RAVE THIS if you will not allow Democrats to denounce the 2nd Amendment and disarm Americans!

KCurtis 2012/12/21 23:57:07

The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and
daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer
for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such
incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.
Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are
known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried
to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully
Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because
for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one
— nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and
immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right
now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth.
Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press
releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools
are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think
about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with
armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants,
courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret
Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by
armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable
members of the American family — our children — we as a society
leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this
world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of
genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by
voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever
comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody
really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a
school he's already identified at this very moment?
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of
fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the
wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while
provoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even
guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active
national database of the mentally ill?
And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger
and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang
members who have spread like cancer in every community in this
country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40%
— to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous
criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in
19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural
or man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national
nightmare of violence and victimization.
And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to
conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting
shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm,
Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one:
it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come
my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or
didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho"
and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on
"Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that
portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have
the nerve to call it "entertainment."
But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a
way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one
another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized
society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and
criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of
every month of every year.
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate
owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not
complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings,
the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more
laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest
thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that
the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.
The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim
these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and
they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don't
know what they're talking about!
Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban
— or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect
us where 20,000 others have failed!
As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those
classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those
police were when they responded, they were unable — through no
fault of their own — to stop it.
As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is
now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school.
The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally
involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing
that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you
rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile
away ... or a minute away?
Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow
morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to
everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no
place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the
word "gun" automatically become a bad word?
A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President
isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United
States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard
enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough
to protect you.
So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our
President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to
protect our children in their schools?
They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty
to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said
we should put armed security in every school, the media called me
crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into
Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by
qualified, armed security?
Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have
been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather
continue to risk the alternative?
Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by
fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you're
willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a
lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the
children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political
prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to
protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school
emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped
"Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.
With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget,
we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did
that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us
the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves
and our loved ones from harm.
Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of
qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military;
security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and
an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join
with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for
every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can
immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men
and women of America’s police force.
The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources
are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and
they can be deployed right now.
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is
necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it
now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children
return to school in January.
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Bob 2012/12/23 05:26:37
    Taking away firearms will do something, it will increase the amount of gun related crimes because law abiding citizens wont be able to defend themselves. I also find it funny that the president doesn't want us to have the ability to defend ourselves when he has the secret service protecting his family 24/7

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • 4570GOVT 2013/01/08 14:25:31
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IT'S COMING ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)--author of the federal "assault weapon" and "large" ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004--has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill. Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.

    On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

    According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:
    •Reduces, from two to on...


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IT'S COMING ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)--author of the federal "assault weapon" and "large" ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004--has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill. Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.

    On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

    According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:
    •Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein's new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

    •Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California's highly restrictive ban.

    • Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
    •Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:

    --Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

    --Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.

    --Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

    •Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

    •Prohibits the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

    •Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

    •Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines "overwhelmingly chosen" by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein's list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

    •Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill's list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

    The Department of Justice study: On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."

    "Assault weapon" numbers and murder trends: From the imposition of Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of "assault weapons" has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an "assault weapon" is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE's firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s--all models of which Feinstein's new bill defines as "assault weapons"--rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

    Traces: Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of "assault weapons" in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing "assault weapons" were exempted from the 1994 ban and new "assault weapons" continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by "assault weapons" during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.
  • joefj2 2013/01/05 04:21:31
    They don't have the power.
  • mountainman 2013/01/04 10:52:53
    I raved this, I support the 2nd Amendment, I am a registered Democrat. I am not a member of the NRA.
  • norm.bu... mountai... 2013/01/19 14:06:36
    THANK YOU. You just proved the point I have been trying to get through to a liberal friend... some of their own people are on our side on this issue, because some of their own people own weapons for protection, or other reasons.
  • mountai... norm.bu... 2013/01/21 20:18:45
    I am not a violent person, I am not a robber, I am not a murderer, I am not a rapist, I am a law abiding citizen. I go to work every day, I balance my checkbook every 3 days (or more often), I pay my bills, I am in debt to the banks and credit card company. I am a responsible Citizen of the United States, and I am embarrassed at how My congressional representation has allowed this Country to get into the shape it is in now. Thats about it!
  • Gary 2013/01/04 09:36:13
  • Beat Magnum True Hero 2013/01/02 07:54:35
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    In the wake of the most recent tragedy, all I hear is "MINE MINE MINE! DON'T TAKE WHAT IS MINE!" God we're a selfish lot and I'm the worst of them.
  • phil.ol... Beat Ma... 2013/01/03 11:49:55
    When you're referring to our rights - then you're damned right, they're mine, and you can't take what is mine.
  • Biki~pwcm/potl~ 2013/01/01 21:30:55

  • CODE 11 2013/01/01 18:14:39
    CODE 11
    RAVE !!!!
  • THE LIB HATER 2013/01/01 17:41:53 (edited)
    Dianne Feinstein's bill will never get past the Senate, sorry to say libs. Get it through your heads you Politically Stupid miserable libs, and that is the NRA rules, now get over it.
  • phil.ol... THE LIB... 2013/01/03 11:50:18
    Never is a long time. Especially as that's what they said in 1994.
  • max reilly 2013/01/01 17:19:19
    max reilly
    If they come for your guns, be sure to give them your bullets first...
  • Nat Turner 2013/01/01 14:27:43
    Nat Turner
    If anyone takes our guns, we will be sitting ducks in the water!
  • phil.ol... Nat Turner 2013/01/03 11:51:00
    False. Most guns are not registered, making guns is not difficult, and the American public is the best armed military in the world. Anyone knocking on doors to take guns is a bunch of sitting ducks.
  • Nat Turner phil.ol... 2013/01/06 22:49:41
    Nat Turner
    You ain't never lied, let one of them knock on my door!
  • Gregaj7 2013/01/01 05:47:54
    Not their decision, nor the GOP. Even amending the Constitution wouldn't do it.
  • Broddy 2013/01/01 05:38:28
    Give me a Date and time that they will be coming for my Guns.
  • andy15554 Broddy 2013/01/01 23:39:12
    8-27-2014 noon time, serve tea.
  • Broddy andy15554 2013/01/03 08:54:40
    Central time zone i assume? and that time of year it will be sweet iced tea with lemon.
  • andy15554 Broddy 2013/01/03 12:38:59
    Ok, we'll be there to back you up.
  • santa6642 2013/01/01 04:27:09
    I will not obey, Period.
  • Savious santa6642 2013/01/01 15:42:08
  • toasty 2013/01/01 02:59:26
    Not happening, not going to happen, not proposed, not seriously talked about. You paranoid morons!
  • santa6642 toasty 2013/01/01 04:27:55
    Brain dead yuh.
  • toasty santa6642 2013/01/01 05:15:42
    Yup- this is a completely fabricated threat.
  • Savious toasty 2013/01/01 15:46:59
    Have you not been watching the news or reading the paper?


    And before you say; they are only talking about these deadly assault weapons, which no one needs to own…….

    Would you sit back without complaint; if they suddenly wanted to limit your internet connection speed to a 1200 baud dial up modem? Or would you view that as an infringement on your 1st amendment rights?
  • toasty Savious 2013/01/01 18:12:30
    The internet is not a tool designed to end life, so bad example. Yes I am well aware of the pie in the sky talk of repealing the second amendment, and it is simply not going to happen. I get into heated discussions every day with good, well meaning progressives who say "ban all guns" without thinking of the practicalities of doing so, so ignore them. Nobody has the political will or capital to do it, its not going to happen,it cant happen and it will never happen. However, without sensible discourse from the right, meaning the NRA, we will see stupid, useless, knee-jerk laws passed in the near future such as mag size limits, ammo restrictions, trigger lock requirements etc. The NRA has to admit that access to guns is a problem, that guns play a part in campus shootings and that something needs to change, and sit down and become the advocacy group for responsible gun ownership that they used to be before they turned into an industry lobby group. I am a registered Democrat and responsible gun owner who shoots competatively and has extensive training by the way, so I would be all over this if I thought this post had any credibility, but it does not.
  • Savious toasty 2013/01/01 20:10:56
    Then I'd say you are in denial; as what is being proposed, is exactly that, an elimination of the 2nd. To pretend that it isn't, is hopeful thinking at best.
  • toasty Savious 2013/01/01 20:29:16
    Enjoy your paranoia. Thats all it is!
  • phil.ol... toasty 2013/01/03 11:51:51
    When paranoia saves my rights, and yours, you'll be thanking people like me.

    Just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean that people are not after us.
  • toasty phil.ol... 2013/01/03 19:06:34
    Repeal of the second does not have any credible proponents. The president has categorically stated that he is not going to pursue any such legislation. We have real threats and problems to deal with, and this is not one of them. You should spend more time worrying about viciously changing weather patterns and Norh Korean nukes if you want to be paranoid about something.
  • phil.ol... toasty 2013/01/04 09:36:05
    Well, I tend to spend my time worrying about the only threats to me - idiots with guns, and idiots coming to take my guns away. These are the biggest threats to me that I can do something about.

    North Korea with nukes? That's what the military is for. Plenty of people are already worrying about that. More importantly, I worry about South Korea's safety if North Korea has nukes, not ours - there's a beautiful country, filled with wonderful people, that's constantly at risk!

    Changing weather patterns? That's dumb. Something like 1/3rd of our planet's CO2 emissions are because people in pacific island countries plant trees to get palm oil on land that's actually bog, and when the palm roots grow far enough into the ground, more CO2 gets released into the atmosphere than all of the cars in Europe combined.

    Are you educating people who have guns that want to learn about them? Because I am. And I'm not charging for my services, either. That's doing something.
  • toasty phil.ol... 2013/01/04 17:21:01
  • phil.ol... toasty 2013/01/04 23:19:14 (edited)
    "The right wing bubble" is usually filled with facts and rational people. If gun control worked, many hardcore right-wingers would support it. It doesn't.

    We base our opinions on facts, not feelings. For the most part, anyway.
  • toasty phil.ol... 2013/01/05 00:10:39 (edited)
    Ha- you are awesome. "filled with facts and rational people". Priceless. The rest of us, those outside the bubble, rarely see facts get in the way of a good paranoid episode and the odd insane rant coming from you bubble. Truly magical that you are so in the bubble you actually believe that.
  • phil.ol... toasty 2013/01/05 01:56:20
    You say that people are paranoid, like it's for no reason. You think the government isn't actually trying to go after you, brainwash you into thinking what they want you to think, and doing what they want you to do? You think they aren't after your rights?

    Just because people are paranoid, does not mean that other people are not after them.
  • toasty phil.ol... 2013/01/05 16:55:35
    No I dont- they have the right wing media to do that for them.
  • phil.ol... toasty 2013/01/06 06:41:42
  • toasty phil.ol... 2013/01/06 17:29:31
    The government doesnt need to do any "brainwashing". Fox news and its friends do a superb job. On 47% of the US population anyway.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 33 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/11 13:13:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals