NRA is a force for destruction

You are a misinformed idiot who knows nothing about the subject.

Besides, the NRA had NOTHING to do with Zumbo getting canned, it was just us gun toting "terrorists" who own these evil weapons, banned together and ousted him ourselves.

Here is a link that might open your eyes to the real truth of gun ownership in America.
Vermont is ranked #50 OF 52 (Puerto Rico and D.C. are included)in Violent crime rates in 2004-2005. VT is ranked #50 in population. D.C. is ranked #51 out of 52 in population and ranked #1 for violent crimes.
What is the big difference? Handguns are banned outright in D.C. and in Vermont, carrying a concealed weapon on your person is perfectly legal without a permit or license.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

He's not an idiot, he's another liar trying to foster his agenda on the ignorant masses that read his nonsense.

How can someone attempt to write on a subject and yet be so completely ignorant of the topic? Your mistakes in facts compound themselves to the point of the ridiculous. I assume the Brady Center was your one and only reference source?

The nation's police chiefs DO have a serious problem; one of ignoring the Bill of Rights. The police were not ever intended to be "troops". The growth in swat personnel and their usage is against all common sense. The no-knock searches are killing innocent people weekly. The nation's police chiefs continually ignore both the 4th and 2nd amendments.

Oh, by the way, even the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled: The police have no legal obligation or requirement to protect you.

Your next mistake is that the semi-automatic rifle went out of usage in battle about the end of World War II. In the same sentence you use "armor piercing" and since you are speaking about the police I'm assuming body armor (even though a few do have tanks like LA). Body armor, as commonly used by the police is designed at best to stop only pistol ammunition and those only out of non-rifle length barrels. Almost any rifle, even black powder cartridge rifles from the 1800s, will penetrate that type of body armor.

I'll give you a hint though. The reason the police do not use the very heavy, trauma plate type of body armor of the military is rifles are used almost not at all by criminals. Studies, by John Lott and the FBI, have confirmed that so called "assault weapons" (mean looking semi-automatic rifles) are even present at less than 2% of crime scenes, let alone used.

To advocate a new "Assault Weapons" ban is ridiculous. Congress' own General Accounting Office when asked to study it reported that they could not tell if it had saved one life or prevented a single crime. That the AWB was one of the least effective laws ever passed.

BUT, it made the left FEEL GOOD. I understand, with the left it is all about intentions and feelings, NOT results. If you wanted results you would go after criminals not inanimate object possessed by law abiding gun owners.

The real truth:
For gun control to work, criminals must obey the law.

By nature and definition criminals do not obey the law, therefore gun control will not, cannot work. Never. Prohibition seldom if ever works; it did not work on alcohol, it has not worked on drugs and it will not work on guns. As long as criminals want and will pay for guns, a smuggler or illegal manufacturer will supply them.

Gun control CAUSES crime. Ask the British. Per Scotland Yard's own findings, crime, especially gun crime, has risen dramatically in England since the enactment of sever gun control measures. Not even "crimes of passion" were reduced as knives and fireplace pokers were substituted for firearms. The leftists in England proposed a ban on sharp pointed knives, yea really, and I think they may get around to tree branches and rocks soon.

I could go on all day correcting your mistakes. Jim Zumbo never really apologised for calling the owners of these guns "terrorists". Another tidbit, many of the AR15 owners are LEOs and active military and some of them were the most angry.

You really need to do something about that lack of education, poor research and the irrational fear of weapons.

Mr. Dan K. Thomasson,

I guess you didn't know that the cowardly terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11/01 didn't use a gun at all to commit that horrible tragedy. Their weapons of choice were box cutters, which you can buy at hardware and grocery stores, and the commercial airliners that they onboard. Why don't we ban them? We can't have those mean terrorists scare us with their nasty box cutters and commercial airliners.

You just proved to everyone that you're a clueless idiot and a liar. The first assault weapons ban was a joke. It wasted valuable police resources that could've been used more wisely and it wasted valuable taxpayer money. Hitler and Stalin would've been very proud of you. They were firm believers in gun control. Gun control worked very well with their agendas. You are, what they would've called you, a useful idiot.

As others have pointed out, it was the internet's thousands of regular people who happen to own semiautomatic firearms who rallied in hours to let Remington and other sponsors of Outdoor Life magazine where their hearts lie concerning the second amendment. It was certainly NOT the NRA, they didn't get on board until Tuesday at the earliest, to appear to take the credit. It was the population, regular guys and girls. Remington and the other sponsors know from where their cash comes.

Gun control, and more specifically the idea that "assault weapons" cause crime and death, is little more than a left wing fantasy. Fact speak far differently, but then by your editorial's content, you don't believe in facts. You so typify the left, having to resort to gun control irrationality to scare the masses into your camp, yet if what you promote were to come to pass, more people would die at the hands of criminals and governments than ever before. Look at the UK and US cities where strict gun control is in effect. Look at the facts. How can you sleep at night knowing what you propose, directly or indirectly, kills people. You are a foolish person with no heart.

Misty M. Meadows, PhD.

You're a dumbass seriously.

This happened on a weekend in a matter of hours.

This was EBR owners getting pissed at being short changed by elitist hunters and being classes as second class citizens.

The NRA was nowhere to be found to way afterwards.

Try www.ar15.com and www.akfiles.com and educate yourself moron.

NRA this NRA that, You hack writers will never get it. It was individuals who called Zumbo on the carpet. As for the case of the NRA, it is clear that you are intimidated by an organization comprised of citizens that wields political power and whose beliefs are opposite to your own. I am not a member of the NRA like 76 million other firearms owners. I believe there are 4 million members of the NRA. Please continue with your inaccuracies and tired old catch phrases. The end result might possibly be contrary to your objectives. It wil drive people such as myself, and others, into the NRA. Now imagine a NRA of 50 million members. Sweet Dreams.

The NRA had nothing to do with Jim Zumbo's swift descent from highly paid hunting writer to man in the street.

People like me had everything to do with it. I have Google set up to tell me about news articles containing the terms "gun control" "NRA" and "Second Amendment" so when Zumbo's ignorant rant was posted on his blog, it came to my attention. I read it, concluded he was as crazy and illogical as Teddy Kennedy, and I sent his employers e-mail expressing my distaste for his stupidity. His employers included the NRA.

So the NRA did not orchestrate his downfall. Many knowledgeable gun owners did.

Your article, however, shows an incredible lack of grasp of your primary subject matter: the relationship of gun designs to crime. Just like Jim Zumbo, come to think of it.

As has already been well stated in previous comments, the groundswell of outrage that sunk Zumbo's career came not from the NRA, but from a grassroots movement of outraged PEOPLE. You, and the rest of the civilian disarmament lobby, are too terrified to acknowledge it, but it's not the "big, bad NRA" that is so vociferously fighting against the forcible disarmament of law-abiding Americans--it's a great body of freedom loving Americans who believe that the Bill of Rights means what it says--and we're tired of being pushed around.

Molon Labe.

Look, Dan,

I one several of these rifles you have your panties in a bunch over and guess what? They have never made me go on a rampage, never made me gun down police, never made me shoot up schools or anything like that. So why do you want to take away my rights? Shouldn't you be worried more about criminals? Here's a gun law for you: Use a gun in a crime, and you go away FOREVER! There. Problem solved. You don't have to take my guns away, I don't have to get pissy with you. We can all live happy together. Hell, if you ever want to find out how much fun recreational shooting can be, look me up. You, me and my kids can go out and shoot a few cans. It's a great way to spend an afternoon. It gives me a chance to bond with my kids and teach them some discipline and build their self esteem. I short, I hope in the future you can learn about your subject and maybe even try it out before you rip it apart. That's were Zumbo went wrong, and you made the same stupid mistake.

Tim

Mr. Thomasson,

I have read your editorial, and I can only surmise that you were up against a deadline and couldn't be bothered with facts.

As others have already pointed out, the term "assault rifle" and "semiautomatic" do not belong together. The Taliban and our other overseas enemies prefer selectfire or fully automatic weapons which fire either pistol rounds or intermediate power ammunition, they are not "semiautomatic" But I think you know that already, don't you? Our domestic enemies preferred weapon is the spin, the falsehood, the poorly researched "scientific" study, and the lie, the bigger the better.

The term "armor-piercing bullets" is also incorrect; body armor (be specific, now) is readily penetrated by most basic hunting rounds and is designed to stop pistol bullets and fragments. But you already know that, don't you?

The Second Amendment is NOT intended to refer only to muzzle loading smoothbore muskets; it is intended to ensure that the government(s) remain in some fear of the people they govern. But you already know that, don't you?

Jim Zumbo was "attacked" not by the NRA but by freedom and truth respecting people who would not let such an outrageous slur pass. But you already know that, don't you?

Gun control legislation has never been shown to have a benefical effect in reducing the incidence or severity of violent crime. But you already know that, don't you? You mention evidence in you column. Why didn't you supply any?

Lastly, your referrence to police officers as "troops" is hardly an innocent bit of journalistic license. Police officrs should not and must not be regarded as "troops" To do so is to invoke the image of a National Police Force envisioned by certain German leaders during World War II, blooded in battle and thus equipped with the "moral authority" to enforce the government's will. It was known as the Waffen SS. It arose in the first "modern country" to enact comprehensive gun control legislation.

Undoubtably, many newpapers will publish your drivel, between the ads for lawyers and weight loss remedies. To use an old phrase,"Move along, folks, nothing to see here."

Just another journalist making things up and passing them as facts.

Don't mean nuthin'

Mr. Thompson, please present some Department of Justice statistics on how often semi-automatic rifles are used in crime. I can understand why you didn't in your article, because it'd prove how much of a scare-mongering fraud you are.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

P.S. The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.

Dan,

Did you not learn the lessons from the 1994 Ban? Do you remember the Democrats losing control of the House of Representitives after 40 consecutive years? Do you remember that MILLIONS of us Americans purchased assault rifles specifically in response to the ban?

True patriotic Americans will NEVER submit to unconstitutional and illegal bans on our ownership of assault rifles or high capacity magazines. GET OVER IT! It is what defines us as AMERICANS! If you want to live in a disarmed citizenry, you can chose any other country in the world. It will never happen here, regardless of if you ever get your precious little ban or not!

Thanks,

Constitutionalist

I agree. You really are a misinformed idiot.

"Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own"

Yes it would. Jim Zumbo's career was already in the can for several days before the NRA even got around to issuing a statement. But of course, the NRA is responsible for all the ills in the world isn't it? But don't take that as a defense of the NRA. I'm not now, nor will I ever be a member of the NRA. They like to negotiate away our rights a little too much for my taste.

"The police do have a problem Mr.Thomasson, but it is not “assault rifles”. It’s penalties that are to lenient for repeat offenders."

Ain't that the truth! Last year, two Seattle PD officers and a King County Sherrif's Deputy were killed by felons that had all recently been released from prison and were all supposedly under Department of Corrections supervision. And only one of them used a gun (a handgun actually, and not one of those ultra deadly 'assault weapons') to murder an officer. The other two used cars. Imagine that.

Police are not being outgunned. Their main problem is liberals who won't let them shoot the bad guys.

Criminals are not using armor-piercing bullets. They are, occasionally, using rifles, which tend to be much more powerful than handguns. Unfortunately, body armor that could stop the bullet from a hunting rifle would be to thick and stiff to wear on a daily basis.

If semi-automatic weapons were meant only for the battlefield, we would not issue them to police -- but we do.

The outrage against Jim Zumbo's remarks were little different from the outrage against analogous remarks made by Mel Gibson and Michael Richards. Why shouldn't we protest bigotry against black guns just as we protest bigotry against black _people_?

Wow, this lunatic is really out there on the fringe. No need to bring up "FACTS" with this wacko, He wouldn't even no what the word means. Hey Dan, have you ever thought of checking yourself in to an institution? You should because YOU definitely need to be treated and medicated!!!

Dan:

Because the NRA and the citizens they represent are in favor of responsible, unfettered firearm ownership does not mean that we don't support serious anti-crime policy. Firearm owners are generally more anti-crime than non-firearm owners (in my experience).

This is largely because many firearm owners are self-responsible. We realize that the buck stops with each individual citizen...we are willing to look reality in the face and blame bad decisions on the individual people who make them, and not on the availability of guns, the lack of good upbringing, or other excuses for bad behavior that inevitably move blame from an individual decision and places it on some inanimate object or situation outside the individual's control. "Oh the poor guy. He broke in and raped a woman. Must have had a bad childhood." You heard that before? We realize that people have bad childhoods, yet we won't allow that to excuse bad decisions they make in adulthood. It is in part because we are responsible for our actions, and insist that others be as well, that we support gun ownership. We are willing to confront a criminal home intruder with force, if reasonable. That is a philosophically different mindset than possessed by a non-gun owner, who feels their safety is not their business, and will huddle in a corner, petrified, hoping the police arrive in time to save them from the home intruder. That is why we support "Castle-doctrine" type laws, because they legitimize the responsible citizen who is willing to say "NO" to a criminal, in word and deed.

There are many effective ways to reduce crime. But we simply won't stand for any methods that restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, such as gun bans. We own firearms. We handle them responsibly. We have a right to do so. We will not allow that right to be taken away by the fearful members of our society. So, in closing, the PRIMARY reason we are against bans is that they are unconstitutional and infringe our rights. The SECOND reason we are against them is that there is little, if any evidence that banning guns reduces crime.

We look forward to working with you to effect constitutionally legitimate methods to reduce crime, and the impace of crime, in the communities we and our families that we love, live in.

What gives anyone the "Right" to negotiate my Right to Keep and Bear Arms for me or anyone else?

What gives anyone the Right to continually redefine the firearms we the people are "allowed" to own?

If you can find a moment of pride in limiting the Bill of Rights, so be it.

Take a look at Australia, european nations, and other places. First it began with military weapons, then the list grew and grew until it became all weapons. Did some people miss the films of hunting rifles, skeet, trap and field shotguns being cut up on TV? I know, it won't happen here, the antigun community would never bother you, huh? Too many young shooters missed the 68GCA, so they believe the the 68GCA only stopped mailorder firearms.

It wasn't the NRA who started this fight, it was the weekend and they were home and not at work. It was law abiding Americans who drew first blood, not the NRA, or GOA or any others.

Short and sweet, who died and left you the authority to negotiate the Rights of others?

Dan,
Do you know the difference between an AR-15 and Remington 700 .30-06? Well the AR-15 is the scary, military looking one with pistol grip and the Remington is the one commonly used in hunting. Well guess what, that Remington is way more powerful with its .30-06 round than the .223 round that the AR-15 fires. The 'assualt weapons ban' is purely cosmetic. Whats more is that these 'assult weapons' are used in less than 1 half of 1 percent of all crimes. Do some research before you advocate banning a whole caste of firearms just because they resemble military firearms. The ones that private citizens can own are semi-auto, military ones are full auto - do you know the difference? Let's face the root of the problem - criminals. If you use a gun to commit a crime, you go away for a very long time. Don't punish people that like to own a piece of equipment just because you don't like it. What if I told you that you couldn't have a swimming pool in your backyard because a child 'might' fall in and drown, wouldn't you feel like your freedom is being restricted? Wouldn't you protest because you know that you are a responsible parent? Well, law-abiding gun owners feel the same when you say that some guns should be banned. 99% of guns used in crime are illegly obtained to beging with, so why punish the people that legally obtain them?

I won't stoop to calling this "reporter" names. I just recognize that he is NOT "reporting" anything, just spouting his own biased and naive/uninformed opinion without seeing it necessary to research the facts.

I have been in law enforcement for 18 years in California and have seen (and experienced) first-hand many of the issues presented by both sides of the gun-control debate. In my experience, nearly ALL of the claims made by the anti-gun crowd are based solely on emotion - not on fact. Since dry facts don't sell newspapers, the editors and reporters (these "bastions of truth") depend on emotion to draw in the bed-wetting/handwringing liberal intelligentsia who are somehow able to ascribe emotions to inanimate objects (ie, "evil guns"). Even when confronted with the facts, the anti-gun crowd manages to twist correlation with causation - one can therefore see that, besides pushing their own uninformed agenda, they aren't even knowledgable about statistics.

In general, the only law enforcement officers who are pro-gun-control are those in the political positions; ie, appointed by politicians. To remain in that position requires the chief to essentially toe the line of the elected politicians who, in turn, depend on the liberal media and the "sheeple" to re-elect them. The officer/deputy on the street is generally against more gun control.

In passing more laws, the politicians are convincing the "sheeple" that they are doing something about crime, when (in reality) all they're doing is disarming the honest people. Think about it - who's going to obey the laws; the honest citizen or the dirtbag criminal? Duhhhh!!! That's why they're called criminals. What are YOU going to do when confronted by some scumbag - ask him to wait so you can call 911 on your cell phone, then ask him to wait until the police show up from across town (or halfway across the county)? Get a grip!!!!

Unfortunately, the politicians continue to be elected by those who are not willing to do the research and learn the facts. The public is dependent on getting their research from 30-second sound bites on TV, where more air time is given to what Hollywood star is wearing what and dating whom, than the real issues facing this country. In that, I hold the public to blame.

As a law enforcement officer, I would rather have more armed (honest) citizens around than unarmed prey. Look across the country - the highest crime rates are in those areas with the most restrictive gun laws. Criminals have a tendency to prey upon the weak and helpless - which is natural. Don't give me the crap about "...well, humans have the capacity to reason, therefore they're above all other animals..." Have you ever worked in a jail and talked with inmates? I thought not - I have.

Until you (and the reset of the uninformed media) learn to research and understand the facts from the source (as well as learning the personal biases of the sources), I suggest you stick with commentaries on Hollywood and similar "significant" issues of the day.

Deke

Mr. Thomasson,

The Second Amendment is defended by the NRA because its membership shares and endorses its passion to do so - not the other way around. The Second Amendments main thrust is to enable an individual citizen to carry and own "Arms" to keep a tyrannical government from violating the individual citizens inalienable rights - mainly the rights to speak freely, practice our respective religions, assemble for any cause, and bear arms. Now that that is settled - let's discuss where you may be correct. Ultimately the citizens of the United States must have a comparable "Arm" to that shouldered by the super majority of federal and state troops. No, we may not have an M1 Abrams tank - as much as I'd like one. But a fully functional M-16 - absolutely. This is what the framers intended; that we as a people be ready to defend our liberty - that is why they did not use the word "musket" or "sword" they used the word "Arms" so that the generations that followed would be able to keep up with improvements in "Arms" that would inevitably occur. But, the Congress can regulate all other Weapons not comparable to those that the people are not likely to face - but in the final analysis they may not prohibit a civillian from possesing auto loading rifles.

Dan Thomasson seems to be misinformed about firearms, as are most mainstream journalists. There is no such thing as a "semiautomatic assault rifle." To be classifed as an assault rifle a firearm must meet certain criteria. An assault rifle MUST be capable of both fully automatic and semiautomatic fire. Simply put, no fully automatic fire, no assault rifle. I will not devote time and space to explaining the difference between the two modes. If Mr. Thomasson does not know the difference I would recommend that he stay far away from firearms of any type.

I was actually hoping for a STRONGER response to Zumbo's idiocy from the NRA. But they are an effective voice for gun rights, and I will maintain my membership.

Finally, if Mr. Thomasson needs to learn about firearms, especially the "evil" military type he doesn't like, he can take a look in my gun safe, unless he's afraid he might get the vapors.

"Their troops are being out-gunned"

The last time I checked the military was the only one that had troops. Of course he is one of the types that assumes the only civilians are those not in a police uniform.

The police are civilians, they are not military, paramilitary or anything else. The only difference between them and the average joe is that they are sworn to uphold the law. This man is clueless.

Dear Mr. Thomasson:
I for one do not consider you an "idiot" or a "dunba**". I have taken the time to review your life's work from graduation in 1956, through the investigative years, to your retirement from Scripps. You have a long and distinguished history and are inductee into the Hall of Fame. In my mind you have tried to be fair in your investigative reporting and in your editorial style of writing.

In my humble opinion there are two issues that have guided you in writing "NRA is a Force of Destruction". The first is your inborn support of those on the front lines like the Military and the Police. Unfortunately you have been listening to the wrong police, you have been listening to the chiefs of police who are for the most part appointed to their positions and as such are very political. If you would have listened to the rank in file you would have formed an entirely different picture. The vast majority of our uniformed men and women support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and the right of a citizen to be armed. Now that you are in semi-retirement it would behoove you to spend some time in researching just what the feelings are of the majority of the Police in our Country and just what the meaning of the 2nd Amendment truly is. However, if you are one of those people who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a living document, then you will not accept the position of those who believe the document should be strictly interpreted. I also wonder if you might know Jim Zumbo personally. It might also be a reason for your support of him

The second issue that spills over in your article is that of the power of the internet. You are an oldtime newspaper man and have watched the print media slowly die as a result of the internet. Now I can't tell you what the future holds for the print media, but I can say that the strength of the internet is due in large part to the left wing bias of the news media (print, visual, and aural). And those newspapers and news stations who have been most egregious in the reporting (and making) of "news", are the ones suffering the most. My challenge to you is to work towards reforming the news media so that the news is objectively reported and that the editorials are kept out of the news reporting and kept on the opinion page where they belong.

Sincerely
Fred Muller
Grand Prairie, TX

Seriously Dan, get a clue.

Zumbo was out and flamed by the internet grassroots gun rights supporters. Zumbo was finished before the NRA even knew what was going on.

Dear Dan,
Those scary military style arms in the hands of Americans protect your right to voice your oppinion openly.In a perfect world we wouldn't have to protect our rights,but as history has shown,we live in a far from perfect world.