NRA to Newtown: ” Maybe you just got to take your lumps when you’re free “

That’s what NRA and Wisconsin Force board member Buster Bacchuber told Chris Rickert of the Wisconsin State Journal less than a week after the Newtown massacre. ” Maybe you just got to take your lumps when you’re free.”

Think about that. And remember it in the days ahead when Congress starts deliberating on new legislation to try to prevent another Newtown. No matter what else NRA officials and their various lackeys say about preventing the deaths of innocent people, this is what they’re really thinking.

Aurora, Columbine, Virginia TechNewtown. God only knows what next.

But……. ” maybe you just got to take your lumps when you’re free. ”

God help us all.


Related Articles

34 thoughts on “NRA to Newtown: ” Maybe you just got to take your lumps when you’re free “

  1. Thanks Steve. So much for \”American exceptionalism.\” Buster wants to see, \”how low he can go.\”

  2. Before everyone piles on – – – please be careful not to paint too much with a wide brush. One stupid comment by an Idiot does not speak for millions of NRA members. We are as outraged as you are !

    1. Smokey, actions speak louder than words.

      Second Amendment: \”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\”

      Among a variety of root causes, \”Massacres of the innocents,\” happen because for decades the NRA has been \”tip-of-the-spear,\” in helping gun and ammo makers increase their net income.

      WRT Sandy Hook Elementary School, I would like to see Connecticut try to indict all NRA members as dues paying members of a criminal conspiracy. I doubt any judge would sign-off on a criminal complaint, but who knows, they might get lucky. Eventually it would get overturned, but the publicity might also spur needed debate on civil remedies. Is there any accountability for the group and its members that over decades has done more than anyone else in the U.S. to insure that the mentally ill are well-armed? IMHO, the resulting publicity would be an important reminder to NRA members that \”Membership has its privileges,\” but it also has RESPONSIBILITIES.

      Given how broadly the Patriot Act defines \”terrorist,\” and \”terrorist organization,\” it might be an easier legal bar to hurdle. Unfortunately, the Obama DOJ would never even make the attempt.

    2. Smokey,

      Are you claiming to speak for millions of NRA members? Can the press quote you as an official? For example: \” NRA spokesperson, anonymous blog commenter Smokey, says……. \”

    3. Smokey- Then you shouldn\’t be part of a group run by such a bunch of fuckheads, because the NRA leader are consistently saying this type of insensitive garbage. It\’s your call.

      Because in a bad way, the Wisconsin NRA guy is telling the truth. If we keep these pro-NRA laws and ideology on the books, things like the New Town massacre will continue to happen, and you\’d just better accept that if you want the NRA to keep calling the shots.

      Me? I find it unacceptable and demand action.

  3. \”…take your lumps when you are free.\”

    I wonder what this bozo would have said if a member of his family had suffered a similar fate.

  4. Hey SC,
    If you stick to guns, NRA, guns, NRA you are gonna have an active comment section and the ratio of pro or con comments doesn’t matter.
    Two types comment;
    1) The pile on crowd who naively blame the detail vs. core problems.
    2) Law abiding folks who need not be infringed upon.

    Here we go again, “The Cycle”.
    Group 1 attacks group 2, group 2 defends itself against group 1, repeat, etc.
    Neither group is paying attention to group 3 crime.

    Regarding the “take your lumps” comment, it doesn’t matter if he said it, meant it, it is true or false or whether or not you agree or disagree. It is meaningless pre- Newtown and it is meaningless post-Newtown. It did not cause Newtown.

    If this particular chaff (comment) is a make or break deal for readers, then SC is correct, God help us all.

    1. Step #1 – Work with law abiding folks to combat crime and crimals. Agree?

      As we are aware law abiding folks is a pretty inclusive group and includes absolutely every American citizen except for criminals. That’s most of us.

      Somehow we need to get off our high horses and acknowledge for example that the National Rifle Association is a law abiding group and HATES crime and criminals particularly those who misuse a firearm and those who misuse a firearm againat the innocent.

      Realizing that is a change and a challenge for some folks who have a belief otherwise for their own reasons, some patience is needed. We’ll wait. And when it is obvious that we are not attacking each other we can then begin to attack the problem(s).

      Step #2 – contingent upon acceptance of step #1…

      1. IG,

        We’ll get nowhere until you acknowledge that first and foremost that the NRA is the gun manufacturers lobby in DC. Period. I don’t think they give a rats ass about crime and criminals.

        1. Well, looks like we’re gonna be stuck for a while yet. But we’ll try…

          Ok, let’s go with “NRA is gun manuf. lobby”. So what? There are lots of lobbies that represent lots of people here in the USA.
          We may not belong to the group. We may not support or accept the group. But we should be able to tolerate a group.

          How about this? It’s a myth to call the NRA a lobby for manuf., the NRA is made up of a high number of members who pay annual dues. They are the gun lobby if there is such a thing. The number of manuf. in the USA and the size of them pales in comparison to individual membership.

          And let’s say the NRA doesn’t “give a rats ass about crime..” Again, so what? With regard to the current attacks on the NRA it is expected that they would defend the 2nd ammd. at a minimum, but additionally went beyond by offering solutions or at a minimum initiating conversations that need to take place regarding security.

          It would be very easy for the NRA to simply say “2nd ammd.” and slam the door. But they didn’t and you shouldn’t either.

          1. IG,

            The NRA leadership did say “2nd Amendment” and then slammed the door. Buster Bacchuber says we all just need to take our lumps. He’s an NRA board member. So is Ted Nugent, who called President Obama a punk and invited him to suck on his machine gun.

            Why doesn’t the NRA membership do something about these guys? Does the NRA leadership really speak for its reported 4 million members?

            Let’s have the NRA let an independent pollster, say Frank Luntz, poll their membership about limiting the size of ammo magazines. How about that for a start?

            1. The assertion is that limiting ammo mag size would lessen crime, or not as many deaths, etc. An aweful lot of people think that as a solution is merely pissing in the wind ,and ask “what are we going to do when next school tragedy occurs?” and the next? next?

              And let’s say NRA members are polled and agree to limit mags to 5x. What are we going to do when next school tragedy occurs? and the next? next? Go 4x, 3x,…?

              1. IG,

                Joe Biden is heading a task force to come up with a comnprehensive plan. In the meantime, I believe the great majority of western industrialized countries have implemented ammo magazine bans/controls. I doubt they think they’re pissing in the wind.

                1. I’m looking forward to Mr. Biden’s plan/recommendations and we’ll go from there. Fair consideration is due.

                  Also interested in Sen. Feinstein’s recent draft. If that becomes law I know quite a few people who will go from being a legal owner to being an illegal owner. Just doesn’t seem right.

                  Be cool and thanks for tolerating me. Happy New Year All.

          2. IG, what percentage of profit comes from gun sales and what percentage comes from ammo sales?

      2. IG,

        Thomas Jefferson understood that international monopolies and oligopolies were at the root of “crime.”

        “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”;c=648623310

        They’re the biggest “moochers” off the taxpayers. What’s the NRA and gun owners doing to stop them?

  5. “I have owned guns since I was 12 years old. The first thing I was taught was safety and responsibility. In over 60 years of owning guns I have never shot anything with them but animals and targets, and I am in the vast majority of legal gun owners.” -Charlie Daniels

    This is what liberals don’t seem to understand and yet they have a need to punishing everyone. America knows you hate guns, does not give you the right to trample on ours.

    1. Peter, if you’re a conservative than you must be against Gov. Walker’s and AG Van Hollen’s plan to collect DNA upon arrest. It’s a clear violation of the 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

  6. Talking gun bans or gun control is the intellectually lazy way to feel as if we are doing something to prevent the next Newtown atrocity. Putting our collective heads in the sand, blaming everyone but the criminal triggerman and wishing we could blink away guns from existence like a genie is nothing but a waste of time.

    Look at many of the places where guns are banned or tightly regulated. The city of Chicago has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, yet they suffered 506 homicides in 2012. For a little perspective, that’s higher than the number of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan in any year EVER.

    The retort I’ve commonly heard is that local bans don’t work and that we need a national ban.

    OK. So, even if you could pass a 100% ban on the manufacture, importation and sale of new firearms the reality is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms out there. Are we going to then confiscate all those weapons? How would you do that?

    Then consider whether bans really work? Seems to me there are many other things we have tried to ban in this society with little success. At some point in our history, we have banned everything from alcohol to marijuana to cocaine to heroin with little success.

    Where there is a will, there is a way. Targeting the instrumentality does nothing to address the mentality bent on mass murder. We need to identify those with the will and prevent them from carrying out their plans. We already do so when it comes to criminal/domestic terror groups. We need to improve our knowledge base on why people like the shooters at Columbine, VA Tech, Newtown, Aurora and others did what they did. We need to identify indicators and warning signs then educate the American people. Most importantly, we need to act on those indicators. How do we do that? I don’t have all the answers, but we will never find those answers unless we have an honest discussion/debate about it.

    1. Roland,

      Then why do so many other western industrialized countries ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Because they’re intellectually lazy?

  7. I have no interest in why other countries enacted the gun laws they have. Each country has its own problems…its own history…and a societal landscape that distinguishes it from other countries. My point is it is lazy to, in the aftermath of horrific incidents like Newtown, simply come out and say “ban guns.” It’s a bumpersticker slogan, not a solution, that ignores the realities I pointed out in my first comment.

    However, since you brought it up, Norway has extremely tight gun controls yet a determined criminal named Anders Behring Breivik went on a shooting spree worse than any single incident we’ve seen here in the US. The deadliest American school shooting, Virginia Tech, was carried out by one guy with two handguns…not an assault rifle with hi-cap magazines.

  8. Roland,

    The Norway shooting was politically driven. Brevik is a far right extremist who set out to kill as many leftist youth as he could.

    Somewhat like Byron Williams, inspired by Glenn Beck to go kill ” leftists” in San Francisco.

    Maybe it’s these far right hate mongers we need to ban.

  9. Knowing Buster- he is not talking about this phrase in any bad way, nor did he probably say lumps. Idiot news media takes it out of context a little to much or didn’t understand what he really said.

    1. lj,

      If you know Buster then have him stop by Blogging Blue and explain what he really said. I’ll contact Chris Rickert of the State Journal and ask for clarification too.

      Also, it would be really nice if more of you so-called “gun enthusiasts” had the balls to comment using your real names. It gets a little wearisome always replying to screen names.

Comments are closed.