🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxCsyp.1Ez@world.std.com> Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza) writes:
>...under the law the NSA is forbidden to do domestic surveillance....
>
>silly.  to security organizations the "law" is just another cover.  It's
>amusing to watch these guys who hate the government, won't pay taxes,
>reject all ideas of social responsibility orchestrated through government,
>defend the good intentions of the garrison state security apparatus.  they're
>usually also gun nuts.  

I believe you are flat wrong here.  Most 'gun nuts' I know pretty much
oppose anything that expands government power.  They tend to hold things
like privacy, etc in especially high regard.  They especially are against
laws, etc making things like government survelliance easier (any other
position would be shooting oneself in the foot, as it were).  About all
they supported was a strong national defense due to the cold war, and
that has changed now, and most gunowners position on the state of
military readiness has also changed to better adapt to the current
situation.

In particular, one who "hates" the government is unlikely to support
moves that give that hated entity MORE power...

I got an idea!!  Why don't you ASK 'gun nuts' what their positions are
instead of taking the word of the media, or HCI, etc as gospel?  It
is just possible that they have an ax to grind, and find it advantagous
to their agenda to make gun owners look as bad as possible...

I suspect you have bought into a stereotype that was dreamed up by the
organizations like HCI, NCBH, etc.  I find that just about every
characterization of a gunowner by these folk to have little relation to
reality.

Just the observations of yet another 'gun nut' ...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"