EP>NP>You may be willing to give up some of your guns, some of your
EP>NP>rights in the vague hopes of keeping the rest.  I WON'T!!!  You
EP>NP>may want to keep certain passages of the Constitution around,
EP>NP>blithely trashing the rest, I'm not interested.  That's why I've
EP>NP>taken several oaths over the years to protect it.  Not some of it,
EP>NP>not pieces of it, ALL OF IT.
EP>        I'm not *WILLING* to give up anything. But in the past 62
EP>        years, I have given up (I hope temporarily) the right to
EP>        purchase machine guns without a Federal license; the right to
EP>        buy guns through the mail; the right to carry guns without a
EP>        license; and many other rights. While I work to reverse these
EP>        losses, my only choice is to compromise by temporarily
EP>        accepting the loss of these rights; OR go to war. I see no
EP>        other choices. If *you* WON'T compromise, I must assume you
EP>        have reached the armed rebellion stage. Or perhaps I misread
EP>        your post? EP
Or perhaps I'm at the stage of hiding things, and being forced to live
outside the law.  Which most of us do, whether we know it or not.  You
may support laws that make my shotgun illegal.  Doesn't mean I'm going
to turn it in.  You want to knock on my door and ask about it, I sold
it.
Now, you are still missing something I'm saying.  And I've said it many
times now.  I am well aware there are laws on the book that curtail my
right to keep and bear arms.  And I actually do live within them, I
think.  But *I* did *not* compromise on them.  I fought all the way
down, clearly and sometimes loudly voicing my opposition.  The NRA does
not always voice opposition, has agreed with compromises, and even
proposed and advocated compromises.  Something I find very dangerous,
and very clearly anti 2nd amendment.
I see a vast difference between (1) acknowledging a bad law exists and
fighting to change it.  and (2) *supporting* a bad law, and then hoping
to change it.
You and I have very divergent views on this subject, politics and rape.
When faced with political rape I do not look over the candidates and say
"well this one raped me dry, but this other one used vasaline, so I'm
going to cuddle up to him."  I'm more inclined to look at them both, and
promise to hurt them both as badly as I possibly can.  And if someone
shows up who thinks consentual sex is a better way then rape, I'll
probably support him instead.  You don't agree with that.  So be it.
EP>NP>The danger is people like you.  It's people like you that allow
EP>NP>gun control laws to happen.  I fight, you role over in the hopes
EP>NP>of damage control.  Better screwed by the dick you see then the
EP>NP>one in the dark eh?  I DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EP>        I somehow doubt you can show any more time, energy and money
EP>        invested in defense of the constitution than I. As to what
EP>        you will or won't buy; I'm saying that unless you're ready
EP>        for a war *right now*, you *HAVE* bought it. Rhetoric is one
EP>        thing; action another. Say what you will; but you have and
EP>        are compromising. BTW; I'll be glad to play "I'm harder than
EP>        you are on RTKBA", but to tell the truth, it gets a little
EP>        boring. P.S. Is the profanity intended to show passion? If
EP>        so, I think you could find other, better, means of expressing
EP>        your feelings. EP
There is no profanity in what I wrote.  Oh, do you mean the
_obscenities_?
As for fighting, Starting in 1981 I took an oath where I swore I would
defend that right, and a number of others.  I didn't take an oath saying
I _might_ defend it, someday, maybe, if it wasn't too inconvenient.
EP>NP>Now what do you want to dispute?  Your friends rights?  Your
EP>NP>friends right to not agree with the NRA?  Your friends right to
EP>NP>not be in the NRA?  Your friends rights to not like the NRA's
EP>NP>money grubbing?  Your friends rights to be disgusted with their
EP>NP>friends rights to be anti-gun tactics?  Your afraid of their
EP>NP>willingness to compromise?  Or my views on the same?
EP>        I don't recall mentioning my friends. What I wish to dispute
EP>        is your original statement (once again) posted just below. It
EP>        doesn't take a long post to answer my question. Are you
EP>        saying the NRA is actively working to intentionally destroy
EP>        the Second Amendment? Ernie P.
(thumping of head on table> You *started out* by talking about your
friend.  Calling him a freeloader for not being in the NRA.  Something I
rather doubt the NRA would agree with btw.  If I should have included an
apostropy, forgive me.
As for your last sentence, I have said, over and over again, YES I THINK
THE NRA IS WORKING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!
Is that *finally* clear enough to you?
No, I don't think the NRA has in their charter a line about being
dangerous, anti-gun rights or a clause about eliminating the 2nd
amendment.  I consider them dangerous because of their willingness to
compromise.  And I've said that over and over again.
(Continued next message...)
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------