Guns Figure

Darin H. Deem AptMaster at AOL.COM
Mon Sep 25 18:58:07 MDT 1995

In a message dated 95-09-21 13:17:18 EDT, Robert writes:
>>>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?
<Some Deleted>
>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...
You have a very well thought out position.  I would like to know who they
backed that is an anti-gunner.  I don't recall hearing or reading anything of
the sort.  So any details would be appreciative.  By the way I hope you are
wrong here.  Geez, you sound as cynical as I do.
>>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!
We're not talking state run course, we're talking any course.  If their is no
range and the law says you have to have so much time on certified ranges (not
out on your own in the sticks) then you've in effect lost any chance of
getting the license and therefore lost the chance to have a legal gun.  Then
you turn citizens into criminals.  I personally think that anyone with half a
brain that buys a gun will take it out somewhere and fire it to get the feel
for it.  I think most people are smart enough for that.  Besides most
salesmen/women of guns encourage such training.
>>Note that we still do not have safe roads as a result of a driver's
>> So if you think crime or anything else is going to be reduced you are
>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....
You don't say.  If the gov't required it, the enrollment would increase?!?  I
have no doubt of it. :)  You don't need the gov't to show you how to take
care of your own gun.  There's plenty of people who know how who can pass
that information along.  What next?  Mandated classes in how to mow your
lawn?  Many people get hurt with those things every year.  Maybe we should
just wrap styrofoam pads around everything so no one will get hurt.  Wouldn't
make those lawyers too happy though.  :)
> 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?
Wrong.  I'd tell you where I live but the SS is probably lurking.
>>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
>Hell, I could care less if anyone agreed with my study as long as I get
>paid! :)
Hey everybody send Robert a quarter, he'll do the study.  (Robert:  You never
said how MUCH we had to pay:))

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list