Re: GUNS: Re: Why here?

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 17:58:16 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:20:08 -0400
>From: Mike Lorrey <retroman@turbont.net>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Re: Why here?
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>
>> >Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
>> >
>> >By the way, the people you are collaborating with are not
>> >interested in "sensible" or "reasonable" gun laws, they are
>> >interested in eliminating all guns except for the military and
>> >police.
>> >
>> >That includes yours.
>> >
>> Actuyally, um, no. The page I reference here to you today to blow your contention out of the water is from the Sarah Brady group Handgun Control, which baldly states, and I quote,
>>
>> Handgun Control works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United State but does not seek to ban guns.
>>
>> You may claim that they're lying and produce NRA 'quotes' to supposedly reinforce such an assertion, but that is a direct quote from the web page.
>> >
>> I refer you to:
>> http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/second.asp
>
>Joe, we are all perfectly aware of what their public site 'claims' is their policy, however the facts are that she has been quoted on many occasions at HCI events saying that their
>ultimate goal is the elimination of all guns. She, and they, no longer will admit that in public because they know that that is an unpopular stance, they know they can only enact gun
>control laws by the 'divide and conquer' strategy of conning soft heads like yourself who perceive themselves as better and more responsible than other people, claiming that they don't
>want YOUR guns, just those of those other irresponsible people, which you 'obviously' are not.
>
>go to www.guncite.com (which is in no way associated or affiliated with the NRA) to confirm these facts.
>
>Mike
>
I went there; I prefer letting people speak for themselves concerning their present position over allowing people whpo are opposed to anything they might try to do the luxury of shoving words in their chosen opponents' mouths. I also know for what I would and would not vote. I am definitely for closing the gun show and flea market no-background-check loopholes and the I'm-a-private-collector-and-I-wanna-buy-a-hundred-of-that-model-a-week loophole, and in favor of standardizing laws state-to-state so there are many fewer laws, but where the interstate black markets that have been created by the state-to-state law disparities are eliminated. I would not vote for any abrogation of the rights of sane law-abiding adults to purchase and own firearms. Being called soft-headed by the paranoid is like being called paranoid by the soft-headed; all it is is rhetorical ad hominem flaming which addresses the issues at hand not one whit

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:08 MST