NRA Press Confrence Discussion

The President's response is up and online at Whitehouse.gov. Same rhetoric over and over. He does specifically call out assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

On a phone so I can't post the link.

All the MSM is concentrating on the protesters. Keep showing their signs over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

I was interrupted early while watching, so unfortunately I couldn't see the press conference live. I read the transcript and I see nothing that tells me the NRA has drawn a line in the sand and will actively oppose any new legistlation to take away our 2A rights. While I absolutely agree with the other contents, I read nothing that tells me the NRA will fight for the likes of me.

If anything I see an NRA that's not very strong right now. Wayne Lapierre was terrible. He spoke like someone who as been beaten down. They needed to put someone up there who could speak eloquently and pationately. Protestors being able to interrupt the conference makes them look inept. Their message seems to lack any fangs. I dunno. This did nothing to convince me the NRA wouldn't throw us 'gun nuts' under the bus so long as their fudd members could keep their bolt action hunting rifles and break open shotguns.

---

For your information that's called being Humble. regarding a line in the sand??? maybe, maybe not. Will the NRA stand fast against any proposed laws? Doubt it. However his talk hopefully put something in to peoples minds to think & talk about. The NRA is footing the bill for training & education. Obama and the anti's said it was time for meaningful action. Well the NRA just issued talking points and Ideas lets see how willing they are to actually Talk about what can be done vs what should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

For your information that's called being Humble.

---

I'm not talking about his message. I agree with the message. I'm talking about his technique, his mannerisms, he ability to hold an audience. I wasn't expecting them to be spewing fire and rhetoric. But his speaking technique was not very eloquent. The NRA needed a skilled orator to get people outside of the 2A community to listen. I think they failed in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

Will teh NRA stand fast against any proposed laws? Doubt it.

---

Then honestly what is the point of any of this? If the NRA won't openly stand for us, an organization who is supposed to be our voice in government, then who will?

I think WAYNE should have left THE PRESS with some questions to ponder and respond to on the evening news:

1. Is it possible that an armed guard, properly trained and equiped, positioned at this elementary school, could have averted this tragedy?
2. If the terrorist had driven an SUV through a crowd of 100 children waiting to board busses, would you be vilifying the SUV?
3. Schools are "gun-free zones." Why do you think the terrorist ignored this edict?
4. Where in the Constitution of the United States is the word "hunting" mentioned? (Aimed squarely at Bloomdick)
5. Do you think that passing any laws limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens will keep terrorists from creating terror?

Etc., etc., etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sawin

What's the difference in that (the government agents) and a police state? Are you not opposed to the idea of a police state run by the government?

---

I understand your point. I agree we don't need yet another DHS-type monstrocity created to police our schools. And as for having a police state run by the government, I think we fell off the wrong side of that cliff long ago. Federal oversight is not the answer but I do think local municipalities need to seriously beef up the protection we afford our children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

I understand your point. I agree we don't need yet another DHS-type monstrocity created to police our schools. And as for having a police state run by the government, I think we fell off the wrong side of that cliff long ago. Federal oversight is not the answer but I do think local municipalities need to seriously beef up the protection we afford our children.

---

I fully agree.

I did not watch the press conference, so I appreciate the commentary here.

I do not support more government spending or more government agencies. I am not concerned with having guns on every corner. I am more concerned with who has those guns. If those guns are in the hands of average citizens who have made the choice to be responsible for the safety of themselves and others, then I support those guns. If those guns are paid for by taxpayers and dispensed and regulated by people who are paid by taxpayers, and those gun carriers are defended from legal responsibility through sovereign immunity, then I do not support those guns.

We the People are quite capable of doing the right thing. I, for one, do not want more of our money spent on bureaucracy. Government agencies rarely live up to the high hopes and expectations of the legislators who empower them.

This is where I am drawing my line in the sand.

Be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I did not watch the press conference, so I appreciate the commentary here.

I do not support more government spending or more government agencies. I am not concerned with having guns on every corner. I am more concerned with who has those guns. If those guns are in the hands of average citizens who have made the choice to be responsible for the safety of themselves and others, then I support those guns. If those guns are paid for by taxpayers and dispensed and regulated by people who are paid by taxpayers, and those gun carriers are defended from legal responsibility through sovereign immunity, then I do not support those guns.

We the People are quite capable of doing the right thing. I, for one, do not want more of our money spent on bureaucracy. Government agencies rarely live up to the high hopes and expectations of the legislators who empower them.

This is where I am drawing my line in the sand.

Be safe.

---

^This. I'm not pleased with their proposal, it's basically more gubment involvement. What happened to "WE THE PEOPLE..."? Why aren't they proposing that the gun free zones be eliminated by THE PEOPLE? I'll leave it at this, but for the record, this won't go well for us...

The NRA offered a solution, that if used, will provide immediate results. NO ONE in the media or the government has offered anything other than to add more laws to a book that is way too thick and further infringe on our rights. We already pay police officers to protect us. Instead of writing freaking tickets all day, they can be positioned in schools. I live in SW Littleton where the sherrif pays for an office in the shopping center. Why not move that office to one of the schools here and save money and keep our kids safer?

I thought it was a great resopnse rather than argue with an ignorant press about gun control.