Letter: Gun control opposition about Obama?

A majority of Americans voted for President Barack Obama, despite having to stand in lines for hours in many locations.

The president’s agenda, agreed to by most of America, is to limit ammo clips to 10 rounds, eliminate the further sale of assault weapons and require background checks on gun purchases, whether at a gun show or a sporting goods store — a simple concept, agreed on by most Americans, gun owners or not.

What the NRA, the star salesman for the weapons manufacturers, hears is that we want to take away everybody’s guns and leave them defenseless.

This is cognitive dissonance.

Everyone gets to keep their guns and even buy as many more as they can afford. This time, however, you’ll have a background check.

If you are a hunter, but you need an assault rifle to kill Bambi, you should turn in your gun.

If for some reason, you object to having a background check before buying a new weapon, the police would like to know why.

The NRA works hard on those who don’t understand. They keep them angry for reasons that don’t exist.

Just because you’re a Southern conservative doesn’t mean you have to disagree with everything the “different from us” president suggests.

Joseph Piper

retired communications worker

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by getemtigers12 - 25/02/2013

Yes, let's implement expensive legislation that will literally have NO IMPACT on gun violence and only affect law abiding citizens. Great idea. A few things. We banned high capacity magazines and assault weapons before. The result? NOTHING. Not even a slight reduction in crime. Quite literally, nothing. It did not reduce violent crime, gun violence, or the amount of victims or gun shot wounds per gun violence incident. It literally did nothing and this was confirmed by the DOJ, National Academy of Sciences, CDC and Library of Congress. Let's also not forget that the CDC and National Academy of Sciences have done vast studies on gun control. The findings? They could not link a SINGLE gun control measure to a reduction in violent crime, suicides or accidents. So yeah, let's limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves without ANY good reason. Good idea... do yourself a favor and stick to "communications" work.

2) Comment by Peauxboy - 24/02/2013

As far as the militia, pick your defintion. 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Based on the Random House Dictionary

3) Comment by Peauxboy - 24/02/2013

"The NRA works hard on those who don’t understand. They keep them angry for reasons that don’t exist." Replace The NRA with Obama.

4) Comment by InPVille - 14/02/2013

The very first sentence of Mr. Piper's letter is an untrue statement. From there he moves south. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of this issue will realize that the entire premise that positions on the subject would be any different if someone other than the current president held the office is laughable.

5) Comment by nimby? - 12/02/2013

if this government , or any , seeks to disarm law abiding citizens it is no longer a government of the people . hence the need for personal arms .maybe I will need that ar 15 .

6) Comment by Chucky - 12/02/2013

Got my Red Rider so do not tangle in my back yard.

7) Comment by nimby? - 12/02/2013

or rather they disarm and shoot me , same as wounded knee ....

8) Comment by DMJ - 12/02/2013

True, nimby. I guess you can shoot them. Good luck with that.

9) Comment by nimby? - 12/02/2013

" if the government wants your guns they can and will take them , and there is nothing any of you yahoos can do about it " ....

10) Comment by Sandy - 12/02/2013

Ah, the old, "If you don't agree with Obama you must be a racist" argument. That makes me wonder why I have always opposed gun control when it was proposed by all those white politicians in the past. Mr. Piper should understand that we oppose gun control because we disagree with it no matter who is proposing it. He also should understand that calling me a racist makes me less likely to agree with anything he says.

11) Comment by unevahno - 11/02/2013

@Vietvet58:Please read "with comprehension". No one has yet to say they want your guns. Please read "with comprehension". You're picking a fight with yourself. Programmed.

12) Comment by potkcalb - 11/02/2013

To a conspiracy theorist absence of evidence of a conspiracy is taken as further evidence of a conspiracy.

13) Comment by unevahno - 11/02/2013

@Vietvet58, With all due respect, I first heard Soros and Ayers repeated ad nauseam from the enigmatic and learned statesperson Sarah Palin back in 2008. I don't care to engage sir. Trading facts for bumper sticker slogans is not productive to either side.

14) Comment by Vietvet58 - 11/02/2013

@unevahno, please see "www.drudgereport.com". The POTUS most certainly HAS had quite a bit to say about gun confiscation, along with V/P Biden. You are NOT going to get the full and TRUE story from mainstream media that is mostly owned/controlled by Soro's. Also see "www.inforwars.com". I think you will find the truth to be enlightening and somewhat shocking to you. Thank you.

15) Comment by Vietvet58 - 11/02/2013

Mr. Piper, the 2nd. Amendment does NOT say one word about "Hunting". DHS calls "Their" AR-15's "Personal Protection" weapons. The 2nd. Amendment is VERY clear, "Shall NOT be Infringed". We will NOT turn in our weapons. Get over it and move on. It is NOT going to happen Sir.

16) Comment by unevahno - 11/02/2013

The POTUS has not mentioned taking anybody's guns, but the conservatives are taught to react to any gun safety law or regulations as Pavlov's dogs. If they hear the word gun and regulation in he same 5 minute interval, they are wired to yell that they're not giving up their guns. Nobody wants them, but they are the rabid, insecure and easily led people who can be aroused quickly by using certain racial buzz words. A man with a gun, who is constantly fearful and paranoid, can be set off easily. Witnes the poor dupe who killed Dr. Tiller. Right wing. Scared. Easily duped by the announcer who canted "Tiller the baby killer", every day.

17) Comment by Whatchange - 11/02/2013

People, please understand arguing with Tea_Slayer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize he enjoys it. I will agree with him on one thing, I don't believe there is any conspiracy by our government to take our guns or take over America, well anymore than it already has.

18) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

wow....where do you think that chain email came from? it was cut and pasted from the infowars article that was reposted at american thinker...you know, the article you posted.... you prove with each post that you are incapable of a rational discussion

19) Comment by tradewinns - 11/02/2013

i'm sick of hearing how long obama voters stood in line to vote for him. i stood in the same line just as long as they did and i can assure you i didn't vote for obama. perhaps if i had told someone i was voting for romney i could have gone to the front of the line and been home in 5-10 minutes. wish i had known.

20) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

Your first link at Politfact's resource referred to a chain mail letter. I didn't get my info from a chain mail letter. And your sources are just as good as mine, although they didn't tout Romney's fact's as the "Lie of the Year," that proved to be true. I am not a member of the NRA nor ever have been. I was trained by the police who are friends of mine. You think I'm duped and I think you're duped. It's all in what each of us believe.

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

I guess your precious NRA is in on the conspiracy, right? http://tinyurl.com/cdqghxl

22) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

you need to try a bit harder next time...maybe take the tin foil hat off first... --- http://tinyurl.com/bar5lkd

23) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

you need to try a bit harder next time...maybe take the tin foil hat off first... --- http://tinyurl.com/bar5lkd

24) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

and doubling down with an article from the weekly standard (reposted at RCP) just shows how completely duped you really are.

25) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

yep, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it? Here is the direct quote straight from the horse's mouth, but you still won't believe it... --- "This contract is intended to be used by all (agency) components, except" the U.S. Coast Guard, he said, which uses ammunition obtained through the Defense Department. According to a Homeland Security web page, the agency’s 20-plus components include the Transportation Security Administration, which handles passenger screening at most airports; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, entrusted with keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the country and with enforcing immigration and drug laws; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the Secret Service. Chandler’s email continues: "This contract is part of the department’s strategic sourcing efforts to combine multiple previous contracts in order to leverage the purchasing power of the entire department, including the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center," another Homeland Security component, "which trains nearly all federal law enforcement personnel, to efficiently procure equipment and supplies." On its website, the Georgia-based center says it trains law officers for 90 federal agencies and also officers in state, local, tribal, and international law enforcement. Chandler said that in the 12 months through September 2011, over 11,000 students at the center fired over 11 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition, primarily in basic training. Chandler said earlier that Homeland Security oversees more than 135,000 weapons-carrying officers. -- http://tinyurl.com/d87x73w

26) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

nimby?, what guns? I don't have any guns. LOL! When the bad guys can say this, so will I.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

1ryben, "Maybe what we need is more pot." Maybe that's what wrong with this country now. Too many potheads and their stoned way of thinking.

28) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

" if the government wants your guns they can and will take them , and there is nothing any of you yahoos can do about it " ....

29) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

Politifact "Lie of the Year"? Is that over with yet? I guess Business Insider is lying, too. The left is always trying to debunk the truth. When the right finds the truth, we are called racists. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/01/19/politifact039s_quotlie_of_the_yearquot_turns_out_to_be_true_300103.html

30) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

dang Advocate.. here is the link to Polifact that debunks infowars/american "thinker"'s ridiculous claim. --- http://tinyurl.com/d87x73w

31) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

So the office of Homeland Security has weapons and lots of ammo. Duh.maybe it's to umm, wait for it....secure the homeland! How does the one jump to this paranoid vision of our government turning on its people? Am I really that far off target? (Excuse the unintentional pun) It's the same reasoning behind our ridiculously large military. We have more planes, ships, and tanks and bombs and such than everyone else combined (close to it I bet, but yes, I'm using hyperbole). Maybe what we need is more pot. Chill a bit.

32) Comment by billynurse - 11/02/2013

I wish that I had the 90 seconds back that it took to read this obtuse letter. It was just another ignorant attempt to inject race into the debate...... Signed - A Conservative NRA member ( FYI:which has NOTHING to do race)

33) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

wink wink, wahtnow falls for it yet again (and so does coach, evidently). http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/30/chain- email/chain-email-says-homeland-security-purchasing-many/

34) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

Whatnow dont you know all those bullets will be used to protect our borders from undocumented immigrants....You should know the government has our borders sealed tight! wink wink

35) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

Why the stock of so many bullets? Who are they planning to shoot with all these bullets? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is getting an "indefinite delivery" of an "indefinite quantity" of .40 caliber ammunition from defense contractor ATK. U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal. The high performance HST bullets are designed for law enforcement and ATK says they offer "optimum penetration for terminal performance." This refers to the the bullet's hollow-point tip that passes through barriers and expands for a bigger impact without the rest of the bullet getting warped out of shape: "this bullet holds its jacket in the toughest conditions." Just who are they at war with??? The Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition- that is not a typo -- during the last six months. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/why_does_homeland_security_need_14_billion_rounds_of_ammunition.html#ixzz2KcqoVFRk Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet#ixzz2KcqWaxZt

36) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

Fear not gun owners all we have to do is ignore any new law and eventually the government will give us whatever we want. Take that lesson from the illegal alie.....um sorry "undocumented immigrants" we are about to give citizenship to. How about the millions of dollars the government has spent fighting the tobacco industry warning people of smoking side effects now because so many people ignored marijuana laws for so long we are decriminalizing it state by state. Just ignore any new laws, eventually the government gives in.

37) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

I won't go "conspiracy theory" on you. I don't see this as an issue. I guess if the government had a registry, what you propose is theoritacaly possible, though highly implausible. I don't get this fear the government mentality. Try as I might, I just don't. The US government is us! We vote these people in, we can vote them out. There are mecha is a in place to prevent this hostile take over scenario, dictatorship (if you will). Unless you use cash in some back alley, if they so wanted to know what type of gun you own they can. Just use credit card receipts and surveillance cameras. A national registry can go such a long way toward preventing or at least tracking the life of the gun making it increasingly difficult for the "bad guys" to get them. In my opinion, probably because I don't fear the mythical big bad wolf, the reward outweighs the risk. If you have no ill intentions, what are you hiding? Wouldn't you want to be aware of a guy that owns no guns suddenly buys some high powered stuff and a boat load of ammo? Doesn't that sound an alarm? Wouldn't you like to know that the guy who was convicted of a felony has all his guns accounted for? Wouldn't you want to punish the cousin who lets his convict cousin use his gun in a crime? I'll stop here for now, but do you get my point? The paranoia is helping the criminal intent. You are making things worse for the good guys by making it easy for the bad guys.

38) Comment by Melisse3 - 11/02/2013

Started reading this letter, and just had to laugh. The very first sentence is so inaccurate, I can't take the rest seriously. "A majority of Americans voted for President Barack Obama." Really? Not only does 66 million NOT represent a 'majority of Americans', it is not even a majority of adults. How about stating something closer to the truth - about 28% of American adults voted for President Obama. (about 26% voted for Romney)

39) Comment by Attila - 11/02/2013

Call t a conspiracy theory or whatever else you like. There are millions of gun owners who are concerned that if the government knows they have weapons, it would make it that much easier to confiscate them. Don't believe it can happen? Take a look at history...and the not too distant history either. This country is as divided, if not more so, than during the civil war. Compromise is a dirty word on both sides of the aisle in Wash. The population of the country is the same. I get tired of hearing that "we won the election and the American people are behind us". The fact is that 60 million people voted for Romney. The ruling party has the attitude that those 60 million voters are non entities. We are not a true democracy. We are a representative republic. The framers did it that way so that the majority could not run roughshod over the minority..they were very wise. So to answer your question, if there is no gun registry, it will be completely impossible to confiscate all of the guns.

40) Comment by mh1949 - 11/02/2013

We have aleady been told by the very intelligient and well versed obamacratic spokesperson, REV JESSE, that anyone can use one of these bad guns and can shoot down airplanes and stop trains.

41) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

I'm having a hard time understanding how a gun registry is a bad thing. We register to snot things. Why the resistance? I'm truly, really trying to understand. (I'm also waiting o. An answer to my previous questions)

42) Comment by Attila - 11/02/2013

Twinkie: I am sure you know that the SCOTUS has already ruled on the second amendment and that the phrase "a well regulated militia" has no bearing on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. When you get appointed to the SCOTUS you can vote to chage that. Until then you are beating a dead possum. I am not an NRA member, but I do support their position. I believe it is not the background check that they have the biggest problem with it is the very real possibility that the government will use the information to institute a "gun registry" whereby they will know the identity of every gun owner in the country. Now, they say that will not happen, and that a gun registry is not being contemplated...Suurreee its not.

43) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

"and if the weapons stolen were secured ?" if it was properly secured, it wouldn't have been stolen. thieves can be very enterprising , to the extent of pillaging "secured" ATM machines . in answer to your question , yes . even registered a 50 yearold winchester lever action I've had since childhood , because it is the law .

44) Comment by The_Host - 11/02/2013

My bad I haven't hunted in a few years now. It used to be the law that you couldn't hunt with a .223 caliber rifle for deer and still is in about 1/2 the states. This is because no one seriously hunting deer would use an underpowered rifle for the hunt. And YES my Dead relatives would be the ones the died in WARS fighting for a country they took an oath to protect the rights of, I do believe the 2nd was included in that list! You know those in the military are prone to dying for your rights than your average news journalist or politician. Still bottom line is you are not getting my guns, guilt trip propaganda or not. Guns are nothing but metal shaped objects and will never be done away with as they can be made fairly easily. But if you insist on outlawing them I am sure you will be as eefective at stopping them as you have been with drugs. Not a single person wanting weed today can't get it, yet it is illegal. But your inability to reason does not lead you to the same inevitable outcome with guns if they were banned.

45) Comment by Ivy - 11/02/2013

Why are we worrying about gun laws (that any enterprising american citizen can circumvent) when the real problem is local public officials using their office to make sure we NEED to own as many guns as possible?

46) Comment by Whatchange - 11/02/2013

I have stated my stance on military style weapons, gun laws, and the 2nd Amendment on here before so I'm not going into it again, but this is one stupid letter. Its getting pretty sad and boring that every time people oppose something the president proposes its because its President Obama, he is by far not the first president to propose gun control and be oppose and I'm sure he won't be the last. Also Piper, people all over the country other than the south are opposing the president on gun control. Also Piper, you really should do your research, a majority of NRA members support closing the laws for background checks and a ban or tougher laws on purchasing/owing military style weapons, they also support enforcing the existing laws. This reminds me of the left lane is for passing only law, its the law, its been the law, the police could always write you a ticket for traveling the left lane, signs have been posted along the interstate telling you the law, what did people do, they traveled the left lane, what did the law do, ignore the law, what did our lawmakers do, passed another law, what do people do, travel the left lane, what does the law do, ignore the law. What do a majority of people support and have supported, the left lane is for passing only.

47) Comment by DMJ - 11/02/2013

"DMJ , there are millions of people who have easy access to weapons who don't kill..." True, but there are a few thousand who DO who have that same easy access.

48) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

"and if the weapons stolen were secured ?" if it was properly secured, it wouldn't have been stolen. So have all of your weapons been purchased from a dealer with an FFL?

49) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

so you are ok with someone breaking and entering in the 1st place ? and if the weapons stolen were secured ? I have no problem with background checks or registration , I'm already doing this . or closing loopholes . consistent enforcement . DMJ , there are millions of people who have easy access to weapons who don't kill . perhaps the methods how we deal with those who do aren't that effective ...

50) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

So you are Ok with citizens leaving weapons unsecured around their homes? or that, at a gun show , "private citizens" without an FFL can sell a gun to anyone that walks up to their table without a background check is OK?

51) Comment by DMJ - 11/02/2013

Nimby, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to try and see that such people can't get guns in the first place?

52) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

Tea , that a person would have no problem with pointing a gun a someone , taking a life for 20 dollars , a bicycle or whatever speaks of a persons character , their (in)consideration for the law . if they were willing to enter a dwelling without invitation , take something that doesn't belong to them , well ? consistent enforcement of existing laws , no excuses ...

53) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

nimby, a few of us have tried to address how these criminals get their guns, but it falls on deaf ears. theft of improperly secured firearms? gun show loophole? unscrupulous 'private citizens selling guns to criminals?

54) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

nimby, a few of us have tried to address how these criminals get their guns, but it falls on deaf ears. theft of improperly secured firearms? gun show loophole? unscrupulous 'private citizens selling guns to criminals?

55) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

need to stop excusing , apologizing for those who pull the trigger . "black on black " . the mayor of B.R. has admitted as such , addressed the issue . bury your head a little deeper , maybe it will just go away .

56) Comment by gary - 11/02/2013

The letter above was about the control of guns being an Obama goal - prior to the murder of 26 humans in Conn - Obama never proposed anytype of legislation dealing with gun control. What I don't understand is why the head of the NRA was all for back ground checks in 1999 and has flipped like a bass out of water on it now? It is clear that our current POTUS "is one of those people" in the eyes of the NRA and their staunch members. Just look at the gun lobby - see who pays their salaries and whom they contribute 90% of their money to.

57) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

Again, can someone, anyone, please help me see the way. Balance regulation of some of the amendments in the Bill of Rights with the uproar over doing similarly with the second amendment. Please? If I'm wrong, help me. I'm really not too proud to change. Heck, I was an altar boy and went to Catholic schools. I was a good Catholic boy. When i had doubts i sought council with my priest, read the Bible (final nail in the coffin), read read read some more, even prayed. Went to other denominations. Sought council with those religious leaders too. I did my homework. I've proven the ability change my views when proven wrong. (Though some of you may believe I've turned to the Dark Side...the A word). This is not about religion though. I only bring my story up to show that I can and will change my mind. I am not married to a specific ideology or orthodoxy.

58) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

Coach, you're missing the point. All the things listed were issues where the big bad government restrict free speech. I admit I brought religion I to this but only as it pertains to the First Amendment. I am not accusing liberals or conservatives, republican nor democrats of a monopoly of regulating rights. Yes, snake handling. Even if it were part of a religion, it is outlawed in all states. As well as human sacrifice and a host of other ritual. I am an Atheist, that being said, if anyone I fringes upon your right to pray/worship (no matter how silly it seems to me) I will stand by you in your defense of said right. What you can't do, and I have serious issues with, is demand your students/players to pray with you. Unless I'm just completely wrong (if so, someone help) you can pray with your students.

59) Comment by MBW - 11/02/2013

@Coach-- Often, conservatives complain about losing free speech, when it's really just public pressure. There's a difference between public pressure...and when an elected official(s) use their authority to stifle speech (through threats of prosecution, cuts of funding, or other governmental retaliation). Big difference.

60) Comment by DMJ - 11/02/2013

Nimby, so your'e saying we need to go after the handguns?

61) Comment by MBW - 11/02/2013

@coach--- Again, you're not forbidden from praying, neither are your students. It just has to be initiated by students. And something tells me that you have no shortage of students willing to do that. The difference is that in the examples I've listed, conservatives have attempted to use government authority to restrict speech. Most of the time that conservatives complain about not having free speech has been when private companies or public outcry have prevented something. The Constitution only guarantees that the GOVERNMENT can't use it's authority to restrict speech.

62) Comment by phil - 11/02/2013

Actually it appears that the popular vote for the President was only about 4 percent in favor of president Obama, so about 47 percent of the people in the USA who actually voted might not agree with the President's position on gun control. I do not think one issue really directly relates to the other anyway. I personally do not like guns and wish nobody needed to own one for the purpose of hurting another human being. However, we might need guns just to keep the federal government (and other governments) in line if they ever decide that democracy is not the form of government they want and decide to take over and implement a dictatorship, etc. That is the real reason I think we want to keep our guns in the USA.

63) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

I also love how when i give you an example of the left limiting first amendment freedoms im just being "melodramatic"

64) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

And why am i not allowed to pray with them.....Oh yeah liberals standing up for their rights means taking away my right

65) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

Oh 1ryben Flag burning i dont like it. The flag did nothing to you it is a symbol like the eagle. If you like burning flags you also dont mind eagle killing either. Pornography i dont care about it as long as it is not shoved in my childs face. Slander, defamation (are you really gonna act like only the right do these things) Free exise of religion i am all for it. It is the atheists of this country that stand against that how often does a christian sue someone over this issue? Snake handling really?? Anyway yes all of these are constitutional rights unfortunately for many of you so is the right to keep and bear arms.

66) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

fact ; the majority of gun related incidents in the U.S. involve black males killing other black males , with handguns .

67) Comment by MBW - 11/02/2013

@coachblades- Don't be melodramatic. Your football players are allowed to pray. You just can't force them to pray. i've worked in public schools for years....students are allowed to pray in school. It just has to be student led.

68) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

MBW please give me an example of the play, art exhibit, or movie. You mean like when Hank Williams Jr. talked bad about Obama on a totally different show then ESPN fired him but Bob Costas can go on a anti gun rant in the middle of a game and thats ok. As far as religion goes see my post to 1ryben....tell me more about how ONLY the right limit first amendment freedoms

69) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

I dont see your example 1ryben I assume it has something to do with religion. I teach at a public school where i am forbidden by threat of lawsuit/firing to pray with my football players before games......tell me again how this "christian nation" is forcing its beliefs on you

70) Comment by MBW - 11/02/2013

@coachblades---- It's easy. Anytime there is a controversial play, art exhibit, movie, etc, the Right is usually the first to call for shutting it down. Or how about the double standard they always have about religious speech: Christian speech is fine, but muslims, atheists or others who don't have a "Christian" message are usually targeted with rules and restrictions....how many times have we suddenly seen random "zoning ordinances" appear just about the time someone wants to build a mosque?? And how about in Tennessee where they passed a law barring teachers from even mentioning homosexuality? I could go on for hours.

71) Comment by gary - 11/02/2013

lovemykids: you nailed it! But our current POTUS is one of "those people" the k three talks about - Karl Rove and the two loving Koch brothers. Whoa, it just came to me what those initials are. Sorry, RWN.

72) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

Coach, I just gave an example of "trampling" the first amendment. I can give many more. This "Christian Nation" business so many believe. How do you feel about flag burning? Pornography? Slander, defamation. Free excise of religion?...tried handling those snakes? Shall I continue?

73) Comment by DMJ - 11/02/2013

Great letter, Joseph. The NRA, the politicians it has purchased and the rubes who voted for those potliticans won't let us deal with real threats (gun violence) because of imagined threats (government confiscation of guns). Is it all about Obama? No. But that certainly helps. Anti-Obama sentiment is easy to tap, easy to channel into opposition to sensible things - immigration, health care, financial reform, climate change legislation, gay rights, gun control, etc. We've seen it for 4 years now and we'll see it for another 4. Personally, I'm hopeful. Skeptical, but hopeful.

74) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

75) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

MBW im just having a hard time thinking of any example when the right has limited your Free speech, Freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of petition.

76) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

@MBW could you explain to me how righties are not protecting the 1st amendment?

77) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

Look despite what many of you think Obama is not our "lord and savior"-jamie fox. and he surely is not "our daddy"-Chris Rock. Mr. Piper should go take history lesson. IF it is true that the majority of Americans support Mr Os gun control measures it doesnt matter. America is a republic not a true democracy. In a true democracy its mob rule. Whatever most people want we get. But in our republic it is majority rule WITHOUT trampling the rights of the minority. Its inconvenient now for many of you but would it be inconvenient had Romney won or during the Bush years.

78) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

"I have no issue regulating forearms" taken from my earlier comment. Am I the only one that chuckled? No need to regulate forearms you say? You haven't seen mine! Hahahahaha. Seriously, I obviously meant firearms.

79) Comment by 1ryben - 11/02/2013

Ok, convince me. I'd like to hope I'm pretty open minded. Admittedly, I'd like to think I'm pretty moderate, but I lean left. The self defense, home invasion, rationale does hold some merit in my opinion. That being said, I still see no issue with regulating forearms. Yes, I'd even go so far as to banning certain types. The one argument, for me, that would trump all others is the Second Amendment. Yes, I've read it. I've read the multiple theories of Constitutional interpretation. I've done my homework. That being said, I've also read the first and fourth amendments. We certainly do not grant people the right to say anything they wish. We have slander laws, etc. I've read many of these comments in The Advocate and some would want to limit free speech even further. There are even further social norms, remember when mom would tell you "you shouldn't say such things." That takes me to, in my opinion, what we need to do. Change social norms. Just as we did with smoking and drinking & driving, racism, gender equality. (Yes, we didn't eliminate either, not the point) The fourth amendment is pretty clear too. Tried to fly without being presumed guilty? Tried keeping your shoes on? I'm only guilty of trying to travel quickly and convienently. Yet, all my stuff and person is searched, assuming I'm a threat. If someone, anyone, can balance the treatment of those two (I can give more examples, but stopped at two) with the infalliabliliy of the second amendment. If you can balance the leger (so to speak), I'd be more inclined to change my opinion.

80) Comment by coachblades - 11/02/2013

Yep! One tuesday every four years many of these people got up and went to "work" for the first time ever and stood there for hours.....

81) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

Mr Piper , the government already knows who I am , where I live . they know what weapons I own , their make , model and serial #s . they know I am certified to carry and must maintain such . how about consistent enforcement of existing laws ? " if the government wants your guns they can and will take them , and there is nothing any of you yahoos can do about it " ....

82) Comment by MBW - 11/02/2013

If only those on the right were as vigilant about protecting the First Amendment as they are about the 2nd.

83) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/02/2013

The_Host, who is stupid? "“We would agree that there are adequate loads/bullets for humanely taking deer with the .223,” said Tim Brandt, Federal Premium Public Relations Manager. “We have several .223 loads featuring a couple different bullet options that are designed especially for hunting." --- http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/223-for-deer-hunting/ and I would say you need to look in the mirror to find the one " blowing a fuse thinking"

84) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 11/02/2013

Host, you have dead relatives that died for your right to own a gun? And you are calling liberals stupid.

85) Comment by 8point6 - 11/02/2013

Thank you, The_Host!

86) Comment by The_Host - 11/02/2013

Wow what a bunch of tripe. So I am supposed to just lay over and give up my rights because a few people waited in line to vote for Obama? Funny I have dead relatives that fought in WARS for more than just a few hours to ensure my right to own a gun. In FACT you CAN NOT HUNT BAMBI as you ignorant liberals keep saying with your typical .223 AR15 type rifle and the reason is because IT IS NOT A POWERFUL ENOUGH CALIBER. Read that again you slow thinking liberals. The GOVERNMENT dictates which calibers of rifles are legal to hunt with and even they do not consider this powerful enough to kill a deer. To save yourselves from blowing a fuse thinking about that it means ALL actual deer hunting Bambi rifles are MORE LETHAL than the evil "assault rifle" you keep clammoring on and on about. Oh and the race angle with the repeated pitch about some majority of Americans voting for a black guy and that being the reason for opposition is a nice race baiting touch.

87) Comment by swinham - 11/02/2013

It's not just, or even necessarily, the NRA that keeps people angry for reasons that don't exist. I routinely get the most ridiculous e-mails imaginable about President Obama. It is easy to disprove these, but doing so does not fit the agenda of those forwarding them. We will never convince certain gun owners that neither President Obama nor anybody else wants to take all their guns away. Every reasonable reform measure is immediately taken to that extreme and always will be by certain people, just as some people will never accept anything President Obama does or says as having merit. It is expedient to attribute this to racism, but why did so many people have the same attitude toward President Bush?

88) Comment by lovemykids - 11/02/2013

It's Bush's fault.

89) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

Ah, the old worn out, overused, monotonous race card comes up again. Next we'll hear that it's Bush's fault.

90) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

The Department of Homeland security has recently purchased 7000 full-auto AR-15 variants and in the bid these “assault” weapons were described as “Personal Defense Weapons.” That’s right, in the hands of government agents (who happen to operate inside the United States) fully automatic rifles are called personal defense weapons while when in the hands of the average American citizens, a toned down semi automatic version of the same weapon is considered a dangerous assault rifle.

91) Comment by agagent - 11/02/2013

The country is divided on this issue. There are large urban centers like Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia. Some of these areas gave Obama almost 100% of their votes. What they know about the NRA is what Obama and the media tells them. Some have enacted strong gun controls laws, and they have high murder/gun violence rates. The other America supports the second amendment and the NRA the strongest: rural area, the heartland, and most of the South. They have a strong tradition of gun ownership and know the NRA for the 700,000 citizens who are taught fire arms safety each year by NRA-certified instructors. You may support Obama, like Chicago, where more than 500 were murdered last year or you may be a “right wing nut” in a place like St. Tammany Parish, a place with 7 murders last year.

92) Comment by gary - 11/02/2013

Joseph, you done gone and stirred up the right wing nuts. You should have thrown in something about being pro-choice and a believer in evolution - that way all of the "RWN" would be shouting -raable, raable, and raable while shaking their pitchforks in the air.

93) Comment by ScotB - 11/02/2013

My views on gun rights have nothing to do with who temporarily occupies the White House. The citizens who benefit from having guns for defense are primarily the elderly and women. Most crimes are committed by young men and a gun is the only way a woman or elderly person can equalize the situation. Furthermore, an elderly person or woman is likely to be using a smaller caliber weapon, which means they may need several rounds to subdue an attacker. The recent attack of young woman at home with her child in Georgia is a perfect example. She had six rounds and fired all six, hitting her attacker 5 times. He still survived!!! But, she was able to escape the home. What if there had been three male invaders? A semi-automatic "assault rifle" is not for hunting. It is for killing people. It is people we fear attacking us in our homes - not bear, lions, alligators. Women and the elderly have the right to defend themselves. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. So, I would say I understand my gun rights and why they are important just fine. Finally, just because the majority support something doesn't mean it is right. The majority once supported slavery, too. And currently supports abortion - 55 million unborn destroyed since 1973.

94) Comment by slye753 - 11/02/2013

Americans guns are what keep us free. It is the reason we have presidents instead of dictators. With some of the executive orders comming out of the white house, now is not the time to pass more gun control laws.

95) Comment by twinkie1cat - 10/02/2013

The Second Amendment speaks of a "well regulated milita" not a gun in every pocket. Back in the day, guns may have been necessary in most homes to collect food, fight in a war, and occasionally to defend yourself from outlaws. Nowadays if you say "militia" I think of some crazy ultra-conservative group of the ilk of the KKK. The very idea of private militias makes me think of gang violence, not well ordered community protection groups. Everybody does not need a gun. I don't have one and don't want one. The Second Amendment is clearly speaking about war or at least local violence. It is being misinterpreted by racists and other conservatives who are afraid of anyone they perceive as "not their kind", including the president of the United States.

96) Comment by twinkie1cat - 10/02/2013

That's the problem in a nutshell, the last sentence. Gun toting conservatives cannot deal with a president who is "different from us" . It's all about racism. Period. Get the guns away from "the blacks" (as an otherwise liberal Louisianaian calls them). But don't take ours.

97) Comment by tradewinns - 10/02/2013

the best shotgun for home defense is what use to be called a "streetsweeper" it is an automatic shotgun and can hold more than 4/5 shells. it was also restricted to police forces back then. now i don't know.

98) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

"The handgun, and not the rifle, is the firearm of choice for most criminals." therefore we need more handguns- some of this stuff is hilarious but yet again whose thought is this disconnected? It is one thing to defend the second amendment, another to make irrational, befogged arguments.

99) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

a mined entrance way would be more useful in home security as would an M-60, or antitank weapon , Louisiana has the least intrusive gun control laws in the country, "See if you could safely walk through some sections" of Baton Rouge" who thinks like this?

100) Comment by agagent - 10/02/2013

The handgun, and not the rifle, is the firearm of choice for most criminals. The majority of the 500-plus murders committed in Chicago, a city with strict gun control measures, were committed with handguns. The same would be true in other cities which have strict gun controls. See if you could safely walk through some sections of a city like New York, a city with strict gun control. States that are gun friendly, like Virginia, have lower gun violence than were guns are restricted. As gun ownership has increased in recent years, gun violence has decreased.

101) Comment by agagent - 10/02/2013

A tactical rifle is useful in home security. They are handy, have less recoil, and can hold more rounds than a typical shotgun. It is easier to learn to shot them than a handgun. Some tactical rifles use pistol ammunition which would be more effective than when the same ammo is fired in a handgun. You need a larger magazine for home security than when you hunt Bambi. The intruder will not give you time out to reload if you are defending your life or your family’s lives.

102) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 10/02/2013

"Next time you want write about firearms, learn more about them so that you can write about it intelligently. " says the guy who thinks a shorter barrel is more accurate.

103) Comment by agagent - 10/02/2013

Some firearms look more like traditional rifles and function just like the so-called assault rifles. One firearm would be banned by the anti-gun crowd because of their appearance and the other would not. Either way your second amendment rights would be violated. The criminals would still have firearms and law abiding citizens would have less protection. You can bet that criminals’ magazines would hold more than 10 rounds, especially if they knew their intended target were limited to 10. By the way the guns used “to kill Bambi” are typically much more powerful than the typical “assault rifle.”

104) Comment by postscript56 - 10/02/2013

The NRA's version of the second amendment is that "the right to keep and bear" is Divinely given from before conception, is perfect in all respects as stated and is broad enough to include all personal arms known to man including those not yet invented; but "well regulated" really had some obscure meaning in the late 1700s that didn't have anything to do with regulations and any attempt to regulate today is a proven first step in trampling the second amendment right out of the Constitution. The NRA exists to promote an environment whereby manufacturers can make and sell guns for profit. Period. Anything else it does is a sideshow. As I've said before I am a gun owner. I don't object to owning guns. But the idea that we can't ever regulate guns in any way is stupid and dangerous. And expecting anything resembling integrity from the NRA is equally so.

105) Comment by agagent - 10/02/2013

Obama was not for taking away guns while campaigning but now he is. Obama gives lots of speeches but never writes a proposal to consider. His biggest problem in passing gun control legislation is in getting Democrats’ support. If Obama convinces Democrats to vote for gun control many will have difficulty with their next election, just like many walked the plank because they voted for Obamacare. Next time you want write about firearms, learn more about them so that you can write about it intelligently.

106) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 10/02/2013

"Short rifles or carbines are more accurate." another clueless statement from agagent....Actually, the shorter the barrel, the less accurate a weapon is... The NRA is now against background checks which they supported in the past. So agagent is correct in one sense. The NRA is protecting the gun rights of the criminals and the clinically insane. And the term assault rifle originated in WWII. The Maschinenpistole 44 was called a sturmgewehr by Hitler, literally a storm rifle but transliterated to assault rifle. More facts that agagent refuses to acknowledge. I'm not sure why i bother but I guess ignorance annoys me.

107) Comment by agagent - 10/02/2013

The NRA is protecting our second amendment rights, and it teaches more citizens about firearms safety than any other organization. Certified NRA instructors also teach many law enforcement and military personnel. Those familiar with firearms know that “assault rifle” is term invented by anti-gun crowd to firearms sound scary. Short rifles or carbines are more accurate. Besides, rifles account for fewer murders than “assault” hammers and clubs, according to a recent FBI report.