(clip)
NP>EP>        losses, my only choice is to compromise by temporarily
NP>EP>        accepting the loss of these rights; OR go to war. I see no
NP>EP>        other choices. If *you* WON'T compromise, I must assume you
NP>EP>        have reached the armed rebellion stage. Or perhaps I misread
NP>EP>        your post? EP
NP>Or perhaps I'm at the stage of hiding things, and being forced to live
NP>outside the law.  Which most of us do, whether we know it or not.  You
NP>may support laws that make my shotgun illegal.  Doesn't mean I'm going
NP>to turn it in.  You want to knock on my door and ask about it, I sold
NP>it.
        Nolan, I'm a little confused. I don't recall saying I support
        ANY laws making ANY firearm illegal. Somehow, you seem to have
        manufactured an interpretation of my beliefs that doesn't match
        my position. EP
NP>Now, you are still missing something I'm saying.  And I've said it many
NP>times now.  I am well aware there are laws on the book that curtail my
NP>right to keep and bear arms.  And I actually do live within them, I
NP>think.  But *I* did *not* compromise on them.  I fought all the way
NP>down, clearly and sometimes loudly voicing my opposition.  The NRA does
NP>not always voice opposition, has agreed with compromises, and even
NP>proposed and advocated compromises.  Something I find very dangerous,
NP>and very clearly anti 2nd amendment.
        Well, if that's your definition of compromise; I can also say
        *I* don't believe in compromise. As to NRA's position, I don't
        think they (today, not ten years ago) will *ACCEPT* laws which
        infringe upon our rights. They simply look at the many different
        provisions included in any piece of legislation and ask "Does
        this bill, in toto, advance our cause?". They rarely have the
        option of drafting the legislation; they have to deal with it as
        presented. It's a simple matter of counting votes. If you have
        the votes, you kill a bad bill. If you don't have the votes, you
        work to avoid a vote; delaying as long as possible. If you can
        see a vote can't be avoided; and you're going to lose; you try
        to amend it as much as possible. The NRA has to work within the
        legislative framework, because that's their job. We, as
        individuals, have the option of simply opposing things. They
        have to stay in the action until the issue is finally resolved;
        trying until the end to make it more palatable. Bailing out in
        the early going and announcing opposition isn't an option. EP
NP>I see a vast difference between (1) acknowledging a bad law exists
and NP>fighting to change it. and (2) *supporting* a bad law, and then
hoping NP>to change it.
        As do I. EP
NP>You and I have very divergent views on this subject, politics and rape.
NP>When faced with political rape I do not look over the candidates and say
NP>"well this one raped me dry, but this other one used vasaline, so I'm
NP>going to cuddle up to him."  I'm more inclined to look at them both, and
NP>promise to hurt them both as badly as I possibly can.  And if someone
NP>shows up who thinks consentual sex is a better way then rape, I'll
NP>probably support him instead.  You don't agree with that.  So be it.
        Well, I must admit that your position, and what *you* have
        defined as *my* position varies quite a bit. I'm trying to find
        out what your position is; you keep telling *me* what my
        position is. Until you start dealing with what I say, and stop
        telling me what I believe, we won't get very far. EP
NP>EP>NP>The danger is people like you.  It's people like you that allow
NP>EP>NP>gun control laws to happen.  I fight, you role over in the hopes
NP>EP>NP>of damage control.  Better screwed by the dick you see then the
NP>EP>NP>one in the dark eh?  I DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NP>EP>        I somehow doubt you can show any more time, energy and money
NP>EP>        invested in defense of the constitution than I. As to what
NP>EP>        you will or won't buy; I'm saying that unless you're ready
NP>EP>        for a war *right now*, you *HAVE* bought it. Rhetoric is one
NP>EP>        thing; action another. Say what you will; but you have and
NP>EP>        are compromising. BTW; I'll be glad to play "I'm harder than
NP>EP>        you are on RTKBA", but to tell the truth, it gets a little
NP>EP>        boring. P.S. Is the profanity intended to show passion? If
NP>EP>        so, I think you could find other, better, means of expressing
NP>EP>        your feelings. EP
NP>There is no profanity in what I wrote.  Oh, do you mean the
NP>_obscenities_?
        There is a commonly accepted definition of profanity; the one in
        the dictionary. I believe your words meet the definition; and
        add little to the conversation. EP
NP>As for fighting, Starting in 1981 I took an oath where I swore I would
NP>defend that right, and a number of others.  I didn't take an oath saying
NP>I _might_ defend it, someday, maybe, if it wasn't too inconvenient.
        I took a similar oath in 1964; and many times since. Your
        commitment to that oath is no stronger than mine; or many others
        here. EP
NP>EP>NP>Now what do you want to dispute?  Your friends rights?  Your
NP>EP>NP>friends right to not agree with the NRA?  Your friends right to
NP>EP>NP>not be in the NRA?  Your friends rights to not like the NRA's
NP>EP>NP>money grubbing?  Your friends rights to be disgusted with their
NP>EP>NP>friends rights to be anti-gun tactics?  Your afraid of their
NP>EP>NP>willingness to compromise?  Or my views on the same?
NP>EP>        I don't recall mentioning my friends. What I wish to dispute
NP>EP>        is your original statement (once again) posted just below. It
NP>EP>        doesn't take a long post to answer my question. Are you
NP>EP>        saying the NRA is actively working to intentionally destroy
NP>EP>        the Second Amendment? Ernie P.
NP>(thumping of head on table> You *started out* by talking about your
NP>friend.  Calling him a freeloader for not being in the NRA.  Something I
NP>rather doubt the NRA would agree with btw.  If I should have included an
NP>apostropy, forgive me.
        While you're thumping your head on the table, you might recall
        that you originally responded to *someone else's* post, NOT
        MINE. I was responding to your response to *HIM*. EP
___-------- Let's keep the discussion focused here, shall we? --------
NP>As for your last sentence, I have said, over and over again, YES I THINK
NP>THE NRA IS WORKING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!
NP>Is that *finally* clear enough to you?
        Yep, that's pretty clear. Now that we've narrowed the
        conversation back down to where we started, I'm having trouble
        coming up with words to express how totally off-track I think
        you are. Many of the people within the NRA structure are
        personal friends of mine; and they're just as sincere, just as
        dedicated, just as committed, as you or I. EP
NP>No, I don't think the NRA has in their charter a line about being
NP>dangerous, anti-gun rights or a clause about eliminating the 2nd
NP>amendment.  I consider them dangerous because of their willingness to
NP>compromise.  And I've said that over and over again.
>>> Continued to next message
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X I was born XXXX; I WILL die XXXX
--- Maximus/2 2.02
---------------