and invasions. The fanatics who put up huge billboards at UMaine and then USM last spring told me repeatedly that the American military is wonderful and that they protect free speech. These anti-abortion fanatics invariably oppose safety nets for kids who ARE born (into poverty). But what is painfully hypocritical to the rest of is never conceded by these folks–as per some of these comments defending the NRA while bashing abortion.

          • gee, maybe your mother should of used that procedure 8 months before you were born then.m who would blame for that??

          • Anonymous

            Just as I said, you ignore all else in the world save the unborn. Exactly my point. It’s so much easier to limit one’s compassion to the unborn vs. people after they’re born. By your calculus, the US should never allow abortions but the govt. at all levels should ignore them after birth. Really logical, eh?

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            We get it, you hate and only want to destroy the unborn!
            We get it!

          • Anonymous

            If you ever participated in a debate rather than in an illogical rant you’d be required to reply to the questions and not to evade them, as you do here. Americans who believe that abortion is OK in certain cases are hardly in favor of abortion altogether. How many women really like having abortions? But someone named “Superior” keeps silent about the born and instead keeps ranting illogically in claiming that other citizens love abortions. In truth, of course, the real heartlessness derives from those Americans who care nothing about the poor and those who are not fit to raise children.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Isn’t a bunyan a fester on your foot? We rarely get to choose our names, wiseguy!

            Yes, some women see abortion as a form of birth control! Sad but true! You have your crusade. I’m sure, with your attention, the poor and those unfit to raise kids will be dealt with!

          • Anonymous

            Could that be because Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or some other radical right talking head didn’t tell them to show concern for those poor people who were slaughtered in CT?

          • Anonymous

            You got it. Aren’t they nice people?!!

          • Anonymous

            You DO understand that there’s a difference between having genuine concern for murdered children and advocating for taking guns away from law abiding citizens? Current gun control law prevented the Newtown shooter from buying a gun just last week but that didn’t stop him.

            I fervently wish that guns could be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill as well as those who are likely to commit violent crimes, but it’s tough to think of just how to word that legislation so that it would be effective. Unfortunately, just like every other law, gun control laws are only observed by law abiding people and they are the ones who are no danger to anyone who’s not a criminal caught breaking into their house. Since we already have so many millions of guns currently in circulation in the US, how is any gun control law that might be passed going to effectively keep one of those millions of guns from falling into the hands of those who wish to use one to commit a crime? Sort of like how outlawing certain hallucinogenic drugs made those drugs become unavailable to criminals?

          • Anonymous

            “Current gun control law prevented the Newtown shooter from buying a gun just last week but that didn’t stop him.”

            I keep reading this claim, but no one has actually cited a source. The most recent Associated Press story on the shooter makes no mention of the kid ever attempting to buy a gun or ever spending time in a mental hospital. In fact, the story pointed out that nobody who knew him or his mother knew whether the mother was seeking to have him committed to a mental hospital.

            See http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012/12/22/news/doc50d5c2fd9e3cc911131303.txt?viewmode=default

          • Anonymous

            http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/dick-s-sporting-goods-where-adam-lanza-tried-buy-rifle-has-big-sale-ammunition

            This article says he was denied the gun due to the waiting period, but I’ve read other reports where he was denied due to being under the age of 21. The point is that in the United States, with so many millions of guns currently in circulation, criminals intent on causing mayhem will always find a way to get their hands on one. More gun control laws will take guns out of the hands of those who obey the laws and are no threat to anyone, but will have little or no effect on those who are willing to break the law. Unfortunately, murderous psycho’s clearly fall into the latter category. I can understand the desire to fix this problem by decree or legislation, but it’s just not that simple. More gun control will make a few people feel like they’ve “done something” but will do little to keep guns out of the hands of those who want to use them to commit a crime.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with your sentiments. However, the article you cite says only that the shooter “reportedly” went to the store and asked about buying a gun, without giving a source for the report. That has as much credibility as saying “A friend told me that a friend of his said…”

          • and you NUTS, would rather kill unborn babies, than execute a convicted murderer.something is wrong with you and others like you.

          • Anonymous

            You make a habit of being very wrong in your assumptions. You don’t know what I think, although I admit I would not want to be a rightwing nut.
            I would have been for executing Adam Lanza if the coward had not taken himself out with a hand gun (of course he used assault rifles on the children.)
            You do not speak for me!

          • Anonymous

            So a late term fetus is not alive? Sorry, I disagree. It certainly isn’t dead.

          • Anonymous

            Which is why if you murder a pregnant woman, you can be charged with two murders. Odd how that works.

          • Anonymous

            only in a few states …

          • Anonymous

            How about killing a baby after birth? Is that murder in all states? Oh, I forgot, our fearless President supports partial birth abortion.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Since the Feds hadn’t banned them (again) it’s fair to say THEY supported them too!

            obozo had 4 years to ban them, but he didn’t! He must have supported them also! Until he didn’t, that is!

        • Anonymous

          Choice does not stop at the abortion door.

        • Lazerus Phoenix

          So murder of un-born is good, but murder of already-born is bad?
          You sure have strange morals!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think so bub –check your facts .

      • Anonymous

        Nice attempt to derail the discussion.

    • Anonymous

      Stirring the pot a bit today, Bunkie?

    • Anonymous

      Can you name one democratic organization that is honest and prove it?

    • Anonymous

      The NRA is your doctor, the man that plows your driveway, the cop that comes when you dial 911, your child teacher, your car salesman, or the man that stops to help you change your flat tire on a rainy night.

      • Anonymous

        The NRA is also your crazy neighbor who shoots up an elementary school, killing 20 children in cold blood.

        • Anonymous

          Really? Was Lanza an NRA member or did you just make that up?

        • Anonymous

          Your wrong again.

        • Lazerus Phoenix

          Have facts to back that absurdity up????

      • Anonymous

        and 64% of NRA members say they support gun control.!! ! I once was an NRA member.I tore up my card in the late 70’s when Moses took over and the NRA was more concerned about gun rights then gun safety. I AM STILL a gun owner and I SUPPORT gun control .

      • Anonymous

        The NRA is the weapons manufacturing industry’s sock puppet. It spews their propaganda, enabling them to keep profiteering on the slaughter of humans.

        • Lazerus Phoenix

          You must feel better after unloading that vomit!

          • Anonymous

            “Since 2005 contributions from gun industry “corporate partners” to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all “corporate partners”–both gun industry and non-gun industry–for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds–74 percent–contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products…

            “Despite the NRA’s historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA “corporate partners” include many of the world’s best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide–known for its abuses in the Iraq war–which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.”

            [http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm]

      • pbmann

        And 6 out of 10 want more sensible gun control and to make “assault-style” weapons illegal.

    • Anonymous

      ..puts profit ahead of lives, parasitic, moral criminals, wait….sounds like Obama and his team. Or W and his. What’s the differemce?

      Obama has the blood of hundreds of innocent women and chidlren on his hands. Illegal and immoral drone strikes kill fifty innocent people, er I mean collateral damage, for every drone bomb dropped! Illegal wars like Libya and on and on… But go ahead, blame the NRA.

      But does the NRA poison your water? Your food? And strip away your freedoms? No, the govt does that…redirect your anger

      • Anonymous

        The NRA stripped away the freedom of those children to sit in their classroom and learn, and replaced it with the right to be carried out dead on stretchers, so weapons manufacturers can keep making profits.

        • Anonymous

          The NRA is never going to let some lost lives get in the way of their profits.

        • Anonymous

          Please…try and refocus. Shutout the mainstream media talking points and join reality.

          So, you are ok with Obama murdering innocent women and children around the globe via drone? Let me guess, ” collateral damage” is ok because they tell you a ” terrorist” was killed along with two families and fifty other innocent people. But, it’s ok cause they are brown? That’s your deal?……..

    • Anonymous

      Funny about how those people supporting the aborting of millions of fetuses in this country so often oppose the possession of firearms. I don’t know about Remanded specifically, but it’s an odd coincidence generally true. I guess it is the ultimate form of selfishness to kill defenseless others, but worry so much about ones own life.

      • Anonymous

        We need to start arming the fetuses!

      • Anonymous

        Nice attempt to derail the discussion.

        • Anonymous

          The discussion is absurd without perspective. But, don’t feel guilty. Some babies are just more important than others… at least to liberals.

          • pbmann

            Apparently live babies are not so important to some either.

    • Anonymous

      Criminals, child killers? I thought you were referring to Obama!

      Where is your outrage when it comes to Obama drone killing innocent women and CHIDLREN!????

      • Anonymous

        But you don’t really care about that.

        • Anonymous

          That’s your answer? Is that an answer???

          One more time…where is the outrage over the hundreds of innocent maimed and murdered kids in Pakistan? Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Do you have a clue what’s really going on with this drone program? Come on….

          • pbmann

            Where is your outrage over the hundred of thousands killed by Bush? See I can make stupid arguments too

          • Anonymous

            Being angered over the slaughter of innocent kids is a stupid argument?

            What planet are you on? What a pathetic attempt…

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure if you know this but W hasn’t been president for sometime now. We have a new president. One who promised transparency ( turns out the least transparent admin EVER) and the restoration of civil liberties ( he’s done all he can to take away our constitutional rights) promised to shut gitmo ( nope, sorry) and championed Whistleblowers ( he’s persecuted them with zeal). He’s also invaded foreign countries illegally and continues to murder innocent kids. But, because he’s a ” liberal” the “left” apparently now condones murder, ndaa, fast and furious, etc etc..

            In reality, the left is as pathetic and inept as the right. Proving that both parties are fake and controlled by the same banker corporate scum.

            But keep playing pretend. And denying reality. Hey, it’s only our freedoms and liberties at stake. You wouldn’t want to admit you’re horribly wrong about Obama would you? Despite reality!!!?? Wow

          • Anonymous

            No seriously, where IS your outrage at the Obama administration? If there isn’t any then you approve of murderimg and maiming innocents all over the world! Congratulations! Maybe you’ll get a peace prize too…?

            Wake up

    • Ahhh….you have the NRA confused with democrats!

    • Anonymous

      The NRA has been under attack on this one since the day of the shooting ! They seem to be the only representatives of my individual right to own , use and care for a weapon of my choice. I’m going to join the NRA today as a show of support !

  • shannon attwood

    The NRA is not to blame. What is wrong with you people who keep insisting it is.
    Is the NRA to blame for all gun crimes or only this one? This is not the solution. I have children in the school system and I want them safe at all costs. Armed guards in the schools…OK Armed Police in the schools…OK. Armed Veterans in the school…OK. The blame game is not productive. Action to control this problem is simple so why make it difficult? I realize you want to sound smart but you’re not.

    • Anonymous

      YOU are delusional. Of course they are.

    • Anonymous

      Armed veterans like Charles Whitman? I can’t see anything going wrong there.

    • Anonymous

      the solution to mass murder IS simple bann assault rifles and multi load magazines !!

    • Anonymous

      Is the NRA going to pay for a weapon in the hands of every teacher in the country, K-12? That’s more than 3 million teachers. How about the staff, down the the janitor? Don’t forget the mandatory training and additional practices. Or are the weapons manufacturers going to pay? They’d better, since this is their bright idea.

      If you and I wind up having to pay for weapons, the gun manufacturers will triple their profits at our expense, and there will be no more money left to pay for schools or teachers. Just empty classrooms filled with empty boxes of guns and ammo.

  • Anonymous

    The US has the most lenient gun laws of any developed country, one of the highest gun ownership rates and the highest fire-arm related death rate. Is the NRA totally incapable of seeing the forest for the trees? The availability of guns actually makes all of our lives less secure.

    • Anonymous

      They SEE it. They just need to ignore it for survival reasons.

    • Anonymous

      How, then, do places like Maine and Vermont have much less violence per capita than Chicago and DC?

      • Anonymous

        Less scum.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll also note that many countries, with strict gun laws, have disarmed their populace and murdered hundreds of millions of their own people.

      • pbmann

        Name the countries that have killed hundreds of millions, please.

    • Anonymous

      the availabiltiy of my gun makes my life very secure

      • Anonymous

        In your mind. It did not make Nancy Lanza safe and she had plenty of guns. She thought they made her life secure.

      • Anonymous

        I’ve never, had a gun in my house, I would feel less safe if I did.

      • Anonymous

        Our lives are basically a long (or short) term crap shoot. All the guns in the world don’t make them more or less secure, particularly when we’re driving along on a road shared by distracted texters, drunks and nitwits who think they’re NASCAR heroes, just to mention a few of our fellow inhabitants whose behavior can take us out out earlier in the game than necessary – and do.

      • pbmann

        Actually you are more likely to die from a gun related crime BECAUSE you own a gun not less.

    • Anonymous

      It isn’t the guns that are creating the murder rate. It’s the scum behind the guns. If no guns existed, this very same scum would still find a way to murder. Just the way it is. It’s our moral well being that is in the dumper.

      • Anonymous

        I agree it is the scum behind the guns. I think anyone who buys an assault weapon or a high capacity magazine for a hand gun fits neatly into that definition.

        • Anonymous

          I was under the assumption only Republicans were the only ones that judged people.

      • Anonymous

        The the moral well being has been in the dumper for many years. History shows that.

        • Anonymous

          000

    • Anonymous

      The why do open carry states like TX have less gun crime?? Why did Japan not do a ground attack in WWII, because we HAVE GUNS. Would you rather it be a bomb like OK, how many kids would have been killed with a bomb like that.???? Maybe you prefer chemicals like sadam did to his people, history if full of mass murder just different weapons of choice, get rid of one they use another.

      • Anonymous

        Texas has more gun crimes. Compare Texas (and most lax gun law states) to the more rigid states (NY, Mass, CT, NJ) and you will see Texas has a per capita gun death rate that is about 3 times higher. It even has more than Illinois.

        • Anonymous

          Where did you get that from Chicago has the HIGHEST Rate of murders in the country by guns at almost 500 just this year.

          • Anonymous

            Chicago is not a state. You said state. Now if you want to talk about highest per capita violent crime in cities, Chicago is number 12. Two Texas cities are in the top ten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate Now for your information on states and where they rank, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

            Now where did you get your information from that Texas has less gun crime?

          • Anonymous

            Oh sorry Chicago IL, which you can not get a carrry permit in Il, and that was a news report put out on Chicago. Anyone can put anything in wikipedia so no great source there.

          • Anonymous

            and any one csn put any thing on state master too. Do you know who creates state master??

          • Anonymous

            Wikipedia has these things called sources. They are at the bottom of the page. This is the source for the crime data. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010 Maybe you should learn about reading non-fiction and factual texts, you could learn to get facts to back up your opinions and then we could have a reasoned discussion.

          • Anonymous

            Statemaster great info there it says like 13 for IL and just this year alone in Chicago, 10 on St. Pats Day, and 14 3 weeks ago, so much for their stats, My daughter lives in Chicago, so I get it from someone that lives there as well.

          • pbmann

            Reading comprehension would be nice. Texas has a higher murder rate than Illinois which is the STATE that Chicago is in.

      • Anonymous

        “States with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of 2009 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control…

        “The five states with the lowest per capita gun death rates were Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far below the national per capita gun death rate of 10.19 per 100,000 for 2009. Each state has strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death. Ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi…”

        http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm

        • Anonymous

          Wasn’t this CT this happened in?

        • Anonymous

          That’s correct Liz, but you are lumping suicide by firearm in with those stats (as I’m sure you well know). If you look at Homicide’s by firearm, then as you know, the states with strong gun ownership are much lower.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

          • Anonymous

            That must be such a thrill for the friends and relatives of the people who use a gun to kill themselves.

          • Anonymous

            As opposed to overdosing, or enlisting the aid of a right to die organization. Liz, I know you support a women’s right to an abortion, how about extending that right to the rest of the population to control their own lives.

          • pbmann

            Texas has the 18th highest murder rate, most by guns so I guess having a gun in Texas still makes you more likely to be murdered than a person in MA, HA, NJ, NY or CT.

          • Anonymous

            True,
            But if you look deeper, you will find that Mexican drug gang warfare has skewed the numbers in Texas considerably (That whole War on Drugs thing that has been so successful).

          • Anonymous

            Yes there are tons of Mexican drug gang warfare in Austin, Dallas, and Arlington (the highest cities per capita with homicides)

          • Anonymous

            apparently you ( and wiki) are wrong see below

        • Anonymous

          So where are the stats for the highest rate Chicago in this study, almost 500 this years alone.

          • Anonymous

            The link provides info for states. Chicago is not a state.

          • Anonymous

            Jed, Chicago is our third largest city. One would expect it to be in the top three. The stat that matters is called per capita (meaning the amount of deaths per set amount of people living there most often given the amounts of death per 100,000 or 10,000). As you will notice, in the list in wikipedia created from data from the FBI, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10. However two Texas cities are.

      • Anonymous

        The second amendment protects my right to have a bomb. If you take bomb ownership away from every day citizens then only bad guys would have bombs. I feel the same way about sarin gas and nuclear weapons.

        • Anonymous

          WHAT are you talking about?

          • Anonymous

            Jed, if we follow an originalist intent of the second amendment, the founders want us to have the exact same weapons our government has (according to people who believe that the intent was for people to be able to overthrow a tyranical government). So either we agree that there are limits to the second amendment or we agree that there are no limits to the second amendment. If we agree that there are limits it would be reasonable for us to agree that high capacity magazines and assault weapons should be banned.

      • pbmann

        Texas is in the top 10 most dangerous states with the 18th highest murder rate, most by guns.

      • Anonymous

        where did you get your facts. at the 5.and10? .. apparently you are wrong …see below…

    • Anonymous

      Do you think the US belongs in the category of “developed” or might “developing country” or “adolescent country” be a better fit

    • Anonymous

      Didn’t they say CT was the least in ownership.

  • Robert James Comingo

    Wouldn’t it be splendid if people took personal responsibility for their own safety and of those around them? Instead of putting blame on everything and everyone but themselves. Just like financial responsibility. We have a Government that drops bombs on innocent people around the globe and we blame who? The victim? This country lives with double vision and double standards.

    • Anonymous

      …and then we have to defend ourselves from all those people who “took personal responsibility for their own safety and of those around them”. You will never get it.

      • Anonymous

        Guns don’t magically turn good people into bad ones.

        • Anonymous

          or bad people into good people. PS most of the guns are in criminals( bad people’s) hands .

          • Anonymous

            Prettyfoolish, with the ignorant comments you make on this forum, you should change your name to Completelyfoolish. “Most of the guns are in criminals hands”?! There are 90 million law-abiding gun owners, who, in your perverted little mind, are criminals simply because they own a gun. The illogical comments you make are so twisted that it almost makes me laugh out loud, but, unfortunately, most anti-gun libs think (and I use the term very loosely) just like you.

    • Anonymous

      I’d like to see the NRA take some personal responsibility for turning America into such a gun-laden and dangerous society. I’d like to see every Newtown parent sue the NRA.

      • Anonymous

        Sue for what?

      • Anonymous

        or bushmaster….

        • pbmann

          But, unfortunately thanks to the NRA gun manufacturers can ‘t be sued if their products are used to kill innocent children.

  • Robert James Comingo

    When was the last time anyone protested the Auto makers for DUI accidents? Why did they put those dangerous machines in the hands of drunks? Why do they allow fat people to have access to spoons? Why are cigarettes legal when it causes so many innocent people to die? Why is alcohol legal? Why is anything legal? Who can we blame next?

    • oh, heck, obama will still bring up george bush, to blame too,for this.

    • Anonymous

      The purpose of cars is transportation. The purpose of guns is killing.

      • Anonymous

        What are people killing when they shoot competitively?

        • Anonymous

          Since when do competitive shooters use AR15’s? Or for that matter handguns with high capacity magazines. Most competitive shooters I know use a .22 or a shotgun if it is trap or skeet.

          • Anonymous

            The issue I have addressed is the claim that the “purpose of guns is killing.” I have not addressed a specific model of gun.
            But since you want to raise how an AR-15 fits into competitive shooting, it may or may not fit into competitive shooting. A shooting competition’s rules can be set by whoever is sponsoring the competition.
            Competitive shooting doesn’t even necessarily have to mean a competition sponsored by a governing body. It can be a competition with oneself, just like golf can be. Regardless, the AR-15 is nothing more than a semiautomatic rifle — a tool.

          • Anonymous

            The AR-15 is designed to kill people. It is a tool for killing people. It’s only purpose is to kill people. People (at least sane ones) do not need an AR-15 for hunting. In fact, I think we would go a long way towards getting guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable if we would confiscate all guns from people who feel they need to have an AR-15 and never allow them to purchase guns or ammunition again.

          • Anonymous

            The AR-15 is designed to shoot bullets. What those bullets are used for is entirely on the shooter and nobody else.
            This discussion, by the way, is supposed to be about the NRA, not the AR-15 or even the mental health of those who possess an AR-15.

          • Anonymous

            good point. It does seem a bit “sick” to feel/have a NEED to own a AR15.

          • Cecil Gray

            By law there can only be 5 shells in the deer rifle and three in the duck gun. The AR-15 can fit 30.

          • Anonymous

            By regulation. Most shotguns have capacity for 5 shells or seven shells, but they have plugs that are easily removed or put in to lower the capacity to three shells (I am sure you know this, but I just want to make sure all the information is out there and is as factually accurate as possible).

        • Anonymous

          Time.

      • Mao Gung

        Seriously LIz?

        • Anonymous

          Seriously. Guns shoot bullets. Their purpose is to kill a person or animal. Shooting at a target is simply practice for killing something or someone, no matter how you finesse it.

          • Cecil Gray

            The truth won’t set then free Liz bit it is the simple direct truth.

          • Mao Gung

            How do you finesse the fact that there over 3 million competitive shooters in the United States most of whom never hunt ever let alone have tried or are planning on trying to kill someone. Are you saying that they go to shooting competitions in order to kill someone or to rehearse killing an animal? Please tell me that you really think that the men and women who have been on the US biathlon teams for the past 50 years are practicing to kill things when they practice their shooting.
            Let’s be intellectually honest. You’re afraid of guns. That’s understandable if you haven’t been exposed to them or if you haven’t used them or been trained properly. They can be scary. But please don’t let your inexperience and ignorance drive you to irrational philosophical stances when it comes to prudent and proper use of firearms.

          • pbmann

            Nope not afraid of guns, I have fired many at targets. I just don’t need a gun capable of firing 6 or more rounds a second with up to a 100 round magazine to feel safe.

    • Cecil Gray

      Let’s see. A standard car compared to an Indy race car on Main street? People will still hurt people with guns, as will drunk drivers will with cars. Drunks don’t need Indy race cars and violent morons don’t need 30 round magazines.

  • Robert James Comingo

    Why is Black Friday legal.. so much violence and consumerist killings and assaults?

  • Anonymous

    I respect our freedoms. I also respect a person with good common sense. In the CT massacre I find the lack of common sense to be the root cause of this horror. I would not blame the politicians for limiting further sales of technical or tactical long guns, or limiting magazine capacity. These firearms are good for wars and fighting crime. They are silly for citizens to waste money on. But my respect for common sense is limited for most politicians. And that is why special interest groups alike the NRA are handy: they get the message out for all sides of the debate. Others like MADD, AARP, The Sierra Club, the NAACP and more, perform the same function. Would newspaper headlines ask if any of these groups were being honest? Pethaps we should sit back, take a deep breath and wait for common sense to possibly prevail.

    • Anonymous

      Anyone who wants to dictate what guns I can own clearly does NOT respect my freedom.

      • Anonymous

        I respect your right. I just see people wasting good money on hokey firearms. If you are into hunting or accurate and distance target shooting, you probably have some other rifle. If someone wants to spray bullets at a gravel pit then thats a different matter. And these same firearms are what might be the one firearm that brings the whole deal down for us firearm owners.

        • Anonymous

          I think what constitutes wasting money varies from person to person. On that note though, I see a lot of “tacticool” junk (Tapco being a main culprit) out there. I don’t think any of it should be banned, I just think a lot of it is useless and makes the gun look like crap.

          • Anonymous

            You are right. I guess I would gladly sacrifice the tactical weapons, if I knew that would save our little assortment of pistols, rifles and shotguns that most gun owners cherish. Big IF, though.

          • Anonymous

            That wasn’t my point.

          • Anonymous

            Personal Opinion, others like it and spend their money so its their choice, choice should not stop on the abortion door.

        • Anonymous

          Just how are they spraying bullets anyway, these guns are not machine guns, they are semi auto just like my 22mag, which would have killed just as good.

      • Anonymous

        Clearly you do not respect the freedom of these kids They lost theirs .

        • Anonymous

          I must not respect victims of drunk drivers either since I don’t think automobiles or alcohol should be banned. I won’t be be guilt tripped into blaming my freedoms for the actions of criminals (who don’t care about laws, don’t ya know?). I respect those innocents enough to want an end to these “gun free zones” (government backed guarantee of no resistance) so that a decent citizen can actually do something to stop these guys. I’ll believe “gun free zones” work when the White House and all government buildings become them (to include no armed security).

    • Anonymous

      They are silly: When the 2nd Amendment was written the British only carried a musket, and we only had muskets, so that has changed, so should what we can own to protect ourselves from our govt if needed.

      • Anonymous

        I wonder why this concept of protecting oneself from the government has gotten so popular among gun owners. Hate groups seem to be proliferating, with their vile propaganda, and infecting some people who should know better.

        I for one feel a LOT safer in terms of our elected government than I do at the thought of conspiracy theorists with arsenals possibly living nearby.

  • Anonymous

    Another anti gun article from the BDN? I’m shocked (sarcasm).

    • FW

      Nailed it Capt.

  • Kebert

    can’t blame the NRA. They didn’t send this kid into the school to do that. the fact that he had a rifle is the only reason people put this on them.

    • Anonymous

      “the fact that he had a rifle is the only reason people put this on them.” ah –Yah

    • Cecil Gray

      The NRA can man up and admit that their policies, which promote the allowance of virtually every firearm ever invented to parade down Main St., carried collateral damage in the shape of 20 kids and six adults in Newtown Conn.

  • Mao Gung

    Who wrote this one-trick editorial? Believe it or not, it’s not just the guns fault.

    Most reasonable people believe that Newtown and all its bloody predecessors are not the result of a single-source cause, but the sum total of three factors: a culture which glorifies violence and spoon feeds it to the populace; an impotent mental health system that is routinely unable to institutionalize the truly dangerous; and access to guns.

    This editorial demands that that NRA admit that its “work” is part of the cause of the Newtown massacre. This is curious.

    In the last 30 years, well under the NRA’s watch, the U.S.homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. This includes gun murders as well. However, random mass killings increased by three times in the 2000s than in the 1980s—but remember, 1980s-vintage gun laws were considerably weaker. So if our gun laws have gotten stricter, and mass killings still escalate, could it be that our culture is sick?

    Could it be that the hearts of our young men, 50% of them numbed by video games, embittered and disillusioned by their parents’ divorces, angry at poor economic prospects and weighed down by the general societal malaise among their age group, are ripe prospects for violence?

    As horrific as Newtown was, can we ever admit that we’re living not through an epidemic of mass gun murders but through a historic cultural/social decline the likes of which we’ve never seen before? Can we see the connection where that this decline dovetails with the fact that we have more profoundly mentally ill people out in our general population?

    And what if we actually did something as a nation to keep the worst of our mentally ill off the streets for their protection and ours? A 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil (Mental Illness) commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate. Hmmm.

    Let’s stop the madness. And by that I’m mean the madness of actually thinking that the NRA is the boogie man and that if only our police and military had the guns, crazies like Adam Lanza would not have been able to perpetrate his crimes.

    President Obama just poked his finger in the NRA’s chest. That’s so easy. Do you think he’ll try the same with the ACLU? How about the American Medical Association and related organizations? And what about the gaming industry? Will he call out his Hollywood campaign contributors? I’ll be keeping my ear to the ground to see if he does but I’m pretty sure the silence will be deafening.

    • Anonymous

      Well said. And let’s not overlook the role played by the gratifying publicity an eager, profit-driven media provides to those willing to commit enormities to achieve infamy.

      • Mao Gung

        Amen PF. If you are a 20 year old man and you’ve got nothing to look forward to, and your schools have pounded into your brain that you are just a by-product of a cosmic accident, with no more inherent worth than a bird, beetle, fish or amoeba…why NOT go out in a blaze of glory, take a few more pieces of protoplasm with you and make a few headlines? This problem we have is not just guns. But, in its essence, it’s not that complicated either. Compare young people in general as they are now and as they were in 1950. Tell me the culture hasn’t degraded and their hearts and minds have been generally numbed down and “negativised” to a degree.

        • Anonymous

          We did not have all the often impersonal technology or violent video games in the 1950’s.

    • Anonymous

      If you will notice Hollywood has actually admitted to some of the responsibility and are holding off on releasing some of their movies. Wouldn’t it be nice if the NRA would man up and admit some of its responsibility. It’s kind of telling that the liberals are willing to admit when they shoulder some of the responsibility (in the form of Hollywood) and the conservatives (in the form of the NRA) totally shirk theirs.

      • Mao Gung

        I’ve never heard any admissions but I’ll assume you’re right LTR. But a what have they really DONE over and above lip service–to shoulder some responsibility as you mentioned? They “held off” releasing movies. That means that the movies will be released at some time and as far as the studios are concerned this tactic of delaying releases shows that they are concerned for public opinion (because bad PR is a profit killer) but not so convinced that they’ll scrap a finished film and take the financial hit. Hypocrites. All it is to them is “proper” timing” and the same profit they planned for the film using its original release date is deferred till a future date. Very, very hollow. Bogus. Very transparent.

        • Anonymous

          MOVIES and reality are different ,by the way .

          • Anonymous

            Don’t try to tell that to gun fanatics. They truly believe that if a madman started spraying bullets at a teacher or security guard (or their precious infallible selves), they would react with the instincts and accuracy of a trained soldier, and eliminate the bad guy before he could fire one more (Oops! They’re all dead!) shot.

          • pbmann

            Yeah, they have watch too many Rambo and Dirty Harry movies.

    • Anonymous

      interesting cherry picked time line there,bud.. Mass murder increased when the Brady bill expired..We need to reinstate it .

  • Anonymous

    The NRA is typically being honest, on point, and willing to point fingers for some of the real causes of what now exists. They also are one of the few organizations who acknowledge the plethora of encounters which result in the termination of criminal activity, usually associated with death threatening behaviors by law abiding citizens. It’s an easy target to attack, but the core of our citizen base is quite capable of seeing through the haze, as evidenced by 8000 new members joining the organization every day since the recent tragedy. May the kindred souls lost in this most horrible event find eternal peace, and may actions steeped in reality and real common sense help prevent future scenarios from gracing our headlines.
    Ken Fogelman

    • Anonymous

      ” as evidenced by 8000 new members joining the organization every day since the recent tragedy.” Prove IT!!

    • pbmann

      The NRA wouldn’t know honest if it slapped them upside the head.

  • Anonymous

    In Newtown, the boy’s mother knew he, at least, had emotional problems yet kept several firearms in her home. The NRA did not provide her with them.

    • Anonymous

      The NRA did expend great effort to keep those weapons available.

      • Anonymous

        As did our founding fathers.

        • Anonymous

          How many muzzle loaders did she have again?

          • Anonymous

            So much to say. so little understanding of the Constitution. Sad, but this is the BDN.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            It’s tough arguing facts with idiots!

          • Anonymous

            isn’t it though?

          • Anonymous

            Amen!

          • Anonymous

            US V. Miller…..the Supreme Court decided that automatic repeating arms and sawed off shot guns were not protected by the 2nd Amendment. It was decided that citizens rights must be placed before individual rights because these weapons were being used for criminal activities against citizens. The 2nd Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves and their country with firearms, it does not protect them when they are used for criminal purposes. This decision has not been overturned, and is recognized by the NRA. This case is from a 1939 ban on certain weapons. Constitutional enough?

          • Anonymous

            And , your point ?

          • Anonymous

            Amen!

          • Where is “muzzle loaders” referred to in the second amendment?

          • Anonymous

            The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. Muzzleloaders were the weapon of the day. You’re saying the founding fathers anticipated assault weapons and extended magazines. Show me. By the way, there was an armed officer at Columbine. How did that work for you?

          • Anonymous

            The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that “arms” would not stay at the level they were in the 18th century. That’s why “muzzle loader” wasn’t specified in the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            Very good. You avoided answering either question.

          • Anonymous

            what? is that the latest “talking point” on Beck??

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Yes, and the Fathers knew technology would change! That is why they intentionally used ARMS to cover everything!

            Or was technology changing a foreign concept to them then, too?

            One thing they were sure of, cowards and lesser men would cower in the face of evil. You prove their point nicely, even all these centuries later!

          • Anonymous

            So where are my nuclear weapons? Why do we restrict gun sales from people in prison? Why do we restrict gun sales from the mentally insane? I demand that we apply original intent thoroughly or not at all.

          • Anonymous

            Your Nuke argument is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers stated ARMS not bombs or destructive devices. They knew what they were saying and were very specific.

          • PFD

            I must have been misinformed that the Nuclear Arms Race was between Russia and the US for building nuclear bombs. Thanks for clearing that up! Darn western textbooks being taught in schools.

          • Cecil Gray

            Ever heard the term nuclear ARMS?

          • Anonymous

            So, on my shopping list for Christmas was a Stinger missile, an RPG, and a box of hand grenades. Funny, but you can’t buy any of these things, even though they were all arms technology of 1791. I suggest you Google “Congrene rocket,” and “british grenadier.” That line- “rockets red glare, and bombs bursting in air,” described the effect of a Congreve Rocket. So it was a weapon of the period, the “founding fathers” knew all about it, and they didn’t want me to have one? Why not? Our modern day “well regulated militia,” the National Guard, has plenty of this type of weapon. Why not sturdy civilian patriots?

          • Anonymous

            “Arms” is a term that dates back at least to the Oddysey of Homer, a thousand years before the invention of “firearms.” Why did they refer to “arms” instead of “firearms?” What part of the definition of “firearm” doesn’t apply to a rocket? A firearm is a weapon that launches a projectile impelled by the force of an explosive material. Sounds a lot like a rocket, doesn’t it?

          • Anonymous

            All weapons are considered arms. Why do you think they are called “nuclear arms”? They all apply, you can’t just pick and choose, which is what the NRA wants exactly. Their solution?…….more guns!!! They were “specific”…..there were cannons then, there were “bombs” they knew exactly what “arms” meant. The 2nd and 3rd amendments were designed to protect the individuals, however, it wasn’t designed to allow them to wage war, unless necessary. Without a doubt, it wasn’t designed to be used as a free for all on guns that are being used on other citizens.. And that’s what’s happening, and in my opinion, the Founding Father’s wish that they could have a “do over” on that one.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            “I demand that we apply original intent thoroughly or not at all.”

            And that is where your argument FAILS!

          • Anonymous

            So I’m a coward and a lesser man. Lesser than who? I put six years into the US Navy. I have volunteered for several years at Togus, helping our returning vets. I worked and contributed to society for 53 years. I earned several awards in my profession and my community. You avoid the hard questions by calling other people names, which is all you will do about this situation. 20 kids laying on a schoolroom floor, full of bullet holes. Take your AK-47 to bed with you tonight. Give it a hug and a big sloppy kiss and continue to avoid doing something positive to help the situation.

          • Anonymous

            It is clear your motives are conflicted. I hope you come to realize where freedom and the US constitiution leads you!

          • Anonymous

            Here’s where I’m coming from: 20 six-and seven-year-olds where gunned down in a classroom, each withmultiple gun shot wounds in their bodies. One little girl had 11bullet holes in her. I can only imagine what that looked like and I don’t like it. Not one bit. Can you envision what’s happening to that little body while she takes those 11 hits?

            That wouldn’t have happened with your 30-06 or your 30-30. In fact, I hope you get a 280-pound buck with a huge rack. I look with wonder every time I see the shotgun I took into that covert where we flushed a flight of woodcock. What a magnificent sight. Winning a state championship in my class in competitive skeet shooting, teaching others the sport and refereeing
            shoots, marveling at the different styles that accomplish the same thing and teaching kids at the range how to safely and accurately fire a pistol, all great memories.

            The AK-47 and it’s family members, along with extended magazines, were designed as killing machines. They were built to be killing machines. They aren’t hunting rifles. They’re not target rifles. They are collectable. They do what they were designed to do very well. And I’m glad for those folks in
            Afghanistan and Pakistan because that’s the kind of machine they need for their own protection. People are shooting at them. I have volunteered at Togus for several years and I can tell you sometimes it wasn’t enough.

            Then the NRA comes along and puts everyone in a panic. “They want to take ALL our guns.” No one with any sense outside of the NRA is saying that. In fact, several NRA life members, as I used to be, have said we can’t have another tragedy like Newtown. We can’t. We need to look deeper into mental
            illness. We need to look deeper into violent video games. I agree.

            But no more Newtowns. Merry Christmas.

          • Anonymous

            Kindly show us the evidence for your interpretation of the Founding Fathers’ vision of arms. Scholars of colonial American history don’t buy this. But then who are they to be taken seriously?

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            You are saying that scholars ‘don’t buy’ that our forefathers understood changing technology? Are you serious?????
            You really want to argue that point????

            Okay, briefly; Guns did not just pop onto the scene in 1776. They had already been around IN VARIOUS, EVER-EVOLVING FORMS for a few hundred years!

            I don’t expect you to comprehend it, but the Founding Fathers sure did! They also understood that technology wouldn’t stop with their deaths!!! Only today do people like you view history and the future of technology through the blinders of your own lifespan!

          • Anonymous

            and what did they mean by ….” a regulated mitilia being necessary to a free state “??

          • Anonymous

            I like the part about regulation a LOT.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            If I have to explain it to you, after all these years of academic study and conclusion, you wouldn’t understand nor accept my explanation! It’s simple grade-school history. You must have slept through it.

          • I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

            ~Jefferson

            Like the bible, interpreting the constitution literally is a mistake. I certainly believe that self defense would be adamantly defended today by those that wrote the constitution, though the liberal use of “arms” to cover just about any handheld weapon? That’s a guess. Nothing more. Policy should not be based on guesses. Should it?

          • Anonymous

            good find,keep it handy..

          • Anonymous

            You are supposing that the Founding Father’s knew that the technology would change. That’s a pretty big supposition, because the constitution was not ratified until 1791. The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, however, tensions with the same enemy (England) culminated into the War of 1812. I don’t think the Founding Father’s were thinking about technology……they were expecting difficulties with England, they were right. They were, however, expecting the constitution to change as the nation grows, hence, allowing for amendments and giving the power of the Judiciary to oversee the constitutions integrity. Technology had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment; the 3rd Amendment is what?, the required quartering of soldiers; the two were written together for a specific purpose and in anticipation of more conflict.

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely correct!

          • Anonymous

            The coward is the man, who needs a gun to prove he’s a man.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Sometimes. Why, do you need one to feel like a man?

            The coward is also the man that must hide behind the man with the gun and beg him to protect him and his!

            Jeff Cooper said something to the effect; There are three types of people – Wolves, Sheep and Prickly Men.

            What kind of person YOU choose to be is up to you!

          • Anonymous

            The victim is the man who doesn’t have one in the face of a criminal !

          • Anonymous

            So along that line of thinking are we to assume that since Al had not yet invented the internet that freedom of speech should not apply to postings on internet sites or tv or movies.

          • Anonymous

            You’ve answered a question with a question. I asked you first.

          • Anonymous

            You are absolutely right I did.Columbine had nothing to do with me so therefor it could not have worked for me one way or the other .I answered you now you kindly answer me.

          • Anonymous

            Since you had nothing to do with Columbine, you have nothing to do with Sandy Hook. You’ve eliminated yourself from this conversation.

          • Anonymous

            Typically deceitful,should not have expected anything but,will know better than to engage with you in the future.

          • Anonymous

            Are you saying that the founding father having observed the rapid advancements of weaponry over the preceding years since the roman empire were too stupid not to anticipate that men would advance in all areas of knowledge including firearms?

          • Anonymous

            Of course not. I think they ALL had their orders in for assault rifles. By the way – what do you do with yours – take a 50-round clip squirrel hunting?

          • Anonymous

            Nah, Only at the target range to keep in practice for using my Barrett. My working weapon of choice. The ammunition is a bit expensive for that one.

          • Technology from the industrial revolution on, advanced at a pace exponentially faster then it did between the time Rome fell and our country was born. I am sure the founders had great imaginations – especially the inventors like Franklin – though no, I do not believe any of them would have anticipated how far we would come, so fast – not only in weaponry, but in general.

          • Anonymous

            Get your facts straight, the guard only worked part time and he was at Subway stuffing his face at the time of the shooting. My high school had armed guards over 30 years ago, this not a new concept over 1/3 of todays public schools have armed guards.

          • Anonymous

            Excellent!

          • Anonymous

            where are assault rifles” mentioned”?

          • Anonymous

            Good point. It says “the right to bear arms”……where does it say specifically, you have the right for ammunition for them? Think of fireworks, and how controversial that issue is. What’s a bullet? ….A sophisticated firework.

        • Cecil Gray

          Muskets not thirty round magazines.

        • Anonymous

          I think our “founding fathers” included some language in the second amendment about a “well-regulated militia.” Was there some connection between the weapons used to kill those children and a “well regulated militia?”

      • Lazerus Phoenix

        Those weapons don’t differ from any others! Why, when I stood behind you in line, with my semi auto under my coat, were you not afraid, but now you are?

        What changed? The gun sure didn’t! You are a lot closer to spooky guns than you know, whenever you leave your house, yet you are not afraid!

        What changed?

        • Anonymous

          I’m not afraid? Guess again. From what i gather, “those weapons” absolutely differ. They are made to carry many bullets and shoot them very fast. Appropriate for military and (unfortunately) law enforcement. Not for the guy behind me in line – whatever your name is.

          • Lazerus Phoenix

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but mine carry many bullets and shoot really fast too! In fact, I’m unaware of a gun that shoots really slow! Is that a Liberal gun? Please enlighten us.

    • Anonymous

      Great point, I still have my sons gun I bought him a 410/22 he is now 28, but still does not show the responsibility to keep it.

      • Anonymous

        You have my sympathy sir!

        • Anonymous

          his son has MY sympathies.

      • Anonymous

        At least I can give you the credit you deserve for admitting that you have failed to teach your offspring responsibility. Having said that; why anyone would give or purchase a weapon to someone who has a demonstrated lack of responsibility? Perhaps the apple didn’t fall far from the tree after all.

    • Anonymous

      and the NRA didn’t protect her either, did they? Owning her gun didn’t make HER safer ,did it?

    • Anonymous

      Nope. It just provided massive propaganda aimed at convincing her and others to invest in as many weapons as she could possibly afford.

  • Anonymous

    The NRA used to represent sportsmen and traditional values, like marksmanship and safety. Now they appear to be Partisan and foolish, they have lost their way….

    • Anonymous

      Because of the attacks by the left Partisan utopia dreaming No guns no deaths democrats view point.

      • Anonymous

        Well, Jed, true to your namesake, your thinking is a bit short… Banning all guns ain’t gonna happen in this society… You’re afraid of a very small minority of pacifists that might think that… but for the general population… ain’t gonna happen.

  • Cecil Gray

    This man is as cold as his beady eyes speak.

    • Anonymous

      Lanza, Holmes, Laughter and the rest……they all have that same blank, emotionless, crazed, deranged look. They are an empty shell with no feelings it seems except anger and rage. It is all about them. The world is against them. They are self loathing. They have failed and will make others pay for that. The only way they get any notoriety is by violence.

  • Anonymous

    Made it in a lab.

    • Anonymous

      Then you put it in a woman and can watch it grow too? and how does that lab heart continue to beat?

      • Anonymous

        Or are you talking about testube babies? Do they abort those too?

  • Anonymous

    “The NRA has fought for the legalization and popular use of weapons that have one sole purpose: to kill people.”
    I recommend that the editorialist spend some time at a shooting club to better understand what guns are used for. Guns do not have “one sole purpose.” They have many purposes. Killing is one. Hunting for sustenance is another. Deterring burglars and thieves is another. Collecting is another. And for target shooting is another.
    There have been no calls to ban baseball bats, even though they seem to be highly popular in assaulting people and committing vandalism. Shooting is a sport, just like baseball. And there are different types of competitions. Some require only single-shot arms. Some require semi-automatics. Some require patience. Others require rapid-fire.

    • Anonymous

      let’s look at it differently…. the only thing that has been involved in MASS murder is an assault rifle.!!!!Yes people get a thrill out of using it on the shooting range. Anyone who uses it in the woods to kill bambi isn’t much of a sportsman,.IMO. One doesn’t NEED an assault rifle for the shooting range or the woods ,or even home/personal defense..They may want it but they don’t NEED it .I think these kids lives and the ones at the movies and the mall etc trump your (my) need for “recreation” and a thrill .

      • Anonymous

        “Assault rifle” technically refers to a gun capable of firing semi-automatically (the gun does not need to be cocked between shots, only one round can be fired with a pull of the trigger) or automatically (the gun does not need to be cocked between shots, rounds will be fired as long as the trigger is pulled; one pull of the trigger can result in one shot or enough shots to empty the magazine).

        Congress corrupted the word’s meaning when it voted to ban semiautomatics with magazines holding more than 10 rounds and semiautomatics that simply LOOKED like automatics (machine guns).
        The sale and possession of actual assault guns, by the way, has long been strictly regulated.

    • Anonymous

      Hunting for sustenance = killing animals. Deterring burglars and thieves involves possible killing them (such deterrence is rare, and gained at the cost of thousands of suicides and accidental shootings of family members . Target shooting is the practice of aiming at targets, and its purpose is to be able to kill something or someone if you choose. The joy of collecting killing machines is surely now overshadowed in any intelligent mind by the horror of being a part of the national shame of America, its craziness for weapons of mass destruction.

      • Anonymous

        “Target shooting is the practice of aiming at targets, and its purpose is to be able to kill something or someone if you choose.”
        Utter nonsense. When I was a kid, I belonged to a rifle club and had a membership with the NRA as a result. NOBODY at the club ever mentioned a thing about preparing to kill anything. It was all about challenging oneself in a strive for a perfect score. It was about learning how to handle a gun properly, learning how a gun works, learning how to control one’s breathing, learning patience, and learning how to keep one’s mind focused.
        Shooting with a firearm is too expensive for me right now, so I shoot with a BB gun that is almost indistinguishable from the Walther CP99 Compact, the only noticeable differences up close being the size of the bore, the size of the magazine, and the safety. Yes, it looks cool. But I use the gun for target shooting. I handle it the same way I would a firearm. Every time I shoot a batch of targets, I get the same enjoyment I would from doing any other sporting activity. I marvel at my bull’s eyes, I try to call my shots (ie., seeing the projectile hit the target and knowing the score), I adjust when I miss consistently in one direction. I seek to control my breathing and emotions.
        On some targets, I take my time (never enough, it seems, though). On others, when the CO2 cartridge’s life is nearing its end, I shoot as fast as I can while still trying to score high.
        Killing has never been the intention. And if you ask most who target shoot, they’ll tell you the same thing.
        By the way, the joy of collecting guns is no different than the joy that comes from collecting baseball cards, pins from around the world at youth sporting events, art, music, or anything else you can collect.
        My guess is you have very little experience around guns, that you don’t know how they work, that you may have never fired one on a range, and that you are basing your opinion on emotions. Controlling one’s emotions is the very essence of what the NRA safety courses teach.

        • Anonymous

          The NRA is doing an excellent job of controlling its emotions. They continue to propagandize for the weapons manufacturers, without shame or sorrow.

          • Anonymous

            What exactly is the NRA supposed to be ashamed of?

          • Anonymous

            They continue to propagandize for the weapons manufacturers, who heavily fund them. They are their sock puppet.

          • Anonymous

            Please explain what you mean by “they continue to propogandize for the weapons manufacturers.”

    • maineiac123

      Shooting is a sport? That really made be laugh. To be good you have to be skilled but that is far from being a sport. And guns are made for one thing…to kill.

      • Anonymous

        I strongly recommend that you spend some time at a shooting club. Then MAYBE you would understand guns better. I think you’ve been watching too many movies and TV shows.

  • Anonymous

    Regrettably, the BDN is as foul and insidious as a 1960’s cesspool. Sensual and physical repulsion are becoming a daily venue with each publication that attempts to force socialism and coercive mendicancy down the throats of unsuspecting Mainers.

    • Anonymous

      Please define the term socialism, and compare and contrast it with communism, fascism, and democracy.

      • maineiac123

        Since he can’t do the first you ask he’s really out of luck trying to do the rest.

  • So are you blaming AAA every time someone dies in a car…..

  • Cecil Gray

    Well let’s see we can also arm all ministers and preachers since many shootings have occurred in churches. All business is good business, right Wayne? Heck let’s just put some saloon doors on all churches while we are at it.

  • Anonymous

    The NRA used to teach gun safety as its main focus. Now they shill for the gun industry. To join a gun club that receives grant money from the NRA for improvements to the facility the club MUST require NRA membership of past and future members. “Join the NRA, or have your membership terminated…” Freedom of association I thought was a protected right… I guess it still is, unless you are dealing with the NRA. Millions of dollars in support from the gun industry… money talks… and in this case appears to be thicker than blood.

    High capacity magazines and semi-automatic military style weapons are designed solely for killing people. High velocity rounds, that shatter on impact have only one use… and in the hands of a determined assassin, or a lunatic are a threat to society. The NRA is showing its true motivations and allegiances by its dishonesty, greed, ideological viciousness. Another self serving group of elites of an organization that thinks itself above common decency, throwing its weight to influence against common sense laws that will lessen the likelihood of another senseless massacre. NRA members that don’t agree with this ought to quit the organization, or at least lobby the leadership for sane policy… They have lost their moral compass because it is profitable for them to do so…

    • Anonymous

      Most (PACs) are the same P= (political beliefs either left or right)), A= (action….collecting the money), C= (commitee……those who pocket the colllected funds)

  • Lazerus Phoenix

    So according to the (so-called) editors at BDN –

    NRA are responsible for the misuse of guns!
    AAA is responsible for drunk driving!

    Then the Nation Association of Journalists must be responsible for the crappy journalism found in the BDN!

    You fools just don’t get it THE NRA IS US!!!!! It’s not some institution that exists on it’s own!!! It is comprised of members – YOU AND ME! (Well probably not you, you’re more interested in denying rights than protecting them!)

    • Anonymous

      The NRA is you and a few thousand other people who don’t realize they’re just tools for weapons manufacturers. They’re using you to increase their profits. They speak of your “rights” but their eyes are on everyone’s wallet.

    • pbmann

      The NRA is about 1% of Americans.

  • Anonymous

    Every single American gets their own armed bodyguard! Bang… 155 million jobs! Problem solved!

  • Lazerus Phoenix

    obozo is responsible for more deaths than anyone else in this country! He controls millions of ‘spooky guns’, most much more powerful than anything the retard in Connecticut used!

    Demonize an organization of fellow citizens if that makes your juvenile little lives feel more important. Just remember, there are more of us (Patriots) than there are of you (cowards), and if it wasn’t for us, you would not exist!

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Assault Weapon! After all, you made such a fuss that MILLIONS MORE just hit the streets! Well Done! And in only 1 week! Outstanding! Now that’s what I call a bailout!

    The economy and the gun industry thanks you! With them, like every other industry, this Christmas looked pretty bleak. Now, thanks to your whining and screeching, people are working, plants are humming and distributors are straining to keep up with demand!

    Well Done!

    • maineiac123

      You name is a lie. It’s supposed to A.M.Inferior

  • Anonymous

    Just placing the idea of armed people in schools may deter the next attack. Since 911 nothing has been done to protect our most valued treasure…our youth… from harm’s way. We have placed marshals on planes and metal detectors at our courts with effectiveness. Thankfully, the terrorists have not infiltrated our country to a higher level…yet. Placing trained personnel in our schools will help deter attacks like the Newtown massacre but nothing we have in place now, and perhaps ever, will stop the crazed or fanatical mind from utilizing tools of destruction to accomplish their goal.

    • Anonymous

      It didn’t help in Columbine. There was an armed deputy on duty there and it was still a massacre at the hands of psychopaths with guns capable of shooting 20-50 rounds without reloading.

    • Anonymous

      How many doors to the outside does the average school have? How long would it take to process a thousand or more high school students through ONE unlocked door? With guns everywhere (thanks, NRA!) how long will it take the next shooter to take aim at the long line of students waiting outdoors for their turn at the metal detector and their frisking by the guard?

  • Anonymous

    A sick twisted young boy perpetrated this massacre on innocent children not the nra[which I am not a member of]He killed them with a gun[which I own not even one of] it does not matter what style of weapon or how many rounds it holds he pulled the trigger.If the mag only held 5 rounds he would have just reloaded it ,any body who has ever ejected a mag knows it takes less than a second to change mags.Blame Lanza thats who the monster is not the nra.There are alot of folks who want to control other people and there actions who are using this tragedy to advance there agenda and to me that is despicable and opportunistic.

    • maineiac123

      No they are not using this tragedy to advance an agenda, they are using it to try to prevent another such tragedy from occurring. I think people that fail to realize this are simply hiding their heads in the sand.

      • Anonymous

        Horse poo,If you want to stop these travesties you would allow teachers who want to to arm themselves .The anti gun agenda will never allow that to happen .Its about control plain and simple.

  • Anonymous

    Even Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing tabloid, the New York Post, has a front-page headline calling LaPierre crazy.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s disarm all the US citzens, as the englshman (the one who is accompanied with armed guards) on CNN suggests. Like China and the UK we would be protected by government agents. While the local drug junkie kicks your door down just run to the phone & dial 911.Unless you’re luckey enough to be within several minutes of police protection you’re SOL.

    • maineiac123

      No one is talking about disarming everyone and I suspect you know that. What so many want however is the elimination of these assault type weapons from our society. They simply are not needed.

  • Anonymous

    When the next whack job kills a bunch of kids or adults like Timothy Mcvey and the weapon of choice is not a gun, I wonder if the anti-gunners will target fertilizer businesses or Home Depot? When the next drunk hits a school bus and kills a bunch of children I hope they put breathalizer machines in every vehicle and for all you progressive wonders, if you have ONE drink your vehicle can’t start and if you don’t blow into the machine, it won’t start either. How come Hollywood and the video game industries aren’t blamed for any of this? Oh…that is “entertainment” and the violence depicted has no possible influence on any of these possible killers? We couldn’t call the killer at Ft Hood a terrorist and he had access to guns so in that case we can’t blame the gun can we? And I am sure Joe Biden, who probably has no idea where the trigger is on a gun, is the most astute person to lead a fact finding mission. The libbers just can’t let a tragedy go to waste, as one dem rep said…Obama needs to “exploit” this. You want to do away with the 2nd Amendment then try to appeal it. Anything else will be just BS.

    • maineiac123

      There is a difference. Fertilizers are not designed to kill people, nor are cars. Guns are. You might also note that having guns for protection doesn’t necessarily mean you will be protected. Take a look at Fort Hood. As far as the video games this is merely right wing myth. There has been no real evidence that video games cause any of this but we do know that guns kill.

  • Anonymous

    What a silly question…Of course the NRA is being honest…
    We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care for our children every day into an armed mob. And let’s be clear, civilians bristling with guns to prevent the “next Newtown” are an armed mob even with training offered up by Mr. LaPierre. Any town officials or school principals who take up the N.R.A. on that offer should be fired.

  • Anonymous

    Even though they would like to ,the NRA does NOT determine US policy regarding anything, .And they shouldn’t be allowed to by OUR elected officials. This emperor has no clothes .And while CONGRESS may allow themselves to be bought by gun manufacturers and threatened and black mailed by people like Grover Norquist and the NRA with their “score cards” ; the people will NOT be. The people need to put CONGRESS on notice: they serve at the will of the people not at the will of the NRA, Grover Norquist or gun manufacturers.

    It is time for the people to DISARM the NRA, Grover Norquist and the gun manufacturers— the emperors with NO clothes.

    The NRA has 3 million members, by comparison AARP has 10 times as many members. 64% of NRA members support gun control The NRA is not representing the will of even THEIR own members. So just who are they representing besides gun manufacturers? And why is CONGRESS listening to them??? Perhaps because the NRA gave contributions to 51% of them?? 51% is an interesting number, huh??

    Not all gun owner are NRA members . There are 300 million guns and ONLY 3 million NRA members. I’d say it is safe to assume the majority of gunowner are NOT NRA members. The NRA has created a mirage. that congress has bought into.

    It’s time to disarm the NRA DIRECTLY and this is how to do it : 1.. those 64% of NRA member who support gun control, rip up your membership card,and mail it to your Congress person and DON”T renew your membership.!!Send a message to the NRA and to Congress, that you as a gun owner no longer support the NRA and that they do not represent you. It’s very simple. 2 if you are a gun owner and NOT an NRA member and you support gun control .tell your congressperson, the NRA doesn’t represent you .3 .if you are NOT a gun owner and support massacre control tell your congress person. the NRA should not be permitted to determine US policy on ENDING violence in/on America. they are a bit vested and biased..

    PS. The research shows NO mass murder was stopped by anyone having a gun and firing back. The NRA “solution ” is a NON solution .

  • Anonymous

    In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions
    took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002,
    1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008,
    nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI)

    Would someone please explain how these innocent unborn victims are of any less victims of violent death than children in Newtown or Columbine?. I fail to see how anyone could intentionally murder a child regardless of the age of that child. That is, unless hypocrisy is a valid argument.

    • Anonymous

      well it’s not a child until viability ?

    • Anonymous

      Nice attempt to derail this discussion.

    • pbmann

      REBECCAS_KEY also known as a one trick pony

    • Anonymous

      Can someone explain why you are off topic per usual ? Go beat your drum somewhere else where it’s at least germane to the topic being discussed. OY.

  • Gary Libby

    The NRA gets tons of money from gun manufacturers, so of course LaPierre isn’t going to criticize his real bosses.

    • Anonymous

      American gun manufacturers pay taxes…property taxes….that pay for schools

      think General Dynamics in Saco…

      Bushmaster in Windham…

      • maineiac123

        So do many drug dealers, does that mean we should leave them alone too?

      • Anonymous

        your point is what ??

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think putting law enforcement in every school is all that much of a solution, but nor is it all that extreme. Many schools across the US already have an officer on site during school hours, in fact I think some larger cities have whole divisions devoted for such. I went to high school in Maine and we had an officer on site during school hours, so not surprised by it but nor is it something that is an original thought or all that radical.

  • Anonymous

    This editorial is fraudulent on it face! It says:

    “The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report in December 2009, for example, where it polled both NRA and non-NRA members. It found that a majority of both groups supported requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of people purchasing guns.”

    At the time this “report” was released the NRA pointed out that the “polling” of a “majority” of NRA members was not possible since the NRA membership list is NEVER released in whole or in part to anyone at any time!

    Therefore, this is just another example of what some groups and some in the media will do to promote their biased attitude toward the 2nd amendment. The group “mayors against gun violence is a stepchild of NYC Mayor Bloomberg – a very violent anti-2nd amendment politician who is right up there with Senators Schumer and Feinstein!

    • maineiac123

      Whether or not the NRA releases it’s membership list is immaterial. One can merely ask the question “Are you a memember of the NRA” when asking as well as going to various gun clubs to get members names. There are so many ways around this that for you to call it fraudulent shows just how little you know.

  • Anonymous

    There are two facts that are relevant to this issue:

    1) Weapons with large magazines and rapid rates of fire are not necessary for sporting use, and are pretty much useless in self-defense scenarios.

    2) If the object of the Second Amendment is to make sure that an armed general population serves as a check on the government, it is a complete failure. Starting with Shay’s Rebellion (1786), through the Whiskey Rebellion (1791), to the current day shoot-outs at Ruby Ridge and Waco, the government has NEVER lost a gun fight with rebels, including those commanded by Robert E. Lee.

    • Anonymous

      WOW…spoken like a true Torrey from 1776!!

      I would remind you sir, that the defeat of a powerful central government by the ‘rebels’ is what brought rise to the free nation within which you presently reside.

      I bet we could trace your lineage back to London aristocracy circa 1720, if we took a good look…

      • pbmann

        The defeat of that powerful central government was done with a standing army of colonists, help from the French navy and paid mercenaries from Europe, not farmers with their muskets.

        • Anonymous

          Oh sure, and that’s why Gates referred to them as a “Rabble in Arms”? Claiming the continental army was even remotely close to sufficiently equiped for their task at hand demonstrates you have little understanding of revolutionary war history

          and give it up with the “paid mercenaries from Europe” garbage, the Hessians were employed by the English crown, not the colonial rebels, and the Hessians were resoundingly defeated time and time again by the ‘rebels’ in numerous revolutionary war conflicts

          • Anonymous

            It’s refreshing to see that someone has a grasp on historical facts…Thank you.

Similar Articles