published Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

David Cook: The case of treason against the NRA

For relentlessly pushing an agenda that is neither vital nor promoting of the common good ...

For encouraging a distorted and fear-based narrative that sees other people as potential criminals instead of neighbors, citizens or children of God ...

For swiping away like plates off a table the real issues from the attention of politicians ...

For spoiling the divine message of peace-making, forgiveness and turning the other cheek ...

And for the unyielding allegiance to the lie that says that guns make a people safe ...

I charge the current National Rifle Association lobby with treason.

The NRA has become a threat to the people of Tennessee, betraying -- which is at the heart of treason -- the best interests and better angels of the people.

We've moved past the tipping point, past the line where logic and reason are allowed into conversations about the safest and healthiest ways for citizens to arm themselves.

The dogs have been unleashed, and it seems nearly impossible to call them back, as everywhere -- churches, bars, schools, parks, parking lots -- the NRA seeks to arm. It's like some twisted form of colonization.

During a recent screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" -- the same Batman movie playing at last month's mass shooting in Colorado -- one North Alabama man walked into a Chattanooga movie theater with a friend who was carrying a concealed gun.

The two sat on the very top row, able to see anyone and everyone who walked into the theater. The gun by their side the whole film. Just in case.

"It's comforting to know you could defend yourself," the man told Times Free Press reporter Joan Garrett, whose story on guns and personal safety classes ran in Sunday's paper.

Comforting? Not in the least.

It is something to grieve.

To enter a movie theater carrying a weapon to prevent a mass shooting is an act of delusion.

Movie theaters are some of the safest places in America. So are churches, schools and your own home. The odds are far greater that the North Alabama man would be killed by a drunken driver on his way home than a movie theater shooter; nearly 30 people die every day from alcohol-related crashes, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2011, there were 43 home invasions in Chattanooga, according to police spokesman Nathan Hartwig. With more than 70,000 households in Chattanooga, this means there's a 0.0006 chance your Chattanooga home will be invaded.

On Tuesday, Chattanooga City Councilman Peter Murphy introduced a resolution that would ask the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to "expedite rule-making regarding the making of brightly colored firearm components."

He's talking about guns that look like toys. Brightly colored. Pistol handles in hot pink. One police officer told Murphy and the council that he's seen guns painted with cartoon characters. He spoke about the dangers these guns pose to officers and to the public.

"And for what purpose would anybody create that?" asked Deputy Chief Tommy Kennedy.

The NRA should be sponsoring this effort. Imagine if it put as much energy into promoting youth involvement in hunting as it did the defeat of Tennessee Rep. Debra Maggart or the effort to let people in bars carry guns. Imagine if it worked tirelessly to end mass shootings without violating the spirit of the Second Amendment while praying without ceasing for an end to firearm deaths.

What a world that would be. Many gun owners I know want that type of world. Their NRA lobby betrays them. And us.

Within crimes of treason, the guilty party is often executed. No need for that here.

People are already dying.

Contact David Cook at dcook@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6329. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter at DCookTFP.

about David Cook...

David Cook is the award-winning city columnist for the Times Free Press, working in the same building where he began his post-college career as a sportswriter for the Chattanooga Free Press. Cook, who graduated from Red Bank High, holds a master's degree in Peace and Justice Studies from Prescott College and an English degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. For 12 years, he was a teacher at the middle, high school and university ...

28
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
timbo said...

Just looking at David Cook's picture, you can pretty much tell that he is so liberal it hurts. This so-called "writer" is a teacher at GPS. As most teachers, he is a liberal. That means he is illogical, emotional and childish. All that goes without saying but these attributes are not usually displayed with such succinctness as today. The first part of his column is the usual liberal diatribe about how it isn't the evil people who do things it is the evil gun. He then goes own to make the case FOR OWNING A FIREARM. Yes, he makes my case by saying, "To enter a movie theater carrying a weapon to prevent a mass shooting is an act of delusion. (Well, Mr. Liberal, they would have had a better chance than they did without people being armed)

Movie theaters are some of the safest places in America. So are churches, schools and your own home. The odds are far greater that the North Alabama man would be killed by a drunken driver on his way home than a movie theater shooter; nearly 30 people die every day from alcohol-related crashes, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

DUH...That is the point you idiot. These occurrences like the movie theater ARE SO RARE, IT IS THE HEIGHT OF IMMATURITY TO TAKE AWAY GUN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THESE RARE OCCURRENCES. Not only that, he also made the point that people were extremely more likely to die by a drunk driver than from gun violence. DUH, DUH...

If you use Cook's "logic" (and I use he term sarcastically...I have to tell you liberals that in order for you to follow along) then why don't we make alcohol illegal. We shouldn't blame the driver. It is the evil drink. All this while I bet Cook and his liberal buddies hang out at the biggest drunken revel in 75 miles, Riverbend. Yea, there ought to be a law against drinking. OH, THAT'S RIGHT, WE TRIED THAT AND IT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT.

Then this liberal imbecile says the following, " In 2011, there were 43 home invasions in Chattanooga, according to police spokesman Nathan Hartwig. With more than 70,000 households in Chattanooga, this means there's a 0.0006 chance your Chattanooga home will be invaded." Well, if my gun never leaves the house, who does it hurt? Unlike these cowardly liberals, I think I have the right and responsibility to protect myself and my family. The cops do their best, but just like at the movie theater, they just get there in time to clean up the mess.

I can't believe that anyone would pay to have their children taught by this light-weight, squishy, liberal. You GPS parents should ask for a refund. Even more bizarre, is the fact that the TFP pays this guy to spout this ridiculous, nonsensical rhetoric. Cook is a no-talent liberal hack. At least the TFP should find a better hack to waste newsprint on if they want to at least be interesting.Oh that,s right they have Harry Austin. (not much better)

August 8, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.
timbo said...

Continued from above....I will make this simple for Cook and the rest of you liberals in order for you to understand....I NEED MY GUNS TO PROTECT ME FROM YOU. I might not need it to protect myself from a home invasion, but I do need it to keep government from taking over. If you liberals try to impose your form of national socialism we might just need those guns to protect us from an evil government bent on control.

Not to mention one little fact that liberals like to ignore, the second amendment.

August 8, 2012 at 8 a.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

You discredit yourself every time you attack Mr. Cook for being a "liberal". It makes you look very ignorant and childish. I don't know Mr. Cook but I've read some of his work. I've read your "work" too, timbo. Cook could write more thoughtful posts/articles in his sleep than you could in your most coherent state. The majority of your posts sound like they were written by a bumbling drunk. So I'll address the rest of your diatribe.

"The first part of his column is the usual liberal diatribe about how it isn't the evil people who do things it is the evil gun."

This is false. Cook does no such thing.

"He then goes own to make the case FOR OWNING A FIREARM. Yes, he makes my case by saying, "To enter a movie theater carrying a weapon to prevent a mass shooting is an act of delusion."

That isn't a very good case. Your odds of getting shot don't go down because you are carrying a gun.

"IT IS THE HEIGHT OF IMMATURITY TO TAKE AWAY GUN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THESE RARE OCCURRENCES."

Show us all where Mr. Cook even implied that there should be a gun ban. Oh wait, you won't find it. You didn't read the article. You just responded in your classic knee jerk fashion. Mr. Cook has not made any mention of a gun ban or taking away your gun rights.

"Not only that, he also made the point that people were extremely more likely to die by a drunk driver than from gun violence."

This isn't a valid point. You're willing to ignore the thousands of gun deaths every year in order to keep your gun rights. Can you honestly say this? You are literally saying that gun violence is tolerable because it happens less than drunk driving.

"If you use Cook's "logic" then why don't we make alcohol illegal."

This isn't Cook's logic. As I said before, Mr. Cook has not advocated making guns illegal. However, there are laws on who can buy alcohol and when they can buy it.

"We shouldn't blame the driver. It is the evil drink."

It's hard to get drunk without any alcohol. It is the driver's fault but acting as if the alcohol played no part is asinine. You can't get drunk without alcohol and you can't shoot people without a gun.

"I NEED MY GUNS TO PROTECT ME FROM YOU. I might not need it to protect myself from a home invasion, but I do need it to keep government from taking over. If you liberals try to impose your form of national socialism we might just need those guns to protect us from an evil government bent on control."

It's scary how much that sounds like Timothy McVeigh.

August 8, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.
timbo said...

Easy123...Your childish attempts at commentary are almost as dumb as Cook. Were the founding fathers like Timothy McVeigh? As I recall Timothy McVeigh used fuel oil and fertilizer in a bomb. He didn't use a gun. The founders put in the 2nd amendment for the same reasons that I just gave in my first post. I guess they were also right wing nuts. Maybe that means that our country was always meant to be on the right.

You are an absolute idiot. You didn't even get the point about alcohol. It is about relative risk. There is more risk of death from a drunk driver than a from a mass murderer. That is the damn point. So if you want to save lives according to liberal "logic" then it would be more productive to stop selling alcohol than stop selling or restrict guns. Do you finally get it?

Yes, I know that the new liberal tactic is to say that they don't won't to ban guns but it is the death of 1000 cuts. Let's ban semi-automatics, then how much ammo you can buy, then how many guns you can have, then where or if you can carry them, blah, blah blah. What we end up with is a de facto gun ban like Chicago or Washington D.C. You or anyone like you is not going to tell me what I can own for my protection.

As far as being "shot down" by an amateur like the guy at the theater, there are a lot of us that can shoot better than that guy. If the guy had been experienced there would be a lot more dead people. One person proficient with a fire arm would have stopped this guy.

I don't know how old you are but I suspect from you naivete and writing style that you are pretty young. Your probably female and I wouldn't doubt that Cook just might be your teacher. Maybe you should try to keep your mouth shut and learn a little something before making a fool of yourself. Leave this stuff to the adults.

By the way, I don't give a damn whether or not you think I discredit myself. Cook calling people and organizations traitors is pretty radical. He discredits himself every time he writes a column. As do you.

August 8, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Timbo,

The Found Father's didn't add the 2nd Amendment for you to protect yourself from a government take over. No one is trying to undermine the 2nd Amendment. No one is pushing for a gun ban. What about that do you not understand? And you sound exactly like Timothy McVeigh. He had very explicit views on firearms and you sound just like him.

The relative risk is nearly the same. There were a little over 10,000 drunk driving deaths in 2011. Compare that to a little over 8,000 gun-related deaths. You don't have to be killed in a "mass murder" to be killed by a gun. You're moving the goal post on that point. As I explained, that isn't "liberal" logic. No one is advocating a gun ban so why would you bring up a liquor ban? It's nonsensical.

No one has advocated a gun ban. You can use your slippery slope argument all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. No one is trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. You can be told by the government what you can and can't own for your own protection. There has been a push for bringing back the legislation for the automatic weapons ban. That would be a step in the right direction.

"If the guy had been experienced there would be a lot more dead people.".

You're proving my point with this quote.

"One person proficient with a fire arm would have stopped this guy."

False. The guy had body armor and a helmet plus the room was dark and he threw a smoke grenade. And you have no clue how you or anyone would have reacted. You can be proficient with a gun but still not use it when the bullets start flying.

"I don't know how old you are but I suspect from you naivete and writing style that you are pretty young."

Show me my "naivete". You haven't made a valid point yet. And my writing style is far better than yours. Notice your constant use of words and sentences in all caps. Your baseless opinion is not supported by facts. And I'm old enough to know you aren't winning this argument.

"Your probably female and I wouldn't doubt that Cook just might be your teacher."

I'm not female but why would that even matter? Are you one of those sexist types? And I prefaced my original post by saying that I did not know Mr. Cook. Would you like to try again?

"Maybe you should try to keep your mouth shut and learn a little something before making a fool of yourself."

You've already done a fantastic job of making yourself look like a fool. Maybe you should keep running your mouth to further discredit yourself. It makes my job much easier.

"Leave this stuff to the adults."

I'm an adult. However, I know many people under the age of 15 that are much more intelligent than you. Age does not imply intelligence or wisdom. You are glaring proof of that.

"By the way, I don't give a damn whether or not you think I discredit myself."

And that is even more evidence of your ignorance.

August 8, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
Easy123 said...

"Cook calling people and organizations traitors is pretty radical."

Not at all. You call Obama similar things every day. Are you pretty radical, dude?

"He discredits himself every time he writes a column. As do you."

In what way? By disproving your lame talking points? By writing a thoughtful, intelligent, honest article? Which part of my posts or Cook's articles can be viewed as a discredit? Every time you post a libelous remark or attempt to bash someone because they are "liberal" or create a straw man argument, you discredit yourself.

August 8, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
mkelly54 said...

So, Timbo, where does it end? When does the end of a drive-by shooting, injuring an innocent young girl, end? When does a displaced worker, who returns to his former place of employment where he shoots former co-workers and managers, end? And, when does the senseless murder and wounding of people in a house of worship, end?

The thing is, you've been brainwashed. Ever since Obama was elected, hundreds of thousands of people have purchased guns and ammunition because a rumor has been spread that the president would take away the right to own and use guns.

And no such thing has happened. It's never been on the president's agenda, and it never will be. It's political suicide and he knows it.

I really can't believe you think all teachers are liberals. I've known teachers all of my life, and when I was a print journalist for many years I worked with countless teachers, professors, coaches etc. Without exception, their political beliefs ran the entire spectrum of politics – just like the rest of society.

Here's where the scary part enters the equation. In 2005, 30,694 Americans were killed by guns. That includes crimes, suicides etc. Only 600 of those deaths were from defensive shots from police and people protecting themselves at home. That's 30,694 people!

In the Civil War, 625,000 Americans died. Yes, over half of the deaths were from disease. But it was a war.

In World War II, we lost 405,399 Americans. Vietnam 47,355. Iraq 4,486 and Afghanistan 2,079.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that if we had an average of 30,694 guns deaths a year for 10 years, we would have 306,940 deaths.

With all the guns in our society, I don't feel safer. I walk around in fear. I don't like people having guns in movie theaters. I don't like the thought of people sitting in restaurants/bars with guns. And I certainly don't like the idea of co-workers having guns in their cars. When you think about how many times do people get angry at work, and they might run out to their car to shoot a co-worker is incomprehensible.

Yes, I'm a liberal. No, I don't want to take away the right to bear arms. But something is maddeningly wrong in our society when ANYONE thinks it's their right wander around with guns like the wild west, just so they can shoot someone they disagree with. Just because they're a different color. Just because they go to a different house of worship. Just because they think they're the Joker. Just because ...

Timbo, I have no idea who you are. I have no idea how you became the person you are. But for the sake of your friends, family, co-workers and society at large, please get some help. This isn't sarcasm; it's a request from someone who values life and safety.

Peace!

August 8, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
una61 said...

A rather naive article misusing the word, 'treason'. Is it treasonable to offer gun safety classes for hunters and novice shooters?

August 8, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
RWShultz210 said...

In law, treason is the crime that covers extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. The NRA has comitted no such act. Can't a liberal speak or write without telling a lie?

For encouraging a distorted and fear-based narrative that sees other people as potential criminals instead of neighbors, citizens or children of God ...

I've news for you Mr. Naive Liberal. Everyone else IS a potential criminal and some of them need very little to set them off so is it necessary to be armed. To call them children of God is not only naive it's downright stupid. Who do you think you are? Dr.Suess?

For swiping away like plates off a table the real issues from the attention of politicians ...

Again Mr. Naive Liberal I've got news for you. The NRA hasn't swept anything under the rug. If anything the NRA has repeatedly warned anyone who will listen about what grave danger they are in from idiots like Holmes running around with guns and has BEGGED for enforcement of the laws we have with very little success. The NRA has not been silent, the governement has been deaf.

For spoiling the divine message of peace-making, forgiveness and turning the other cheek ...

You mean the message that preachers have been trumpeting every Sunday for 60 minutes like you can wind God up and he'll run the rest of the week. Sorry to disillusion you but people are what they are, and a lot them are very violent and don't understand any message but violence. Why don't you try that turn the other cheek forgiveness on the next gangbanger who shoves a nine millimeter Glock in your face, and I'll try pulling my FN 5.7mm and blowing a 3 inch wide hole in him and we'll see who survives the encounter.

And for the unyielding allegiance to the lie that says that guns make a people safe ...

All I will say about this bit of nonsense is God created man. Colonel Sam Colt made them equal.

I charge the current National Rifle Association lobby with treason.

And I find them NOT GUILTY.

The NRA has become a threat to the people of Tennessee, betraying -- which is at the heart of treason -- the best interests and better angels of the people.

The "better angels" of the people disappeared with Abraham Lincoln who was the worst criminal ever to infest the White House in the history of this country. He was no better than Hitler. He suspended the writ of habias corpus and threw 13,000 or more people into stinking prisons and starved and mistreated them for 4 long years. He forced this country into a completely unnecessary war that got 640,000 people needlessly killed. I can't think of a better reason FOR the 2nd amendment than Lincolon. But then you don't teach THAT to your students do you?

August 8, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Una61,

No. And Cook never said it was.

"The NRA should be sponsoring this effort. Imagine if it put as much energy into promoting youth involvement in hunting as it did the defeat of Tennessee Rep. Debra Maggart or the effort to let people in bars carry guns. Imagine if it worked tirelessly to end mass shootings without violating the spirit of the Second Amendment while praying without ceasing for an end to firearm deaths."

"What a world that would be. Many gun owners I know want that type of world. Their NRA lobby betrays them. And us."

August 8, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Let's just have more laws, yes more LAWS which are not enforced just as the ones we now have are not enforced. What blows my mind it people who believe in evolution ignore that the same things we were doing to harm people centuries ago, we are still doing. More gun laws, more gun control, who comes up with that? I suppose lawmakers who just tell others what to do. They do not have fund what it takes to have greater laws. If we were so much more evolved, we would have enough sense to watch out for lunatics who are able to get firearms, legally or illegally because of their privacy. So things such as the Virginia Tech and this disaster take place. Then, here come the lawcallers. Blamed are the guns and gun dealers who keep the law. But that is the political climate in this country. For Mr. Cook or anyone to infer the NRA is responsible for these outrageous occurrences is lunacy of highest form.

August 8, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, you have made the comment before about how you need your guns to "keep government from taking over." That remark shows how pitifully shallow your thinking is. Whoever "takes over," they will have to have the backing of the military to be able to do so. I don't care if you have a garage full of automatics and semi-automatics and lord knows what else - tell me what good you think they're going to do against a police state reinforced with military outposts everywhwere? Or do you honestly think that a take-over would consist of some hippies coming around to your house with orders from a socialist government requesting that you turn over all your weapons and then you can just pull out your arsenal and go Rambo on them? Fool. Your paranoia runs deep. You need help.

August 8, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Hold on a minute, JR. Let me pick myself up off the floor. I literally fell over laughing at your comment. How far do you think Obama could get if, on his own, he decided to "nationalize the guard?" - at least if he decided to do so just for the purpose of instituting a "socialist" regime? And as for the military following his orders and being good little troopers, following their constitutional oath to serve...they would see or be convinced quickly enough that Obama was being unconstitutional in what he was attempting to do. Furthermore, you honestly think that, given the ultra-conservative bent of the military and the fat cats and big business, who are actually pulling the strings of our government, and the Republicans and even moderate Dems in the White House...you really think that Obama would have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling off a military-backed socialist takeover? Ha! You are one funny guy.

Oh...and that Bill Ayers thing? Give it up already. His connection to Bill Ayers is ancient history and those "ties" to him were tenuous at best. You're sounding as silly as the birthers.

August 8, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
EmB said...

Thank you, David Cook, for pointing out some real problems with the NRA. I knew it would create a firestorm with those who cannot look at the issue, but can (and usually do) resort to name-calling and bogus accusations. The rabid NRA supporters appeal to people's lower character traits and fears. And calling people liberal and progressive is so lame. To these people I suggest you look up the words and see if you and everyone else should not try to strive for the ideals these terms imply. But then maybe you are the opposite--you think?

August 8, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Actually most of the Democrats are moderates. They espouse capitalism and the free enterprise system. Most of them just think, as I and most liberals do, that government can be an active force for the benefit of the people, and that certain restraints and regulations are needed to keep the runaway greed and self-interests of big business in check. That is not socialism or extremism. It's just that the teabaggers and religious nuts have sabotaged the GOP and the conservative element and have taken it so far to the right that what was moderate liberalism yesterday looks far left to you today. Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat that actually lays claim to being a socialist. At least, he is the only one that I know of. There might be a few others, but very few.

As for Bill Ayers, Obama was 8 yrs. old when Ayers was active in the Weather Underground.I seriously doubt that Obama did much conspiring with him then. Here are the facts of Obama's connection to Mr. Ayers: Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the Hyde Park section of Chicago.

That's it. If you want to speculate and let your imagination run wild with visions of Obama and Ayers having all kinds of clandestine meetings in which they conspired to overthrow the government and bring about a socilist or marxist or communist state or whatever, well, that's entirely up to you and your imagination...and I'm sure you have a great imagination for such things. But that is all it is - your cockamamie right-wing-nut imagination.

Now, I've spent more time with you than I should have. I have better things to do than to sit here and refute the babblings of nincompoops.

August 8, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"And Obama and Ayers spent a lot of time with each other through the years. Obama's first campaign event EVER was in the home of the terrorist Ayers."

"Barack Hussien Obama associated with a terrorist for a long period of time as an adult. Not an 8 year old."

Both of those statements are patently false. You are a very bad liar. Your Right-Wing propaganda has been disproved over and over again. Nothing you have just presented about Obama and Ayers is even remotely true.

You are blatantly and obviously ignorant to facts. Your claims that Obama is a Marxist only discredit you more; if that is even possible at this point. Your lack of integrity is appalling.

August 8, 2012 at 10:38 p.m.
RWShultz210 said...

Easy123 I don't see why people can't see that if Odumbo were a Marxist in the sense that his old man was a card carrying Colonial Marxist, he would already have tried to pull off a military backed Marxist coup and he'd be dead already and we'd be rid of his dumb ass. As it is we were not bright enough to see what an outrageous liar he is, and now we'll have to pay the consequences for another 4 years IF he survives that long.

August 8, 2012 at 11:25 p.m.
RWShultz210 said...

Easy123 you seem to me to be a fairly sensible individual and I don't believe we disagree on a whole lot of things except possibly guns and liquer. I just don't believe that "who hit John?" they serve in those places goes with guns. Of course I think it is not so much a matter of politics as it is just different experiences that causes me to disagree here, and I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't see the use in gettin into an acrimonious argument about it.

August 8, 2012 at 11:45 p.m.
Oakenheart said...

The supreme court in Heller held that the bearing of arms is an individual right. I think all you anti-gunners should be prosecuted under the appropriate statute.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

August 9, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
SemperFi said...

This column MUST be a late April Fools joke. This is the most nescient and dullard droll I have seen on any Web site in regard to 2A. Congratulations!

August 9, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
Eggo said...

Liberal here. I'm sorry, but you sound crazy, David. You're not doing your case any good with this kind of rant.

August 9, 2012 at 10:03 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/08/12/to-deter-gun-slaughters-the-federal-government-must-cease-disarming-the-innocents/ makes the point that postal workers are not to carry guns, and angry ex-postal workers know this, so angry exes come in and kill people. Angry ex-soldiers know that soldiers do carry guns, so they don't try shooting sprees on military bases. Same day as the Sikh murders, a nut in Texas shot a couple neighbors and their dogs over dog poop, and then started shooting it out with a cop. A neighbor shot the nut, ending the shooting spree. Not that I, or the NRA I suppose, oppose all gun regulations, but "treason"? Does that show the love, forgiveness, and turning of the other cheek that you mention? Do YOU turn the other cheek by forcibly disarming someone else?

August 13, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.