RW> RW> Seeing as most pro gunners
RW> RW> are republicans that will mean, in the very least, not
RW> RW> voting for more gun control.
RW>GP>
RW>GP> What do you call the Brady Bill, that Dole wrote himself?
RW>All by him self?
RW>GP> Again, you are just making this up.  Dole's anti-gun voting
RW>GP> record is just as bad as Klinton's or Metzenbaum's.
RW>Really?  When was the last time Dole introduced a bill
RW>to ban the private ownership of handguns?  Or the last
RW>time he tried to raise the tax on ammo by 1000%?
Your reasoning fits exactly into the trap that Guy is
pointing out. Your "excuse" for supporting Dole is that he is
"LESS" anti-gun than the democrats.
This is Guy's point.  In order to get gun-owners to vote
anti-gun, "they" put Dole up against someone who is EXTREMELY
anti-gun, and made it an "either/or" situation.  They make us
WANT to vote for an anti-gunner like Dole, because the
alternative is a WORSE anti-gunner like Clinton.   They make us
want something "BAD" by presenting it as "the only alternative"
to something "WORSE".
Don't ask me who "they" are.  I'm still trying to figure that
out.  But I think "they" are the behind-the-scenes
puppet-masters who put Clinton in a position to be elected in the
first place.  "They" are not the political parties.
And how did Clinton get in office?  Via the same conflict-of-
opposites.  A sufficient number of voters were made to believe
that they HAD to get rid of Bush cuz he broke his promise of no
new taxes.
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Worf, screw the Prime Directive. Give the Borg Windows NT
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0232
---------------