portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

actions & protests | human & civil rights

NRA's "Respectful" Silence

NRA finally after four days said that it was silent out of "respect" for families of the deceased in Newtown.
Of course, their silence was actually a void of anything that they COULD say. So they're lying. But even granting what they say, they ought to continue their "respect" by remaining silent, forever. NRA should shut up. We've heard enough from them. They are complicit in these deaths, & in many many many others. They are guilty, & we must push them into irrelevance.

So much hate 19.Dec.2012 12:47

Check Yourself

Please show where the NRA is connected to these CT deaths and many many others. Show where one of these shooters has been a member of the NRA. Of course you can't show any link, you just hate the NRA because you disagree politically and, you would tell any lie, spin any truth to oppose them. If anyone is guilty, beside the killer, it's progressive idiots who are responsible for the gun free zones that contributed to this horrible shooting. The NRA is not guilty of anything, Den, you stating that they are is just another example of your hate and ignorance.

@ portland indymedia 19.Dec.2012 13:02


Thank you

Sorry 19.Dec.2012 14:54


Sorry, Check Yourself, the NRA has everything to do with this massacre, and so do you as someone who apparently supports the NRA. The NRA lobbies Congress so no reasonable laws can be passed--they tend to ignore that "well-regulated" thing in their beloved Second Amendment--and thus mentally ill people can so easily get these weapons. We are a sick culture, one that apparently enjoys violence--makes sense since the country was founded on genocide and has always had an easy time using murder to achieve its ends--and the NRA is a leader in promoting that sickness.

" and thus mentally ill people can so easily get these weapons " 19.Dec.2012 18:07


" someone who apparently supports the NRA "

first off, there already was an NRA-bashing thread last week (courtesy of Den Mark)

in which many commenters, while indeed not condoning or supporting the NRA's organizational actions overall, indicated that proof would have to be presented to show some sort (__any__ sort...) of specific connection with last Friday's events, and the National Rifle Association.

So that topic has long ago had a fork stuck in it, already.

" mentally ill "

on a standard federal Form 4473 required for all firearms transactions, there are a few questions pertaining to mental condition/illness of the applicant.

(sure there could be more questions, further waiting periods, more intrusive interrogation as to not only the actua purchaser/prospective owner of the firearm but the household i.e. other citizens/individuals who might reside there, etc. etc. But all that kind of paperwork and followup takes time and money -- in addition to what's already being done on e.g. the Form 4473 -- dunnit, now?)

RE: the firearms used last Friday. (as already mentioned on several threads here over the past 5 days or so) The mother was legal owner of the firearms. Pretty obviously (even to someone who doesn't know what a gun or the NRA even is), she had a bit dysfunctional in-home family situation with an adult-age son, whom she had erroneously felt she alone/herself would be able to 'treat' and 'deal with' his mental disorders. She'd taken him out of the school system entirely some time in high school, and now -- years later -- he was aged 20, and still living in her household which probably had a locked gun safe.

But it's also obvious (even though corporate media reports about pharmaceuticals pertaining to this case have been thus far Deep Sixed) that this kid was being treated with any number of psychotropic drugs, and it has been confirmed that a high school psychiatrist was assigned directly to him at one point.

So Ms. Lanza was not only being an irresponsible firearms owner by keeping those guns in the house (even if they were locked away somehow the boy was more than sage and deft enough to find a way to get them), she was also being an irresponsible home invasion safety strategist.... in that mentally disturbed condition, and now (after years of living in that house) of ADULT age, her son was a far greater threat to her, _him_self, and possibly others than any potential home invader -- one of the purported reasons for her to have the guns around in the first place -- would ever be.

and she paid for that extremely poor judgment and foresight herself, with her own life (which profoundly unfortunately, wasn't the only one here).

by the way 'Garth' - STFU, we don't give a **** about you and stay away from here you **** of **** ********* State-Of-Israel boosting fascist ****-***('Garth' "hates" the NRA, ri-ii-iight ........................................... )

blaming the NRA for what happened in CT last Friday is like 19.Dec.2012 18:13


to blame the Saudis for 9/11

@ ick 21.Dec.2012 09:27


Stop calling Saudi Arabia "the Saudis.". Seriously. They're not your drinking buddy. Theyre a nation state and its citizens.

"the Saudis." v Saudi Arabia 21.Dec.2012 10:05

drinking buddy

heh, nice comment above.

interesting as well that you are 2,000,000 percent off-topic (but yet, do apparently care to address the 9/11-Saudi parallel analogy comparison which had been cursorily drawn with the NRA-Sandy Hook event in preceding post..... oh, wait ..... it's absolutely not your intent to 'address' anything, or 'stay on topic' ..........................................................).

google 'Saudis 9/11' and see how many articles written about it, even with that exact title, which make little/no distinction about the Saudi monarchy (i.e. government) and (supposed) Saudi Arabian nationality of any of the '19 hijackers'.

whether or not the Saudi monarchy/government itself is directly complicit in the events of 9/11, any stupid/supposed 'distinction' -- particularly one instigated by PDX IMC commentator above "@ ick .........." who has quite obviously never spoken a word of Arabic themselves or lived in a foreign country, even -- on such phraseology is utterly irrelevant.

the off-the-cuff comparison (of 'blaming NRA' v 'blaming Saudis' in the respective situations) remains.

There are legions of idiots who want to believe that Saudi Arabia, its monarchical regime, wealthy Saudi oil magnates and/or Saudi Arabian-nationality individuals (however one wishes to state or phrase it) were somehow the ultimate force 'behind' the events of 9/11.

btw -- Egyptian -- Mohammed Atta was apparently (for a devout Muslim) a big drinker.

@drinking buddy 21.Dec.2012 23:57


Yeah I'm literally ISM, try again.

If you'll by me a drink you can call me a "Saudi," well rock the casbah

@ lol 22.Dec.2012 00:20


circa-1982 references to The Clash (by which time they of course S**KKKKED)

ain't gonna make it

thanks fer playin'

now return to playin' with yerself

@everything above my head 22.Dec.2012 09:33


I just have to point out I didn't say that. Nor do I care if these people say "saudis.". Just as long as they're nit offending anyone, I don't care.