-=> Quoting Guy Putnam to Steve Gunhouse on 06-11-96  22:51 <=-
 Re: Re: NRA
 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.
 GP> I expect NRA to support a pro-gun candidate for president.  Not one
 GP> who voted for the rifle/magzine ban, or one who signed it.  Do you
 GP> expect them to "compromise" & support an anti-gun candidate?
Wrong word there. Do I expect them to? Of course. You know they will,
too. Do I want them to? No.
I'm the guy who's been arguing with Neil Schulman (in PRN) that so far
Dole is not a viable candidate. It seriously bothers me when a self-
proclaimed Libertarian like Neil believes Dole is the only choice. OTOH,
if he endorses Dole, I can't fault the NRA for the same short-
sightedness.
 SG> Hutchinson is also not up for reelection this year.
 GP> Best I recall NRA supported her last time, & probably will next time.
 GP> She voted for the rifle/magazine ban!
Do you recall her opponent? She was really the only choice.
Most importantly, you're not looking at the big picture. Many people
voted for the Crime Bill though they opposed the Feinstein amendment (the
"assault weapons" ban). All that means is that to them, guns are not the
number 1 issue. As much as I may disagree, that's their opinion.
Hutchinson - and of course a great many representatives - are still
generally on our side, but have other priorities. If you think any of her
opponents would have been better - well, I sincerely doubt it.
 GP> If NRA doesn't oppose magazine-banning Gramm, then they will be
 GP> supporting another anti-gun candidate.  Is there something strange in
 GP> the air, or, am I the only one noticing that NRA heavily supports
 GP> anti-gun candidates?
Again, Gramm is not anti-gun, he just doesn't consider us his first
priority. Unless you think you could defeat both him and his opponent,
we're stuck with what's avvailable.
 SG> That's not exactly what happened, they never did give money to Brooks
 SG> in '94 due to the outcry.
 GP> Somebody paid for Tanya's plane ticket.
So? That's not money to Brooks. In other words, you ignored what I said.
 SG> They had endorsed Brooks for all the wrong
 SG> reasons, but were forced to withdraw that support.
 GP> I just don't recall them withdrawing support for Brooks, unless it was
 GP> the morning of the election.
They did withdraw support for Brooks, but they didn't oppose him - they
didn't support Stockman. Now, Tanya herself continued to support Brooks.
More short-sightedness on her part, yes. But she is not the NRA or even
ILA.
 SG> As usual, you go a bit far with your rhetoric.
 GP> Perhaps its slipped past you, but don't you find it rather odd that
 GP> our employees want all our guns, ammo & magazines _right_now_, whether
 GP> Repub or Demo!?
No, it did not slip past me. I know that the politicians don't understand
what this country is about - including our mutual favorite issue. Right
now, the majority of people on the street don't either. Without the
support of the people, we will never get good politicians in.
 SG> You're suggesting throwing away everything in favor of an unknown,
 GP> I'm suggesting throwing away all anti-gunners in favor of freedom!
 GP> Isn't that what our Founding Fathers did, throw it "all away" for
 GP> freedom?  We wouldn't be throwing anything away that they didn't, which
 GP> is Tyranny?
So then, are you suggesting a second revolution, today? How come I don't
see you on the street with your rifle, then? Sorry, we need something
more before that'll happen. Do you have a better candidate for the Senate
than Gramm? I have yet to see one - why aren't you running?
 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 -
 GP> NRA needs to be changed by the membership from "best thing we have,"
 GP> into something actually _good_.  Just like gov't, all current
 GP> compromising NRA "leaders" need to be thrown out, & regular folks from
 GP> back home, people like you, need to be sent up there to run things &
 GP> put on salary so they can afford to drop everything & do it.
Again, good luck. You have to convince the rest of the membership first.
That is slightly easier than convincing the whole electorate in order to
change Congress, but not much.
 GP> No, I'm saying I don't want _any_ more Klintons, Doles or
 GP> Gingriches . . . period.  There's no reason NRA members can't get off
 GP> their bottoms & put some regular folks in leadership so they can run
 GP> things properly.  There's no reason NRA can't support the Constitution
 GP> Party, or create a party from the ranks of gun owners.  Its not an
 GP> impossible goal, especially with the stakes so high.
I think that having a Shooter's Party - as they do in Australia - would
be a good start. But see how much good they did there. :-(
And of course, you're too late for this election. They couldn't get on
enough ballots at this point - which is another thing that needs
changing. But of course the entrenched parties aren't about to do that
either.
Let me know when you have a real option. For the time being, all of our
choices are bad, but all the shouting in the world won't fix it.
Steve
... My hearts are in the right places. - Doctor Who
 * Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 *
--- GOMail v1.1 [92-0793]
---------------