Updated 10:50 a.m. ET: On NBC’s Meet the Press, National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre on Sunday refused to support new gun control legislation and maintained his support for putting armed guards and police in schools in response to the Dec. 14 school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

See the Meet The Press page

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” LaPierre told NBC’s David Gregory. “I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it. It’s the one thing that would keep people safe and the NRA is going try to do that.”

He added that the United States is now spending $2 billion to train police officers in Iraq and asked why federal funds could not be spent to train school guards to protect schools in the United States.

Asked about restricting the size of ammunition magazine or clips, LaPierre said, “I don’t believe that’s going to make one difference. There are so many different ways to evade that, even if you had that. You had that for 10 years when (Sen.) Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in ’94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it – it didn’t make any difference.”

Feinstein, D-Calif., was the author of the 1994 ban on certain types of semiautomatic firearms which expired in 2004. She has announced that she will introduce new legislation early next year. Semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic weapons sometimes called “assault weapons,” fire one round per pull of the trigger.

“I know there’s a media machine in this country that wants to blame guns every time something happens,” LaPierre said, but he insisted that an armed guard might have been able to stop Adam Lanza, the killer in Connecticut.

“If I’m a mom or a dad and I’m dropping my child off at school I’d feel a whole lot safer” if there were trained armed security guards or police protecting the school from people such as Lanza, LaPierre said, although he conceded that “nothing is perfect” as a deterrent against crime.

LaPierre also said, “We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics” and complained that de-institutionalization of the mentally ill had put too many dangerous people on the streets of America. “We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that’s got these monsters walking the streets,” LaPierre said.

And he said many states do not put their records of those adjudicated to be mentally ill into the national instant check system that is designed to screen out convicted criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns.

The NRA CEO also argued that the federal government had invested far too little effort into enforcing the longstanding federal law that makes it illegal for convicted felons to possess guns. The federal effort to enforce existing restrictions on gun possession, he said, is “pitiful.”

He said, “If you want to control violent criminals, take them off the street.”

But he firmly opposed curbs on private gun sales and contended that the advocates of stringent restrictions on such sales want to put “every gun sale under the thumb of the federal government.”

LaPierre called Feinstein’s bill “a phony piece of legislation” which he predicted would not become law.

President Barack Obama has tasked Vice President Joe Biden with the job of consulting with members of the Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with legislative proposals by next month.

When asked about this initiative, LaPierre said, “if it’s a panel that’s just going to be made up of a bunch of people that for the past 20 years has been trying to destroy the Second Amendment, I’m not interested in sitting on that panel…. The NRA is not going to let people lose the Second Amendment in this country.”

Following LaPierre on Meet the Press, Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., said that the NRA leader is “so extreme and so tone deaf that he actually helps the cause of us passing sensible gun legislation in the Congress…. He is so doctrinaire and so adamant that I believe gun owners turn against him as well.”

Schumer said that LaPierre believes “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good gun with a gun. What about trying to stop the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place? That’s common sense. Most Americans agree with it.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., said killers such as Lanza were “non-traditional criminals… people who are not wired right for some reason. And I don’t know if there’s anything Lindsey Graham can do in the Senate to stop mass murder from somebody that’s hell bent on doing crazy things” -- apart from better security in schools. The South Carolina Republican also called for getting “mass murders off the streets before they act, by better mental health detection.”

Graham said that while he was out Christmas shopping in South Carolina this weekend, people “have come up to me (and said) ‘Please don’t let the government take my guns away.’ And I’m going to stand against the assault (weapons) ban because it didn’t work before and it won’t work in the future.”

LaPierre’s appearance on Meet the Press followed the strong reaction over his defiant stand during a Friday press briefing about the NRA’s response to the Connecticut school shootings.

Amid a national debate over what security measures school administrators should take to ensure the safety of students, gun-control advocates reacted with disbelief Friday to LaPierre’s call for armed guards in every school and his blaming of Hollywood films, video games, and popular music for school shootings such as the one in Connecticut.

How firmly the NRA’s allies in Congress will oppose any new legislative initiatives from Obama, Feinstein or others remains an open question.

In a test of the NRA’s legislative influence, the House of Representatives late last year passed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which has not yet been acted on by the Senate.

In the House vote, 229 Republicans and 43 Democrats voted for the NRA-backed bill.

The House bill allows a person with a photo identification card and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that second state.

Related content from NBCNews.com:

• Disbelief from some to NRA call for armed guards at schools, blames movies
• NRA blames media, music and more for culture of violence
• #26Acts of kindness: San Antonio third-graders rack up 115 good deeds
• Cardinal: Teacher who gave her life is 'like Jesus'
• 'You feel helpless': First responders rushed to school after shooting, only to wait
• Churches prepare to ring bells 26 times to mark one week since Newtown massacre
• Inspired to spread the word, man's #26Acts Facebook effort goes viral
• 'Call for everything': Early moments of Newtown shooting
• 'Light amidst the darkness': Victoria Soto remembered
• Obama demands 'concrete proposals' on gun violence by January
• School security: Teachers fear for their kids
• Nervous parents in Newtown, Conn., send kids back to school
• #26acts: Neb. woman gives a dollar at a time
• Video: Principal's daughter says children were the 'light of her life'

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

In two weeks, California voters will take part in an intriguing electoral experiment –and while House Democrats are likely to emerge better off from it, the question is how much better off? Will they see a net gain of two or three House seats? Or perhaps a five, six, or seven seat score?

When Californians cast their ballots in the June 5 primary, they’ll be in new congressional districts drawn not by political insiders, as was done in the past (and as is still done in most states), but by a citizen panel.

Map of California's redrawn congressional districts.

For decades, House members and their allies in the state legislature used gerrymandering to protect incumbents of both parties. That changed when voters adopted citizen redistricting in 2008.

As governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger “pushed redistricting reform for the purpose of creating competitive seats” and “Republicans had dreamed that the whole state would become competitive as a result of this process,” said Bruce Cain, professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert on redistricting in the state.

Three other ingredients are being added to that redistricting experiment: the retirement of seven incumbents (four Republicans and three Democrats) from the California delegation, a 28 percent increase in the state’s Latino population since 2000 (although the increase in actual Latino voters doesn’t necessarily match the increase in the overall Latino population), and a new top-two balloting system under which only the leading vote-getters in each congressional primary advance to the November ballot.

Decision 2012 and the myth of the 'Catholic vote'

Only one seat in California changed hands in the last ten years, but according to the latest ratings from the non-partisan Cook Political Report, there are now four Democratic and five GOP House incumbents in competitive districts. At this same point after redistricting in 2001, Cook rated only two California House races as competitive.

“The redistricting definitely favored the Democrats and nobody who has analyzed it thinks differently,” said Cain. “It would be shocking if the Democrats don’t pick up some congressional seats,” he said, but added, “I’d be surprised if the Democrats do better than (a net gain of) four or five.”

“California has been a fairly stable market for congressional races over last decade,” said Dan Conston, the communications director for the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican Super PAC that had more than $5 million in cash as of April 15 to spend on House races.

“Under the new maps, the entire field has been shaken up and California will now be one of the key battlegrounds for control of the House for the next decade,” he said.

Conston added, “When you consider the national battlefields, it is clear that if we perform well in California, it is very difficult for Democrats to have any shot of reclaiming the majority.”

Thanks to the Citizens United decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, and other federal court rulings, mega-donors in California and elsewhere can give unlimited money to Super PACs (both Democratic and Republican) bypassing donation caps to candidates or party committees.

Conston said that the number of newly competitive seats in California has “piqued donor interest. That is why we set up a separate fund within the Congressional Leadership Fund where all resources raised go to our California efforts.”

Among the Democrats at whom Republican groups will be aiming their ads are Rep. Lois Capps and Rep. John Garamendi, both of whom will now be competing on less Democratic-leaning turf than their present districts.

Leaders of the Democratic Super PAC, which works on House races, are also making California their focus.

In its fund raising pitch to donors, the House Majority PAC said, “Democrats have the opportunity to go from a 34-19 majority in California to a 41-12 majority – a net gain of seven seats, nearly a third of what we need to retake the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives ... This may well be a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

But without a competitive presidential or Senate race in California, there will be no pull for Democratic voters from the top of the ticket. “This is particularly important in the Hispanic community – the presidential election will not be focused on communicating with these voters in California,” the fund-raising pitch said.

All the more enticing for Democratic mega-donors to give to the House Majority PAC, which had nearly $1.7 million in cash on hand as of March 31.

Like its Republican rival, it too has a California-specific fund and appeals to home-state pride in its pitch: “For a long time, California donors have dutifully contributed to Democratic efforts and that money has been spent everywhere but California. In 2012, California donors have the opportunity to fund critically important races right here in the Golden State.”

First Thoughts: Obama unloads on Romney

Initially, some Democrats – including President Barack Obama – denounced Super PACs and non-profit groups called 501c4s, which were given a new birth of fundraising freedom under the Citizens United decision.

But “I don’t hear that (objection) as much (from Democratic donors) anymore,” said Ali Lapp, executive director of the House Majority PAC. “More and more, there are a lot of Democratic donors out there that totally understand that if we try to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back, the country is not going to get any better.”

Lapp said, “The way I think about, there are nine competitive seats in California ... Of those nine, I think we will win five or six – if we’re really lucky, seven. If we won only two, it would not be a happy day; we would have had a horrible election if we won only two of those nine.”

One place where House Majority PAC had been spending money in recent weeks is in the new 26th Congressional District in Ventura County, where four Democrats and one Republican, state Sen. Tony Strickland, are running. So far, Strickland has outraised all other contenders by a wide margin.

Also on the June 5 ballot is a former-Republican-turned-independent, county supervisor Linda Parks, who won a glowing endorsement from The Los Angeles Times which sees her as exactly the type of centrist pragmatist that reformers had hoped citizen-driven redistricting would promote.

If Parks and Strickland are the top two finishers on June 5, Democrats will start the November campaign already one seat behind.

“This is a lean-Democratic district that in November has a better chance of going for a Democrat than for a Republican,” said Lapp.

“But because of the dynamics of the top-two primary system where you have an independent with very high name ID and you have a bunch of Democrats on the ballot, there was a very real chance we could be squandering this opportunity if we didn’t get involved and make sure that voters knew who Julia Brownley is, what she stands for, and that she is the leading Democrat in the race.”

But that race is only one of the places where the House Majority PAC is likely to invest money.  “On June 6, we’ll see what the match-ups are and – knock on wood – we’ll get the strong candidates we’re expecting to get from all these districts,” Lapp said.