Isakson, Chambliss bowed to NRA lobby
April 23, 2013 12:00 AM | 1286 views | 12 12 comments | 4 4 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

I thought it was the duty of our elected officials to represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Obviously that’s not the case with Georgia’s U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. Although 91 percent of Georgians support expanded background checks, our senators decided to bow down to the NRA’s Washington lobby and voted against the checks.

The people most excited by our senator’s votes are probably criminals because they will continue to have access to no-background-check gun sales. I think it’s shameful that our senators stood together with other close-minded senators to block common-sense legislation that would have saved American lives.

How many tragedies do we have to endure as a nation before our elected officials get the message? And 33 Americans will continue to be murdered by guns every single day in this country.

I don’t think expanded background checks would eliminate all gun violence, but isn’t it a step in the right direction?

Jeff Wilburn

Marietta
Comments
(12)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Heh...
|
April 30, 2013
Your 91% number is a number made up by the Dem's in hopes that it would trick people into supporting this ridiculous law.

Answer me this. Would these expanded background checks have prevents the school shooting in CT? Would they have stopped any of the other recent nuts who used guns? The answer is no.

If you really are interested in saving lives why don't you ban driving since car crashes kill way more people than guns ever will. Oh that's different right? Why, because you like to drive from point A to B? If you really want to save lives that would save WAY more.

Hey, I can make up my own stat too, 99% of people in the US support banning driving over 5mph to save lives.
Pat H
|
April 24, 2013
The guns used in those statistics are not registered guns - what percentage are used by thugs who have obtained them on the black market as opposed to lawful owners with concealed carry licenses or hunters?

More Americans have been murdered by Islamist jihadists with boxcutters or bombs than have been murdered by guns that were lawfully purchased (subtract those murders with guns stolen and/or illegally obtained).

So, to bring down murder stats, if that is the true purpose, it seems prudent to start with investigating all mosques, imans, and Muslims in or out of uniform, who are either born here or immigrated here.

After that investigation is completed, then lets look at parents whose children are living with them with schizophrenic symptoms (Columbine, Gabby Giffords, and Newtown) and those whose children were not living with them but they were warned by roommates, colleges, etc. that they were dangerous (Joker movie theater, Virgina Tech, etc.) All those parents were not held accountable, but lawful gun owners are somehow responsible. The Newtown young man had both a father and a brother, who knew he was crazy and his mom gave him weapons training, and did nothing to intervene. These are the people who created these monsters and failed to protect society.

The problem with physicians notifying the government is they can and will be manipulated to determine that certain types of people (like veterans or Christians) may be mentally ill and need to have their weapons seized. Who will decide what physicians should make these decisions?
Kevin Foley
|
April 27, 2013
@ Pat H (whoever you are) - And let's not forget to inspect churches to find out if any radicalized Christians like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are planning bombings or murders of doctors who perform abortions.
Pat H
|
April 29, 2013
Sure, that would be okay since Christianity does not teach jihad as a tenant. Having attended Catholic school, I know that I was only taught peace and love.

Also, add abortion clinics since I am sure you are up on the trial of the abortion doctor severing spinal cords of living babies and the death of a patient.
anonymous
|
April 30, 2013
Don't you love it when Foley throws in the "whoever you are"? I guess if he doesn't know who you are, he cannot employ his leftist tactic of trying to impugn your character. That's the best thing about these posts!
Kevin Foley
|
April 23, 2013
Jeff - Read the response "From Texas" and you'll immediately understand why the NRA holds such sway over congress (I don't understand Warren's question. Do You?).

Here's an ignoramus whose posts demonstrate he or she knows little and thinks less, exactly the kind of person the gun manufacturers, for which the NRA works, depend on for their cover. He or she just believes whatever the NRA tells them to believe. Texas mentions Hitler, who never took away any guns. The Nazis were actually successful because they could manipulate idiots like From Texas.

While 9 out 10 Americans agree background checks are perfectly reasonable, posing no political risk to representatives and senators, they did what a relatively small number of people like From Texas wants them to do. Very scary.
George Middleton
|
April 23, 2013
Kevin, we can always count on you to jump in with no substance and lot of trash talk and name calling about people who hold different opinions.

When are you going to learn to communicate like an adult, instead of an adolsecent schoolyard bully wannabe?

Oh,, BTW, Obama's "9 out of 10" lie has pretty much been debunked.

Kevin Foley
|
April 24, 2013
@ Jeff - And Middleton is another NRA enabler.
Laura Armstrong
|
April 30, 2013
Mr. Foley, to say Hitler "never took away any guns" is patently untrue. Prior to 1938, the Weimar Republic required gun registration, but when the Nazis came into power he used those registration lists to persecute gun owners and also strengthened laws on the books, first specifically banning certain groups from obtaining gun licenses and then, within days of the Kristalknacht attacks on Jewish homes and businesses completely banned this entire group of people from possessing firearms. All this led to the Holocost and your argument for gun control (which is mostly an attack on "From Texas") is based on a fallacy. Just couldn't let this one stand unchallenged...
Jim Warren
|
April 23, 2013
Texas:

So you DON'T support reasonable measures to help reduce felons and the unstable from securing firearms? A simple yes or no will do.

Jumping from background checks for online and gun show purchases to surrendering of all weapons across the country is more than a leap of logic and reasonableness: it is misleading.
George Middleton
|
April 23, 2013
No sir, it is not misleadin. It is the avowed aim of many of our elected officials, and based on his actions, the aim of the President

The expansion of background checks, the requirement for doctors to inform the government hwen they treat a new patient for any type of mental problem, the actions of DHS in informing veterans that they have PTSD and can never purchase a gun, are all steps toward disarming the public.
FROM TEXAS
|
April 23, 2013
That’s the same reasoning Hitler used in Germany once all the guns were gone he started having special train trips for people and turns out they didn’t like the destination. Mexican’s pour across our border everyday along with drugs and guns. Bet you wish you could have been in Boston so you could hide in fear in your house because no one there had guns to protect themselves. Two terrorist shut down a the whole Boston Metro area; just think if they had just a few more terrorist with AK’s RPG’s I’m sure they would never thought to bring those weapons in by the harbor. No thank both Isakson and Chambliss for doing the right thing by not plunging us into a New Revolutionary War with the Red Coats in Washington just remember when seconds count minutes matter if you live or die!! New York is running a lot of ads for people to move there maybe that’s a better place; I don’t think so and a lot of businesses and people are leaving New York!!
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides