IIRC he lived in Washington D.C. Or, possibly a suburb…
Gassendi, your thread is about hypothetical hypocrisy. But, there are numerous cases of real hypocrisy the other way. Gun opponents who use guns for self defence or who go around with armed guards for themselves or their children. E.g., Rosie O’Donnell and many other celebrities and politicians. What’s the impact of these examples on gun opponents? None, I dare say.
The columnist was Carl Rowan.
And yes, December, Rowan lived in DC.
If memory serves, he claimed the gun had belonged to his son, a former FBI agent.
When you are using a brick for the purpose it was designed for, it is part of your house. If you are using a kitchen knife for the purpose it was designed for, you are chopping up food. If your are using a baseball bat for the purpose it was designed for, you are playing baseball. If you are using a gun for the purpose it was designed for, you are generally killing things. Since the gun in question isn’t a weapon for hunting, then we’re not talking about animals here.
Which part of “organized militia” don’t you understand?
Then you have heard the term used incorrectly.
“Assault rifle” is a very specific term used by the military to refer to a rifle with select-fire capability, i.e. the ability to be switched between semiautomatic and fully automatic operation.
DO NOT get this term confused with “assault weapon,” which is an artificial legal construct used to categorize semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines according to their cosmetic features, and whose exact definition differs depending on whether you’re talking about Federal law or California state law.
(I’ve also heard “assault weapons” referred to as “semiautomatic assault rifles,” which is a contradiction in terms.)
…the guy who shoots him gets to be the new NRA president?
I hate it when these creation-vs.-evolution threads degenerate into an Argument By Design. 
snicker If you’re going to spout off about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, you should at least get the wording right! The phrase used in the 2nd Amendment is “well-regulated militia,” not “organized militia.”
“… and we all move up in rank!”
– evil Sulu, “Mirror Mirror”
If the NRA president is shot:
They will pry his gun from his cold, dead fingers.
They will engrave one-half of the Second Amendment on his tombstone
Back to the questions in the OP
1- The NRA will point out that had their president gotten the first shot off, the murderer would have been dead.
2- Other than a new president, no. Closed minds do not change.
3- Public response will be to find the perpetrator and try him/her. Other than that, it will be just another needless homicide made possible by the excessive availability of weapons.
What kind of “spin” will be put on such a hypothetical incident will depend severely on whether the assassin possessed the gun illegally or not.
Well, I understand that the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee individual rights.
Cecil’s take on the subject:
What does “the right to bear arms” really mean?
From his article:
And my favorite quote from the article:
-Really? That’s odd. So we’ve been killing all those paper targets, steel shilouettes, clay pigeons, wooden discs, ‘Pepper Poppers’ and tin cans all these years?
I know a couple of people who are mass murderers by that definition.
MSU- what was that about closed minds again?
This OP could be expanded to other A’s. How about:
What if the AAA president was run over?
What if the PGA president was hit with a golf ball?
What if the NBA president was hit with a basketball?
What if the PBA president was bowled over?
What if the ABA president was sued?
What if the PTA president was given detention?
What if the USIA president was spreading disinformation?
A parent of one of the children slaughtered at Columbine actually still supports the NRA.
The NRA would probably suggest that members wear firearms to bed. This, the better, to be able to return fire.
Why does this surprise you? The NRA, after all, did not cause nor was involved in the Columbine tragedy.
The NRA denounced the killers just as everyone else did. The only difference is that the NRA said “wait a minute!” to the knee-jerk enactment of laws in response to the spree, that would not have stopped the murderers even had the laws been in place at the time, nor changed the fact that they had already broken over a dozen laws as it was.
Actually, hyperbole aside, the NRA does suggest a range of anti-burglary and anti-robbery tips, including installing motion-detector lights, adding a deadbolt, securing windows, and locking up firearms to prevent them from being stolen.
The NRA, actually, stresses that if you decide to own a firearm, that training on how to use it- and more importantly from a legal standpoint when you should and should not use it- is very important.
But I suppose keeping the mental image of all NRA members as drunken rednecks handing out machine guns like Halloween candy is important to you, too.
What was that about closed minds again?
Ted Nugent would take over.
Well, when I’m shoot at cardboard targets, I’m practicing killing people. What would be the poimt, otherwise?
The last thing I want to have in combat is a weapon that wasn’t designed for the specific purpose of killing people.
[ul]
[sup]A small group of what?[/sup]
[sup]I know, but maybe not everyone does.[/sup][/ul]
“The Point” is hard to explain to someone who refuses to see it.
I shoot at paper targets 1,000 yards away. I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone…and I’m a soldier. I’m a gunner in an M1A1 Abrams tank and it is my sincere hope that I never fire that gun in anger.
I also would not want to carry this in combat:
http://images.fotki.com/v4/free/3641/3/35189/102765/attherangecrop-or.jpg
That’s me with my target rifle.
I think several posters in this thread are stuck with the idea that all gun owners want mow down playgrounds full of children. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no desire to own a handgun or semiauto anything. I like single-shot bolt-action target rifles. I don’t speak for all gun owners. Why must you?
…So what?