Well done Count. Nothing sells quite as well as fear and no one is better at ginning up anti-government fear than the NRA. President George H. W. Bush dropped his NRA membership over 20 years ago when LaPierre first called federal agents "jack booted thugs".

Thanks to LaPierre's dastardly work there are now enough assault weapons and HCMs in circulation to last a generation or two. For any new legislation banning them to have any teeth it will be necessary to outlaw ownership of them as well.

Thanks for keeping the discussion moving!

Well written Count. But as with most political based articles, not necessarily on track. I see no reason for assault weapons, however, I understand the reasons some people give. The biggest problem with outlawing any type of weapon like you advocate is just how far does it go (not to mention the fastest way to a true revolution, Brian.) "And outlawing assault style rifles will not result in the loss of my shotgun." At least not until some wacko uses a shotgun to do some dastardly deed. We've already seemed to forget that Lanza didn't use an assault rifle to kill those people and kids in CT but semi auto handguns. And outlawing them may make us feel better but will not stop the next idiot from doing something worse. There is a large combination of things needed to stem the tide of such horrible attacks. Limiting assault rifles and large capacity magazines may be a start but by no means ends the carnage. A well practiced marksman can change out standard magazines so fast you barely notice the pause between shots. And in close quarters, a stock assault rifle is bulky. (Navy Seals reportedly shorten the barrels quite a bit.) Let's see just how crazy Ms. Feinstein gets with her proposal, then build something reasonable from that.

Evidently, not a member of the NRA as I am. I do not care if Bush dropped his membership, they are the only powerful organization fighting for our gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. When the criminals are able to get AK47's and AR-15's with 30, 60 round mags or 100 round drums, ban or no ban, no one is going to tell me I do not need one for home defense, the pleasure of shooting or hunting. Liberals think they know what is best for everyone else but are in my opinion full of BS. How's are all of the gun restrictions working in Chicago and DC? 500 + people killed this year in Chicago which has one of the most restrictive gun control envirionments in the nation. Liberals are basically a gaggle of Control freaks wanting to control every aspect of American's lives. I will not allow anyone to control mine. I will decide what is best for my family. I will decide if I need or even WANT a self defense weapon. The LIberal Ass media has so convienently named the AR an assault weapon. But I don't use mine to assault anyone, neither do millions of other law abiding citizens. For me and them it is a defense and sporting weapon. Lets get that straight right now. I am a Hardcore 2nd Amendment Supporter, Concealed Carry Supporter, Pro Shooter, Republican, Conservative, Freedom loving American. I carry my pistol nearly everywhere I go in public. Do I carry it to "assault people".No, I carry to protect myself and my family and no liberal government beauracrat is going to tell me differently.

So the bottom line is CR. If you are not a member of the NRA and are not familar with the inner workings and do not get the newsletters, and do not listen to conservative talk radio, Rush, Hannity, Erickson. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And your blatanly feeble attempt to get NRA members to question the only organization fighting for their gun rights is an exercise in futility.

Oh, and I Approve This Message.

"...By the way, the first Grand Wizard of the KKK was "Honored" at the 1868 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. No democrat voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and to this day, that party denies those decades of Racisim..." Ah yes, the great Senator Byrd comes to mind.."

I'm a member of the NRA. I'm glad they defend the 2nd Amendment. I still don't support "assault" type rifles. As I said, I understand your reasons for defending owning them, just don't think that is the answer. Bring all your assault rifles to a gunfight in tight quarters and my short barreled shotgun will win the battle. Put me back in the jungles of Viet Nam, then I will take the M-16 assault rifle.

While the KKK had many more members "south of Louisville", let us remember that "south of Louisville" did not have a monopoly on KKK membership. The membership stretched to Washington State. Also, not every white Southern family has had a KKK member. Do not paint us all with the same brush.

"The liberal senator and former Presidential candidate Gary Hart thinks there needs to be a new version of the NRA. A group truly focused on shooting as a sport and as a traditional way of feeding the family. Keep the damn politics out of it. Wouldn’t this be a group you’d be willing to join? I own a gun. I would join."

Surprise, once again a proponent for gun control completely misses the mark. The 2nd Amendment is not about sport shooting or hunting. None of the founding fathers thought that hunting or sport would ever be in question. This is about self defense. From criminals as well as our government. And if our government has it, we should be allowed to, as well.

Dispersing militias didn't really change the perceived need for militias. Our founding fathers had just managed to extricate themselves from a overbearing government, and they wanted to make sure that, if the need arose, their new nation could do so again.

Also, keep in mind that the NRA is fighting for gun rights. The obvious way to do that is to go to extremes. Saying "13 year olds should be able to have automatic weapons" is a good way to bargain and get the rest of us to keep the guns we should be able to.

I don't agree with everything they say, especially this last dumb-ass statement from LaPierre blaming video games and such, but I do agree with the job they do.

And lastly, the previous assault weapons bad didn't do what it was supposed to do. As evidenced by the drop in crimes and gun violence after the ban. And the drops were more pronounced in those states that didn't have laws mirroring the federal ban. Which kinda does say that the weapons ban did as those who actually apply some logic to this line of thinking already know - banning guns does nothing good.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28

One small example, dozens out there. Feel free to look....

As I read the banter going on between CR and Karsten, let me throw another thought your way. CR, you mentioned that we have the Supreme Court. What's bad is that we are getting to a place where we can't even trust them to rule according to the law without an agenda. I can only shudder when thinking about who the president will appoint when the current batch retires. So, I wouldn't count on that as far as putting all my eggs in that basket. OK. Proceed with your conversation....

According to the Georgia Sex Offender Registry, there are 17 "registered" sexual predators and offenders within a 5 mile radius of where I live in Loganville. Not to mention the unregistered and other felons and criminals that are talented in other wicked ways. Yeah, that's why I CC and the Georgia legislature was prudent in passing the Castle law and other self defense legislation. Too many people have their head in the sand and are living in their Pollyana fantasy world thinking, nothing like that will happen to me or my children.

@ Karsten - Judges have gone the way of the media. It's all a circus of opinion now. Where are your detractors now? They know this is true. Just have to take a little extra time coming up with a defense that they believe and even this is too believable and they know it. But the left will find one. I'm surprised the "living document' defense hasn't been used yet. If only they could hear themselves, they'd realize that they too are going down when the rest of us do. The only difference is that they bought into it (got to save face) while we fought it all the way to the end. Btw...(on another note) did you know that france just voted down what we are enacting in Jan.(taxing the wealthy)? Even France gets it! Now that's bad!

How did France get in here? I love France. Go as often as I can. I will tell you where I do not go..... anywhere I'm likely to wish I had a gun on me. My next blog may be about American paranoia. Here we have on this very page two Americans who go to the gun range often to be prepared for the OK Corral. My 20 guage takes practice to hit a skeet or quail; anger and luck will take care of the home invader. Where the heck do y'all hang out that you fear a gun fight is gonna break out? Do they happen often in Georgia? I must be watchin' the wrong news.....

Mr. B, that only scratches the surface. Don't forget weekend unsupervised parties where teens gather to fight amongst rival gangs (and carry weapons). In my work, I deal with the aftermath of that. It ain't your daddy's Oldsmobile anymore. 350k homes don't make you any safer. Oh, and don't you hate it when people assume things? We're not paranoid. Just realistic and ready.

Both of the last two comments support my argument. With the exception of the home invasion (where my 20 gauge would be useful) who in there right mind would find a hidden gun of value? Just an hour ago on the WSB was a story of two women robbed at gunpoint in a parking lot in Atlanta, very good neighborhood. They had their wallets taken. Tammy, would you have whipped out your Glock and had a shootout, possibly ending in your own demise? Or would you wait until the perps are running away and shoot 'em in the ass? Be thoughtful before you answer.

Robberies are horrible and better security would be nice. If you argue that the robbery would not happen if the perps thought the women were armed you are being hypothetical. This is real. Tammy, what would you have done?

Robbed at gunpoint? You're saying that the possibility of giving my life to thugs is even an option? This is the dumbest question I've ever had posed. Security in your home is one thing, but to take the chance that a thug would spare my life away from home? What a dumb question? You put a lot of trust in criminals. You've obviously never met one. I meet them quite often and listen as they laugh concerning their victims. They don't think like you and me. We care. They don't. You are very naive. People who are naive and make jokes about the OK corral like you do, would probably lose their life. That's where you err. None of us out here are walking around looking for a gun fight. We take it seriously. Shoot as they run away? That's about as stupid a commentas i've heard too. You make a lot of assumptions.
It's best to give it over to try to keep any other action from being taken (most cops will tell you that), but in the event that they decide to get violent, being ready is smarter than losing your life. naive people lose their life. Prepared people lessen that chance considerable. And I would never argue that a thug would know or not know I was or was not armed. Who cares? They are out to rob you. I doubt they have a debate on gun control before they went out to pillage people.

CR, You are actually going to question Tammy's judgement about CC when she works with people like that everyday? She has firsthand knowledge on how they think and act and you question that? What an ignorant egotistical fool you are! Personally, when I am out, with my weapon, I have situational awareness of who is around me and what they are doing. What they are doing with their hands, If I were in Atlanta, I and was even being approached by two single guys, my hand would already be on my weapon with the safety off. I would tell them to stop where they were, not allow them to get within arm's reach and if they said they were going to rob me or attempted to pull a gun, I would shoot each one center chest. And not shoot to wound, but shoot to kill. Tammy, don't waste your exceptional knowledge on this Moron. He is not worth either one of us's time. He's not naive, he's a bonified Idiot!

And so we get to the heart of the problem with the anti- gun crowd. Since somebody can't see how being armed would help a victim, it's better to just let the criminals have their way. I'll let you in on a secret, Count - each situation is different. If somebody is aware of their surroundings, we may not get robbed. We may be able to deter the crime, by brandishing if necessary. Happened to me a few years ago. I was about to get carjacked, and thank God I had a pistol in my car. But I saw them coming, saw it unfolding. So, I kept from being a statistic. Either by having to call a cab, or from bring dead in the road. Either way, it worked out for me.

But it would have been a different story if folks like you had their way....

CR, you said that the previous posts prove your point. What point is that? Do you deny that the facts that Mr. B and I presented were the truth? he got his from the newspaper under current news. I work in the field with criminals (have to take my word on that one though). I guess it doesn't exist because you say so. I swear, I can't figure out if you are a closet conservative or a liberal wannabe. You're stances changes as often as a woman changes shoes! :)

Count, I'm afraid you cannot hide naivete and lack of reason with eloquent words and a fancy but meaningless title ( this ain't no Alexander Dumas novel!) . The Patch alone posts newsflashes of criminal assaults on normal citizens and home invasions on a daily basis, and as the most recent post by Mr. B confirms, you don't have to go downtown to get the Boulevard Special. As for gov't tyranny, one need only get a netflix account(they have many great documentaries) and you can see real footage of what happens when gov'ts take over defenseless citizens. I don't care how much money the NRA, or gun makers make. Bullets stop assailants and they deter potential tyrants. Those are facts. McDonals makes boatloads of cash, but they serve food that quenches hunger nonetheless.

Thanks Tim and Karsten! I had cookies in the oven and almost didn't get them out waiting on you guys to respond. lolol
And for the record, if the criminal was armed, you'd never be convicted (more like congratulated, although the poor cop would have a ton more paperwork to do).

I wonder if CR may be a convicted felon?

Also, Count, still waiting on why you believe the way you do. Convince me. Show me data. You're writing these articles, and never back them up. Please, enlighten us.

Wow! This is great! No Tim, I'm not a convicted felon. And I'm really sorry for your extreme stress when you are carrying. What a burden. I'm fine with being ganged up on, 'cause I know I'm right. I will not keep a hidden handgun in my jacket pocket so I can make an adrenaline charged decision to shoot men in the chest who happen to be approaching my car to ask for directions. Karsten, I'm sorry you were almost carjacked and I'm sure it was horrible, but if you had been unarmed, you would have lost your car for a period of time. Showing a gun could have easily resulted in a gunfight. And Tammy, I do not work with criminals for a living and your job must be difficult. Thanks for the effort. But I fear you are jaded into thinking many, many of our fellow citizens are out to do you harm. I see it the other way. I have shopped and dined and caroused as well as the rest of us for forty years and never, ever been in fear of my life. Of course it could happen. But it has not. I think that too many people enjoy the thrill of holding a gun and firing a gun and talkin' bad ass and convince themselves that boogie men are all around us. Today's media will almost convince us that is the truth. But I will NEVER carry a gun expecting to use it on a stranger. I'm not a moron, a closet conservative (I'm out), a liberal wannabe, nor any other name you want to call me. I'm a 60 year old Georgia native with a career that has taken me around the world.

I have three kids who know better than to carry a gun 'cause shit happens. And the shit that happens will not be resolved with a hidden firearm. Please do not hang out where I might be. I do not want your help. You scare me. Ca Ching, Over and Out.

CR, you're right there are a lot of people out there that are like that, but they are just as rare as the people I'm supposedly paranoid about; but I am not one of them. I would never use a weapon unless I had one pointing at me. So the supposition that I would conceal and reveal and be wrong because some poor unsuspecting person happened to need directions would not happen. Like I said, making too many assumptions. And for the record, I was joking around about the closet liberal stuff (wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy). I happen to enjoy your writing too, btw... This one not as uch but the one before it was excellent. It just got highjacked so I didn't respond much. Peace and happiness my friend! Keep writing!

Yeah, you're right. I could have just given up my car. Maybe they wouldn't have killed me. Or beaten me, just because. How callous and unfeeling of me not to just hand criminals whatever they want. I mean, they must just be the poor, downtrodden folks, who never got a break, right? It's not their fault they're piece of cheap thugs who have nothing better to do.

I have to tell you, though, that nothing warms my heart more than hearing about a victim defending themselves and some thug that now needs funeral. We need more stories like that....

Oh, and I love the "over and out" with zero effort at backing up your side. I mean, not that I thought you could, successfully, but the lack of effort tells me all I need to know.

CR, Let me try to make this as clear as I can so maybe even you can undestand it. I do not carry under extreme stress. I carry because I am a Realist that sees the world as it is.....a good place with some very evil people. I spent alot of time thinking, reflecting, reading, researching and my own personal and moral beliefs before I ever decided to start carrying full time. My mind is settled over this. The decision has been made. Therefore, I do not stress. Indecision is a stressor. I carry calmly, situationally aware knowing full well that if necessary, I will use my weapon. I do not expect to everywhere I go, but I AM READY TO should the need arise. Did you understand that CR?? Since my mind is settled, there is no hesitation. Indecision creates hesitation and that can get you killed in various situations. I think you would enjoy being the good little victim which is certainly your choice. But I am a Warrior and am ready should the need arise. Based on my Psychological studies, you certainly suffer from retarded emotional and intellectual development.

CR, I have been employeed for 32 years here in Atlanta at a World Reknowned Univerrsity and have spent many years studying Normal and Abnormal Psychology. I am going to provide for you a free evaluation that I typically charge other patients for. As most Liberals, you appear to be stuck in the Maternal Stage of emotional Psychological development. Where once, as we all did, depend on our Mom's for emotional support, comfort and security, you as well as most other Liberals have, through the psychological term Transference, transfered those Maternal feelings and emotions from Mom to the government. You never overcame your Oedipus Complex where in the depths of your psyche, your Maternal instincts are still emotionally attached to your Libido. In other words, the government is now Yo Momma! Instead of developing through that stage and becoming reliant on the Self, you have chosen, either consciously or unconsciously, to depend on the government, or someone else for you security. This is the same psychological mindset of the ones on welfare and food stamps. They want someone else to provide for them and take care of their needs(MOMMA) They complain about slavery years ago, but now they are slaves to the Government and the state, both physically, financially, mentally and emotionally.(the Entitlement Mentality) This is also why you are unable to see and understand the mindset and cognition of someone more emotionally and intellectually mature than yourself.

Well darn Tim. Here I was thinkin' you were a trapper and it turns out you are a college professor and psycologist to boot. Looks like you 'caught' me. Let me go back to the beginning. I think the NRA has been hijacked by the gun manufacturers and importers who need the NRA's support to keep the guns flowing. And they scare good citizens into thinking their hunting rifles and bird guns will be outlawed if a single law is changed. AND, I am opposed to high capacity clips on semi-automatic weapons as used in CT and elsewhere for mayhem. PLUS, and this is harder to explain, I am against handguns. I think they are the weapon of choice for family drama, urban gangs killing innocent people and unintended mayhem when kept within reach of children. You and others may practice gun safety, but too many do not. So my solution is to ban these particular weapons. And not to ban 'em in a way that the bad guys can get 'em. But stop the manufacture and import. Happy New Year. Oh, Tim, please know that every person that wants gun rules changed is not a liberal. I hate labels anyway.

I couldn't even get through the blog entry due to its naiveté. Once any gun control gets started, we will always hear "just a little more will be perfect." I guess it's a good strategy to try to divide gun owners, but hopefully none of us are dumb enough to fall for it.

Cr, I couldn't sleep last night due to my calling you a closet liberal. LOL It really bothered you and I guess proof that you are a very conservative person is that the last thing you were involved in here, I wanted to defend you but the far lefties came on here and attacked you (broken record- no point in debating them). That's proof in itself for me - lol.
I do enjoy your writing, but I think maybe too much information on this one. My first thought on this blog was to tell you that you must be a glutton for punishment - lolol. You have a point in the manufacturing and import suggestion. And as far as the KKk and all that...the NRA, just like the democratic party had different origins originally and has evolved into something that is hardly recognizable to my grandmother (a life long democrat). That dog probably won't hunt on this subject. Have a great New Year and write us another one!

I understand the "harder to explain" part. Because nowhere has a handgun ban helped people to not die and be subject to crime. I get why you're so wishy washy on the subject. I do wish we could guarantee no child would be killed with a gun they find in a home. Or that nobody would commit atrocities like this most recent with somebody else's guns. But, I'll take those risks over the alternative. Because to take the guns away is detrimental. England tried it, and their gun violence went up for the ten years after. Now their gun violence is down, but all other violence is up. They're number one in the world per capita in violent crime . Why? Because only the criminals have them. Or because their victims are unarmed, so the know they don't need a gun to do the job. Crimes are especially up there and in Australia against the elderly. Break ins and such. Because criminals are opportunistic pieces of s$!t and are waiting for us to follow suit.

And those are islands. I mean, is anybody on here really thinking that we can control the flow of guns in this country? We can't even control the flow of people. It's a nice dream you people have, and if it had a chance of working, I'd gladly turn mine in. But it won't, it can't, so for me it won't happen. Regardless of what legislation gets passed....

CR- I am getting ready to start back up with my lighter stuff too. You'll notice that I respond to OTHER PEOPLE'S political blogs. I don't start them. I feel I would be a glutton for punishment since the good debater's share the responses with those who harp on and on. Too many get personal, and I don't care to be the subject of that. Well, good try anyway. You definately know how to sharpen the saw! lol

No, CR, I'm just a Locksmith and a Wildlife Control Operator that happens to read ALOT........LOL!

KT, I looked it up. Here's Ga. law on the subject:
There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.
Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)
Of course, you've got to hope that they find the perp's weapon at the scene. Just like soldiers and cops when issues of deadly force arise, there will always be a burden of proof, paperwork, court etc...out the yahoo. Hopefully, our laws are in our favor when it comes to true self-defense.

Off the subject, sort of....Mr. B, you stated, "The law as it stands is so vague, it could be assigned to any weapon including your kids BB gun."
Well, your kid already can get suspended for a year for taking his BB gun he got for Christmas to show and tell. How far we've come, huh? I remember taking my pocket knife to school for show and tell and being the star of show and tell that day. LOL

Woolworth's. That's where you could buy caps by the hundreds. lol

KT - I looked them up out of my own curiosity. The laws changes so often, and like you said, many states would penalize you for defending yourself. I thought, for the sake of those who don't know, it might be interesting information. I remember the story my son told me when he got out of the Army, fresh off of the streets of Baghdad Iraq. He had an encounter with a crook that broke into his apartment in Ft. Hood. Let's just say, after the crook refused to leave and became combative, my son commensed to "getting him ready for the patrol car (or an ambulance, whichever need came first)" when the police arrived. The Police asked him if he was pressing charges, not the other way around. Don't mess with Texas!

And that's the way it should be. As far as I'm concerned, if you break into my house, it shouldn't matter if you're armed or not. I don't shoot to injure or scare. Don't want to die? Go get a real job....

I'm glad to host a modest chat room folks, but maybe someone should start their own blog. Bit of advice, if you say stuff you know everyone will agree with, you get no traffic. NRA is a bad organization. Y'all take it elsewhere....

Well, you knew this would create some sparks. Good on ya. And not just Reagan, how about George HW Bush's letter of resignation to the NRA: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/22/1173270/-George-H-W-Bush-s-Letter-of-Resignation-from-the-NRA

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles

Cheese and chalk my friend. I'm a bit disappointed that you consider me an idiot. First, only Fox News would publish such rubbish. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just rubbish. My argument has always been against handguns and assault style rifles with high capacity clips. A deer rifle or rancher's gun are not my concern. Here we are comparing blunt instruments to rifles. Notice they leave out handguns from the calculation. I can outrun most fat bastards with baseball bats should I get caught stealin' their chickens. Guns, not so much.

I have been following this and like usual, the Author has little or no idea what he is talking about. The NRA is STILL EXTREMELY involved the the safe training of Firearms usage. Their program is SO SUCCESSFUL that it is not only recognized nationally (Whereas different states have their own training requirements to obtain a carry permit, EVERY state recognizes and approves the same identical NRA certified training course) but internationally as well. I KNOW this because i AM a Certified NRA Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun Basic Shooting Instructor and Range Safety Officer. I am also in the process of obtaining my Certification to teach Firearms for the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice. While the training the State provides for Professional Security and Law Enforcement Personnel is good, it pales in comparison to the in-depth training I give NRA students. The NRA most DEFINITELY supports the Hunters and Marksmen of America.

Next, you make a comment about a couple of people on the discussion and how much they go to the range. They go that often because in a stress situation, you will not rise to the level of your expectations, you will sink to the level of your training. That is why the U.S. Military trains ALL THE TIME. Combat tends to be very instinctual, very little time for detailed thought processes. However, with the exception of SWAT Units and other Special Teams, the Police only go to the range when they have to requalify. THAT IS WHY THE NATIONAL HIT AVERAGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ONLY 18%. For every 100 rounds an officer has fired, only 18 hit the mark. And since this is an average covering ALL Law Enforcement, once you factor out the highly trained SWAT and other Special Units which have a much higher hit ratio, but are limited in number, it means you have a lot of officers who can't hit the broad side of a barn. BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRAIN.

The North Hollywood Shootout pitted over 50 LAPD officers against 2 heavily armed Bank Robbers high on pain killers and wearing body armor. It lasted 44 minutes. It shouldn't have lasted 4. The body armor on the perpetrators did not extend to the head, yet NOT A SINGLE OFFICER took a head shot. BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER TRAINED TO.

So the next time you hear about some individual that goes to range all the time, don't think it is because they are some wacko preparing for Armageddon. Be thankful that as RESPONSIBLE firearm owners, they realize that the only way to insure they use their guns in a safe manner is because they TRAINED to. And be sorry that the folks we pay to protect and serve us often don't show the same commitment to safety (Remember those 82 rounds that DIDN'T hit the mark? Well, they went SOMEWHERE, and you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere wasn't good)

Count,

No, Count, I am NOT supporting your argument. Your words, not mine...

"My friends, this group is all about keeping the money flowing from their big contributors. If a high volume clip or assault rifle ban were to pass Congress, their biggest donors would be financial losers. And I don’t know how big Wayne LaPierre’s (CEO of NRA) second home might be, but I bet it’s bigger than yours. This is a money-making venture hiding behind a well thought out, and necessary, Second Amendment to the US Constitution. They do not represent hunters or marksmen. They represent themselves!"

What about the NRA's various programs? They have links to Clubs and Organizations, Competitive Shooting, Training and Education, Hunter Services, Law Enforcement, the National Firearms Museum, Safety Services, Shooting Range Services, Women's Programs, and Youth Programs, just to name a few. Under their training programs, they offer Basic Pistol Shooting, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Basic Rifle Shooting, Basic Shotgun Shooting, Basic Muzzleloading Pistol, Basic Muzzleloading Rifle, Basic Muzzleloading Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Shotgun Shell Reloading, and Range Safety Officer. And let us not forget about the Eddie Eagle Program to teach kids about firearms and Safety. Doesn't sound like an organization just interested in making money for themselves.

"Apples and Oranges Karsten. A real NRA would promote gun safety and gun skills as this group did originally."

See my comment above...

"Here we have on this very page two Americans who go to the gun range often to be prepared for the OK Corral. My 20 guage takes practice to hit a skeet or quail; anger and luck will take care of the home invader. Where the heck do y'all hang out that you fear a gun fight is gonna break out? Do they happen often in Georgia? I must be watchin' the wrong news....."

'Kenneth, you are supporting my argument. I suspect a high majority of gun owners have little or no training. A man or woman with no training and a shotgun might get lucky on occasion and hit a quail. Or a deer hunter with no training can still take a trophy if luck is with him. I'm fine with those gun owners doing there best without training 'cause if they fail, other humans are not at risk. Owners of handguns and high capacity semi-automatic rifles with no training are not only of little use to themselves, but of great danger to the surrounding populace."

Which side of your mouth do you wish to talk on? One statement you are denigrating two individuals of this discussion group because they go to the range and practice (TRAINING). The next, you are saying because gun owners don't train, they are a danger.

Texas requires those with concealed carry permits to show proficiency when getting their permit. Some of them have not been back to the range since then. I used to go every 6 months, but now go every month, as the possibility of needing this weapon seems to increase daily.

NO, COUNT, I DON'T support your argument. YOU don't even support your own argument. In fact, from your own words "anger and luck will take care of the home invader" YOU sound just as irresponsible as those others who don't train, because those who do train obviously do it because they're preparing for a fight at the OK Corral.

Just in case you accuse me of take your words out of context, your whole sentence was "My 20 guage takes practice to hit a skeet or quail; anger and luck will take care of the home invader." Shooting at a skeet or a quail is nothing like trying to shoot at someone who is trying to hurt or kill you. It takes a whole different skill set, SOMETHING the NRA does TEACH (Personal Protection inside the Home Course).

Also, if the NRA is just about money and not training, why does their web site list 20 different firearms safety classes from Jan 6, 2013 through Jan 18, 2013 (and that is just the first page of 10) for the state of Georgia alone? You did say you were from Georgia... "I'm a 60 year old Georgia native with a career that has taken me around the world."

Instead of blasting the NRA, maybe you should sign up for some of the courses first. Then you might actually have a clue of what you're talking about.

OK Kenneth, if you are going to go and parse my words I will have to defend them. When commenting on the lady who went to the range, the intent was to show her concern for an eventual shootout. Not to say that firearm training was a bad idea. Of course it's a good idea if your inclination is to own a handgun. Sorry if I was not clear about that. Now as to the NRA, I know a bit about politics, lobbying and non-profit organizations. The NRA is a 501(c)3 paying no taxes. Fine. As such, they have a very slim percentage of income they can spend on lobbying or they lose their non-profit, tax-exempt status. So they set up websites with dramatic videos and have training classes just as they should. The NRA also legally set up a 501(c)4 which allowed them to take as much money as they wanted and spread it around to as many politicians as they choose. The donations by the gun manufacturers and importers are not tax deductible, so it had better be a dollar well spent. They also set up the NRA Foundation to professionally collect their own money to donate to their own 501(c)4. Complicated, legal and all about making sure that the guns that can kill in bunches remain legal. The National Achololic Beverage Control Assoc. claims to be about preventing underage drinking and drinking and driving. Do you really believe that? They are about making sure their members can sell more booze. Maybe you need your own blog. I promise to comment.

Rebecca, Yes I have. I am currently CPR and AED and Red Cross 1st Aid Certified. I have also trained on Epinefron Auto-Injectors (epi-pens). I also have ASP and Monadock Extensible Baton and Practical and Tactical Handcuffing certifications to my credit. I am a Pro. I do this stuff for a living.

I also know that the odds of drawing against someone who already has the drop on you are not very likely. However, I also know that it is very difficult to shoot a moving target. One of the first things they teach LEO's and other Professionals is NOT TO STAND STILL. THey also teach situational awareness - constantly be on the lookout for cover, concealment, blindspots, exits, potential dangers, etc. The point is so that the Bad Guy DOESN'T get a chance to get the drop on you. The NRA also teaches these same techniques in their Personal Protection courses. As the old saying goes; the best place to be in a gunfight is not to be in one in the first place. However, if you have no choice, you want to give yourself every tactical advantage you can get. HENCE training.

Count, at no point did I ever say the the NRA was not involved in Politicking. Of COURSE they are. It is the only way to ensure that the Politicians do hear the voice of the Members. YOUR the one who is claiming that this is ALL the NRA is doing. I am merely pointing out that you are very sadly mistaken. The NRA is very much alive and healthy in their other aspects. You also are claiming the the NRA doesn't represent their members anymore. If this is so, other than as few politicians who are more concerned with their public image, why are the rank and file of NRA members not tearing up their membership cards and dropping out of the Organization? I have not heard of any such mass exodus. Have you? Seems to me that the MAJORITY STILL FEEL THAT THE NRA IS DOING ITS JOB, Protecting the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL for self defense.

As far as the young lady who goes to the range practicing for an eventual shootout... It is called mental conditioning. If you are going to carry a firearm for self-defense and be successful, you have to prepare yourself for such an eventuality. Do you know why so many LEO's tend to suffer much worse effects than criminals from the exact same type wound? Because the criminal already accepts getting hurt (shot) is part of the job, so they have already mentally accepted the fact. Most LEO's operate under the assumption it will never happen to them, so when it does, they can't wrap their minds around it, so shock effects are much greater

Kenneth Collins - When my son was born, he was born with a problem that required us to take CPR, AEd etc... I remember, as a young mother, being afraid all the time thinking, "what if I freeze up? What if? So, I studied and practiced everything I was taught. I made sure I stayed current.
And the day came that I had to use it and because of having it ever in my mind, like a good soldier, everything faded in light of my training, and the training took over. I used my training on my son successfully. He's 27 today and has a child of his own. He actually served in Iraq and told me a story about a real life "mexican standoff" he had with some Iraqi police in training that didn't want to cooperate, so they pulled a weapon on him. He said, all I knew was what I was taught and that it would save my life. He reacted the way he was taught. And it did. Well, that and the Iraqi interpreter that loved Americans - lol.
You are so right. I hope these forums have taught a few people things they didn't know before, and caused those backslidden to reconsider training more often.

Kenneth's comment underlines the NRA's denial of responsibility: "Do you know why so many LEO's tend to suffer much worse effects than criminals from the exact same type wound? Because the criminal already accepts getting hurt (shot) is part of the job, so they have already mentally accepted the fact. Most LEO's operate under the assumption it will never happen to them, so when it does, they can't wrap their minds around it, so shock effects are much greater." According to Kenneth, it's the Law Enforcement Officers fault he/she suffered so much because they didn't visualize being shot as he/she put on their bullet proof vest. The NRA makes sure the monsters out there are well armed and can slaughter more efficiently but it is the publics fault for not determining who is insane or blame 7 year olds for not visualizing being shot, therefore they suffer more. 2nd Amendment rights are not being threatened. Never have been. It is a false argument and one that the NRA continues to hide behind. The NRA is a shameful figure of what it once was.

Come on, ya'll are just going to have to accept the mass murder of innocent individuals because it's our 2 amendment right to blindly walk into a school or church or movie theater and kill who ever we want with overly militaristic assault rifles because our founder fathers said it was ok. we are a gun loving society, get over it you bunch of .....

I understand (and support) the pro-gun argument based on protection and sporting. But it seems to me a desperate reason to claim the 2nd-Amendment-guaranteed private gun caches are for citizens vs govt. In your house or vehicle, you're going to stand against the world's most powerful military, with its advanced weaponry, high tech and intelligence capabilities, drones, nuclear power and manpower might? The military that has been built up, funded and promoted by mostly Republican lobbyists and lawmaker backing? That's paranoia of your own making. The great Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned in the 1950s about the dangers of
a huge, all-powerful, costly military-industrial complex. Of course, he would have to be an Independent or Democratic candidate in today's world.

Hey Mr. B: Your Fienstein quote is a non-starter. Here's one Senator saying she's against all guns. Big deal. There is no way on God's green earth that a majority of Senators or Congressmen or the President would vote to appeal the Second Ammendment. And that would have to happen before the states voted on it. Go worry about your neighbors and their unlocked guns being stolen and used on your other neighbor. But don't worry about the Second Amendment. Geezzz

I think I have a way to basically solve at least some of this discussion. Count Raoul's original point was that he felt the NRA has lost it's way and no longer represents its members. I feel they still very much do. Forget for a minute about the Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, the 2nd Ammendment, and everything else for a few minutes and PLEASE, just HONESTLY answer the two following questions. 1) Are you an NRA Member? 2) Do you feel that the NRA still supports what you believe in. Keep it short, sweet, and simple.

I'll start.

1) Lifetime Member of the NRA
2) Yes, I think they still represent what I feel

If the Majority of people involved in this discussion who answer that they are NRA members answer that they feel they are still adequately represented by the NRA, then CR's opinion is just that, his opinion, and is not supported by any reasonable facts currently at our disposal. If those who answer that they are NRA members and that the NRA no longer supports them is the majority, then I will concede to CR's point of view. HOWEVER, if you are NOT a member of the NRA, please just answer the 1st question only. PLEASE keep it honest. Don't lie about having a membership just to try and drive a point home.

I, like President GHW Bush, am not a member.

Karsten I will be flagging your last comment as inappropriate. Not because of your tone or even your words. The 'half-truths' you tell may be taken by some as accurate. This is not the place for lies.

You told plenty in your OP. Should I flag that?

And which part are lies? I'm thinking that you should address those, because just calling them 'lies' and then saying you're going to flag my post does not make them lies....

Karsten, Go back and check my comment to you last year: 11:06 am on Sunday, December 30, 2012. It's 'bout half way up. I'll stick with that.

Potato hole? Just had an idea for dinner.... OK, here's a list of gun fatalities per capita for you. It does not break out crimes vs. accidents, but it's a start. Lemme know what you think? The US is in some really, really good company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And you're repeating yourself. I said that the firearm stats are immaterial. When it comes to violent crime, we're not even in the top 10. I'll take higher firearm deaths along with a lower violent crime rate any day.

Here,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

This is probably the easiest to read....

How long are y'all gonna beat this Horse??? No one on here is going to change anyone else's mind. I have my beliefs based on fact and logic and I know I'll not change them....y'all shore spending alot of energy.

Thanks Karsten. Bad argument. This is a story that says England is violent. It sorta is. I've been a dozen times and seen about that many bar fights. They tend to settle things over there pretty quickly. But your article pointed out that only 1.49 people per 100K are killed each year by all means (knives, fists, guns, bats, poison, etc). While in America there are 10 people per 100K killed by guns alone. Not all homicides, I'll grant you. But do I have to look it up?

Fair warning, I live in (very) big house which I can afford thanks to my career helping people see things they did not want to believe. It's a sport to me. You will not believe my arguments here, nor change your mind. Why?

Mr. B, since there were 16,799 US homicides in 2011, how did the other 13,560 die?

Why am I not surprised at your answer Mr. B? You could care less how the other homicides occurred. With NRA members, it's all about you. So tell me, what's the upper limit on the number of deaths by rifles you might find unacceptable?