From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2000 - 18:48:09 MST
Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
> >
> > >> Your phrase, "an organization that fights to keep more guns than people
> > >> in circulation" is obviously pejorative and not conducive to polite
> > >> disagreement. Please reconsider using such language.
> >
> > > I politely disagree. A statement of fact, no matter how blunt, is
> > > neither pejorative nor inconducive to polite disagreement. If I had
> > > called the NRA and its sympathizers "violent antisocial irrational
> > > paranoid maniacs," *that* would be pejorative.
> >
> >Your so-called statement of fact is a statement about the desired goal
> >of an organization. Since it is contrary to the publicly stated goals
> >of that organization, and contrary to the personal goals of everyone I
> >have ever met who belongs to that organization it is not only pejorative
> >but clearly a delibrate lie to discredit an opponent you know little
> >about rather than having to do the hard work of arguing actual facts.
>
> Is it not true that the NRA opposes virtually *every* single piece of
> gun-control legislation that comes down the pike?
It is not true. They were ready, in fact, to support the current gun
bill in congress mandating NICS checks at gun shows, etc. except they
insisted that gun show sales get treated exactly like gun dealer sales,
with a 5 minute turnaround via the Insta-Check system. Clinton sat on
his ass, insisting on a 3 day waiting period (which will kill off all
gun shows, check or no check) that is not needed, as the technology and
systems are in place and working for a 5 minute turn around. It was
Clinton who refused a solution this time, not the NRA. Additionally, we
wouldn't have the NICS Insta-Check system in place if it were not for
the NRA. They insisted, when they agreed to end opposition to the Brady
Bill, that provisions for such a system be added, that the system would
be in place within one year of the Brady Bill being passed (it took 3
years).
> Is it not true that the
> NRA opposes any attempt reduce the production of new guns?
The federal government is not permitted to control the quantity of guns
produced except under martial law conditions. The government does not
make the guns, it is a private industry.
> Is it not true
> that the NRA is opposed to reducing the number of guns now in circulation?
Gun buybacks have been shown to have absolutely no effect on crime. Gun
confiscations would obviously start a civil war.
> Is it not true that there are more guns in America than there are Americans?
No there are not. There are over 250 million Americans, and between 200
and 240 million guns.
> Is it not true that the NRA sees no problem with the ratio of guns to
> people? Please stop me when I've said something that is not true.
>
Ok, I have stopped you. The only people who see a problem with this are
those that think that Americans have no right to keep and bear arms.
Such people are fascists and should be treated as such.
>
> "I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
> --Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty, from time to time, needs to be watered with the
blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson
Isn't this fun?
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:21 MST