Harold Ancell wrote:

  Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 09:28:48 -0400
  From: jhedge@waterw.com (Jeanne Hedge)

  Kun-chan wrote:

  >> [ Switzerland and Israel are rife with guns but not violent places.... ]

  >I guess it all just depends on who is able to own guns ... it seems that
  >in the US any sicko can own a gun, like there is no gun laws or no 
  >system to check people who own guns. 

  There *are* gun laws and a system.  But if you really want a gun they are
  very easy to get around.  Besides, the National Rifle Association is a very
  powerful lobby (read $$$ to Congressmen) in Congress, and in the past
  they've gotten pretty much what they want.

I wish!  You don't appear to have been closely following guns laws since 1968.

I think I have been.  Since my dad was a cop for 30 years (and collected
guns, *and* went deer hunting on occassion), I always liked to keep up on
what the government was keeping legal so I'd know what people could be
shooting at him with.

As for the gun laws, it's illegal for the mentally ill to buy (and in
most states, possess) guns, but the privacy of medical records
precludes effective enforcement of these laws.  And both the left and
the right for the most part want it that way.

Sure, it's illegal, but that's not what I said.  I said it's easy to get
around those same laws if you really wanted to get a gun.

And do *you* want to give the gov't any more access to your so-called
privacy than they've already got?

  (example: someone tries to pass legislation against bullets that
  pierce police body armor (IMO, no real use for these bullets except
  to kill people); NRA starts yelling about how that infringes on
  someone's rights/ability to hunt (hunt *what* I ask?);

Remember those deer I was talking about?  Every deer rifle I've heard
about, seen, or used is quite capable of penetrating normal street
body armor; you have to get to SWAT level armor to stop centerfire
rifle bullets.

That's right.  And the NRA's position in the past has been that those same
kinds of rifle bullets (SWAT-type armor penetrators) should not be illegal
because that might infringe on someone's hunting rights.  I ask again, just
what does the NRA think hunters need those kinds of bullets for?

But that's irrelevant as far as our rights go, for they have
absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with
liberty.  The bill that did get passed only bans sale of real military
style (metal armor piercing) rounds, and for that reason many NRA
members including myself were rather upset with the NRA (for the
principle; making bullets is trivially easy).

Well, I wasn't referring to any specific piece of legislation in my
discussion of "Cop Killer" bullets, but I do know what legislation you are
talking about here.  Why is the NRA so opposed to such legislation when it
effects things that have no obvious connection (or at least obvious to me)
to the sporting or hunting use of weapons?

  NRA does behind-the-scenes arm twisting on Congressmen by
  threatening to not contribute to their campaign coffers next time
  around; legislation doesn't pass.)

NRA contributions are a drop in the bucket; by law a Political Action
Committee (the NRA's PAC is called the "Political Victory Fund") can
only donate $5000 per election cycle.  Federal legislative elections
costs $100s of thousands to millions of dollars.

True.  I'd love to get rid of PACs, as they cause much more trouble than
they're worth, IMO.

The NRA's strength is neither sinister nor secretive, and is rather
simple: we have around 3 million members, and tens of millions more
"fellow travelers."  Remember the statistic that around half the
nation's households have guns?  The NRA and other gun organizations
are only most visible, politically active segement of the gun owning
population.

Most of us would just rather be left alone and focus on saftey
training, marksmanship (the NRA started up after the Civil War because
of the poor marksmanship on the Union side; urbanization was taking
it's toll even then), but that's obviously not an option.  (As a
matter of fact, the balance of power in the NRA was held by the target
shooters until 3-4 years ago.)

We're powereful because we vote.  Ask Tom Foley....

I hope you don't misunderstand me.  Most of the time I have absolutely
nothing against the NRA.  I think the safety programs, marksmanship
training, etc are terrific things.  It's just that too often it seems to me
that its leaders take some rather odd positions, regarding military-spec
weapons, "Cop Killer" bullets, etc.  I heard a while back that the
rank-and-file membership was rather upset with the path their organization
was going down (going away from the safety/marksmanship/responsibly-used
fun/etc focus), and there was a move to "recalibrate or replace" the
leadership.  Has anything come of this?

  > You're government's "Australia Card" efforts would not have me
  > sanguine over the prospect of being disarmed.  I doubt you're lacking
  > would be totalitarians Down Under....

  Haven't heard of that Card thing in *years*... They gave it up, I
  think.

But did they shut down the computer center as well?  And are you happy
betting the lifes of you and yours that those sort of would be
totalitarians have given up altogether?

Er...  refresh my memory: what's the "Australian Card"?



Jeanne Hedge
http://www.accsyst.com/jhedge/main.htm

                                 *   *   *

FIDDLE, n.  An instrument to tickle human ears by friction of a horse's tail
on the entrails of a cat.

                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"