[Masthead] A Few Clouds ~ 71°F  
High: 81°F ~ Low: 62°F
Monday, July 28, 2014

NRA: Going slightly too far

Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at 7:14 AM

The National Rifle Association is holding what it calls its "Annual Meetings and Exhibits 2008" in Louisville from May 16-18.

They call their event "A Celebration of American Values."

Okay. I agree with the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms, although in the 21st century "bearing arms" should be done under reasonable conditions -- hunting, collecting or for self-defense only by those with no criminal record on extremely rare occasions.

And the NRA plans to thank its members and Louisville with a concert showcasing country star John Michael Montgomery, who was charged with carrying concealed weapons after two loaded handguns were found in his vehicle during an arrest in 2006.

Montgomery was later cleared of all charges and, according to his attorney, had a concealed weapons permit which wasn't in his possession at the time.

Wonder if Montgomery will attend "Methods of Concealed Carry," which the NRA describes as its "most popular session"? It's so popular they're having to hold it twice during the event, the press release says.

The NRA, which seems to place quite a bit of emphasis on carrying concealed weapons, describes itself as "America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group" and describes one of its missions as to "advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime."

And the NRA has done a lot to promote gun safety.

But the group seems a little too aggressive in some respects, especially in its defense of allowing the average American to own assault weapons.

I'm not an anti-gun activist; legitimate owners, such as hunters and collectors, should face as few restrictions as possible.

But the average American doesn't need an arsenal, either. That's where the NRA sometimes seems to be stepping over the line.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Hmm, your asinine remarks are quite candid. Since you know so much about the ACLU, you'd think you would have refrained from posting that statement.

It's really simple. "Search"

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res2...

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 10:58 PM

Everyone calm down. Im sure our politically correct ACLU freaks have everything under control.

-- Posted by seedsower on Wed, Mar 5, 2008, at 10:02 PM

Maybe nothing we have on hand could protect us.

Maybe none of our police and soldiers would be interested in preserving our freedom.

I pray that every would-be despot assumes that-and no one else.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Feb 29, 2008, at 5:21 AM

I believe almost everyone here has missed the original and true meaning of the second amendment and the right to bear arms. It is not a right given for hunting or for protection. That "right" is an important and integral part of our governments checks and balances system. It is put in place to give the public voice some teeth should it ever be needed.

The right to bear arms put simply is not about hunting animals, it is about hunting politicians. It is this countries last defense against tyranny and oppression.

There was a time when it was needed in our countries history called the American Revolution. Our forefathers were smart enough to realize that we may need to use this force again in the future. Some fanatics think we have already gotten to that point, I do not. However, I certainly like having the ability should it ever be needed.

That is where a true need for assault weapons would be of use in a citizens hands. Against the United States Government and it's military should they ever try to strip us of our rights. Grandpa's squirrel gun would be of little use in that situation don't you think?

-- Posted by rebel0652 on Fri, Feb 29, 2008, at 2:04 AM

Why do all gunowners get labled as fanatics or crazy deliverance hillbillies. I worked as a gunsmith for quite sometime and my customers were everyone from doctors to clergymen and little old ladies. I have yet to see this blood crazed gun owner out to shoot up the mall. I did teach a single mother how to safely handle a handgun and help her get a handgun carry permit. All she wanted was to protect her and her children. I know that all gunowners are not saints, but for the most part they are fanatically safe. I would like to see the stats on how many handgun carry permit holders have commited gun crimes, I think you would find it to be a extremly small number.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 10:59 PM

"I hope that premise is not too crazy or cowardly." -- Posted by quantumcat

I'm sorry, I forgot that commonsense is lacking, or this would be no topic.

Only the criminal, stupid or tyrant goes about looking for trouble.

The wise behave as you posted of course.

"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."

-- Posted by Wildfire08 on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 6:03 PM

"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 1:54 PM

That's a good one, I'll have to save it and apply it.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 3:34 PM

I hope "Anti-Freedom Nazis" isn't meant to include those advocating responsible behavior and reasonable safeguards.

Sane gun ownership requires knowing how to respect guns and what they can do.

Unarmed combat or guerilla tactics mandate that the user forget about paranoia or grandstanding and take a calm,competent approach to any attack.

Just as the mad and foolish can do damage without sophisticated weaponry,decent self-contained people and those they care about can survive using their heads-or their hatpins.

If we insist upon everyone knowing how to protect and maintain themselves and posessing the means to do so,we'll soon winnow out those who just want the cachet of being "bad" and we'll discourage those who hope to take over a herd of helpless,unthinking victims.

Remember,he who said "Speak softly and carry a big stick" also said "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." and "Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."

Our honor comes from avoiding violence when it is unnecessary and unseemly.

Our safety comes from the certainty that while we shall not seek to start trouble,we will give our all to end it.

I hope that premise is not too crazy or cowardly.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Feb 28, 2008, at 1:54 PM

"Wow this blog brought out the crazies and the loopy fanatical gun holders"

And the stupid Anti-Freedom Nazis and their cowardly sheeple supporters.

-- Posted by Wildfire08 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:42 PM

LMFAO Disturbia!!!!!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 8:40 PM

Wow this blog brought out the crazies and the loopy fanatical gun holders...EXCLUDING Laura...I am going to the pet blog where it's nice and quiet ;)

-- Posted by Disturbia on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:53 PM

I think the NRA is averall a good organization with a lot of fine members. Like other large organization is has a few who have the knack of putting the wrong foot forward and putting everyone down.

Yes, I believe in people having the right to have firearms for their protection.

That said, I challenge W. Scott who claims to be from Phoenix (could I tell you a great story on law and order there in one case) to tell us how many criminals he has helped put in jail.

Yes, I have a firearm, W. Scott, and I really wonder how our two track records for helping put criminals behind bars stack up.

-- Posted by bomelson on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 3:57 PM

WOW...

"You see, this is why people see NRA members as fanatical and somewhat loopy because the responses above are just hilarious. They make themselves look like idiots." Jaxspike you said this yesterday, and it still applies today.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 2:19 PM

Dave, I wonder if the first amendment is as elastic as you desire the second amendment to be? You suggest that you support the second amendment but then say in the 21st century the second amendment means something different than originally intended 200 years ago......or at least in your mind it should. I'm glad to see you support a "living document" that can change, bend and stretch to mean whatever a group wants it to mean to meet their goals at a particular time in history. There's such certainty and strong foundation with that concept. Let's apply that same rhetoric to the freedom that allows you to write. In this day and age we all know that we should always trust our government and accept that what it does is for our best interest. Government knows best. Times have changed and we no longer need the protection of the press or religion or speech! For this reason, I think the first amendment no longer should allow the freedom to criticize or challenge our leaders. This will promote certainty and loyalty at the highest levels and show the world that we will follow our government anywhere; we'll show the world our uniformity of belief, our cohesiveness and trust in government and fellow man. Because our Government is most certainly looking out for our best interest, our national guard would never obey an illegal order to seize our laptops or take other action to silence us completely. There will always be protections for the sportsman writer or the hunter journal.(Forget katrina, where the national guard seized firearms unlawfully---that was simply a little anomoly that is all corrected now that a US District Court stepped in to declare New Orleans in contempt. Forget those surveys circulated by certain segments of the armed forces inquiring whether troops would be willing to take American lives if citizens refused to turn in their guns upon order).

We all know we still have the freedom of the press and free speech to write what we want and say what we say so long as we don't let anyone else hear criticism of leaders in the words. That criticism stuff is just so outdated. The Courts will alwys protect us so if we have a gripe with our leaders we can depend on the courts to clean house.

And those pesky assault laptops really ought to be banned because they contain old technology dating back to the 1800's but are more dangerous now because they are equipped with screen shields to prevent gazing eyes and auto spell check which can be dangerous if not properly monitored. Those are almost as deadly as the semi-assault laptops that worked on dial up technology. Those assault laptops can also be used to launch massive e-mail attacks in auto mode that pose a great risk of disabling our nation's internet system. Ban them all. Professors who use restraint and belong to the correct party should be able to write, so long as the topics are restricted to hunting and nostalgic memories of collecting old typewriters; but we can not trust the populace with active assault laptops for every now and then a bad person might disregard our laws and do grave damage. We can not allow the possibility of an armed dissident in our midst, despite the fact that most laptop owners are fairly responsible folks.

Seriously, Dave, do you know what an assault weapon is? Do you know what you are talking about? Your writing certainly does not reflect a great intellect on the firearms front or of constitutional law. Here's two short video clips you could review to start the process of learning something about what you write about.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

I also encourage you to read the briefs submitted in the DC v. Heller case pending before the US Supreme Court -- all of them.

-- Posted by GRNGR on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 1:26 PM

When the law-abiding are stripped of their means of self-defense; the resulting carnage has been predictably the same:

Defenseless: Columbine 13 dead. ARMED-Pearl: 2 dead

Defenseless-VA. Tech: 32 dead. ARMED-VA Appalachian School of Law: 3 dead

Defenseless-Luby's Killen, TX: 24 dead. ARMED-Shoney's Family Restaurant Anniston, AL 21 SAVED by Thomas Glenn Terry with no innocent death or injury.

If arming the intended victim "will only make matters worse" as the Anti-Freedom Nazis shout: then quit giving the "what if" fairy tales and give some actual examples where armed intended victims have MADE matters worse.

I believe it's every citizen's duty "to be at all times armed".

"But, but, uh, but ah what about FELONS and CRAZY people!? Huh?! That's why we have the POLICE! To protect us!"

I believe EVERYONE walking our streets as "a freeman" should be able to have a gun, if he is so inclined.

I also believe anyone that is a menace to society, either from criminal actions or mental disease, should NOT be walking our streets as "freemen"!

If they are a menace: LOCK THEM UP AND KEEP THEM THERE AS LONG AS THEY ARE A MENACE!

"You'd let a convicted FELON carry a GUN?!"

If he's walking the street, he's entitled to the protection of the "First Law of Nature".

Besides, to those who are too cowardly to protect themselves and their loved ones, trusting their lives instead to the police: over 30 of Cho's VA Tech victims were killed AFTER the police arrived on the scene: THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS!

"Protect and to Serve", is just as binding as "Good to the Last Drop": IT IS ONLY A SLOGAN as the following court rulings clearly indicate:

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Besides: If your life, and/or the lives of your "loved ones", isn't worth YOUR best protection; why should a cop risk his life for it?

One last bit of "food for thought": If you must LIE (and wildly exaggerate to ridiculous extremes) to make your position SEEM "reasonable"; maybe it's time to rethink that position.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."

-- Posted by Wildfire08 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 1:00 PM

I don't begrudge the rational folk having guns but could we do something about the people who think our local deer go around wearing halters or mistake pet cats for home invaders?

-- Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 12:43 PM

dc_0725 you conveniently failed to mention, that of the "Top 10 Countries of Homicide" the USA didn't even make the list.

Colombia 62

Jamaica 32

Russia 20

Mexico 13

Estonia 10

Latvia 10

Lithuania 10

Belarus 9

Papua New Guinea 8

Kyrgyzstan 8

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year BY WEAPONS OTHER THAN FIREARMS. (Japan data "1996 Demographic Yearbook", United Nations, 1998: US data FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996)

THIS MEANS THAT EVEN IF FIREARMS MURDER IN THE U.S. COULD BE ELIMINATED, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THREE TIMES THE MURDER RATE OF THE JAPANESE.

Japan's murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also.

You bleated: "THAT'S 14 deaths per every 100,000 people in America because 280 million Americans are lucky enough to have the right to a constitutionally protected Uzi."

How many of those killed, were killed with Uzis? Or are you simply wildly exaggerating to make your foolish position SEEM "reasonable"?

How many of those "14 deaths per every 100,000 people in America because 280 million Americans", were LEGAL killings? What the stupid and cowardly, such as you, fail to understand: each gun MURDER, was an illegal act no matter what tool was used to commit the CRIME.

Disarming the law-abiding only emboldens those willing to violate the law and commit MURDER, but does NOTHING to protect those who will OBEY the law.

IF the real cause of the massacres IS the guns: How many massacres have happened in gun-RICH environments?

How many massacres have happened in police stations?

How many massacres have happened at gun shows?

How many massacres have happened at shooting ranges?

Now: How many massacres have happened in "Gun-Free Zones" where guns are absolutely positively ban from law-abiding hands?

Let's stop for a minute, reduce our scope of observation from the irrelevant countries in Europe, to the more specific area of the USA and use commonsense and logic.

IF "Gun Control Works" please explain why Washington, DC with some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA, also has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000.

While JUST 3 MILES AWAY, Arlington, VA, with its "lax gun control laws"; has a murder rate of only 1.6 per 100,000.

(FBI, "Crime in the United States", 1998)

Additionally in 2000, 20% of all U.S. homicides occur in FOUR CITIES with JUST SIX PERCENT OF THE POPULATION -- New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. --which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2000, p. 79, Table 5, "Index of Crime by State")

Oh, and isn't Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica and Russia "GUN-FREE"?

-- Posted by Wildfire08 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 12:17 PM

I'm incensed at the rude behaviour some of you have displayed-especially to David.

(I'd not blame him if he riddled your behinds with rock salt.)

It wouldn't bother me if folks had every weapon JANE'S ever listed - if they learned how to handle them responsibly.

Such training should be mandatory before people should have any weapons other than their wits.

On a more optional note,perhaps the weapons we openly carry should look more like these:

http://san1.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/093259...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/g...

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m161/...

(Actual firearms made by Ruger,Glock plus a modified AR-15)

The appearance wouldn't affect the performance but might make the guns less appealing to those more interested in a "tough guy" facade than in actual substance.

Oh,one need not fear that small or candy colored real guns would tempt children into harm.

The mature and decent weapons owner would keep all hazards (including guns) out of reach of anyone not able to use those items responsibly.

Children would be taught to respect a weapon as one of many useful but dangerous items rather than as a toy or image-enhancing accessory.

They would learn that the weapons are meant to help us survive-not for intimidation nor to do harm to life or property for mere pleasure.

Demystifying weapons and removing a lot of the hype would help take the power away from the weak and foolish and restore it to those who can treat such tools seriously.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 11:30 AM

Have a good one :) Though I will be online periodically between classes, LOL. ttyl

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:52 AM

Yes, let's not call each other stupid. It would make myspace weird lol. jk. Have a good day at school! ttyl

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:49 AM

Try concealing a bow and arrow in a crowded place, lol... That would odd! Anyways, Laura you're a good friend, and atleast we can debate our difference rather than call each other stupid. Have a good one, unfortunately school is awaiting my presence, :)

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:45 AM

BTW, you can also walk into the woods with a bow and arrow and take down some of the same animals you can with a rifle. I don't see people proclaiming pointy sticks kill people.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:33 AM

"if properly stored and taken care of"

Darrick you have enough common sense to understand that in the case of the child you mentioned the fault would lie with the idiot who put the gun on the table while there were children in the HOUSE, not just the room. As for the purpose if you never intend on using it. I have collector's items, I have antiques. I have a .22 rifle that belonged to my grandad that hasn't been shot since my daddy had it redone for him and I'll probably never shoot it. Those guns I just mentioned are for one purpose, admiring.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:31 AM

But anyways, this, just like all other blogs will get nowhere, unfortunately. So, I will still continue to see both sides of the story while some see only theirs.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:23 AM

Ok, so guns don't kill when they accidentally go off? What about when a child is in the room and daddy's gun is laying on the coffee table and then it gets picked up and the poor child unknowingly shoots itself... Is that child an "idiot holding the gun" ? I think you are missing the point. While I STILL agree people should have them if they are capable, what would be the purpose of having one if you never intend on using it? After all, hunters don't go hunting so they can sit there with there gun and not fire it? They also don't go there with their gun in "self defense", they go there for ONE reason, to kill. And it just so happens the weapon that allows them to do that, is a gun.

I am seeing both sides of the story, and it's quite interesting, because NO I don't want anybody taking my 3 guns away, but if it is part of an initiative to save lives over selfishness, I'd be willing to give in a little.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:21 AM

Guns don't kill people the same way that trees don't run into cars. As for the W. Virginia students, it was the idiot holding the gun, the same with all the others. Guns are designed to kill, true enough, by themselves they are inanimate objects and couldn't hurt a fly if properly stored and taken care of.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:14 AM

Wow.Maybe Illinois would be a better place for you to live you freedom hating commie. Tennessee might be a little too free for you.I bet you're voting for Obama.

-- Posted by Enstalna01 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:33 AM

Huh?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:08 AM

On the other hand. Guns do not kill people. Neither does ammunition. -- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:17 AM

Again, I am in favor of gun ownership, but how would you go about explaining guns don't kill people to those 30+ W Virginia students, the Columbine kids, those innocent shoppers in the mall, a few of our presidents, Darryl Holton's children, those killed in the quadruple murder a few years back [in Bedford County]... I could go on and on, but guns are designed to kill, if they weren't THEY WOULDN'T.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 10:07 AM

tgreader wrote:

"I think I read somewhere that both gunmen got their weapons from the same internet salesman. I own several guns and enjoy hunting and target practice, but I would like to see something done about internet sales. I'd prefer any type of gun permit be done in person. If any "red flags" are noticed by the dealer, he could turn the permit request over to authorities for follow-up."

For a gun owner, I am really surprised that you do not know about this. Your note has only supported the ignorance of anti-gun folks who think that internet purchases are free of scrutiny. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Internet purchases are just as tightly controlled as a face to face purchase in any licensed store (if you do not believe me, check out any internet firearms site to see how it's done)--because it is a face to face purchase. Essentially, before you buy a gun from an internet site, you need to identify an FFL (Federally licensed gun dealer/store) who will receive the merchandise. The FFL will be the party that receives the gun you bought. Before the internet dealer even ships, he must receive a FAX of the FFL's license. The gun does NOT get shipped to your home, but to the FFL. When it arrives, you go to the FFL and then undergo a regular NICS search. In other words, the FBI approves of this sale in the same way it approves of every other firearms sale that the FFL conducts. If you have passed the NICS scrutiny, then, and only then, can you be given the firearm.

Hope this helps in the future.

-- Posted by JimS on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 9:58 AM

In response to the recent killing sprees at the two universities....

I think I read somewhere that both gunmen got their weapons from the same internet salesman. I own several guns and enjoy hunting and target practice, but I would like to see something done about internet sales. I'd prefer any type of gun permit be done in person. If any "red flags" are noticed by the dealer, he could turn the permit request over to authorities for follow-up.

I know the NRA is against any kind of restrictions, but I would prefer to see a better screening process for giving gun permits. There should be a data base put into place and people who have received any kind of counseling or psychological help in the past two years be required to present a "clean bill of health" from a psychiatrist before being granted a permit.

-- Posted by tgreader on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:34 AM

Wow.Maybe Illinois would be a better place for you to live you freedom hating commie. Tennessee might be a little too free for you.I bet you're voting for Obama.

-- Posted by Enstalna01 on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:33 AM

If it was a law every household had to have a firearm inside, theft, rape, murder etc. would take a downturn.

-- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 8:13 PM

-You see, I'm not particularly inclined to believe that. I think in some cases people with mental illness for example would do some terrible things inside their own homes. Maybe the rates of murder, rape and theft may decrease from outside sources but I'm sure they'd increase from the inside.

On the other hand. Guns do not kill people. Neither does ammunition. That's like blaming forks and food for making Rosie O'Donell fat. I have plenty of guns and none of them have ever killed a person. I do take special care of mine though. So I know they're not out late at night, and when I had children they went from the gun cabinet, on display, to the top of the closet. They aren't as enjoyable that way but they are much much safer. All of them are locked and unloaded.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Wed, Feb 27, 2008, at 7:17 AM

Guns do kill, that is quite naive. They are designed for that very purpose. But still, I defend the right to have a gun, for matters of protection, which is the underlying reason of the Second Amendment.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 8:32 PM

Ponder this. I wonder how the criminal justice system in Japan, South Korea, etc. operate. Do they have years of appeals and lax sentencing? I think that in many countries of the Middle East, theft is punishable by chopping off a hand. If we had the same deterrent effect here for crime, guns whould not be as needed. The crimanl element will only prey on the weak and naive. Do you think someone would break into your house with full knowledge that a 12 gauge shotgun was their welcoming gift? If a woman riding alone on a subway had a .45 layed across her lap, do you think a would be robber would attack her? During the Rodney King riots in L.A., store owners protected their property by excersising their Second Ammendment right to bear arms. If it was a law every household had to have a firearm inside, theft, rape, murder etc. would take a downturn. Guns and ammunition do not kill. The person wielding the weapon does.

-- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 8:13 PM

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, on the "right to keep and bear arms" but I think a little regulation is completely necessary.

I notice nobody brought up the fact that the NRA is the largest PAC[Political Action Committee] to donate to the RNA [Republican National Convention] nearly every time there is an election, and they usually outspend every other donator 10 to 1. It's a bit odd I do believe.

But still, those who have no criminal record, like Laura says, should maintain the freedom, however you have to ask yourself this, the person who commits viscious murders with guns may have or may not have a criminal record. For the safety of the majority of citizens, something else needs to be done. I don't believe in big government, but when innocent people aren't as equally protected as the suspects, a line must be drawn. [And not in the form of body chalk]

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 6:45 PM

Why does the NRA sent out so many mailings to its members? My husband was a hunter before we met and married. He has been a member of the NRA for 40 years or so. He pays his dues. Still they bombard him with all of these things in the mail. Doesn't that cost money? They probably get a special rate on postage, but the paper has to cost too.

-- Posted by bettyhbrown on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 2:12 PM

lol Mr Rock has a point. I haven't had the time just yet but plan to look up the info on NRA members casuing mass hysteria by taking guns into malls and schools and mass shootings of that sort.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 12:28 PM

Let the numbers speak for themselves:

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17,2006 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 2006 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 2006 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24

Brazil 12.95

Mexico 12.69

Estonia 12.26

Argentina 8.93

Northern Ireland 6.63

Finland 6.46

Switzerland 5.31

France 5.15

Canada 4.31

Norway 3.82

Austria 3.70

Portugal 3.20

Israel 2.91

Belgium 2.90

Australia 2.65

Slovenia 2.60

Italy 2.44

New Zealand 2.38

Denmark 2.09

Sweden 1.92

Kuwait 1.84

Greece 1.29

Germany 1.24

Hungary 1.11

Ireland 0.97

Spain 0.78

Netherlands 0.70

Scotland 0.54

England and Wales 0.41

Taiwan 0.37

Singapore 0.21

Mauritius 0.19

Hong Kong 0.14

South Korea 0.12

Japan 0.05

The ones with the lowest rates have the strictest gun control.

THAT'S 14 deaths per every 100,000 people in America because 280 million Americans are lucky enough to have the right to a constitutionally protected Uzi.

and Chris Rock said it best, "You know what you need? Bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5000. You know why? If a bullet cost $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders."

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 12:25 PM

Out of complete curiostiy, I wonder if any member of the NRA has ever gone on a shooting rampage like the one you're referring to. In all seriousness, I'm gonna go see if I can find some articles now. Thanks for peaking my interest.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 11:28 AM

It might be your concern when someone who has went to one of those seminars goes into a crowded mall or school and shoots one of your loved ones.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 11:20 AM

Author writes: "I agree with the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms, although in the 21st century "bearing arms" should be done under reasonable conditions -- hunting, collecting or for self-defense only by those with no criminal record on extremely rare occasions."

It should be exercised by any voting citizen; obviously children, the insane, and hardened criminals are not fit for self-government and may have their civil rights curtailed.

Bearing arms should be done on any occasion substantially similar to one in which police have ever failed to prevent someone from being robbed, raped, burglarized, or car-jacked.

-- Posted by fsilber on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 11:19 AM

When did I say anything of the such? I haven't I've just said I'll own what I want as long as it's legal and it's none of David's or anyone elses business. He's right I don't NEED an arsenal, but I want one, it's legal and I like mine. End of story. And, no, I'm not a member of the NRA. I don't need to be a member of a group to appreciate MY guns so I have no idea why they hold concealed weapons seminars or whatever. It's none of my concern.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 11:01 AM

To be honest Laura, I could care less if you have a cannon in your basement . . . that is your prerogative as long as you don't blow up my house with it. Knock yourself out!

I just find it amusing when someone questions the need for certain guns, why certain people come out of the wood work and act as though they are trying to ban all guns and such. From what I read from David's comment, I thought he was questioning the reasoning why they are having seminars on concealing weapons so much. Unfortunate his comment brought out the dueling banjos from Deliverance and the typical rhetoric from extreme thinking. David said nothing about taking anyone's guns away but that is what all the responses made it sound like.

Like I said, I just found it very amusing.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:49 AM

jaxspike, my point is why do you care if my guns have no practical use? I have antiques for show only. Is that your concern?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:41 AM

You see, this is why people see NRA members as fanatical and somewhat loopy because the responses above are just hilarious. They make themselves look like idiots.

And don't get me wrong, I believe in the right to bear arms and all that but many of the members of NRA just seem so fanatical and take things to the extreme.

I mean really, its cool to have rifles and shotguns and such but some people have weapons that have no common purpose as far as hunting.

I will always stand up for the second amendment but unfortunately many people that are in the NRA or believe in its cause give regular gun owners a bad name.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 10:30 AM

David, I suppose you're right in saying the average American doesn't need an arsenal. I don't NEED one, but I sure like mine! You don't need your car, but you like it well enough to continue to put gas in it.

If I, a person with NO criminal history what so ever decided I wanted an assualt weapon why do you care? No, you're right I don't NEED it but I have the cash in my hand and I want it. Who are you to tell me I can't have it.

As for John Michael Montgomery, well I think you made it all very clear with this statement: "Montgomery was later cleared of all charges and, according to his attorney, had a concealed weapons permit which wasn't in his possession at the time." So, thanks for clearing his name =)

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 9:56 AM

Horrors! A person who was "arrested" for not having PAPERS, but later exonerated is going to perform for a group that defends "allowing the average American to own assault weapons."

Well there are assault weapons and then there are "assault weapons"

If you want an assault weapon you need a special license from the US Treasury and you need to pay a special tax.

If you want an "assault weapon" which is just a regular rifle with some military looking features, and you are a mere average American (aka Citizen) you are actually entitled to buy them.

Perhaps you are not aware of the difference. Here is a link to a video 6 min. video in which a police officer demonstrates the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbvOT1ZKW...

So now you know .

By the way, you write "But the average American doesn't need an arsenal"

What constitutes an arsenal? And, is owning firearms based on a right or a need?

-- Posted by Jack A on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 9:28 AM

Well David,

You seem to be pretty good at the art of smearing.

So, Montgomery "was later cleared of all charges", and of course he did have a concealed carry license - so why even mention that he was riduclously charged with anything in the first place?

I guess when it comes to guns, merely forgetting to have your concealed carry license with you makes you guilty of something huh? What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand.

But you seem to think the first amendment gives you the right to smear somebody in the name of denigrating the NRA's efforts to protect my rights.

Your'e a sanctimonious hypocrite.

Oh, and I doubt you would know what an "assault weapon" is if one fell on you're head.

You're stupid too.

Scott W

Phx, AZ

-- Posted by rscott on Tue, Feb 26, 2008, at 9:23 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.