Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 1

message: :Ok, ok, I get it.  You're in a room full of constitutional scholars, no need to shout and beat us over the head.
:Now, what wording in particular are you objecting to?  I read through the article twice and it doesn't speak of rights being granted; the word "grant" doesn't even appear.
Kat 19:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: Ah, I thought you were speaking of the article rather than this talk page.  Yes, some of the wording here on the talk page is questionable.  But it is the article that matters, and there is no reference to rights being given by the constitution there.  Instead, the article speaks of rights being guaranteed, even as you do.  Kat 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: =============

message: Looks like my learning-curve issue again...
Now, to the point about the NRA being framed as "extremeist" and about the LaPiere factor. I can't state absolutely that no actual gun-rights group has ever called some detail of some NRA policy as "too extreme", however, I can state...
In the 6 years since I switched sides and became a gun-rights advocate, 3 years now an NRA member, I have read/heard much from many gun-rigths and anti-gun-rights groups.
In contrast, all of the anti-gun-rights groups take every opportunity to demonise the NRA with any and all acusations of extremism and even criminal and/or moral complicity in virtually every act of violence that in any manner involved a firearm. Even while kids were still dying  at Columbine, the gun-control groups were given exclusive TV news air-time where they all claimed that the NRA is directly to blame for the actions of the killers, even before anyone really knew who they were or how they obtained those guns. The supposedly "fair" media has no limit to it's overt bias on the issue.
Interesting thing I hae been able to piece-togtether about Wayne LaPiere. It seems that the way he came to run the policy for the NRA was that he was much more moderate in his views than the former leadership and he managed to form a coalition-style take-over (by compromises of course) of the NRA and has managed to use certain election rules changes to stave off a guy named Neil Knox who wants to regain policy control. If Neil Knox does manage to gain control, then the NRA would be much more in-line with the bulk of the gun-rights groups policies. If the ant-gun people think the NRA is "extremeist" now, they are going to have to invent a new word for it then.
Libdemplus 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ========

message: Kat, I have added some more info to the gun politics page in a few spots. I have tried to be NPOV, but I wont complain if you tidy up my additions. I will check back wednesday, got to go home now.
Libdemplus 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it's Meelar.  Anyway, as far as I knew, it was the position adopted by the executive branch; since Congress and the courts had never taken a position, I felt the phrasing was acceptable.  "De Facto" is good, but gives up a little accuracy.  I'll try to dig up the link. 1:47, 25 Nov 2003
----
re: Summary Section
Recently, there has been a lot of added content to the Summary section.  I like the content, but it's rapidly becoming more than a summary.  Can we move some of the detail down into the other paragraphs?  Rossami 02:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: =