The New York Post wasn't alone in this assessment, John.

http://moran.house.gov/press-release/rep-moran-response-nra-press-conference
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-press-conference-gun-control-sandy-hook-school-shooting-2012-12

Meanwhile, the residents of Newtown met the NRA response with deserved fury:

“How dare they?” demanded Elizabeth Murphy, 42, a pet groomer.

“We are all still grieving. This is the wrong time to discuss their goal of putting MORE guns on the street.” [...]

“The NRA has no compassion whatsoever,” said Barnett Parker, 68, of Durham, N.C. “They are without conscience and they are cruel.” [...]

Elizabeth Candia, 31, said she was appalled that the NRA’s answer to the rampage was more guns.

“These are from the same people fighting to keep these assault weapons on the streets? It's not the right time,” said Candia, of Newtown. “I think we need more restrictions.”

The NRA jumped the shark tank, but not before the put on a flaming clown suit.

Two things - this has nothing to do with the original article.

There is no independent corroboration of this story, originally broken by the Daily Caller - frequently called out for fabrications by, you guessed it, Media Matters.

Lead, follow or get out of the way Joe.
You're an embarrassment to Tiverton.

"My take on this? Anything that gets people to buy more guns is good for the NRA."
Naome then you are the best thing to happen for the NRA. You and those like you calling for bans on firearms has been great gun sales are at an all time high thanks to you. You can't get an assualt weapon they are all sold out. Thanks to you and those like you there are now more guns on the street then ever before. Keep up the good work and God Bless the NRA.

"Keep up the good work and God Bless the NRA."

I'm having difficulty what God has to do with weapons.
Perhaps you could explain this to me - it's not something we cover at Mass.

"..do you think the media is legitimately concerned about an "debate about gun laws"."
Yes, but Congress isn't.

"It's time we guard the schools like CVS and Walmart."
NRA spokesman LaPierre called for armed guards in all the schools, not barcodes.

If we allow this to become our solution, we will be the generation most responsible for
America's decline; hopelessly in debt, sending our kids off to jail each morning
to prepare for 20th century jobs that no longer exist.

We can do better than this.

So our Best Buy's and our road intersections are more important than the safety of our children? I guess you would prefer to solve the problem by pushing your ineffectual social/political agenda of banning guns and spouting talking point and making ad hominem attacks and whatnot in order to ensure criminals obey the law. My suggestions would not turn our schools into jails. Things like armed police and metal detectors do that. How does locking exterior doors cost any money? How would a $200 camera system put us hopelessly in debt? Even my additional security features would only be used in the presence of a hostile intruder and would otherwise, not affect the appearance of the school. I suppose the vestibule entryway would alter the appearance, but it's not exactly a detractor.

Please, if you can provide any better ideas, I'm listening. I would like to seriously implement some of these ideas. I'm thinking of approaching the school with them to ensure that my children are as safe as possible without being harrased by terrible policies.

"So our Best Buy's and our road intersections are more important than the safety of our children?" Where, did I say this?

"I guess you would prefer to solve the problem by pushing your ineffectual social/political agenda of banning guns and spouting talking point and making ad hominem attacks and whatnot in order to ensure criminals obey the law."
That's a strawman, Bill. (You invent a weak version of an argument to refute.)

The Sandy Hook school doors were locked, Adam Lanza shot his rifle to breach
the entrance and enter the building. Even with constant monitoring of CCTV feeds by police, response times to the forced entry would have taken 20 minutes.

Again, ready access to a semi-automatic weapon made 20 minutes a lifetime
for the victims.

" All these changes could be done for, at most, a couple hundred thousand dollars per school." Are you proposing that weapons be taxed to defray these costs?

Remember, this hypothetical hardening of a soft target must pass a Congress that
has vilified public education as an expensive waste of taxpayer money for years.

This does nothing to address the source of the threat, an excess of lethal weapons.

Considering only turning our schools into little "Camp Liberty" stockades, identifying the potential threats and ignoring the delivery apparatus only
shifts the targets elsewhere.

It's a gun-violence problem.

All these changes could be done for, at most, a couple hundred thousand dollars per school.

"Where, did I say this?"

Your initial response to my original comment is nothing but a contrarian opposition to my suggestions. That said, all of your current and previous posts show that you have one single focus and agenda. You want guns banned or so difficult to acquire that they are effectively banned. Your outright disagreement with my ideas implies that you disagree with the entire concept. As such, you disagree that cameras in schools are not any part of a solution. Hence, you do not agree that our schools are not as important to monitor as our busy road intersections which are monitored 24-7 with cameras. Likewise, every Best Buy I've ever seen protects its stores with steel security gates or segmented steel garage doors and cement pylons. Again, your outright disagreement implies that our schools are not as important as a BestBuy.

Your entire point of view is based on the presumptions that:

1: A criminal will obey the law.
2: A law-abiding citizen will accept a ban on semi-auto weapons
3: All semi-auto weapons will be removed from the general populace
4: No one has the ability to produce or acquire a mechanism to convert a full-manual weapon to a semi-auto form
5: Criminals would stop comming gun violence if they only have full-manual weapons

My entire perspective is based on the idea that bad people do bad things and children are mostly defenseless. (cont.)

To your other points:

"The Sandy Hook school doors were locked, Adam Lanza shot his rifle to breach the entrance and enter the building."

A large window or other glass door entryway hardly qualifies as a secure entrance. If exterior doors were replaced with security doors, the entrance would be much more defensible.

"Even with constant monitoring of CCTV feeds by police, response times to the forced entry would have taken 20 minutes."

Most police response time is as stalled as it is because police need to assess the situation, set up a C&C point, determine a viable course of action and execute it. Real-time intel and an already-in-place C&C center eliminates that time. Still, response time is an issue. The only solution to that problem is to defer the hostile actions long enough that an effective response can be initiated.

"Are you proposing that weapons be taxed to defray these costs?"

I didn't (and wouldn't) say this anywhere in my argument. In fact, to the contrary, I suggested that these changes could be made incrementally. School building upgrades and maintenence are an ongoing processes. There is no reason that we couldn't phase these changes into that process, especially when another rennovation is going to occur.

"Remember, this hypothetical hardening of a soft target must pass a Congress..."

Since when does a municipal issue have to pass Congress? Are you suggesting we as a community can't protect our children? (cont.)

"This does nothing to address the source of the threat, an excess of lethal weapons."

You are half-right. My argument is about protecting our children from exterior threats when they are in the care of our educators.

Your definition of the source is entirely incorrect. Are you suggesting the police are an active, ongoing threat to innocent children and the common citizen? They have an abundance of highly lethal weapons and the training and know-how to use them with deadly force. How about the millitary and the National Guard? Should I be worried that G.I. Joe is going to break down my door and murder my family? Maybe you are suggesting that we should be afraid of foreign invaders. I always knew Canada had shifty eyes and unclear motives. Perhaps they'll come to steal our beer.

No? That's not what you intend? I would assume not. The source of the threat is the criminal using the weapon(s). Again, bad people do bad things. That's what makes them bad. If you have some method to remove guns from the hands of bad and/or potentially bad people, I'm all for it. The trouble is, you can't do that unless you can a) identify bad people before they do bad things; b) remove all guns from existence. Neither is a viable option, therefore, I would argue that you are the one who have not addressed what you feel is the source of the threat.

"The trouble is, you can't do that unless you can a) identify bad people before they do bad things" We do have a prison system, and laws regarding illegal firearms trade - these are not being applied to the limits of the law.

I would point out (again) that the weapons used in the mass shootings since
Columbine were all legally purchased. These mechanisms are insufficiently robust, and claiming that they are already in place - therefore functional - ducks the
issue: it's damn easy to get a gun in America, even if you're batshit crazy.

People like me would say that if you want a semi-automatic weapon, you're immediately disqualified from ownership as you're dangerous to the public -
just for wanting one.

" b) remove all guns from existence."

No one is talking about this - we're on about semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines - the design elements needed to punch fist sized holes
through a room full of 1st graders in less than 3 minutes.

I know, it's disgusting: who needs this?

"Neither is a viable option, therefore, I would argue that you are the one who have not addressed what you feel is the source of the threat."

Right, that's the American way, "It's too hard, we shouldn't bother."

What part of that doesn't sound defeatist, or candy-ass?

"Again, your outright disagreement implies that our schools are not as important as a BestBuy." bullshit.

I'm suggesting that turning schools into little Camp Liberty copies is a head in the sand response to what has become a portable, and pervasive threat.

I'm opposed to establishing what amounts to a police state to protect ourselves
from our neighbors. The people doing the killing aren't coming from far away,
and neither are their weapons. Any multi-tiered approach to this problem needs to seriously address the threat, in this case semi-automatic weapons in the general
public. Harden a door, and there's a window, bar the windows and put up a perimeter, when that's breached, erect a fence...

None of these measures do anything to address the essential threat, Bill.

I know you are the commentor with all the sources so perhaps you could help me out. What type of weapon do the police use primarily? How about private security? Based on the fact that you said there is no use for a semi-auto weapon, I assume they must use either revolvers or possibly muzzle loaders, right? The fact is, there are legit uses for these weapons. Guns are designed to kill things. Short of total prohibition of all guns on American soil (including police, security, & military) we cannot possibly achieve your stated goal. Now, a ban on sales and/or manufacture of semi-auto weapons may reduce the access of future weapons, but it will have no effect towards keeping our children from people intent on harming them other than an incidental effect as guns are removed through attrition.

Oh and one other thing... the threats, as you define them, are the gun and the magazine. As such, you have argued the point "Guns are the problem therefore, eliminate the guns and you eliminate the problem." Have you ever questioned your whole premise? Ever consider that you're circular logic is just a form of chasing windmills? As cliche as it is, guns don't kill people. People kill people. You totally ignore this fact.

" Have you ever questioned your whole premise? Ever consider that you're circular logic is just a form of chasing windmills?"

Okay, let's perform a thought experiment, and substitute a kitchen knife
(or deadly implement of your choice) for a semi-automatic rifle.

" You can’t stop people like this. Using a gun probably saved lives. He could have used a knife. People who want to kill people will find a way." For example.

Really? He could have used a knife? I’m curious, when you talk, do you actually hear the words coming out of your mouth? Or is it more like a buzzing noise?

I’ve got to be honest with you, I’m having a damned hard time picturing this shooter managing to kill so many with a knife. Let alone gaining entry to the school.

How does that work? Does he throw the knives, really hard, to break in?

Does he then overpower adults at the school, who outweigh him?
He did not appear to be an imposing specimen, what if everyone ran, you know
like their lives depended on it?

Does he manage to corral a room full of screaming kids who can't be called in from recess? How does that work, exactly?

Substitute anything that doesn't automatically load another projectile, if you like.

It's ludicrous, Bill.

"...but it will have no effect towards keeping our children from people intent on harming them other than an incidental effect as guns are removed through attrition."

Name one portable, lethal implement, readily available to the general population that can generate this kind of carnage.

"What type of weapon do the police use primarily? How about private security?"

Do you have a concern about the weapons carried by the Police and Military?
I don't. I have a concern about the weapons carried by people that shouldn't own a nerf pistol, let alone an semi-automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds.

How many trained police officers, private security guards or military personnel
have shot up American movie theaters, schools, churches or shopping centers?

"Now, a ban on sales and/or manufacture of semi-auto weapons may reduce the access of future weapons,"

Of course.

".. but it will have no effect towards keeping our children from people intent on harming them other than an incidental effect as guns are removed through attrition."

It sure would make it more difficult to do it, and slow down the shooters.

Do some math, find out how long it takes to fire the entire capacity of a
semi-automatic rifle - it's faster than you think, for some it takes a lifetime...

OK, I'm not sure who you're quoting. I certainly didn't write that. That said, to your thought experiment, how about a pipe bomb? You can buy the materials to make one in WalMart. How about a molotov coktail? How about an VBIED? Should I go on? How about a criminal has a revolver, speeds past a speed trap and shoots a cop and takes his gun? How about someone drives to Mexico and buys a Fast and Furious gun, drives back and kills a bus full of nuns? Again, I say, your entire premise is circular and flawed.

So I have to ask? Have you ever heard of Ft. Hood? How about the US soldier in Afghanistan who left his post to go arbitrarily kill Afghans? For that matter, how about events like the Rodney King beating? You think people are immune from mental illnes based on profession? Guns or no, the common denominator is the person intent on doing harm. I want to keep our children safe from those people.

Now, as toone critical flaw in your post, most schools have a lockdown procedure in response to an event like this. There is a State law which requires lockdown drills. Students are trained to hole themselves up in an enclosed location with no means of defense or escape. Teachers are trained to be human shields so they die first. There is no fight or flight plan. Only a cower in fear plan.

"It's only a matter of time before automatic guns are outlawed." John automatic guns were outlawed in 1934. Do you even know what a semi automatic weapon even is I know Naome doesn't have a clue. all it means is that it ejects the old shell and loads a new one like a revolver does as the clyender turns that is all. They don't shoot farther, faster or with more power.

Feel free to own this one, Robert.

Delve deep into the definitions. Get off on yet another pointless tangent.
Ignore the essential problem... you Tea Party D-bags earned what comes next.

Congratulations, you gun-nuts own this one.

Naome you are wrong again i am not a teabagger if you look at my post on any other subject you will see I am your worst nightmare I am a dyed in the wool card carrying socialist Democrat that owns guns. I voted a straight party democratic ticket supported OWS so don't you ever think you can size me up on one issue. I know you keep wanting to moving the discussion to guns and not mental health the real cause because you know you are mentally unstable and don't want to be locked away but you are obviously off your meds. Please you need to get some serious help before you snap and kill someone. Think about it.

Robert we really need to stop feeding into naome's warped mind. This is a person that thinks that out of the 2 words Gun Violence that gun is the bad part. This person is so warped that they use the name naome lixes and yet says that even though they are useing a female name they may be a male. Whats up with that? In this persons mind they think that is someone commits a crime useing a gun that the gun is at fault. This person puts the real name of other posters out on this forum yet doesnt even want their gender known. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.This is NOT a rational person. I hope this person seeks help although I dont think they will until it is to late and we are hearing about them on the news. I wish this person would just have a psychologist read their post so they could give this person their opinion as to if they do need help or not.

"I know you keep wanting to moving the discussion to guns..."

They are the method by which bullets are fired, making them the common
lethal denominator in all these fatal shootings.

"... and not mental health the real cause because you know you are mentally unstable and don't want to be locked away but you are obviously off your meds."

Two things - only the crazed with guns appear to be dangerous.

If by "meds" you mean cheap red wine in the Winter, beer of the week in Summer,
I'm still properly titrating my dose. It is my belief that alcohol was invented by people shortly after we began to live indoors, with our children.

So nice to see you consider me to be mentally unstable, that is a clear indication of
how close to the mark my comments must come. Resistance is only applied to
genuine threats, it's human nature.

Leadership requires endurance, something most parents have in abundance.

FYI - I am responding to annoy you, at this point.
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/change_resistance.html

Robert dont be baited. This person actually thinks that we are commenting on their stability because they are right on the mark. "So nice to see you consider me to be mentally unstable, that is a clear indication of
how close to the mark my comments must come. Resistance is only applied to
genuine threats, it's human nature." It also appears that this persons children have driven them to drink to cope with having children. "If by "meds" you mean cheap red wine in the Winter, beer of the week in Summer,
I'm still properly titrating my dose. It is my belief that alcohol was invented by people shortly after we began to live indoors, with our children." Sounds stable to me.

Joe-You can bloviate about your precious guns till your heart's content, but the fact of the matter is strict and comprehensive gun control is coming to this state and this country, and there's nothing you or your fellow gun lovers at the NRA can do about it.

Give up your guns Joe, or risk getting another one way pass to the "Cranston Hilton".

Right - your personal stash will stop these guys...
http://www.143aw.ang.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=6753

Cool story, Bra...

"If you think this guy wouldnt have killed if he didnt have a gun then you are blind to the facts." - Ken, the apologist

Spengler ambushed the firefighters from behind a tree on the beech behind the burning house. He used a rifle against EMS.

Quit ignoring the obvious, it's idiotic .

OK Naome, I said I wouldnt reply to you any longer but Ive about had it with your name calling. Yes I did say this."If you think this guy wouldnt have killed if he didnt have a gun then you are blind to the facts." incase you havent read about this guy he beat his his grandmother to death with a hammer. You may still think this guy was sane but I have my doubts. Again mental health issues. This guy proves my point This guy would use what ever weapon he could get his hands on. Now say " He couldnt have killed those firefighters with a hammer" Changing the law wont work. These people dont follow the law." CRIMINALS" look it up. He got the guns illegally. Broke the law criminal.

Well you got 2 things right out of this "Spengler ambushed the firefighters from behind a tree on the beech behind the burning house. He used a rifle against EMS." He did ambush the firefighters and the houses were burinng. Fix the people before they become the problem.

"...incase you havent read about this guy he beat his his grandmother to death with a hammer." And yet, some upstanding citizen sold him a machine gun.

"You may still think this guy was sane but I have my doubts. Again mental health issues." That's a pithy analysis of the carnage - he bought an arsenal - killed his sister - set fire to his house and waited for the Fire Department to come in range.

Brilliant.

"This guy would use what ever weapon he could get his hands on."
Which happened to be another Bushmaster 223 and a match.

"This guy proves my point."

Oh, you mean that he could just drive across State lines and pickup a few guns -
no questions asked? Where's the law in this?

He didn't steal these guns, nimrod - he paid cash.

You do know that in the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years -
as if that statistic alone were not damning enough -
involving 142 guns, more than 3/4 of the guns were legal?

Nearly 80% of the time, 49 of the 62 shootings, LEGAL weapons were used.
68 of the weapons used were semi-automatic handguns.
35 of the weapons used were "assault" weapons (semi- or fully automatic rifles).

That's 72.5% of these killings done with a weapon that fires many rounds without
reloading, in a short period of time - as at Sandy Hook elementary school.

Half of these occurred at a school, or workplace - not home invasions, insurrections or alien invasions. The majority of these killers were mentally ill, and displayed signs of this prior to the legal purchase their weapons.

Are the nut cases stealing gun? No.
No need to when they're readily available.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

John most guns that are carried for protection are semi-automatics.The days of carring a revolver are pretty much over. Although you can carry either. You do make some food points though.Guns do out live their owners and there are many many guns out there that arnt even accounted for. They will never be turned in. Why not address theses peoples problems before they pick up a weapon.As you said, If they make them illegal to own then eventuality there won't be any on the streets or in the hands of nut cases".The problem there is that they would only get them off of the nut cases after they do something like this. Again address this problem before they pick up a weapon.

We could be here awhile...

The term semiautomatic means that the gun automatically puts a new bullet in its chamber each time the trigger is pulled, until the magazine that holds its ammunition is empty. But to fire another bullet, the shooter has to release the trigger, then squeeze it again. most guns are semi automatic.

Robert I think a semi auto will fire a little faster than a revolver or a pump action but not by much. The only thing slower than a bolt action or lever action would be a single shot. I think the biggest problem with a semi-auto is the sizes of the clips available. I dont see any need for a clip that holes more than 5 or 6 rounds. One problem I have with a gun ban is that even if you could take ever gun off of every person and they magically couldnt ever get another gun then they would just use a different weapon. Some think that there isnt any way that you could kill more people without a gun but they have no idea. One person said "If they didnt have a gun then how would they kill 26 people in 3 or 4 minutes with a butter knife" Why they think the next weapon someone would look for would be a butter knife I dont understand but thats the way they think.It doesnt take a genius to think of a way to kill many more than 26 people in a heartbeat but I dont think it is wise to give people any ideas.

Fair enough, these TOS apply to all such submissions, then?

Im not fully aware of the laws that pertain to gun shows but from what I have heard there are many laws that need to be addressed there. I dont agree with "They mostly kill people! The public uses them for hunting and protection. If someone cant take out someone or something with one shot then they should hand in there gun or guns!" Trueth is that a very tiny number of the guns are used to kill people. Now before you say one person is too many" That is exactly right. No one should be killed by a gun or any other weapon. We need to stop the people from wanting to kill people. If you could take all the guns away , (which you cant) if the average person want to kill you then you are going to die.They will just use a different weapon. There are endless weapons. I wont get into how easy it is to make them because I wouldnt want to give anyone ideas. We need to work on the people. The part about only needing one shot,. If that were true cops would carry single shot pistols.

"I wonder if the NRA excepts that ?"

They should, they helped write the pertinent legislation, and it means more sales.

"Trueth is that a very tiny number of the guns are used to kill people."
Tiny = about 10,000 per year in America.

"We need to stop the people from wanting to kill people. "
Americans are violent. Guns make violence permanent.

"I dont agree with "They mostly kill people! "
Except for the 10,000 times per year when they do.

"if the average person want to kill you then you are going to die.They will just use a different weapon." Against a knife, hammer, pickaxe, soap-on-a-rope you've
got a fighting chance. Against a gun, you're just a meat bag.

Get real, the threat is orders of magnitude greater.
That's the point of guns as an "equalizer".

You're ducking the obvious, again Ken.
This is about gun-violence.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/

I get it, you're afraid of people that don't think like you.

You do understand that standing on the sidelines lead us here - right?

I dont think the teachers or students thought they had any reason to be afraid of anyone either. I think they might have been wrong too. Now go and twist this to say that I think kids and teachers should carry guns.

Put on your big boy pants, Ken.

You're ignoring the essential part of this, the GUN in gun violence.
It's a distraction to point the enraged mob at the crazies.

There are more than 3 million diagnosed schizophrenics in the US today.
The ones with guns are dangerous. If you're not willing to take this
seriously, you're perpetuating the problem.

" Life is too short to be baited into an arguement..."
Having just returned from Connecticut, you fail to see any irony in this?

This argument is precisely what needs to be made, out in the open.
We took the bait the last FOUR times that this was about the shooter.

No gun, no shooting.
It's obvious.