Well, the '96 election is history, and I must have been of the same mind as a lot of other people, because most of my choices won. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen, and in a personal aside to Al Salvi, take heart -- in 2 (or maybe 4, I don't remember when she was elected) years you can go up against Carol Mosely Braun, I don't think you'll have a problem defeating her -- Just don't do anything to get you labeled as an extremist. Speaking of extremists, let's talk about the NRA.
On the whole, I believe the average member of the NRA is a normal, and quite ordinary member of society -- and those aren't the people that I have any problem with. Shooting can be an enjoyable hobby, as well as collecting rare and interesting firearms. While there are currently no guns in my house (nor will there ever be anything more potent than a pellet gun) I have handled a few. My uncle once had a small muzzle loaded pistol I thought was interesting -- as was the 357 revolver loaded with hollow points, that tore a 2 inch diameter hole out of an old steel tire rim. During my stay at Field Medical Service School, I spent 3 weeks working in the armoury stripping down GI .45s and M16s -- I eventually could field strip either weapon as well as any Marine around -- even blindfolded. One of my neighbors even has a Chinese made Kalishnikov, collapsible stock and all. None of this ever bothered me, and probably never will. What does bother me is the way the NRA leadership goes ballistic (pun intended) whenever someone suggests that maybe someone should find a better way to keep track of all these little toys, you know, make sure they don't get into the wrong hands. How does any reasonable waiting period on the purchase of any firearm infringe on a person's constitutional right to bear arms? And what possible legal reason is there for a person to purchase, own, and use armor-piercing rounds? I can almost buy into the objection to the assault weapon ban -- legitimate collectors would be interested in these kind of things -- but until ALL gun collectors are subjected to a more thorough background check, made fully liable to safegaurd the weapons in their collection -- as well as track them to at least the next 2 buyers should they sell anything, the ban should remain in effect. I suppose if laws were written to hold the registered owner responsible for whatever happens with his gun -- even if it's someone else who uses it in a crime -- maybe gun owners would be more careful. Not that most gun owners aren't careful, in fact, the most careful gun owners are probably NRA members. If only the leadership of there organization was.
So how did this come out of a talk about the election? Part of the reason Al Salvi may have lost is this: Due to an unfortunate mistatement on his part about James Brady (he of the (in)famous Brady Bill) having been a gun dealer. This, and other comments made that day got Salvi labeled as a Gun Nut, which probably swung a few votes away. In New York (I think) the widow of a man killed in a subway shooting spree defeated an incumbent Republican on the gun issue, and in her victory speech labeled her win a vote against the NRA. Meanwhile, out in the West, one of the NRA's most ardent supporters won very big over her apponent. None of these races should have been influenced in such a way -- this country has too many problems for votes to be one or lost because of one organization. When I was young, I thought the NRA was a club for people who liked to go hunting -- that they sponsered gun safety classes -- gave important info in there magazines -- tried to make the world a better place. Maybe they need to concentrate more on that. It couldn't hurt, and it might make the charge of Gun Nut harder to prove. But for now.....