In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:01:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice,
hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've
probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.

So not only do you wish to trivialize the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st
as well?

Ed...Ed Chamberlain.... " We have peace in our times"

Appeasement is for those who wish plow for others.

"Appeasement"? Where do you live, in some foreign country?

Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress



No they do not.

Those are your fellow citizens, Ed. Do they have as much right to
declare that all persons named Ed Huntress or Gunner or John Husvar must
be hanged from light poles?

How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway? I suppose now I have
to go make it a global kill. Well, maybe not. Maybe this time you'll
answer politely.

NRA has been much a Quisling organization, treated as useful idiots who
don't know how thoroughly they've been circumvented, outmaneuvered, and
nullified.

NRA is and has been the single most important factor in the rise of the
gun control movement. Why? Because it and too many of its members
believe in reasonable compromise while its opponents do not. That's a
sad commentary on the largest pro-gun organization in the world.

Compromise is anathema to the rabidly emotional anti-gun mentality
unless compromise means they get a little more of their wants while gun
owners lose a little more.

No more! NRA and gun owners compromised in 1934 on the Federal Firearms
Act, again in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and again and again and
again ad nauseam, throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s as presidential
Executive Orders (both parties) further reduced the choices available to
gun owners. Part of how the anti-gun forces got away with this is
because they propagandize that nobody _needs_ thus and so, or some other
thing, or whatever they don't like at a given moment.

The NRA ultimately goes along with it in the spirit of reasonable
compromise -- and American citizens lose just that one little bit more
Constitution-protected liberty, just as the Fabian salami-slicers wanted.

Such "reasonableness" makes the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be
the mere piece of paper written by dead old white men that the anti-gun
organizations claim -- or worse, make it the "Living, Breathing
Document" that can be changed at will or whim rather than going through
the, intentionally unwieldy, amendment process. Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.

Why on God's green earth would anyone care what emotionally-driven
cowards, who can't seem to reason past tautology, think about your
choice of firearm. Why should anyone?

"If nobody can get guns, then there won't be any gun crimes." Well, no
kidding! Welcome back to the age of biggest and strongest rules. I
suppose that's not so bad. After all, we now live in an era where them
as has the gold makes the rules, assisted by them as can convince the
population that a simple majority represents goodness, right, and truth.

Feh! Utter nonsense.