EP>ML>   That's why the Good Lord gave us twit filters....
EP>    Understood Max, but I just like to remind people now and again
EP>    that some of us don't like the heavyhanded approach; and don't
EP>    respond well to it. When I'm hit, or see others hit, unfairly; I
EP>    hit back. I really don't like playing that game, but I promised
EP>    myself.
EP>    For some reason, there seems to be an attitude going
EP>    around lately that says "Don't be nice to anyone. Just cause
EP>    them pain, and only stop when they do what you want." That
EP>    approach may work with enemies; but try it with friends and
EP>    you'll just earn yourself plenty of enemies. Ernie P.
I've been watching your go-rounds with Guy.  Yeah, he's hit ya,
but I would not call it unfair.  His basic tenet seems to be that
if someone votes for a politician who has written, introduced,
and passed anti-gun legislation, then that person is voting
anti-gun, and if the voter votes anti-gun, then the voter is an
anti-gunner.  As someone who got straight A's in high school
geometry and loved doing those chain-of-logic proofs, I can't
refute Guys' chain-of-logic on this one point.  However, he has
given a messed-up rendition of the conflict-of-opposites theory,
and you have mistakenly called it something to get people to be
in the middle.
To reconcile both of your viewpoints, it means that we've lost
already. Guy is right in that Dole is anti-gun.  He's voted
anti-gun, he's spoken publicly about vetoing a repeal of the AW
ban.  But you are right in that the libertarian candidate has no
realistic chance of winning.
The best way that I can personally reconcile a vote for Dole is
that we'll lose rights more slowly with Dole than we will with
Clinton.
We will continue to lose until pro-rights and pro-gun people can
influence the leadership of a major party, or even BECOME the
leadership of a major party.  That outcome is possible, but in my
opinion, improbable.
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Cat'
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0232
---------------