Guns Figure

Robert Ostrea raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Thu Sep 21 11:11:25 MDT 1995


Darin writes:
 
>You had me believing that you were against the 2nd Amendment.  Glad to
know
>that is not true.
>
 
I kind of figured you did.  Rest assured that I am a strong supporter
of the U.S. Constitution...
 
 
>>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.
 
 
Over the past few years especially, the NRA seemed (to me, anyway) to
be very concerned with gaining influence in Congress in an effort to
gain power.  They have been spending so much money on backing
candidates who don't agree with their views on gun control, yet they
were unsuccessful in defeating the Brady Bill, crime bill, etc...  I
just can't believe that, especially now, the NRA can't use their
influence to change some laws and provisions (considering the number of
freshman Republicans who would not have won without the NRA's monetary
support) with a Republican controlled Congress!  There are similar
examples at the State level as well.  It is my suspicion that the NRA
is delaying their attack on the left because their power and influence
would be diminished if the 2nd amendment were considered safe.
 
I don't think that NRA officials want to give up their power, influence
and cushy positions (prestige) just yet.  This is, of course, my
opinion, but that's what I'm seeing from them...
 
 
 
>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.
 
 
Well, I'm not that against the government mandating some sort of
training certification.  There are ways of ensuring that one gets
"certified" without actually attending a state-run course.  I also feel
that this is one area in which the government should require training
for public safety reasons.  Obviously, this will not eliminate crime,
etc.., but it sure would put a dent in accidental incidents!
 
 
 
 
>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.
 
 
No, but we do have safer roads!  I would suspect that if gun
training/safety courses were offered more regularly and
supported/required by the government, a lot more people would be
enrolling in them and a lot more people would be operating the
equipment correctly....
 
 
 Instant security checks are backed by the NRA.  Our state recently
>adopted this law, at the urging of the NRA.
 
You are in Missouri, right?  An Astro fan in Missouri?
 
 
 
>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
>agree.
 
 
Hell, I could care less if anyone agreed with my study as long as I get
paid! :)
 
 
 
 
---------------------
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
North Hollywood, CA
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
 
DODGERS WON 4-2 Wed 9/20!
1 1/2 back of Colorado   NL West
1 in front of Houston    NL Wild Card



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list