From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
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 00:23:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.224605.21244@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
|> In article <farenebt.716582810@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
|> |> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >Guns engender violence.  Fights that used to be settled with fists and
|> |> >bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.  Where do
|> |> >the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
|> |> >stolen or sold or lost.  We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making
|> |> >more.  Why?
|> 
|> Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
|> 
|> People engender violence.  Guns just lay there.

Until someone picks them up, of course. Usually one of those violent people.

|> Now, is someone deader just because he was shot, not stabbed, to death?

Someone is considerably deader (sic) because he was shot, not punched.
If you wish to argue, argue the point put forward, not your own distortion.

|> Ever heard of the Stagger's Bill, an alternative to the Brady Bill, that not only
|> was offered as a compromise, but is actually *better* than the Brady Bill at
|> weeding out criminals and mental misfits from gun ownership?  It *mandated* a
|> real background check, unlike Brady.  It was *point of sale*, unlike Brady.
|> The NRA pushed *hard* to get it passed, but the controllers would cut off their
|> noses to spite the NRA, and got it killed. 

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.
 
|> Likewise.  Let's start by enforcing the 20,000 gun laws already on the books.
|> 
|> Why should we believe that "just one more" gun law will be effective, when we
|> have 20,000 examples that show that they are not?

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. 
 
|> The NRA supports effective gun control.  You deliberately distort their position.
|> 
|> "What!", you screech.  "Prove it!"
|> 
|> 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 first three, of course, are part of theat "status quo" you hate so much.

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.

|> |> We must find a compromise now!
|> 
|> 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..."

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. And keep your drivel someplace where 
it might be appreciated, or even, heaven forfend, appropriate. As the
holiday seasons approach, I'd much rather devote my time to contemplation
of Roast Quayle and other savory delights.

- Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc