Is the NRA being reasonable on gun control?

by L.A. Times Posted 2013/01/23 16:00:00

Related Topics: Obama, Constitution, Family, United States, Rights, President Obama, Vice President, Fathers, Gun Control, Background Checks, Father, Founding Fathers, Constitutional Rights, Gun Laws, NRA

Read More

1,432 votes
Read all 1,870 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	806 votes	56%
	No	626 votes	44%

National Rifle Assn. Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre lobbed a scathing critique at President Obama's second inaugural address Tuesday night, warning that turning away from "absolutism" puts constitutional rights at risk.

"Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word -- just another word for extremism," LaPierre said. He later added, "Mr. President, you might think calling us absolutists is a clever way of name-calling without using names. But if that is absolutist, then we are as absolutist as our Founding Fathers and the framers of our United States Constitution. And we are proud of it."

LaPierre reiterated what he and other NRA officials have said publicly in recent weeks: that major changes to gun laws, such as those proposed by Obama last week, would face strenuous opposition from the gun rights lobby. He denounced stricter background checks as burdensome to law-abiding gun owners, particularly those who want to pass along family heirlooms.

+34

Add a comment above

boneman1 2013/01/23 20:23:04

Yes

+44
There's nothing unreasonable about defending the constitution.
>> See Replies

More polls by L.A. Times

Susai 2013/02/08 13:44:15

Yes

+1
Yes I think it is right

reply
Bill 2013/02/01 19:43:50

Yes

If OHummer's kids can have armed security, why can't other's.

reply
strider.ranger.3 2013/01/31 16:42:07

Yes

Shall Not Be Infringed! How much clearer can it be?

reply
chuck 2013/01/31 02:57:30

Yes

History has shown us thousands of examples of the Steps to Disarmament/Subjugation of citizens. Every one of them begins with so called "common sense" laws to protect the innocent. Except they don't really offer ANY protection (they just HOPE there will be LESS violence while secretly wishing for MORE so they can PUSH for MORE Control) How does that go? oh yea.... NEVER LET a CRISIS GO TO WASTE. The SOLE purpose of "Gun Control" is to Begin Restricting Citizens ability to protect themselves by inhibiting your RIGHT to own a gun. Other than Military Power/Force.... Laws, Regulations, Taxation, and prohibitive costs are the tools used to achieve it. Every country that has LOST that RIGHT has NEVER REGAINED it from their "Government".

reply
carlton.dunlap 2013/01/31 00:27:02

Yes

It is very reasonable to want to uphold our constitutuonal rights! One reason for the second amendment is just in case the rest of the Bill of Rights fails! I remember when Castro first came into power in Cuba. He said everyone should give up his guns because Castro was tired of fighting. Then he lowered the boom!

reply
Everett Thompson 2013/01/30 21:37:55

Yes

This is a hard one to be absolutionist one way or the other. Background checks? Yes. But by the same point, some entities would like to be able to say, "We've got a list here of all those folks who have guns; let's go get them!" I'm thinking of the film, 'Red Dawn.' Assault rifles? I can see the point, "Why would someone want to shoot a deer with an assault rifle?" Again, in strict obedience to the Second Amendment, how are we to protect ourselves, our families, and our country, unless we HAVE the means of being in the role of a militia, and having assault rifles and extended magazines, AT THE READY? I would love to be part of an official Idaho militia, but at the age of 68, would I be an asset, or a hindrance? But, I still want to have SOME sort of defense capability, to protect my wife, and my family, and my resources. Anything wrong with that?
Chaplain ET.

reply
ltmarine 2013/01/30 21:33:36

Yes

Guns keep the people free from political tyranny that seems to be the agenda of Omoron!

reply
You Know IT 2013/01/30 19:28:03

Yes

To be perfectly honest, both sides are far right and far left, can we come up with a proper compromise?

reply
הרב ריאן Rabbi Ryan 2013/01/30 19:22:56

Yes

The blame of murder is and should be on the one who committed the crime. Proverbs 21:10 says, “The soul of the wicked desires evil.” If we surround ourselves with evil, our minds will begin to embrace it. All men are responsible for their own actions no matter the circumstances, but parents can and should equip their children with proper tools for discerning violent content.

reply
misterz 2013/01/30 18:45:12

No

No!

reply
science28 2013/01/30 18:26:53

No

+1
I think anyone who wants an assault rifle is automatically too crazy to have one.

reply
Ryan to science28 2013/03/22 16:31:17

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think these athletes show otherwise.

reply
RichieG 2013/01/30 17:25:32

No

To everything there is a time.

reply
ProVega 2013/01/30 16:40:25

No

+1
The NRA is paid for by gun manufactures. They know not to bite the hand that feeds them.

reply
JP 2013/01/30 14:07:08

Yes

Too much attention is being focused on gun control where existing laws will do the job if they are enforced properly. More people are killed by drunk drivers than guns and something needs to be done about that before any other change to a constitutional right.

reply
science28 to JP 2013/01/30 18:29:27

I hear this b.s. every time there is a mass shooting. Where is the existing law that would have prevented that nutcase in Aurora from ordering a huge arsenal over the Internet?

reply
john brenni 2013/01/30 13:33:21

Yes

lets be real here. it seems that in anytown U.S.A it is easier to buy a gun than to buy fireworks[ In new york]. did a thug ever say...let me not go outside with this gun...there sre strict gun control measures in place. Joe biden saidsomething that is laughable : we need new gun control laws because we dont have the time or resources to enforce the ones we already have. Exactly ! thanks joe for making a point. Enforce the laws already on the books. do not limit the amount of ammo you can hae : a ten bullet clip, a five bullet clip, one bullet per handgun. nonsense. if people are hellbent on massacres, they will fimd a way to commit these acts. i am in no way a Gun nut...in fact id ont own one. but i would like the option to own one if i choose. i am not a felon, menatally unstable or suicidal.

reply
WilliamLClay 2013/01/30 13:05:32 (edited)

Yes

i think when hes done trying to get our guns he is going after FOOTBALL, i dont watch or play the sport, butt obama said they have to stop the injures or shut NFL down fo a while, an ban it from skools, he wouldnt let his kids play it, if he had a boy,

reply
Aloria 2013/01/30 12:56:15

Yes

Union soldiers formed the NRA they also taught former black slaves how to shoot so they could protect their families from angry white DEMONCRAPS who didnt want them freed,as for the recent vile slayings Joker(WALL STREET PROTESTOR) and Nutcase(VEGAN) were registered DEMONCRAPS,perhaps we should register all DEMONCRAPS for their propensity to shoot innocents in gun free zones

reply
Edensasp 2013/01/30 12:12:59

Yes

plain and simple. There enough response posted here regarding 2nd amendment and collective punishment that touch on what I would write.

reply
ReindeerWS6 2013/01/30 09:41:54

Yes

+1
More people are killed each year from taking over the counter drugs like Tylenol than are killed with guns... so why the hysteria? What the media isn't telling you and isn't being reported on is that 90% of these senseless killings are performed by people either on or withdrawing from SSRI/anti-depressant drugs. That is the real problem. Don't believe me? Read these two pages.

http://ssristories.com/index....

http://www.ssristories.com/in...

If the idea of more "gun control" means restricting weapons being sold to people on these psychotropic drugs, I would accept that. Otherwise I would suggest leaving the responsible law abiding gun owners alone... they are not a threat to the public. The idea of collective punishment is not only considered to be unethical, but is also considered to be an international crime.

reply
mrdog 2013/01/30 09:18:17

Yes

+4
Part of the purpose for the org. is support gun rights for all Americans...protected by the Second.... yes... NRA is dong a fine job.... bark

reply
MtDuffer to mrdog 2013/05/01 03:04:51

Howling, I am Howling Loud Mrdog!

reply
2789847 2013/01/30 09:01:23
Ty 2013/01/30 06:10:17

No

+1
MrTy; No the NRA is not reasonable on gun control. Why these people are so fearful and are out to instill fear throughout the land, is beyond me. That Wayne Lapierre, and others like him should be ashamed of themselves.

reply
frank t... to Ty 2013/01/30 09:09:10

+1
many many more people are saved from assault because we own guns than are killed because some idiot goes bonkers. gun control is more aft to cause more crime , rape or thieft than we have right now. DC WHERE ALL GUNS ARE ILLEGAL YOU HAVE 12 OUT OF 100000 DYING EACH YEAR BUT VERMONT WHERE LAWS ARE VERY MININUAL .02 OUT OF 100000 go figure

reply
Empathe... to frank t... 2013/01/30 17:15:31

Frank, your assertions are absolutely untrue. Studies and research proves that there are far fewer people "saved" from assault because they own guns than those who are killed because they own guns. In fact you are much more likely to die from gun violence if you own a gun than those of us who do not. Over 50,000 homicides and suicides occur each year in the United States, making them among the leading causes of death, particularly for young people. Your assumptions of increased crime due to new gun regulations are also misrepresented and completely false. Do some research. Oxford has a good study among others. Some useful sources include:

U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov

United Nations Statistics Division http://unstats.un.org/unsd/de...

FedStats: the central US government statistics clearinghouse http://www.fedstats.gov

reply
Ty to frank t... 2013/04/10 22:03:55

MrTy-All of this fear that people like this Wayne Lapierre of the NRA and others like him has been ratcheted up most solely because Pres Obama is in Office. The Bible says, God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of Love, and of Power, and of a Sound Mind. A sound mind is not being exercised by any of these people, and nearly a blind man can see that these people seemingly have no concern for the poor and needy. However, The Word of God says, "Open thine hand wide unto thy Poor Brother."

Over & Out, Mr Ty

reply
Jerimia to Ty 2013/01/30 09:23:11

+3
Why are YOU so fearful of an inantimate object that is used in an extremely small percent of crime? You have a much better chace of being killed with a baseball bat that what obama is misnaming an "assault weapon!"

Seems like the liberals fear mongers are the ones pushing the paranoia button.

reply
LadyRaineX 2013/01/30 05:57:49

No

+1
No, they are not out for "rights" nor even for gun-owners. They pander to whatever gun manufacturers want and will kiss the butts of whomever pays their membership fees. They are pure propaganda. Just not the very creative sort of bunch. I wish they'd realize how irrelevant they are and just go away.

reply
Heisenberg 2013/01/30 05:52:02

No

+2
The NRA is being about as reasonable about gun control as the Vatican and Catholic church are towards pedophilia.

reply
Peter Griffin 2013/01/30 05:31:15

Yes

+1
There are so many guns in your society that if you do not have a weapon, you are crazy.
I think there is a better chance of your soldiers coming back from Afghanistan getting shot in the US than Afghanistan. Everyone in the US should be wearing full combat gear and have an assault weapon. I do not see this situation changing other than for more people in the US to have many more guns and explosives.

reply
LadyRaineX to Peter G... 2013/01/30 06:00:53

+1
Trust me, there are plenty of us who don't own guns and live in America. We also think gun-nuts are crazy and I'm assuming this website has a lot of Conservatives who are still butthurt over losing the elections, because a majority of America thinks the gun-culture is crazy. We don't all arm ourselves nor are we victimized by crimes all the time. The people who claim they "need them" for protection are just fetishists who huddle in corners at night, sucking their thumbs, arms wrapped around their arsenal of weapons and talk about maybe someday doing something Patriotic. But what they really do is just buy guns and play with them. We are just as embarrassed as the rest of the world is by United States gun culture, trust me.

reply
Aloria to LadyRaineX 2013/01/30 12:58:56

+2
Leave go to Cuba,China,Iran where only the government has guns http://colinellard.typepad.co...
YOU are the embarrasement

reply
Empathe... to Aloria 2013/01/30 17:18:29

The majority of us are laughing at you Aloria, not with you

reply
Peter G... to LadyRaineX 2013/01/30 16:16:18

+1
The world press portrays your society differently, sorry about the misconception. But the west portrays my country as a bunch of radical Islamist and that could not be further from the truth of the majority of our population. Our leadership is old and radical religious extremist but the majority of the population is young and secular who admire the western culture. We are making changes in our society and will eventually move to a much more moderate position but few in the west know this.

reply
Empathe... to LadyRaineX 2013/01/30 17:17:43

Thank you LadyRaineX! So true!

reply
whiteco... to LadyRaineX 2013/01/31 03:07:49 (edited)

If Conservatives don't wise up they will win fewer elections. They need to quit taking money and orders from the NRA gun lobbyists. Our elected leaders are afraid to vote for laws that will make our country a little safer, because they could be primaried in the next election.That may happen anyway! The GOP is losing credibility according to recent polls.

reply
Pinky to LadyRaineX 2013/01/31 15:40:27

Lady R. its your choice to not own guns, just like its are choice to own them. That doesn't make us crazy or nuts. Some people just happen to like guns for entertainment, hunting, protection, and displaying. Some people live and grow up around guns there whole life, and others have fathers that have other interest and never had a gun in the house. To me thats crazy but to each there own.

reply
vis_viva 2013/01/30 04:14:07

No

+3
And being an absolutist IS the problem and it is counterproductive. It's clear evidence of loss of perspective.

To me the perfect example involves background checks. While I think there are probably some reasonable limitations on some kind of upper limit on firepower (be it some sort of definition of an assault weapon or volume of ammunition) I can understand that the specifics of those limits might be difficult to define. I get that there should be some arguments about how to set/define limits to firepower. Arguing against universal background checks in ANY legal sale of firearms is NOT reasonable.

No, checks will not make it impossible for criminals to obtain firearms. It will make it more difficult. It will not be 100% enforceable but almost all other types of restrictions on anything are not 100% enforceable. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In virtually every other single area in which providing/selling something to someone is illegal it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person selling (or providing) it to make sure the person receiving it can legally do so. In every other instance except guns that is considered a no-brainier. The fact that it might be "difficult" to do a background check in certain scenarios shouldn't matter.

Applying arguments again...

And being an absolutist IS the problem and it is counterproductive. It's clear evidence of loss of perspective.

To me the perfect example involves background checks. While I think there are probably some reasonable limitations on some kind of upper limit on firepower (be it some sort of definition of an assault weapon or volume of ammunition) I can understand that the specifics of those limits might be difficult to define. I get that there should be some arguments about how to set/define limits to firepower. Arguing against universal background checks in ANY legal sale of firearms is NOT reasonable.

No, checks will not make it impossible for criminals to obtain firearms. It will make it more difficult. It will not be 100% enforceable but almost all other types of restrictions on anything are not 100% enforceable. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In virtually every other single area in which providing/selling something to someone is illegal it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person selling (or providing) it to make sure the person receiving it can legally do so. In every other instance except guns that is considered a no-brainier. The fact that it might be "difficult" to do a background check in certain scenarios shouldn't matter.

Applying arguments against universal background checks (for ANY legal gun sale) to any limited/restricted sales OTHER than guns makes the arguments obviously ridiculous.

To me the issue of background checks is a test. It becomes fairly obvious in discussions with people who argue against background checks they have lost their perspective in their argument. Such people are so dedicated to protecting their right to own guns that even sensible suggestions are opposed if they even smell anti-gun in the slightest. Even IF background checks were just the first step in a plot to take people's guns away that alone STILL doesn't make background checks inherently wrong.

And of course, the second test if if I get labeled a "gun-grabber" for just suggesting background checks is obviously reasonable.
(more)

reply