From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:24:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <pt8jons@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>, coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

> The Staggers Bill was a fraud. It mandated an instant-check system that
> was and is impossible to implement. It also would have forbidden any 
> lesser checks until its own system had been implemented. Result - no checks.
> Right, KIRK, a *real* improvement over Brady. Not.

Hee hee hee!

1) The Brady Bill, as introduced in the House and Senate (See HR 7) mandates
   no checks, either.  Just a waiting period.  It specifically says that the
   chief is not mandated to do anything else that he doesn't already do.

2) The current Brady Bill, as part of HR 3371, proposes precisely the same
   "fraud, impossible to implement" instant-check system that was contained
   in Staggers.  It also contains language saying that when the Staggers 
   system is operational, the waiting period goes out the window.  Hey,
   what's the Brady Bill doing with a "fraud" in it, bub?

I've got both versions of this bill in front of me as I type.  Have you
ever actually READ ANY version of this bill, or are you just regurgitating 
popular propaganda?

> That's exactly the problem. What we need is *one* law, not 20,000.
> As long as each state and municipality can regulate independently,
> the net result is *no* regulation - just cross the state line and
> get what you want. 

Pure ignorance.  Are you aware that it is ALREADY against FEDERAL law
to buy ANY handgun over ANY state line?  You've already got that "one"
law.  Now, why do you want to go for two?

|> The NRA supports:
|> 
|> 1.  No sales to children.
|> 2.  No sales to criminals.
|> 3.  No sales to mentally unfit.
|> 4.  Instant background checks.
|> 5.  Safety training.

> The NRA opposed the only bill (Brady) with any chance of succeeding at
> all five of those, and pushed instead a Trojan horse (Staggers) that would
> have made 2 through 5 impossible.

Bullshit.  Brady is no better than Staggers at catching these cases and is
in some cases worse.  The extra wait demanded by Brady is totally immaterial.

1. Buying a weapon now requires a photo ID.  Children do not usually buy
   guns from dealers.  If they have a fake ID, Brady will never catch them.
   The computer simply spits out that John Smith has no record.  If he HAS
   a record, see 2.

2. Only one out of six guns used in a crime is purchased at a dealer, and
   then not necessarily by the person who uses it in crime.  But since the
   original Brady Bill as drafted by HCI didn't mandate any background check
   at all -- just a delay -- even this small number would not all be stopped.
   Staggers would have caught these, though.

3. Either the records are available to the police or they are not.  George
   Hennard's, for example, were not.  Neither bill would have worked for him.

4. How you can say that Staggers would have made this impossible, when this
   was the WHOLE THRUST of Staggers, is beyond comprehension.

5. Neither bill has anything to do with this. 

Of course, the major difference between Staggers and Brady is that 
Staggers allows you to sue for malicious or negligent false denials;
while Brady allows suit for neither false denials NOR false approvals.
I guess if the police chief can't do his job right, well, hell -- it's
nobody's fault.

> |> Compromise: the fine art of giving away that which your opponent is not strong
> |> enough to wrest from you.
> 
> Especially when it's clenched in your "cold, cold hands..."

No, my cold, cold hands are the ones holding the Super Soaker 2000.

> Do yourself and me a favor, eh? Take alt.fan.dan-quayle out of your
> distribution list until you've learned to speak, not yell, and
> listen, not yell, over the Net.

Keep alt.fan.dan-quayle in yours, by all means.  Your pontification on
things you know nothing about, and your excellent grasp of spurious "facts"
are appropriate to entirely few other venues.

> And keep your drivel someplace where 
> it might be appreciated, or even, heaven forfend, appropriate.

You can follow this up to talk.politics.guns, where you will find people
that know the difference between HCI legends and black-and-white facts, 
or you can stay self-righteous and ignorant.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4123 alt.politics.elections:12455 alt.politics.clinton:4092