Darin H. Deem
AptMaster at AOL.COM
Wed Sep 20 22:31:03 MDT 1995
In a message dated 95-09-16 16:20:12 EDT, Robert writes:
>I understand your position, Darin, I was just playing a little Devil's
>Advocate! I think we (on the right) need to think a little more like
>DEvil's Advocates if we really want to make an impact on those on the
>left who would love to see all guns outlawed and the Second Amendment
You had me believing that you were against the 2nd Amendment. Glad to know
that is not true.
>Yes, I am weary of the NRA, I personally feel that they are
>becoming less concerned with protecting the 2nd Amendment than by
>increasing their membership and influence in government.
Just out of curiosity what do you base these feelings on? Certainly it is a
personal feeling and therefore you don't need black and white data for your
own feelings. Tell me why you think this.
>Although I am
>a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and believe in the citizen's right to
>bear arms, I would not mind some form of controls that would guarentee
>that only law-abiding and trained citizens be allowed to do so. The
>NRA's opposition to mandatory training (licensing) programs and total
>uncomprising views on automatic and semiautomatic weapons is a little
>unrealistic to me and many others on both sides of the aisle!
The problem I see in my area with mandatory training is: Our local
government is not allowing anyone to put in training ranges, therefore if a
law like this were passed and we had no where to go, we would in effect lose
our right to keep and bear arms. I'm all for training but I don't think the
government needs to mandate it.
>let you know, I do not support the Brady Bill or the "assault" weapons
>ban because they do not solve the problems that they were originally
>introduced to do - reduce crime.
>I am in favor of requiring
>individuals to complete a training/safety course (like a driver's test)
>and a security check (like they have in Nevada and other states) that
>instantaneoulsy certifies that an individual is not an ex-convict or
>psycho would be welcome.
Note that we still do not have safe roads as a result of a driver's license.
So if you think crime or anything else is going to be reduced you are
mistaken. Instant security checks are backed by the NRA. Our state recently
adopted this law, at the urging of the NRA.
>As for the FBI, I have very little problem with that organization.
>SUre, they have some problems, but that wasn't what I meant in my
>earlier post. Again, I was playing a little Devil's Advocate here. I
>would like to see some research prepared by a non-biased,
>non-governmental group which, in my opinion, would be more objective
>than studies conducted by either the FBI or the NRA.
Why would a non-biased group want to do the study? Only those who are
interested in it have any reason to do it, see my point? Maybe you should do
these studies. I think you'll come up with logical results with which I will
More information about the Rushtalk