Politicians and the NRA: Gun group is its own worst enemy

  • Follow Opinion columns

The National Rifle Association has become a millstone around the neck of Republican and conservative Democratic politicians who support it.

NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre’s statement following the Newtown, Conn., tragedy was stunning in that it never mentioned changing our gun laws. Instead, LaPierre talked about society’s demons, horrible monsters and predators in a fearmongering appeal to our lesser instincts. It was an ugly attempt to alarm and distract the public.

THERE IS NO single remedy or legislative act that will stop violence; there always will be evil and killing. Reducing gun violence requires a multifaceted approach, including enhanced physical security; less violence in the media and in video games; increased focus on mental health; and, yes, modified gun laws.

Along with most Americans, I support Second Amendment rights. Growing up on a farm in a Republican stronghold in Michigan, my father gave me my first gun, a single-shot .22, when I was 10. The NRA provided teaching material and targets for our 4-H gun safety course.

As a gun owner, I don’t worry about anyone taking away my guns. Five years ago, gun owners’ rights were reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Despite NRA fund-raising claims, there is no threat to gun ownership in America.

Balancing individual rights and our collective security is not easy, but commonsense changes to our gun laws can preserve both.

The most obvious fix is to eliminate the “gun show loophole” that allows individuals to buy weapons from other individuals without a background check. The latest Gallup poll shows 92 percent of Americans support eliminating this access to guns. In a separate poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a majority of past and current NRA members even supported this change.

THE SECOND reasonable change backed by most Americans is eliminating the sale of large-capacity magazines such as the one used in Newtown. These magazines are not used for hunting; their only justification is for self-defense.

If you need more than 10 shells in your semi-automatic to defend yourself, you are in deep trouble. You need more target practice, not a larger magazine.

The NRA was founded in 1871 as a grassroots organization focused on marksmanship, but today it is a right-wing lobbying juggernaut supporting the gun industry. Former NRA President Sandy Froman wrote that the NRA “saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy.”

Small wonder Wayne LaPierre sees the answer to gun violence as more guns.

The NRA of my youth still exists, helping young people learn gun safety, marksmanship and the joys of hunting. But this majority of reasonable NRA members has been supplanted by leadership intent on its own political and financial agenda.

NRA’s leaders use members’ dues for their million-dollar salaries, and misuse members’ political support to promote certain issues that, as noted above, most members don’t even agree with.

The NRA leadership’s intransigence not only damages its own reputation, but also hurts the politicians who support it. Because most Republican and conservative Democratic politicians have not criticized the NRA’s resistance to commonsense gun law changes, the NRA has made them guilty by association.

INCREDIBLY, THE NRA has become its own worst enemy. In the main, it is an organization of good people being badly led.

We all should be thankful for politicians who have the courage to take stands on all aspects of reducing gun violence, including commonsense changes to gun control laws.

(The writer is a retired U.S. Navy officer. He lives and writes in Savannah.)

Comments (31) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 08:15 am
10
1
Hhhhmmm......

"The most obvious fix is to eliminate the “gun show loophole” that allows individuals to buy weapons from other individuals without a background check."

Would you also eliminate individuals from selling their firearms to another individual in the Iwanta, internet or anywhere else? A friend of mine approached me the other day wanting to sell his AR-15 and thought I might be interested. I wasn't, but would you make this illegal?

"These magazines are not used for hunting; their only justification is for self-defense."

Good point, self defense. Is it your business to tell me how many bullets I can have in my gun for self defense? This is your OPINION, which you believe is more important than anyone elses. Do we legislate people based on a group of peoples OPINION?

A great man once said; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This "Banning" of large capacity magazines would NOT give us real safety. It will only provide us a FALSE sense of making ourselves a little more safe. Politicians could pat themselves on the backs and say "At least we are trying to do something to safeguard the people." That is until the next mass shooting. A mad man can still methodically kill numerous people and will just become more creative, maybe have numerous 10 round magazines and practice changing them out fast and numerous lives are still lost. Maybe he uses a high powered rifle and shoots children at great distances while they are on the playground. Will high powered rifles, used for hunting, be the next banned firearms? If the government can ban large capacity magazines and "assault rifles" there is nothing they can't ban, eventually. You give them an inch and they will take 10 miles.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 01/06/13 - 08:25 am
4
9
A very well considered piece.

A very well considered piece. IMO The Augusta Chronicle would be a better and more successful newspaper if it gives more room for columnists with opposing yet reasoned positions like this one.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 08:38 am
9
2
Good statement.....?

"But this majority of reasonable NRA members has been supplanted by leadership intent on its own political and financial agenda.

NRA’s leaders use members’ dues for their million-dollar salaries, and misuse members’ political support to promote certain issues that, as noted above, most members don’t even agree with."

Wow, doesn't this sound eerily similar to the left wing unions that are destroying this Country. Yet, not a single word about them, right?

This author is nothing but a left wing lunatic, posing as a moderate to seem unbiased. He is doing NOTHING but a hit job on conservative beliefs, traditions and the NRA. Just another "Gun control" advocate who lacks the slightest shred of common sense. He doesn't like the fact Mr. Lapierre isn't backing down and stands strong against any further gun control. This probably upsets Mr. Conant because I'm sure he would LOVE to see an NRA leader who supports gun control. So, Mr. Conant, you're ticked off because Lapierre won't bend to your beliefs; SO WHAT, get over it!! You haven't the slightest shred of senseable logic. Your suggestions wouldn't make us the slighest bit safer, but you can't seem to grip that logic.

What the NRA needs is a smooth talker like the leftists have at every corner. They need someone who can articulate their points better. I didn't disagree with what Mr. Lapierre said, but he wasn't able to articulate it to convince people. In other words, he doesn't have the charisma or silver tongue it takes to convince people of his point. Thats his only "crime".

But Mr. Conant's hit job here, is exactly the same as Obamas, Pelosi's, Feinstein's, Clinton's, Reid's. They ALL have an agenda they are determined to push. The problem is they realize the vast majority of American's don't support that agenda, so they keep the true agenda hidden. Disarm American's and continue to weaken this Country any way possible. Fantasizing about the OWO they so deeply desire. Yes, I realize leftists will say "We won the election last November, so get over it. This proves this Country does want this agenda."

No, it only proves the HARD leftists in this Country have hidden their agenda brilliantly. If Obama had came out before the election and published his true agenda, he would have lost in a landslide and they know it.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 09:29 am
9
1
Really?

"We all should be thankful for politicians who have the courage to take stands on all aspects of reducing gun violence, including COMMONSENSE changes to gun control laws."

Yes, just like those wonderful politicians in Chicago, who implemented the strickest gun laws in the Country.........500+ murders later, with 85% being committed with firearms.............

One man's commonsense is another man's lunacy!! Commonsense shouldn't be spoken of by people who possess none.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 09:00 am
8
1
I do want to clarify

I do want to clarify something; I'm not a gun enthusiast, I'm a hunting enthusiast. I DO NOT own any semi-automatic "assault rifles". I have a bolt action .30-06 deer hunting rilfe, 3 twelve gauge shotguns (2 for hunting, one for self-defense), A bolt action .22 Hornet small game hunting rifle, a Glock model 27 .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, a Colt .357 magnum revolver, and a .22 Caliber semi-automatic pistol.

Thats every gun I personally own. I don't desire in the slightest to own an "assault rifle". I have MANY friends that do own AR-15's, AK-47's and others. I couldn't care less because it's not my business what firearms they own and it's not yours either in this FREE COUNTRY.

I'm not a recreational shooter and I personally don't think I need an "assault rifle" to protect my home. But who am I to tell another person what they "need" to protect their home? Who am I to tell a person what hobbies (Recreational shooting) they are ALLOWED to enjoy? And for YOU or anyone else to tell law abiding citizens what type guns and magazines they are ALLOWED to possess, because of a school shooting, is a knee jerk emotional reaction at best. I'm just guessing here, but I would say the overwhelming majority of American's don't use their firearms to shoot up schools, malls, theatres, etc.

I also personally know and am friends with a man who protected his home against 5; Count them again FIVE armed intruders who invaded his home to rob him. He and his wife and children were all present in the home. He fired several shots from his legally owned AR-15 and the offenders fled the scene. They were caught later and when interviewed admitted their intentions were to kill everyone in the house. This happend a couple years ago in Grovetown, you might have read the story.

So, do you think you could convince this man he shouldn't own an "assault rifle"? He saved his entire family using one so I think you would be seriously wasting your time.

Bizkit
29219
Points
Bizkit 01/06/13 - 09:45 am
8
1
Wouldn't all this criticism

Wouldn't all this criticism be equally waged against Unions. They too started for a good reason and has done some good things but now we see how its politicization is an Obamanation. hee,hee,hee. Freedom will soon be an oxymoron in America-with letters talking about banning hate, and hate crimes, and demonizing some group or population. Sheesh.

Bizkit
29219
Points
Bizkit 01/06/13 - 09:47 am
6
1
The problems is "man" not any

The problems is "man" not any particular weapon or ideology. We are violent and we will kill. It's evolution. Get over it already.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 09:51 am
10
1
Proof people need high capacity magazines??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-...

Maybe if she had more bullets, he would have been dead and she and her children's life wouldn't have been in danger. After shooting him five times, he was still alive and able to flee. So, is it possible he could have fought her or hurt her after being shot, YES. As a Deputy of 16 years, I've known NUMEROUS criminals to fight or do harm after having been shot. So she was still in danger and out of bullets. Luckily, he fled instead of fought.

Also, he had NUMEROUS arrests since 2008. So she would have been doing society a favor if she would have possessed more bullets and used them. Aaaaah yes, I'm being mean and dispicable because I have more compassion for innocent people in society than a career criminal, right leftists?

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 12:57 pm
5
1
@Bizkit

I gave your first comment thumbs up but your second I just can't agree with. I'm NOT a violent person and I don't want to harm a single human being on this earth. I don't like fighting but I've had to fight NUMEROUS times in the line of duty.

But I have two children (Ages 7&5), a wife and twins on the way. If a person places my family in danger by any means, you may call it violence or anything else you want, but they shall be in grave danger. I've had my family placed in danger recently. I was on duty when my wife called me and told me a man had attempted to come into the yard while she was outside and my children were playing on the trampoline. The only thing stopped him was my well trained German Shepherd, who would have eat him alive and almost did. My wife told me the suspect went back into the road (Where my shepherd is trained not to go) and was swinging and punching in the AIR towards my dog, saying he was going to get the dog. But he did the wise thing and moved on, or he would have been dinner for my Shepherd.

The guys was arrested the same day breaking into a house just down the road. I spoke with the law enforcement that arrested him and they were familiar with him and had numerous problems with him. They even had to fight him on one occassion. They said he is a psychophrenic and his family says he won't take his medications.

So, the bottom line is that I don't believe most people, including myself are violent by nature, but if you attempt to harm my family you might just find out I can be. The difference is, I don't WANT to harm anyone, but I will defend my family to the death, or the bad guys death perferably.

Jon Lester
2270
Points
Jon Lester 01/06/13 - 10:41 am
3
5
I have my own complaints.

ATF regulations require that any imported firearm includes at least six US-made parts. This is a blatantly protectionist rule, because all it accomplishes is adding another hundred or more dollars to the price of an imported weapon, for the benefit of American companies who then give generously to the NRA.

There are other groups out there supporting gun rights and offering expert instruction. Look up The Liberal Gun Club online and take a look at their forum. You might be surprised.

CobaltGeorge
150530
Points
CobaltGeorge 01/06/13 - 10:48 am
5
2
As Always myfather15

you are perfect with words and express my deepest feelings when it comes to Weapons.

It would make the longest post on AC if I was to log all the weapons and the arsenal of ammo I own. I don't own a .50 cal assault rifle which has always been my dream. Today is a day my family will be together to celebrate 4 January birthdays with even one that was the first one born in Maryland. They all have an unnumbered amount of rifles and pistols of all types. Their is no doubt that my 4' by 8' target back will not be usable and have to be replaced after today. There isn't an ounce of fear that none of them will ever use them to commit a crime in their life time. My Grand girl has even shot (highly supervised) The Judge a few weeks ago proves to me that the recoil is low enough that any women can use is without trouble in home defense. It is a winner in the 15' home distance that anyone ever needs.

We are at a point in history, that a revolution, against the government or mass rioting is in the making. When something happens like a terrorist attack causing lost of power, food and living necessities will no longer be available to many humans and then a battle of survival will begin. All my family will be at Cobalt Park and will have water all the food and the capability to survive. The requirement of 30 round mags will be a must because, you will not be firing at an individual but a mass as in a military situation.

I know, I sound like a nut case but so be it. This country boy will survive.

I would like to BOLD a comment made by myfather15.

If the government can ban large capacity magazines and "assault rifles" there is nothing they can't ban, eventually. You give them an inch and they will take 10 miles.

History of past action of our government documents that FACT.

Rob Pavey
533
Points
Rob Pavey 01/06/13 - 11:14 am
16
2
since shooting people is already against the law.....

....would criminal gangs and deranged killers obey new laws against certain ammo clips and rifles? Banning something people want simply moves the market underground, often to the detriment of society. Remember Prohibition?

dichotomy
30663
Points
dichotomy 01/06/13 - 12:00 pm
9
1
The NRA is on pretty firm

The NRA is on pretty firm ground in it's resistance to ANOTHER assault weapons ban. We had an assault weapons ban in 1994 that not only banned assault weapons but ALSO banned the dreaded high capacity magazine. IT DID NOT HELP. IT DID NOT STOP ANYTHING. Why? Because it is the nutcase mentally ill roaming our streets that are the problem. More people are killed with hammers every year than with assault weapons. Are you going to ban hammers? Are you going to require a federal form be submitted for one private party to sell his hammer to another private party? If you are serious about reducing the number of deaths we need to ban cars, hammers, and knifes.

As usual, just like our SPENDING problem, when the American public is given the choice of facing up to the REAL problem or peeing into the wind they will choose to pee into the wind every time.

You pee'd into the wind in 1994 with the last assault weapons ban and now you are smelling like urine. What's the American public's answer? Turn into the wind and pee some more.

The NRA is simply doing it's job. Part of that job is to point out the fallacy of trying to ban something, which never works...and of doing the same thing you did 20 years ago that did not work, simply for the sake of the politicians being able to say they "did" something.

Okay, everybody all together now, take a deep breath, grunt, and PEEEEEEEE. Yeh, that will fix the problem.

Better listen to Wayne and let teachers who wish to do so carry and put armed guards on the schools.

Riverman1
79550
Points
Riverman1 01/06/13 - 12:21 pm
6
1
Fox News said today Obama is

Fox News said today Obama is moving to ban certain guns.

Bizkit
29219
Points
Bizkit 01/06/13 - 12:41 pm
6
1
I understand Myfather

I understand Myfather completely-I was speaking generically as a species we are violent like chimps rather than passive as bonobos. But you seem to make my point and agree with me as to our violent potential. I think my nature is generally peaceful and as an adult I have sought pacifism, but I grew up in a violent environment and quickly had to adapt and learn to be strong and violent. I too would gladly die for my family and just as easily kill for them without wincing, but just me alone is another story. For my family I have no fear but just me alone I'd be spoilin' my pants. Maybe there is some "protective" gene just like the "mother" gene and "God" gene. I think violence just breeds more violence so we are in agreement too.

itsanotherday1
40305
Points
itsanotherday1 01/06/13 - 12:57 pm
6
1
I think the letter writer is

I think the letter writer is reasonable, though I disagree with some points. (HA! This is the second time in about 10 years I've agreed with Randy Cain, LOL)

I also see where MF15 is coming from and generally agree with him too.

I think any exchange of guns between strangers should require a background check; in other words, close the gun show loophole. As for casual exchanges between acquaintances, none of us law abiding people would be dealing with criminal or crazy types anyway, so that is a moot point.

What I would not be opposed to, provided it did not penalize the law abiding, is some method to deal with gun runners on both ends of the deal. Runners from places like NYC come south, buy a trunk full of guns, then take them back to NYC to double their money. Whether it be better traceability, law with bigger teeth, better enforcement of existing law, whatever it takes; I'm all for attacking the criminal possession of guns (and those who supply them) with vigor.

Little Lamb
43901
Points
Little Lamb 01/06/13 - 01:44 pm
6
0
Defense

Self-defense is important, perhaps of paramount importance. But there is another kind of defense, the defense of liberty. That one would lay down his own life in defense of liberty of others is about as selfless as one can get. Mr. Conant is wrong in saying that high-capacity magazines are useful only in self-defense. No, they can be useful for militias to defend American ideals of liberty and self-determination and to fight an oppressive and tyrannical government. Such fighting obviously includes defense, but it also must include an element of offense as well.

Gage Creed
15757
Points
Gage Creed 01/06/13 - 01:55 pm
7
0
I think DiFi and Bloomie

I think DiFi and Bloomie should lead the charge to disarm....DiFi turn in your weapons and CCW, have your security detail disarm. Bloomberg, same for you.

deestafford
23829
Points
deestafford 01/06/13 - 01:59 pm
7
0
A few comments:

Gun show loop hole. There is no such thing. If you go to a gun show and buy from a licienced dealer they will run a background check. If I sell a gun to my next door neighbor or anyone I know I don't have to run a background check. If I, as a private citizen, go to a gun show and want to see my gun I can do it without any background checks on whom I sell to. Obama wants there to be a background check and registration of anytime a gun is sold. So, I'd have to do a background check on my brother or daughter if I sold them one of my gun? What would be the procedure, how much would it cost, and how long would it take?
Victims of gun shooting: Around 70% of those who are gun shot victims have arrest records and are known to the police. In other words, criminals shooting criminals.( Yea! ) The statistics on "children" being shot include up to age 19. Many of those statistics include gang members and drug transactions.
Gun buy back programs: These are "feel good" actions by liberals. A professor of statistics from GA Tech did a statistical analysis on the effectiveness of those programs. The result was that one life would be saved for every 65,000 guns bought in a buy back program. Yet, when they buy back 100 guns they say, "We just saved 100 lives." Didn't someone from NYC come here to Augusta a few months ago and do a buy back program?
I could site a number of other points about the lunacy of gun laws but y'all get the point.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 02:12 pm
4
0
@itsanotherday1

I gave your comment a thumbs up because overall I agree with you. But I don't think the point is moot about individuals selling to each other, because they are acquaintances therefore wouldn't be "Crazy". Yes, of course I know my friend very well, but should you decide to sell your firearm through the Iwanta or other advertisement, you won't know them. Then the government MUST deal with these type transactions "In order to keep guns from crazies". Therefore, if the government is going to ban the gun shows selling, they would have to ban selling of firearms through advertisement. You would only be allowed to buy from a licensed dealer, period. Now, I'm against this as I believe it's controlling our constitutional rights. But IF it would actually make us safer, I could see the point. But again, I believe it only creates a FALSE sense of safety, yet provides no additional safety. If a mad man wants a gun and is PLANNING a mass shooting, he will find one that fits the bill and he doesn't care about regulations.

I also agree with you about "Gun runners". It happens much more often than people realize. Just like with many other products which are MUCH more expensive in NY and such places. On the Interstate, we stop people quite often who have a HUGE amount of cigarettes, purchased here cheap. They are taking them to NY or other States where they sell for big profit. The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in such places as NYC is 13-14 dollars a pack. When you can buy them here for 3-4 dollars a pack, it's a lucrative business.

But, as with the illegal drug trade and black market cigarettes, it's never going to stop. Yes, stricker punishment will put those caught in prison for longer periods of time, but it will NEVER stop the trade. Then you will have bleeding heart liberals complaining about them being in prison for "Non-violent crimes". It will also worsen the increasing problem with prisons being overcrowded. It's the old "Danged if you do, danged if you don't" scenario.

myfather15
49931
Points
myfather15 01/06/13 - 02:10 pm
6
0
In support of Little Lamb's comment......

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation.

The 2nd Amendment is the main reason we have never been invaded period. Yes, I was in the Marine Corps and I know very well our Military is the best in the world. But if enough Countries formed an alliance against us, it could be much harder for our military to defend us. But they know they would have to deal with "A gun behind every blade of grass". Why do our own politicians and those on the left want to take this aspect away from us? Does this make us stronger or weaker?

Darby
23605
Points
Darby 01/06/13 - 03:10 pm
7
1
"If you need more than 10 shells.....

....in your semi-automatic to defend yourself, you are in deep trouble."

The more appropriate question might be, how many do I need to defend myself from an overzealous, oppressive government? Tell me again about how I have nothing to fear from our benevolent dictatorship. I never get tired of hearing that claptrap.

Darby
23605
Points
Darby 01/06/13 - 02:57 pm
8
2
How many guns were used on 9-11....

....to kill 3,000 Americans? Don't strain your liberal minds, the question is rhetorical.

RMSHEFF
14045
Points
RMSHEFF 01/06/13 - 04:05 pm
3
2
Believe me, Obama will never

Believe me, Obama will never let a tragedy go to waste to further his master plan. He will get a ban on "assault" weapons and high capacity clips. The supreme court will finish the job by heavily regulating all handguns and ammo. Gun control and cap and trade will be brought back up as soon as Justice Kennedy retires and is replace by a progressive.

RMSHEFF
14045
Points
RMSHEFF 01/06/13 - 04:08 pm
4
1
If the pilots in the 9-11

If the pilots in the 9-11 terrorist attack had guns thing might have been much different.

oldfella
599
Points
oldfella 01/06/13 - 05:01 pm
5
1
One vote away from a gun ban in 2008 - too close for comfort

"As a gun owner, I don’t worry about anyone taking away my guns. Five years ago, gun owners’ rights were reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller."

True....but this was decided by ONE VOTE! The vote was five to four. Yeah, nothing to worry about.
And ten shots very might not be enough! Adrenaline, moving targets, multiple targets, etc. are variables that factor into many confrontations, that's why police empty their weapons and anti-gun folks pee themselves when 30 shots are fired, but the suspect is only hit once!
All the practice in the world is NEVER enough once the poop hits the fan.
Maybe Mr. Conant has seen too many corny Westerns, but violent firearm encounters are not over with one well placed shot. Bad guys don't stand still and wait to dodge bullets.

x58dav8r
112
Points
x58dav8r 01/06/13 - 05:47 pm
4
1
"As a gun owner, I don’t

"As a gun owner, I don’t worry about anyone taking away my guns"
You should be. NY Gov Mario Cuomo has already called it an option. It already happened in Louisiana after Katrina.
"The most obvious fix is to eliminate the “gun show loophole”"
The Democratically controlled Senate introduced legislation on January 25, 2011 to do just that. On the same day said legislation was referred to committee where it has lain untouched ever since. That's two years where the Democrats have had the opportunity and the means to push such legislation through and they have done nothing.
"eliminating the sale of large-capacity magazines such as the one used in Newtown"
Eliminating "large capacity" magazines will do nothing. If you can't carry ten 30-round magazines then you'll just carry thirty 10 round magazines. That's still 300 rounds with negligible weight difference. and anyone who thinks making criminals change magazines will reduce the carnage has never tried to change a magazine. Even the most inept can change a magazine in two seconds and the police are still minutes away.

x58dav8r
112
Points
x58dav8r 01/06/13 - 05:56 pm
4
1
If you really want to impact criminals using guns

Change those laws that directly affect the targeted group without affecting law abiding citizens. Get the criminals off the streets with more than a slap on the wrist. If you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail for twice the max allowed, no parole. If you're found to be in possession of a gun again, or commit a crime with a gun again, you go to jail for life, no parole. If you commit a crime with a gun ever and someone dies, regardless of who owns the gun, who was holding the gun, who fired the shot or who dies, you go to the chamber after exhausting your one and only appeal.

Riverman1
79550
Points
Riverman1 01/06/13 - 06:25 pm
4
1
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

As LL said, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is having armed citizens serve as a deterrent to tyrannical governments of all kinds. Our forefathers couldn't have been clearer. All this required paperwork and background checks make it easier to identify who has guns and to take the weapons. I'll bet THAT is going to happen one day the way our government is moving toward statism. We already see gunowners being publicly identified in New York from the bureaucratic paperwork.

Darby
23605
Points
Darby 01/06/13 - 07:33 pm
6
1
The reason for the 2d Amendment.....

....did not die when King George did. The founding fathers make our current crop (Democrat or Republican) of "pubic servants" look like Honey Boo Boo, just not quite as intelligent or qualified.

Those guys in 1776 risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. The worthless crew we have up there now, risk OUR lives, OUR fortune, and for the most part, they are devoid of honor.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Commission rejects tax jump

Seven commissioners nixed a proposed tax increase Monday that would cost a typical homeowner $70 a year, leaving the countywide millage unset with just a few days to meet state deadlines.
Search Augusta jobs