DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Mon Sep 18 11:55:07 MDT 1995
We seem to argue past each other. I don't buy that the NRA is far-right.
I don't buy that gun-owners are crazy right wing fanatics. I don't
buy that christians are unreasonable people, and I certainly don't buy
government owned, government managed, socialism.
I suggest Dr. Gary Kleck, University of Florida who researched the FBI
Uniform crime statitistics and published extensively on this matter
in 1994. This is a credible resource.
The fact that a large group of the left perceives another group to be
radically to the right (such as Christians, pro-lifers, John Birchers,
NRA members, former military personnel, Gun owners, farmers, ranchers,
conservationists v environmentalists) ought to tell you that there is
nothing you can do but present them with the information available and
if they don't accept facts, then they don't. They have previously decid-
ed that patriots, those who serve their country, those who go to church
etc, are abnormal. They believe what they believe without regard to the
evidence at hand. How are you going to change their minds?
not rational, therefore, anti-government, anti-newage, etc. Who cares?
On the other hand, you do have moderates. they are the audience which
you can persuade with information. This doesn't mean that they have not
bought the gun grabbers premise. They primarily are urban oriented
and do not hunt, have not grown up with firearms in the home, who have
appear to have
a view point that a semi-automatic firearm is able to fire at a
machine-gun rate of fire until the magazine is empty. So go ahead and
persuade them that what they see on TV is not real. Back it up with
information from a credible source. Ask them what they would allow
as a reliable source, Then show them the information from Dr. Gary
You seem to have difficulty with someone who asks you why you want to
do what you think is the appropriate thing to do. Why don't you ask
them, what they base their gun ban attitudes upon? What is the informat-
ion, from what source. Ask them if they know anything about the 2nd
amendment, the foundation literature, the purpose defined by those
old-timers who provided this. If they don't then support RKBA, ask them
if they think the first amendment is valid and has meaning today.
In regard to you statement about the word bias, I agree. However, it is
a code-word of the left, used to characterize gun-owners, conservatives,
christians, etc. If I didn't make that clear, then you may presume that
this post, agrees with the definition, but that I will accept the role
of biased when it comes to the Republic, patriotism, etc. I am tired
of the left, tearing down the US. I am tired of the moderates going
along for the ride.
In this post, you did explain yourself further. I don't agree that
you will ever convince the left. I do agree that there are those who
may be persuaded. You might go back to the origination of HCI. Its aim
was socialistic America, with total, outright ban on firearms. Maybe
you could start there. I did have this information at one point in
time and could find it for you if you so desire.
I don't buy the leftist, new age crap. I don't care to have them join
with me on anything. Nor is it logical that they would. They didn't
in the 1960's and they won't in the 1990's. They have done everything
in their power to gain acceptance of the left, socialism, anything-goes
cultural ideology including banning firearms, silencing christian
dissent from their immoral way of life. I don't buy for a second,
Robert, that the left has anything to do with me or my aims, that we
will ever have anything in common, and that I will ever be allied with
them on anything. It won't happen. This is not true of the moderates.
But that target audience at which our efforts should be directed. But
don't get me wrong. I don't have much use for people who are allowing
the fundamental rights of the constitution to be eroded, even if they
are moderates, of either party. That just is unacceptable to me. So
I guess, by your definition, that would make me a radical, right-wing,
gun-loving, Missour-ah redneck, anti(communist/socialist/communitarian/
social democrat)<<you choose the category>>, patriotically correct,
On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:27:58 -0700 Robert Ostrea said:
>For the record, I never stated that the NRA was a "far-right, out of
>control group." But the fact that they are PERCIEVED as such also
>poses some credibility problems among the moderate and left. You may
>think that this is unimportant, but the battle can NOT be won without
>support from everyone...
>My question implied that the NRA's interpretation may be perceived by
>many as biased. I never stated nor "intimated" that they produced
>"false" information. Please don't put words into my mouth...
>>I don't care if it is biased or not. Why do you?
>I think I've explained myself pretty well in my above responses. It's
>obvious you don't care if the information is biased, but you already
>agreed with them in the first place (as do I in this case). The fact
>of the matter is, we need to convince everyone else that the
>"gun-grabbers" of America are not interested in reducing crime, rather
>they are interested in making sure that no citizen will be armed. They
>You don't seem to understand that without support from the left and the
>moderate, the battle will not be won! NRA statistics will NOT convince
>many of the moderate, and certainly none of the left. However, stats
>and interpretations submitted by a non or bi partisan, objective
>organization would be much more effective in the fight to save the 2nd
>Amendment. It goes a LOT further than just you and I, Dave...
More information about the Rushtalk