From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #90 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, March 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 090 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:00:04 -0500 From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal >Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the >Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" >ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the >Founders intended it to be). Skip: We all change. Just 12 years ago, I thought guns should be completely illegal. I was an idiot. The issue here isn't that people *can't* change. It's about being man enough (or woman enough) to admit the error of your past ways. I freely admit that before I even thought about the situation, I swallowed to HCI propaganda and believed that guns served no good purpose in life. But I freely admit that I was wrong back then, and I've re-evaluated the situation and used my gray matter to make an informed decision. Sounds like you went through the same thing. The question is: is Heston still that anti-gunner he was 30 years ago? Or has he seen the "error of his past ways"? If he has, why hasn't he spoken out about it? To put this issue to rest, all Heston needs to do is write a quickie editorial in AR/AH/AG about how he fought to get GCA '68 passed, and for the past 30 years saw nothing good come of it, and that's why he wants to be NRA president, because he's seen that Gun Control laws aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. We're all up in arms because he hasn't done that. At least, that's why *I'm* skeptical. Maybe he did write it and the printers chose not to print it? Maybe some editor thought it was too radical? Maybe he's still fighting for regulation, thinking that will fend off the wave of confiscation (foolish)? Who knows. But he's not going to get *anywhere* until he speaks out and makes his position clear. Rachel ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:25:33 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal >Boyd wrote: > >[ ... ] > >>>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>>card to get his butt elected. >>> >>>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >>snip >>Where'd ya get that? > >From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard corps report represents "extremism" in terms of restoring the constitution? Bear in mind that that -is- an "insiders" look, it's billed as such and the only people he sends it to are people who have said "we want to employ you as our lobbyist in..." per the instructions at the end. The target audience is "hard corps". He doesn't suggest handing it to your avg suburban soccer mom. > >>Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as >>someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. >>Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I >>gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. > >I met him once too, years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I belonged >to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. He was >definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. Please tell me -how- he "conducted himself". Was he in cammo swilling out of a bottle of jack (no offense intended to you liqeuor connoiseurs)? Perhaps, like Mr. Heston he to has changed with age. >>Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, >>isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say >>"older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers >>all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk >>about his kids (all my age). > >You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen >pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays >are very carefully crafted. I'm sure your not saying that I'm presenting an "image" here that is carefully crafted. I've honestly shared my personal impression with the list, I am not a paid agent of any of the parties of this dispute. Nothing more. I've also been quite specific. >>The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) >>until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? >>Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to >>yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. >>Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head >>of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll >>quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. > >If you find it amusing, that's fine, but I hit the target I was aiming at. > >The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- >wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >| D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | >| Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | >| Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | >| neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | >| **Finger for public key** | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:25:28 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal At 9:54 PM -0600 3/17/98, Neil Dickey wrote: >Boyd wrote in part: > >>When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >>the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered >>why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, >>just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that >>I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that >>noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" >>experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, >>being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to >>learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. >>Where was Chucks? > >[ ... Snip ... ] > >The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > >The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- >wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >| D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | >| Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | >| Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | >| neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | >| **Finger for public key** | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- My point was not a religious one. My point was that I enjoy talking about this radical change in my life and everyone I know who's done a 180 on an issue like this uses that change in their lives as an example in discussion. I have never implied that I don't take Mr. Heston's positions seriously. If the man has gone from fighting for GCA 68, to VP of NRA why would he not want to talk about it? That is -exactly- the change that each one of us needs to initiate in our fellow voters, we need that example. Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:25:36 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal >While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. > >There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a >liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair >amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when >the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed >thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when >he objected. > >I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 >elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting >and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, >the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, >"Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," >ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, >big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. > >The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >my support has been shifting in those directions. > >And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an >NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase >the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused >of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the >current board majority. > >Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is >part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why >the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his >illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. > > >Brad Thanks for the good story. Unfortunately, you reflect societys widely held belief that politics is represented on a left to right / liberal to conservative spectrum. Unfortunate, because if it ever was true it certainly is not today. "Liberal" politicians of today do not notice your "rights" except as they may tend to infringe on their power, and Conservatives are -exactly- the same. I'm a republican, because that is the - -only- political party in my neighborhood. And because Bill Clinton woke me up to the problem and I had hoped to return the favor by finding him fulfilling work in the private sector. But I am a Libertarian (and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus) because that's where my heart and soul are. I hope you'll check out www.lp.org and take the "worlds smallest political quiz". While still a bit stumbly and in it's political infancy, the LP is the -only- political party who understands the effects of power as our founding fathers did. They know that power comes from the individuals of this country and they respect that in every way. Boyd Kneeland > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > >> Boyd wrote in part: >> >> >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >> >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal ... >> >> [ ... Snip ... ] >> >> The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >> your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >> process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >> case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >> experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >> I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:25:40 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Wish I'd said it that well, thank you. Boyd >>Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the >>Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" >>ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the >>Founders intended it to be). > >Skip: > >We all change. Just 12 years ago, I thought guns should be completely >illegal. I was an idiot. The issue here isn't that people *can't* change. >It's about being man enough (or woman enough) to admit the error of your snip >Rachel - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:45:28 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal At 9:25 AM -0800 3/18/98, Boyd wrote: >>Boyd wrote: >> >>[ ... ] snip >>>Where'd ya get that? >> >>From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. > >Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard (pardon the bad form for replying to myself here) Wow! That was snippy. Sorry Neil, I hope you ignored this. I do not want to come off as one of the cacaphony of strident-to-shrill voices here. Let me reiterate that I -do- respect Mr. Heston and that I am reserving judgement on this whole gca/vp thing here. My point is that I'd like to hear him talk about it. Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:35:11 -0800 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote: > The question is: > is Heston still that anti-gunner he was 30 years ago? Or has he seen the > "error of his past ways"? If he has, why hasn't he spoken out about it? > > To put this issue to rest, all Heston needs to do is write a quickie > editorial in AR/AH/AG about how he fought to get GCA '68 passed, and for > the past 30 years saw nothing good come of it, and that's why he wants to > be NRA president, because he's seen that Gun Control laws aren't worth the > paper they've been printed on. > > We're all up in arms because he hasn't done that. At least, that's why > *I'm* skeptical. Maybe he did write it and the printers chose not to print > it? Maybe some editor thought it was too radical? Maybe he's still > fighting for regulation, thinking that will fend off the wave of > confiscation (foolish)? Who knows. But he's not going to get *anywhere* > until he speaks out and makes his position clear. > > Rachel Rachel and others, I wasn't defending Heston in my little "thought grenade" yesterday. I was trying to point out just how silly it is to indict people today based on what they thought or did 30 years ago. I hope no one judges me that way, but if I enter public life, they surely will. As for Heston "owing" us an explanation, I disagree. He is "the man in the arena" who has put his name and reputation at risk by taking on the burden of responsibility. We are sideline observers who have nothing invested, nothing at risk, and no right to demand anything. No offense, just one man's opinion. But I will say from long experience that leadership is far more burden than glory, a fact which followers ought to understand better, but can't until they've been there. Regards, Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:31:41 -0800 From: Cyrano Subject: Fwd: [Fw: Getting their attention (joke)] WARNING: The following is offered for humorous purposes only. If you do this, be prepared to answer a lot of questions (or worse). Begin forwarded message: =========================================================== Operation Fed Fret- for April 19: 1. Get a group of several buddies. 2. Dress up in camos to look like stereotypical militia types. 3. Be sure not to have anything that could be considered a weapon of any type on your person. 4. Go to the local federal building. a. Walk around the grounds at first, taking measurements, clicking photos, writing down on notepads, etc. b. Communicate with each other via walkie-talkies. c. Go into lobby- continue writing down observations, measurements, etc. d. Ask lobby staff where ventilation system intake system is located, where structural supports are, if plans are available, what they can tell you about building security, etc. If asked why you want to know, or challenged, just respond that you are "interested taxpayers." e. Decline to identify yourself as anything other than an "interested taxpayer." f. Be prepared to witness (and record) any and all interactions, including harassment, threats, etc. g. Thank them for their time. Assure them you'll be back. =================================================================== End forwarded message - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:58:26 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Boyd, [...] Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" card to get his butt elected. As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. -snip- Where'd ya get that? [...] The reportage from the Seattle Convention center, during the NRA convention there, when Heston was being positioned for the VP slot. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:42:46 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Neil, [...] Me: What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last two won't consider the job. You: You're right, that's pushing the envelope. It's also a non sequitur. [...] Not so. It does follow: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Therefore, if Jane Fonda were to run for NRA board member, because she felt she could win, she would. It therefore follows that it is possible, and it follows the premise of what she did, is equivalent to what Heston did, ie., he spoke against firearms, she has spoken against the same. Therefore it follows. [...] Me: Don't like my analog? You: It isn't appropriate, as I have shown. [...] Snicker! Snort! [...] Me: What's the darned diff between a nuke war and the loss of our Right? You: Again, a non sequitur. [...] Guffaw! Come now, Neil, If we were all eliminated in one very large nuclear blast, we wouldn't have the need of Rights. If were all deprived of our Rights, the only way out is live free or die - that is, live free, or die fighting for them. If you die, what need have you of Rights? [...] You: Insofar as Mr. Clinton may be as . . . [...] WJC is a questionable character at best. You can't tell me for a second, that if he really felt that even 43 percent of the country backed him, that he _would not_ nuke Iraq - or anyplace else that he felt needed nuking. [...] Me: As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty years ago won't fly in a government position in the U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on things here? You: I don't understand your meaning in these two sentences. What Clinton did 30 years ago in Moscow obviously didn't keep him out of a government job, whatever one thinks of that. Just as obviously, what *I* think of that isn't particularly relevant. The fact is: There he is. [...] Ya know, Neil? That's one of the neatest sidestep jobs I've seen in years! Are you sure you not related to some politician? Billy J was _elected_ to the job, not hired, not appointed, and not advanced to it. Tell me that he would have been allowed _any_ clearance to access classified data in _any_ military position, and I'll tell you that either the atmosphere for clearances has changed, or I need to reevaluate what the U.S. Government security manual has to say. [...] I didn't use the word "extremist," by the way, it was "purist." [...] I never said you did. I was referring to Mr. Heston's own remarks at the Seattle convention. Don't you remember them? Insofar as being one myself, I accept that others feel that way about me, in the consideration that I do not accept the current definition of liberty as what some bureaucrat says it is. I am vociferous in that regard, and while I'm neither proud of it, nor carrying my heart around on my sleeve, I do take advantage of every opportunity to assess others of our losses when the matters of liberty arise. [...] Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but advocating unregulated private ownership of machineguns is probably one of the quickest routes to political oblivion that I can think of offhand. It's right next to repealing the vote for women, but I'm not sure whether it's the near or the far side. [...] Well, Neil, then I guess your advocating of Constitutional liberties is nothing more than window dressing? Extremism is what defines the _limits_ of our community. Obviously you have fallen prey to the "kinder, gentler" message, ie., let's not be too difficult. The extremists are who got us into this current socialistic orgasm of liberties taking. If you can't be equally extreme in gaining them back, then you may as well, park your butt on a park bench and retire from the scene. Politicians understand only one thing: force. The forces that got them into office. The forces that flood their mail boxes with opinions. The forces that express rage over a lousy vote. The forces that will remove them from office, for having voted the wrong way. When the number of letters and phone calls that are in *extreme* opposition to his current leanings, are what causes him/her "to see the light", then the 'unseen forces' win the day. [...] This is patently repulsive, even as a rhetorical response, and not worth further comment. [...] And, here I thought you had a sense of humor . . . ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > I was trying to point out just how silly it is to indict people today > based on what they thought or did 30 years ago. I hope no one judges > me that way, but if I enter public life, they surely will. On this collateral point only I disagree. The nature of the acts, and the thoughts, regardless of when they occurred, should and must enter into any evaluation of someone as fit to hold office, IMO. For example, there is no way a rapist or a child molestor would get back on my good side, even though their acts might have occurred 30 years ago. They can please me by descending into the dust from which they sprung, unwept, unhonored, and unsung, no matter how long ago their offense occurred. This is an extreme example, but the difference is only in degree, not principle. And you can bet that a lot of people, if not most, are going to judge you on what you said and thought 30 years ago, if it comes to their attention. In general, I don't think it's silly. However, when honest inquiry degenerates to digging up the dirt and mud-slinging for ignoble motives, then it becomes not only dishonest, it's clearly counter-productive for people who are supposedly on the same side. What is "silly" is that the audience doesn't see it for what it is. I question the motives of the people harping on this particular part of Heston's past. The incident alleged may or may not have occurred, and may or may not have been shameful. I don't have the facts, really, to make a judgment one way or another. And even if I did, so what? I think what is resented here, and what is fomenting the demagoguery, is the fact that a "face" who hadn't "paid his dues" in the tight little set of cliques of NRA directorships has been jumped over people with "higher lineal numbers" and is suddenly found to be in the line to be the head of the NRA. This kind of petty backbiting and sniping and infighting is counter-productive, motivated by personal aggrandizement and agendas. So one clique is fighting another. The goal to move the power from the State back to the people from which it has been confiscated is not served by this behavior, but it serves achievement of the contrary goal quite well. The carping takes our eyes off the Prize. Could the cliques just not care? History is replete with well-documented examples of the terrible results of "cliques who did not care" about the end goal, just their personal agendas. Why should this clique be any different? For people who enjoy this sort of thing, this is just the sort of thing they enjoy. The chance to throw stones at Moses only comes along once every 3 or 4 millenia. After all, Moses was nothing but a Johnny-come-lately Jew who also hadn't "paid his dues" but who presumed to lead his people to the Promised Land. Why he probably had something to do with the Spear Control Act of 1468 B.C.! We mustn't miss out. However, when I contemplate what happened to the LAST set of Moses' detractors, the prospect loses its appeal. :-) Ya know what I mean? Regards, Harry - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:08:03 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Harry, [...] After all, Moses was nothing but a Johnny-come-lately Jew who also hadn't "paid his dues" but who presumed to lead his people to the Promised Land. Why he probably had something to do with the Spear Control Act of 1468 B.C.! We mustn't miss out. [...] Well, hot damn! You know about the SCA too? Ya know? I can remember when a triple bladed, point 7 cubit bronze spear point was the real bees knees, know what I mean? As I said, Harry, when he totes an AK-47, only _then_ will he part any waters. In the meantime, about the only thing he's gonna part is his hair. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:42:10 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Fwd: [Fw: Getting their attention (joke)] Sure glad you intended that as a joke. It certainly wouldn't help our battle to win the hearts and minds of the people. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:08:24 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > As I said, Harry, when he totes an > AK-47, only _then_ will he part any waters. > In the meantime, about the only > thing he's gonna part is his hair. > > ET All non-swims, fall out to the right. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:27:41 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, > the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd > like to know what you think. > > The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- > wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. Otherwise I might have thought you were expressing the opinions of some Marines about Oliver North. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 15:36:47 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal On Mar 18, Harry Barnett wrote: >On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > >> The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, >> the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd >> like to know what you think. >> >> The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- >> wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. > >Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. Otherwise I might have >thought you were expressing the opinions of some Marines about Oliver >North. Couldn't say for sure, but when his show was still on KVI a month or two ago, I caught it from time to time, and most of the Marines I heard on it seemed pretty supportive..... - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:43:16 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal I combined all three of Boyd's last posts into one to reduce the clutter. His last post is first, for reasons that should be obvious. Boyd wrote: >>Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard > >(pardon the bad form for replying to myself here) >Wow! That was snippy. Sorry Neil, I hope you ignored this. I do not want to >come off as one of the cacaphony of strident-to-shrill voices here. Let me >reiterate that I -do- respect Mr. Heston and that I am reserving judgement >on this whole gca/vp thing here. My point is that I'd like to hear him talk >about it. Thanks *very* much for writing this Boyd. No offense is or was taken. I appreciate beyond words your desire not to take this to a personal level, and wish that others would follow your example. Now that you put it this way, I agree with you completely. *I* would like to hear him say what got him to change his mind, but I'm not sure I ever will, and it's not *that* important for me to know how it happened. In thermodynamics there's a thing called a "state function." In dealing with such functions only the starting and ending points are significant; the infinite number of different paths which connect them are mathematically indistinguishable. For me, this is a similar matter. If he is a supporter of the Second Amendment now, that is what is important to me. If you need to know more to support him, that's fine. Boyd wrote in his first message: >>>>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>>>card to get his butt elected. >>>> >>>>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >>>snip >>>Where'd ya get that? >> >>From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. > >Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard >corps report represents "extremism" in terms of restoring the constitution? >Bear in mind that that -is- an "insiders" look, it's billed as such and the >only people he sends it to are people who have said "we want to employ you >as our lobbyist in..." per the instructions at the end. The target audience >is "hard corps". He doesn't suggest handing it to your avg suburban soccer >mom. A couple of points to be made here: One is that I never authorized him to be my lobbyist. I subscribed to it years ago, when it first came out, and was a newsletter having to do with legislative matters in the Capitol. Another point is that regardless of the intended audience, the newsletters I receive from him are tendered as a representation of his opinions. I do not differentiate between his public opinions and his more private ones. His reporting of matters going on within the NRA has been shrill (to use your word) in the extreme. The manner in which he has carried out his campaign has damaged the NRA considerably, in my opinion perhaps more so than the evils he says he wanted to expose. There are constructive ways of fixing problems and destructive ones. I man I knew once was having carburetor problems with his truck. He fiddled with it for a while, but without success, and finally smashed the carb with a hammer. Then he knew what the problem was. I don't regard that as a very constructive solution. Your citation of the Constitution is a canard, and had nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make. We were talking about Mr. Heston and the NRA. >>I met him once too [Knox], years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I >>belonged to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. >>He was definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. > >Please tell me -how- he "conducted himself". Was he in cammo swilling out >of a bottle of jack (no offense intended to you liqeuor connoiseurs)? >Perhaps, like Mr. Heston he to has changed with age. The performance I have seen of late in his newsletters mirrors what I saw then. The meeting I remember involved a group of black-powder enthusiasts who wanted to form a club, which would then use the facilities of a local sportsmen's club to hold its matches. Mr. Knox was there, and there was a bit of a stir when he was introduced because he was so well-known. At one point in the meeting (he was a guest, remember) he got up and offered advice, doing so on several more occasions. What was happening was that every time the group appeared to be near a solution or a consensus, he would throw down another obstacle -- whether he meant to do it or not. Because of his interference, the meeting ended in confusion, and the black-powder league went another year before it finally started shooting. It took that long for the effect of his prestige to wear off, and his advice to be ignored. He wasn't part of the solution. He was part of the problem. There are constructive ways of fixing things, and destructive ones. >>You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen >>pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays >>are very carefully crafted. > >I'm sure your not saying that I'm presenting an "image" here that is >carefully crafted. I've honestly shared my personal impression with the >list, I am not a paid agent of any of the parties of this dispute. Nothing >more. I've also been quite specific. I was originally as specific as you were. Perhaps you could tell me more about what so won your confidence in him? I wasn't suggesting that you were carefully crafting an image, only that you may have been looking at one. First, last, and always, remember that Mr. Knox is after political power of a sort: He wants control of the NRA. Here beginneth Boyd's second message: >>The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >>your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >>process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >>case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >>experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >>I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > >My point was not a religious one. My point was that I enjoy talking about >this radical change in my life and everyone I know who's done a 180 on an >issue like this uses that change in their lives as an example in >discussion. I have never implied that I don't take Mr. Heston's positions >seriously. My words were "something *like* a religious experience." The reference is to a sudden conversion, like that of Paul on the road to Damascus. >If the man has gone from fighting for GCA 68, to VP of NRA why would he not >want to talk about it? That is -exactly- the change that each one of us >needs to initiate in our fellow voters, we need that example. At the first and at the last we have gotten to the heart of it and discovered that we really don't disagree that much after all. I'd like to know myself, but if Mr. Heston doesn't tell me, that's his business. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 17:39:43 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal With respect to the Knox/Heston debate, Knox is pretty much a known quantity whether you like him or not. I've seen some good points and bad points made and for what it's worth, he genreally manages to hold his own. While in some respects, the same could be said of Heston, I get the feeling that he's a, "Soup Kitchen Christian", (in it for the bucks). It's been some time since he last made any films, and he just might be feeling the pinch. At least this would explain the early/recent ambivalence towards 2nd Amendment issues. With that in mind, I think he needs to stay where he's at for a few more elections. If a little more seasoning is what's needed, that should handle it. If he's really not that much Pro-2nd, then the additional time should bring that out into the open. Either way, it beats hurrying to make a Clintonian grade mistake. I think that makes a fair appraisal, but I'm still listening. What do you all think? - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:44:43 -0800 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal At 09:19 AM 3/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >Brad wrote in part, in response to me: > >>While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >>someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >>who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. >> >Do you think, Brad, that what you've said here is that traditional labels >like "liberal" and "conservative," at least in their commonly understood >meanings, really don't work any more? I remember a thread on this or >another list some years back which sought to establish a new set of >labels, though without notable success. There's another fine label - "Libertarian". >As a geologist, trained to take the *long* view and having seen how >tremendously successful species have become extinct in a geological >moment, I tend to support efforts to preserve what's left of the >old-growth forests. That's commonly understood to be a liberal position. >I despise what some of the "tree-huggers" have done to further that >end, but I quarrel with the means, not the goal. Ditto. >>The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >>AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >>my support has been shifting in those directions. > >If it weren't for their position on the Second Amendment, I would be >much more interested in supporting them myself. "Freedom means letting >other people do things you disapprove of." (Reference: Someone's sig >line, I don't remember whose.) Actually, I believe it's from the Libertarian Party platform. I've seen several people use it as part of their sig; I did myself, for a while. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #90 ************************