Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!cbuxc!cbuxb!cbrma!karl From: karl@cbrma.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Firearms ownership Message-ID: <4727@cbrma.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jul-86 12:20:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cbrma.4727 Posted: Mon Jul 7 12:20:08 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jul-86 01:20:07 EDT References: <157@unido.UUCP> <858@ihlpl.UUCP> <774@epistemi.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-BL, RMAS, Columbus Lines: 40 abc@brl.arpa writes: > 4. Finally, the broad base of support for tax-reform legislation >is built, in part, upon the notion that it's time for 'special >interests' to stop dominating the law. The most frightening special >interest to me is the National Rifle Association. From a relatively >small fraction of the population, they're able to dictate their wishes >to a cowardly Congress which is afraid to offend. Yet, what is the NRA >more than a covert lobby for gun manufacturers? As a `special interest,' the NRA represents in excess of 3 million people who regularly renew their yearly dues (or 5-yearly, or whatever). Although the raw population fraction we represent may seem small (1.5%?), the fact that any group has anywhere near that kind of membership says something, particularly in view of the renewal rate. If you want something to stop the NRA, go form your own organization which is bigger than the NRA, support it better (good luck, you'll need it), and get some legislation passed. The recent act passed by Congress was evidence enough that the NRA does things that I and a whole lot of other people like. Congress is not being cowardly in this regard. It is rather that Congress seldom has a group so large behind the legislation being pushed. Yes, Congress is afraid to offend - that's because an awful lot of votes back home depend on whom they offend, and the NRA represents more votes than any other group in the fight. So the NRA wins on a very regular basis. That's what voting is about: a numbers game. We've got more people on our side than you have on yours. Lastly, it's not covert in the least. It's incredibly overt, right down to and including financial disclosures required by the Federal Elections Commission or whatever the bureaucratic arm is called that wants to know who contributes to whom. It's overt for both the manufacturer and the owner. We (the 3 million of us) like it. There is insufficient outcry against us. [Replies will reach me via mail only. There's no way I'm getting deeply into this discussion a third time in 3 years. Too time-consuming.] -- Karl Kleinpaste