Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA breaks silence on CT shooting--and proves that it doesn't get it (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know, here's what I've been (30+ / 0-)

    wondering since yesterday about the NRA...

    The NRA says it promotes gun safety which is one of their big selling points, supposedly.

    So, what I want to know is why do we see them spending money on television advertising for politicians instead of seeing PSAs about in home gun safety?

    Could you imagine what the kind of money they put into politicians could do to promote safer gun management.

    And why is it that local grocery stores are paying for the gift cards to entice people to give up mostly illegal firearms at those police swaps?  Why isn't the NRA taking its considerable stash of cash and putting some money into helping get illegal weapons off of the streets?

    These are things I've been wondering and I think that people who are members should be asking.

    •  Never saw one of those in decades (11+ / 0-)

      on my teevee, not ever.

      PSAs about in home gun safety
      Safety tips about Viagra, yes, or every other drug in the country, but not weapons of mass destruction that are legally attainable in the United States.
      •  Yeah and I think it is high time we asked (8+ / 0-)

        the NRA why not?

        They say that they are responsible and interested in safe, legal and plentiful.  

        So, why do we NOT hear a whole lot more from them about safe and legal rather than all about just plentiful?

        •  And the federal government. Where are the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, antirove

          federal government gun safety PSAs?

          •  Yes, but I think that the NRA since it (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tikkun, antirove, caul, Gator Keyfitz

            spends every minute trying to expand and promote gun ownership has a greater responsibility to spend their money on those PSAs.  

            Thankfully, the government isn't actively promoting gun ownership, at this point.  

            I don't actually think that our collective tax dollars should be going to assisting the gun manufacturers' project to expand their sales.  

            I believe that the gun manufacturers and the NRA should chip in the large majority - if not all - of the cash to properly educate people about what they claim to believe about safety and legal ownership.  So far, crickets.  Hard to believe they are as committed as they like to claim they are on their website.

            •  I think the government has a duty to protect its (0+ / 0-)

              citizens, read:  Terrists, terrists, terrists, so a few PSAs of gun safety are going to bankrupt us?

              Asking the NRA to educate in gun safety is like asking the republican party to teach sex education.

              •  Homeland Security budget? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice
              •  The government is us - you and me. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tikkun, caul, glorificus

                Why should we let the NRA off of the hook by taking responsibility for what they claim is one of their primary objectives in their mission statement?

                Why should we take tax dollars away from Medicare, for instance, to allocate them to covering the ass of an industry that makes BILLIONS in profits every year?  If the government is going to do the PSAs, why aren't we taking 50% of their sales to pay for that service which ultimately helps them?

                Be smart here.  Don't let the failure of an industry that is HIGHLY PROFITABLE talk you out of spending your tax dollars in BETTER places.

                While I see the multitude of benefits of the government putting resources behind providing unbiased and reliable information and services to protect consumers from the financial industry, I still have to say, "fuck them" for not following the few rules that are imposed on them.  Why you and I have to pay to prevent them from stealing from people while they don't pay any taxes should be a national outrage.

                Why we would need the EPA to spend money and time suing polluters is another good question.  Why don't the companies follow the rules?

                I really believe in government's potential to do great things and to do the right thing, but I see no reason to let the companies and industries that threaten our society off of the hook - or to put more onus on the government to clean up their messes than the companies and associations who have created the messes.

                •  Because they'll never do it. Just like Walmart (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  caul

                  will never pay the majority of their workers a living wage.

                  Why should we let the NRA off of the hook by taking responsibility for what they claim is one of their primary objectives in their mission statement
                  This is what a civil society is all about.  A strong government that fights against something that kills people.

                  The NRA and what it stands for now needs to be destroyed as an entity.  Begging them to "do something" ain't the way to go. They're too far gone and serve no purpose in a civil society.  

                  •  The NRA is a membership organization. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glorificus

                    Their strength is in their membership numbers.  They are the AARP of guns.  If you want to diminish their power, you get their membership to either revolt or move elsewhere.  Much easier than a WalMart boycott.

                    And I am NOT "begging" them to do anything.  I am CHALLENGING them to fulfill their mission statement or get lost.  I refuse to clean up their sordid mess.

                    A tax funded PSA should say, "Don't buy a gun unless you are willing to do x, y and z"

                    An NRA funded PSA would address only "x, y and z".

        •  The NRA (5+ / 0-)

          at the LOCAL levels does do such things, such as the Eddie Eagle gun safety program for kids.
          But the NATIONAL organization has a brain fever that is a threat on any number of levels, including, as Meteor Blades said yesterday, to M Y gun rights.  

          •  Right and my point is that the "National" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000, caul

            Rifle Association needs to step up to the plate now in a very big way.

            The truth is that the longer it takes for them to start to work with people who are afraid of guns and who are victims of gun violence, the more likely - if six-year olds continue to be victims - that the people of this country will really start to consider not just limitations and regulations on gun ownership, but also consider repealing the 2nd Amendment.  

            Look at how many of our rights have been gutted in the name of terrorist threats and largely because of public backlash and sentiment.  The NRA better get with the new program and adjust to this new landscape that the Newtown massacre has created.

            If the NRA really wants to protect this right, they better start to address the concerns that are emergent as a result of this tragic event.  They must start promoting safety nationally - not just amongst their ranks - and they must start to participate in efforts to find guns that have been illegally obtained - and visibly so - or they and the 2nd Amendment will be in danger.  If they don't want Attaturk to come knocking at their doors, then they need to actively seek to create a less chaotic and violent environment.

            All of my comments about the 2nd Amendment being at risk are not shared as a personal threat from me - these thoughts and comments are simply what I think is a pretty accurate read on how hard this tragedy has been on people - and how intensely they have reacted to it.  This nightmare has awoken a sleeping giant - a giant population of people who can't handle not feeling like they are protecting six-year olds - that is a powerful force - and, I believe, ultimately more powerful than the sentiment held by the most ardent gun owners.

            I say all of this to you kestrel because I think you understand the concept of passion not being exclusive to one group or another.  Withe the belief that you might start to talk to your fellow responsible gun owners about rational and sane policy - and tell them that I for one have no interest in wresting guns from their cold dead hands, but rather a strong desire to not allow a maniac or criminal to make a bunch of tiny children have cold dead hands that their parents can never hold again.

            Thanks.

          •  Never saw it, so it doesn't exist. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            caul
      •  This (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, KVoimakas
        weapons of mass destruction
        doesn't help. it'll be hard for you to get serious people to listen to you if you talk like that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site