Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
October 18th, 2012
05:46 PM ET

The NRA's new offensive against Obama

During the second Presidential debate, President Obama said that he'd be open to a ban on assault rifles. Brooke speaks with the NRA's Chris Cox about his organization's reaction to the debate and the media assault they've launched on President Obama as a response.

Post by:
Filed under: Anchors • Brooke Baldwin • CNN Newsroom
soundoff (26 Responses)
  1. Dave

    Ok NRA what about this Option?
    The National Rifle Association is what? Is this a group who simply want to have every man woman and child in America have one or two weapons, preferably more, and leave total responsibility for such weapons in the hands of the holders? Or is it a group who simply want to pretend that they are still living in the 17th century and therefore must have a few guns and lots of ammunition just to survive? Remember that this was a time when those other animals still had some power when it came to numbers and needing a gun or two was required. Or is it a group which wants to pretend that they have all the answers and can give them to you if and only if you know that the sole purpose of a weapon is to kill whatever? When it comes to the NRA there seem to be a lot more questions which need to be asked and answered but not now. The answer to the to the first question seems to be very difficult to get as this group seems to want their government to stay out of their business whatever it might be regardless of the seeming hidden intent. The answers to all of the other questions need to be made if this group really wants to become something which can actually help America become a better place to live wherein we can properly raise the next generation.
    Now, before we can even begin to discuss what could be done it is very important to learn that guns are loved or wanted by the seeming majority of Americans and being a supposed democracy they should have the right to own weapons. However, it has also become painfully obvious that a set of rules to maintain the proper use and also minimize the potential misuse and related harm needs to be first designed and then accepted by those who need these devises which can be used for hunting and other sports but also as weapons needed for self-protection. So, can we as a nation just start to find a better way to deal with these issues while at the same time work to eliminate the obvious misuse of such human animal tools? Some of us are optimistic about having the NRA take on the related task and here is why.
    What if the NRA could begin to take some responsibility for this nation’s non-military weapons usage? Being the supposed experts when it comes to guns, ammunition, training, usage times, etc. perhaps they are the group in the USA which could take control of all of the gun industry which includes the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of all of the related products, insure the proper licensing of the products, education and training requirements and most of all design the correct methods for properly educating the police and security side of the industry. Now in order to properly achieve some of these tasks particularly that related to the personal use of weapons how about having them adopt the following different approach to gun ownership and usage: First, require that three NRA members approve the preliminary licensing of any future weapons owner. Second, once they have checked the individuals who apply for the right to own weapons and the related projectiles and approved the right to own and use weapons they turn their selection over to the National Security Agency which will then provide a much deeper analysis of the applier which will include such things as their links to others, their neighborhood histories, past charges of any kind, etc. Third, once approved for a single weapon they will set the limit to the number of bullets or related projectiles to be used each year (Note when it comes to using the facilities like those found at gun clubs the limit to this number would not apply as they would not be allowed to take out a single bullet when they leave the club and it would be up to the club to make certain that they retain 100% control of every bullet that they acquire. Their shell inventory would be for both new and empty shells). The NRA would finally have to limit the number of usable weapons anyone could ever own, preferably three and this would not affect the number of non-usable weapons which are acquired solely as collector items which could not be used as a weapon again. Finally the NRA would set the rule that every weapon owned by their members must be locked in a secure safe type of environment in order to eliminate the illegal use of the applicable weapons. In the event a weapon is removed from the control of an individual who did not properly lock it in a secured place like a safe then the owner should also have to face the charge of being an accomplice to the one who commits the crime using their weapon.
    It is important to understand that this approach will not result in a substantial reduction of the human animal’s instinctive need to kill and this is a need which must be met. Therefore one more change has to be made in the US gun/weapons control system. A series of coliseums will need to be constructed where almost every type of weapon is free to use and no charges can be made when used inside these viewer protected facilities. This system would get those individuals who seem to want to kill in the name of their tribes, their gangs, their religions, etc. off the streets where those who do not need to meet this need also live. It will be necessary to set rules but not laws for what could happen inside these newly conceived facilities as it will more likely require the proper cleanup on a weekly basis for those who have died inside. Also with the new national health care system which is in some type of creation progress in the USA those who are injured inside these facilities would not be eligible for free medical care. Unless someone or some group wants to cover the related medical costs they will not even be allowed into such facilities.
    Finally, the major limiting factor in the creation of this new system is money. It would therefore be up to the NRA to create the proper costing coverage which would be added to the price of every product that falls under their jurisdiction as well as to the licensing approvals for every applicant to make certain that only those who want to use and who do use these weapons pay for this system. They could even have their current members begin to make and continue to make the necessary donations of money and possibly time toward the eternal use of this system.

    October 18, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
  2. guitarken

    The N.R.A. is pure evil. Even if a politician simply mentions banning assault weapons, the NRA starts a national campaign to discredit that person and infer that "they" want to take away ALL of your guns". The framers of the Constitution, which the NRA holds so holy, would outlaw them if they could see what they have done to this country.

    October 18, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  3. Jason

    Awsome post Dave! Now lets place these same restrictions upon the rest of the Constitution!

    Want to vote? Sure, you can vote for 3 total canidates an election cycle. Prior to voting, each citizen must provide enough knowledge on their canidates stances on 5 major social/economical policies. If they prove they are "smart" enough to vote by 3 vetted voters, they can then cast their ballot.

    Oh want to have free speech? Each time a person wishes to write/talk/post, their "draft" must be reviewed and signed off of by three subject matter experts. Once three SME's sign off on the draft, then can then apply for with the forum they wish to post on. No more than 3, "speeches" may be discenminated each year. If it is ever found that the "speech" causes direct or indirect harm to any individual, the original "speech" writer will be charged with knowingly endangering another person, and be sent to prison for 5-10 years...

    See where this is going? Open the door to restricting a Constituional right, opens the door for restricting all other. Think about it...

    October 18, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
  4. jeremy fishel

    this country is made up of great people who love their weapons and they're right to bear arms I love my country as well but I would be willing to stand up against it to keep the Second Amendment right the only reason they want to ban assault rifles is because they know the people are not happy and they want the military 2 out gonna kiss wish they already do with their full auto it is a bunch of malarkey and I am proud to say I would stand next to my fellow gun owners 42nd Amendment or whatever it took to keep it safe

    October 18, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
  5. jeremy fishel

    it is a bunch of malarkey to even suggest to get rid of assault rifles Marshall Law is on the way if you listen to any of this crap the politicians are trying to feed us the government is worried because they know the people are on happy and 1 day we may rise up and they want to take our weapons so they can make sure the people can never do anything about it you give us a bunch of pee shooters you give them full auto automatic assault rifles we get nothing all ready to take assault rifles would be to take our freedom not a democracy anymore it is a dictatorship

    October 18, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  6. jeremy fishel

    the second amendment is a joke to these politicians it was not setup so people can hunt and sport shoot that is not the purpose of it it was setup so we can defend ourselves against a corrupt government at which we have now and have had for at least the last 20 years it is getting old they know people are getting ready to stand up against them and they are scared we will still win this is America I don't care if you give us a couple slingshots and a BB guns we can do what we do and that's what we do god bless america and I hope there more people out there like me they are ready to defend it and the second Amendment the way it was meant to bee

    October 18, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  7. Dean Weingarten

    The long term assault on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is just part of the overall "progressive" attempt to undermine the rule of law and to give unlimited power to the government. Anything that restricts government power is abhorrent to them. If people such as Dave do not like the people to be armed, there is a mechanism to amend the Constitution. That is the legal and ethical way to get what they want.

    The statists know that the people will not stand for such an amendment, so they resort to lies and redifining words.

    So called "assault rifles" are used in less than one percent of murders in the United States each year. They are the most constitutionaly protected because they are the most appropriate guns for militia use, yet these are the class of guns that statists want to ban.

    It says a great deal about their motives when they choose the class of guns least used in crime but most useful for resisting the government as their highest priority to ban.

    People do not demand that you disarm in order to help you. They do it in order to control you.

    October 19, 2012 at 9:22 am |
  8. Tad

    What is an "assualt rifle", is it something that has a big clip or looks mean as heck? That clown in Colorado used what might be considered an "assualt" pump shot gun. Do shotguns get banned too?

    October 19, 2012 at 10:18 am |
  9. JSR

    If the 18th Amendment can be repealed, so can the 2nd!

    October 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
  10. jessie

    The only thing standing between American freedoms and left wing collectivist pinheads is the Bill of Rights. It is an enumeration of individual liberty. Weaken one and they'll all eventually fall. Don't think that's not the leftie gameplan. Look at what Billionaire Mayor Bloomberg is doing in NYC. 600,000 innocent people were stopped and frisked all in the name of gun control. Is that the America you want? Well do you punk? LOL and Bloomberg has an armed bodyguard everywhere he goes. Maybe he should give up his guns first? Didn't think so.

    October 19, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  11. jessie

    After rereading these posts I think everyone is missing the point that the collectivists do not want individual liberty. Do you think a document like the Bill of Rights or the Constitution would be written by the intellectual elite of today? Instead you would get a document similar to the Obamacare bill, bloated and loaded with perogatives for a bloated, corrupt, stupid government bureaucrats.

    October 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  12. Don

    @JSR the 18th amendment is not part of the Bill Of Rights. "The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment." Wikipedia..... So the first ten can never be touched. There is a Federal ban on Marijuana but people still sell it and use it, so what is the difference?? My thought is to inflict harsher punishment

    October 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  13. ero1

    N.R.A. members are a bunch of sheep. It's been four years, has Obama shown up to take your guns and ammo away? No. The N.R.A. scared you and got you to go out and buy a bunch of ammo and new guns though didn't they. Nice little profit for their industry friends. All of the N.R.A. blowhards fancy themselves to be so smart and they fall for it every time.

    October 20, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
  14. ero1 guy's need an assault rifle like I need a third teeeet.

    October 20, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
  15. Mark

    President Reagan along with the NRA changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Even a Supreme Court Justice said the 2nd amendment has been completed rewritten by Reagan and the NRA. The 2nd amendment was to arm milita, not every living human in the USA. The NRA has abused it interpertation to make billions. The NRA has been using the people of this nation. It is time we have the US Supreme Court tell us what the 2nd amendment really means. And kick the NRA to the curb.

    October 20, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
  16. JS Hunter

    I could say a lot regarding this topic; however, I will keep it brief. After listening to the interview, one statement that Brooke made kept resonating in my mind. Brooke said, "I know how YOU feel about YOUR Second Amendment Rights." I would like to remind Brooke, and ALL U.S. citizens, that the Bill of Rights guarantees rights for ALL of us. The Second Amendment doesn’t just belong to, and protect Chris Cox, the NRA, hunters, gun-owners, and people who believe they have a right to self-defense. The Second Amendment is a guaranteed right to ALL of us just as the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press) is a guaranteed right to ALL of us. All people should realize that if one Amendment in the Bill of Rights is allowed to be removed or made ineffective, the other nine will become meaningless and open to attack; we would no longer have guaranteed rights, or be a nation of free people.

    Because of the NRA’s continual efforts to protect the Second Amendment, they are also protecting the entire Bill of Rights and our Constitution. This translates into: They are protecting our rights to be free. People who attack the Second Amendment, and organizations like the NRA that are fighting to protect it, are attacking our rights to be a nation of free people.

    October 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  17. Bobby

    I love the NRA! Long live freedom! If you don't like our constitution I'm sure there are many other countries you could move to 🙂

    Peace be with you!

    October 22, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  18. Mw3

    Many many many...people are extremely ignorant or just a flat out idiot when it comes to firearms.I can shank someone with a fork,that would then be called an assault fork.If a shoe lace is used to choke someone,assault lace...etc.
    How about a ban on all vehicles that can go over 70?How far are you willing to allow government to ban,restrict,& tax tax tax?Keep letting them bend you over,you'll have rug burns on knees & face pretty soon

    October 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
  19. Bret

    It would be awfully early to make that sort of esmornedent, despite what the media and candidate PR flacks might have us believe. Guliani is anything but a supporter of gun rights. We don't hear him suggesting that the other rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights should be left to the whims of the states, so why should the Second Amendment be different?Guliani is a confirmed liberal on firearm rights and the right to self defense, and is merely attempting to paint himself with a very thin veneer of Second Amendment respectability. I suspect the NRA is too experienced to fall for it unless the only other choice is Hillary. Even then, I'd expect the NRA to make no esmornedent.In any case, the most obviously firearm-friendly candidate, provably so, remains Fred Thompson.

    October 30, 2012 at 3:50 am |
  20. Stan

    It will be a cold day in hell when they take my guns, they will have to prey them from my dead cold fingers!

    November 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
  21. bungicord

    All you doves who are against owning guns should wear a tee shirt stating the fact. Something like "I do not carry a gun" would do. That way I and most other legal gun toters will stand down when you are under attack. If You dont want to defend yourself why should we help?

    November 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  22. kkong

    Amazing how many ariheads (e.g. Dave) this issue always manages to shoo out of the woodwork.

    November 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
  23. CT

    There are thousands upon thousands of "gun laws" already on the books in every state NOW that prohibit youngsters from having guns, that prohibit killing, that prohibit their use in crimes etc. etc. etc. and yet crimes keep escalating. So it would seem simply "legislating" more gun laws to control guns is "continuing to do the same old thing the same old way and expecting different results!" It's insanity! So here's a novel idea – how about taking a different approach? We could begin by actually enforcing laws already on the books and not compromising on penalties for misuse of firearms – as opposed to penalties on law-abiding, "gun toting" citizens! We could finish by offering free/or affordable programs that teach gun safety and encourage every non-felonious U.S. citizen to have a concealed carry permit, and actually carry – everywhere! Criminals will think twice if they KNOW there is an increased chance their intended victim, or an innocent bystander, is carrying protection! Laws, laws, and more gun control laws have not worked – time for a different approach!

    November 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
  24. ben franklin

    Yes, since we are getting four more years of the failure, top priority goes to hanging on to the last of our rights. Tooth and nail, you swine. As for me,i will give them my guns, bullets first -from my dead hands! Try me if you think i am bluffing. Since our vote has no effect, it is obviously going to take something stronger to punctuate our statement!

    November 7, 2012 at 8:49 am |
  25. Beaner

    This is an opportunity for the NRA to step up to the plate, and admit that there needs to be background checks for the sale of guns at gun shows. Thats a no brainer, thats just common sense. I realize common sense is not common anymore. I hate guns, but I would never interfere with someone that wants one getting one. The only problem I have is someone mentally unbalanced getting a gun, and shooting up a school. I wonder if all the NRA members had a child killed at their school if they would think differently.

    December 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  26. Beaner

    I have never understood why a man or woman needs to kill something to feel good about themselves. There seems to be something very wrong with this mentality. Also, it seems to me that a lot of NRA members are paranoid. No one wants to take away your guns, but assault weapons are a different story. I am all for blowing away someone who breaks into your house with bad intent. You don't need an assault weapon to hunt, and you are not in the military, so why have them?

    December 17, 2012 at 9:41 pm |

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.