NRA: Don't read this

Matt Westerhold
Dec 23, 2012

But most people cannot look away. They can only watch and grieve for those families, for those parents whose lives will never again be normal.

For now this tragedy is embedded in the American consciousness. For now. Perhaps the images of those beautiful children and courageous educators will stay embedded and we won't forget. And as a nation, maybe, just maybe, there will be forward movement that begins to address this persistent problem; this persistent debate.

The National Rifle Association weighed in on Friday, suggesting the solution to the epidemic of mass shootings should be addressed by placing armed guards at every school door. If it's a war you want, it's a war the NRA is willing to back.

The founding of the nation came from the end of a musket, and the fascination with weapons is natural and has grown. There is little need to regulate the very clear right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons. Yet there is still a need.

*Get the Sunday Register today at a newsstand near you or buy the e*Paper here for the rest of the column.

Most people would agree that private individuals should not be allowed to develop their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. By way of the NRA's logic in it's support of semi-automatic weapons and 60-round magazine ammunition, that's a violation of the Second Amendment.


The Big Dog's back

Yes true. He was there before they entered the school.


blame schools? maybe i missed something but it seems to me a few people are blaming nutballs with weapons while most others are blaming only the inanimate weapons..

G George I du kno

No matter what laws or security you have if someone wants to commit a mass killing they will find a way. They will find a way to get in and they will find a way to kill. There is nothing we can do to stop these psychopaths. Noone except school staff and students should be allowed in the school for any reason. Place the office, with metal detectors at the doors at the front of the school. Beyond the office would be another set of doors that remain locked at all times and noone gets past for any reason. Ya, we might lose a couple of office workers but the kids would be more safe. Cops should be at the doors when school lets in and out as part of their daily routine. Train competent teachers who are willing to undergo extreme firearms training to have weapons in a locked case in their room that only they could access in case of a shooting. Heavy doors with no windows on class rooms with heavy locks so shooters cant get in or see in the room. There are a lot of people with good ideas and things schools can do.


Turn schools into prisons? What is wrong with you people?


This whole "We had to destroy it to save it" mentality is severely flawed. Get a freakin' grip!


"Because while guns may or may not kill people, the bottom line is that of the 32K or so death attributed to firearms, roughly 20K, or two thirds were suicides, meaning firearm-based homicides were 11,015 in 2010."

Heart disease kills more Americans than guns; where's the outrage?


During that same year, Japan has 10 and Australia has ZERO. Gun control does work - it's only the NRA and gun nuts that claim it doesn't.




Ban ALCOHOL!!! I'll bet it's killed MORE people than guns have!!! Matt, you and your homie, Rufus, are BOTH liberal nutjobs!


Wayne, the man at the NRA was paid $960,000.00 in 2010.
Not bad for a fence jumper.
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of where that money comes from.
Guns are big business..... big money.... money talks.

Rich Close

Who is better to speak concerning this issue than the father who lost a Child Columbine ....

Darrel Scot, the father of Rachel Scot who died trying to saying her friends in Columbine spoke to the House Judiciary committee and stated facts without the emotional unsubstantiated drivel we have been hearing and reading.

"""after the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA, I am not a hunter, I do not even own a gun, I'm not here to represent or to defend the NRA, because I don't believe they are responsible for my daughter's death, therefore I don't believe they need to be defended by me. If I believed that they had anything to do with Rachel's murder, I would be their strongest opponent. I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy; it was a spiritual event which should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies. Much of that blame lies here in this room - much of that blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves."""

Did the Register report on this important speech? I don't think the Register printed or reported his prayer either.

""Your laws ignore our deepest needs.
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage.
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere
And ask the question, “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand
That God is what we need."

The entire speech may be viewed here, those who don't believe in God will most likely be offended.

The Big Dog's back

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris's parents lost children at Columbine too. Does that mean we are to listen to them also?


Columbine occured during the last assult weapons ban. Clearly didn't work, did it?


Columbine occured during the last assult weapons ban. Clearly didn't work, did it?

The Big Dog's back

So are you saying this assault weapons ban should include more?


I'm saying weapons bans don't work, since criminals don't follow laws. Give me an example of a law that has never been broken. Criminals are criminals for a reason. There are laws against 20-yr olds having handguns, that one wasn't effective. Neither was the law against shooting people. If banning all guns would eliminate the problem, and stop innocent children from being killed, I'd be all for it. But banning guns only takes them away from those who follow the laws, and who need their weapons to protect themselves from the ones who don't.

Laws do not prevent crimes, they simply make those actions punishable. Can't punish a coward that turns the gun on himself.

The Big Dog's back

Well, I'll ask you, why do we have any laws?

Rich Close

Lets start with your buddy Holder, what good were existing laws when your party won't prosecute anyone in your party.

Also, why did Obama take away the funding that was available for this and others schools to use for security? I suggest you get questions from those you voted for instead of seeking them from those you voted into position of authority. Why isn't this being addressed before school starts up again instead of surfing in paradise?

The Big Dog's back

Who won't he prosecute and history behind it. Cite specifically the funding and when it happened.

Randy_Marsh Theres one for you. Held in contempt by congress his own agency will not follow through.

The Big Dog's back

Leave it to you rand to come up with this from top criminal and traitor darrel issa.


Congress voted, It is HIS job to enforce it. You asked A question and I answered it, Facts are hard things to argue with. Issa was not held in contempt, Holder was, Now the DOJ needs to do their jobs and prosecute.

The Big Dog's back



@Bid dog
Beware of asking questions you do not care to hear the answer to. Why doesnt the DOJ prosecute Holder? Oh I know because they are corrupt and your god is the head of it.

The Big Dog's back

It was a political witch hunt. Remember, bush started the program and Obama ended it. Just like the Iraq war.


That does not address the fact that no one is being prosecuted, You asked for a example of someone not being prosecuted by the DOJ, I gave you a answer. The rest have never been labeled by congress, He has prosecute, After all ITS HIS JOB.


The reasson they don't prosecute is because they would need Obama to testify, Obama has executive privilege which comes from the constitution (separation of powers) Without that testimony there is no case. Now is it only the 2nd amandment you support or the entire contstitution?? Or are you only quoting the constitution because it's convient for you gun nuts.


We have laws to attempt to deter the actions those laws are against. Therefore, a person must make a decision, much like a cost benefit analysis, they have to choose if the risk of punishment is worth that of the benefit of the action. Unfortunately, much of the punishments are not severe enough to deter the actions, or some criminals do not think they will be caught and punished. And in like cases like massacres when the gunman takes his own life, the punishement does not need to be considered, as they have no intention to live long enough to be caught and tried. Therefore, laws, which lead to punishment, are irrelevant to the madmen that kill themselves after commiting crimes. This is why no law will ever eliminate these crimes. The people committing these heinous acts are irrational. Laws are most effective for those people who care about families, have careers, something valuable that will be lost when the person committing the crime is punished. In our society, life is considered the most valuable, which is why the loss of life is the punishment for the worst crimes. However to people who have no value of life (ie those who kill innocent children), the loss of life is not punishment, hence the reason they don't follow the laws, and don't blink an eye at killing children or themselves.

The Big Dog's back

So do you think if there were laws in place to prohibit 30 round clips and assault weapons, Adam Lanza's mother would have gotten them anyway?


Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn't have. Maybe she tried to stop her son and that's why shes dead, we won't know.
Tell me though, how many 5 round clips does it take to add up to 30? How long does it take to change a clip? Only a few seconds last time I shot my gun. I think any normal citizen with heart would be willing to give up 30 round clips if it would save lives, but it won't. Take away 30 round clips, the next person will buy more clips and load them in advance or they will simply bring more guns with clips loaded.

Yes, I am a proud gun owner, but I DO think there need to be tighter gun laws. It shouldn't be as easy as handing over your drivers liscence and checking a few boxes to get guns. There should be required training courses BEFORE you can purchase, even without the intention of concealing, possibily mental health evals, wait periods, and they should also preach gun safety and secure storage like they preach the bible.

I'm not against tighter restrictions, but you're all barking up the wrong tree. Less bullets in a clip will not result in less deaths, it will result in more clips and more guns. A .22 is equally as dangerous as a .380, and a revolver can kill as many people as a semi automatic rifle.

Taking away all guns, as impossible as that is going to be any time soon, would not solve the problem either. It hasn't worked in the UK. Their violent crimes have increased. And like I said, take away their guns, they'll get creative. If theres a will, theres a way. The largest school massacre in the U.S. was carried out with a bomb, and the kids at Columbine had some made too, so bombs aren't out of reach for anyone. Lets be realistic, how many murders have there been in Sandusky, and how many of these people have been killed with guns? Guns don't pull their own triggers, and people have plenty of other methods to kill each other.