.

NRA Takes Down Facebook Page

The NRA Twitter feed has a thank-you note Tweeted Dec. 13 to Facebook friends promoting its milestone of 1.7 million "likes," but there was no mention of the group's Facebook page in updates.

The National Rifle Association took down its Facebook page the day of the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, USA Today and numerous other news outlets reported Monday.

The NRA Twitter feed has a thank-you note tweeted Dec. 13 to Facebook friends promoting its milestone of 1.7 million "likes," but there was no mention of the group's Facebook page in updates.

The 4.3 million-member NRA's strong pro-gun position has come into question since the shootings that left 28 people dead, including 20 children and the shooter, Adam Lanza.

Follow Redlands-Loma Linda Patch on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for the free daily newsletter here.

Mariana Zuelsdorf December 31, 2012 at 10:55 PM
I agree, Charles. Patch is looking more like Facebook every day. I don't understand why Patch has gone statewide.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Talk about argumentative lol. See what I mean. No matter how I phase it you just won't accept the answer. You didn't comment on the point of entry solution Lets try this a least I have done my best to answer your question. Will you do the same with the ones I have been asking you. If you are truly neutral as "now" claim, then it should be easy for you to do. 1)Did the Supreme court determine Militia meant all the people, if not what did they determine it to mean. 2)What does the legal term SHALL NOT INFRINGE mean. 3) What standard has the court held to determine what would limit any of our rights.
M.Legison January 01, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Mark, here's a suggestion. Instead of whining like a schoolgirl and nitpicking everything anyone says who doesn't agree with you, how about taking a walk over to Parks and Rec and doing something that matters for once--work on salvaging the stolen taxpayer money that cannot be refunded to the private enterprises that stepped up in good faith and foolishly believed a state budget was as stated. Use what skills you have to serve the public, please. Isn't that your job?
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Now you changed the question. As is your style. First I wouldn't "require" anyone to carry a weapon, I would "allow" them to. If it was me I would carry it on my person as I always do when I carry. By the way you still have not addressed the point of entry solution. Now please answer my questions. 1)Did the Supreme court determine Militia meant all the people, if not what did they determine it to mean. 2)What does the legal term SHALL NOT INFRINGE mean. 3) What standard has the court held to determine what would limit any of our rights.
Diane Brinkley January 01, 2013 at 04:48 AM
THIS story below + the one about the 12 year old girl in Oklahoma and the 2 young kids who were home alone who did not become victims BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment should be included in the gun debate as what WORKS! Check it out on SNOPES http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp
M.Legison January 01, 2013 at 05:11 AM
The media will never give any rank to a story where the 2nd amendment saved lives, any more than Barack Obama will admit that entrepreneurs can prosper without the government's assistance and subsidies.
Babaloo January 01, 2013 at 05:24 AM
i love all of the comments. some are very well thought out. others, well. lets leave them alone to benefit from others sacrifice. 1. if you bring a knife to a gun fight, you lose. 2. those who make the laws are protected by many people with many types of guns. 3. the NRA is not the problem. the American Mental health system is "the problem". 4. the people who believe that there are "too many guns", do not live in areas where "guns" are a necessary evil. 5. People only respond to things when they "effect" them. Ask yourself this question. " if it was your family that was killed by a gun how would you feel "? i would feel like shit and would blame guns.
Babaloo January 01, 2013 at 05:25 AM
Now ask yourself this question. " if a person broke into my home, killed my dog and tried to kill me and my family, but i shot the $%#& out of him with my gun and i SAVED MY FAMILY" how would you feel ? it is a double edged sword. criminals are criminals. scumb. they will rob you, beat you kill you becasue they want to take "your money, food, clothes, shoes, car, what ever" so they can "get theirs" and not have to work, or they steal to "buy drugs" or what ever they have going on. the criminals will always be criminals. they do NOT abide by laws or by rules or regulations. why would creating new laws work in "stopping" gun crimes. ?
Babaloo January 01, 2013 at 05:34 AM
if you eliminate guns, they will just use something else. criminals are not afraid of a piece of paper. they gain " street credit" for their crimes. if they attack other people the media makes them famous. maybe the US Media should be held accountable for these crimes. maybe they should be punished for their "abusive treatment" of american society with all of their " yellow journalism" regarding these mass killings. oh btw. the AR 15 is not meant to kill "many people" the design of these "high capacity" weapons clips is to prevent the need to reload when you are being faced with overwhelming numbers." not to kill alot of people but to make the use of the tool more efficient. so to speak. sadly , people with mental health issues are given opportunities to harm people. And "YOU" want to blame the tools they use. Maybe the Mental Health System should be under indictment. They allow people to " run amuck" in todays society. when they possibly should be in a Mental Health Facility where society is safe from their issues. Who would think that they would be held accountable for their actions. " Their Incompetent due to mental incompetance ?"
Bwood January 01, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Babaloo, thanks for weighing in here with your opinions. You have given the term "clueless" new meaning with every subsequent post and, because of that, have given me renewed inspiration to disregard them as we move into the new year..
Bwood January 01, 2013 at 06:38 PM
Agreed, but in this day and age, where does the money come from? What, in your opinion, would a "dramatic overhaul" consist of, keeping in mind the "overhaul" the ACLU and Reagan gave us in the seventies..
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 06:57 PM
Paxson You didn't answer any of the questions. You did try to "spin" question number one. With a lame attempt at taking a paragraph out of context. Why didn't you paste the actual ruling on the term "militia" and "the people". It after all was only one paragraph below the cut and paste you did. I'm finding it difficult to believe you passed the bar exam. These questions are open book after all, and you are unable answer them. Further you never did comment on the point of entry solution. After all it is what you ask for, and claim no one has produce. Lets try again. If it's not to much trouble, answer them in an individual posts. So I may explain where you have not answered the question or answered it incorrectly. I'll then give you the correct answer with backup. You can't ask more. 1)Did the Supreme court determine Militia meant all the people, if not what did they determine it to mean. 2)What does the legal term SHALL NOT INFRINGE mean. 3) What standard has the court held to determine what would limit any of our rights
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 07:14 PM
You can't discuss something you can't grasp.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 07:17 PM
LMAO you never give up do you. Why didn't you paste the rest. This is the answer to Question one straight from Heller. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 07:26 PM
As to second question your arrogance amazes me. You can't answer the question without looking foolish. So you just decide to remove it from the constitution. Because the great Paxson has determined it's irrelevant.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 07:34 PM
No there is only ONE standard. That applies to ALL of our constitutional rights. All decisions are predicated on that standard. Every lawyer knows this. So if you really are a lawyer then prove it by answering the question if you can.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 07:41 PM
Paxson From my posts and other disagreement we have had. You know that is not true. You know damn well where I'm coming from.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 08:01 PM
Anyone reading this can see your feeble attempts at spinning the answers. Mark there is only one standard the court has ruled that can limit your constitutional rights. Do you even know the legal meaning of the word standard. If you did you would know it by definition it's the "standard". You are beginning to sound like Clinton lol. When he said "that depends on what the definition of is is lol The court did not remove "shall not infringe"
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 08:56 PM
Mark you had no problem discussing Heller lol. Til you got your butt handed to you. All I have been doing here is exposing you for what you are. You really don't like it when your tactics are used on you. Besides you still have not answered my questions lol. By the way you admitted the solution I gave you will work and it won't require stepping on everyones 2nd amendment rights. So I would think you won't be needing to criticize people who are just expressing the opinions on this topic. As for myself I enjoy I am having a great time discussing this topic with you.
Greg Coppes January 01, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Mark....Mark .....Mark. how is it that the court ruled, "that it was able bodied men". When they specifically said that was inconsistent. I gave you the actual ruling. That states it means "all Americans". I'll repost it for you. This is directly from Heller ruling. "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." Then you try and say "that shall not infringe" means nothing as it applies to the second amendment. All I can say is. if you don't even know the standard is or the definition of standard as it applies to the law I pity your clients. You still have not answered my questions. One can only assume you just don't know.
Redlands Politico January 01, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Why do you ASSUME the boy was "mentally unstable" the whole time. Yes, something sent him off, and authorities will eventually put that together. Until then you owe the parents of autistic children a huge apology for your ignorant jumping to conclusions.
Diane Brinkley January 25, 2013 at 04:42 PM
We told you people that the liberals would define "assault" weapons to include your hunting rifles and handguns!
Greg Coppes January 25, 2013 at 09:22 PM
As usual wrong on both counts. Did you pass the bar?
Greg Coppes January 26, 2013 at 05:40 AM
You sure like to put words in peoples mouths. Read your response ether you don't know the answer or do you have a reading comprehension problem. The court has one standard or test to determine what limits an individuals constitutional rights. You don't appear to know what that is and you say I lack knowledge lol. In Heller the court held that the "militia" to be the whole of the "people". If you had read the whole derision you would know that. Thats not your style you like to look for what appears to make you correct or take things out of context. Once again I ask did you pass the bar.
Greg Coppes January 26, 2013 at 06:04 AM
Mark I did provide the quote from the ruling several times, in context You being an attorney you should know the standard. It's the foundation of constitutional law. Once again did you pass the bar or even take it for that matter.
Greg Coppes January 27, 2013 at 03:15 AM
First let me give you a hint on where to look in Heller. What you must have missed is the court recognized TWO militia's, you will find it a page or two further than you have already read. There it explains how they are made up and who makes them up. The descent is easier to follow, but as most people unfamiliar with how future decisions will be arrived at , you discount them as having no impact on the ruling. As for myself they are the first thing I read even if I don't agree with them. I can't seem to find your name listed on the State Bars . Why is that? Now some help for you on the test/standard. Read the decision that limited free speech. You will need the case law and the opinions to find it. There are examples in every ruling. The one on first amendment is done in plainer language. I did this because you seem to have a hard time grasping Heller. A wise man once said paraphrasing "teach a man to fish and he can feed himself." I'm trying to teach you to fish lol. It's all there if you read with an open mind.
Greg Coppes January 27, 2013 at 07:36 PM
Now everyone can see how you respond when your tactics are used on you lol. You lost the debate, Now you are down to pointing out spelling flaws. As far as trying to establish superiority, your the one who implied you being an attorney somehow made you better than those who don't agree with you. Mark I know all you want to do is argue you stated as much in other topics. I don't engage you to try and convince you. It's for the other reader so they can see you and others like you for what you are. I think the term is "Elitist". You leave my/our constitutional rights alone while trying to build your vision of utopia. I'll stay out of your so called debates.
Greg Coppes January 27, 2013 at 11:21 PM
You have lost the debate now you call me a liar. I have not lied in any of my posts. Your next tactic will be to try and make me prove I didn't. In other words to prove I'm innocent. Won't work.
Greg Coppes January 28, 2013 at 01:41 AM
To funny a bunch of us were wondering when your inner child would come out. I lost the bet. I said you have to much self respect for that. for that
Greg Coppes January 28, 2013 at 02:14 AM
I had someone else look seems I spelled your name wrong. How exactly is not finding your name lieing anyway. Why did i ask that when I know the answer. It's because it fits your agenda.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something