Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
The NRA does represent many Americans PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

We read with fascination the letters written by Mary Jo Berner  and Susan Sommer regarding the recent failure of the gun control legislation.

This was democracy at work, but both Ms. Berner and Ms. Sommer seem to believe there is some type of underlying conspiracy when Democrats do not get their way.

We are stupefied that those who lean Democrat or liberal cannot understand that intelligent and good-hearted people might disagree with their stance on gun control. Why can’t they understand that there can be a difference of opinion on issues such as this?

Ms. Berner noted the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent $1.8 million to unseat Russ Feingold in 2010. That seems like nothing compared to the $15 million that Planned Parenthood poured into re-electing Barack Obama.

The NRA is painted as some independent monster that is eating away at our democratic process, rather than an organization with 5 million members who are committed enough to our Second Amendment right to bear arms that we provide the funding to the NRA so that they can advocate on our behalf.

Ms. Sommer notes that the NRA “does not represent the will of the people.”  She might be surprised that a recent Gallup poll showed 100 million Americans own guns. There are about 240 million Americans over the age of 18, which means close to half of Americans are gun owners. There are many of us whose will has been represented.

Even if you believe the NRA is not representing us, you must concede that our legislators did indeed represent those of us who legally own guns when they voted against the background check bill.

Perhaps more importantly we need to review the fundamental problem with this bill. Placing more restrictions on law-abiding Americans who purchase their guns legally will do absolutely nothing to stem the violence perpetrated by those buying guns illegally or stealing them from family members and others.

It is also interesting to note that the horrible loss of life at Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook all took place in gun-free zones. It is hard to imagine that those who perpetrated these awful crimes did not know they would be in a place where there would be no resistance.

Bob and Nancy Vogt

NRA members

South Milwaukee and

Conover

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:56 PM
 

Comments  

 
+28 #13 Denny Erardi 2013-05-07 02:52
Carl, how about you don't label me? As I said, it's not my media. I'm not a liberal. By no measure has anything I've ever written in this "forum" come from an overall liberal mind. I'm fiscally very conservative, and socially moderate. These days, many of us find it difficult to adhere strictly to one end of the political spectrum or the other. There's lots and lots of gray areas, and those are the spots many of us inhabit.

Your assertion that 99% of the media is controlled by liberals is laughable and runs directly counter to your subsequent comment about Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Unless of course, those bastions of conservatism are also controlled by liberals.
Quote
 
 
-33 #12 2013-05-06 09:45
Denny, glad to see you finally figured it out, although I bet you can't see it through your liberal eyes.

By the way it is your media. The liberals control 99% of the media. Conservaties have Fox News (on occasion) and The Wall Street Journal.
Quote
 
 
+28 #11 Denny Erardi 2013-05-03 13:19
I would imagine, Carl, because the question is one of general inquiry, not intended to address every single aspect of the bill nor the situation. It's not "my media" --- and the question isn't dishonest nor skewed. It's just a question.
Quote
 
 
-32 #10 Frank Gabl 2013-05-03 11:24
Background Checks for Late-Term Abortion:

Shocking, shameless, hypocritical, disingenuous - no one willing to compromise? And I was under the naïve assumption that background checks were all about saving lives. Silly me.

Truth be told, the point is:

Obamacare has never been about healthcare, but rather, CONTROL.

Global warming (which has been cooling since 1998) has never been about saving the planet, but rather, CONTROL.

And I’ve Just proven that if gun control advocates will not at the “very least” trade for the elimination of 12,000 annual late-term murders (outlined below) for their sacred background checks, then like Obamacare and Global Warming, background checks have absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s theatrics “if we can save even one life, we should do that,” but rather, CONTROL.
Quote
 
 
+29 #9 2013-05-02 18:31
Forget it Denny....People like Carl and Frank will divert and make excuses all day long. Fact is Americans including NRA members are in favor of background checks.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/91-percent-americans-support-gun-background-checks-poll-144348180--politics.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gun-owners-background-checks/2013/01/14/id/471413

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

Of course those on the Right that post here often will now make excuses......
Quote
 
 
-32 #8 2013-05-02 17:18
Denny, why was the fact that your name would appear on a government list because of the bill be ommitted from the question?

Again, my question is more honest than that of your media.
Quote
 
 
-33 #7 Frank Gabl 2013-05-02 11:38
It is inevitable that a second background check bill will come up for a vote in the Senate.

It’s also clear in the wake of Newtown that a majority of people consider Barack Obama’s heart-tugging admonishment essential for a civilized culture to uphold: “If there’s even one thing we can do, if there's just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try.”

And it’s also obvious that genuine compromise is the only way to solve this ongoing impasse. So let’s negotiate right here and see just how easy it is, especially since we’re all equally protective of the most defenseless among us.

Bill #1 proposal:

Pro-life advocates will cede background checks to gun control advocates in return for a ban on late-term abortions after 21 weeks with an exception for the literal life of the mother.

Lives saved annually:

Background checks – 100

Late-term abortion - 12,000

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-30 #6 Frank Gabl 2013-05-02 11:33
Continued:

Bill #2 proposal:

Pro-life advocates will cede gun control advocates a ban on semi-automatic rifles for a ban on abortions after the first trimester with an exception for the literal life of the mother.

Additional lives saved:

Semi-automatic rifles – 325

Second trimester abortion – 120,000

Bill #3 proposal:

Pro-life advocates will cede gun control advocates a total ban on firearms with the exception for law-abiding gun owners with no criminal history, for a total ban on abortions with the exception for rape, incest and the literal life of the mother.

Additional lives saved:

Total gun ban: 25

Total abortion ban: 1 million
Quote
 
 
+28 #5 Denny Erardi 2013-05-01 19:23
The question wasn't worded like that, Carl. And just as polls can be worded to favor one approach over another, so can you find fault with any vehicle that delivers a message with which you disagree. The question was very straightforward without bias: "As you may know, last week the U.S. Senate voted on, but didn't pass a measure to expand background checks for gun purchases. Do you think the Senate should or should not have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases?"

The fact is simple: the vast majority of Americans favor background checks for gun purchases. It's not a burning bush moment nor is it likely to do much to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. (my opinion) It does make it pretty easy to see why gun control discussions are nearly impossible to have in a reasoned manner when the most basic of facts is disputed.
Quote
 
 
-31 #4 2013-05-01 17:10
Denny, you can bias a poll response in the way a question is asked. Do you suspect 80 to 90% positives if the question were worded as such:

Do you support background checks on individuals purchasing firearms, even though this law is not needed as we already have enough laws already on the books and no loaw will prevent such tradgedies that have occured recently?

Same question phrased honestly, but different from the medias liberal biased questions.

It may seem an exageration on my part, but imagine if the media acctually told us the whole story, not just the liberal feel-good aspects of it.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh