Newsy

Spam filters have weeded out most of what would probably have made sense as a rebuttal to this weak sauce diatribe on gun control in Colorado. Go read it. Don't, however, expect to see your comment in the comments section.

I'm not holding my breath, but here's my response:

Whew! That's a whole lot of name calling and generalization. Doug I'm sorry you have a problem with people who feel strongly enough about a situation to voice their opinion and threaten to boycott. That's a shame. Glad we all still have some part of our First Amendment left and you got a good column out of it, though.
Anywho, I managed to get through your story and a few things jumped out at me.

"The movie theater shooter obtained his weapons legally under current laws.  He’s not alone when it comes to mass murderers in this nation.  Are existing laws strong enough to deter such criminals?  Obviously not."

Please don't support or pass laws which seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens to take part in legal activities. If the understanding is that laws aren't stiff enough to dissuade folks from becoming criminals then stiffen the penalties for that crime. Easy enough.

"Several of us who believe in obeying the law have notified the NRA repeatedly of this criminal element within the association’s ranks but no action is ever taken.  NRA would rather collect the dues and count criminals as members."

Aside from the snitchery and the thought that I wonder who will be first among your friends to turn you in for something they don't like--or you them, what's the NRA to do based on your information? Do you notify every national association of local felons and expect the association to return the money and cross said felons off their list of donors? Why aren't your local police handling this lawbreaking? And, if these dangerous felons were convicted of their crimes, making them felons, why are they still driving around in their pickup trucks anyway?
And finally, because I don't want to go through the whole thing and be seen as picking a fight,

"We all agree, however, on the need for more laws regulating sale of certain types of weapons, large capacity magazines and the proven need for more extensive background checks on those who try and purchase firearms."

I almost went with a personal attack here, but I feel that would defeat the purpose of this response. I will say that a few people is too small a sample size to have any meaning and leave it there. It pains me to think that you have an excellent grasp on the First Amendment, but you don't appear to understand the Second and the reason it was penned in the first place.