Posted on 01/30/2013 9:46:42 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
The mother of one of the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting told elected leaders to stand up to the NRA, a group she argues doesn’t even deserve to be “at the table” in the gun safety debate.
Lori Haas joined PoliticsNation Wednesday after attending the contentious Senate hearing which featured testimony from gun control advocates, gun rights supporters, and experts in law enforcement. NRA head Wayne LaPierre voiced some of the strongest opposition to new regulations, including shooting down a proposal to close the background check loophole.
“We are hopeful and impressed with some of our leadership on the hill but frankly we need leadership from all of our representatives,” Haas said. “It shouldn’t take much courage to stand up to the NRA. Courage is facing down the barrel of a gun, and my daughter did that and there were 16 other injured students at Virginia Tech who did that.”
“The NRA should not even be at the table,” she said. ”I don’t see reports from them, I don’t see studies from them, I don’t see activities from them, I don’t see policies from them that contribute to the public safety debate.”
Haas, who joined the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence as an organizer in her home state of Virginia in 2010, pushed back against those who think argue regulations like background checks attack legal gun owners in America. “I find it very, very telling that the commentary is always ‘you’re targeting law abiding citizens’,” she said. “No, we’re not targeting law abiding citizens, we’re targeting criminals, dangerous individuals, felons, domestic abusers, terrorists. We want to stop those individuals from getting a firearm and harming our neighbors, our friends, our communities.”
“We need to do a background check on all buyers on all gun sales.”
(Excerpt) Read more at tv.msnbc.com ...
In school settings where mass shootings have occurred, where a firearm was used against the killer, the killer only averaged 2 victims. Where firearms were forbidden and the police were called, the average body count was 14. When an armed citizen confronted the shooter with deadly force, the shooter either surrendered or killed himself. Scapegoating the firearms and their owners, people who are not and will never be a threat, is just EVIL.
She knew her daughter was going to class in a building never designed with numbers of students in mind.
She knew ........
There's a percentage of responsibility here she doesn't want to address ~ I'd keep her out of the debate as well (if we are going to keep people out of the debate).
The person who shot people on the VA Tech Campus was already in violation of campus regulations. Discharging that firearm on campus is a violation of campus policy, and probably some local laws as well. Shooting people violates the law. Do you seriously think just one more law would have tipped the balance and stopped a madman from slaughtering students and staff there? Really?
Since the NRA runs training programs for Law Enforcement, as well as firearm safety, I think their presence in any debate to promote public safety vis-a-vis firearms is highly germane.
Your misguided ranting, simply on the basis of your daughter's misfortune, however, is not.
I pray you find more constructive ways to deal with your grief. As a parent, grandparent, and great grandparent, I'd be upset if one of ours got hurt, too. I would look for solutions which might have a real effect, though, and so far the only meaningful deterrents to maniacs have been forceful--on occasion, lethally so.
Disarming in the face of that threat is not the way to become more safe, quite the opposite.
Have a better day,
Smokin' Joe
That's right. We only want to hear the emotional, irrational side of the argument. Who can stand to listen to that reason and logic stuff? /s
“We need to do a background check on all buyers on all gun sales.”
Once again I ask - What difference would that have made?
There was nothing stopping him from passing a background check because he had no criminal record. Nothing about his mental state would have been a factor in the approval process.
Seriously?
If she doesn't see them, it's because she's refusing to look. Her ignorance is culpable.
Whe the goal is to eliminate the 2A, I don't think fidelity to the 1A means much.
I thought Lindsey Graham did quite well in that hearing also.
The government should not be at the table. Read the founders’ words on the second amendment - it is to keep the government in check. Why would anybody want the very entity for which the second amendment protects us from to have any say whatsoever in the issue?
Don’t let the fox guard unarmed hens.
Would be tyrants like this woman who have no respect for the 2nd Amendment naturally hate the 1st Amendment as well. Everyone must thinks and behave exactly as she wants them to, or they have no rights.
And the auto industry.
If the PTA would get off their butts and insist on putting armed parents in every hallway of every school, our children would not just be safer from intruders, but also predator teachers.
74% of NRA members support background checks.. BULLsh24. I would say 74% of them MIGHT support background checks if they were done in good faith and done properly... such as not allowing an FFL to charge me 40 bucks for it, not running the sellers background, NOT recording any information about the firearm being sold... see, we all know these grabbers real intent is REGISTRATION. This is their chance for the first major step toward complete confiscation.
And just think, are we really willing to allow these grabbing bastards to decide who is actually fit to PASS a check? We've all seen just how easy it is to get on a no-fly list... and how equally impossible it is to get OFF of it in the case of mistakes. They won't even tell us what criteria they use to decide such things, why would this be any different?
Sure, even I would support the idea of background checks IF... no fees to seller or buyer, seller is not subject to scrutiny, no information about the firearm is recorded, all evidence of the check being performed is destroyed after it has been approved AND most importantly, only the truly dangerous individuals be classified as such and denied a transfer. See, there is far too much trust put into the hands of those who are trying to disarm us so in reality, very FEW NRA members would actually support these checks because history has shown us time and again that it will be abused without fail.
I see, so she is an opportunist.
What do you think all the proposals to put ignition lock devices on all cars is about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.