Re: OT /Interesting amusing statistic

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 20, 10:55=A0pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:47 am, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RHC: Allow me to comment on that particular point, but only as an
> > outsider looking in. Your sentiments reflect those of my shooting
> > friends in the southern States, but others I have spoken to think it
> > might be a bit much a bit too soon. There seems to be quite an
> > overreaction in the US to the fears of an Obama lead charge on gun
> > ownership. This has caused a US wide run on purchases of guns, ammo
> > and reloading supplies causing prices to skyrocket. However, many also
> > feel Obama has a lot on his plate and will likely only get to this
> > issue long into his leadership run, if ever. Current elected officials
> > still remember how they lost their seats to a gun owning population a
> > while ago, and many believe that they will tread very carefully on
> > this issue.
>
> > However, having said that, forewarned is forearmed ! If experience is
> > any teacher, just look north to see how deceitful anti gun groups and
> > misguided public opinion fueled by self serving politicians has warped
> > fair review of the issue, and lead to atrocious restrictions in our
> > country. I truly believe it is no longer possible to get a logical,
> > thoughtful review of this issue, due to heightened emotions on both
> > sides of the issue. Since we as gun owners have been put in that
> > position, our only response must be to hit them hard with the biggest
> > hammer we can find - they will listen to nothing else unfortunately.
>
> > In the 70's, I functioned as the Secretary Treasurer of the Canadian
> > gun lobby (such as it was - it was known in those days as FARO
> > (Firearms and Responsible Ownership). We actively worked with the
> > highest levels of the government of the day in a fully cooperative way
> > to assess our laws and suggest changes that would actually work,
> > keeping in mind the interests of both "sides" of the issue. To make a
> > long story short, we were met with positive response paying lip
> > service to positive changes, but nothing but deceit, lies and anti-gun
> > responses at a legislative level. We learned, lawmakers simply can't
> > be trusted to make rational decisions based on facts when so many of
> > them are "closet anti-gunners". The NRA and other organizations like
> > them are your best hope to safeguard your rights through strong and
> > united political strength and pressure.
>
> > It may be too late for our country, but NEVER let your guard down. Up
> > here they gave the Order of Canada (our highest honour) to the head of
> > one of our most deceitful, lying anti-gun groups. After that, even the
> > most trusting of gun owners gave up hope of ever seeing a fair and
> > even assessment of our gun laws.......:((-
>
> At this point, as I say, we're all waiting to see what will happen and
> preparing
> for the worst.
>
> Ever since Gore's loss was attributed much to his open stance against
> gun
> ownership, nowdays most of the opposition gives positive response to
> any
> inquires, while their past voting record reveals what they will do
> when it gets
> down to their vote.
>
> We'll just have to wait and see, but in my opinion, =A0it doesn't look
> good at
> this point.

RHC: Yeah, that is consistent with what we experienced - say one thing
and do another ! Where I was brought up, that's called a lie.....