From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Subject: Re: Special Interest Groups was (Re: Defined: National Police Force)
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:30:13 GMT

In article <66487@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>>><	Would the zealots on both sides of the gun control 'discussion' 
>>		  ^^^^^^^
>>><please consider making use of the newsgroups created specifically to address 
>>><this issue, namely talk.politics.guns and talk.politics.misc?
>
>>	The second ammendment has a great deal to do with American 
>>culture and articles such as those posted by Mr. Fraser or Ms. Blais
>>are a joy to read -- informative, thoughtful, hard-hitting.
>>	In recent years unfortunately it also seems as though putting
>>up with the lunatic fringe on every issue has become a central, standard
>>part of American culture. Goddamn if I will. The NRA-survivalist-minded
>>extremist and their PC-mushy-'liberal' opponents deserve censure.
>
>Yow, switched from a mere brush to a real professional painter's roller!
>I for one am disparaged in my family for having voted Democrat sometimes.
>I support the work of the ACLU. Yet because I am also an NRA member I'm
>suddenly some foaming-at-the-mouth right wing Ronald-Reagan-worshipping
>Republican? Would you feel better if we all had little labels? What
>would yours be? Do we get to write our own, or do you get to classify us?
>

	Survivalist-minded-extremist does not equal Ronald-Reagan-
worshipping Republican. My experience with most vocal opponents of
gun control, sir, is that _they_ habitually label their opponents, 
as do the PC, their belov'd arch-enemies. My little quips are nothing
by comparison.
	I've met a quite a few people who are anti-gun control, and
middle-of-the-road. They don't commonly post to the net on behalf of
the issue however. They are oftentimes lukewarm about bully-boy 
LaPrairie's organization to boot. Most of my kin, who have guns for
hunting purposes, belong to Duck's Unlimited, not the NRA. They are
primarily anti-gun control, but disinclined to support that very 
aggressive, smug and self-serving special interest group.

>>Both of them. It's the NRA types who'd like us to believe that a waiting 
>>period before purchasing a hand-gun would lead to the Kristin Blais's
>>of the country being unable to defend themselves from would-be rapists.
>
>I would submit that no one has proved this wrong, they merely assert that
>it is "obviously" wrong. I know a women who hates guns, but keeps a baseball
>bat by her bed. She doesn't seem phased by the idea she might have to use
>it to splatter some rapist's brains all over her nice paint.  I don't
>advocate her buying a gun *because she doesn't want one*. Choice see?
>Yet by your logic, as an NRA member, I should be trying to brainwash
>her into buying a shotgun.
>
	Ah, no. But as, yourself, an NRA member only incidently, you do
seem to regard her as a silly little idiot. She may well be just that, 
but I'd venture to say her distaste for a gun in her bedroom is not the
correct item on which to base that premise.

>>	A pox on both your houses, lying bastards that you are.
>>	
>I resent you calling me a liar sir! Sadly, duels are now passe....
				^^^ 
				madam. Duels therefore, not ever
					appropriate.

>But such people are *rarely* lying bastards, just stupid. Never
>attribute to malice that which can be more easily ascribed to stupidity,
>ignorance, or fuzzy thinking.
>
	Yes. True. I stand corrected. 

	In the 6 hours since I posted this third article in the Special
Interest Group thread, I've receive two pieces of e-mail on it, and this
post. All these responses were from pro-NRA posters. A common theme in
all of them was the belief that a lack of knowledge in re: the detailed
specifics of the Brady bill, NRA publications etc. rendered me unfit to
post at all on the subject. What seems closer to the point however, is 
that anyone who dares to speak out against the NRA and the pernicious 
extremist to which the organization often appeals is guaranteed a strong,
vociferous negative response from the defenders of the faith.
	Fellows, you and your organization may not be liars, per se, 
but you are propagandists. You are rabid, not in the language of your
responses, but in the speed and regularity with which you insist upon
rebutting/responding to anyone who dares censure you.
	This is a trait common to proponents of special interests. They
know more of the details of the arguments they favor, they use that
knowledge to attempt to eradicate all criticism. That the criticism may
be valid means naught to them. There are legitimate reasons for an 
average American to criticize the NRA. Lobbying tactics alone should
put that organization in the doghouse.	The same is true for Operation
Rescue, for PETA, for Earth First!, all these front line extremist 
organizations use boycotts, (un)civil disobedience and strong-arm lobbying
tactics to achieve their desired ends.
	You're supporters of one of the most aggressive, mean-spirited
lobbying groups in the nation, you folks who support the NRA. Irrespective
of valid concerns over infringements on the right to bear arms and the
sanctity of the Constitution, supporting them is not in the service of the
nation or the people of the United States. The means they commonly use
will eventually bastardize their stated end.  
--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa