Blame The NRA!

The FBI and Sheriff’s Department had every opportunity to prevent and stop this shooting, so let’s blame the NRA for their failures.

I have a different idea. I told Enterprise Rent A Car that they just lost my business, and renewed my NRA membership for two years.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Blame The NRA!

  1. R. Shearer says:

    Sadly, there is no question that this tragic event was allowed to happen. There needs to be a full investigation to determine whether this acquiescence was premeditated.

  2. sunsettommy says:

    They always blame the NRA, it is part of their sick propaganda.

    From The Daily Wire

    Every Single Government Authority Failed In Parkland. And They Expect Americans To Forfeit Our Self-Defense Rights To Them?

    Ben Shapiro


    “On Thursday night, the American public learned two bombshell pieces of information regarding the Parkland, Florida mass shooting. First, we learned that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was told in November that the Parkland shooter “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies didn’t bother to write up a report; that report “came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons.” Then, in even more shocking news, we learned that an armed school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School sat outside and waited for four minutes during the six minute attack that ended in the deaths of 17 human beings.

    So, here’s what we know.
    We know the FBI was warned specifically about the Parkland shooter not once, but twice — and did nothing.
    We know the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were called to the home of the Parkland shooter at least 39 times since 2010.
    We know that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was warned multiple times about the Parkland shooter.”

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      This time a bunch of corporate geniuses decided it is good business to “punish” the NRA by canceling discounts they were offering to its members. If I understand it right, that’s what the companies on the publicized #BoycottNRA list actually did when they “cut ties with the gun lobby”.

      I know hundreds of NRA members and I can’t think of any for whom the withdrawal of some discounts would play a role. I don’t know if it’s just cynical posturing and virtue signaling by the executives of these companies or if they actually believe this will “punish” us and erode our support of the NRA. I reviewed the #BoycottNRA list and I realized that I was giving business to quite a few of these corporations without ever knowing I could get an NRA discount. I won’t waste my time checking but I probably received the same level discount anyway from at least some of them because of loyalty programs, account status and such things.

      Today I picked one of the companies on the list and called the customer service number on my account statement. A very polite representative confirmed they in fact terminated the NRA discount deal. I politely explained to the employee that I never knew of the discount and never used it but since the company’s executives decided to take a political stand against me I am terminating my relationship with them and I asked to pass my decision on the management.

      We wished each other good day and parted ways. I really enjoyed the conversation and there are more calls to be made.

  3. John F. Hultquist says:

    NRA members do not show up at public schools and shoot a bunch of students.

  4. gator69, says:

    But there’s a more basic problem when comparing firearm and motor vehicle deaths. The causes of death are very different. In 2013, 99.4% of car deaths were accidental in nature. In sharp contrast, only 1.8% of gun deaths were accidental. A staggering 65% of gun fatalities are suicides.

    Hmmmm. Seems as though the NRA supports not only our 2nd Amendment, but also supports what can only be described as a very safe product. So why isn’t anyone blaming the UAW for pushing a deadly product on Americans, as young as 16. It gets worse, 13-19 year olds account for 33% of all fatal car accidents.


  5. neal s says:

    While I read “I told Enterprise Rent A Car that they just lost my business”, I found no other reference to Enterprise in this post. While I don’t doubt you have good reason to find another car rental place, I don’t think you have adequately explained why just yet.

  6. Pops says:

    Given that there is inadequate resolve to enforce existing laws, how is it rational to suggest that additional laws will make any difference?

  7. Andy DC says:

    The Founding Fathers could not conceive of the kind of firepower that the average person can have at their command, the ability of one gunman to literally slaughter hundreds of people in a matter of a few minutes. An average person does need that kind of weapon to defend himself in the way it was perceived when the 2nd Amendment was crafted. Ban those kinds of weapons, train and arm responsible citizens with concealed carry and enhanced background checks if you are serious about solving this problem.

    • gator69, says:

      Our founding fathers wanted every citizen to have the latest and most up to date firepower available, so as to be able to offset the power of tyrants, who BTW do not believe in limiting their own weaponry.

      Mutual assured destruction is the key, and our founders understood that perfectly, as they had just defeated the only world super power of the day.


    • Squidly says:

      You are aware that at the time of the writing of our 2nd Amendment, the “musket” was one of the most powerful weapons in the world, right? .. The “musket” was the predominant military weapon of the times. Additionally, there were no restrictions on firearms at the time, including cannons! One could possess any weapon he/she wished without restriction. Furthermore, there were no “registrations” required, there were no “permits” required and there was no age limit! … Those conditions were precisely as our founders had intended. And not just then, but even now. Simply read the Federalist Papers and the plethora of letters and correspondence that flowed between each of the founders. It becomes apparently clear what they “meant” .. and what they “meant” was the individual citizens had the God given right to possess and use any weapon that the government could possess. …period … furthermore, the also expressed exactly why they so strongly believed this.

      Andy, you are incredibly ignorant and naive on this matter.

      • Andy DC says:

        Sorry if I offended anyone by playing Devil’s advocate. But taking your notion to an extreme, what if say 20 or 50 years from now technology had evolved to the point where any citizen could possess their own tactical nuclear weapon that could instantly wipe out a few million people, would you favor allowing that? Where would you draw the line in terms of what kind of deadly force you would put in the hands of the average person? Or is there no line?

        • Mark Luhman says:

          That why we have FISA to try prevent some leftist or Muslim from using such a weapon on to find out FISA was weaponized for political purposes. Fine I you are sooooo trusting of government, emigrate to China there they dispense with voting and a constitution. After all why should they think a bunch of dead white men knew something about tyrants and how to try to contain them. You trust of government and believe that people should not own weapons that governments have is pissing on the graves of the 200,000,000 people the leftist government murdered in the 20th century. You comment about tactic nuclear weapons is spot on when it applied to leftist.

          • Andy DC says:

            If you take the time to read what I said, I stated that MORE responsible citizens be trained in concealed carry. That is hardly a left wing call for banning guns. I want MORE not less people to have guns.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          DC — what worries me more is biological weapons and so-called E-weapons. These can be developed in your garage, basically (assuming you would really want to do so).

          With respect to “drawing the line”? I would say stick to the wording in the 2nd amendment, except for full automatic hold-the-trigger-down.

          Schools have many options to enhance their security, even without arming carefully selected, volunteer teachers. Stadiums and big Theme Parks have figured out how to move 1,000’s of people in and out every day

        • Thomas Englert says:

          The danger you mention is already true.

          40-50 million would do it.

          To answer your question, no, I would not be in favor of personal tactical weapons.

  8. CheshireRed says:

    From this side of the pond these are extraordinary goings-on. Mass shootings at schools and gigs interspersed with civilians demanding the right to own what is effectively a domestic-spec assault rifle with ferocious fire-power.

    Over here you can be arrested for carrying an anti-mugging spray or a self-defence stun gun. An AR-15 would get you years in jail.

    Given the high emotions surrounding our vote to leave the EU (and our politicians attempts to overturn it) I think it’s probably a good thing we can’t stroll down to Westminster with one of these bad boys tucked under our arm.

    A question then; given the demands of 2A would a revisit of licences to own an AR-15 type weapon be possible? Up the minimum age, set the bar higher for a licence and so on. I can understand bolt-action, low mag’ weapons and pistols to the ‘right’ licenced people, but AR’s, well even I’m scratching my head at why such brutally effective killing kit is allowed without for civilians.

    • gator69, says:

      Do the Swiss have this problem?

    • gator69, says:

      I have no issue with tighter background checks, age restrictions or even waiting periods, all within reason of course.

      But the failure here was not that an eighteen year old had an AR-15, it is that this lunatic was even walking the streets. Our PC culture is literally killing us, and our kids.

      • CheshireRed says:

        Yeah there was definitely a failure there. So many very specific warnings were overlooked.

      • Squidly says:

        I have no problem with tighter background checks, no additional laws required. Simply properly enforce the background checks currently in place.

        I do have a problem with age restrictions, but I am willing to compromise and set the age limit to 18 for all firearms, as it was just a little over a decade ago.

        The United States operated for some 200 years without firearms age restrictions. Implementing age restrictions have had absolutely no effect concerning firearm use, and is in fact an “infringement” upon our right.

        Finally, asking an 18 year old to risk their lives overseas with not just firearms, but a plethora of extreme killing devices (mortars, bombs, missiles, etc..) and then expect there to be an age limit on firearms in the US greater than the age 18 is absolutely absurd.

        • Squidly says:

          I forgot one of the most important aspects of age restriction.

          If your 2nd Amendment can be restricted by age, what stops the government restricting any of your other Constitutional rights? .. is the an age restriction for your 1st Amendment right? .. how about your 4th Amendment right?

          Can we say you don’t have the right to a fair trial until you are 21 years of age? .. at what age do your Constitutional rights kick in?

      • Kris Johanson says:

        What is the ‘fascination’ with the AR-15? It’s a semi automatic rifle, correct? The “AR” doesn’t even stand for “assault rifle”. I frankly don’t even know what the term ‘assault rifle’ means, technically. Red — to answer your last (rhetorical) question, Americans have guns in their DNA, basically. And gun sales have never been higher, apparently.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Sometimes they are not allowed and used anyway in tragic events.

      Many contend that it takes a government to inflict millions of deaths against its unarmed people.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      CheshireRed, you are right about European attitudes and most of Europe’s elites and politicians but a statistical comparison is useful when looking at the U.S. problem from your side of the pond:

      • Squidly says:


        In the 43 years prior to 1975, there were exactly 4 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in 29 deaths.

        In the 43 years after 1975, there have been more than 150 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in nearly 900 deaths.

        So, what changed in 1975 to bring about such a radical change? .. I surely wasn’t gun laws, as there were far less restrictive gun laws in 1975 and prior. … It certainly wasn’t the number of guns per household, as there were more guns per household in 1975 than now. So, what changed? .. Why so many mass shootings now?

        O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent’s right to liberty.

        In other words, the Supreme Court, in 1975, ruled that it was unconstitutional to admit a person to a psychiatric facility against their will. Subsequently, the following decades (especially during the Clinton administration) saw the emptying of our psychiatric facilities out onto the streets. Today, nearly 50% of all homeless (perhaps even more) could be clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental disorders and impairment. Additionally, during the time since 1975 we have seen an enormous proliferation of psychotropic drugs being foisted upon the populace. Particularly with our youth where psychotropic drugs are handed out to our children like candy.

        Of the more than 150 mass shootings since 1975, all but 7 have been verified to involved psychotropic drugs in one fashion or another. Either the perpetrator was currently taking psychotropic drugs, are they had a history of usage in their past.

        The bottom line is, when you have crazy people that you refuse to identify as such, and refuse to properly treat or institutionalize those that need be, you are going to get mass killings .. notice I said “killings” .. that is because, guns or not, these people are going to kill. Keep in mind, historically, the most effective mass killing weapon for the general citizen has been a book of matches. Arson has been by far, historically speaking, the most effective mass killing weapon available to the general public and the most utilized, causing by far the highest casualty rates. Guns pale by comparison.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The other thing that our citizen disarmament advocates don’t want to talk about is the fact that not so long ago many middle and high school boys had rifles in their trucks in the school parking lot so they could go hunting for the dinner table on the way home. They didn’t use them to shoot their classmates.

      What changed and how do we solve “the problem”?

    • Kent Clizbe says:

      The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is intended to ensure that all citizens are equipped to protect themselves from the tyranny of an all-powerful government.

      Keep and bear arms means just what it says–keep and bear arms.

      There is no clause in that amendment that limits the efficiency or efficacy of the arms that we bear to ensure our liberty.

      • Andy DC says:

        To anyone who thinks they can make an armed stand against the US Government, please look back to Waco in 1993 to realize the futility of that notion. Not that it might not be justified, but in the real world, it would be a suicide mission. Unless they could get the military on their side, but that would not appear to be a very likely proposition.

      • Phil. says:

        Madison in the Federalist papers expected that the standing army would be outnumbered at least ten to one by the state militias (the well regulated militias of the constitution). He therefore expected that the standing army would not be able to prevail and felt that this would prevent the US from dominated the states. Not exactly the situation we have now!

    • Mark Luhman says:

      Gun control has really work out well for France, their mass murder count in the last few years is higher than ours. Not only do terrorist use fully automatic weapons, something that never happen here, they also use trucks, bombs and any sort weapon that might cause mass casualty. Add in there are places in France that even the police will not go into, yes gun control works soooo well for French.

    • Thomas Englert says:

      No license required to own firearms in the US.

      No license, no revisions. If you want ferocious firepower, use a shotgun.

  9. Gamecock says:

    A protection racket.

    Government says, “Give us the NRA, and we’ll protect you.”

    Not really. And who could trust them but a statist?

    What they are saying is, “Give us the NRA.”

    They never say they’ll protect us. We’re just supposed to sorta assume that.

  10. rapscallion says:

    Or as Dr Jesse Kelly tweets:

    “911, what’s your emergency?”

    “There’s someone breaking into my house. Could you send the Broward County Sheriff’s Department to water my garden while I kill the intruder?”

  11. just a thought says:

    I also just renewed my lapsed NRA membership. Hey, if they can make a stupid political statement, The I can make an informed one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *