raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Fri Sep 22 10:28:36 MDT 1995
>I think those that don't know what the stats are simply are
>parties because they don't have guns and since it doesn't effect them
I, for one, feel that "disinterested parties" will make or break the
2nd Amendment unless they are convinced that interference in this
aspect of the Constitution will lead to intereference in other "more
important" issues that they are more interested in...
They simply accept what they read in the media, with out question,
>and thus have the negative attitude about guns that prevails.
This explains why there are still so many Democrats holding office
We, as 2nd
>amendment supporters, must educate them and try to convince them that
>they think they know about guns and guns owners is flat out wrong.
Agreed, unfortunately, I doubt that the NRA will be able to do this
because they are perceived as gun-toting "hicks" who have no education
and like to shoot innocent animals for fun. This is obviously an
inaccurate description, BUT many people (too many people) really
>accept the statistics in large part but what they will have trouble
>believing that the media and orginazations like HCI are actually
>them. It is a huge task trying to get out the truth in the sources
>majority of these people read and to which they listen.
This is exactly why I like to play Devil's Advocate in order to find
out how the truth can be revealed. Those who have no interest in this
issue would ask, "Why would HCI lie? They have no reason to! They are
interested in saving lives.." You see where I'm getting! If the NRA
says they are lying and gives them the reasons, they will (and have
been perceived to be) look like fools!
The NRA tried it and
>failed as they could not buy time on the networks at even twice the
>rate. The remaining hard core anti's won't believe ANY source that
>support their agenda and will believe ANY source that does without
Again, as Darin and I have been discussing, I think the hard core
anti's shouldn't be the focus. The focus is on the moderates and
>Besides the federal government has no Constitutional authority
>to do so (not that that seens to matter these days).
I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says the government CAN'T
require training/safety courses?
>I am glad I was able to persuade you to take a safety course.
>think that should be included in school curriculums as an elective as
>to be in many schools years ago.
Are you still in Huntsville, AL, Dennis? I've never heard of gun
courses here in California. I'm sure there may be some in the rural
areas, but certainly not in the cities! I'm not sure this will ever
happen again, however. I remember when they banned the javelin event
in track and field because some kid got killed with it...
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
North Hollywood, CA
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
Those Dodgers better start winning!
I've got Division Playoff Tickets!
More information about the Rushtalk