6:07 pm Dec. 14, 201210
Today, following the shooting massacre of 20 children in a Connecticut school, President Obama said that "meaningful action" needed to be taken to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.
But what "meaningful action" can Obama actually take, given Republican control of the House and Congress' deeply felt fear of the politically mighty National Rifle Association? And politics aside, what new laws would actually solve or make a dent in the country's crazed-gunman problem?
Rep. Jerry Nadler said thinks that the president has only one option.
"There’s only one meaningful action he can take, which is to take on the N.R.A., label them as the enablers of mass murderers* they are, really push for strong gun-control legislation and call out those congressional leaders who don’t support it," Nadler told me this afternoon.
"It is time to call out the N.R.A. as enablers of mass murder and start embarrassing people and saying, 'Who do you stand with? The parents and children of this country or the potential mass murderers?'"
Nadler said there's nothing else Obama can do, realistically.
"There is no other meaningful action," Nadler said. "He has to know that. ... I can’t imagine what else he could have meant."
Nadler attributes the N.R.A.'s power to its ability to terrify politicians.
"If you cross the N.R.A. in certain districts, you know that X percent of people are going to come out and vote against you just because of that," said Nadler. "The N.R.A. will come out and run dishonest ads saying you're in favor of taking guns away from hunters."
By Nadler's logic, the only way to counteract the N.R.A. electoral influence is to wield the power of really bad P.R., and he thinks the president is well-equipped to do that, even if he's been unwilling in the past.
CORRECTION: The original version misquoted the congressman. He said Obama should label the N.R.A. as "enablers of mass murderers," not as mass murderers.
Rep. Nadler........has it right. The NRA must be "held accountable", by virtue of enabling .........
It should also be broadcast loud and clear, just how much funding $$$$$ from the NRA coffers went to support GOP candidates. Name the recipients......Hold them accountable. Sarah Palin used a term"death squads".........NRA lobbyists fit the bill better.
20 kindergarten children have no rights anymore.........because TEA party folks and conservatives want to protect their "right to bear arms".
Now is the time...........Take on the NRA.........we demand GUN CONTROLS.
How many more children must die before the NRA and its members care? A lot, I fear.
Nadler = Nazi
All of the most brutal dictators in history banned guns. The Nazis banned jews from owning guns. Stalin banned guns. Mao banned guns. Pol Pot banned guns.
Gee, I wonder why?
Why is it always the Collectivist/Authoritarians (modern Democrat Party) who screams we should ban guns?
Nadler = Nazi
All of the most brutal dictators in history banned guns. The Nazis banned jews from owning guns. Stalin banned guns. Mao banned guns. Pol Pot banned guns.
Gee, I wonder why?
Why is it always the Collectivist/Authoritarians (modern Democrat Party) who screams we should ban guns?
The main point that I would like to pose, please research the areas where these tragic occurrences happen. They happen in states where there are the most strict gun laws. Look at cities like Chicago and New York their crime rates compared to their gun laws. The romantic effect of the media coverage is more responsible for these instances than the manufacturing and possession of firearms. Also, one can look to the mass-medicating of this younger generation that are taught to take a pill instead of coping with life. I do not live in a liberal state, so if you want your laws that ban gun, go ahead. But don't try to force you failed policies on the rest of us.
People don't want facts because they would 1) have to take the time to research and think for themselves, 2) possibly have to admit what they espouse is wrong, 3) have to take meaningful action, which leads back to number 1.
When I present real data (like conceal and open carry communities in the USA having lower crime rates) their eyes glaze over. I even offer to tell them where they can get these statistics (FBI online).
I also suggest they type in a search for Multiple Victim Public Shootings John R. Lott. The first search result will most likely be a link to the PDF research paper by Yale and U of Chicago professors; it's free.
The results of this intensive look at statistics (where all other homicides, even muti-victim public gang shootings, were weeded out) surprised the researchers.
I don't even get into the most important reason for defending the 2nd Amendment, which is my Bill of Rights. Most people don't know jack about how the USA evolved nor the motivation for Madison's diligence.
When I provide information like the following:
...13-20 children were killed by a family member's pet dog last year, and 11-15 so far this year (number of deaths claimed depends on source)
...On April 19, 1993 the US government was responsible for the deaths of 23 children (all under 18 years of age) in Waco, Texas
If they’ve let me get this far before turning away, I ask, how would more guns laws for PRIVATE CITIZENS impact these kinds of situations? They will usually raise their voice and say I don’t know what I am talking about and/or turn away from me.
Jerry "whiff of facism" Nadler is wrong, again. The NRA no more enables mass murder than Dunkin Donuts enables his fatness. Nadler swore to protect the Constitution, yet he only wants to support those parts that allow him and his ilk to exert power over others.
Jerry "whiff of facism" Nadler is wrong, again. The NRA no more enables mass murder than Dunkin Donuts enables his fatness. Nadler swore to protect the Constitution, yet he only wants to support those parts that allow him and his ilk to exert power over others.
EXAAAAACTLY, jatuk - look up Kennesaw, GA - a town much like Newtown - they have 'gun laws', and they haven't had a murder in 25 years; however, as head of household, you are 'required' to have a firearm, unless you exempt yourself out and there are a lot of exemptions. But, here's the reality - when a criminal, or an ill mind wants to do something of this caliber, or just plain kill someone who got in the patch of their 'crime' in general, where do you think they would give thought to 'not' breaking into someone's home or, a school where there are armed (like in a couple of districts in Texas since VT in 2007 - with no incidents and the teachers are trained, no one is aware of 'who' is packing), the gun-free zone and gun control laws OR, the place where they have a 99% chance of losing their life as a result of someone who would or could be packing. I'm a CHL carrying, NRA member, who I guess they want to murder because somehow the actions of a soulless madman, are my fault - a responsible gun owner who takes responsibility seriously, although it's my right; and rather than look at the deeper issue, they believe the solution is always to control the guns, as if the guns are the problem. Hypocricy is bliss. Ignorance is too, but that's another story. Compare Kennesaw, GA to Chicago - and there is your answer to just how great gun control works. But I digress, you can't explain that. Advocating beheadings, beatings, and mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman who was ill and spent countless hours and says engulfed in gaming in violence. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of non-violence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia, and the Democratic Party, it’s somehow acceptable! Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected, anti-gun class. It’s always the responsible gun owners fault, and gun ‘control’ has proven to be ineffective.