Follow Christiane on social media:

On Twitter + Facebook + Instagram Amanpour producers on Twitter

What time is Amanpour on CNN?

Check showtimes to see when Amanpour is on CNN where you are. Or watch online.

Check showtimes to see when Amanpour is on CNN where you are. Or watch online.

The risk of daring to disagree with the NRA

December 19th, 2012
04:59 PM ET

By Samuel Burke, CNN

Tennessee lawmaker Debra Maggart was a lifetime member of America’s most powerful gun lobby, the National Riffle Association.

She had an A+ rating with the group and even supported allowing guns in bars.

But when Maggart decided not to back a bill allowing guns in cars – even on properties where the owners did not want guns- the NRA turned against her.

The group did everything in its power to ensure her election defeat.

They succeeded.

MORE: Could the NRA become obsolete?

“We tried to work out a compromise,” she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour Wednesday, “after that they came after me because I was the caucus leader and I was the only person in leadership who had a primary.”

Maggart said the NRA poured money into her small district, attacking her from every angle. She says they created a “Defeat Maggart” website, and used billboards, robocalls, radio ads, YouTube videos and 12 full-page newspaper ads to drive her from office.

“They convinced the people where I am from that I was for all these things and that I was actually going to put your family in danger because of this bill.”

They changed her rating on gun legislation from an A+ to a D.

Maggart believes the NRA’s aggression actually boils down to money.

“They create phantom issues in order for people to write them a duty check. I am convinced of that. They frighten people and they have to have a bad guy.”

Maggart never thought she would become the bad guy.

“I was surprised because I had always been supportive of gun legislation. I am a pro-Second Amendment person,” she told Amanpour. “I had a great record on promoting the Second Amendment, but that didn’t matter to them”

The NRA on Tuesday made its first statement since the Sandy Hook massacre, saying it is prepared to “offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

Maggart is doubtful and had some words of advice for policy makers: “If you are a lawmaker you have to be able to sit down and have a grown up conversation about these things and not be afraid of them using bullying tactics, like they did on me – Using fear and intimidation to stifle the discussion. And that’s what they have done.”

MORE: Getting a gun in Japan


Filed under:  Gun Control • Latest Episode
soundoff (549 Responses)
  1. Ralph Marshall

    She got defeated because she forgot who sent her to represent them. If you don't do ask your constiuents ask, don't wine when they vote you out.

    I wish it happened to more of theses politicians who forget why they have a job in the first place. Good on Tenneesee voters!

    December 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      Did you even read the article? So you think the NRA should be arbiter of who stays and who doesn't?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:27 am | Reply
      • knucklecheese

        They aren't. They just spend a lot on advertising. That's really all it boils down to. The votors are still the ones who make the decision. Grow up, would ya? Besides, the same nonsense can be said about some "progressive" lobbies too. Get real.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:36 am |
      • OldJoe

        The NRA – actually the millions of people who belong to the NRA – have as much right to support or work to defeat legislators as the anti-gun lobby, te Brady campaign, MoveOn, Soros and Bloomberg.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:45 am |
      • Ray

        They have as much right to exercise electoral power as you do, or any of your liberal bully boy orgs.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:11 am |
      • Charles

        First, don't use big words like arbiter, or Ralph won't understand.

        Knuckledragger – it wasn't advertising, it was systematic character assassination based on lies. The NRA used all of its means to bully and intimidate someone they didn't agree with, which is their method. Do as we say or else....Sounds like a totalitarian leadership to me, which is what they are supposedly against.

        Guess what? Enough Americans have finally had it with the gun nuts, and for the first time ever, over 50% support meaningful gun reform. Since we live in a democracy, there will be legislation that outlaws assault weapons, high capacity ammunition clips, and will make the gun approval process a lot tougher as it should be. And guess what else? There isn't anything you can do about it, because we live in a democracy. Deal with it, or go live underground in the mountains, or move to another country. Try Syria.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:17 am |
      • UJ

        "The group did everything in its power to ensure her election defeat.
        They succeeded."
        I'm not an NRA member, but isn't this giving them a bit too much credit? This story insinuates that the NRA kept her out of office, without mentioning anything about her performance in office or her abilities. That's a slanted statement, to say the least.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:42 am |
      • Bill Hannegan

        Good. That's exactly what I pay the NRA $35 a year for. I don't want another "assault weapons" ban, and the NRA seems to be the only people I can pay to get what I want.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:49 am |
      • Michael Hunt, Esq.

        "The NRA – actually the millions of people who belong to the NRA – have as much right to support or work to defeat legislators as the anti-gun lobby, te Brady campaign, MoveOn, Soros and Bloomberg."
        This. The NRA is nothing more than a lobby organization formed and funded by citizens/voters. They have every right to be involved in politics. Anyone who feeld that the NRA is too hard-lined in its beliefs/politics needs to realize that it is nothing more than an equal and opposite reaction to all the hard-line noise coming from the anti-gun lobby.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:49 am |
      • Lerianis

        Charles, it was only systematic character assassination in your opinion. To the NRA, they were just telling the truth about this woman from their point of view, something that people forget a lot: that people have differing points of view in the real world and no PoV is absolutely right.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
      • ARupYOURS

        Hey CHARLES, you are a moron. You think you have won, guess what, your yellow belly is the one that needs to get the hell out of dodge. Most people are against gun control and all your knee jerkin in the world is not going to impact any laws. Go drink you ensure and STFU.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
      • Charles

        Lerianis – that's fair, it is my point of view and not everyone else's. Speaking for myself, it seems a little extreme for the NRA to turn so completely on one of its supporters for disagreeing on a particular policy point that seems to be marginal. I certainly would not want a law that allowed anybody to carry a gun onto my property.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
      • Charles

        ARupYOURS – we are going to find out what most think very soon, and I'm pretty sure we are going to get tougher gun controls. And then you can either STFU or get out of Dodge. I would love to meet you face to face without your gun to hide behind and then we could see whose belly is yellow. You are a cowardly son of a b**ch.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Kenneth Pierson

        Actually, being from here I will tell you exactly what happened, and it had nothing to do with the NRA. Her and many TN republicans threw in the business interested with the likes of Volkswagen, Nissan, etc in wanting to tell employees what they could and couldn't have in their vehicles while parked on their property. The problem is, many of these workers drive long distances to get to work either in the dark of the morning and/or of the night and protection in the car is a necessity, not a luxury. These state lawmakers with their armed guards and own special rules about carrying weapons that they granted themselves, don't care about that as much as keeping their business friends happy, on both sides of the isle.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • fred37ify

        Better think about this --> When Barrack was first elected he gave us Fast and Furious, Now he gets re-elected and we get Sandy Hook ! Less then 100 miles from Washington DC. Do you believe in coincidence ? Not me !

        December 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
      • Canada

        @ Kenneth, lol!, so it was about some form of gun regulation! oh man, priceless!!! yea... the NRA had nothing to do with that though eh. You basically just backed up her story to me. I drive a long way to get to work, and I dont have a gun in my car... actually, I could look in all my coworkers cars and there wouldnt be a gun... but we're Canadian, guns are a privelage and not to be touted around like they are in the states.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
      • Jed Clampett

        Mark,
        Why shouldn't the NRA control the easily controllable republicans. Look at how many of them Grover Norquist controls. So when is Ted Nugent going to be dead or in jail??? Isn't that supposed to be by April?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
      • aquilarex

        NRA has such a dark evil aura. It makes me shiver.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
      • Jed Clampett

        So when is Ted Nugent going to be dead or in jail??? Isn't that supposed to be by April?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
      • dallas

        The NRA is the political Lobbying arm of the gun industry, the only rights the NRA cares about is the right to sell as many guns to the American people. This about money! Wake up!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
      • bill

        @Dallas – The same can be said about any lobbying group. Big pharma, oil, retail, mfg, all the liberal lobbies etc. It's all about the money

        December 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
      • norelegion

        It's time that NRA to be desolved and put them behind bars.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
      • GMAP

        I love how people use "Democracy" to throw around when its convenient. How Liberals today are talking about Democracy and stating 50% of Americans want gun's removed/banned. While Rebulican are called closed minded and ignorant for voting non-union or gay marriages. What is Democracy, personal belief's, moral, popular vote, or supreme court. Funny how people yell, call names at some lobbiest that are against you but praise the ones that speak you belief. SO ENJOY DEMOCRACY!!!!

        December 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
      • bingo

        we already know why, but everybody is afraid to say it: SINGLE MOTHERS. over 30 years of social science research shows that the vast majority of felons behind bars are the product of SINLGE MOTHERS. when you remove men from the family, you're only asking for trouble....MANHOOD101. COM

        December 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
      • portcitymike

        LOL @Arupyours.. Did you really call Charles a "yellow belly" (coward)?? So you are saying you are only brave if you have a gun? Isn't that the exact opposite of bravery, hiding behind a gun??

        December 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
      • Jack Dawson

        For anyone who voted for BO to complain about character attacks in place of policy discussion is the height of irony.

        As an NRA member I do not always agree with them, nor do they necessarily influence my vote. They do, however, stand up to the media and the high dollar left wing to speak for millions of Americans.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
      • maximus9

        Why is the NRA so powerful?? Well that is easy, isn't it? One only needs to look at their target audience. Yes, all they do is advertise...they don't make decisions for the voters...blah blah blah...exactly! They don't and they don't need to. Because their target audience are a bunch of ignorant, gun slinging, cowboy mentality, survivalist, losers. They are not the hunter (which I do respect), or the guy making large cash deposits in a bad area every day who needs to carry. Politicians need to stand up and rebel against these paranoid low lives and start doing what's right for the rest of us.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
      • Sean

        DLinLA there have been 62 mass murders since 1982. "Assault weapons" were used in just a few of these. Semi Automatic hanguns are the main weapon of choice. Of those 62, 49 of the killers obtained their weapons illegally..

        A knee jerk law banning assault weapons will not change a single thing, just s the 94 ban did nothing.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • Thatguy371

      Sounds like you fell for the NRA's b.s. lines hook line and sinker. So IOW you're the true meaning of the term 'sheeple'. Alot of us have read up on Debra Maggart. She did a good job representing your district. You just fell in with the crowd who were convinced she didn't.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:29 am | Reply
      • Nah

        that: "She did a good job representing your district. You just fell in with the crowd who were convinced she didn't."

        I'm willing to bet: (1) you didn't know who Maggart was until today, (2) you know nothing about how he represented the voters, and (3) know nothing about the legislation she supported or whether or not she was switching sides on the gun issue.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:55 am |
      • RejoiningtheNRA

        "The NRA" is just a headquarters. "The NRA" is a group of US citizens (a very large group).

        I am classified a "liberal" (whatever that means), but, I am rejoining the NRA to be with a support group to offset this kneejerk reaction that is taking place.

        The firearms used were stolen and used by an individual that could not "legally" own firearms. (get the point – "illegal activity"?)

        This is a GREAT tragedy. Lots of things went into this. The inanimate objects used can be made into frightening demons. But, blaming this on those inanimate objects will not prevent anything.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:58 am |
      • RC Roeder

        to rejoingtheNRA, i do not believe that the Guns were stolen, they were own by the his mother. You do not know if he could or could not own guns. As far as i am concerned, if a family member own guns, then the responsibility of the ENITIRE family for the guns. This is not a knee jerk; thousands of guns are flying off of the shelves of store because people are afraid they might not get a gun. Very few will be for hunting. Most are for protection, i.e. to kill another human being, when the owner of the gun decides they need too. THAT IS THE SCARRY PART. To stop this we need to:
        1) Register gun owners and the gun owner must by insurance and mandatory training.
        2) Make the Gun and Ammo manufacturers liable for death and injury cause by the product. We hold tobacco and drug manufactures to this.
        3) Limit the number of guns a person or family can own. I know one person who I use to work with that has nearly 200 guns and 100k round in a bunker on his ranch. Sorry, that is more guns that anyone can use in life time.
        p.s. I own several gun, each one is registered.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
      • DLinLA

        A knee-jerk reaction might be a fair assessment if this was the FIRST mass shooting incident. It was one of SEVERAL this year alone!

        More like 'the last straw' than 'knee jerk'.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
      • RC Roeder

        DLinLA i could not agree more. It is time for a change. there was one company this week that had a suppliment shopping ad with special princing of "modern" rifles, both bullet and air guns. Why does any one need an assualt bb gun for kids??????? The chain was Big 5

        December 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
      • Ravenskeep

        It's not the gun that killed all those lovely kids. It's the society we are being forced to live in. As an old man, I grew up in schools where each morning, we had a devotional, we said the Pledge of Allegiance, and we had announcements. On the day Jack Kennedy was killed, we cried and we prayed, and then we repeated crying and praying, and we were in Mississippi a state that was – uhhh how do I say this, NOT in favor of Kennedy or anything he stood for. I grew up in a house with guns, and I started hunting at an early age, AFTER I had some family training on the safe handing of a shotgun, and later a rifle. Now, I am a concealed carry permitee, I own guns, quite a few guns, and I have YET to see one of them kill somebody. I carry daily, because I am surrounded by adults who did not grow up in a society where kids had a devotional in the morning, but instead, they sat in front of TV eating their cold cereal and watching "Beevis and Butthead". I am not afraid of these people, but I am aware of them. And in the five years since I started carrying a firearm for protection, I am very glad to say, I have never had to remove it from its carry case, actually never thought about needing it. But friends, if I had been near that school when the gunfire broke out, I would have pulled it, and I would have gone to the sound of the gunfire and screaming, knowing to do so would make he a likely target of the cops who would also be getting there. If I could have prevented one kid, one teacher, one school administrator at Sandy Hook from dying, whatevr happened to me would have been worth it. And that's from a gun-owner, a conservative, and (unfortunately an old man.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
      • NoNeedForAName

        RC Roeder
        You said : "I do not believe that the Guns were stolen, they were own by the his mother. You do not know if he could or could not own guns."
        They were owned by his mother – not him. She did not loan them to him. he didn't borrow them. He took them after killing her. If that's not theft, I don't know what is.
        As far as legally owning guns or not. He was 20. You have to be 21 to purchase a handgun or an "assault rifle" in CT. He could not have legally owned the firearms he used, in the state he used them.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
      • antiidealoguish

        I live in upsate New York, home to quite a few gun owners and hunters. My observation is that you have both responsible and irrsponsible firearms behavior. On set of neighbors would never dream of pulling a gun out to have a little after dark drinking and target shooting, while another neighbor would not hesitate to have a 'few' drinks and then pull out thieir weapons and start shooting to their hearts delight. Needless to say, the 'drink & shoot' crowd makes me more than a little nervous.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
      • RC Roeder

        to NoNeedForAName,

        His mother was at fault for not securing them in a safe place. As far as I am concerned, if a person has a gun, if that gun is in an unsecure place (not locked down) anyone who has access, granted or not, is an owner of that gun. I have found most gun owners careless about securing their guns. A few years ago a dear friend was concerned about the guns her husband had in the house. She brought them out to me. I nearly had a heat attack finding the glock loaded with hollow points in a cloth bag under the bed and the had a 3 years old grandchild with them. My dad alway kept a load 22 pistol in his night stand. He also stored ammo in the attic.
        The thousands of people buying guns now before any ban are not for hunting but for personal protection. i.e. a gun to kill someone.

        December 20, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • marc

      You idiot. You can't even spell whine. You need to go back to elementary school and quit your stupid whining. It's no surprise people like you support child killers.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Reply
      • Nah

        marc: "You idiot. You can't even spell whine."

        If a typo is the only criticism you have of his post, he must have a pretty solid argument.

        "It's no surprise people like you support child killers."

        Ah, yes. Another deeply rational and intensely reflective argument from the anti-gun crowd.

        You're like the Westboro Baptists of guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:58 am |
      • Hunter Cares

        It's not o much being anti-gun as it is being pro-common sense.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:00 am |
      • gg

        The 'common sense' adjective is just a liberal euphemism for 'I don't have any good,logical ideas but I want it my way'.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:27 am |
      • Charles

        Nah – why don't you lead by example and provide a reflective and deeply insightful explanation of why our society needs to be flooded with guns of all types without any restrictions? Why should you be allowed to carry a gun onto my property? Why should you be allowed to own any number of assault weapons that can fire 50-100 rounds per minute with 30-100 round ammo clips? Why do you think problems involving guns can be solved by throwing more guns into the mix?I would be happy to hear your explanation.

        Let me proactively counter some of the reasons I have heard from other gun rights supporters in case those are your reasons. The 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is obsolete. It was never intended to allow the populace to overthrow the U.S. government – it was intended to allow the states to maintain militias for national defense, community law enforcement, and individual self defense. The Founding Fathers designed our form of government to be self regulating because the people have the ability to vote and create change democratically. You don't need to overthrow the U.S. government. Moreover, you can't – you will be hugely outnumber and out-weaponed.

        If you think if everyone is armed, there will be peace, you are nuttier than I thought. If everyone is armed, everyone will be intimidated and scared to disagree with anyone lest they get shot. Arming everyone completely wipes out the first amendment, the right to free speech. If you don't believe me, look at the NRA's tactics with Maggart – bullying and intimidation. That's what happens when everyone owns guns. Maybe your name should be "Duh".

        December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am |
      • Michael

        @gg – No, in this case, "common sense approach" has nothing to do with political affiliation but everything to do with taking a logical approach to ensuring that the possibility of a repeat of Newtown is LESSENED ... we'll never be able to eliminate the threat. The genie is out of the bottle insofar as Assault Type weapons being available. Yes, the weapons were "stolen" ... if one can steal weapons from their own home. Before you rant otherwise, I am by no means against the concepts of the 2nd Amendment but I am most definitely against semi-automatic high powered weapons having outrageously large magazines. For what true purpose do such weapons have? Would ANY hunter prefer an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine over a 30-06 with a six or 10 round clip? The NRA may screech about "first they take away our "right" to have a Bushmaster AR-15 and extended magazines, then, they'll come after every gun in your house." But that is all smoke and mirrors and fear mongering at it's worst. Tougher legislation, enforcement, closing the loopholes, eliminating such weapons from the market ... we have to do SOMETHING. I have yet to hear any truly logical discourse from the gun lobby on that.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:54 am |
      • Simon

        Nah couldn't convey an idea if a lightbulb slapped him over his idiotic face.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am |
      • RICHARD FROM CANADA

        I can't believe that a country as great as the U.S. is still attempting to justify something as old as the Second Amendment when anyone with half a brain should understand the difference in a Musket and an assault rifle.You people want to keep automatic weapons no argument here,but anything over a clip that holds more than 6 rounds is illegal,period.The clown on Piers Morgan last night trying to argue about what happens if 2 guys attack me and I have to reload?Then what happens if you 30 round magazine jams as well eh...either way you are screwed,but have the full clip going off and taking out the kids sleeping in the house across the street,oh well,guess they should't have lived there eh...
        President Obama,please while you can,get these clips of death banned,outlawed whatever you want to call it,but get it done before you leave and some other President worrying about "his" second term drops the ball.Please make your tears of compassion we all felt with you mean something this time.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • ellid

        I sure would like a straight answer as to why a civilian needs an assault rifle or a police-issue gun like a Glock or a Sig-Sauer. I've lived in neighborhoods with heavy gang presence and never once was so terrified that I felt the need to pack..

        December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
      • the mayor of medinah

        Marc..... do you Smoke, drink or take medication? If you answered yes then you to support child killers using your logic.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • Dan

        Guns are for women and insecure guys.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
      • Bill

        Marc...your point is well taken...some people should not own guns. I hope you are one who does not.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • John

      And I wish that you become the next victim of another nut job with a gun. Don't be so stupid as to think it could never happen, even if you're packing heat. If their barrell is pointed at you first, you're toast.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:38 am | Reply
      • Nah

        john: "And I wish that you become the next victim of another nut job with a gun."

        You sound like a reasonable person.

        "Don't be so stupid as to think it could never happen, even if you're packing heat. If their barrell is pointed at you first, you're toast."

        So, because the criminal may have the upperhand, people should therefore not even have a chance at defending themselves?

        Okay.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • John

        @Nah–all of the perpetrators of these horrific events were "law abiding citizens" BEFORE they killed anyone. Folks like you ALWAYS talk about defending against criminals. Nice scare tactic but it isn't as effective as it previously was. I'm not worried about the criminals. In my 60 years of life I've NEVER been in a position to fear a criminal. I avoid places where the true bad guys hang out. Illegal drugs ain't my cup of tea. It's those law abiding citizens that are of the most concern to me.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:46 am |
      • Simon

        Nah loves CHILD KILLERS! Go Nah! You are pathetic slime.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am |
      • Michael

        Let's go back a couple of "incidents" to Arizona. Several in the crowd were packing yet not one of them drew their weapon. It was an unarmed civilian that took down the shooter whilst that SOB was reloading. I don't care how many thousands of rounds you shoot at a range, unless you've seen combat or been a cop in a firefight, you have no way of knowing how you will react once the bullets start flying. Having people in a crown start firing during such a melee will lead to one thing and one thing only ... more collateral damage. So let's say that your at an event and some nutcase start firing. You're packing, so you pull out your pistol and "attempt" to take the shooter down. First, you've made yourself a target. Second, what happens when your errant shot injures or kills a bystander? Will you be brought up on charges? Will the NRA (or any of its 4 million plus members) come to your defense? I suggest a two pronged approach: first, eliminate/regulate such weapons and magazines; second, stop defunding identification and care of the individuals that are pulling the trigger. Go after the guns AND go after the people.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
      • carlos

        So you want to ban guns to "save lives" and at the same time wish death upon those who disagree with you. This is why liberal fringe elements will not be taken seriously. They is way more hate comeng from the left these days, and you guys don't even try to hide it.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
      • John

        Carlos, too dim to get the point? That's purely a rhetorical question (look up the meaning as I'm sure it escapes you)

        December 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
      • John

        By the way Carlos, I have eleven weapons in my home, including a semi-auto. IN spite of that, the NRA will never receive one dime from me.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
      • RC Roeder

        I do not think nah like "Child killers", however they may be obsessed with guns or feel threaten without one. As the Beatles once sung "Happiness is a warm gun". It (the gun) is a power they have that they themselves are unable achieve without it. Sort of a fetish, a warm happy feeling all over.it. Try wearing womens underware, it will less likly to go off in your pants.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
      • Jeff

        John,

        And because of that, you will likely never have an issue. Believe it or not, mass shootings are still rare for a country of 300M+ people. The two big attacks have left 48 people dead. As heartless as this is going to sound, out of approximately 14,000 murders (Assuming this years stats are in line with last year's), 48 is not a significant number.

        It is, however, the easy thing to focus on. Sometimes, people get so focused on the details, they miss the big picture.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
      • eyevibe410

        John, wishing death on anyone is incredibly irresponsible. You can't make an argument or listen to other points of view unless you make threats? I'm beginning to see the anti-gun side becoming very violent. Glad they don't have guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
      • DN

        To those who advocate the need for all kinds, including assault weapons, to be available for self-protection as well as the protection of others in cases such as Newtown, here are a couple of examples of how this has actually worked in real life, and why to me it doesn't seem like a good idea.
        1974. Assassination attempt on South Korean president Park Chung-hee by the North Korean agent Mun Se-gwang. Shooting begins when the assailant pulls the weapon, shooting himself in the foot in the process. He then shoots at the president and misses, hitting the president's wife in the head. At the same time, presidential security detail officer pulls his gun, shoots and misses, hitting an 8-year-old boy in the crowd. President Park was unharmed at the time, but he did get killed five years later, in 1979, ironically and tragically, by his chief of intelligence service, admittedly by "accident," during an altercation and a gun fight that broke out between the chief and the head of president's security at a function at the intelligence agency, honoring the president. Five other people were killed as well at the time.
        1981. Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley manages to make six shots within a few yards' distance. The first bullet hits the White House press secretary in the head. The second hits a police officer in the back. The third - the window in a house across the street. The fourth hits a Secret Service agent, who protected the president with his body. The fifth - the armored glass of the presidential limo. The sixth bullet ricocheted off the limo and hit President Reagan in the chest (stuck in his lung). In the meantime, one of the security detail officers pulls out an automatic weapon and freezes without action. Another one pulls out a gun when the shooting was over.
        These are examples of how professionals, who supposedly had trained all their lives for such situations, reacted. The assailants, apparently, were also reasonably trained, determined, and had the benefit of a surprise attack. I am aware that in situations described above, the job of the bodyguards is not to shoot the assailant, but to protect the target, including by putting themselves in front of the gunfire. But these are just two incidents, which I think illustrate a point that in such situations, pulling out a gun and shooting the assailant (and not everyone else in the process) usually only works in the movies. I wonder if there are examples when armed individuals were able to prevent attacks on their fellow citizens with a weapon that they happened to have with them. It would also be interesting to see, what kind of a weapon it was, whether it was carried openly or concealed, and whether others have been harmed in the shootout. I also wonder what would have happened in the two situations described above if some people in the crowd had licensed weapons on them – how many would have pulled them and managed to respond by shooting the assailant, without hitting innocent bystanders, or would even react at all.
        I think one of the main problems in the arguments that you can read is that they are not in most cases based on fact, but on emotion, belief, and politics.

        December 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Martyr

      So they turned on you when you STAB them in the BACK? were they supposed to ignore you backing out on them?

      What part about an abused woman not being able to lock her gun in her own PRIVATE property car do you not get?

      Do you think the abusive husband is NEVER going to think about following her from work?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:55 am | Reply
      • Hunter Cares

        As a property owner I have the rights to decide what I will and will not allow on my property. The bill she objected to would override my rights and give gun owners say over what I allow on my property. She, rightfully, felt that was wrong, as would any person of sense. I guess that's something you lack. IfI bet you would scream the loudest if someone told you that you had no say over what I brought to your property, wouldn't you?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:03 am |
      • John

        Sorry, but when that personal property car enters someone else's private property, the car owners rights don't supercede the rights of the property owner. Ever tried entering property with a sign that says no trespassing? Ignore it and you'll pay the price.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am |
      • JohnS

        The bill allows ME to put whatever weapon I want in MY car and park it on YOUR property... even if YOU object! Since you support it, post your address – – I may have some explosives that I'd rather store around your kids than my own!

        December 20, 2012 at 11:53 am |
      • Jeff

        The inside of my car isn't your property, though. The inside of my car is my property.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Oscar Pitchfork

      It's 'whine' not "wine' you duma$! Wine is apparently what you drank too much of.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:04 am | Reply
    • Rob

      You are a typical clueless, stupid American. Get a life.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:43 am | Reply
    • John Petz

      Wrong. If lobbying groups like the NRA concluded their ads were not influencing elections they would not be spending the millions they spend today. Face facts – this woman would quite likely have been re-elected had the NRA not gone after her with a machete.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Reply
    • nadinesh

      It's not clear that the electorate did this; she wasn't in favor of taking away your handguns, and I wonder if people who voted even knew that. I think what you mean is that the NRA bribes, owns and intimidates lawmakers, and they use misleading and downright mendacious ads to do it. So, yeah, I think it's another might makes right situation rather than an indication of the electorate's will. I wonder what would have happened if she got an equal amount of money for advertising to oppose them?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • texhimself

      Seems that conservatives and gun nuts like the idea of manipulating electiosn with lot's of money, as long as it goies their way. Lobbying like the NRA does almost amount to sedition. telling likes and distroting the truth to support their endgame. The NRA, and it supporters are the worst of us.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • tigger211

      She is just like all of the other politicians they think once they are in office that they should never be voted out.We should not panic and let our politicians panic either.The gun only done what the worm holding it told it to.His parents should be held libel for his actions.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Reply
    • Annette

      I am from Maggarts district. She was extremely pro-second amendment, until it infringed on the rights of property owners. As a property owner I should have the right to say what comes on my property. I am also a gun owner, and I have always respected the rights of property owners to say what can and cannot come onto their property. The NRA is out of line.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
      • Canada

        A smart responsible Gun-owner! thank you!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Kansas underground

      you are a terrorist.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • octopus

      @Bill Hannegan: what do you need assault rifles for? and what did you do to prevent access of people with mental disorders to guns? you just support another massacre in your country.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
    • Charles

      ARupYOURS – we are going to find out what most think very soon, and I'm pretty sure we are going to get tougher gun controls. And then you can either STFU or get out of Dodge. I would love to meet you face to face without your gun to hide behind and then we could see whose belly is yellow. You are a cowardly son of a b**ch.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Reply
      • ARupYOURS

        CHARLES, you are a bonifide donkey of the worst kind. You are just a brainless woman asking for more government control with no sense of reality. You probably try to give your stupid opinion on any topic that is brought up and I bet other people tell you to STFU and think you are a damn pest.

        Let me tell you something, I dont need a gun to take care of you, you are a poosy, all I have to do is spit in your face and keep walking, just know how pathetic you are makes me feel much better.

        People know of this government's hypocricies and can see through people like you always jumping on the bandwagon getting mad about every issue that does not concern you. Dont be a big jew and try to limit other people, instead fock off and die, nobody will waste their bullets on you.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
      • Charles

        ARupYOURS – you are seriously the most pathetic excuse for a human being I have every come across. I am going to stop responding to you now because you are not worth even another minute of my time. I sincerely hope you die a slow, painful death so that you stop using the precious air and water that normal humans need to live.

        December 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Steven Harnack

      Even by the NRAs own count of their members they represent a bit over 1% of Americans. If it wasn't for gun industry money they wouldn't have a pot to tinkle in. It seems like a lot of money and threats by a few armed people is the epitome of "the American Way".

      December 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Reply
      • Jeff

        Name me one other organization (non-union, where membership is often forced) that is legislatively and legally active with over 1% of the population as members

        December 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • ellid

        Jeff – try AAA or the AARP.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Chat Pata

      All politicians are bankrolled by corporate world. They spend tons of money on advertisement, bribing the religious authorities and every other brain washing technique that money can buy. NRA is just another mouthpiece of the corporate world.

      Obama was the first one to defy corporate america's money and get elected on small contributions, that makes him anti-christ in the eye of corporate world and the zombies it control (Republicans).

      December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Reply
      • MIKE

        Chat Pata, I think you need to check your facts... Maybe look into who Obama's largest campaign contributors were....JP Morgan.... Citibank..... yeah he did not get elected on his own merits...

        December 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Michael

      http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

      December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Reply
    • ellid

      Go back and read the article. Ms. Maggart had an A rating from this group of bullies until she decided that being able to transport guns in cars *even against a property owner's will* was going too far.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Reply
    • Egypt

      Sometimes the wrong interest is being backed. Maybe the second amendment should be amended to specify which types of guns the general public should have and the requirements for gun ownership should include training and safety. And, a renewable license , such is done in driving a car.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Reply
    • Frustrated with Illiteracy

      Ralph, the teacher in me cannot get past your spelling and grammatical errors. The NRA should take all the money they spend on lobbying and backing pro-gun politicians, and spend it on educating people on gun safety and self defense against armed gunmen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tIeRUbRHw&noredirect=1

      It also wouldn't hurt to require all folks who want to own guns to take a test to get licensed prior to possessing any kind of firearm.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Reply
    • Cheese Wonton

      The Republican Party could not be so easily bought if they weren't so obviously available for sale. Republicans go where the money is, they have no moral values whatsoever. All the bluff and bravado is empty words trying to conceal the dark void within, the political equivalent of a black hole. What enrages them so much about their opposition is their opposition actually has values worth fighting for aside from pecuniary considerations.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Reply
    • Pepou27

      http://www.upworthy.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-guns-in-the-us?c=ufb1

      December 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • sick of republican phonies

      Spoken and spelled like a true simple-minded nitwit. People with a sub-100 IQ like you are what bring our country down.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • sick of republican phonies

      Spoken and spelled like a true dim-witted simpleton. People with a sub-100 IQ like you are what bring our country down.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Reply
    • Bernard07

      As usual, vitriolic responses against gun control and for guns in general come for a population that has spelling problems.
      Makes me wonder if we should we equate uneducated people with gun owners....

      December 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Reply
    • brad shaeffer

      Here's the crux of the whole issue. Most people aren't trained to actually get to the root cause of an incident. It's hard to do and takes discipline and training to get there. What happens id they get to a contributing cause and say "hey if I fix this the problem is solved!" Not true, you haven't fixed the systematic failure just what helped it to happen.

      Let's look at a few instances that have happened. How about an explosion at a refinery. Kills a bunch of people, pretty big deal. Based on the logic being used for gun control, all they have to do is ban the manufacturing of gasoline. Problem solved. Well that is until they decide to use the process to manufacture another flammable chemical. Cool, ban them. Eventually, you get to where there isn't a refinery any more because all the products are banned.

      Now if you would have gone deeper into your investigating why it happened and found that you can safely produce gasoline if I just add a few safeguards (armed security) or even just maintain the ones we have (enforcing existing laws). That's getting to the root cause. Why it happened not how it happened.

      Why did 20 kids get killed? they were hit by bullets
      Why were they hit by bullets? because they were in the line of fire of an AR?
      Why were they in the line of fire? Because gunman sought them out.
      Why did the gunman seek them out?

      You get the gist. Keep asking why until you can't answer it anymore and most likely you have found the root cause. Guns its not.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  2. Subedi

    The use of assault rifles is to show off, scare people and kill people, the exact things terrorists do. So, it's time for NRA to analyze: does it want to be an extremist organization or does it realize enough is enough. The NRA, legislators who oppose gun control and the common people who want to keep assault rifles all have some mental and social problems because of which they do not see and realize the truth. All who oppose the ban on destructive weapons should take responsibility of the mass shootings, specially NRA.

    December 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      Do you drink? Then the blood of the 30,000 people who die each year in DUI related incidents is on your head. You support an industry that kills many, many times more people than guns.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Reply
      • John

        BOTH are reasons to do what it takes to end the carnage. Your rational for allowing it to continue is an empty argument.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • Ben

        You are right. Drkinging and driving does kill. Thats why it is illegal. Assault rifles kill, they should be illegal too. Right?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:44 am |
      • Ben

        To be clear, I wasn't drinking when I typed that, just a case of fat fingers in the morning. Apologies for the mis-spelling.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:45 am |
      • I Am God

        Ben below is right. Drinking and driving is illegal but assault guns are not? I guess you need to figure out your priorities buckshot.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:58 am |
      • Nah

        bob: "You are right. Drkinging and driving does kill. Thats why it is illegal. Assault rifles kill, they should be illegal too. Right?"

        This would have been clever if it were analogous.

        It's more like banning alcohol completely in order to prevent people from driving drunk.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:01 am |
      • Hunter Cares

        Great comparison! Now that we have you on board, because we highly regulate cars and drinking, let's start regulating guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • Really?

        Thank you Bob!

        Next, the government will decide the fat lady at McDonald's can't buy two Big Macks.

        Really, what IS next??? Food, alcohol, tobacco? Alcohol worked out real well in the past didn't it? Tobacco is at the point now, that if you smoke; you are discriminated against.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Jim A.

        Statistically speaking, traffic deaths are DOWN compared to 20-30 years ago, due to enhanced safety features placed in vehicles by the auto manufacturers. Auto makers have significantly increased safety features such as air bags, anti-lock brakes, and rear view cameras. Yes, vehicles kill more people than guns, but I suspect the majority of the deaths are accidents due to a variety of factors. I would guess that most deaths due to guns are pre-mediatated or done in the heat of the moment because they are easy. You just cannot compare auto deaths with gun deaths. It is flawed logic. Think about it: Why are vehicles built? Why are guns built? If oyu answer honestly you see my point.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am |
      • BuckMaster

        The argument that "other" things kill people too so let's sit on our thumbs and do nothing about gun violence is both uneducated and pathetic. I also enjoy the paranoia by many of the people posting here that the government is here to take away all guns and then turn on it's own people. Listen up, morons. Taking ANY small step to prevent semi-automatic rifles from legally falling into the hands of nut-jobs is just common sense. This is coming from lifelong gun owner that uses a rifle to hunt deer, a shotgun to hunt geese, and a pistol to shoot at the range and keep my family safe. The logic (or lack of) people use in order to justify assault rifle ownership could be used to why I should own an RPG. After all, its my RIGHT isn't it? I get it though, big guns compensate for other areas where you may be lacking. Seriously, put down the kool-aid and start thinking with your own tiny domes.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am |
      • Ben

        "It's more like banning alcohol completely in order to prevent people from driving drunk".

        I disagree. Alcohol does not exist to kill and driving does not exist to kill, but the combination of the two has deadly consiquences. An assault rifle exists only to kill. That is what differentiates a assualt weapon ban from your slippery slope argument of an alcohol ban.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am |
      • Charles

        Buckmaster – thanks for being a voice of reason and common sense. I have been reading a lot of articles and comments this last week about the fallout from Newtown and the the response from politicians and the general public to revisit tougher gun control, and I am a little shocked at how few gun owners are willing to be responsible. By far, the largest group is the one that believes you need to be armed with military grade weapons to overthrow the U.S. government if it turns on you, which is a joke. For the record, I believe in gun ownership for recreation and defense of ones self and family – and you certainly don't need an AR-15 with a 30 round or larger clip to do that.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:57 am |
      • nadinesh

        Me I'm a teatotaller. But you know, if I thought that I could control your boozing and driving, I'd do it. It's just not practical. Big clups, drums and assault weapons are a whole nother story. The purpose of cars isn't to kill people; it's transportation. The purpose of handguns is to kill people. That's all they are there for.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am |
      • abc

        Bob, really smart argument. If we follow your logic we should ban cars (as they can be used as deadly assault weapons), fatty food (due to the epidemic of coronary artery disease), salt (due to the epidemic of hypertension and kidney disease), etc. All things have the potential do to harm when used/abused... however, the primary reason they exist is for some legitimate purpose in society (e.g. cars as a means of travel).

        Assault rifles and guns in general, are meant to do one thing.... KILL (whether it be for self defense or not) AS MANY AS YOU CAN, IN THE SHORTEST TIME FRAME. And if you believe otherwise, then you are the biggest FOOL out there.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
      • Jeff

        "I disagree. Alcohol does not exist to kill and driving does not exist to kill, but the combination of the two has deadly consiquences. An assault rifle exists only to kill. That is what differentiates a assualt weapon ban from your slippery slope argument of an alcohol ban."

        Why does alcohol exist? What use does society have for it? It is not beneficial to anyone, we should ban it.

        Granted, you may say alcohol, when enjoyed responsibly, serves as entertainment, that you can enjoy partaking in with friends, that it is not hurting anyone when you use it, it is only the alcoholics and drunks that ruin lives with it. Guess what? Those of us that own guns, say the same things about them. The fact is, guns do kill people, as does alcohol. However, your resistance to alcohol being banned should give you the rationale as to why firearm owners also push against bans. Even more so, because you don't have to be a hardened criminal or someone with mental problems to kill someone while using alcohol.

        A more likely example though. It wouldn't affect the operation of cars at all to require an interlock device on EVERY automobile in America, and would drop drunk driving deaths to almost nothing within a year. Would you object to that? After all, if we can cut the drunk driving deaths in any way, isn't it worth it?

        December 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
      • Jeff

        Buckmaster and other hunters,

        While you may see no reason to support assault weapons, how long do you think shotguns will last after that, when the public finds out that with your goose loads, you are shooting a dozens of pellets with each pull of the trigger? Australia's semi-auto ban also covered both semi-auto and pump shotguns, after all, you don't need more than a double barrel for hunting. Do you think this fact will escape anti-gunners and the media after a mass shooting with a shotgun?

        How about the next DC sniper case? All of the sudden, your scoped Remington 700's are brought out as the favorite weapon of military and police marksmen, capable of killing a human from 600 yards away. Who in their right mind would need a gun capable of such accuracy and power? I mean, these weapons are more powerful and deadly than the assault weapons that are already banned, it is a loophole that we allow citizens to own them.

        I've pretty much faded out of hunting at this point in my life, instead enjoying sport shooting and collecting. I'll remember how the hunters reacted when it was weapons that didn't have a hunting purpose that they were glad to sacrifice to save theirs, when it is your turn, don't expect much help from me.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
      • bud

        your right , II AM a Navy vet I HAVE a gun my wife has one we need our guns to protect ourselfs at home you know at night time along with our alarm system ADT. COPS ARE AFTER THE FACT WE TAXPAYERS PAY THEM THEY HAVE GUNS THEY CANT BE AT MY HOME AT NIGHT THE BIG WIGS IN WASHINTON HAVE ALL THE PROTECTION FOR THERE LOVEONES PLUS I PAY FOR MY PROTECTION AGAIN COPS ARE AFTER THE FACT TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE GUNS . AND IF THEY DONT CHECK OUT FOR HAVING A GUN IN SCHOOL FIRE FIRE FIRE THEM LIKE YESTERDAY

        December 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
      • Ben

        @ Jeff: To be clear, I would fully support interlock devices in all cars. I see no issues with that at all. I don't propose banning alcohol, but yea, lets put an end to drunk driving.

        In the meantime, you should try to defend the ownership of assult rifles without deflecting the debate to alcohol and driving.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
      • Pepou27

        What a silly statement, if any.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Unit34A Hunter

      The presumption that people who don't toe your party line on eroding civil rights are all mentally or socially unhinged is hateful, bigoted, and the primary reason why no discussion on the subject can occur.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • carlos

      The ACLU, and its liberal supporters should step up and take responsibility for making it so difficult to lock up crazy people. Check the facts and the history on this because the media will not report it. Had it not been for the ACLU, this nut jobs mother would have had him locked up before this could have occurred.

      When the president is OK with not having secret service carry guns to protect him, inlcuding semi-auto and full-auto rifles, then I will consider getting rid of mine. If there is no reason to have these types of weapons, then why does Obama, and people like Bloomberg, surround themselves with so many people that have them and are carrying them?

      Why do the police have these guns? In my home town the cops all have an AR in their trunk.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:45 am | Reply
      • fiftysomething

        As long as people like you have guns, Obama should keep his security in place as is.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:06 am |
      • Hunter Cares

        Were you more objective you'd go study the history of your remarks and you'll see a very non-liberal name popping up: Ronald Reagan.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am |
      • TDG

        I can only say... you are a total idiot.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • RedskinsFan

        Let me explain something.

        You don't need an assault rifle. You don't need an weapon capable of automatic fire or carrying a 30 round magazine for self-defense. You can defend yourself just as well with a pistol or bolt-action rifle / shotgun in your home. You are not Jason Bourne. You are not James Bond. You are not the leader of a country and as such a potential target of assassination. You are not in a foreign country where your company, family, or self requires a bodyguard team to ensure your safety. I am a fairly avid hunter and enjoy my second amendment rights by hunting for deer, elk, and the like during hunting season. But, I also realize that there are some guns I don't need. I don't know about you, but the idea of having to have an M4 or a copy of one to feel safe in my home would make me look for a new home elsewhere.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am |
      • carlos

        The 2nd ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • carlos

        If an ARs "only purpose" is to kill as is the argument, Then why are they fired thousands and thousands of times daily, where 99.9999999% of those firings are not intended to kill anything. I have personally fired weapons multiple thousands of times and have yet to do so in an attempt to kill anything. The lack of logic in these gun ban types of arguments is astounding!

        So booze must only exist so that someone can misuse it?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Jack Rivera

      Every time a liberal wants to belittle another person, they call them "extreme". The only extreme thing I see are people putting on their own shackles by allowing more and more government power, now that is extreme!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:46 am | Reply
      • John

        It would appear that you live under a rock, if you think that conservatives are not guilty of the same behavior. Give it a rest bud.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
      • Charles

        You appear to be paranoid and delusional and should therefore not be allowed to own a gun of any kind. It's people like you posting on these discussion boards that make me believe more than ever that we need stricter gun regulation. By the way, by regulation I don't mean banning of all guns, just regulating them more carefully.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • nadinesh

        wah, wah, wah. Fact is, this issue is changing minds on both sides of the divide all over the place. I've become willing to concede handgun ownership, although I used to be strongly opposed to it. People who used to support assault weapon private ownership have decided they now think it's prudent to ban them. If you find yourself stranded all one side of this particular argument, then you probably are rather extreme right now.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • Amused

        Some men with tiny penises buy big impressive trucks or motor cycles to make up for their impotence. Others carry guns. Now the citizens of the United States have awakened to the EXTREME dangers posed by self-seving "gun enthusiasts" such as yourself and will no longer tolerate your abuse of OUR public safety! Sooo, Boo Hoo, in the future you may find your previously UNLIMITED gun options being severely limited from now on. These safety improvements are LONG OVERDUE! Deal with it.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Gene

      How do you define assault rifle?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:15 am | Reply
      • Serena

        Good question, as the term "Assault Rifle" was originally coined by Adolph Hitler to describe the Sturmgewehr-44, a fully automatic weapon. The weapons being discussed such as the AR-15 are demilitarized semi-automatic weapons. Although they resemble weapons such as the M16A2, the receivers are cast differently so the parts are not interchangeable. Also, items such as bayonet lugs and other military features are removed. So what exactly defines an "Assault Rifle"? Where do you draw the line? BATFE already has weapons such as the Sturmgewehr-44 classed as destructive devices, requiring extensive background checks and a $200/year tax stamp, assumig you can find one or spare the tens of thousands of dollars to purchase one.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:34 am |
      • TAKEANOTHERLOOK

        ASSAULT RIFLE ANY SEMI AUTOMATIC OR AUTOMATIC WEAPON OF CALIBER 223 OR HIGHER CAPABLE OF OF HOLDING A MAGAZINE WITH 10 OR MORE BULLETS .

        December 20, 2012 at 11:35 am |
      • blindrage

        To defend the term Assault Rifle I would first have to have you define what you consider an Assault Rifle. For the record, the AR in AR-10 and AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle.

        Also for the record, the definition that was used in the Ban back in the 90's was so broad and so poor that many weapons that would never been seen in military use were lumped into the mix because of their features.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am |
      • the mayor of medinah

        http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

        Most nations do not use the term “assault weapon” to classify civilian weaponry. In the United States, the term was rarely used before gun control political efforts emerged in the 1980s. In 1989, California became the first U.S. state to identify and outlaw assault weapons.
        Also in 1989, the U.S. prohibited several types of semi-automatic rifles from being imported. Those rifles were among the weapons that would eventually be banned by the AWB in 1994. Many of them were a version of the Russian military’s AK-47. Several thousand of those semi-automatic rifles, which were manufactured in China, had been purchased by American gun owners.
        The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.
        Fully-automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully-automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Jeff

      If we wanted to legislate based on common sense, both sides would realize that "assault" weapons result in the deaths of so few people that it is statistically irrelevant to legislate based on them. 323 deaths occurred last year due to rifles, of which "assault" weapons are a subgroup of. The only reason they are on anyone's radar is that they are used in the media favorite rare mass shootings (and even the majority of those are handguns).

      December 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Reply
  3. abe gaskins

    Debra Maggart should be commending for sacrificing her political career and voting her conscious. This is a women who was a player in Tennessee politics and was becoming a powerful career politician. Most career politicians sacrifice their ethics and values for personal gain, be it power or money. It is rare in politics for a career politician to demonstrate such courage. We need more people like Debra. I personally have a hand gun and I hunt. That being said, there needs to be a balance. Debra brings that up in the interview. There is an old adage, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In general, the lobbying process has gained too much absolute power and is long along the way to corrupting our politician process absolutely.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Reply
    • abe gaskins

      BTW, I personally know Debra and I forgot to say, I am proud to consider her a friend.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      What is really scary is the fact she is actually one of their own flock and only deviated by small measure and yet they still crushed her. It would seem to be absolute loyalty to the the NRA's and Norquists or your out.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:29 am | Reply
      • Stephen

        An "A: student in the NRA. Now that is something to be proud of. Or is it? Gun ownership in the USA
        has reached a level of madness. Other societies live without guns where has this all gone wrong I
        ask? Perhaps a ban on organizations like the NRA would be a step forward. What do they really stand
        for? I for one can not figure it out.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • nadinesh

      well-said!!! There's way too few people on either side of the aisle about whom that can be said. That's the sort of person I want representing me in Congress.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Reply
  4. Chris M

    This reminds me of when Planned Parenthood launches an attack. It's no holds barred scare tactics all the way.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:19 am | Reply
    • Bob

      This reminds me of the anti abortion activists who lie and kill to get their way.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:28 am | Reply
    • marc

      You remind me of when morons say stupid things.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Reply
      • John

        And you speak from personal experience.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Hunter Cares

      Planned Parenthood needs to stop bombing places and SHOOTING doctors and nurses. Oh wait, that's not Planned Parenthood.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:53 am | Reply
    • nadinesh

      LOL!! The attack of the Planned Parenthood nurses!!! ROTLMAO!!!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
  5. independant mind

    there is a fundamental problem in our Government today when politicians and a cheerleading media blame special interest groups for their (Congress) inability to effect change in our laws.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Reply
    • Thatguy371

      Spoken like a true big money lobbyist

      December 20, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
  6. carlos

    We all know the left loves to exploit these kinds of events to further their agenda, playing on the emotions of the weak masses in order to get them to agree to give up freedoms in order to feel better. Rahm Emanuel was even quoted saying this. That is why they don't want to wait for ALL of the facts to come out, or for the emotional effect to wear off so that people are thinking more clearly.

    Its very sad that anyone would exploit this kind of event for pollitical gain or for pushing an agenda. It was proven during the original so-called assault weapons ban that these type of laws do nothing to curb these events or gun viollence in general.

    Think rationally, why do people call the police when there is a violent crime? Obviously because the police are armed to stop this. So if a cop where there, this could have been stopped sooner. By that reason, anyone trained to use a firearm, and possessing a firearm in a situation like this could stop the bad guy. But unfortunately, we don't allow firearms near schools. Obvioulsy, this stopped the good people from having the means to stop the bad guy, but did nothing to keep the bad guy from bringing his gun. Its really not that complex to figure out.

    If you really think that having a gun around won't stop gun violence, then why do we call the cops? And why do the cops have guns? Why does Bloomberg travel around with hired guns while professing that no one needs them? Why does the President have sooo many armed guards with all kinds of guns, including full auto? If these schools and other areas where so many inocent people congregate were guarded like we guard the President, surely this kind of thing would not happen. Obviously armed people can be used to stop armed bad guys as that is how it works for the Police, Secret Service, or any other group tasked to provide protection in this day and age.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • Jay

      You need to think rationally. Every other country that has reasonable gun control does not have this kind of violence. Doing nothing, as your country has done, doesn't solve it. Scotland banned hand guns after ONE shooting like this and it hasn't happened again. America needs to learn from other countries. Canada, which has a large hunting population, has gun control and does not have killings like this. It seems America has a mass shooting once a week. YOU NEED GUN CONTROL!! Stop supporting child murders.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am | Reply
      • carlos

        You mean like Mexico and Guatamala? They have some of the most strict gun control and some of the most violence in the world. You seem to be ignoring the social and economic differences as well as other differences amongst the countries.

        These guns are simple to make, and can easily be smuggled. Outlawing them only isures that they are in the hands of outlaws. Kinda like drug laws and prohibition.

        We should be looking more at societal issues and mental illness if we really want to prevent these types of theing from occurring.

        Think with your head and not your heart. It would be nice if we could just outlaw crime and make everyone safe, but crime is already outlawed and bad people just don't obey. We need to look for something that will actually work for these types of problems.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
      • Canada

        And what's good about it being in the hands of criminals only? well for one, we know who to suspect, it's the criminals not EVERYONE. that to me would make it easier to come down on. a mafia's smuggling of weapons is easier to track and deal with then an entire population.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • nadinesh

      "It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action." Larry Alan Burns, Conservative Republican CA judge and gun-owner

      December 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Reply
      • carlos

        Coming from someone that blamed Romney for polliticizing Bengazi when he asked questions following a tragic event. Hello, pot, meet kettle.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Charles

      Carlos, you are so misguided I don't know where to begin. Why do we call the police? Not just because they have guns, but because they are trained in how to respond and react in a variety of different situations – how to use a firearm is one very small part of their training. If you learn how to put a key into an ignition, it does not qualify you to drive.

      Why do highly visible leaders like President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have heavily armed security with automatic weapons? Because they are highly visible leaders and potential assassination targets, and because of a lot of the nut jobs on this very forum that are filled with enough rage and hatred, and who happen to own guns.

      Here is a math word problem for you: England, which has 1/5 the population of the U.S. and has an outright ban on handguns, had a total of 41 gun-related deaths in 2010, while the U.S. had around 10,000. If the U.S. had the same gun-related death rate as England, how many lives would have been saved?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Reply
      • carlos

        The police are not all that well trained unless they belong to a SWAT team. I actually train them and build ranges for them for a living. My point was that individuals can also be well trained, and as a plus they don't cost the taxpayers. I totally agree with training requirements and backround checks and mental health controls and requirements to keep firearms secure. My point is that banning guns does not work and only punishes the innocent.

        You gun ban people don't see that you are falling into the lynch mob mentality wanting to punish anyone, even those that may not be guilty, as a knee jerk reaction. Calm down and think first.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
      • Charles

        Carlos – first, I am not for banning all guns, only combat weapons that are overkill for self-defense or hunting. You and I may disagree on that, but I have not heard one rational explanation as to why every citizen has the right to a semi-automatic weapon with high capacity ammo magazines or clips. So I have no problem with some handguns and rifles.

        The approval and training process should be much more stringent – we seem to agree on that.

        I agree that a typical police officer is not as well trained as a SWAT team member, but they have had some training and experience, and I am going to venture a guess that most private gun owners have not – I would rather have a professional police officer come to my home than a private citizen whose training has come from watching Rambo and Dirty Harry movies.

        I am calm, rational, and a good logical thinker, and my reaction is not a knee jerk one in any way. I have felt this way for a long time. Newtown has shocked a lot of people into asking themselves, is our gun culture too skewed in the direction of nearly unlimited gun ownership? More people are falling on the side of yes, it needs to be changed. Again, not a total ban on guns, but much more regulation.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • abc

      Carlos, you need to read your comments and see if it actually presents a logical argument (seriously...)

      To equate the use of guns in law enforcement, civil protection (you honestly don't think that the president of the most powerful country in the world should have bodyguards armed with knives, do you?), etc. to the use of similar guns by untrained civilians is frankly, STUPID.

      And really, who defines who and what the GOOD GUYS are? Can you? You're only a "good guy" until you snap. We all think of ourselves as good, honest people, until we are presented with a serious emotional/psychological challenge (that's why there is a condition called Post-traumatic stress disorder). And in that instance, you really don't want the so called "good guy" to get his hands on an assault rifle (or on any gun for that matter).

      December 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Reply
    • Pepou27

      I get emotional when I see that in the last 4 years there has been 4 mass shootings and that this time 20 poor kids were assassinated along with 6 adults. If you don't get emotional about it and try to find AGAIN an excuse I feel pity for you as a human being.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Reply
  7. halo117a

    You gotta love those DEMONCRATS and our FAKE PRESIDENT,along with their Brain Dead Slaves the Liberals,Atheist and Gays.

    All of them want a TOTAL GUN BAN after the Sandy Hook Incident ,but yet they all support THE LEGALIZED MASS KILLINGS and even send OUR TAX DOLLARS to other Countries TO DO THE SAME....LEGALIZED MASS KILLINGS.

    It's called ABORTION.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • Jay

      I'm pretty sure your president isn't a fake. He won a second term. Bush actually lost his first term! He was your fake president.
      Why are you supportive of child killers?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:40 am | Reply
    • memyselfandi

      I I am a democrat. I am neither brain dead nor do I want a total ban of guns. Seems to disprove your point.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am | Reply
    • derp

      This liberal has no interest in taking away gun rights. I want to give every gay person on earth an AR15 so thy can go redneck hunting and rid the world of toothless morons like you.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:45 am | Reply
      • carlos

        More hate from left or from the right is not what we need, but at least we know who you are and how hate-filled your motives are.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • tribbles

      Another 'hate' induced comment from the right wing fanatics...fox news is there tv evangelical bible...ever notice there 'deep thinking' comments are always full of 'blame' for anyone thats not like them...it's comical at best

      December 20, 2012 at 11:03 am | Reply
      • SHuffler

        Fox, CNN, and many others are not news sources. They are entertainment outlets that are nothing more than mules for ad dollars. You can get more accurate news and better journalism from the trash mags in the checkout at the grocery store.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Thatguy371

      Sure is comforting to know extremist wackos like you aren't in charge of this nation. Now, if we took YOUR guns away, JUST YOURS, we'd all be safer.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:06 am | Reply
    • JK

      Quite an ignorant post. To debate you need some intelligent thoughts/comments, not just aimless ranting. But as I watch interviews with the right wingers and the NRA lovers, I realize that's all you folks do.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:10 am | Reply
    • Hunter Cares

      Shouldn't you be out stalking your next doctor or nurse shooting victim, Mr. Tiller?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:11 am | Reply
    • Charles

      Wait a second – did you have your brain revoked? Or were you held back in kindergarten 25 times?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
  8. Question

    How come no one questions the power of the Israeli lobby? Every coward on the hill does whatever they say and it gets us involved in these insane wars in the Middle East for nothing. Feinstein wants to take your guns. Schumer wants to take your guns. Lieberman wants to take your guns. Bloomberg wants to take your guns. Ask them if they'll tell the Israeli civilians to give up their guns. Ask them if they think Israel should become a diverse nation.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:35 am | Reply
    • OldJoe

      Another Hamas Troll?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Reply
    • tribbles

      The 'deep thinking' of the right wing fox news gang....lol lol

      December 20, 2012 at 10:54 am | Reply
    • Hunter Cares

      I agree with you in spirit, however, stick to the subject. We could sit here all day adding similar complaints, but that's not the purpose right now.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • ARupYOURS

      yes Sir those are just the dirty Jewbags here in America pushing the agenda of their tribe. I am pro Israel but I hate there jew buzzards who are career politicians here in America always pushing their agenda.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
  9. anchorite

    14 mass shootings this year, 58 dead, and the NRA still shouts that they are the solution to the problem. Now after #15 and 20 more kids and 6 teachers they want to "offer meaningful solutions?" Sorry, not buying it, they're just afraid they're going to lose membership. If they could make money by giving free guns to nutjobs all over the country to go into elementary schools they would. Human life has no meaning to them. Their fans shot a congresswoman in the head, killed a judge and a little girl in Arizona and they still said we need more guns to make us SAFER. These people are psychotic.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Reply
    • SHuffler

      What exactly did the NRA do in these killings? Have you checked your info? Did the killings happen in a gun free zones?
      You fail to blame the actual criminal and blame a group that has nothing to do with the crimes. Maybe you should be looking at the PTA, UAW,, PETA, or any other group as they would be just as guilty as the NRA for what criminals do.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Reply
      • nadinesh

        You're protesting too much. The NRA supports some very shadowy weapons manufacturers who have profited enormously from the scare tactics used by their NRA front to get people to buy more guns– more and more guns - bigger guns - more lethal guns - several more lethal guns. These cost a lot of money! Don't you think this is all a way to keep selling ice to the Eskimos?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • TAKEANOTHERLOOK

      AMEN SISTER...YOUR SPEAKING THE TRUTH...

      December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply
    • Amused

      I would have to assume that the NRA's recommended procedure for putting out a wildfire is to pour copious amounts of GASOLINE onto the fire! That would PERFECTLY parallel their gun policies!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
  10. Jay

    Lets use Bush style tactics to get rid of guns. If you're not for gun control you're with the child killers. Plain and simple.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • Jack Rivera

      Count me in with the child killers then.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply
      • simonfacer

        Jack Rivera – Count me in with the child killers then.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:18 am |
      • simonfacer

        That's classy : Jack Rivera – Count me in with the child killers then.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am |
      • simonfacer

        So, didn't anyone ever tell you not to say dumb things in public places: Jack Rivera – Count me in with the child killers then.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:20 am |
      • simonfacer

        At least we know where YOU stand: Jack Rivera – Count me in with the child killers then.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:20 am |
      • simonfacer

        You may want to rethink this statement: Jack Rivera – Count me in with the child killers then.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am |
      • jaman

        Simon, you may want to learn what "sarcasm" means.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
  11. L.Sanfod

    If the NRA thinks this horrendous massacre of little children is going to fade away like other incidents it is sorely mistaken. This was a day infamy and will never be forgotten. Millions of people like me will keep the memory alive for all the years to come.You can be sure of that! You cannot pull off your usual PR blitz. This time it will, absolutely not work.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am | Reply
    • SHuffler

      Amazing you have any idea what the NRA thinks. You realize the NRA has nothing to do with this murderer. This murderer was carrying and shooting the stolen guns in a gun free zone. A zone that was gun free because of folks like you. How do you feel about being a part of this mass murder of children.

      The NRA does not support crime in any manner.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:01 am | Reply
      • Thatguy371

        Actually, in reality, NRAs actions, their high pressure on legislators to tow THEIR line, that makes them responsible. Wackos shouldn't have access to guns, and auto/assault etc guns should be banned. And like L.Sanfod says, we aren't going away. Some intelligent gun control WILL become the law of the land... and that will include enough police manpower to enforce it. I've been around gun nuts. They think they should be allowed to carry whatever they want, and that thugs will still have weapons after everyone else doesn't. With the right police manpower, all of that nonsense will go away. Eventually, it will happen. May as well get used to the concept.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am |
      • nadinesh

        Sadly, they are actually more responsible for the incident than almost any other factor - even the gun fetishists. And I would add, the people behind them have made enormous fortunes in the process.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Chuck88888

      You are stupid, what does the NRA have to do with the massacre? So, you want to deny me my God-given rights & liberties due to the actions of a nut-case? God does not forget any idle word or deed and you will have to give an account on to Him on Judgement Day why were so quick to deny your fellow humans their God-given rights. Good luck, you're lib pigtard ideology won't save you!

      December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am | Reply
      • Piet

        Now this is a good one.... In which Bible did God give you the RIGHT to bear arms? I thought Christianity was about turning the other cheeck? I have seen very little Christianity in the USA, but a lot of typical Old Testamentical might is right, and revenge is king.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • nadinesh

        I'm disgusted that you take the name of G-d in support of something so evil and vicious that even Jesus specifically warned you against it. And it's necessary to repeat (constantly!! because people like you keep missing it!) that no one wants to take your handguns away - just your Bushmaster.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
      • Amused

        Excuse me Chuck, but what in the world makes YOU think that "GOD" has given YOU the "right" to own and wield any weapon of mass destruction that you desire, HMMM?????? Jusr how arrogant and self-serving ARE YOU??????

        December 20, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
  12. william dunn

    The more groups like the NRA and other increasingly wing-nut factions shift even further to the right just make the case for National Democratic candidates. If Republicans have to cow tow to nuts like Wayne LaPierre and his ilk, they won't win another Presidency in my lifetime. Some of these whack jobs make George W. look like a liberal. They should all pack up their guns and their hillbilly ideas and move to Texas, and then the normal people in the country can let them have their own country and build the electrified fence they all want in southern Texas on the Oklahoma, louisiana and New Mexico borders to keep these animals in.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Reply
    • Question

      Exactly what the Texas Nationalist Movement is doing. Only we want to keep people like you out. So grant Texas independence and we'll be on our way. If we have to fight for it that's OK too.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
      • Thatguy371

        If it were legal, the vast majority of Americans would say GO. Buh Bye! Then you outsiders would soon realize you can't support yourselves, can't maintain your roads and bridges, can't feed yourselves, can't provide proper healthcare for yourselves, etc etc., then you'd either croak off, allow Mexico to annex you as one of their states, or fade away.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am |
      • nadinesh

        Actually, I'd like to start a Facebook page or something to advocate for ceding Texas BACK to Mexico. I'd give it to them for Christmas - for free! - and throw in Oklahoma for lagniappe! But in all sincerity, there are actually a lot of sane, bright, competent people among the crazies, and they love Texas too. You don't speak for Texas, but you do speak for a cuckoo minority of wingnuts, I'm afraid. Well, we lived through the Sixties, so I guess we'll survive you too.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
      • Fed Up

        The reason the NRA is brought up in situations like this is because they are the largest gun lobby in the US. They spend their time and money trying to keep the government from regulating firearms. It's widely known that they have a tremendous amount of influence. It's fair to bring the NRA into the argument and demand that they respond to people's concerns about it. It would be a horrid society that didn't begin talking about gun control after 20 children were murdered. The Gun Nuts are a bunch of redneck yahoos who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They need to "protect themselves" on the way home from work in the middle of nowhere. I guess gangs of middle east terrorists are waiting in the bushes ready to ambush them for the 15 year old pickup truck and $2.35 in their pockets. Or maybe they are afraid of the Meth Lab dealer they owe money to.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • SHuffler

      Wingnut? You obviously have no idea what the NRA does. Your issue is that you live here in America but do not support what America stands for. Just from your asinine comment I would take the worst Texas has to offer over you any day.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
      • Thatguy371

        America doesn't support wackos doing massacres. But you can move to one of those type countries and it wouldn't bother we rationally thinking people one bit.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • carlos

      Or you could just move to a country that does not allow its people the rights that you disagree with. Seems like you should want to be around birds of a feather anyway. France isn't too bad. They don't really allow guns, or deoderant it would seem based on my last trip....

      December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am | Reply
      • Joe M

        I'd rather have b.o. and be alive, wouldn't you?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Peter

      Hillbillies and guns made us what we are. If you weren't a socialist rat you'd respect it, not belittle it.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Reply
  13. Joe M

    There is a bad guy alright – and it is the NRA. To the NRA, we the people are going to get these deadly weapons off our streets and make America safe for our children. We are going to do this, and we will gladly take these weapons right out of your cold dead hand if necessary.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:55 am | Reply
    • carlos

      We sure are seeing the true hate-filled spirit of the control freaks over this one. You guys clain to be for saving lives while wishing death on your fellow man. Quite hypocritical!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply
      • Joe M

        This is love, not hate. A parent's love for our children, all our children, which you and so many like you so sadly and shockingly seem to lack. Out of unspeakable grief comes action and that is what this is. Others who read these posts will be able to clearly discern who is the hater here.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am |
      • carlos

        @JoeM – yes, it is hate when you say you want to kill those who believe in gun ownership. Read your own post. What is funny is that you would probably need a gun in order to kill the gun owner to take her gun. So you are kinda inadvertantly admitting that perhaps guns can be the answer to a bad guy with a gun. You are just saying that everyone is a bad guy.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • Peter

        Carlos, get a life. Get an idea, one of your own, preferably. What would you do to stop this lunitic? You should be preparing for the event. Or do you never leave you mother's basement. There are more where he came from you know. What Carlos? What? Tell the rest of us who have the balls to fix it what we should do.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
      • Peter

        Sorry Carlos! I've lost track in this insane thread. I was touched by your NRA experience as an hispanic amonst the "crazy white guys". My apology for railing on you and your previous comment about the control freaks. It is nuts though, isn't it? 20 sweet hearts murdered and the libs want to control the guns, not the killers.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • Chuck88888

      So, you want to deny me my God-given rights & liberties due to the actions of a nut-case? God does not forget any idle word or deed and you will have to give an account on to Him on Judgement Day why were so quick to deny your fellow humans their God-given rights. Good luck, you're lib pigtard ideology won't save you!

      December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am | Reply
      • Joe M

        Your God given right to kill 1st graders with weapons of war? That doesn't sound like anything a loving Gos would do. Sounds more like Satan to me.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • James

      Joe M..."Take them from our cold dead hands...."

      Just HOW do you plan on doing that? ...with a GUN perhaps?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
      • nadinesh

        Nah. The other wingnuts will take care of you. :-)

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • nadinesh

      Nicely said!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Reply
    • Peter

      You'll have to. The internet makes talk really cheap, doesn't, coward. Your answer to 20 little children being murdered is social politics. What a dirt bag. My solution is: CARRY A GUN AT ALL TIMES! Precious lives depend on it.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Reply
    • Mr. N.

      No. The bad guy is the government who set up these feel-good but useless "gun-free" killing zones for our children and has been delerict in its duty to protect those rendered defenseless by law.

      A court house is a gun-free zone, but it's also full of armed deputies that can protect those who would otherwise be defenseless. No such luck for most schools.

      The question is, why aren't you blaming the government for this one? Why do you so easily take the bait from all those politicians with blood in their hands that are trying to distract us from their well-meaning, but disastrous decisions?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Reply
    • Peter

      The bad guy was an evil killer. The NRA is a organization of law abiding citizens. Your sociaist beliefs have removed you from reality. This is the pathetic liberal: Twenty beautiful innocents are destroyed, and they want to talk politics. The only thing that could have stopped this was ONE GUN IN THE SCHOOL. One bulllit in the head of this monster. Oh... that is what stopped it. Isn't it.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
      • Charles

        Peter, you and Mr. N and others like you are unable to engage in civil discourse, and can't see beyond your childish views – guns make me a real man, all you liberals are pansies, you can't take away my right to own as many guns as I want, the solution is even more guns, and so on. Go ahead and rant about your rights, insult others, refuse to think rationally. Others will do it for you, and when the law is passed, you will either abide by it, or you can become an outlaw. Then someday, someone will take your gun from your cold, dead fingers, and the world will be better for it.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  14. Martyr

    So they turned on you when you STAB them in the BACK? were they supposed to ignore you backing out on them?

    What part about an abused woman not being able to lock her gun in her own PRIVATE property car do you not get?

    Do you think the abusive husband is NEVER going to think about following her from work?

    December 20, 2012 at 10:56 am | Reply
  15. CG

    I think you guys are missing the insidious nature of the law that got Maggart defeated. No matter what your views on gun rights are, you have to admit that private property owners should have the right to say what can be done on their property. The "guns in parking lots law" would have made it illegal for a business owner, a private hospital or private university from prohibiting their employees and visitors from bringing guns onto their property. I'm no fan of Maggart, but I was glad to see that she stood up for property owner rights when she tabled the bill.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply
  16. jack

    As a gun owner, I never have joined NRA and I have pestered for over 50 years and I am 65 now. The type of people on the fringes that they attract are people I'd never for one minute assosicate with! They are very opinionated, they think their view of any topic is the only one, they believe if you have two of something, one of those belongs to them, They are called white trash and I unfortunately have had deal with them all my life! They are the good Ole White Boy Club. They make up about 50% of the NRA membership and that's my opinion and prespective from going into a few gun shops and two gun shows.

    These people treat they dogs better than their wife's or kid's. If they have a choice between hunting or shooting their guns. Hunting, Dogs & Shooting win out. A protion of them just love to hunt to kill; bird hunting, deer hunting, moose, elk, if they can hunt it legally and some illegally they will.

    It is unfortunate, because there are quite a few responsibile and good gun owners. But what the NRA has attract to it's ranks is a number fantical followers that just have to have guns. I have watched and seen more than I like guys that have 5, 10, 20 rifles spend another $1000 just for the newest, hottest, most powerful rifle or gun and I know that the wife is scraping up penny's for food and clothes for the kids.

    So, that is why I have never and will never join the NRA!

    December 20, 2012 at 10:59 am | Reply
    • carlos

      You don't get out much. So over 50 years you have been to 2 gun shows and a couple gun stores and now you know how 4 million people think? Hate to break it to you but there are people that others consider "crazy" or "nut jobs" in just about every group. I'm a hispanic memeber of the NRA and most of the "good ole white boy" club people you mentioned that I know are great people and have gone out of their way to help me in many ways and make me feel welcome even though I'm not white.

      You must just attract the wrong crowd, or else you are that crazy person around a bunch of normal people, which makes those normal people seem crazy to you

      December 20, 2012 at 11:07 am | Reply
      • nadinesh

        I'm afraid you just proved this man's judiciously stated point.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Joe Peterson

      "They are called white trash and I unfortunately have had deal with them all my life! They are the good Ole White Boy Club. They make up about 50% of the NRA membership and that's my opinion and prespective from going into a few gun shops and two gun shows."

      I guess that makes you an expert...lol

      December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Reply
    • nadinesh

      I'm surprised at the friends I have that wound up owning a gun. The recent debates have caused them to tell people about it. For various reasons, they feel they need them for security. I admit I was surprised, but I was also persuaded. I myself wouldn't own a firearm, but I can see that not everyone thinks this way. But I absolutely draw the line at gun fetishism, that is, this obsessive need to collect firepower, ever more firepower. It's a dangerous compulsion and it often comes entangled with other paranoid and unstable ideas. So yeah, I'm against the NRA and I'm in favor of much more strict limits on the ownership of these extreme weapons. None of my gun-owning friends would take the slightest offense from this opinion of mine, btw. Or they are willing to compromise - as I am.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Reply
    • Peter

      If you weren't such a liar, you would really be telling us that your a commie. That's why you have no respect for the common people, unless of course they're "marching in line with the 99".

      December 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Reply
  17. I Am God

    And this is where I see the problem with things. There are to many select groups with millions upon millions of dollars in their back pocket influencing our politics. What happened to the middle man?

    December 20, 2012 at 11:00 am | Reply
    • Peter

      He became a commie, like you. Why else would you be so concerned about the wealth of others, and what they do with it?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Reply
  18. jeremyahj

    The NRA with huge sums of money buys many politicians and scares others to do its bidding.

    Here is one possible solution to this money disparity: XRA – someone should offer an alternative to NRA, it cold be the XRifle Association – then with its nominal dues we could have a more balanced vote in Congress, as well as local elections like this one.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:00 am | Reply
  19. Pat

    I have friends who are hunters and also keep a gun in their home for protection. They dropped their membership in the NRA a few years ago because of the NRA's radical agenda. Most responsible people, even pro-gun advocates, understand that a conversation needs to be had. If decisions are made that means a waiting period for a new hunting rifle or new home protection gun, they are comfortable with that. The key word here, of course, is "responsible".

    December 20, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
    • LL

      I absolutely agree. The NRA does NOT represent all gun owners. Never has. And their power far exceeds their representation in society. Did you know that anyone who buys or refinances their home is bounced agains the terrorist watch list? But people purchasing firearms are not...thanks to the NRA. I think buying weapons is far more of a threat to society than buying or refinancing a house.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Reply
  20. LL

    You know who we haven't heard from?? Ted Nugent. Where is Ted? Oh, maybe he's in jail because Obama won. The NRA's time has come. The 99% of the country that does not belong to the NRA have had it. the 10 million or more gun owners who are not members of the NRA have had it. We are tired of a well funded fringe pushing the rest of us to live in a police state because they live their lives in fear and violence. Violent people only have one answer to every problem. More violence. Its time for the more balanced citizens to come up with reasonable solutions. And that does NOT include banning all guns. It does involve regulation and background checks. It also includes the repeal of the waivers of disability for convicted felongs. google it!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:03 am | Reply
    • fred

      i think the NRA is in trouble. they signed up just 160,000 new members in the last month.

      January 28, 2013 at 3:45 am | Reply
  21. JK

    I heard the NRA is going to change their name to the NARA (National Assault Rifles Association).

    December 20, 2012 at 11:04 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Only ignorant, clueless children use the term "assault rifle".

      December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply
      • vp

        The Bushmaster AR-15 is the commercial version of the M-16.
        Is it an "Assault-Style" weapon?

        what's YOUR term for it?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:29 am |
      • JK

        Sorry Chuck. Don't know that much about guns. Thanks for the name calling, though. Very mature.

        Why do we need the military style weapons, whatever they are called? Like, if I have the money, can I buy a tank or something, just for self defense or sport?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am |
      • Chuck88888

        "Assault" rifle is a political term used by leftists to conjure up negative images for sheelpe that are easily frightened.

        Ironically, I own a Bushmaster AR-15, and it is a semi-automatic rifle.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:39 am |
      • Charles

        Chuckster – let's not get distracted from the important point, whether or not the U.S. needs to overhaul its gun laws, by a debate over the marginal issue of the definition of assault rifle. The concept we are discussing is what types of weapons are reasonable for private citizens to own, and what type of approval process is reasonable to prevent weapons capable of killing large number of people from falling into the wrong hands. You cannot prevent acts of violence of any type, and you cannot prevent acts of violence with guns. But you can minimize them and limit the damage by eliminating semi-automatic or automatic (which I know are already regulated) weapons with large capacity ammo clips. Regardless of how you define "assault rifle" we can restrict gun ownership to weapons that are effective in defending yourself or your home, or for hunting or target shooting. Some gun enthusiasts and collectors are not going to like that, but the policy will be for good of the many at the expense of the few – that is what democracy is.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • fred

      look my 16 year old son and i are life members of the NRA. if they change there name to the national assault rifle assoc. we will be two of the first to join..

      January 28, 2013 at 3:17 am | Reply
  22. Joe Peterson

    The NRA represents many Americans who feel just as strongly about gun rights. There are many more non-members who support these ideas but for one reason and another do not join. The left is setting up the organization as whipping boy yet ignoring the legions that follow her.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:05 am | Reply
    • LL

      Joe ya been duped. The NRA is, has and will always be a lobbying firm of the gun manufacturers. They are pushing a product and want unfettered freedom to make a buck at society's expense. Find another outlet or organization that is more reasonable in their solutions to real problems

      December 20, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
  23. HJA

    "But when Maggart decided not to back a bill allowing guns in cars – even on properties where the owners did not want guns- the NRA turned against her"

    So the NRA member's right to carry a firearm is greater than a property owner's right to not have firearms on his property???? Guess what? Show up on my property with a firearm when I say no guns........She's so fine , my 29!!!!! And I don't need the NRA. I have great gun control!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Reply
  24. jnail7

    I feel our 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon for too long. Allowing us only access to semi-automatic weapons is a distracting pacifier from the 2nd Amendment's intent of the citizen's ability to challenge their government should the government turn against the people. To uphold this ideal, we need to lift all restrictions toward purchasing military grade weaponry and technology. As things currently are, we would never stand a chance on facing the military might that the government could bring down upon us. I say, we should be allowed to purchase nukes, drones, stealth bombers, ICBM's, patriot missiles, and so forth. Only then would we be truly honoring the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Can you imagine how much safer everyone would be once the general public had access to these "deterrents"? (/poe)

    December 20, 2012 at 11:10 am | Reply
    • Charles

      That is excellent sarcasm, I really like it. You realize that there are a whole bunch of people on this site that are nodding their teeny heads right now, saying "yeah, that's right!" God help us.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
  25. JK

    Two questions for the NRA folks...(1) If tighter gun regulations are such a bad thing, why do all the other developed nations (with strict gun laws) have WAY less gun related deaths than we do? WAY less, it's not even close.

    And (2) What's wrong with only hunting rifles? No handguns and certainly no assault rifles.

    And (3)...a bonus question...Why assault rifles and magazine clips? Seriously.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • Jamie

      South Africa is only one example of stricter gun laws and a higher per capita murder rate (like 8 times). The UK has very strict gun laws and a much higher violent crime rate (again per capita).

      Not only is your logic faulty, but your statement is false.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply
      • Piet

        Jamie – The previous poster was talking about gun related deaths....

        And South Africa is a bit of an outlier. And in any case, even though I am an South African, I am not certain that it is a "developed" nation.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:50 am |
      • JK

        Check out this site Jamie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Mr. N.

      Because people want oversimplification, not reality. Comparing two very different countries with different cultures, values, etc. in superficial things such as gun control, is just idiocy.

      What about Mexico, for example, 16,000+ deaths in 2011, and some of the tightest gun control laws in the world? See how idiotic comparisons based solely on gun deaths and gun control laws can be?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • the mayor of medinah

      Why not only pint bottles of booze and nopt 1.75 liter bottles? Why not limit booze to 40 proof and not 190 proof?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • fred

      let's see JK, in answer to your question. there are 111 countries with higher homicide rates than the U.S. all have very strict anti-gun laws. you know i could out argue you left wingers on the facts all day long. but you liberals never let facts get in the way of your flawed logic.

      January 28, 2013 at 3:52 am | Reply
  26. bp

    The NRA is the focus of evil in America today.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:18 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      No, people like you are the evil ones.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Reply
      • Charles

        Chuckster – you are so quick with an insightful, witty reply that instantly cuts to the heart of the issue and so elegantly, too. Winston Churchill had nothing on you.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
  27. Jamie

    I am very representative of this. I am a white male in a swing state (NC) who votes Democratic almost 100% of the time. I would be described as "liberal and proud", but I will work hard and long to oust any politician that supports gun control legislation.

    I hope President Obama realizes that this issue could do much more to damage the mid-term chances of his party than even The Affordable Care Act did in his first. Gun control legislation will lead to the wide spread ouster of Democrats from both houses of congress, guaranteed. This is the exact issue that will get the GOP "back in the game".

    December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Reply
    • JD

      Agreed! This is a big risk for them, and they seem to get stuck on it every time.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Reply
  28. Andrew

    Guns don't keep us free. They enslave us to FEAR.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      The Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:23 am | Reply
      • JK

        You don't have a clue what the Founding Fathers meant with the 2nd amendment.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • vp

        ty jk

        December 20, 2012 at 11:38 am |
      • Michael

        You have no clue what the Founding Fathers would say. If you profess understanding of what the Founding Fathers were thinking while crafting the 2nd Amendment, then go back to your single shot, non-rifled muzzle loading pistols and muskets, for THOSE were the weapons in existence in the late 1700's, not the high powered, semi-automatic, rifled barrels fed by grossly oversized magazines that have allowed such carnage as we've seen in recent years. So tell me true: what would YOU suggest? Bear in mind that "some" have defunded many programs aimed at mental health and awareness. So what is your plan? Seriously. Give me a well thought out plan of action that will preclude such a tragedy from happening again in my lifetime. I'll wait ....

        December 20, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • vp

      Was Nancy Lanza in a "well-regulated militia"?!

      December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
    • JD

      Both Washington and Jefferson would disagree with you. Look at their writings, the second amendment was inserted to keep us free, sorry it is a fact.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Reply
    • JD

      Sorry, they do keep us safe. Girl of 12 shoots home invader. Here is the link.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

      December 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Reply
      • Amused

        That is an EXTREMELY RARE event! Certainly NOT the norm by ANY stretch of the imagination! There are THOUSANDS of incidents of gun related casulties and deaths for every ONE of those RARE "saved by a gun" events! Give me a break!...

        December 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
      • JK

        Anecdotal evidence.

        Did she have an automatic weapon with magazine clips?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  29. Brian

    Banning Assault weapons will not make a difference. Assault weapons are used in less that 2% of violent crimes in America. The problem isn't guns, the problem is the lack of education involved with the use of guns. Do we ban cigarettes when we know they will kill more people in this country then anything guns will ever do? No we don't. We educate our youth on the dangers associated it. Please don't tell me cigarettes don't commit mass murder because they do. Blaming guns for violent deaths is like blaming greed on monopoly. Think of Crack and Meth, its illegal in this country, does that stop people from getting it? It does not get to the root of the issue. Furthermore holding Europe as the example of gun control makes no sense considering how many American lives were lost fighting TWO world wars there. What we need is education in our classrooms and Strict background checks. If your a felony, you can not legally own a gun, If you are diagnosed with a certain severity of mental illness you are restricted to owning a single gun or not at all.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Reply
  30. Kevin Wu

    Doesnt this seem like what's CNN doing now? Making NRA look like they're against anti-gun Americans so the gun control laws can pass. Sure seems that way.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Reply
  31. Joe M

    Your God-given rights to own weapons of war to kill 1st graders with? That doesn't sound like anything a loving God would do. That sounds more like Satan to me.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:23 am | Reply
    • Kevin Wu

      I'm not sure what you're talking about but gun owners don't buy guns to kill 1st graders.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Wow you are deranged, just like Adam Lunza. You can kill 1st grades with fertizlier, bricks, baseball bats, cars, rat-poison, alcohol, and airplanes too! Should we ban those too?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:27 am | Reply
      • vp

        We do "regulate" several of those items you listed, Chuck, none have been 'banned'

        December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • JK

        You can defend with those things too.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am |
      • Amused

        Apples and Oranges CHUCK! "fertizlier, bricks, baseball bats, cars, rat-poison, alcohol, and airplanes" ALL have useful purposes OTHER than murder! GUNS DO NOT! The one and ONLY purpose of a gun is the KILL! It is that simple! And of course, I already know that your answer will be "Guns have a benificial purpose for target shooting" , right? And WHY do you "NEED" to practice shooting, hmm? To KILL more effectively! So, KILLING really IS the ONLY purpose for a gun!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  32. BobZemko

    If assault weapons are banned, what will men with tiny d*cks do to overcompensate?

    December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
    • Lord Toronaga

      I suppose they will revert back to being gay.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Please define assault weapon? Any object used to assault someone is a "assault weapon"....please use adult terms not childish ones.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:29 am | Reply
      • vp

        Let's use the terms Automatic and Semi-automatic then.....

        Do bullets automatically get reloaded?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • Chuck88888

        Fair enough, vp. BTW, automatic weapons are already banned A lot of anti-gun nuts do not realize that fact.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Amused

      Well, they can still buy 4 wheel drive trucks!

      December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  33. NS

    I am skeptical that it is the money that is making a difference in all of this. The total amount of money that the NRA spends is pittance as compared to that spent on elections. These congressmen are in conservative areas where people want guns and that's why the NRA has influence. The day that conservatives in general accept that owning guns does not mean no restrictions then they will come out and support these congressmen. The Koch brothers if they decided to support some restrictions could bury the NRA with money. The day that a Hannity or Limbaugh decided they want to support some restrictions the NRA will be gone in five seconds flat.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
  34. vp

    Ironic that the NRA use terrorist tactics to shore themselves up.....

    December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
  35. Lord Toronaga

    The NRA did not defeat her. The people who make up the NRA voted her down. She took on a political position that was not popular. Everyone needs to stop blaming the NRA if they lose their support.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
    • Kevin Wu

      I agree with you. When one gets into politics, they gotta watch what they are doing. She can't blame anyone for her loss.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Reply
    • vp

      Over 100,000,000 Americans voted; there are ~4 million NRA members.

      Their outsized influence is monetary and through intimidation.

      nice.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:27 am | Reply
      • Lord Toronaga

        And just how did they intimidate you ? Through making good arguments that you couldn't defeat ? Sour Grapes...

        December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am |
      • vp

        Did you read the article? about Miss Maggart?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:34 am |
      • Lord Toronaga

        I did. She lost the argument. The NRA confronted her view point through a very effective display of free speech methods. Why would I not like the NRA ? They are very much like CNN who also uses their media outlet to get their message across. Amanpour & Maggart don't like anyone who beats them in a fair fight.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  36. TAKEANOTHERLOOK

    THE NRA IS NOTHING BUT ANOTHER MAINLY WHITE HATE GROUP THAT OPERATES SIMILARLY AS ANY PAC...
    THE POWER TO VOTE HAS SHIFTED TO WOMEN AND MINORITIES.. IF THEY DON'T GET SOME DIVERSITY IN THE NRA MEMBERSHIP THEY WILL SOON BE IN DECLINE.. BTW.. THE VIEWS OF THE NRA ARE IN THE MINORITY IN THIS COUNTRY.
    YOU DON'T SEE NO WORLDWIDE NRA.. DO YA..

    December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      The views of the Founding Fathers were also a minority viewpoint at the time.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply
    • Lord Toronaga

      I'm sure the gay argument was once a minority view, something I'm sure you are familiar with...

      December 20, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
  37. sly

    Our country will not be safe until we arm all children 10 and above with submachine guns.

    Or teachers. That way, when a 1st grader acts up, the teacher just sprays him with bullets, 'the NRA way'.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:36 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Straw man arguements, typical tactic of the left.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am | Reply
  38. Compromise

    I just have one question. Honestly, why is it that every Republican I know is always so NEGATIVE? Whether its guns, Christianity, abortion, taxes, welfare, etc. I can never even engage in a calm, rational discussion. Every time I state my beliefs, unfortunately, I am met with ANGER. You know you get a lot more bees with honey than with vinegar.....

    December 20, 2012 at 11:37 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Well, compromise, what to you want to discuss?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
      • JD

        We need to define exactly what an assault rifle is. In California assault rifles are banned, but citizens can still own military looking versions of an AR-15 or AK-47, but they don't function the same as an assault rifle because their magazines are fixed, non- detachable and limited to ten rounds. If you want to remove the magazine, you have to use a tool to do so. The effect of this is increase the amount of time it take to change a magazine. As a gun owner, I think this is perfectly acceptable combined with stringent background checks and at least a ten day waiting period. This is California law and it is sensible. However, I disagree with the idea of banning a gun simply because people don't like the looks of it, or the fact that it looks like a military weapon. It about how they function. People argue against the slippery slope argument, but in California it is a fact. Here, the state government would love to ban all firearms, and have made legislative attempts to do so despite the fact that very few crimes have occurred with California legal AR-15s.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
      • Libertarian

        JD - Fellow Californian here. Agree with you on all points. Don't ban something because of what it LOOKS like. The firearms available here in CA should satisfy all needs and desires for those wishing to own one, and the laws regulating them are strict enough. Apply these Federally and be done.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • JK

      I've noticed this too Comprimise. Thanks for pointing it out. Ol' Chuck is a good example right here. Just think if we all were talking in person. Chuck would be screaming his nonsense instead of typing it.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
    • Libertarian

      Funny, but what you are describing here is exactly what I see being posted by those who are clearly Dems. If a point of view is disagreed with, then all one gets in return are personal attacks. It is going both ways folks, so nobody is holding the higher ground when discourse devolves to name calling and finger pointing.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
  39. Terry

    Man, just love the hate on the boards. Here is a novel idea, right now you have the main anti gunners sitting down to decide the policy concerning gun rights (To address those who bring up other countries they do not have a right to guns we do), why not bring in those like the NRA instead of attacking them and starting a war before anything is done at all? If you want to fix this issue then everyone has to get together. You can not have either working by themselves and then think something is actually going to get accomplished that will benefit all of us. The courts have upheld the 2nd Amendment time and time again...you are not going to get rid of guns. DC tried that and they got an increase in crime and their ban was overturned.

    The assault weapons ban...that is the most over used term in this fight. What did it do to stop violence in schools? Nothing, because it was knee jerk reactionary politics. The only thing it did was change the outward appearances of weapons but not the mechanics. Removed the flash suppressor, bayonet stud, pistol grip, made the barrels longer, and reduced the ammo clip. Same gun just a different style and sold under a different name. Did nothing to address gun shows, mental illness ownership, or get rid of clips and guns already out there. It only increased the price and gave us a false sense of security. The shoot out in LA and Columbine being prime examples of that ban working.

    We have a right to guns as dictated by our 2nd Amendment that can not be taken away but we do need to come together to protect our kids. Lets not just react but be proactive and get all involved for something that benefits us all!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:39 am | Reply
  40. Hyde

    Want to end violence?
    BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES.
    Do we really want to teach kids to behave this way?
    KIds play those games for HOURS at a time.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:39 am | Reply
  41. Harald

    The way I see it, the NRAshould be considered a terrorist group, although it's a different kind of terrorism and in some ways it's more subtle.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:40 am | Reply
  42. HenryMiller

    The NRA wouldn't be as powerful as it is unless hundreds of millions of Americans agree with its principles–the political risk isn't in disagreeing with the NRA, it's disagreeing with the millions of people who support the NRA with their money and their efforts.

    I've never killed anyone with any of my guns, and the same can be said of 150 million American gun owners. That a handful out of that 150 million do terrible things with guns is no justification at all for blaming the rest of us for the tragedies they cause.

    When I was a kid, in elementary school, some other kid in the class–I never knew who–threw something at they teacher. The kid who did it wouldn't admit it and no one would tell on him, so the teacher handed out some global punishment on the entire class. That's exactly the anti-gun crowd is trying to do, punish the 99.9999 percent of gun owners for the actions of, in this case, one insane kid.

    (Followup: I was outraged at the unfairness of the teacher's action back then and refused to cooperate with it: I refused to take the punishment, whatever it was, thereby getting myself in a fair amount of trouble–for refusing to be punished for something I hadn't done. Now, half a century later, I stand by my childhood outrage and would do it again. And I'll do it yet again if the anti-gun crowd tries to punish me now for things I haven't done.)

    December 20, 2012 at 11:40 am | Reply
  43. Lord Toronaga

    You never see the NRA boycotting businesses, storming public buildings and destroying other peoples property. Maybe you should talk about the recent union activity and others of their ilk instead of complaining about the effective use of the NRA's free speech guarantee.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Reply
    • The Real Tom Paine

      Boycotts? The NRA has employed them to destroy people who dare to break with them. As far as storming public building and destroying other peoples' property are concerned, I seem to remember NRA members supporting the Tea party, toting guns in a blatant display of intimidation. Free speech also implies responsible speech, something the NRA has stopped employing a long time ago.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
    • Lord Toronaga

      Really now. NRA brandishing weapons... What I do recall was the Wisconsin teachers unions storming the capital buildings and the recent union loss to the "right to work" law. Or how about Cick-fil-A..

      December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
      • Michael

        Really? You bring up Chik-fil-A? No Lord Toranaga here, just a simple-minded kamikazi. Your bias becomes more and more evident with every reply/statement you issue forth. Which flavor of the Faux News Kool-Aid are you drinking this week? Cherry? Remove thine blinders, man, and see the Truth, perchance for the first time in your life. See the situation for what it actually is and not thee hate that some Murdoch-owned media outlet wants you to see/think/feel. Go research the term "Fascist" then get back with me ...

        December 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
  44. Common Sense

    The purpose of the suggested ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines is simply to reduce or prevent mass killings like we have seen over the last 10 years – all of which have been committed with what are considered "assault weapons". Nobody from the government has suggested banning all guns and nothing like that is in any of the bills that are being put together. People need to step back, take a deep breath and analyze what is actually being put forward for debate. Do not let your fear, left or right, blind you to what is actually being proposed. Use your common sense and ask yourself, "in the 21st century are these kinds of weapons and ammunition really needed in the hands of everyday citizens? are handguns not appropriate for self-defense?" Let your answers to those questions guide your response to this debate, not the left's fear of living under a hail of bullets daily or the right's fear of an authoritarian state. Neither are going to happen.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply
  45. Sagebrush Shorty

    How about the risk of disagreeing with Obama?

    December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply
    • Michael

      So you're siding with the shooter?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Reply
  46. bev

    Seems to me that Debra Maggart was very honest with her campaign platform. She said what she stands for, unlike that Scott desJarlais from TN, the tea party candidate–who ran on pro-life and his wife had two abortions & he tried to get his mistress to have one and the irony of it all, he got reelected, amazing. Was originally from the south years ago and saw exactly how southerns are, left and never regretted it. They will never forget the civil war and always want to fight about everything. My life has been more peaceful here in the West with great and wonderful people. Every time I go for a visit can't wait to get back to Montana. These guys will elect anybody that wants to constantly fight about stupid stuff!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply
  47. Alec

    Wow this is an unreal CNN liberal spin. Anyone who went through this knows Debra flipped after she was in office. It had nothing to do with her being betrayed, it had to do with her betrayal! She changed, not the NRA and not the voters. This article is pure poison. Debra needs a lesson in staying true to your word.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:49 am | Reply
    • TNPatriot

      Alec, you surely proved that you know NOTHING about this woman. She NEVER changed her platform or her policies.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  48. Joe

    America has the let go of the gun fetish and paranoia. Give me one single reason why ANYONE needs an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine? You know other than to kill. Also, Gun murders last year:

    England – 39
    Spain – 60
    Germany – 194
    Canada – 200
    U.S. – 9,484

    But no, guns aren't a problem. Keep on keeping on America!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Chuck88888

      Cherry-pick much?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
      • Joe

        Murder much?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am |
      • Chuck88888

        Wow Joe, you are an angry little boy. To falsely accuse me of murder will send you to hell.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
      • Michael

        Forgive me, Joe, for answering in your stead: No.
        So tell me, Chucky, research much? Think much?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • JD

      We need to define exactly what an assault rifle is. In California assault rifles are banned, but citizens can still own military looking versions of an AR-15 or AK-47, but they don't function the same as an assault rifle because their magazines are fixed, non- detachable and limited to ten rounds. If you want to remove the magazine, you have to use a tool to do so. The effect of this is increase the amount of time it take to change a magazine. As a gun owner, I think this is perfectly acceptable combined with stringent background checks and at least a ten day waiting period. This is California law and it is sensible. However, I disagree with the idea of banning a gun simply because people don't like the looks of it, or the fact that it looks like a military weapon. It about how they function. People argue against the slippery slope argument, but in California it is a fact. Here, the state government would love to ban all firearms, and have made legislative attempts to do so despite the fact that very few crimes have occurred with California legal AR-15s.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Reply
    • Mr. N.

      How about Mexico? 16,266 in 2011

      With some of the tightest gun control laws in the world.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • jean

      Joe – I presume your interest, as well as the interest expressed by others, in gun control is due to the fact that you care deeply about life and the safety of others. Please add to your list the 1.2 million deliberate deaths each year to abortion in the United States. Makes your argument for life and safety rather shallow, doesn't it? 1.2 million dead kids to abortion is one hell of a lot of death and destruction compared to gun deaths.

      December 29, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  49. Ian Thompson

    For all the Bubba's out there....you and your spouse take your young children or grandchildren to the mall to see Santa. The kids are so excited. After telling Santa what they would like for X-mas, you take them to the food court for lunch. Your wife is sitting beside you, the young ones across from you. Suddenly, you hear a commotion behind you. In a flash, there is a semi-automatic assault weapon being discharged. As quick as you can, you rise up, fumble with your weapon as you turn to see where the gunfire is coming from, and then once you have your beloved gun in hand, you need to take a couple of steps to your side to avoid shooting the person standing between you and the shooter. This whole things takes about 10-15 seconds (that is assuming you have your wits about you in this moment of sheer panic and chaos). You shoot, and drop the shooter. Adrenaline is running through your veins. You automatically think wow, I am a hero. I killed the bad guy. You turn quickly to share this excitement with your wife and kids (grandkids). Unfortunately, in those 10-15 seconds, the madman was able to get enough shots off to kill a number of people in the area, including the 2 kids, who are now laying in a pool of their own blood, their bodies lifelless. Your wife is a little more fortunate, the wound she has sustained is not fatal. Nope, it leaves her in a vegetative state, that is likely to endure for the rest of her life. So now, the question is, should you be proud of your self-assumed bravery and heroism, or should you feel utterly useless, and ashamed at your utter lack of bravery for not standing up and demanding an end to the lunacy of legal assault weapons.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:50 am | Reply
    • Tom

      Thank you. So let me get this straight.....we should listen to and follow a bunch of southern inbreeds with IQs of 80 that spend their days on the back of pick up trucks, unemployed drinking beer, polishing shotguns and hating anyone who is against their beliefs? That makes sense. THANK GOD. These people are the only hope for our country's future. Being WHITE, (oblivious of the fact that their ancestors were from other countries and races) they are God's chosen people and know what is best for our country. Let's all put on Charley Daniels and drink a shot of Jack in tribute to their superiority.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
  50. JohnParryJones

    The NRA is not satan. Killers are. Take on the killers, not the NRA.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
  51. They don't give a damn

    They (NRA) don't give a damn about your kid's gurgling sounds and last breath.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
    • Alec

      That is a sick statement. You honestly believe 4 million NRA members believe that? Who's not living in reality? Sheesh, you should put in a job app to CNN, maybe you can do interviews with Piers.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply
  52. Bill C

    The hypocrisy of the left is astounding. More children are murdered every day in the euphemistic name of "choice" then were killed in Newton, CT. But do you see the left railing agaisnt the abortion public interest groups? Of course not? Do these children get a press conference featuring the president's tears? No. Why? Because the left is more enslaved to the abortion lobbyists then the right is to the NRA. Pure hypocrites.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • Joe

      Murder much?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am | Reply
    • Michael

      I fully support the right of a woman to have complete privacy over her reproductive rights. I personally disagree with the sentiment that "life begins at conception" for I do not think that 99% or the population not directly involved in health care could properly identify a fetus in the early term, especially one showing a tail, gills or webbing between the digits ... and do not consider an embryo as "human" until it is capable of sustaining life outside the womb AND is self aware. I am especially, and strongly, against anyone telling a woman that she must bear to term the spawn of a rapist. If those that choose to dictate such a personal decision on a woman are willing to raise to adulthood each and every instance, then we might have something to talk about ... until then, stay the hell out of other people's business. [End Of Rant]

      December 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Reply
  53. John

    Oh Yes, the Storm Trooping NRA – By God you'll you think and believe as we dictate to defend our liberty or you're out of here!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
  54. kate

    It is a sad day in America when we let the NRA decide you stays in and who doesn't. That is next to communism. This country just buried 20 little children and they will never get to live their lives. We also buried 6 adults who were good citizens of this country. I am behind these parents 100% on gun control on automatic weapons. Lets honor these children and adults and never, never, never forget them.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
    • Lerianis

      The NRA didn't decide anything, the people of that state did based on the information and PoV's given by the NRA and other political agencies.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Reply
      • kate

        The used their money to lobby the "right" people in Congress and put alot of money towards people who support their murderous agenda. The children were tore apart by assault style weapons.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Alecks Jones

      Those kids and teachers died in the line of DUTY, and NOT by gunfire! Besides, according to several NRA sources, it was all a HOAX created by the gun grabbers so the NWO can ENSLAVE and TYRANNIZE us!! 1776 shall COMMENCE AGAIN!!!

      January 15, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Reply
  55. john

    The bill that Debra Maggart opposed was and is still being looked at here in TN. The bill allows people to take their gun to work (must have a carry permit and be locked up in the car) the bill is opposed by most businesses in the state and if passed will cost the state future business investment many foreign businesses have already chose new locations because of the fear of the bill passing. The article mentions the guns in bars as long as you don't drink law that was passed it didn't mention however the lawmaker who sponsored that bill was arrested for DUI and having a loaded gun.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
  56. jhatten

    Look. I don't care for politics. Right wing, liberal, etc. Screw all the terms or the lobbying for either side of gun control.

    It really comes down to this.

    No one in this country, except for our military, need assault rifles or high capacity ammo clips. Why in the world does anyone need one except, I dunno , maybe shoot up a school.... or a mall.... or a school....

    Do you really think its going to be Red Dawn v3.0 ? That we are going to be invaded so you need the firepower?

    Handguns , shotguns, and the like are fine for hunting and self preservation against predators. There is no need for an Assault Rifle, period. Anyone that argues against it, is a complete moron.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am | Reply
    • Lerianis

      Yet the statistics prove otherwise, because no true assault weapon (hold trigger and it keeps on firing) has ever been used in a school shooting or otherwise. The weapon used in this case was a SEMI-automatic, meaning one bullet for every pull of the trigger. Well, my .22 plinking rifle has that and it holds 15 bullets at a time.

      You're trying to take my rifle away from me? Not cool, bro.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
  57. Bill D.

    President Obama doesn't have to worry about me and my guns. He should be more concerned with Eric Holder and HIS guns. I'm responsible with my guns, Holder isn't

    December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am | Reply
  58. Bill D.

    President Obama doesn't have to worry about me and my guns. He should be more concerned with Eric Holder and HIS guns. I'm responsible with my guns, Holder isn't.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Reply
  59. muVu

    THE NRA ARE AMERICANS....U.S. CITIZENS.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Reply
  60. NEW WORLD ORDER

    Obama Orders Children Murdered – YOUTUBE IT

    December 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
  61. VTGuy

    NRA, teachers unions, etc.... they all spend big bucks gettiing their folks elected... or other run out of office. Hey liberal lefties, why is the NRA a bad guy for spending money like this and the unions are ok to do the same?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
  62. Clyde

    I have a suggestion – Lets force our legislators to pass laws that allow people to carry guns into Statehouses, the U.S. Capitol Building, and all courthouses (including the supreme court) in the country, wiith no restrictions as to where in those buildings they may take those guns. If legislators are going to pass laws that allow folks to carry guns into our workplaces then it would be only fair. My bet is that if this were to take place you'd see some reasonable gun laws put in place pretty quickly.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
  63. JD

    I agree with California law. In California, magazines are fixed with a bullet button to make them removable, and limited to ten rounds. The version of an AR-15 here, looks like an assault rifle, but it is not because the magazines are not easily removed with out the use of a tool. In addition there are stringent background checks and a 10 day waiting period. As a gun owner I am perfectly happy with this. There is no need to punish law abiding citizens.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Reply
  64. Bonnie

    The NRA is not simply a lobbying organization. They are extreme bullies and use frightening tactics, as they just did against the Rhode Island professor who dared to speak against them He's receiving death threats – that is NOT lobbying; that's terrorizing, pure and simple. I personally know the families of legislators in my state who have received anonymous threatening phone calls when those legislators spoke against things like carrying loaded guns into state parks, courthouses, etc. So the threat of not being re-elected pales when you also have to worry about your own life or those of your loved ones.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
    • fred

      i have a few statistics here for all you anti-gun nuts. not that you give a dam about facts. from the FBI and Centers for disease control. the top 10 causes of death in the U.S. in 2012. #1 is tobacco = 529,000, medical errors=195,000, accidents =118,000, alcohol abuse = 107,000, auto accidents = 35,000, drug overdose =32,000, and down the list is firearm related at #10 = 11,000. they don't even include abortion at nearly 1,000,000. now let's see, what kills more. guns or abortion doctors ?

      January 28, 2013 at 4:10 am | Reply
  65. mzarts

    Isn't it time for this country's leaders to stop being bullied and held hostage by the NRA?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
  66. FatherOF2

    There is a lot of anger out there and it's not without warrant. I'm an NRA member and have been one for 20 years but I'm also educated and understand that the NRA has always had an agenda, it's to make money and lots of it. If you stand in their way, they crush you. I don't support everything they put out there like liberals want to take our guns away, I believe we do have the right to bear arms and that will never go away. In fact you should read the bill that was put forth, it gives more insight as to what kind of assault rifles they would like to ban, it's not all assault rifles. Before you call out a hypocrite, you should go to government websites and take the time to read what bills are being pushed, what has passed and who was a part of it. Then look at the lobbyists, there is ALWAYS an agenda. You may not always agree with some comments when someone expresses with anger and it's understandable, I don't either. However, if you're not a father you may not understand because you don't have a child to lose. I'm in a hospital right now with my second new born and I would do anything to protect both of my children and my family but think with a sound mind and ask yourself "do I really need an assault rifle that holds 30 rounds to do that, and do I want these type of guns to have event the slightest chance of getting in the wrong hands?" If so you need to head to the range and get more practice on your aim. Our children and families come first!

    December 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      BINGO! Bravo my friend. Congrats on your new child! Best wishes this holiday

      December 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
      • FatherOF2

        Thank you and happy holidays to you and your loved ones!

        December 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
  67. Tutuvabene

    What does someone need a rapid fire assault rifle for? There is no legitimate hunting purpose for such a thing. A strict system, such as in Germany, where ownership is channeled through shooting clubs, still provides enough freedom to legitimate activities like hunting and exert some control over the firearms out there.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Reply
    • JD

      We need to define exactly what an assault rifle is. In California assault rifles are banned, but citizens can still own military looking versions of an AR-15 or AK-47, but they don't function the same as an assault rifle because their magazines are fixed, non- detachable and limited to ten rounds. If you want to remove the magazine, you have to use a tool to do so. The effect of this is increase the amount of time it take to change a magazine. As a gun owner, I think this is perfectly acceptable combined with stringent background checks and at least a ten day waiting period. This is California law and it is sensible. However, I disagree with the idea of banning a gun simply because people don't like the looks of it, or the fact that it looks like a military weapon. It about how they function. People argue against the slippery slope argument, but in California it is a fact. Here, the state government would love to ban all firearms, and have made legislative attempts to do so despite the fact that very few crimes have occurred with California legal AR-15s.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Reply
    • joecarpenter

      They are fun as hell to shoot. Also, there is a difference between an assualt rifle which the military has and what we the public can get which is a semi-auto.

      An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
      Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80.
      The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union led the way with the AK-47, and other nations followed later. Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200–300 meters distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried.

      Definition
      The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
      The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
      • It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
      • It must be capable of selective fire;
      • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
      • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
      • And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

      December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Reply
      • Wallace Campbell

        You can easily tell at a glance if a comment is pro-gun simply by the length of it. Long-winded "article" equals pro-gun rant filled with padded stats, random numbers, and spurious studies. Here's an abbreviation I feel is appropriate to highlight at this time: tl;dr (too long, didn't read)

        January 15, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
    • JD

      I don't think you want to use Germany as a model. Adolf Hitler proudly boasted about being the first nation to register all guns, and then took them away, and put millions of people into death camps.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
  68. Gary Z.

    What is the difference between the NRA and a big Workers Union? They both pour money into politcal campaigns. Oh I know the liberals and Obama support one and not the other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Reply
  69. RedskinsFan

    I honestly still don't understand this. Look, no one is saying that we should ban all guns. Well, the real crazies are.. but then, be honest: Does thinking that a man should be able to buy an Uzi, MP5, or M4-type rifle for "personal protection" also not sound a little crazy? I have a shotgun and a rifle that I use to hunt game with, and I am fairly confident that that is enough. I can see an argument for a pistol for home defense (Stand Your Ground laws are just stupid... what ever happened to backing down when you can?) but I have never seen a viable argument for letting the general public have military/ police / SWAT – calibre hardware. Sorry, but I think my manhood is fine just the way it is.

    As for the politician, here is her argument: It is my home. If I invite you over and you know I don't allow smoking, should you expect to smoke in my house? No. So, why would you be surprised if I ask you to leave your gun outside? Maybe the owner doesn't want them on their property. I remember being taught: Their house, their rules. Honestly, if you don't trust them enough to leave your personal weapon outside after they invite you over or after you go into their establishment, why are you even going? I think letting people carry a gun into a bar is already borderline stupid. Some people already are belligerent enough when they get drunk. I don't think introducing a firearm into that equation is all that intelligent. Maybe someone gets in a fist fight, but most likely they will only walk away with minor injuries. This is the kind of thinking that most rational people in this country used to follow. Remember the movie "Friday"? "You win some. You lose some. But you live. Everyone lives."

    December 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Reply
    • FatherOF2

      Well said!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      BINGO! Bravo my friend. Congrats on your new child! Best wishes this holiday season :)

      December 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Reply
    • RedskinsFan

      I should clarify that I have a bolt-action rifle. I don't see a problem with a non-bolt action hunting rifle, some good ones exist with small magazines that are semi-automatic

      December 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • JD

      We need to define exactly what an assault rifle is. In California assault rifles are banned, but citizens can still own military looking versions of an AR-15 or AK-47, but they don't function the same as an assault rifle because their magazines are fixed, non- detachable and limited to ten rounds. If you want to remove the magazine, you have to use a tool to do so. The effect of this is increase the amount of time it take to change a magazine. As a gun owner, I think this is perfectly acceptable combined with stringent background checks and at least a ten day waiting period. This is California law and it is sensible. However, I disagree with the idea of banning a gun simply because people don't like the looks of it, or the fact that it looks like a military weapon. It about how they function. People argue against the slippery slope argument, but in California it is a fact. Here, the state government would love to ban all firearms, and have made legislative attempts to do so despite the fact that very few crimes have occurred with California legal AR-15s.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
  70. Scott

    For those of you who are also Christian, what is the greatest COMMANDMENT? ...'love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself'. This is not a SUGGESTION....it is a COMMANDMENT. Work for peace and goodwill and let God do the judging. It amazes me how many self-proclaimed Christians blatantly ignore this commandment in the name of personal interests. Also 'whatever you do unto the LEAST of these, you have done unto ME! Wake up people....you may fool others but you can't fool Him. Put your faith where your mouth. You are doing more damage to HIS reputation than you could possibly realize.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Reply
    • Alecks Jones

      The NRA was created by God to protect our God-given 2nd amendment. We need our guns to keep the NWO goon squads at bay, not for killing. Only PEOPLE kill people, as was proven by several NRA studies. Besides, I represent responsible gun owners who would only kill in a Christian sort of way!!

      January 15, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Reply
  71. rad666

    "The group did everything in its power to ensure her election defeat." -– It just shows that people are like sheep and can not think for themselves, not that the NRA is powerful.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
  72. Andrew

    NRA just wants to cash in on the fear of the naive...
    They don't do anything to assert anyone's rights.
    Their 'CEO' gets paid $1 million+ to simply sit on his butt.
    Don't you get it? They're cashing in on something that isn't gonna happen. Most of the people who head this group wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with most of its memebers unless it involved a fundraiser. A good percentage of the people propping this org up would probably be more dangerous with a gun, but by god they gots to have one... There's no deterrence create by everyone being armed, just like making rich people richer creates jobs...

    December 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Reply
    • Gary Z.

      Sounds like a president of a workers union.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
  73. Tonede

    I have to agree with a statement the rep. made..."it is all about money". The NRA and gun manufacturers could care less about the 2nd Amendment. They care about money. For the love of money is the root of all evil. The right are going to have vote out a lot of people next elections after gun legislation is voted in as well as a tax increase on the wealthy. Get those check books ready.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Reply
  74. CRG

    It pains me to read most of these comments. They could have been written by Attila. The NRA or Grover Norquist does not control all of the minds in the USA, but those of us they don't control seem to be in the minority. Hopefully people in the USA will continue to evolve, but they have a long ways to go before they are as civilized as Western European. That took centuries of war, destruction, and the murder of innocents. Unfortunately, many people in this country are incapable of learning by example.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Reply
    • Alecks Jones

      There is NO amount of dead kids that's gonna make me part with my guns! You're either with us or against us! You could just as easily kill a roomful of kids with a baseball bat or a car!! Why can't you gun grabbers GET that?? 1776 will commence again if you keep saying the wrong things!!

      January 15, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Reply
  75. Old joe

    Here is an idea, NRA member create a civilian security patrol for all schools. Training and organizing to aid the Vice President should be a welcome for volunteers to volunteer, public employees Retiree's a good resource pool. Civic Duties to protect our most valuable resource. My opinion, seems like a win / win for all.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
  76. CueBallSTL

    For anyone bashing the NRA for the role they supposedly played, I have one word for you: Teamsters

    The Teamsters union has a much more colorful history than the NRA, and has been much more heavy-handed in politics, including places such as Obama's very own Chicago.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
    • Gary Z.

      I totally agree! No difference except the NRA you can choose to join. The teamsters you are forced to join with no option where your money goes!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Reply
      • Bzarr

        Obviously you don't live in Iowa, a right to work state. And, obviously you have never been a Teamster. I was a voluntary member of the Teamsters for 32 years. As was 99% of the men and women I worked with at UPS. Union dues is not used for national politics, its against fedreal law. The Teamsters has a PAC just like tens of thousands of other organizations, like the nra for instance.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  77. ghostmule

    Well, Im not sure exactly what they are talking about taking on NRA. I mean, whats the argument about? All I've heard is banning assault rifles and how ridiculous that sounds. As if you can't do any damage with a hand gun. The Virginia Tech shooter killed a record 32 people and did it all with 2 hand guns. So, what difference so does it make if they ban assault rifles, when you can do even more damage with a handgun?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
    • FatherOF2

      The difference is if that shooter had an automatic or even a semi-automatic assault rifle with more than 1 clip that held 30 there would have been a whole heck of a lot more people than 32 dead!!! So yes there is a difference.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
  78. JD

    We need to define exactly what an assault rifle is. In California assault rifles are banned, but citizens can still own military looking versions of an AR-15 or AK-47, but they don't function the same as an assault rifle because their magazines are fixed, non- detachable and limited to ten rounds. If you want to remove the magazine, you have to use a tool to do so. The effect of this is increase the amount of time it take to change a magazine. As a gun owner, I think this is perfectly acceptable combined with stringent background checks and at least a ten day waiting period. This is California law and it is sensible. However, I disagree with the idea of banning a gun simply because people don't like the looks of it, or the fact that it looks like a military weapon. It about how they function. People argue against the slippery slope argument, but in California it is a fact. Here, the state government would love to ban all firearms, and have made legislative attempts to do so despite the fact that very few crimes have occurred with California legal AR-15s.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
  79. BobJones

    Duh, it IS all about the money. And if the NRA didn't adequately represent their members, they would get no money from them. So therefore, for you libs who can't comprehend basic 1+1 math, they must be doing something correctly if they are one of the most powerful lobbies out there. CNN: where journalism goes to die.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
    • FatherOF2

      Bob, you just sound silly speaking about math. 1+1 is basic but 1 person can donate more than 1 dollar to the NRA and they usually do. In fact some people and organizations even donate several million dollars if they have that kind of money so NO your 1+1 equation would not apply. You continue to prove that mathmatic word problems are the hardest to grasp.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Reply
  80. Sanity

    Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, all these cities have extremly restrictive gun ownership/possesion laws, but look at the crime rate in these cities......Now look at Kenesaw GA, back in 1982 they passed a law REQUIRING all households to own a firearm and ammunition. They have had FOUR gun deaths in the last 30 years, one in 2007, and three in 2008, the three were in a school 'gun free zone'. Yes even in the city where gun ownership is required they still have those wonderfull 'no gun zones' where LAW ABIDING citizens can not carry their firearms for defense, but the LAW BREAKING CRIMINALS have no concern about these laws and do as they wish.
    Criminals by their very definition DO NOT OBEY LAWS, therfore it does not matter how many laws you make they dont care, only law abiding citizens will pay attention, and therefore be effected by these laws.
    Gun restrictions do not work, requiring law abiding adults to have guns does not create violence, a 'Wild west' setting of gunfights in the street or any thing else other than a respectfull population. Think about it, next time a mugger or rapist is looking for his next target, are they going to look in the city where almost everyone is likely to be armed, or go to the city where he's almost guaranteed that the victim will NOT be armed?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Reply
  81. Scott

    At the risk of oversimplifying matters, I have a question. Can anyone state a factual situation in which the possession of a gun actually protected someone and diverted a death situation of either party?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Reply
    • JD

      Girl of 12 shoots home invader. Here is the link.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

      December 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • Sanity

      Scott, the mall shooting in Oregon recently was stopped by a civilian with his concealed carry drawing down on the shooter, who promptly gave up and from the way it was described 'curled up in a ball'. Also there was a school shooting a while back where the vice-principal was able to get to his car where he had his .45 locked up and he was able to stop the shooter before he could keep killing. Sorry dont have the city name handy where it happend atm. Those are two I remember just off the top of my head.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Reply
    • Gary Z.

      I can't get to the sight from here so I am not sure if it is correct but I think it is: http://www.gunsdontkillpeople.com they have real stories from around the country like that all the time.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Reply
  82. Ima Fraud

    Interesting, my first post was censored and it included no profanity or name calling

    December 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
  83. joecarpenter

    I guess I am one of the so called gun nuts. I started shooting guns with my granded about 40+ years ago. I was taught right and wrong and have been shooting ever sense. I get family members together every so often and we have a fun afternoon of target shooting. I am sure 99% of you all who talk down to the pro-gun folks have never even shot a gun, correct? I don't know how you can talk so negatively like you do and say nobody needs this kind of gun or that kind of gun. WHo are you to tell me or the millions of other legal, honest and saddened gun owners what to do. We all are heart broken about what happened, but why are all us honest people deemed ""gun nuts" and you don't know us and never shot a gun to see how fun it is and tell us what we can and can't have? There are people who should not have guns, and there are some things that can change, but don't label us all good folks with a few bad apples. There are a lot of people like me who have grown up shooting their entire lives who would step in front of a bullet for a kid or a woman. There is so much talk about gun show loop holes, and people with mental problems able to get guns, but it is very obvious that 99% of the people talking have no clue what they are talking about because if they were they would know the truth about these things. Due to HIPPA, things don't show up on background checks. IS that the gun owners fault? Don't think so. I could go on and on. But, I don't think many of you all would believe what i would put down since I am jsut one of those "gun nuts".

    December 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
  84. Sue

    Hello

    December 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
  85. Bzarr

    I can't wait to watch LaPierre fold like a house of cards on Meet the Press. And if he doesn't, he will be handing the 150 million people that disagree with 4.3 million nra members the biggest gift in the world.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
  86. Blue

    Being from TN, that was only one reason that she was defeated. She stripped the unions from teachers, that is just one thing. She did the dirty work of the governor so he could keep his nose clean. The people of TN still will not understand how this governor works. He is sneaky. His friend bought an old run down building for 5M and the state turned around and bought it for 10M. You tell me iof tnis is not a scandal. But TN is so red that it has already been swept under the rug

    December 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
  87. mystictundra

    This has got to be among the most biased "reporting" I have seen in a long, long time. Where's the other side of the facts? Why are there so many holes in the story? Where's citations about the things that the NRA has protected? This is so obvious it's almost physically painful to read.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
  88. J.C.

    This story can't be true. I've been assured by progressives that the NRA is now a toothless organization with no electoral power.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Reply
  89. joe Mauro

    debra and all her friends from both sides have been paid off by the nra for years , what bull

    December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Reply
  90. Sy2502

    I'd love to hear from the Left's hippie pot smokers how anti drug laws have worked for them.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Reply
  91. Josh p.

    While we are at it let,s ban fast cars that goes over 80 miles an hour,dumb nuts are always looking for scapegoat,this guy stole weapons to commit a crime but they are blaming guns.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Reply
  92. ManPlan

    If the mountain wont move then I will have to move. I work in a hospital and if we continue to let the NRA have it's way, then I will become numb to shot up babies. You gun advocates/nuts have got to be crazy if you don't in your heart of hearts know that it time for a change. If not, see you dead soon, in a ER near me.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply
  93. Curious

    Question for general populace on the board;

    1. Are gun owners required to have higher insurance (house/health) premiums because of the higher risk of injury in owning a gun?

    Just wondering if the company that insured the Newton shooter and the house he lived in will have to pay out compensation to the victims because of his actions?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Reply
    • carlos

      Generally a homeowners policy has lower limits on injury liability than it does on insuring the contents of a home, coupled with the fact that there are way more thefts than there are gun related injuries. The insurance game is all about probabalities and statistcs, a subject that liberals tend to be weak on by the way. So based on this, the answer is no, there is no insurance premium addition for gun ownership unless the specific gun owner has a history of being neglegent. Kind of how auto insurance would cast more if you are accident prone.

      Statistically guns don't make a home any more or less safe, although that does not keep both sides from fudging the number either way...

      December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply
  94. TomGI

    When asked if she would rescind her membership to the NRA, Debra Maggart said she was a life member and didn't know how to rescind her membership. What? I did, and had no trouble except that Wayne La Pierre cash cow (the ILA) kept nagging me for money for a year afterward. I am so glad I had the presence of mind to bail on them. I still shoot and hunt but they will never speak for me or to me again. They should have just run the NRA side and never started the ILA.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
  95. carlos

    Extreme Sarcasm Mode on.

    So while we are at it, no one needs a car that can exceed the speed limit, clothes that are too revealing, sodas larger than 16 onces (Blloomberg beat me to it). A meal that exceeds 500 calories, a house larger than 2000 square feet, a paycheck larger than 60K per year, etc.

    Basically, if anyone thinks that something is unnecessary, then no one can have one. Maybe the whole human race should just commit suicide, and we;d save the planet.

    Extreme Sarcasm Mode off now.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Reply
    • onefootout

      it was pretty sarcastic. I give you an A+ for sarcasm.

      In reality, there are limitations to our freedom, mostly because some of us don't care how our own actions, beliefs and behaviors affect others. We are human, therefore fallible.

      I want to build a nuclear generator in my backyard.
      I want to raise a herd of 1000 pigs here next to a major river in Vermont.
      I want to burn tires as a heat source and let the smoke and pollutants escape into the properties around me.
      I want to breed smallpox in a barn in the backyard – as a hobby.
      I want to ...

      A "taking" of rights is viewed differently from different sides. Maybe the neighbors around me that have high powered rifles, assault shotguns, and AR-15's, that shoot them randomly any hour of the day in who knows which direction – are taking my rights away.

      I don't think I matched your sarcasm. I tried.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Reply
      • Noel

        "assault shotguns"? I want one of those. I think it will make a lovely deterrent to the 9 people that have burglarized my office this year looking for Oxycodone.

        Oh wait, Oxycodone is outlawed too, dang, how did THAT get on the street? Isn't burglary outlawed too?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • kit8

      Have you ever seen 20 precious kids and 7 adults mowed down by a can of pop, hamberger, clothes or a car?
      Comparing an AK 47 which is only designed for killing with any of the above which are not is grasping at straws at best and foolish at worst.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
    • TomGI

      Sarcasm aside, these things you refer to are not weapons. The comparison is a moot point.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Reply
  96. UnFred

    Sounds like sour grapes to me. Where do they find these losers?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Reply
  97. Eli Cabelly

    The NRA is a single issue organization that can mobilize millions of members and contribute millions of dollars. They are participating in the political process, and making sure that their voice is heard. Good for them.

    Their voices are the voices of idiots and aggressive ignorance, but they are participating. That's more than I can say about a lot of organizations.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • TomGI

      They have always counted on their members to be vocal and participatory and the opposition to be a silent majority. They are counting on it this time too. That's how a mere 4 million members can have such an impact in a country of >270 million.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Reply
  98. Chat Pata

    Remember Nazi Germany. They made mentally handicapped people scapegoats alongwith physicall handicapped, jews, gays, and gypsies. NRA is now on a mission to make sufferers of Aspergers Syndrome their scapegoat by falsely linking this disorder to violence.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply
  99. SGTWayne

    Members of the NRA say everytime they pay dues that they approve of a child being ripped apart by bullets

    December 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply
  100. kit8

    The NRA and all the politicians they purchased have blood on their hands for the 10,000 people killed in the US every year by guns. Maggart disagreed with the NRA and was defeated by them at election time. The NRA talks about preventing the government from attacking the people so people has to be armed. The NRA has caused the deaths of more people than the US government eve will.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Reply
  101. Sam

    NRA was against Obama too BUT he came out with flying colors. So there is more to it for her defeat. Btw...I am NOT at all NRA fan.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Reply
  102. Howard the expat

    To all of you in this discussion. I have lived as an expat for almost 12 years. (Expat means I don't live in the U.S.)
    I cherish also the idea of individual freedoms, and yes in my opinion, some are worth dying for. Since living abroad I have learned something about us Americans. Its not entirely a rosy picture. On the positive side, we are flexible and generally creative. This manifests itself in the ability to change direction quickly, sometimes in ones career, to do new things for which we are not officially trained, and be successful. Some societies have a big problem doing this without the proper training, and some people in other cultures think that they aren't allowed to do something they didn't train for. In addition, Americans also are quite adept, on the average, while living among other cultures, to verbalize their opinions and communicate freely without inhibition. Of course these are all generalizations, however I will continue. On the not so positive side, we are quite judgemental of others, we condemn quickly, we push our own views. We assume we are right, and that other countries and cultures just don't get it. Well this is my message. It can't be, that only we Americans know what the best way is in all things. Yes we may have saved the world from a dark time in World War II. That was a good thing. But we as a people and country have screwed up a lot since then. So please, please, listen to how silly we all sound, so self important, see I'm doing it right now too! I only hope that some of us Americans wake up to see the world the way that some of the other inhabitants see it, and to work together to make it just a little more sane. Let's use our Americanness in a positive way, and try to learn something from other cultures, just this once.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
  103. luv_canada

    ha ha...what a bunch of jokers....please lovely us citizens now all go buy ar-15's and shoot each other & let native americans take back they're land

    December 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Reply
  104. Frankie

    NRA = Nazis Remaining Anonymous.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Reply
    • Noel

      I'm not anonymous, nor is my medical practice. Tell you what, I'll give up my guns, when your president can guarantee that no one will burglarize or assault me...and when he quits selling banned weapons to Mexican Drug Lords, that are used to murder my fellow citizens and further drug traffic in the US (which, incidentally, is also outlawed)

      Fair enough?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Reply
    • Sanity

      Wow, you do realize it was the Nazis that were so afraid of an armed population they outlawed and rounded up all the guns in Germany, then they started rounding up the people they did not like.....

      You might want to be a little more carefull in who you compare to who.....

      December 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Reply
  105. Sharon

    When you let low-IQ white trash set the agenda, this is what happens. It's time to end political correctness and call the NRA what they are: small-dick losers who need guns to make them feel big.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Reply
  106. wcb2009

    Today, I have read four differernt articles on CNN about accidental shootings resulting in death. Im sure every one of these gun owners started the day off thinking how awesome it is own a gun. I wonder how they feel now?

    December 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Reply
  107. Loyalright

    Mrs. Maggart, informed citizens voted you out not the NRA.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  108. the mayor of medinah

    Booze, Prescription Pills, and Tobacco kill way many more of our children every day than guns do and ever will. These three lobbies contributed during 2012 a total of $144,608,565.00 compared to $3,774,218 from the pro gun lobby. Now which lobby do you think that our greedy elected officials in Washington can live without? Seems like the NRA is small potatoes so why all of the hype? Or are the Lemmings just blindly following what the news media tells them. Now I am not a fan of the NRA but I am a fan of the truth, so do your self a favor and do some research.

    The Liquor, Pharmaceutical and Tobacco pump way more money into Lobbying our elected officials than the Pro gun lobby ever did, these are total that the listed groups spent in 2012. So why is the NRA so evil in all of their spending? But these other evil industries that take so many more lives are way more heavy hitters and maybe that is why, maybe the NRA has become the scape goat because they really don't have that much money to spread around. Until I looked for myself I was under the impression from our news media that the NRA was spending 100's of millions of dollars lobbying or elected officials and that simply is not true. And not all of the money that was spent by the pro gun lobby came from the NRA, they are the largest contributor but not the only contributor, approximately 1.5 million of the 3.7 million came from other sources. The NRA contributed just over 2.2 million

    So when we hear adds on the TV that anti depression medication may cause us to lose our mind and bleed from our rectums as a side effect I guess our politicians had $116,440,646 reason to turn a blind eye.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/alphalist_indus.php

    Total spending in 2012

    Total for Pharmaceutical manufacturing: $116,440,646
    Total for Beer, Wine, and Liquor: $15,488,510
    Total for Tobacco: $12,679,500
    Total for Casinos/Gambling: $24,629,183
    Total for Gun Rights: $3,774,218
    Total for gun Control: $180,00

    December 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Reply
    • wcb2009

      What town do you live in? Kids getting killed by "Booze, Prescription Pills, and Tobacco"?

      Name one kid who was killed by tobacco in the past ten years? Think about it this way... If you had a child (im guessing you dont), which would you rather he/she stumble across while home alone? Booze, Prescription Pills, Tobacco, or a loaded gun? Your thinking only reflects a desperate refusal to admit to yourself what mny find so obvious.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Reply
      • the mayor of medinah

        http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/health/deadly-dose-jackson-rummler/index.html

        (CNN) - Pete Jackson attended his brother-in-law's funeral along with his daughter, Emily, six years ago. He never dreamed it would be the last day of his daughter's life.
        "It's so tragic, just not something you would never, ever expect," said Pete Jackson.
        Instead of going home to the Chicago suburb of Arlington Heights after the funeral, Emily Jackson, 18, spent the night with her cousins.
        That night, she made a deadly decision. She took an Oxycontin - a single prescription pill - that her cousin offered to her while drinking. She went to sleep that night and never woke up. She died of respiratory depression - she simply stopped breathing.
        The Oxycontin that Emily took belonged to her uncle, who had died of cancer.
        While taking one pill and dying is rare, dying accidentally after using painkillers inappropriately is common.
        According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one person dies from a drug overdose every 19 minutes. About 28,754 Americans died after accidentally overdosing on legal or illegal drugs in 2009, according to the CDC; about half of those deaths involved prescription painkillers.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
      • the mayor of medinah

        Well lets call a spade a spade then if we are going to get serious about senseless killing

        http://www.madd.org/statistics/

        In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.
        Adults drank too much and got behind the wheel about 112 million times in 2010 – that is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day.
        Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
        Drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion a year.

        If all 17 million people who admitted to driving drunk in 2010 had their own state, it would be the fifth largest in the U.S.

        Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, and about one-third of those are alcohol related.

        Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.

        50 to 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.

        On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime.

        In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes – one every 53 minutes

        Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.

        An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest.

        Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S.
        Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
        The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.

        More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
  109. ja

    the politicans need to stop the method of i'm for sell, just blur the purchase of me and call it something else, we put thesr spinless @@@#$% in office, they get elected and forget they serve a the pleasure of the electorate, government for the people by the people

    December 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Reply
    • Loyalright

      I'm not for term limits; that is what elections are for but you make a good argument for them. If politicians continue to be elected, they will be eventually bought by lobby's.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Reply
  110. rob

    The NRA, the Republicans, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, should get a little of their own shooting medicine instead of innocent people all the time

    December 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Reply
    • Loyalright

      Are you threatening Supreme Court Judges?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Reply
    • the mayor of medinah

      Spoken like a true comrade

      December 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
  111. Mike H

    To me, the NRA is now the NBKA, the national babykillers association. Lots of money to be made in t-shirts and bumper stickers.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Reply
  112. Marc

    She opposed the NRA supported bill because it infringed on property owners rights to determine who/what enters their property. I believe my property rights come ahead of your desire to bring a gun onto my property and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have seen it the same way. But the NRA uses a scorched earth policy when it comes to any opposition of their beliefs. Let's set semi-automatic weapons asside for a minute. Why does the NRA fight so hard against full background checks no matter how/where the gun is purchased? Let's see what they have to say tomorrow about that. If they don't come out in full support of closing the gun show loophole and the internet sales loophole we will see their true colors. Because what sane argument can anyone make for ensuring that anyone who wants to buy a gun goes through a background check.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Reply
    • bill

      What internet sales loophole? Every gun bought online has to be transferred to an FFL and requires a complete background check to obtain possession. The only exception are guns made prior to 1898(give or take a few years). these do not require any background check whether purchased online or at a local gunshop. Now private party sales are another story.

      IMHO, any sale of a firearm should required to be brokered through an FFL. Period!

      December 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Reply
  113. Ryan

    Nice little hit piece CNN. So predictable. As usual, you either oversimplify the issue or simply gloss over relevant facts to construct your pathetic little arguments. The sad, shameful fact is that it probably works on the majority of your readers. You are everything that is wrong with America.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Reply
  114. john

    So, I feel this way about guns. Obama has authorized the deaths of more children (literally HUNDREDS) in the last four years than all the guns in this country have killed including these mass shootings. You can't even think about taking away Americans' 2nd amendment rights while Obama still has his drones, that, by the way, they want to start flying over America too.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Reply
  115. LeeAT

    The argument that I always hear when it comes to discussing gun control is that criminals will find a way to get their hands on these weapons. For those presenting this argument for your opposition to any form of gun control; what is your definition of a criminal? I don't know of any state where murder is not a crime, therefore whoever commits a murder is a criminal by definition. If you are talking about people with criminal records, your argument has not weight, because the people committing these mass shootings have no prior criminal records for the most part. I believe that law abiding citizens should have a right to legally on a weapon, however; I fail to see how that weapon needs to be an assault rifle or pistol. I also believe that gun enthusiasts should have a right to fire the weapon (s) of their choice, however; I believe that it should be under a more controlled environment. In other words, the only place that should have these assault type weapons should be supervised firing ranges, and these places should be heavily secured, and the weapons should be rendered non operational after the ranges closes. There are ways to accomplish a happy medium, however; it takes adult thinking and willingness to compromise in order to achieve it.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Reply
  116. ug

    Notice she is an "ex" politician now...don't mess with the NRA...support them...not liberal meatheads.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Reply
  117. jihadi_barry

    And this piece of "work" from the mouth piece of the muslim brotherhood Amanpour. Oh you know it has to be true.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Reply
  118. Sy2502

    The problem with lashing out at things like guns and the NRA is that the REAL problems don't actually get addressed. We had a ban on assault weapons before, and there were still mass shooting. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who wouldn't have used them to commit a crime anyway is useless. I understand the emotional arguments will be satisfying for the less rationally inclined, but for those like me who care more about the result of government action, rather than their intention, I am still waiting to see proposals that are actually useful. Like: when are we going to do something about the sorry and appalling state of mental health care?

    December 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Finally someone who is starting to think about the root causes. Actually though the questions are,
      – Why are Americans so violent
      – What in our culture leads to these mental illnesses?
      – Why does that lead to people deciding when others must die?

      How did we get this way?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      I guess I used too many words in my 1:16 pm post. No comments???? I should have said something like
      "FART Brains". That would have probably gotten some response.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • TNPatriot

      Yes we did have a ban and murders did still occur, but it more complicated than that. Try looking at actual numbers regarding mass shootings in the United States.
      For 10 years prior to the 'Ban', there were 108 deaths and 151 injured - average 25.9 victims per year
      For the 10 years during the ban there were 95 deaths and 97 injured - average 19.2 victims per year
      For the 8 years since the ban expired there have been 247 deaths and 206 injured. - average 45.3 victims per year

      December 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  119. Brian

    The key word is "Tennessee" – the land of monkey trials and backwoods, snake-handling "Christians."

    December 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Lord Toronaga

      Oh boy another AIDS enthusiast.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
  120. the mayor of medinah

    In America we blame the product and not the person

    December 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • DLinLA

      Because the product has no business being in the hand of the person.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
      • the mayor of medinah

        So when a drunk plows into a mini van and kills an entire family I guess I it Jim Beam's fault.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
  121. buzz1975

    The NRA has been acting like they are nothing but a bunch of thugs for many years. Once upon a time they actually were about gun safety....but then the extremists took over. The NRA has lots of money to throw around, but keep in mind that there are 300 million plus citizens of the USA...but only 4 million NRA members. That is barely over 1% of the population. It is time for the silent majority of 99% to speak up and stop these crazies in their extremist tracks. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt or for personal protection, and certainly no one needs clips will rapidly fire 40 to 100 rounds. Those weapons are made to kill people, period. They should be banned.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  122. Howard the expat

    Maybe the NRA world is coming to an end tonight.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Reply
  123. Mr. N.

    It's the government who set up these feel-good but useless "gun-free" killing zones for our children and has been delerict in its duty to protect those rendered defenseless by law.

    A court house is a gun-free zone, but it's also full of armed deputies that can protect those who would otherwise be defenseless. No such luck for most schools.

    The question is, why aren't we blaming the government for this one? Why do we so easily take the bait from all those politicians with blood in their hands that are trying to distract us from their well-meaning, but disastrous decisions? Does anyone really think that these politicians will provide real solutions this time around?

    Let's truly analyze this issue and stop beeing sheeple. That herd mentality that the politicians are trying to take advantage of is what has contributed to this mess in the first place.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • joecarpenter

      blaming the gov't for the anti-gunners would be to easy. The libs have to blame something beside their big, fat, bloated gov't. they get to much freebies from uncle sam.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  124. FNG

    After reading this article the first question that came to mind was: were these "tactics" of the NRA acceptable to her as long as they helped keep her in office? It would appear so. They were obviously using "smear campaigns" against her opposition before this. Just saying.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  125. joecarpenter

    Accidental deaths

    700,000
    Number of doctors in the US

    120,000
    Accidental deaths caused by doctors per year

    80,000,000
    Number of gun owners in the US

    1,500
    Number of accidental gun deaths per year

    Accidental deaths per doctor is 0.171

    Accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188

    Source is US Dept of Health Human Services

    Guns & Ammo February 2012

    December 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Hi Joe,

      So the guy should have brought a doctor with him to the school? Is that what you're saying?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Reply
    • AZ Senior

      Joe, it's not the accidental deaths by gunshot I am concerned about, it's the intentional murders by gunshot -to which you failed to give us the statistics, but we all know them. 30+ per day, multiply that by 365 days.....

      December 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        63 years we have 271 deaths to Mass shootings thats less 5 per year....

        December 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  126. deschenes108

    All of these comments make me laugh. Grown adults getting in hissy fits over the internet: pure entertainment

    December 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  127. Rina

    We don't care what the NRA has done in the past – it's a new day on the frontier, folks! The GOP found out how lies, distortion of the facts, fear and hate-mongering worked for them in the last election. Same thing here. NRA uses the same tactics to misinform and promote their agenda. Well, it may have worked in the past, but not now. There are too many of us that do support gun ownership to a point, but we are tired of the assault weapons being used in public attacks. Something obviously needs to be done and it will get done – regardless if Wayne and his good ol' boys like it or not.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Reply
  128. menisino

    4m out of 310m,well no surprise,i mean most r redneck,hillbilly,lowlifers with a grade 6 to 8 education max.Like lemmings & sheep they are followers & most of their wives just go quiet when the dog barks out his demands.These lowlifers r probably ,in most cases spinoffs from the kkk freinds & families.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Reply
    • Libertarian

      I am not an NRA member, so you won't be able to try and use that as a personal attack against what I am about to say. Words you have used to describe members of that organization, can easily be used to describe the members of hundreds of street gang members here in the US.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Reply
  129. karthurhyer

    Disagree with the NRA and they'll shoot you. That's what guns mean to them. Power.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Reply
  130. Marine57

    "Ex-lawmaker talks about taking on NRA"

    Ma'am, I think you are out-gunned here!

    What needs to be understood is that the NRA is not just the NRA, it is the American people as well, people who will not give up their rights to protect themselves against intruders, robbers, and all other invasive evil powers who are for themselves and against the innocent citizen.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Reply
  131. cybersport

    The NRA has blood on its hands, no matter how much they try and explain it away. The organization's major problem is that it is unduly influenced by extreme elements who think the government is plotting to confiscate ALL guns, which is absurd.

    I have no problem with guns, though I don't own one, or hunting, though I don't hunt. But there is no legitimate reason for private citizens to have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

    According to the NRA I should be have as many guns or weapons as I wish in an apartment I live in but don't own and there shouldn't be anything my landlord can do about it.

    That's the mindset that has to change

    December 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Hi Cybersport. For a mindset to change, there must be a mind.

      I'm sure glad I no longer live among these crazy people. Good luck!

      December 20, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Reply
  132. the mayor of medinah

    I am not a supporter of the NRA or a member, but I am reading here thought all of these posts so I decided to go and take a look at the NRA web sit myself to see what they are all about. what I was was safety and awareness and support of our legal rights not only the second amendment but all rights. Yes they promote their cause but so do all political lobbies and activist groups.

    It really did not look like a terrorist organization like so many of you make it appear to be, education is the key. http://www.nra.org take a look and decide for yourself.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      hello Burgermeister....

      It's about money, nothing else.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  133. Dum Hycks

    The NRA are domestic terrorists with blood on their hands. Hopefully there's a list somewhere of all their kooky contributors and the politicians whom they have bought.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Reply
  134. Howard the expat

    Any Canadians want to comment on my text?

    To all of you in this discussion. I have lived as an expat for almost 12 years. (Expat means I don't live in the U.S.)
    I cherish also the idea of individual freedoms, and yes in my opinion, some are worth dying for. Since living abroad I have learned something about us Americans. Its not entirely a rosy picture. On the positive side, we are flexible and generally creative. This manifests itself in the ability to change direction quickly, sometimes in ones career, to do new things for which we are not officially trained, and be successful. Some societies have a big problem doing this without the proper training, and some people in other cultures think that they aren't allowed to do something they didn't train for. In addition, Americans also are quite adept, on the average, while living among other cultures, to verbalize their opinions and communicate freely without inhibition. Of course these are all generalizations, however I will continue. On the not so positive side, we are quite judgemental of others, we condemn quickly, we push our own views. We assume we are right, and that other countries and cultures just don't get it. Well this is my message. It can't be, that only we Americans know what the best way is in all things. Yes we may have saved the world from a dark time in World War II. That was a good thing. But we as a people and country have screwed up a lot since then. So please, please, listen to how silly we all sound, so self important, see I'm doing it right now too! I only hope that some of us Americans wake up to see the world the way that some of the other inhabitants see it, and to work together to make it just a little more sane. Let's use our Americanness in a positive way, and try to learn something from other cultures, just this once.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Reply
  135. shakib

    people who doesn't have balls, needs guns.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Hi Shakib, I don't think girls need guns. I agree with you though. Some get courage from a bottle, some get it from a gun, sounds like you simply have it.

      Bravo.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Reply
  136. NYCCC

    You're wrong – 75% of the population lives in urban centers and they are not against gun control. The NRA has every right to voice its opinions and to try to influence policies that impact on its 4 million members and the freedom to bear arms. BUT when your freedoms impact upon my right and freedom to live safely and send my children to school FREE OF GUN VIOLENCE, whether the weapons are illegal, carried by responsible carriers or total nut jobs .... Well, then, I'm sorry, democracy will have the last word. And I believe it will be more diligent efforts to prevent illegal guns from circulating and stricter gun controls to avoid weapons used for mass slaughter (not protection and not hunting).

    "ARupYOURS
    Hey CHARLES, you are a moron. You think you have won, guess what, your yellow belly is the one that needs to get the hell out of dodge. Most people are against gun control and all your knee jerkin in the world is not going to impact any laws. Go drink you ensure and STFU."

    December 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Reply
  137. AZ Senior

    This powerful NRA lobby consists of 4 Million members, wich is less than 2% of the populationof the US –
    talk about a very short tail wagging the dog.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      On some dogs the tail is more that 2%. I think you are referring to the region under the tail.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • Matty13

      68 million Americans own over 310 million private guns. The NRA does what those private owners tell them. You don't have to be in the NRA for the NRA to know what you want.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Reply
    • the mayor of medinah

      Well on only 4 million members for the NRA but there are 47% of Americans that own guns that admit to it at least, many many of them do not support the NRA but they do vote pro gun
      Total spending in 2012

      Total for Pharmaceutical manufacturing: $116,440,646
      Total for Beer, Wine, and Liquor: $15,488,510
      Total for Tobacco: $12,679,500
      Total for Casinos/Gambling: $24,629,183
      Total for Gun Rights: $3,774,218
      Total for gun Control: $180,00

      December 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Reply
    • the mayor of medinah

      the NRA may go bye bye but America will not say bye bye to their firearms.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Reply
  138. Brian

    Assault weapons are used in less that 2% of all violent crimes. Not only is it pointless to ban them, it doesn't even address the issue. Look at the drug culture in our country. Does making drugs illegal make our streets safe? I think not.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Reply
    • portcitymike

      that just means that more guns should be banned. And, looking at other nations, banning guns does curb murder.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        I disagree. I am a student of History and History has proven that violence actually increases when you disarm the population. People want to ignore 20th century cases of democide as if it does not matter but as a matter of fact it does. If my math is good Since 1949 there have been 271 people killed in "MASS shootings" . SO in essence 4.3 people die each year on average to mass shootings. I'm pretty sure 4 people died in the time it took me to write this. I think the media and people on both sides of the issue are blowing this way out of proportion. Let me ask you a question guy one citizen to the next. Why does your will mean more than my will to keep and own guns? I am not inflicting my will on you to own a firearm so what makes you think you can do it to me?"

        December 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
  139. Jack

    Wow, 99% of the people who have made comments on here should be ashamed of yourselves! What the Hell is wrong with you people? We are all Americans, brothers and sisters yet you treat each other like garbage. Your all nothing but a bunch of know it all problem solving saviors sitting behind your keyboards. If any of you think you are so smart and have all the answers then maybe you should stop hiding behind your computer, quit being an introvert and go out into the world and actually do something to better this country. Your vile words and behavior do a great disservice to every American soldier who have served and to every innocent person who have died in these tragedies. You should be truly ashamed of yourselves..........Calling people who own guns "Baby Killers" or "Baby Killer supporters"? Who says such things? Then there is the ones that say all gun owners are "Gun Crazies" or "Wackos" or whatever. I bet if half of you met each other at a friends house or at the store you would have no idea if the other was a "Baby Killer" or a "Crazy Liberal Wacko", in fact you may end up being friends or falling in Love. Tell us this oh mighty know it all wise ones, just what does a crazy liberal or gun crazy person look like? You see them every day yet you have no idea and without a thread of fear you shop with them, dine with them, talk with them. Yet you come on places like this and the stupidity, disgust and fear just spews from your mouths. You all sicken me!

    December 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
    • portcitymike

      kinda resembles your statement..

      December 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Hello Jack,

      Right on. My only concern is that it is too late for reconciliation, and I'm normally an optimistic person.

      The issue is less the laws and more the culture. Changing culture is next to impossible. Those efforts usually backfire. I suggest you find a saner place to live and go there.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Reply
      • Jack

        Howard, it truly boggles the mind. Its pure insanity really. Most people had no idea how many guns were out there and now all of a sudden they are living in fear and every one who has an "assault rifle" supports killing children! Extreme gun owners fear government control of all guns. Pure Insanity! Then add on the fear mongering of the media and its become a ticking time bomb. What the heck happened to the country I served for 20 years to protect? What happened to personal responsibility and common sense?

        December 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Brian

      Once a person attacks the poster in stead of the argument they have already lost and they know it. Why else attack a complete stranger via posting.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Reply
  140. Chuk

    For a country that's the "greatest nation on earth" to be run by a bunch of hooligans is depressing.
    Here's how it works: the lobbyists elect (and thereby control) the politicians, who work AGAINST the electorates' interests. See, because there are only a handful of lobbyists and a closely divided electorate the advantage is with the lobbyists.
    I can't imagine a more frustrated electorate. They can't seem to get their way, but the lobbyists do. Depressing.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Greatest nation sounds a little exaggerated. Why is it the greatest Chuk?

      December 20, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Reply
  141. Brian-Woodland Hills

    I do not support the 2nd amendment, except when it is interpreted responsibly. Having said that, The NRA is no different to any other group in supporting candidates. The oil companies, health care companies and unions do the same thing. We, the voters must not get carried away with the disinformation campaign conducted for personal reasons.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Reply
  142. ARupYOURS

    portcitymike – I called that donkey a yellow bellied bastage not because anyone needs a gun, but because he is a mule for the politicians who are pushing their agendas and milking tragedies justifying their push to take more rights away from people who would defend the slain if given a chance, not kill.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Reply
  143. Howard the expat

    Greatest Show on Earth

    December 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Reply
  144. BrnInTheUSSR

    I guess the liberal-tards think only they are allowed to have special interest groups lobby politicians to bring about a poltical change.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Reply
  145. Howard the expat

    Liberal-tards 2 : Republitards 0

    4 more years

    December 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Reply
  146. Matty13

    1. There will never be a law to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the U.S. Automatic weapons that the left has managed to name "assault" weapons.
    2. During the period of time while the country is talking about banning automatic weapons, thousands and thousands of Americans will go out an buy an automatic weapon in the misguided fear that they will soon be banned.
    3. When all is said and done, there will be no law to ban automatic weapons and there will be more in private home. As it should be.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  147. JF

    THE ADVOCATES OF HIGH POWERED ASSAULT RIFLES DISGUST ME. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. IN FACT, IT SPEAKS OF A "WELL REGULATED MILITIA." IT DOES NOT GIVE CRAZYS CARTE BLANCH TO HORDE, IF NOT USE, DEADLY ASSAULT WEAPONS. IF YOUR INTERPRET THE 2ND AMENDMENT LITERALLY (AS REPUBLICANS LOVE TO DO), THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY HOLD THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR A MUSKET! NOT A BUSHMASTER OR OTHER HORRIBLE WEAPON. HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE? HOW MANY CHILDREN BETWEEN 6 AND 7 YEARS OF AGE? IT'S DISGUSTING AND IF YOU DEFEND IT, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED PF YOURSELF AND PERHAPS HIDE YOUR MUG FROM THE REST OF US AMERICANS WHO WANT TO LIVE A PEACEFUL LIFE AND RAISE OUR FAMILIES IN SAFITY. THE NRA IS A THUG ORGANIZATION....I DON'T CARE WHAT DEFENDERS SAY. 10,000 AMERICAN DEATHS A YEAR, AND YET THEY ARGUE THAT WE NEED MORE GUNS ON THE STREET. STUPID ARGUMENT AND DRIVEN BY MONEY, POLITICS AND POWER. YOU SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELES. BUT THE GOOD THING IS THAT THE HORRIBLE KILLINGS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND YEARS...NEWTOWN, AURORA, WISCONSIN, VIRGINIA TECH, OREGON....TOTALLY DESTROYS YOUR WARPED ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED MORE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELVES. GET OVER YOUR INSECURITY AND LEARN TO BE A CIVILIZED, PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. NOT A MISFIT WHO IS OBCESSED BY ASSAULT RIFLES AND INSECURITY. THE NRA WILL BE A DEAD ORGANIZATION IN SHORT ORDER, AND THANK G-D OFR THAT!

    December 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      go get em JF.... Good job

      December 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      Actually I support Gun ownership because History dictates a different picture that you would like to paint. Disarmed populations have a higher potential for democide. 271 people have been killed since 1949 thats less then 4 per year.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        Sorry I should have stated 271 people since 1949 as a result of MASS killing sprees

        December 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Volator

      The NRA will gain members over this. It always has. It has nearly 5 million members. 2.5 times the number as when I joined back in the late 80s and NRA members vote.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  148. Larry

    And this is different from the Democratic attacks on Palin or any other political figure they don't like? Not in the least. It's exactly the same methodology. With the DNC, it's accepted, but with the NRA, it's demonized.

    Hypocrites.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Come on Larry tell the truth, admit that Palin was her own worst enemy.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  149. Vietvet

    The NRA uses a false premise to justify its advocacy for assault rifles. That organization asserts that they are needed to defend against the possibility of our government becoming tyrannical notwithstanding that we elect our representatives and that our armed forces are made up of Americans from every part of our country.

    But, let's assume for a moment that they are right. Let's assume that in their minds it becomes necessary to use deadly force against our government, i.e. the U. S. Marines; the U.S. Army; the U.S. Air Force; the U.S. Navy; and the U.S. Coast Guard. And, let's assume that a militia of beer belly, over the hill wannabe soldiers of a militia have taken a position in the trees on one side of a freshly cut field and the well trained in shape U.S. Marines are on the other side. Now, one option of the U.S. Marines would be to move across the field in fire teams. As, one team moves forward the other teams lay down suppressing fire forcing the wanna be's to keep their heads down as the Marines advance. That is one option. A more likely option is that the U.S. Marine company commander would call in one of the attack planes circling above the field, out of sight for an air strike, turning that militia into a group of crispy critters while at the same time melting their AR 15's. Now do you really think that the NRA makes its case for the need for assault weapons?

    Former U.S. Marine Company Commander
    Vietnam Veteran

    December 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Reply
    • A-Rod

      you are ignoring that the Afghans have defeated the British, the Russians and are doing okay against the US, so Yes, a red neck militia can stand against the US military.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Reply
    • Howard the expat

      Wow. The most reasonable comments about senseless violent behavior seem to come from those who have experienced it and know how horrible it is.

      Bravo Vietvet, thanks for your comments.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • A-Rod

      And you have forgotten the tactics of your enemy in Vietnam.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      Vietvet,
      First off let me thank you for your service. Secondly I disagree with you. If you look at the history of warfare and US operations you can definitely see a pattern of US military having serious issues contending with them. Granted the "kill" ratio was much higher. Secondly your assuming those well trained fit military marines would be willing to turn their guns on their own families. Could you honestly say if you were ordered to you would kill your neighbors?

      December 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  150. A-Rod

    The only other group in America that gets people as fired up as the NRA does is the ACLU. Funny, I usually support the activites of both.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  151. KanBear

    Just got to love the responses from the gun guys. I'll match gun safes with anyone, but the lack of common sense demonstrated by the hard core NRA supporters makes me glad I cut ties with both the NRA and the GOP. It got to the point that anyone not training to be part of an white supremest militia was considered a far left wing socialist. They no longer know what center looks like. If you know of a current NRA member in your neighborhood, you should be a little concerned.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  152. Bryan

    The NRA is a terrorist organization

    December 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Reply
    • A-Rod

      really?!?! How?

      December 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Reply
  153. Michael

    The American public must get a grip on what is happening to our country allowing assault weapons. They should be banned. Do you actually hunt deer, bear or anything with them. You people who support this NRA are fanatical gun nuts. I own six and got a ten pointer two years ago. Oh and by the way I also carried an M-16 for 4 years including ( 2 ) 13 month tours of Nam and was bombarded for a solid month during the TET OFFENSIVE in 1968. The killing never stopped until we left that god-forsaken place. I see the people that I killed to this day. So don't tell me about your rights and NRA when our children are being killed by another kind of nut.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Reply
    • A-Rod

      So you want to punish the 99.99% of the gun owners of America because of 0.01% that are bad apples?

      December 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Reply
  154. John

    Really guys, in what universe do you think having an attack weapon is needed? You need a gun to protect against another persons gun? But what if all the guns went away? Then the NRA would not have its big money friends the gun manufactures to help them. Get rid of the guns and grow up. These are toys that kill way to many people each year!

    December 20, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Reply
  155. John

    Second the USA doesn't have to worry about terrorists kill the general public. You are all doing a great job on yourselves.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Reply
    • A-Rod

      Ford Motor Company has killed more people with their vehicles than Bushmaster has with their rifles. For both companies their products were used irresponsibility.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Reply
      • asabud

        This is the biggest crock I've ever heard. Comparing automobiles, whose purpose is to transport, and assault weapons who purpose is to kill people. No wonder this subject is "off-the-rails."

        December 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
      • dike

        Yeah now justify nuclear weapons because it kills less people than mosquitoes, which is also a WMD.

        December 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  156. cbp

    There are voices from the left and voices from the right which are definitely not helpful.. Included are some comments that show anger and fear. There are comments from people who are afraid of change and of threats they believe are made against them. We cannot seem to learn from these massacres and we certainly do not deal with the threat to so many young people from those who would kill friends and neighbors on the streets for a jacket, sneakers, etc.

    The NRA has the money to give to candidates for Congress and President. Today it is very expensive to run a campaign and NRA money helps to defray the costs. The TEA Party discovered this, too. Both groups want their candidates to sign agreements about taxes or to vote with the NRA every time legislation is proposed to restrict guns or ammo. The members of the NRA and the TEA Party have also demonstrated in groups. The NRA has the money to spend on ads which state that the 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away. They never say that we would have to repeal that amendment. These two groups do not look beyond their own issues and yes, they have determined the outcome of primaries and elections.

    There are obviously people who believe that the election of President Obama had something to do with Newtown. We need to draw the line here. To make any suggestion that anyone carried out massacres because of an election is ludicrous. To do so shows callous disregard for our ability to see our candidates win or lose.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Reply
  157. John Kerry

    Your second Ammendment gives you the right to bare arms. What Ammendment is it that allows you to kill children with them? I don't follow you Americans and your train of thought. Protect the right to bare arms that kill your children and then to fix this problem, arm teachers. Now, I am no genious but please think about what you are going to do. Put yat MORE guns for access to the disturbed people who seem to have made the gun, their choice of the evil they inflict on you. Anyways, just though I would ask for clarification of what you are defending.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Reply
    • jean

      Because we're allowed to kill 1.2 million children each year in the United States by abortion. How could a few children killed by guns possibly compare to that? If we really care about children we shouldn't deliberately kill 1.2 million of them by any method. You people are very easily side-tracked by the wrong issues.

      December 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Reply
  158. Big_D

    Assault rifles are compensation for the lack of manhood of the owner. You are not going to stop a tank with your assault rifle if the government turns on you. Real men hunt with hunting rifles. Large heavy and accurate from long distances not the spray and pray approach of anti personnel weapon.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Reply
  159. SuperDave

    I am sure all those MEN who like to hold their phallic symbol in their hands as a sign of being a big bad man surely saw that anyone who even disagreed with them slightly would be removed. Real men don't need guns to prove their manhood.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Reply
  160. dike

    If bush can be elected twice just with add's, the people are stupid. Too many stupid people who can be biased by what they hear change the outcome of an election. They deserve it because they elected without actually checking the facts. So education is the only salvation, the more uneducated people around this is how it is going to be.
    D

    December 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Reply
  161. SlackMeyer

    You want to save lives? Ban Liberalism/Progressivism/Environmentalism/Marxism which is all one in the same. It's those who practice these ideologies who are responsible for MILLIONS of deaths of innocents throughout history up to modern times.

    From Stalin's gulags and forced starvation's (a cult hero of Liberals) to the banning of DDT which costs millions of African men, women and CHILDREN their lives so Liberals can look at pretty birds.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • kiwilogic

      Really Stalin a liberal? The communist dictator who had a passion for executing people was a liberal?

      December 20, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply
      • SlackMeyer

        He was a MARXIST. An ideology the Liberals/Progressives LOVE. Think before you reply.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  162. dike

    I am curious when people tell the mom had a heart of gold..., why did she need the assault weapons in her house? to protect the heart? I cant imagine a school teacher and mom yielding these weapons...

    December 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Reply
  163. kiwilogic

    all you pro gun guys dont seem to realise how stupid you sound. "We've got to have guns to protect ourselves from all these people with guns." Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at you because they figured out a long time ago that you need gun control to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. If you think you need a gun to protect yourself i suggest you put all your energy into growing a pair of balls. America should be one of the safest countries in the world but with everyone armed to the teeth you make it dangerous yourself and considering over 40% of america thinks the world was created in 6 days then its a little worrying to have that many stupid people walking around with guns.

    December 20, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Reply
  164. JK

    What a woefully inadequate article. Writer gives ONE example. And misspells "Rifle." Yo, it's not "Riffle!"

    December 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Reply
  165. kiwilogic

    The 2nd amendment was put in place as a measure for national defence, remember how your war for independence was won by local militia because you didnt really have much of an army at the start? Well to keep the militias around to use as defence because you didnt have the man power in the army to cover, they made the 2nd amendment. Now in modern times you dont need the militias anymore because you've overspent on your military by trillions of dollars so therefore you do not need the 2nd amendment anymore. I know your scared of change and i know the majority of americans don't have the greatest of intellect but hopefully someone over there will have the balls to actually change the laws here and bring in some common sense to a place thats forgot the meaning of the words

    December 20, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Reply
    • USMC-VET-82-2002

      The second amendment was put in place to protect against a tyrannical government and to guarantee the freedoms the rest of the Bill Of Rights grant.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Reply
  166. dike

    One can clearly see how the NRA has brainwashed the stupid people. If you go to Pakistan and ask the people in the madrasas they will tell you what a noble think they are doing by being involved in terrorism just like most who nod their heads to NRA

    December 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Reply
    • RS

      So their brainwashing of their members is why THOUSANDS have joined in the last couple of days? Hate to break it to you, but you might want to find a better argument than "my side is common sense and the other guys are nutjobs" and similar if you want a chance at being taken seriously. Fortunately for the freedom loving part of America we have merely childish intellects to contend with on the whole (though there are some on this side of things too). That might have something to do with the fact that a group of people with no understanding or experience with the things they want to ban are trying to push for it. I think it is the responsibility of EVERY SINGLE PERSON who wants this assault weapons ban to go to a range and rent an AR-15 (with instruction that MANY of us would be more than happy to help you with for free and without complaint) and learn about it for yourself. Otherwise, logic would dictate that those familiar with the subject matter have priority on opinions, in the same way that I will trust an engineer over a dentist on the structural details of an airplane wing.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:35 am | Reply
  167. Mike

    I hope more of these stories are wrote, but change out NRA with Dem./Rep. Maybe America will finally wake up and realize its OK to disagree on specific issues.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Reply
  168. darryl

    hey fred37ify, you are a COMPLETE MORON!!!!! D.C. is a 7 hour drive from sandy hook. you are an ass. if you are is what is representative of gun owners in this country, they should be banned all together. and to some others, why are you complaining about companies that are bringing jobs to your area. you must all be inbread or just plain freaking dolts. hell with you then. close those factories and let all you go homeless and hungry, bring those jobs to ct where we will be happy to work with out a gun in the car.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Reply
  169. Jeff

    Amanpour is just another agenda driven journa...oops! Almost called her something she isn't. Voters decided to oust the lady and no one else. Until Americans stop blaming everything on something other than the people themselves, this country isn't going to get back onto the tracks that Bush derailed us from.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Reply
  170. cs1

    And what proposals are out there for the millions of guns that are already owned? It was amazing and exciting being in 1 gun store this week and seeing hundreds of "assault weapons" being purchased(one store,one city,one state, on one day) Don't think the idea of confiscation is going to go too well among the law enforcement community-they may be thinking along the lines of safety. Yep I already am witnessing the affects of a ban and I love it!

    December 20, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Reply
  171. tplife

    I'm the NRA. I live in CALIFORNIA. I HUNT. My STATE-APPROVED legal hunting rifle...wait for it...AR15 with 20-round magazine. Public education once again must take the rap for the inability of "folks" to understand that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Back to sleep, sheeple! ZZZzzzzzzzz.....

    December 21, 2012 at 7:27 am | Reply
  172. Sue

    Ÿou know, I can't help but see a parallel between this discussion thread and the mess in Washington. Until people 'agree to disagree' yet work together and DO THE RIGHT THING, nothing will change. Don't think I'll ever live to see it. We are so technologically advanced and have come so far as humans yet we will never master the real key to becoming a evolved race......control of our emotions.

    December 21, 2012 at 8:50 am | Reply
  173. T-Roy

    If you want to turn the NRA on it's head and deplete it's power, then here is what you do. You organize the Black and Latin members of all the major inner cities to immediately apply for membership in the NRA and begin registering their guns. When the all the remembers of the NRA see what they fear the most joining their club, they will quit the NRA and withdraw support. The only reason they want guns is to protect themselves from the Blacks and the Latinos. Why would they want to be in an organization that protected the object of their fears? It would ruin the entire agenda and cause the collapse of the NRA.

    December 21, 2012 at 10:29 am | Reply
  174. louis vuitton wallet for women

    I was examining some of your articles on this site and I conceive this web site is really instructive! Retain posting .
    louis vuitton wallet for women http://www.louisvuittonwalletny.com/

    December 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Reply
  175. louis vuitton wallet for women

    You are my inspiration , I possess few blogs and occasionally run out from to brand.
    louis vuitton wallet for women http://www.louisvuittonwalletny.com/

    December 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Reply
  176. User 4467

    We are being trampled by a minority of old white men who live in paranoid delusional fear. Their fears are fodder for an industry that gets wealthy off that fear. Gun manufacturers, gold sellers, Rush and talk radio, Fox News all target this powerful but shrinking demographic. Only time and generational change will fix this sad state. America is in the midst of a sea change. The irony is that the gun nuts fear a "new world order" (an imaginary conspiracy of the US government and the UN), but the real new order is aready here; and we elected Barack Obama. Yes, the "real America" is disappearing – and as ever, a much better one is coming. It's a wonderful invention... America.

    December 22, 2012 at 11:15 am | Reply
  177. Pharmg489

    Hello! caekcee interesting caekcee site! I'm really like it! Very, very caekcee good!

    December 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Reply
  178. Домашние животные

    We're a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with valuable info to work on. You've performed an impressive task and our whole community might be grateful to you.

    December 28, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Reply
  179. Ann wants American peace

    Would everyone who commented on here please contact their congressperson about a plan to separate this country peacefully into the United American Cities and the United American Heartland? People in cities are better off with big government, tiny cars, gun control, and every socialist idea they can come up with next. People in the American Heartland need low taxes, guns, Suburbans and F150s (and F350s), local school control, and the Bill of Rights prior to Supreme Court decisions. What this country called America does not need is the verbal sniping between countrymen that occurs on these anonymous web sites all over the web. Hateful words reflecting the lack of consent of the governed come before frustrated people start bombing federal buildings and other American atrocities. Stop the hate talk and figure out how to divide peacebly to have the consent of the governed. We can start with basic division of 2012 Red Counties and blue counties, and we have a pretty good divide. We would keep our military bases, colleges, etc according to county definition. Our elected officials would be as is for Congress, with reelection of Senators. Someone with more intelligence and insight into arcane government issues than me can work out a better separation plan. I love France, but I don't want their government. I love to visit big cities, but I don't want their government applied to me. Plan the peaceful government divide. for the sake of this wonderful country and all it has offered us. If the plan being in place makes us decide we really don't want to divide or spit evil words and sentiments at our fellow man, then Hallelujah!

    December 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Reply
  180. David

    So people are mad the nra is a lobby. Wake up their one lobby among thousands, nothing new, they just fight for the people who support their organization. Not saying i agree with it, i believe its a big problem in out political system, allowing forgin powers to influence our policies. Oh im completely disagree with this ban nonsense, theirs a million other ways to curb over all violence and death in the us, why is banning something that functions like every other rifle on the market but looks different the answer, people can buy 30 round mags for their handguns why not ban those too??

    January 10, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Reply
  181. Make money online

    wow! many thanks for that tremendous content. I really cherished it on the core. Hope you retain posting like amazing reports Make money online http://aafh4ff6.com

    March 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Reply
  182. discount mobiles

    I've recently started a website, the info you offer on this web site has helped me tremendously. Thank you for all of your time & work. "Never trust anybody who says 'trust me.' Except just this once, of course. – from Steel Beach" by John Varley.

    June 9, 2013 at 11:29 pm | Reply
  183. website designer

    Do you have a spam issue on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; many of us have developed some nice methods and we are looking to exchange strategies with other folks, please shoot me an email if interested.
    website designer http://www.webdesigncompaniesperth.harrysandon.org

    October 1, 2013 at 6:09 am | Reply
  184. rodent poison green pellets

    But by 1827 in Tasmania a newspaper article read, '.
    Piles for grass interfere with mowing equipment; spoil the
    particular aesthetics connected with well-kept turf type grass plus
    landscape designs. Did you know that there are currently over 60 varieties of
    mole traps on the market.

    July 9, 2014 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  185. m88

    I blog often and I really appreciate your information. Thiss article has truly peaked my interest.
    I am going to take a note of your website and keep checking for
    neww information about once a week. I subscribed to your RSS feed too.

    October 9, 2014 at 11:00 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.