-=> Quoting STEVE GUNHOUSE to GUY PUTNAM <=-
 SG> It may well be
 SG> that Tanya, Marion, Neal and Wayne do believe that some small amount
 SG> of gun control is reasonable (as in, I don't speak for them or for the
 SG> Board of Directors). Though obviously, said small amount doesn't
 SG> include the assault-weapons ban.
 
 GP> Do you think NRA is going to support Bob Dole, Gingrich, Phil Gram &
 GP> Kay Bailey Hutichenson?  They _all_ voted for the "assault" weapons
 GP> ban.  In fact, 98 out of 100 senators voted for the rifle & magazine
 GP> ban.  Is NRA strongly opposing the reelection of all 98 of these
 GP> senators?
 SG> There are only 33 or 34 up for reelection this year Guy, and another
 SG> 1/3 back in '94. You ought to know that. (IOW, NRA can't oppose those
 SG> who aren't running at this point!)
That's all fine & well for diversion . . . now, getting back to the point,
do you think NRA is going to support some of those senators & reps, this
coming election & the next (if we even have one) that voted for the
rifle/magazine ban?
 SG> Off the top of my head, of course Dole is not currently running for
 SG>the Senate - and you don't expect them to oppose anyone running against
 SG> Clinton. 
I expect NRA to support a pro-gun candidate for president.  Not one who
voted for the rifle/magzine ban, or one who signed it.  Do you expect them
to "compromise" & support an anti-gun candidate?
 SG> Hutchinson is also not up for reelection this year.
Best I recall NRA supported her last time, & probably will next time.  She
voted for the rifle/magazine ban!
 SG> I don't know much about Gramm's opponent yet, nobody really does.
 SG> Until I do - that is, until I know that he is at least as good as what
 SG> we've got - I am certainly not about to suggest they oppose him in the
 SG> general elections.
If NRA doesn't oppose magazine-banning Gramm, then they will be supporting
another anti-gun candidate.  Is there something strange in the air, or, am
I the only one noticing that NRA heavily supports anti-gun candidates?
 GP> I will speak for NRA . . . . if they don't oppose _all_ those above,
 GP> then they are supporting the rifle & magazine ban,just as NRA did when
 GP> it supported & gave members' money to Jack Brooks & opposed Steve
 GP> Stockman!  NRA even sent Ms Tanya down to Brooks district to scrounge
 GP> up votes for The Traitor Brooks ... but Texans ran her out of town on
 GP> the rail.  They ran Brooks out too, Tanya's fair-haired favorite.
 SG> That's not exactly what happened, they never did give money to Brooks
 SG> in '94 due to the outcry. 
Somebody paid for Tanya's plane ticket.
 SG> They had endorsed Brooks for all the wrong
 SG> reasons, but were forced to withdraw that support.
I just don't recall them withdrawing support for Brooks, unless it was the
morning of the election.
 GP> NRA is a Traitor that actively promotes the imposition of terror,
 GP> hi-tech torture & death down upon American families . . . Assisting in
 GP> the  unconstitutional limitations of private access to current arms
 GP> promotes a death sentence to Americans finding themselves "living"
 GP> under International Fascism.  It's not "funny" anymore . . . .
 
 GP> NRA is now an integral component of the Fascist Terror Stalking
 GP> America.  Without NRA, Traitors would not be able to put on as
 GP> effectively their dog-&-pony-show of The Conflict Of Opposites for the
 GP> American Sheeple,as dictated by the Hegelian dialectic process that is
 GP> currently being imposed down upon America by wanna-be gun-grabbing
 GP> Fascist Dictators, or The "Illuminated" Ones; as they like to think of
 GP> themselves.
 SG> As usual, you go a bit far with your rhetoric. 
Perhaps its slipped past you, but don't you find it rather odd that our
employees want all our guns, ammo & magazines _right_now_, whether Repub or
Demo!?
 SG> You're suggesting throwing away everything in favor of an unknown, 
I'm suggesting throwing away all anti-gunners in favor of freedom!  Isn't
that what our Founding Fathers did, throw it "all away" for freedom?  We
wouldn't be throwing anything away that they didn't, which is Tyranny?
 SG> . . . just for revenge. 
No, not at all . . . just for Liberty!
 SG> As
 SG> I've said,I don't like some of the policies currently supported by the
 SG> NRA, but they're still the best thing we have. They still tend to play
 SG> the odds - which I don't buy - 
NRA needs to be changed by the membership from "best thing we have," into
something actually _good_.  Just like gov't, all current compromising NRA
"leaders" need to be thrown out, & regular folks from back home, people
like you, need to be sent up there to run things & put on salary so they
can afford to drop everything & do it.
 SG> . . . but I can see that they have to work with what's there.
That's not what the Founding Fathers did.  Don't we breed any men these
days, with something besides wind between their legs?
 SG> And are you saying you'd like to have a Democratic Senate again, and
 SG> more of Bill Clinton?  No thanks. 
No, I'm saying I don't want _any_ more Klintons, Doles or 
Gingriches . . . period.  There's no reason NRA members can't get off their
bottoms & put some regular folks in leadership so they can run things
properly.  There's no reason NRA can't support the Constitution Party, or
create a party from the ranks of gun owners.  Its not an impossible goal,
especially with the stakes so high.  
 SG> They aren't the best thing - sometimes
 SG> I'm not even sure if they're a good thing - but they're still the best
 SG> we have.
The only thing standing between Freedom & Tyranny is _inaction_, or rather,
action mis-directed by the problem.  Its the silliest thing I've ever
heard, that pro-gun people have to support the lesser of 2 anti-gun trash. 
Our employees work the Conflict of Opposites greatly to the advantage of
Fascist Tyranny.
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------