WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association said on Tuesday it wanted to contribute meaningfully to prevent another massacre like the Connecticut shooting, suggesting a sharp change in tone for the largest U.S. gun rights group.
“The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters — and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown,” the organization said in a statement.
It said it plans a news conference on Friday after staying silent as a matter of common decency and out of respect for families in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a school last Friday.
“The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again,” the statement said. An NRA spokesman did not immediately respond when asked to elaborate on what the contributions might entail.
The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States, partly because of its large and active membership. It uses political pressure against individual lawmakers in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures to press for loosening restrictions on gun sales and ownership across the United States while promoting hunting and gun sports.
For decades, the NRA has opposed almost all new gun control laws and regulations at national and state level.
Its leadership considers the right to own firearms an essential American freedom, spelled out in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and reinforced in a 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the killing spree in Connecticut, the NRA has come under enormous pressure, some of it from pro-gun lawmakers allied with the association, including West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat and lifetime NRA member.
The NRA’s statement was met with immediate skepticism from some advocates for gun control.
“We’ll see,” said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group of 750 U.S. mayors co-led by New York City’s Michael Bloomberg.
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said that “unless this is a dramatic sea change in the way the NRA has done business, I have very little faith anything they will offer will help us take steps forward.”
The percentage of Americans favoring tough gun regulations rose significantly after the massacre, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Monday.
The poll found that 50 percent of those surveyed after Friday’s shootings agreed that “gun ownership should have strong regulations or restrictions.” Among those surveyed before the killings the number was 42 percent.
We’ll see what they propose. I want to be optimistic on this but it ain’t easy.
At least the NRA is communicating.
all the rabid defenders of the 2nd amendment claim to know what the founding fathers meant– well perhaps we should go back to single shot muzzle loaders since thats exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for guns back then.
who of your family are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of the unlimited interpretation of the 2nd amendment as defined by the NRA?
BTW , I have had guns all my life but unlike some I didn’t have to strap on my testicles when I strapped on my gun.
I believe the founding fathers had in mind that the 2nd amendment should provide a means of protection from foreign invaders as much as protection from governmental tyranny.
Yeah, how? These people are disgusting. The same ones that say healthcare is a privilege say that owning a gun is right. Not the country I want to live in — sorry.
Move
Staying right here and going to lobby my government. Deal with it.
Our great leader in the Prophet vowed in a college paper to concentrate, reeducate and if necessary eradicate these right wing infidels. We must all rally around our President to develop a final solution to this cancer upon our great nation.
When the Amendment was written everyone only owned a musket including the King’s Army, now there are AR-15s and as times change and guns change so should the right to own the guns, look at Syria 40k dead because they did not have equal or at least close to equal arms of their govt army, the civilian population will never own equal guns of the Govt Armies, but we should at least own close to equal, who protected the 40k murdered by the Syria govt. or other out of control govt’s like Hitler there is a long list and millions of people that have been murdered over the history of the world. Man created murder not the rock, spear, sword, gun or the bomb. OK bombing killed 19 under 6, and 180 total, how many do you think would have been killed with a bomb like that at this school?
So, what do you anticipate here?
I just read an article on Justice Scalia’s presentation at Princteon U. He, of course maintains the Constitution does not change, even with the “times”. I assume he voted for the 2008 decision. But, the weapons covered by the 2nd Amendment were single shots, a couple of muskets and the Kentucky rifle. So, why should Bushmasters be covered by the 2nd amendment if the Constitution, and its interpretation, are cast in stone?
The internet and all social media did not exist when the 1st amendment was written. Should those not be covered?
So should private citizens be allowed to own Nuclear Weapons to put them on the same footing as the government?