RE: (Fwd) Re:Juvenile Crime legislation

[Steve Cooke <scooke@uidaho.edu>]

Mike,
 Thanks for your post. I am not a big fan of recycled mass mailing myself. 
I included the Children's defense fund info for background on the issues. I 
think Erik has a point. On the other hand I would be interested in the NRA 
postings on the issues, particularly since the response of pro-gun 
advocates sounds scripted to me. I suspect the NRA develops talking points 
and the members use them. This blocks the "real" discussion of point of 
views that exists beneath the pat responses on both sides. For that reason 
I would be particularly interested in your discussion w/ Erik on the gun 
control/safety issue.
Economic development hinges in part on the quality of life in a community. 
The issue of schools, school safety and gun safety are interrelated to 
economic development, in my opinion.
Steve Cooke
-----Original Message-----
From:	Mike Curley [SMTP:curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]
Sent:	Monday, June 07, 1999 1:23 AM
To:	vision2020@moscow.com
Subject:	(Fwd) Re:Juvenile Crime legislation


Erik

Why would you need to post NRA materials?  You do a better job of 
representing
it than the organization's releases would.

In answer to your question, yes, I think that occasional posting of 
information
from organizations to which a V2020 member belongs is appropriate.  I guess 
we have to judge for ourselves individually the propriety of a specific
posting and its relevance to our community.  I suspect that most folks, as 
you
did, can figure out that if one "visionary" suggests that others write to
support a proposition and provides addresses, that they can also write to 
the
same addresses to oppose the proposittion.  And, yes, i would think that 
one
consideration of propriety would be the "agenda" of the group.  I would be
more circumstpect about posting notices from groups that are organized for
the purpose of promoting a specific group or position (Republicans, 
Democrates,
Teamsters, NRA).  But, if one of those groups sent a notice of a public 
debate
(say Charlton Heston v. the President of the CDF), I think it would be
appropriate to notify the list if the topic was significant to some list
members.

Since I'm not sure that our gun debate (yours and mine) is significant to 
any
other list members, so I will address you individually about your specific
reply to the previous posting.

Mike Curley


> From:          Erikus4@aol.com
> Date:          Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:32:01 EDT
> Subject:       Re:Juvenile Crime legislation
> To:            vision2020@moscow.com

> >Pls contact your Congressional representative re. S. 254 Juvenile
> >Crime Bill if you support it or have questions and concerns
>
> And please contact your Reps if you oppose the bill.
>
> >Raise the age for legally buying from any source or
> >possessing a handgun from 18 to 21;
>
> I agree here.  Let's also raise the voting age to 21.  Not responsible 
enough
> for firearms - certainly not responsible enough to vote.  What happens 
after
> the increase to 21 proves to be worthless as far as preventing juvenile
> crime?  25?  30?  Just make up a new arbitrary line?
>
> >Impose a one-gun a month purchase restriction so that
> >individuals can't intentionally purchase dozens of guns for
> >the purpose of reselling them to teenagers or convicted
> >felons.
>
> Wow!  No ridiculous language in that statement . . .
>
> As long as we're using Vision2020 for the public posting of "Action 
Needed"
> notices from Children's Defense Fund can I forward all my NRA alerts to
> Vision2020?
>
> Is that what we want Vision2020 to be used for?  I can understand, and
> support, a simple reminder to contact your Reps, but including the notice 
> from CDF is rather too much, in my opinion.
>
> E. O'Daniel
>
>