Quantcast

Sunday, July 27, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

NRA breaks silence, releases statement on Newtown shooting

By Philip Elliot

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 12:25 p.m. HST, Dec 18, 2012


WASHINGTON » The National Rifle Association is breaking its silence four days after a school shooting in Newtown, Conn., where 26 were killed, including 20 children.

The nation's largest gun rights organization made its first public statements today after a self-imposed media blackout that left many wondering how it would respond to the killings. In its statement, the group said its members were, quoting, "shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders."

The group also said it wanted to give families time to mourn before making its first public statements. The organization pledged "to help to make sure this never happens again" and has scheduled a news conference for Friday.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(17)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
poidragon wrote:
This just gives the NRA the time to get creative in coming up with an excuse for people to keep and bear arms, as stated in the second amendment of the constitution; but realistically the constitution should be updated to keep up with American society and be a dynamic work of legislation, instead of the static unchanging piece of legislation it currently represents. This grand experiment of a country has progressed and transmogrified itself beyond what the founding fathers could have imagined, when they began this journey. What the future holds for us as citizens of the United States of America, will be up to us to define and expand upon; but not at the expense of the lives of our children, because we could not come to grips with reasonable gun control legislation!
on December 18,2012 | 11:46AM
AhiPoke wrote:
"This grand experiment of a country has progressed and transmogrified itself beyond what the founding fathers could have imagined, when they began this journey." Interesting choice of words. "Progressed" and "transmogrified" are almost opposites. In fact, many will agree with "transmogrified" as our founding fathers would very likely be mortified by where our country is headed. And, where we're headed is exactly why our founding fathers created the right for citizens to bear arms.
on December 18,2012 | 12:01PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Agreed. Transmogrified, while perhaps a Freudian slip, is actually an accurate word choice.
on December 18,2012 | 12:48PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
You say "the constitution should be updated"; there is in fact already a mechanism to help our nation do that-- it's called a constitutional amendment. I agree with you that something should be done so we are not costing the "lives of our children", but our constitutional forefathers had indeed thought of the need for change over time, and allowed for amendments to achieve such change.
on December 18,2012 | 03:19PM
MizuInOz wrote:
I am a Hawaiian living in Australia where "gun control laws" have been instituted. It is very difficult for the regular citizen here to purchase a gun of any kind. However, the criminals have no problem getting and using weapons. Laws only work with those who are willing to keep them. The ones who laugh at them also carry the guns. Maybe the solution to the "gun control" question is to not make guns - period. Oh, wait, the USofA is also the largest producer of weapons on the planet and the "great enforcer". So that won't happen. There are enough guns in the US for 88.8 out of 100 people to have a weapon. We are a country who values the right to bare arms - that is why there are so many sleeveless shirts. ;) Our freedoms were founded on the citizen militia and it is why we have so many guns... at least it was. Switzerland has a citizen militia and the third highest private gun ownership (45%) but not even close to the incidence of citizen slaughter that is taking place in America. Why? Is it that we believe that the best way to solve a problem is with violence? A yelling match can so easy escalate into something scary of we do not learn to be self-disciplined. And that is the key - self-discipline. With that, we can have all of the weapons and still be civil to one another. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime but I can only hope. Aloha Kakou
on December 18,2012 | 12:12PM
Komatose wrote:
The way I see it is the real issue is mental health, and public safety. We have enough gun laws. It is not a "wild west" US problem. Get a global view: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1217/Chinese-police-suspect-man-who-stabbed-23-kids-influenced-by-doomsday-rumor?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem Schools are a prime weak spot for the disturbed, and the changes should be made to make them safer. Other wise the logic will be : "Mentally disturbed people are killing our kids...let's fix it and disarm those who abide by the Constitution, and are willing to take personal responsibility for their safety. Police can't and shouldn't be everywhere to sustain a free nation. Stop blaming the mental health issues on an instrument/ tool /device.
on December 18,2012 | 12:48PM
hanaboy wrote:
We can't prevent mental illness, but we can prevent guns, especially assault weapons from being so easily attained, or at least try. To do nothing would only show our lack of compassion for those that perished by these weapons.
on December 18,2012 | 01:27PM
AhiPoke wrote:
Showing our compassion is not a good reason to eliminate guns. I'm as distraught about these shootings as the next guy but we should do things to solve the problem not to make us feel better. Unfortunately, our legislators are reactors not problem solvers. I'm sure we'll end up with tougher gun control laws, which I don't have a significant problem with, but I'm predicting the problem with mass killings will not go away.
on December 18,2012 | 01:58PM
Komatose wrote:
Oh come on the Chinese "suspect" stabs 23 kids..... Is it a knife issue? A kid kills his mother, and kills innocent others others and and you want to make more laws? Yeah that would stop him. It is a mental health issue, quit trying to transfer the failures of one aspect of society to another. The true Nuts are those who say "We can't control those with mental health issues....so change the constitution." How weak as a nation can we be? I'd love to write that one in the history books." Out of control mental heath issues causes people to relinquish the rights set forth by the nations founders". What is needed in the schools are First Responders Classes. Look ahead. Teach them about fighting fires, giving first aid, conflict resolution, and yes firearm safety and ballistics. They will be the first responders of our future. The "First Responders" are not those on duty who show up with the lights flashing....they are the ones already one the scene. The Second responders show up with the flashing lights. The first responders are the ones who made the call....
on December 18,2012 | 03:33PM
hokumakakilo wrote:
Bravo! You hit the issue perfectly. Prior to the 1960s, we had more guns and gun ownership than we have today, yet we never had this mass murder problem. What happened in the US that significantly changed society in the 1960s and after? One thing. All the mental patients were kicked out of the institutions and given civil rights by our courts, which includes the right to refuse treatment. Suddenly we have massive problems with social issues like homelessness and violent street people. And we created a climate where mass murders can and do occur. In every one of these mass murders or sprees the family members or neighbors and friends say they knew the suspect had mental health issues. Many of the families tried to get help. But as long as the mental patients have a right to refuse treatment, they are a ticking time bomb and like you said-a knife is just as deadly. Don't punish legal gun owners who have a right to protect themselves from harm.
on December 18,2012 | 01:32PM
control wrote:
so who is protecting the rest of us from the gun owners who go postal or who are irresponsible with their weapons? Are we suppose to convert our home, our schools, churchs, workplace, or malls into prisons ?
on December 18,2012 | 07:52PM
hokumakakilo wrote:
There are plenty of gun laws already on the books for that. For instance, if someone puts a TRO on you HPD comes and takes your guns away. Did you know that someone in the US uses a gun to save themselves everyday? It is never in the mainsteam media, but it happens. Did you know a shooter went to a theater yesterday and started firing at people in Texas, but a female off duty sheriff shot him and stopped the threat before anyone was killed? Why wasn't this on the news? Laws only restrict the law abiding. Criminals will always find ways to get guns. In Australia the criminals still have guns and shootings occur, yet the citizens are not allowed to own any. We need to address the mental health issues and force these people to get treatment or lock them away for our safety!
on December 18,2012 | 08:46PM
MKN wrote:
I believe that everyone should have the right to bear arms, but I believe that maybe there needs to be a limit on what kinds of weapons can be sold (ban on assault weapons) and the amount of ammunition that civilians can have per clip (Reasonable amount would be somewhere around 10-15 bullets). Sadly we had these laws before, but they were allowed to expire. Maybe we need to reinstate these limits. 20-100 round clips are rather rediculous unless you are going to a war zone.
on December 18,2012 | 02:37PM
hawaiikone wrote:
One of the important aspects of gun ownership as envisioned by our founders is the ability if necessary to throw off a repressive government. Legislating a gradual neutering of the 2nd amendment is not an appropriate response to solving our society's dysfunctional behavior.
on December 18,2012 | 05:39PM
DA_HANDSOME_CHINAMAN wrote:
We do have "Good Firearm Laws" that are active right now and they are only keeping the honest people honest. The public needs to understand "Guns don't kill people." People kill people. The person holding the gun needs to be addressed, not the gun. If you take the Firearm away from the people, we will not be able to protect ourselves. The wrong people will always find a Firearm or other weapons to do the killing, yes, even if you take our right to own a firearm. Just imagine a lunatic using a firearm right now running down your street and entering your home, what will you do? Now if you had a firearm handy, you now can protect yourself.
on December 18,2012 | 06:05PM
aussiejohn wrote:
Why is it that after every mass murder of inocent citizens in this country we still have the "its not guns that kill its people".How many more times does this obscene kind of tragedy have to happen before we control the sale of weapons..???
on December 18,2012 | 06:24PM
control wrote:
So let people own their guns, just ban the use and sale of the ammo.
on December 18,2012 | 07:49PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout

Wassup Wit Dat!
Can You Spock ‘Em?

Warrior Beat
Meal plan

Volley Shots
Fey, Enriques on MJNT

Political Radar
Wilhelmina Rise, et al.

Court Sense
Cold War