A conversation I look forward to having with the NRA

 

"Hello, Mr. Wray.  This is John from the National Rifle Association.  How are you doing tonight?"

"Fine, thanks."

"Mr. Wray, as a Life Member of the NRA, I know you are concerned with our right to bear arms.  Are you aware of Obama's under-the-radar effort to destroy our Second Amendment rights?"

"You mean President Obama?"

"Yes, sir."

"Say it."

"President Obama."

"Good.  Now, for the remainder of this conversation, every time you mention his name, the word 'president' will precede it.  Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."

"Good.  Now, what were you complaining about?"

"Well, er, President Obama is conducting an under-the-radar attack on our right to bear arms."

"What makes it under the radar?"

"His administration is not talking about it."

"Then how do you know what he plans to do?"

"Well, Mr. Wray, you have to look no further than his appointees.  Consider that Attorney General Eric Holder is on record as wanting to bring back the Clinton ban on assault weapons."

"Attorney General Holder brought that up within a month of his appointment three years ago and was quickly shut down by the president.  I haven't heard a peep since.  What else you got?"

"Um, he appointed two of the most rabidly anti-gun Supreme Court justices in American history, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  Given the advanced ages of several of the other judges, a second term may well give President Obama the chance to appoint three more justices."

"So, our liberal president appointed two liberal justices.  What a surprise! I guess we'll have to hope that all of his appointees grow an independent streak and decide their cases according to our Constitution. I worry about the court becoming unbalanced as well, but it's hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights."

"Mr. Wray, are you aware that this administration reversed long-standing American opposition and now supports an International Arms Trade Treaty that will ban or restrict our gun ownership in this country?  O...er...President Obama knows he can't get restrictive gun rules through the U.S. Congress so he's going to come at our guns through the United Nations."

"You know, I've been seeing those emails, so I started doing some checking.  It turns out that the U.N. treaty is aimed at restricting dealers who provide arms to terrorists, insurgencies, rebellions and civil wars.  There is specific wording in place, put there by the United States, to protect national sovereignty regarding firearms purchase and ownership.

"But Mr. Wray, our people have done extensive research into the administration's goals and we know that President Obama wants to restrict gun ownership."

"Sure, you know that even though all he's ever said is that he supports the Second Amendment and has no plans to take anyone's guns. In fact, he's signed a law permitting guns in national parks and signed another law allowing guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains."

"Those were just a diversion, Mr. Wray, a smokescreen to hide his true objectives."

"So, even when President Obama does exactly what you guys want, signs laws that you had a hand in writing, you still don't give him credit.  Did all of you intern at Pravda, or what?  Here's what I think. I am truly worried about gun control. I've been in Great Britain and Australia and Canada and talked with the people there who've had their guns taken away. I know it can be done and there are people here who want to do the same thing.  That's why I'm a life member of the NRA.  But the way the NRA demonizes the President and creates crises where there are none is abhorrent to me.

"And that's not all. When then-Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend while quail hunting, the NRA went totally silent. I know the Bush administration was a big supporter of the right to bear arms, but for an organization like the NRA, which runs the largest firearms safety-training program in the world, to roll over and play dead rather than criticize an administration official's obvious hunting error was pathetic.   This was an incredibly powerful teaching moment, but you bailed.

"In addition, John, by playing on the fears of gun owners, the NRA created the mass hysteria following President Obama's election that resulted in ammunition and reloading supplies disappearing off the shelves for more than a year.  You did that, and all you can say now is, 'This time he's really going after our guns!'

"Sorry, John. Somehow the words 'NRA' and 'trust' don't fit together for me. But, hey, thanks for calling."

Pat Wray is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He lives in Corvallis, Oregon, with his wife, Debbie, and three hunting dogs. He can be argued with at patwray@comcast.net.

Jarious Head
Jarious Head
Mar 01, 2012 09:23 PM
That “certain kind of person” would be anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature who had been paying the slightest bit of attention, because Obama’s actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on the gun issue. Senator Obama’s statements on the campaign trail weren’t any more reassuring. For example:
▪ Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.
▪ In a primary debate in 2008, Obama the candidate stated that the second amendment confers an individual right, BUT (there’s always but where the second amendment is concerned) the fact that it is an individual right “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights is also worrisome.
▪ When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of ‘assault weapons’ and waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
▪ Need I mention the whole “bitter clingers” episode?
▪ Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing wrong with a community establishing their own “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]” while still respecting the second amendment. Did you catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
▪ In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the supreme court has ruled that criminals don’t need to register (and can’t be punished for failing to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right against self-incrimination.
▪ In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per month provision.
▪ According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, “Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”
▪ At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities.” What?!? Is that what he really thinks? That federally licensed gun dealers are loading up vehicles and selling guns out of the back in inner cities?
▪ In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory ‘assault weapons’ ban which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and single barrel shotguns.
▪ As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively titled “Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008″ which would have explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB.
▪ As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition.
▪ As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual rights view in Heller v. DC.
▪ Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
▪ He supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.
▪ As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ Obama said. ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.’”
Barack Obama’s actions as President have done nothing to change our perceptions, either. On his first day in office, on the White House website, under “Urban Policy” we found this gem posted:
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
See above regarding how little the Obama AWB resembed the Clinton-era AWB. When he talks about keeping guns away from children, what he’s really talking about are various blue-sky proposals to make guns “childproof.”
And who can forget the Obama Administration’s employment questionnaire Question 59: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
Once Obama had settled into power, there were more ‘indicators’ of his anti-gun feelings:
▪ In March, 2009 the DoD ‘revised’ its policy on the disposal of once-fired brass. Instead of selling it to consumers and domestic agencies for reloading, all once-fired brass from the military would be shredded and sold as scrap. This policy was reversed fairly quickly after outraged shooters contacted their legislators and Senators Tester and Baucus (both D-MT) faxed a letter to the DoD asking them to change the policy. The fact that Senator Tester was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee might have had something to do with the quick volte-face.
▪ The DHS report, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment [.pdf] which cited as a key finding: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
▪ In April of 2009, President Obama announced he wanted the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials (called by its Spanish acronym of CIFTA for obvious reasons). A close look at the Definitions section of the treaty reveals that it would require a government license for “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials”. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean we sort of have that now, don’t we? But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the definitions, because the way they’re written, you could be required to get a government license to reload ammo, add or change out a scope on a rifle, replace a factory trigger with an upgraded one, or even so much as load a weapon. Preposterous you say? Look at how they define “other related materials.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Back? Okay, when they say “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm” you think an anti-gun administration wouldn’t say that applies to magazines and ammo? So – technically – putting rounds in a mag or a mag in a weapon would constitute “assembly” which would require a license. So how much will the license cost? What will the application process be? Will it be “shall-issue” or “may-issue”? How long will it be good for? How much will it cost to renew? All of these details could be used to drastically reduce gun ownership.
▪ The Obama administration reversed a decision to import over 800,000 surplus M-1 rifles and carbines from South Korea. Not only are these weapons of some historical significance, but their arrival on the market would reduce prices on these sorts of weapons, at least in the relatively short term. The rationale (or perhaps rationalization would be a better term) given to the South Korean government for the decision was that the administration “was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” Well that tells us something interesting. Since all of these rifles would have been sold through FFLs, the Obama administration is saying they believe every firearm sale in the country could put guns in the hands of “terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” And they call us paranoid.
▪ Under the Obama administration, the CDC did an end-run around the decade-old prohibition on performing research on gun control issues by maintaining they were not researching the gun issue, “rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances.” When Republicans in Congress questioned why money was being spent on these sorts of studies, an NIH spokesman replied “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH.” But wait, aren’t you supposed to do the studies before you come to the conclusion that guns have a net negative impact on public health? See, coming to conclusions and then ginning up research to support them is what got Congress to implement the ban in the first place.
▪ Fast & Furious and the whole “90% of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.” with the subsequent unlawful and unconstitutional long gun sales reporting requirement implemented by the ATF via bureaucratic fiat. And please, don’t even try to say “But Bush did it first!” Under oath, Attorney General Holder stated that he would not equate F&F with Operation Wide Receiver. Among other things, under OWR the ATF informed the Mexicans when, where and in what kind of car guns were crossing the border while under F&F not only were the Mexicans kept in the dark, the ATF liaison officers in Mexico were kept in the dark.
▪ Under the Obama administration the ATF suddenly reversed a forty-two year old ruling, stating that “[t]he temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act” which then requires that the transfer be processed by an FFL, complete with NICS check and a 4473, lengthening the transfer process considerably.
▪ In an op-ed for the Arizona Star, Obama capitalized on the Tucson shooting, calling for more gun control. Except he didn’t call it ‘gun control’, he called it “sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place”.
▪ Then there was this piece in the Huffington Post in which Obama admitted that he could not achieve gun control through legislation, so “only executive orders or administrative actions — and not an actual bill — are expected to be handed to Congress.” What was it Bill Clinton’s aide said? “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” Yeah, who needs that whole “work within constitutional limits” stuff anyway, right?
So the next time some ignorant anti says “But Obama hasn’t done anything on gun control . . . why are you so paranoid?” give them chapter and verse. Not that facts ever make much of an impression on hoplophobes.
Jarious Head
Jarious Head
Mar 01, 2012 09:24 PM

Here is a list of the anti gun legislation sponsored so far this year (2012)

Care to review who supplied funds to sponsor these bills eh? Funny how George Soros and the Joyce Foundation are never mentioned by stinkyredfish.

H.R. 227 (Jackson Lee):
H.R. 263 (Ackerman):
H.R. 308 (McCarthy and 48 others):
H.R. 367 (Richardson):
H.R. 420 (Rehberg, Boswell):
H.R. 496 (King of New York, Bishop, Engel, Rangel, Chu):
H.R. 505 (Nadler):
H.R. 591 (McCarthy):
H.R. 645 (Ross, Jordan):
H.R. 770 (Cuellar):
H.R. 808 (Kucinich et al.):
H.R. 973 (Mrs. Adams & 50 others):
H.R. 1093 (King, Altmire):
H.R. 1506 (King of New York, Rangel, Ackerman, Rush, Waxman, Deutch, Holt, Norton, Engel, Doyle, Chu, Lance):
H.R. 1552 (Israel):
H.R. 1642 (Quigley, Chu, Norton, Jackson, Moran):
H.R. 1781 (McCarthy and 35 others):
H.R. 2252 (Bartlett and 18 other original cosponsors):
H.R. 2554 (Maloney & 15 other original cosponsors):
H.R. 2618 (Quigley):
S. 32 (Lautenberg, Feinstein, Menendez, Boxer, Kerry, Reed, Levin, Franken, Schumer, Durbin):
S. 34 (Lautenberg, Menendez, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Reed, Levin, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer):
S. 35 (Lautenberg, Reed, Menendez, Kerry, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Levin, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Wyden):
S. 176 (Boxer):
S. 332 (Hatch, Roberts):
S. 436 (Schumer, Gillibrand):
S. 570 (Tester, Ensign, Begich, Baucus, Burr, Chambliss, Inhofe, Paul, Barrasso, Coburn):
S. 835 (Crapo, Leahy):
S. 1305 (Feinstein):
Wayne L Hare
Wayne L Hare Subscriber
Mar 07, 2012 04:13 PM
Ahhh….the emotions, distortions, inaccuracies, and just plain craziness of the gun control debate!

In the conversation and comments about Obama’s – er, President Obama’s - secret gun control program, I don’t see the president associated with even ONE of the bills listed below. So I’m confused about his exact involvement or this secret plan. The purpose of some of those bills isn’t intuitively obvious. Several are actually PRO guns, so I can’t begin to guess why they are listed, other than to make this list long enough to seem convincing and scary.

Some are to enforce or enhance immigration laws, and while I am loathe to stereotype, I will anyway: Isn’t illegal immigration more often than not a hot button issue for the fringe gun proponents?

One bill proposes a Department of Peace – which on the surface would seem kind of unobjectionable. Except I guess that peace would eliminate one of the joyful reasons to have an assault weapon. And does the author REALLY object to, say, H.R. 1506 that denies the transfer of explosives to a known terrorist; or H.R. 505 that places some restrictions on persons who have been convicted of sex crimes against children? Isn’t not arming people who have molested children or not selling explosives to known terrorist good ideas that we all can agree on?

In addition, the web carries endless information about President Obama’s anti-gun position and secret agenda. But if you look to legitimate sources, such as FactCheck or PolitFact, you are unable to confirm even ONE of the listed instances of the president’s secret agenda in the way presented here, let alone all of them. So what’s up? What is this irrational, unfounded fear of the president’s non-existent secret agenda? If one needs reason to not be a fan of the president, a reasonable person could legitimately and honestly find many. But to manufacture them? I dunno. But I know this: It’s dishonest, misleading, disruptive, and inflammatory. Are those things that we want?

Does common sense or accuracy have any place in a discussion of gun control? Apparently not. Or was this really a discussion about President Obama? Again, I dunno.

H.R. 227:Controls access to firearms by children
H.R. 263:Restricts the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.
H.R. 308: Prohibits the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
H.R. 367:To prohibit the knowing possession of a firearm near a venue at which a Member of Congress is performing an official and representational duty or campaigning for public office
H.R. 420:To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.
H.R. 496: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the carrying of a firearm near a place where a senior Federal official is holding an official public event or carrying out official or representational duty, or where any person is campaigning for Federal elective office
H.R. 505: To amend title 18, United States Code, to place limitations on the possession, sale, and other disposition of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against children.
H.R. 591: To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.
H.R. 645: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
H.R. 770: To establish a Border Enforcement Security Task Force program to enhance border security by fostering coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local border and law enforcement officials to protect United States border cities and communities from trans-national crime, including violence associated with drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal alien trafficking and smuggling, violence, and kidnapping along and across the international borders of the United States, and for other purposes.
H.R. 808: To establish a Department of Peace.
H.R. 973: To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1093: To reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, modernize firearms laws and regulations, protect the community from criminals, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1506: To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.
H.R. 1552: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have committed a violent act while a juvenile.
H.R. 1642: To prevent the illegal sale of firearms.
H.R. 1781: To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
H.R. 2252: To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.
H.R. 2554: To prohibit firearms trafficking.
H.R. 2618: To enhance certain prohibitions and penalties relating to certain forms of firearms trafficking.
S. 32: A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
S. 34: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
S. 35: A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
S. 176: A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.
S. 332: A bill to promote the enforcement of immigration laws and for other purposes.
S. 436: A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
S. 570: A bill to prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns.
S. 835: A bill to reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, modernize firearms laws and regulations, protect the community from criminals, and for other purposes.
S. 1305: A bill to establish and clarify that Congress does not authorize persons convicted of dangerous crimes in foreign courts to freely possess firearms in the United States.
John Groo
John Groo Subscriber
Mar 08, 2012 07:54 PM
I’m with you Pat, and it’s good to know that there are other NRA members feeling the same frustration. I put up with all the shrill email (that’s what the delete key is for), but if I get a phone call I intend to have a conversation similar to the one you envision. I appreciate the NRA for many things – it’s safety programs, making insurance available to small clay clubs like mine, and for keeping a watchful eye on genuine threats to 2nd Amendment rights – but I’m concerned that the rights effort has become pretty irrational and seemingly much more about the NRA leadership’s loathing of President Obama than the integrity and core missions of the organization. I wish the NRA could do its work without all the rabid right wing fulminations, but I realize that’s probably too much to ask for at this point.
Nolan Patrick Veesart
Nolan Patrick Veesart
Mar 12, 2012 04:06 PM
Great article and good discussion. Thank you. I own a few guns; I occasionally hunt; I believe that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. But, I'm not (nor ever have been) a member of the NRA. They are just too far out there for me. You know, if I was an organizer for the "anti-gun lobby" (which I am not), nothing would make me happier than to see Bubba and the boys parading around with their Glocks and AK-47s at the shopping mall. Keep it up boys and the average (urban dwelling), law-abiding citizens will demand more laws restricting gun ownership. I know there are intelligent gun owners out there; it's nice to hear from one occasionally.
Sally Buttshaw
Sally Buttshaw Subscriber
Mar 20, 2012 06:07 PM
I have nothing against gun owners who shoot animals for meat for their families. Not for me, but ok by me. As for all the other guns, I personally am tired and disgusted reading an seeing on the news all of the gun violence lately. school shootings, domestic violence shootings ! when is it all going to end ? you don't need a gun that shoots dozens of rounds in seconds just to kill a deer for the dinner table, right ?
Thomas Prunier
Thomas Prunier
Mar 20, 2012 09:16 PM
Great conversation. Mine are much shorter as I tell the caller that I can't support the NRA because most all the legislatures they support voted against health care reform. What good is a warm gun in a hand made cold by cancer.
Walt Foutz
Walt Foutz
Jul 24, 2012 03:08 PM
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, the Denver Post ran the following editorial that I think is right on." Every gun obtained by the man accused of shooting 70 people at an Aurora movie theater was purchased legally — even the AR-15 with a magazine enabling it to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

The tragedy last week, which left 12 people dead, highlights the need for Congress to beat back the gun lobby and reinstitute the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

At the very least, federal lawmakers ought to outlaw the high-capacity magazines that make it easier to mow down a lot of people very quickly.


James Eagan Holmes is accused of bringing four guns to the scene — including the military-style rifle with the high-capacity magazine.


We also know the high-capacity magazine Holmes is accused of using would have been covered under the federal assault weapons ban. Had the ban remained in place, that magazine would not legally be available.

Perhaps, as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said on Sunday, someone that twisted may have found a way around tougher gun laws. Maybe he would have gone with bombs like those he is accused of having rigged his apartment with.

But what's wrong with giving individuals with ill intent fewer options for mass carnage? If they have to become better shooters to carry out their plans, perhaps they'll be detected before they act, or maybe they won't be able to shoot so many people.

A handful of states have laws placing limits on the number of rounds that magazines can hold. Under the assault weapons ban, such magazines were limited to 10 rounds.

We know that given the strength of the gun lobby, a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban would be difficult to achieve. But at the very least, federal lawmakers should see the wisdom of restricting the availability of accessories that enable bad guys to kill so quickly and efficiently.



Read more: Editorial: Restrict access to mass killing tools - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/o[…]killing-tools#ixzz21Zmg0bTb
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse



Read more: Editorial: Restrict access to mass killing tools - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/o[…]killing-tools#ixzz21ZmWZHtI
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse



Read more: Editorial: Restrict access to mass killing tools - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/o[…]killing-tools#ixzz21Zle2Rjp
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Mark Letson
Mark Letson
Jan 03, 2013 02:51 PM
With all due respect, Mr. Wray, it's always easy to win an argument that you have with yourself. Supplying your own response to questions you think the NRA might ask you, is akin to playing checkers against yourself.