NRA's 'Solution' to Sandy Hook Is More Guns -- Of Course (VIDEO)

Say What!? 41

The NRA held a stunning press conference this morning in which the gun owners' association blamed everything from videogames to "gun free zones" in schools as the cause behind Adam Lanza's rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I think most of us, when we saw the NRA break its silence with the statement that "the NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again," we maybe imagined they would finally concede that semi-automatic weapons being obtained so easily weren't such a hot idea. But neeeeeeoooope. The NRA didn't bring that up. Instead, its solution is MORE guns in schools. Yeeeeeeep. Take a listen.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre said the group wants to sponsor a program that will bring guns into every school. They want to see "armed, trained qualified security school personnel" in every school, but give no details on whether they would fund that training. He also sees "dads who volunteer their time to patrol playgrounds." Yeeeahhh, sounds like a great idea, Wayne. You clearly don't read the news stories about crazy dads that I do every day. Not all dads are qualified to be roaming playgrounds with guns!

LaPierre also went on to blame everything from the media to videogames to HURRICANES (??) for the Sandy Hook shootings.

He said: "Will you at least admit it is possible that 26 little kids -- that 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day?"

Sure, Wayne. As soon as YOU admit that 26 little kids might have been saved that day if Adam Lanza hadn't been able to get a hold of a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle. Also, no one has yet to explain how a guard armed with a pistol was going to take out a guy with three guns and a bulletproof vest. My guess is he would have just shot the guard. So you're going to have an armed guard with a machine gun at the front door of every school in America? Sounds like a recipe for something and it's not good times.

Anyway, I think we can all go back to reality now. For a moment, we thought the NRA might have come to its senses, but it's just as deluded as ever. If the NRA didn't stand to make a good deal of money from its little plan of arming everyone to the teeth, maybe I could take this a tad more seriously. But I can't. The NRA has helped get this country into the trouble it's in -- we can't allow it to get us deeper in.

I also find it interesting that of the parents and children of Newtown we've heard from so far -- none of them are calling for more guns in schools. In fact, they are all calling for less guns on the streets.

Here's some video of an anti-gun activist -- one of two who interrupted the conference.


Image via YouTube

death, crime, guns


To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar Common.Sense

You know, Australia had a major shooting like this in 97. Afterwards, they enacted strict gun control laws, and whaddaya know! Not a single mass shooting since. Golly gee.

Austin Keenan

My office building has armed security guards!    Many do.    Almost all government buildings have them.  

Buildings where you can identify who should have regular access and require pre-authorization of guests are fairly easy to secure.   The security guard at this school wouldn't need a machine gun!     He'd see the guy before he broke the door and could take him out while he was trying to.    More importantly,   if Adam knew he was going to encounter an armed guard he may well have gone elsewhere.

the4m... the4mutts

Kelticmom- it may be a branch of law enforcement, but if Obama is sooo against assault wheapons, I find it hypocritical that he allow them in his home. He IS the president, after all. He CAN say "welp, I want all agents on my grounds to have handguns, or low impact rifles only."

His family doesn't deserve any more protection than our do. His children are no more special than mine. If HE gets an entire highly trained department of people willing to die for him, at his disposal, at no cost to him either, then I should get 1 damned AR-15, that I pay for myself.

Doomy234 Doomy234

Kelticmom, odds are good if you practice shooting on a regular basis. Plus, chances are if there is a maniac with a gun and they see someone else with a gun they are going to think "well maybe this wasnt such a good idea" and probably take off or give up, saving lives. By the way, the majority of POLICE carry semi-automatic weapons, the Glock which holds 20 rounds in the magazine. Why wouldnt a guard carry this same weapon?

kelti... kelticmom

4mutts, I think he, like many Americans, are not against members of law enforcement having semi automatic, but rather any Tom, Dick or Harry who can pass a background check (Jared Loughner, James Holmes) being able to. walk into a store and buying one. And he is the President he, like all those before and after him, will have 24/7 protection for them and their families bc their lives are constantly under threat from the moment they get sworn in. Doomy, I have no issue with an armed security guard or police officer at the door. I do have issues with giving guns to teachers and principals and expecting them to be the first line of defense.

kelti... kelticmom

And let me put this out there: We all read on this very site every month, stories of police arresting grade schoolers for throwing fits in class, handcuffing kindergartners for kicking them, tasing kids, using pepper spray in the halls of a high schools bc the kids were not getting class fast enough.....the list goes on. so tell me, what happens when we put armed guards/more police in the halls, and one gets spooked by a kid acting out or reaching in their bag and shoots them, using "deadly force" to respond to feeling threatened? It's a slippery slope my friends.

Doomy234 Doomy234

Kelticmom, there are laws for when you can fire upon someone. The highest being if someone has a gun and is threatening lives. In the case of young children, the odds of them causing near fatal injuries to an adult are very low, so the chances of them being fired upon would be very very slim. And any teacher, principal, guard who uses excessive force on a child without just cause doesnt deserve their job anyway and you shouldnt want them teaching over your child in the first place.

kelti... kelticmom

Doomy, you are right. There are laws about when you can fire upon someone. Does that stop it? Google police shooting unarmed people bc they "thought" they were armed and get back to me. And as far as the teachers, principals, police etc that you speak of, in almost all cases of those people using excessive force, you don't know they are capable of it until they do it.

Doomy234 Doomy234

You're right. It does happen. And accidents happen as well. But those who kill somebody without just cause should be put in jail. It doesnt change the fact that those people dont deserve their jobs. If you dont trust teachers around your children why do you allow them to go to public school? Because you DO trust them, right? You trust those teachers with your childs life and expect them to do the right thing. A gun doesnt change that fact.

Sarah UsedtobeZech Cone

Kelticmom, you're freaking me out! It's like you're reading my mind...  :)

11-20 of 41 comments First 12345 Last