Whitney Tipton on August 8, 2019
The National Rifle Association (NRA) responded forcefully Thursday to attacks on the group following recent mass shootings, and to gun measures proposed by President Donald Trump.
The mammoth gun-rights organization, which boasts 5 million members, issued an 18-part statement by tweet to address recent events and proposed legislation following back-to-back shootings over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that killed 31.
“We want to express our deepest sympathies to the families and victims in El Paso and Dayton,” the statement began.
“Unfortunately, aspiring presidential candidates immediately took to the airwaves this past weekend to politicize these tragedies, and to demonize the NRA and its 5 million law-abiding members,” it continued.
The NRA has come under scrutiny since the shootings, with gun control groups holding a candlelight vigil outside the organization’s headquarters in northern Virginia Monday to urge support for new gun measures in the wake of the tragedy.
“As a group that has advocated for Second Amendment freedoms for almost 150 years, we stand for only the safe and lawful use of firearms,” the NRA said.
Trump, who enjoys the NRA’s support, reportedly consulted with NRA president Wayne LaPierre just after the shootings, according to The Hill. “It is our longstanding policy not to comment about meetings,” the group said in response to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request to confirm the meeting.
Trump addressed the nation Monday, where he called for gun reforms including early warning gun confiscation and mental health considerations to block access to firearms.
The NRA initially released remarks supporting Trump, but used the longer statement Thursday to clarify issues they have with Trump’s proposals.
While the NRA said they support getting treatment for those “adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others,” the statement went a step further. “But, there needs to be real evidence of danger – and we cannot sacrifice anyone’s constitutional rights without due process,” it added.
With regard to universal background checks, which refers to the gap created by the lack of background checks required for private gun sales, the NRA drew another distinction from Trump.
“It is not enough anymore to simply say that ‘we need more background checks,’” they said.
“Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them, that is rhetoric for billionaire activists and campaign rallies – not a call for constructive progress,” the statement added.
Trump said Wednesday he was “all in favor” of them in remarks to reporters Wednesday before he left to visit officials and victims in El Paso and Dayton, The Hill reported.
“The vast majority of gun sales, including internet and gun show sales, are already subject to background checks. In fact, none of the current background-check proposals would have prevented these tragedies,” the NRA concluded on the subject.
2020 was an off-year for humanity, but strangely enough, the Netflix series "Tiger King" which…
By Casey Harper (The Center Square) U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Tuesday that more…
You know where people with criminal intent love to wave guns at people? Places without…
By Casey Harper (The Center Square) Inflation has outpaced wages for nearly two years, federal…
Uncle Joe seemed quite proud of himself after he signed his first veto. This is…
A reporter airing his complaints about White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre not calling on…
I completely agree with you, but that is not at odds with what I was actually saying. My point is that while the second amendment grants individuals the powers of self-defense it ALSO grants the right to form militias - regardless of how modern courts have decided to reinterpret this right.
My point is that it isn't the second amendment AS A WHOLE that the NRA is defending. If it were, they would champion militias. Instead they defend just a consequence of the second amendment - the right to individual defense.
So when people say "the NRA is defending the second amendment," I say, "no, not really."
ahhh, but the Supreme Court in the following cases did re-enforce that the second amendment DOES apply to individuals for the purpose of self defense AND does apply to ALL bearable arms.
case 1: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
case 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
case 3: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
So while not specifically called out in the second amendment, the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean it is an individual right and applies to all arms currently in common usage
Well, you've again proven that even were you able to acquire an additional brain cell to partner with the one you have, you'd still likely not be able to construct a reasonable analogy. As you stagger around trying to conflate faulty products and managed natural resources with a constitutionally protected right, I would normally be tempted to say that someone was just trying to move the goal posts. In your case, that seems to be giving too much credit.
Only "politicians, other fools, and media" ARE NOT howling for guns to be banned - just some sorts of particular dangerous guns. This is just like you can't build a house that's not up to code, you can't drive a car that's made out of paper, and you can only fish your limit.
If "whatever living in your head" told YOU you were justified in being insulting just because you disagree, YOU should be even more worried.
If you live in a country that has a universal registry of fishes, houses, cars and spouses,...and politicians, other fools, and media howling for them to be banned, you SHOULD be worried. If whatever living in your head told you you were making any kind of rational analogy, you should be even more worried.
Sure, right after they confiscate your car (since they have a list of everyone who has one), your house (since they have a list of everyone who has one), your spouse (since they have a list of everyone who has one), your fish (since they have a list......
A very large portion of the public believes this because it is true - not because someone has propagated some "lie." If the NRA was interested in protecting the constitutional right you reference then they would be far more active in defending the right to form militias. There is no right to "defend oneself and one's loved ones" in the constitution. There is the right to be armed so that militias can exist.
Furthermore, describing a constitutional amendment as "one of the most fundamental rights" is ridiculous. It is structurally no more fundamental than the right to drink alcohol or any of the other amendments. It is not an extra-specially fundamental right.
This is off the subject but I think it is relevant in todays environment...
Definition of racism.......A young child asks his mother, "Mama, what is Socialism and what
"Well, Child...Socialism is when the white folks work hard every day
so we can get all our governmental entitlement stuff for free.
You know...like our free cell phones for each family member, rent
subsidy, food stamps, EBT, WIC, free school breakfast, lunch, and in
some places supper; free healthcare, utility subsidy, and on and
on...you know, that's Socialism."
"But, Mama, don't the white people get pissed off about that?"
"Sure they do, Honey. That's called Racism." ....... NUFF SAID.....
Who says the doctors are not/will be controlled by an anti-gun Gov't? No medical license if you are not rabidly anti-gun?
It used to be you need a background check, and now you get a physical/mental eval. ? Who's effing side are you on mate?