Gun nuts threaten boycott of Colorado over new gun control laws. Good. Let them stay home.

031313gunsThe overwhelming gaggle of rabid right-wingers, homophobes, racists, bigots and bitter over-reactionaries who dominate the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups are upset with Colorado, a state with the guts to enact some new gun-control laws.

They are promising to boycott the state over not only the new legislation on gun control but also a legislative move Tuesday to legalize same-sex civil unions in the Rocky Mountain region of the nation.

Good. Let them stay home. Colorado – and any other state in the union — is better off if these nutcases stay home.

Both sides of the gun debate go to extremes but the recent hard-core abandon of all-reason by the pro-gun lobby, led by the in-your-face defiance by reason-deprived Wayne LaPierre, head honcho of the NRA, showcases just how out of control and dangerous the carry arms at all costs proponents have become.

Colorado had good reason to take a hard look at stronger gun legislation.  The massacres at Columbine High School and the movie theater in Aurora are strong, bloody, images of just how dangerous the American love affair with firearms has become.

The movie theater shooter obtained his weapons legally under current laws.  He’s not alone when it comes to mass murderers in this nation.  Are existing laws strong enough to deter such criminals?  Obviously not.

But the NRA, whose real allegiance is to the gun industry, can’t accept any reasonable attempts to tighten gun laws.  I’m not surprised.  In and around my Blue Ridge Mountain home, a large number of people who drive around in pickup trucks adorned with NRA life member decals carry concealed weapons without valid permits and own firearms illegally after felony convictions.

As the local newspaper reporter who covers courts, I see them before judges and convicted of crimes that prohibit them from legally owning guns.

Several of us who believe in obeying the law have notified the NRA repeatedly of this criminal element within the association’s ranks but no action is ever taken.  NRA would rather collect the dues and count criminals as members. We also notified the sheriff’s department, which did take action.

In addition, a disturbing amount of email received here at Capitol Hill Blue all too often contains racist, homophobic and bigoted comments from those who claim to be NRA members.

The NRA regularly endorses racists for public office, the most recent being its avid support of former Virginia Sen. George Allen, who lost a re-election bid after his racist comments were revealed in a video and who then tried to regain his seat in 2012. Despite avid NRA support in both elections, Virginians rejected Allen.

As a gun owner who uses legally-purchased firearms to hunt and one who carries a concealed weapon with a valid permit, I support the right to own and bear arms.  But I cannot, and will not, support an organization who puts its own membership above the law or refuses to even discuss reasonable efforts to curb the ever-expanding disease of gun violence in this nation.

The staff here at Capitol Hill Blue includes gun owners and those who believe guns should be outlawed.  Varied opinions are welcome here.

We all agree, however, on the need for more laws regulating sale of certain types of weapons, large capacity magazines and the proven need for more extensive background checks on those who try and purchase firearms.

The NRA does not give a damn about protecting anyone who supports gun control. It primarily serves the greedy gun industry which pads its profits by promoting gun sales to anyone — law abiding citizen or felon.  Ironically, the organization that pushes the right to own arms does not even ask potential members if they have ever been convicted a crime involving the use of a firearm.

NRA President David Keene often bragged about how he taught his children to responsibly use firearms but his son sent to prison after shooting at a motorist in a road rage incident on the George Washington Parkway in Virginia.

When you get a license to drive in this nation, one of the questions on the form is whether or not you have committed an act that cost you the ability to operate a motor vehicle in another state.  The NRA often compares gun ownership with car ownership and operation but draws the line at checking to see if its members are law-abiding citizens.

So when NRA members threaten to boycott Colorado because they want to take stronger steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, let’s applaud and say “good for you.”

If NRA members avoid the state of Colorado it should also decrease the number of felons in the state.

That is reason enough for the rest of us to visit the Rocky Mountain state.

Enhanced by Zemanta

33 Responses to "Gun nuts threaten boycott of Colorado over new gun control laws. Good. Let them stay home."

  1. Bill Cravener  March 13, 2013 at 8:21 am

    The greatest irony of it all is that those that cry the loudest about gun rights and the Second Amendment live in rural and suburban areas where relatively little violent crime occurs. I see it all the time here in PA were a gun carrying tough guy is more interested in being seen as dangerous than in using their gun for any self-defense purpose. Many I have encountered over the years seem to contend that someday the black helicopters of the government will descend on their homes to take away their guns. To me this type is what a gun nut loony truly is.

    As to the NRA one of the most interesting aspects is how an association for conservation and sportsmanship became the prime defenders of assault weaponry. In the early days of the NRA it was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence. Today the opposite is true and they have become an association strictly controlled by that corporate influence they once so despised.

  2. Sandy Price  March 13, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Not since the influence from the John Birch Society that bloomed after WW2, and represented a new version of American values, has there been more hatred aired between American citizens. The Party began to operate for the betterment of job making and taxation. It annoyed me that this began to work under a government run by the Democrats. My being a long time Republican, I began to search for a reason that the GOP was fading in ethics.

    I moved my news station from CSPAN to Fox. The influence from the churches turned me off as the holy organizations developed a degree of division found in even smaller cities and families.

    The message went out that America has always been a Christian nation and the rest of us should move somewhere else. All political efforts were for putting wealth in the hands of corporate managers. Focusing wealth away from the people and into Wall Street countered my knowledge of true capitalism.

    Many of the Christian leaders tried to blame this new value on Ayn Rand. She did speak for the Libertarian agenda but not in way the religious right pushed it.

    Everywhere one gathers in America one is told to never discuss politics or religion because it would bring on fights. When individual freedoms are hidden under religious doctrines, it will always stamp out individual freedoms.

    Instead of a focus on individual freedoms, the GOP has adopted a simple slogan of “Guns and God.” This was the slogan behind the Tea Party and pushed by McCain and Palin.

    In 1999, Candidate G.W. Bush was warned that using federal grants for the churches would harm any civil rights movement. Of course he knew this and it gave him the extra votes needed for his purpose. What a shame that so many Americans gave up their lives for a win in the white house. Morals, ethics and human rights have suffered under the leadership of the 43rd President.

    I watched with interest in the future of the GOP and with the entrance of Mitt Romney, as the perfect Republican Candidate… my political agenda has changed completely.

    The GOP must arm themselves against the federal government. The American voters must realize that America is nation of white Christian Straight men only.

    This new Tea Party agenda has changed American values that will keep us at war against Islam. Armed drones are the new system of removing God from the nation. The Tea Party is convinced that Obama brought Islam into our government.

    A messsage for our federal government is to pack it up, return the money to the states and stay the hell out of our private lives. I would never take a gun and shoot another human being. That is the new Christian agenda. It brought on the Inquisition in Europe and they are just too anxious to kill for Jesus. The nation is not worth another war. Turn D.C. into an American vatican and stop abusing the children. My citizenship was destroyed in 2000 by a corrupt President too stupid to understand human rights. He was born to a greedy family and will die as a hated President. He did it for Jesus.

  3. griff6r  March 13, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Damn! I had no idea that this non-NRA member (or any other group), non-Republican is a homophobe, racist, bigot and bitter over-reactionary.

    Thanks for setting me straight by implying that every individual (INDIVIDUAL) who happens to be opposed to more gun laws is such an person or has to be influenced in some way by some thing other than a desire to not relinquish every ounce of freedom this country is supposed to stand for.

    I thought you were above all that. Isn’t that the kind of politics you purport to disdain?

    By the way, at this moment I’m at work watching coverage of a shooting that just took place a couple miles from here. Four dead and two others injured.

    More gun laws will not cure crazy people, no matter how much you and your liberal fellow travellers want it to be so.

  4. Wayne K Dolik  March 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    You have just whitnessed a rude and crude attack on the Second Amendment and NRA by a presstitute.

  5. woody188  March 13, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    In and around my Blue Ridge Mountain home, a large number of people who drive around in pickup trucks adorned with NRA life member decals carry concealed weapons without valid permits and own firearms illegally after felony convictions.

    Which just proves the point that more laws restricting gun purchasing and ownership do nothing but raise the cost of such purchases and licensing on the law abiding owners such as yourself. Duh?

  6. David  March 13, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    IMO, felons who have completely served their time(meaning not parolees) should have their 2nd Amendment rights restored. Yes that means convicted felons should not be deprived of their right to bear arms as long as they served out their punishment. Call me hardcore.

    • Larry Carpenter  March 14, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      I’m sorry man usually I don’t disagree with my fellow 2nd amendment rights brothers. But giving a felon access to firearms weather they serve there whole term or not, I strongly disagree . Sorry man but thats just wrong.

      • jeff  March 20, 2013 at 7:27 pm

        sorry I dont usually disagree with pro second amendment rights brothers either but the constitution does say “givin to you by your creator”not unless the government decides otherwise,the government is not your creator.FREEDOM doesnt equal security..

  7. Doug Thompson  March 13, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Interesting look at the pro-NRA community. Our spam filter has caught and eliminated more than 100 comments. Of those, 71 used fake email addresses, 87 used fake names and/or anonymous handles (one even claimed to be Thomas Jefferson). Twenty-two used obscenities in their messages or in their email addresses and 19 issued threats against our lives.

    Lots of cowards out there in the pro-gun community.

    • Bill Cravener  March 14, 2013 at 6:12 am

      Lots of cowards out there in the pro-gun community.

      So alarmingly true Doug. In my many years as a PA game hunter encountering gun nuts, it’s the only way they can grow a pair.

      • Doug Thompson  March 14, 2013 at 7:39 am

        Sad but true Bill. One of the alarming statistics that come out in states where concealed carry laws are relaxed is the increase in charges of brandishing a weapon. Some folks are too quick show off when reason and cooler heads should prevail.

  8. Sandy Price  March 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Doug, I was a card carrying member of the NRA group until I went on line and saw the attitude of the group claim they spoke for their own particular God; and everyone else should be thrown out.

    I do not belong on the internet because my message has always been equal civil rights for all Americans. I mean every word I write and I react to the horror of what is happening to America.

    We all seem to set ourselves up for a fight. The popularity of Trump and Paylin make me a tad sick. The only true Republican of strength is Chris Christie of New Jersey. He is a gentleman and a scholar to the core. I had a grandfather like Gov. Christie. The old man looked like Truman and spoke like Churchill.

    My grandfather died at the age of 60 and I’m glad he didn’t have to see his beloved America fall into such a moral decline. America is turning into a terrible angry mess.

    I’m suffering bouts of vertigo and will have to stop driving and living alone. I can still read and take short walks around the park here. I hope you are in better shape. I saw the doctor yesterday and when I asked what brought on this dizziness and vertigo he whispered in my ear “age, dear.” Not words, anyone wants to hear.

    Keep up the writing, it is the way I check to see if I’m still alive. Even being pissed off is a sign of life.

    • Doug Thompson  March 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      I was a longtime member of the NRA but quit as a protest to their endorsement of George Allen for re-election as Senator after his racist comments were revealed in a video. The NRA tried once again to force Allen on Virginians in the last Senate race but he lost again, even with NRA support. Even in gun-happy Virginia, an NRA endorsement is worthless.

  9. Frank Grubb  March 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Ths is my real name and this is my real email address. I find it interesting how you associate trucks and the NRA with felons and cowards. On the contrary, I remember a time when thousands of liberals ran away to Canada because they “did not believe in the war”. They hid behind their “political beliefs” when in fact they are nothing but cowards and would rather someone else make the sacrifices. This country is so great that we pardoned them and most came running back home. You, Mr. Thompson, remind me of such a person. How can you call yourself a reporter when in fact you use your position to push your own political agenda. A reporter reports the facts. You sir, are just sensationalizing facts to attract more readers. The NRA is the only organization that can fight the ultra-liberal movement in place today. While I don’t agree with every single NRA policy I will support the organization 100% to keep people like you from making uninformed and irrational decisions. I am a retired Master Sergeant of Marines. Maybe you can add Marines to your list of truck drivers with NRA stickers.

  10. M. C. Doyle  March 13, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    I consider myself conservative, I am a far cry from being a bigot, homophobe, or racist. But I am strongly against the gun legislation that has recently passed in this state. I was going to go on to explain my stance, but obviously this article was written for the author to display his own political leanings. I guess I was mistaken when I thought that a “reporter” was supposed to follow such standards as these…

    I believe in the profession of Journalism.
    I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.
    I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
    I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.
    I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.
    I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own pocket book is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or another’s dividends.
    I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.
    I believe that the journalism which succeeds the best-and best deserves success-fears God and honors man; is stoutly independent; unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power; constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of the privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance, and as far as law, an honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship, is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world.

    Guess I was mistaken.

  11. Ken Harper  March 13, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    I am a male of African ancestry, my wife’s ancestry is Irish, except for a Choctaw great, great grandmother, and I am not afraid of homosexuals in society. I am a retired federal law enforcment officer living in northern California. I am a member of the NRA, a regular competitive defensive pistol and rifle shooter, and I reject your notion that I, and fellow members of my local NRA affiliate gun clubs are racist, bigoted, homophobic nutcases.

    I know from my study of history that the second amendment to our constitution was put there to make sure that Americans had the ultimate tool to protect themselves, from criminals, and from potential despotic governments, federal and state. I know that almost all of the gun control laws on the books were written to control African and American born Blacks, slaves, and then free men and women. I know that the biggest reason for the ruling in the Dred Scott case was to keep guns out of the hands of free Black men. I know that the NRA was created to promote shooting skills among Americans, before there was a major firearms industry. I know that it was the NRA that supported and helped train a group of Black men in one North Carolina town who had been targeted by the local KKK-run county government because they wanted to form a chapter of the NAACP, and that those men were able to defend themselves on night from an armed attack by that group.

    I know that the modern NRA is doing what I and my fellow shooters want it to do. Yes, the NRA gets firearms industry support. but not because they need the NRA to sell guns. I guess Thompson doesn’t know what competition is. Gunmakers look to different marketing tools and the NRA is one of the best places they can go to find eager buyers. They don’t need the NRA to promote guns. Millions of Americans know the value of firearms for self defense, competition, and hunting. Only a tiny percentage of us are criminals, and none of us like being called by offensive names just because people like Thompson disagree with us. I know what my defense needs, and my wife’s needs are, and I don’t like the paternalistic, patronizing drivel that Colorado politicians were dishing out to women the past couple of weeks. Guts to introduce new gun control laws? Please! Gun control is the new “trendy” thing. It takes no guts to jump on a bandwagon.

    • Sandy Price  March 14, 2013 at 10:01 am

      Wonderful Post Ken Harper. Your words have great meaning. I love the fact you live in California as you represent my concept of my home state.

      I love your point of view and hope you can stick around for more debate.

  12. John Daharsh  March 14, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Awesome summary. I am a family man and small business owner, volunteering time at the local art cooperative over the past 10 years.

    I live in Colorado. I shoot guns recreationally (target shooting, yeah even with my kids) and we shoot varmints on ranch land when we can. I also archery hunt and fish.

    So I guess all that makes me a “rabid right-winger[], homophobe[], racist[], bigot[] and bitter over-reactionar[y]“. I’m not in the NRA but this recent grab by the Democratically-controlled Colorado senate (in spite of enormous outcry from the public in the state) has me considering joining. It sucks to have to pay to be represented because your elected representatives refuse to.

    It somehow surprises the author that more laws don’t deter criminals? So we need even more because they are sure to start working at some point? Where is your logic?

    Fear sucks. It sucks even more when it motivates people to stop having courage, stop living and to start cowering and demanding that everyone else do the same. If we all hide eventually all the bad things will disappear.

    This is crystallized for me in the rationale around magazine capacity limits. Horrific shootings happen, they need solutions. The BEST HOPE that the fear-proponents have to offer is “if we limit magazine size, the criminals will legally buy only the reduced capacity magazines, and some of them may then fumble upon reloading, and if that fluke happens, someone might make it out alive” – really? That is the solution? That is a cowardly and irresponsible argument. One or two of you might live?

    That would be the equivalent of limiting the quality of the steel allowed to be used in swords in a gun-free society so that a rogue could only hack through so many victims before his sword became too dull to efficiently kill.

    These aren’t solutions, and further more it is egregious that these horrible crimes are used as an excuse to limit the right on the millions of gun owners. Both the assertion that this is the best solution we have and the lie that limiting magazine capacity will save lives are an insult to everyone killed in one of these mass murders.

    The causes are certainly varied, but in spite of constant finger pointing at legal gun ownership or magazine capacity as some form of a cause or common theme, let’s see what every single one of these mass murders has in common before anyone sets foot on the place intent on doing harm – an unprotected gun-free zone. A place of COMPLETE gun control where no one has any hope of a real defense. You set them up like pins and are shocked when a killer throws a strike.

    But we can’t talk about solving THAT problem because remember, guns are bad and gun-owners are all would-be criminals.

    So am I upset when I hear this fear-based attempt to control me, my legal actions, my legal options, the rights of a free socieny, things that are already rights and rights I hope my kids get to enjoy. You bet.

    The last two-thrids of this article indicates that criminals are buying guns and then blames the NRA for what? Not enforcing gun laws? Since when is the NRA a law enforcement agency? I have not great love for the NRA but I hear a pretty consistent message of “enforce the laws on the books” from them.

    No proof is offered that the NRA is full of felons other than the author suggesting that some yokels who like NRA stickers are also criminals who break the law. So if I see a gangbanger break a window wearing Nike shoes I should blame Nike for not making sure only non-criminals wear their shoes?

    You want the NRA to do background checks on its own members?

    This sentence was a gem “If NRA members avoid the state of Colorado it should also decrease the number of felons in the state.”

    Then more of “the law will protect us” follows:

    “We all agree, however, on the need for more laws regulating sale of certain types of weapons, large capacity magazines and the proven need for more extensive background checks on those who try and purchase firearms.” – NO “WE” DON’T – again, there are plenty of good laws that if enforced would deter some degree of criminal activity. But the combination of a lack of enforcement and the fact that THEY ARE CRIMINALS means all the laws in the world aren’t the solution.

    This background check law Colorado is attempting to settle on and pass is a real winner. The reason it is still under review is they are finding that if I leave home and my guns are here, safely locked away but “under the control” of my family – I have just committed a crime by “transferring” them to whomever is still here.

    If I take my buddy shooting and let him shoot one of my guns unsupervised (even if he is a master-level competition shooter who I trust and has far more gun-handling experience than I do) – I just committed a crime by transferring that gun to him without first performing a background check.

    I never would have learned to shoot because I couldn’t have had someone show me how to with their gun, then loan it to me so I could take it to a range without doing a background check on me.

    The notion – again (this will keep coming up) that if we throw more laws that some of them will finally catch all those bad criminals – is plain stupid. Laws don’t stop anyone from doing anything except for law abiding citizens who want to retain that status. I don’t need to do a background check on my dad, my wife, my daughter, my friends of 20 years. Forcing me to just to share my gun doesn’t stop anyone from committing a crime or mass murder.

    Stop pushing your fear on everyone. Stop hiding behind the fact that you [claim to] own guns and hunt yet choose to promote an agenda of fear and weakness – then put on your big boy pants and accept a little responsibility to make this country great by trusting your fellow citizens to do right when evil shows up – instead of asserting that if we strip enough freedom from enough honest folks we’ll all finally be safe and sound because all the bad people will magically disappear.

    Doug Thompson, if your job is journalism and this article is an example of your work you are in the wrong profession. This is garbage.

    • John Daharsh  March 14, 2013 at 5:01 am

      My last rant may have been premature. Apparently Doug Thompson has multiple personalities.

      In this article he advocates stronger gun laws and added restrictions, yet in a Feb 4 article from THIS YEAR he says exactly the opposite, arguing many of the points I do directly above:

      http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46335

      You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re free or we’re controlled by some other group of people.

      What on Earth is the agenda here anyway? Is Doug Thompson a group of writers and not one person?

      • Doug Thompson  March 14, 2013 at 5:54 am

        I like to have fun with anyone who takes themselves too seriously. Regular readers here understand that. It’s only the drive-bys who have trouble comprehending such subtleties. I’ve been in this profession for half a century and subscribe to the belief that it is the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

        Which are you John?

        • John Daharsh  March 14, 2013 at 10:07 am

          Strictly speaking, I am not comfortable – this time in our country and in my beloved state in particular suck.

          Regarding your post, I found no cohesion or rational argument in this particular post. I can’t say that the other article (cited in my follow-up) is any more rational but it seems to argue the opposite side.

          Is this a joke site like The Onion? If so please feel free to delete all my comments.

          I suspect it isn’t, rather that Dr. Jekyll has never met Mr. Hyde, in which case you can also delete my comments.

  13. Philip Katz  March 14, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Studies Show Conclusively Restrictive Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Murder, Suicide or Violence
    By Imperator March 6, 2013

    Harvard Law Review
    US National Academy of Sciences
    Centers for Disease Control
    Centre for Economic Policy Research

    Harvard Law Review:
    WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
    A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
    DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**
    From Page 2: “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.”
    From Page 6: “two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
    the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
    from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
    publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
    identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
    or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
    2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant
    studies.16”
    The following study confirms the Harvard Law, US National Academy of Science and Centers for Disease Control findings that gun control does not reduce murder or violence when the United states, where legal gun ownership is on the rise, is compared to Europe with strict controls on private firearms ownership:
    Centre for Economic Policy Research:
    Crime in Europe and in the US: Dissecting the ‘Reversal of Misfortunes’
    Paolo Buonnano, Francesco Drago, Roberto Galbiati and Giulio Zanella
    “Contrary to common perceptions, today crime is more widespread in Europe than in the US, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. In 1970 the aggregate crime rate in the seven European countries we consider was 63% the corresponding US figure, but by 2007 it was 85% higher than in the US.”
    The literature clearly indicates that the unintended consequences of gun control will be a rise in the victimization of the law abiding population by emboldened criminals.

  14. griff6r  March 14, 2013 at 8:26 am

    Joe Biden will be upset with this one…

    Yesterday in the sleepy little town of Herkimer, NY a man shot and killed four people and injured two more before being killed this morning after a night-long standoff.

    He did it with a shotgun.

    No “assault” rifle.
    No 30 round magazine.
    No bayonet lug.
    No pistol grip.

    • woody188  March 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      I think many people will be surprised to find out the current legislation includes some shotguns. The legislation Biden himself proposed did so as well. Do you think he knew that or not?

  15. Sandy Price  March 14, 2013 at 10:06 am

    I’ve know Doug Thompson for years and I have never been able to pin him down with a political label. He is the epitome of a free thinker. He doesn’t change his point of view but he expresses it when the circumstances change.

    I try to learn from the chief. I won’t live long enough to get even close.

  16. Philip Katz  March 14, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The UK experiences 5 times as many violent crimes as the USA:
    1) UK has strict gun control laws.
    UK annual violent crime rate: 2,034 violent crimes/ 100,000 inhabitants (UK Daily Mail)
    2) US have about 270,000,000 guns (WP) in the hands of approximately 80,000,000 private citizens.
    US annual violent crime rate: 386.3 violent crimes / 100,000 inhabitants (FBI)
    3) On September 13, 2004 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban sunset. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.(FBI)

    Faced with the reported data, it appears, the threat of an armed response by a potential victim to an assailant has a substantial effect on reducing the incidence of violent crime.

  17. Gregg Sealy  March 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Man…some powerful posts have been written. And by men with opposing views of the author that were, in my opinion, worth the time to read.

    And I must also say…thank you guys who posted your real names…otherwise…your post would have been meaningless here…according to some people.

    So with that note…you may take notice in the header of my post my full name. After 7 years of posting in CHB front page and Reader Rant, I’ve never before posted my full name.

    Let me officially shed the bastardization of just plain ole Gregg…at least during this post. I may go back to my former self…just plain ole Gregg.

    Good posts Frank, M.C., Ken, and John.

    Doug…To Thine Own Self Be True. Glad you’re recovering…seriously.

    Respectfully, a friend of Bill’s for near 27 years.

  18. WeNotYou  March 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    Once again someone allows their hatred of “rednecks” to cloud their judgement. I guess you are one of those guys who got picked on by “rednecks” and you never had the courage to stand up for yourself now you have a little “power” so it is open season on your fictional “enemy”. Rather than try to find some middle ground with those who champion gun rights you would rather label them as “gun nuts” so that you can simply dismiss them. They are inferior to you, you don’t have to nor can you reason with them. This is the same mentality that the scared little white boys who join neo-nazi groups have. Majority of us who are “pro gun” are not rednecks, do not break the law,and are not racist or homophobes. Its okay litte Dougie the big bad redneck won’t get you. You don’t have to be so afraid and angry anymore.

  19. WeNotYou  March 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    It seems I fell for your bait. You just like to stir things up. Well played Doug. Well played. Disregard my negative comments on your character. My apologize.

  20. John Hackett  March 15, 2013 at 1:42 am

    The Second Amendment states “Not to be Infringed” What part of that do you not understand? Perhaps you would have liked cambodia under Pol Pot…the “People” did not have guns. Read some history and maybe you will come to understand why the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.
    Proud Member of the NRA

  21. Larry Poke  March 15, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    My one and only concern is that our government is interested in disarming legitimate citizens, refusing to admit they don’t have the ability to curb rampant crime and insanity. Instead they will disarm the very people who NEED to protect their homes and loved ones. The second amendment was included in our Constitution to protect us also from despotism. Take away our guns and take away a fundamental right.

  22. Tom  March 16, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Gun nuts, eh? Your naked agenda is hanging out there for the whole world to see. And people are supposed to take you serious after that headline? Not.

    Let’s propose everyone accept your liberal bent and we void the Second Amendment. Okay, then let’s void out the First Amendment as well. And the 4th and 5th… Why not? The Constitution is old fashioned, right?

    • Doug Thompson  March 16, 2013 at 2:30 pm

      God, I love taking gullible types for a ride and you fell for this one lock, stock and barrel.

      Regular readers know I raise hell with the “more serious than thou” crowd for fun and it is a good laugh to see how easy it is to rile some groups.

      So I have a naked agenda eh? That’s funny. How then was any anti-gun agenda expressed in this column:

      http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46335

      Your might want to read this one too:

      http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46840

      A piece of advice Tom. You might want to do some research before sounding off. It avoids making a fool of one’s self. :)

Comments are closed.