d6235503   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, talk.politics.guns, alt.guns   
   XPost: alt.rec.guns   
   From: fake_email@none.com   
      
   On 7/29/2012 10:35 AM, A ROMNEY FRIEND wrote:   
   > "There are, today, few who hunt   
   > with handguns or assault rifles   
   > equipped with 100-clip magazines."   
   >   
   > ==================   
   > "Why killing is a profitable enterprise"   
   >   
   > Op-Ed   
   > By Michael F. McNulty   
   > July 27,  2012   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > IT IS EASY TO IGNORE the issue of gun control, given the perfect   
   > leaderlessness it enjoys in Congress. Then again, it becomes harder to   
   > ignore when your relatives or friends are murdered in the company of   
   > someone you idolize, which describes thousands of us in Tucson.   
   >   
   > I have owned guns, continuously, since I was 6. I still own my   
   > grandfather’s pump-action Winchester, carried for decades in a   
   > scabbard behind his saddle as he rode the range where he ranched, in   
   > Wikieup, Ariz. All the guns I’ve owned have been what are quaintly   
   > called long guns. I began my brief assault on local fauna at age 12,   
   > and I had “taken” four white-tailed deer, a couple of javelina and   
   > innumerable quail and dove by the time I got my driver’s license at   
   > 16. A driver’s license is a far greater liberator than a hunting   
   > license, and thereafter, trekking around in the wilderness killing   
   > things lost its luster. It has been decades since I engaged in those   
   > adventures.   
   >   
   > There are, today, few who hunt with handguns or assault rifles   
   > equipped with 100-clip magazines. There are even fewer reasons to do   
   > so. But the National Rifle Association’s principal focus has evolved   
   > mostly to those. It is news to no one that the NRA has abandoned the   
   > sportsman in every practical sense; if the group were honest, it would   
   > change its name. Speaking as a rifleman, I think it’s an   
   > embarrassment.   
   >   
   > The NRA not only dependably opposes limits on assault-rifle sales but   
   > even opposes reporting bulk sales of assault rifles. Last year, the   
   > NRA went to the mat to prevent anyone from cross-checking the names of   
   > those on the terrorist watch list against the names of those buying   
   > guns. These two actions clarify beyond argument that the safety and   
   > welfare of you and yours have simply dropped from the NRA’s list of   
   > priorities. The NRA represents gun manufacturers, end of story.   
      
      
   Sir: Any thinking gun owner knows why the NRA seems to take a radical   
   view of ANY effort to reduce any gun rights. No one in his right mind   
   would say that 100 round clips are essential to shooting sports or even   
   personal protection. HOWEVER - the problem is the liberal history of   
   incrementalism. The banning of 100 round clips would be considered only   
   a small but significant victory by the gun control advocates. Consider   
   their response when they got the assault weapons ban some years ago. Did   
   they then say they were satisfied, and no further action was necessary?   
   Hell no! They immediately began a campaign against semi-automatic   
   weapons. They will not rest until all personal weapons are banned. Fully   
   recognizing this, the NRA is trying to keep the camel's nose out of the   
   tent.   
      
   I am a long-time member of the NRA, and will remain so as long as they   
   remain radical!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)