I strongly repudiate the points Ted Round makes in his Nov. 25 letter “JFK and NRA.” The National Rifle Association doesn’t promote gun violence or sell guns? News to me.
Gun makers pay the NRA handsomely to make the political landscape favorable to selling guns. By blocking every sensible gun law, the NRA ensures unrestrained gun sales with nary a background check and is directly culpable for gun proliferation and violence in America.
As for JFK being a member, many famous people are. So what? How does that sanitize the image of the NRA? Besides, the NRA was a responsible group in JFK’s time and advocated a sensible balance between gun ownership and restrictions. Today, as a vociferous minority, it is the willful scourge of America.
It’s interesting that the gun apologists are so paranoid that they worry with even the smallest gun law we will descend a slippery slope to confiscation, but the same history Mr. Round extols shows just the opposite trend — a precipitous fall from the sensible regulations of Kennedy’s day to the deplorable situation we have today.
Perhaps someday, Mr. Round will set aside his solipsistic delusions and see that America would be a much safer place without so many guns. More guns equal more shootings. Fewer guns equal fewer shootings. Simple math cannot be overturned by misguided NRA rhetoric.
AL DUERIGGreensburg
I like this guy. He uses some of the same ideas as I do. He says the NRA is "directly culpable for gun proliferation and violence in America," that it was "a responsible group in JFK’s time," and that it represents "a vociferous minority."
Gun manufacturers contribute just 6% of the NRA's budget. The rest of the money comes from proud members like me. As for paranoia, gun confiscation has happened in Australia and England, we know that's the ultimate goal, we even have quotes from gun banners saying that's their ultimate goal. People like Duerig think we're amateurs, that we were born yesterday. We've been fighting the gun banners for years, yet he has the audacity to lecture us? What a bunch of BS. Fewer guns don't mean fewer shootings, Mexico has all the gun control laws you'd ever want, yet their shootings make Newton look like child's play. Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crimes." The statistics are on our side, the liberal media hyperventilates over isolated incidents, yet the reality is that guns save lives. Visit the Guns Save Lives blog to learn more. Google those terms and you'll find it.
ReplyDeleteP.S. That is not my blog, I'm simply not interested in having anti-gunners visit my site.
Well, you're welcome here anytime. A guy with your independent thinking and razor-sharp perceptions could only improve the quality of this blog.
DeleteYou might want to rethink this one though:
"Fewer guns don't mean fewer shootings, Mexico has all the gun control laws you'd ever want, yet their shootings make Newton look like child's play. "
Do you see the problem with that? You were first talking about "fewer guns," then suddenly you were talking about "gun control laws" in Mexico. They're not the same thing. You could use the Mexico situation to say that gun control laws don't work, but you can't use it to say that "fewer guns don't mean fewer shootings."
You're all mixed up, man.
Mikeb, this Anonymous is on to you. You should see from all of our comments that we don't believe your glib assuances.
Delete"Fewer guns don't mean fewer shootings"
DeleteMathematics prove you wrong.
Anonymous, are you suggesting that fewer guns can't shoot more?
DeleteHard to reply to idiots who don't understand Math Your answer reveals you as an idiot, or a dishonest liar. The later must be the answer, since you have proven it to the satisfaction of the author of this blog who knows you well, and the multiple other readers who have proven you to be a liar.
DeleteMath, hm, let's see:
DeleteIf we have 300,000,000 guns, and each one fires one shot, and then we have 100,000,000 guns, and each one fires three shots, the result is the same.
Where's the lie or the misunderstanding?
Thanks for proving you have no understanding of basic Math.
DeleteOf course you like him. He's a useful idiot.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the NRA was a responsible group in JFK’s time and advocated a sensible balance between gun ownership and restrictions.
ReplyDeleteMaybe because the politicians were reasonable in JFK's time.
"Maybe because the politicians were reasonable in JFK's time."
ReplyDeleteI bet the NRA wasn't too popular with southern Democrats back then either when they actively supported NRA chapters formed by oppressed blacks that came together for defense against the Klan.
Check the platform and programs the NRA had in 1960. There is no similarity between the NRA of 1960 and the NRA of today.
ReplyDeleteTimes changed, and the NRA had to adapt to them.
DeleteThe NRA adapted by putting a racist on their board. They adapted by discarding centuries of level headed approach to guns and their use and promoting the kind of lying criminal cowardice YOU represent.
Delete