Re: 2:00pm vote on gun control

[Marc <cram3813@uidaho.edu>]

At 11:51 AM 6/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Visionaries,
>
> In a 218-211 vote the NRA "gun control bill won last night. Another vote 
>will be taken at 2:00 pm (pst?) on the background check at gun shows issue. 
>(see below) This could be the teachable moment for some members of congress 
>on gun control/safety. Another note to Helen and George re the 
>Conyers/Campbell amendment?
>
It appears someone learned that stupid laws don't work.

>Steve Cooke
>
--snip--
>
>18 Jun 1999 18:05:42 -0000 From:          "MoveOn.org"
>
>Late last night, the House of Representatives passed the NRA supported
>Dingell amendment, 218-211, ignoring what 87% of all Americans want -- real
>background checks at gun shows.  If this stands, gun law reform is finished
>this congressional session.
>
>There is ONE LAST CHANCE to reverse this setback for common-sense gun law.

LOVE that "common-sense" phrase again. 

--snip--

>Call your representative now.  Don't let the NRA win the day.

Silly me, I thought the American people would win the day.  Maybe if we
were Chinese, the Clinton administration would be would be more cooperative.
(Just so the PC people don't blow a gasket, that was in no way meant to be
a racial/ethnic slur towards the Chinese.  If I was in their position, I
would be buying as many presidents as I could, too.)
>

>HONESTLY CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. VOTE "YES" ON THE CONYERS/CAMPBELL
>AMENDMENT. SAY "NO" TO SHAM, NRA-WRITTEN PROVISIONS. THE SUN IS NOW UP. ALL
>OF AMERICA IS WATCHING...

This would be much better in multimedia....some patriotic song playing in
the background and a video of Bill visiting some children somewhere.

>
>If you can make a few more calls, attached to this email is a list of swing
>votes.  Start with targets in your own state and work out from there.
>
--snip--

>Staffers may communicate that they are discounting your opinion because you
>are not a constituent.  If you want a quick response to this kind of
>feedback you can always say (without anger) that "the safety of our 
>children is a national issue and the Representative is a national leader."

Or even, "the safety of our rights that we wish to preserve and some day
hand down to our children is a national issue."

--snip--

>***** SOME BACKGROUND ON DINGELL AND GUN SHOWS *****
>
>By a 7 vote margin, the Dingell Amendment to reduce the time for conducting
>gun show background checks was approved. The amendment reduces the time
>provided law enforcement to complete gun show purchaser background checks
>from 3 business days - as adopted in the Senate - to just 24 hours. Dingle
>was passed even though the debate made clear that:
>
>-if a 24 hour time limit had been in place for the last 6 months, over
> 17,000 criminals stopped by the instant check system would have been
> permitted to get guns (per the FBI); AND
>
>-at most, only 2.5% of lawful purchasers would be mildly inconvenienced at 

And just where are these numbers coming from?  Even if true, which one of
these 17,000 criminals will be prosecuted for breaking this law, making the
world a safer place?

--snip--

So instead of just echoing propaganda (I use this term for information from
both sides), do you have an opinion?  Is it based solely on emotion or is
it something that can be openly debated?

Marc