--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00149 Date: 07/27/96 From: MARK BUNNER Time: 12:03am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: POST ATTACKS BLACKMAN July 25, 1996 Attention NRA Members & Gun Owners! If you see the Washington Post article on Dr. Paul Blackman appear in your local newspaper, please use the information below to rebut the article in a letter-to-the-editor! NRA-ILA =+=+=+=+=+ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NRA Public Affairs July 25, 1996 (703) 267-3820 NRA FILES ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST WASHINGTON POST Post article "gross misrepresentation" of Researcher's Work, NRA Policy The National Rifle Association of America filed a formal ethics complaint with the Society of Professional Journalists and Geneva Overholser, Ombudsman of the Washington Post. The complaint charges the Washington Post with "gross misrepresentation" of the work and conclusions of an NRA researcher and violation of fundamental journalistic ethics by Post reporter Michael A. Fletcher. "Mr. Fletcher's article in today's Post is nothing short of a personal attack on a researcher and the NRA -- an attack wholly without foundation, totally malicious and clearly in violation of journalistic ethics," said Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "The facts of this cast a long shadow on the professionalism of the journalist and the newspaper involved. Both newspaper and journalist have violated Article IV, Section 3, of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists which states: 'There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness.' "Mr. Fletcher has falsely linked a view that both Dr. Paul Blackman (NRA-ILA Research Coordinator) and the NRA find abhorrent and without foundation -- namely, that race is a causal factor in violent crime. That is positively untrue, Mr. Fletcher was told the truth, and Mr. Fletcher chose to ignore it. "The facts are these: * "Like virtually every criminologist and epidemiologist, Dr. Paul Blackman's research notes that race is a surrogate for underlying socioeconomic factors such as poverty, lack of education quality, etc. -- root causes of crime that cry out for resolution. * "Dr. Blackman explained this in an interview with reporter Fletcher. * "Rather than faithfully report Blackman's work -- and the interview -- the reporter chose to totally fabricate a link between Blackman's conclusions and 'genetics' -- a topic never explored in the research, a notion disavowed by Blackman and the NRA, and a topic Blackman never discussed with the reporter." * Blackman's 25-page paper was an examination, primarily, of victimization and showed that victimization can be traced to many demographic factors such as sex, age, race and other factors such as criminal activity and drug use. The reporter chose to focus only on the first 6 pages of Blackman's paper, delivered last month to the annual symposium of the Homicide Research Working Group of which Blackman is a member. "Even a half-hearted commitment to accuracy and thoroughness dictated by the Code of Ethics would demand that Mr. Fletcher report Blackman's views faithfully, accurately and thoroughly. He clearly failed to do so. "This is the most egregious example in recent memory of the Post's long litany of bias against the NRA and law-abiding gun owners. The newspaper has failed to report on the advancements NRA has made in bringing safety and responsibility programs to minorities and the work NRA has done in eliminating discrimination inherent in gun laws, notably by passage of Right to Carry laws across the states that do not discriminate based on race, gender and other factors. NRA will continue to defend freedom -- and constitutional rights -- for all Americans." -- the nra: people protecting freedom -- --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Bunner; West Virginia mbunner@weir.net RIME: ->MINDLESS ___ * UniQWK #2210* If brains were dynamite he couldn't blow his nose! --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0332 * Origin: The MindLess One's BBS *Weirton, WV* [304] 723-2135 (1:129/161) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00150 Date: 07/27/96 From: MARK BUNNER Time: 12:03am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: YOUTH HUNTERS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 22, 1996 SPORTS ADVISORY * SPORTS ADVISORY * SPORTS ADVISORY COUNTDOWN TO NRA'S INTERNATIONAL YOUTH HUNTER EDUCATION CHALLENGE! NRA President Marion Hammer to kick-off Opening Ceremonies, commends youths for dedication to safety and training in support of an American tradition FAIRFAX, VA -- Drawing from the nearly 15,000 youths that competed on the state and provincial levels this year, the nation's premier youth hunting event is just days away as over 300 participants get set to converge at the NRA Whittington Center in Raton, NM, for the NRA International Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), July 29 - August 2. Rivaled only by an actual hunting experience, the five-day Challenge sets the standard in hunter education through a series of eight events that simulate true field conditions. Hunter safety, ethics and responsibility are the underlying theme as youths hone shooting skills and take part in outdoor activities such as orienteering and wildlife identification. Highlights include trick shotgun shooting demonstrations by World Record holder John Satterwhite on July 30 and special events such as the Cherokee Run, a timed outdoor survival skills test patterned after tournaments held by early American trappers. Of interest to media will be the attendance of several representatives from the hunting community. Headlining Opening Ceremonies on Monday, July 29, from 9:30 - 11 a.m. will be NRA President Marion Hammer, with NRA Second Vice President Albert Ross speaking at the Awards Ceremony on August 2, both well-known for their leading roles in support of youth program development. They will be joined by Dr. David Knotts, Executive Vice President of the International Hunter Education Association, and Wally Gardiner, President of Imperial Schrade, a founding sponsor who has supported the YHEC since its inception in 1985. An on-site YHEC Press Office will open daily from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. to assist with background information and interview coordination with participants and NRA representatives. For more details, contact Karen Mehall or Karen Hyderkhan in that office beginning Monday, July 29, at 505-445-3615. - nra - FOR MORE INFORMATION, Contact: Karen Mehall 703-267-1547 =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org ------------------------------------------- Mark Bunner; West Virginia mbunner@weir.net RIME: ->MINDLESS ___ * UniQWK #2210* Why Be Politically Correct When You Can Be RIGHT? --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0332 * Origin: The MindLess One's BBS *Weirton, WV* [304] 723-2135 (1:129/161) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00151 Date: 07/27/96 From: MARK BUNNER Time: 12:36am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Quitting Well folks, I've just learned that my local board is closing down. So, to everyone I've come to know here, I want to say my goodbyes before I lose the chance. Even though I haven't always been the most vocal, it's been fun and I have some good memories from my stay. In addition I hope that my attempts at being a contributor to the conference have been successful. So, with a solemn heart I say, "Best wishes to everyone." p.s. I'll try to keep up the ALERT postings until the BBS goes down. Mark Bunner; West Virginia mbunner@weir.net RIME: ->MINDLESS ___ * UniQWK #2210* Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0332 * Origin: The MindLess One's BBS *Weirton, WV* [304] 723-2135 (1:129/161) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00152 Date: 07/25/96 From: DON SHOEBRIDGE Time: 07:33pm \/To: MAX LAKE (Read 1 times) Subj: We? ML> DS> What diference does it make who you vote for? Klinton's going to be ML> DS> reelected anywhys. There's too many young brains full of mush out ML> DS> there that are believing everything they hear on TV. Beside's, the ML> DS> battle for votes between the Republican voters and the Libertarian ML> DS> voters, are more than likely going to split it anywhys. So you might ML> DS> as well vote for who you want rather than who you think will win. At ML> DS> least thats my position. :) ML> The media has you convinced we can't win so you are going to lay down ML>and quit? That's exactly what they want us to do. Who are you refering to when you say "we"? If you mean Republican, I don't much care if they loose. Democrates, I hope they will loose. But, as for me, I'm one of those that will be accussed of spliting the vote, because I'm voting Libertarian. I'd rather not have either Bob (on the) Dole or Billary Klinton in the White House. * SLMR 2.1a * Drink 'til she's cute. Quit before you marry her. --- T.A.G. 2.7c * Origin: Baron's Flying Service (1:2202/8) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00153 Date: 07/25/96 From: STEVE GUNHOUSE Time: 2:20:am \/To: MAX LAKE (Read 1 times) Subj: Interstate CCW agreements -=> Quoting Max Lake to John Perz on 24 Jul 96 14:54 <=- Re: Interstate CCW agreements JP> Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states: JP> "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public JP> acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the JP> Congress may, by general laws prescribe the manner is which such acts, JP> records, and proceedings shall be proved, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF." JP> Looks to me like it would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to JP> pass such a law. And it wouldn't force Texans to obey some JP> Massachusetts law while in Texas. That's a different case entirely. ML> I believe that the 10th ammendment would also come into play. The ML> states rights folks would argue, with much merit, that congress can ML> not force Ohio to obey a Texas law which says it is ok for person X to ML> carry a firearm. The principle would be Ohio rules Ohio and Texas ML> rules Texas. No, that shouldn't be completely correct. Of course, Ohio doesn't have carry, so the following won't really apply there, but ... It's something like driver's licenses. Ohio can't say "Our vision test is stricter than Texas', so any Texas drivers will have to be tested before they can drive in Ohio." They can require that you obey their rules while driving in their state, but your license is still valid. So then, if someone from Florida who has a CCW came to Texas, his CCW should still allow him to carry here - provided he follows our laws about when and how to carry. No carry in bars, on school property, at government buildings, etc. But as long as he does that, the fact that Florida has said he's allowed to carry there should be enough to mean he can carry here. Or likewise if someone with a Texas CHL went to California, or any other state that allows some form of concealed carry. As I say, currently Ohio still doesn't have any, so by those standards you still couldn't carry there. Ideally that should also lead to similar laws governing issuance and similar rules for when and how to carry in all states, as is true with driving. But that's for the future. For now, I shouldn't have to worry about whether Oklahoma would recognize my valid Texas CHL. Each state can make their own rules on the other parts, but as long as your home state accepts you as being legally able to carry so should everyone else that allows carry. Steve ... Anything that's worth doing is worth doing right. --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: Sub-Rosa, for those held in terrestrial bondage. (1:381/74) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00154 Date: 07/26/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 07:01am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Libertarian? Or Republican? * Crossposted from: FREEDOM'S_VOICE From: Joe Zychik Subject: Schulman/Zychik Debate - w/suprise ending Part 1 [The debate, held on July 11, 1996, was between Joe Zychik editor of the Zychik Chronicle and J. Neil Schulman, author of _Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns_. The aftermath of the debate will shock you - delightfully. The subject was: Should gun owners vote Republican or Libertarian? The debate was moderated by Steve Silver, Founding Member of the Lawyers' Second Amendment Society. The moderator's comments are not in the transcript. The transcript contains minor, inconsequential edits for readability. A coin was flipped to see who would go first. Neil Schulman won. ] Schulman: I'm tempted to say that coin was flipped to see which one of us is going to have to defend Bob Dole. But it comes to my job to argue seriously why we must support the Republican candidate for the 1996 presidential election. I could start off by saying that Bob Dole is making my job real tough. About a year ago, Bob Dole was perfectly willing to come to an NRA-organized Second Amendment conference in Washington, D.C., and talk in support of the right to keep and bear arms. Bob Dole, also as Senate majority leader, committed to repeal of the assault weapons ban legislation that was passed as part of the Clinton anti-crime bill. The result which brought gun owners out to the polls in 1994 and made Bob Dole Senate majority leader, in essence setting him up for this presidential run. But here we have within the last 48 hours Bob Dole essentially saying, "The assault weapons ban is old news, you know, people can get virtually identical things anyway, so it's really not on the political map any more, we don't need to discuss it." Now, if Bob Dole were still in the Senate I would have to be very seriously concerned that this was breaking a promise. But the fact is, Bob Dole is no longer Senate majority leader. That job has now fallen to Trent Lott. As for candidate Bob Dole, the question is still unanswered if such a bill were to reach his desk, would he sign it? Tanya Mataksa of the NRA said the answer is "Yes." Until and unless Bob Dole clarifies his position further to say that he will not sign such a bill, I would say that our buy-sell indicator, if it were in terms of a market, is still that Bob Dole is still on the market at a price we can afford. If, however, he becomes any weaker on us, we're in trouble. If the Republican National Convention nominates somebody on the order of a Dan Lungren or a Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey to be his vice presidential candidate, both who have done great damage to the rights of gun owners from the Republican side, I would say we would be in a position where we would have to consider whether we could afford the Republican ticket. But here is the issue involved. It's very, very simple. Are we willing to put up with four more years of William Blythe Jefferson Clinton in the White House? If the answer is no, there is only one possible candidate who could defeat him this election cycle, and that is Bob Dole. I would love it to be Harry Browne. Harry Browne has been somebody I've admired for 20 years, and if anything were to sour me on the Republican party, Harry Browne would be where I would put my support. But the fact is, there isn't a realistic chance this side of God coming down and, you know, putting his hand on Harry Browne's shoulder and anointing him president, that Harry Browne is going to be elected president in 1996. It just isn't a political possibility. If we had a parliamentary-type democracy in this country, third parties would have power. Fourth parties would have power. Fifth parties would have power. But the way it's set up in this country, because the executive branch is separate and because of the electoral system that is set up here, third parties are not designed to have any political power in this country. And in fact that is the political reality. There is no electoral technology that I know of which is capable of taking a third party candidacy and putting him in the White House. That is a simple fact that we have to live with. We have a two-party system, Tweedledum-Tweedledumber, and that is our choice. The fact is, is that the Democratic nominee, the current sitting president, William Blythe Jefferson Clinton, is the worst president from our point of view that has ever existed in United States history. He has done incredible damage to us in terms not only of the legislation which he has managed to ram down our throats, but in terms of the perception that he consistently puts forward that guns in the hands of private citizens are a liability, rather than an asset in the war against crime. He has total contempt for us. He knows he's not going to get our votes and so he does everything he can to damage us. We would not do worse if it were Charles Schumer in the White House, and we know how bad he is. Bob Dole, right now, is moderately on our side. He is by no means a strong candidate for the Second Amendment, but he is not our enemy. And if I may quote an old mentor of mine, Robert Heinlein, "The choice is rarely in politics between good and better, but between bad and worse." And when it comes to bad and worse, there is no comparison between Dole and Clinton. That is why I find myself endorsing the Republican candidate for president, who just happens to be Bob Dole, for the defeat of William Blythe Jefferson Clinton in 1996, for several reasons. Number one, the president is going to appoint the federal judges who will decide cases like Hickman v. Block. He will probably come up with a Supreme Court nomination during the next four years, and we don't want that to be Clinton appointing the justice who is going to vote to basically suspend the Second Amendment. And there goes 10% of the Bill of Rights, and perhaps the most important 10%. It will be the president who will be deciding whether to pursue the Wassenaar agreement, which essentially is an international gun control treaty which limits imports. And it will be the president who will basically decide whether or not to sign the bill recognizing CCW licenses interstate, which will be very, very important. (Applause) Zychik: Good evening. My name is Joe Zychik. I'm not a Republican, a Democrat, or a Libertarian. However, this year I will vote for the Libertarians because we are in a war for Liberty. And to win a war, you must take the long view. So tonight, I'm going to ask you to let Bill Clinton win the battle for the White House so that you can use your vote to win the war for Liberty. And I'm going to ask you to vote for the Libertarians because the Libertarians are a pro-Liberty party. They want an end to all gun control, not just the ban on assault weapons. They want an end to all gun licensing. They want this country to return to the Constitution as it was written. Ladies and gentlemen, people tell you that to vote for the Libertarians is to throw away your vote. That's ridiculous. To vote for the Constitution is to invest your vote in Liberty. To vote for anything less than the Constitution is to tell the Republicans and to tell the Democrats that they can betray you, that they can betray the Constitution, that they can betray the Second Amendment, and get your vote anyway. So let's talk about winning battles. Let's talk about winning a political war. The way you win a political war is not with the majority. The Libertarians will not win this election. They will not win elections for at least the next 10 years. But they don't need to win elections. What they need is the margin of victory. What they need is about 10% of the vote. There is no politician in this country who can throw away 10% of the vote. What I am asking you to do is to invest your vote in Liberty to help the Libertarian Party build an eventual 10% of the vote, thereby forcing the Republicans and the Democrats to become a pro-Liberty party. Yes, what I'm asking you to do is to risk your vote. That's a very small risk. There were people who went before us, the Colonists, the Revolutionaries, who risked their lives for an opportunity for Liberty. They didn't have a guarantee of winning. The odds are they could have lost, or would have lost. They were up against the best army in the world. But they risked their lives because they had an opportunity. They had a chance for Liberty. What I'm asking you to do is to invest your vote in a chance for Liberty. And that's the way you win. You don't win by helping anybody who betrays the Second Amendment. You don't win by helping anybody who does not take the Constitution seriously. You only win by fighting for your principles. You only win by fighting for Liberty. You cannot win by telling the Republicans, "Yes, you can betray me, but I will vote for you anyway." Because the day will come when the Republicans will know, as they are finding out, that they don't have to take your vote seriously. When Bob Dole killed the legislation to overturn the ban on assault weapons, he did that because he was making a political judgment. His political judgment was that he could betray you, he could sell out the Constitution, he could sell out the Second Amendment, and you would still walk into that voting booth and vote for him. And as long as you walk into the voting booth and you vote Republican, then the Republicans will know that they can betray you and get your vote anyway. If you want Liberty, then you must vote for it. And you must make the Republicans and the Democrats understand that you are serious about Liberty. You won't get it this election. You won't get it next election. It's going to take about 10 years. So what? This is a long battle. What you need to do is you need to look at the long run, and you need to say, "I'm in a war, not a battle. I'm here for Liberty, I'm here for freedom, not for less gun control." And there's one thing you can be sure of. If you vote for the Republicans, you will probably get less gun control than the Democrats will give you. But one thing you can also be sure of is if you vote for Liberty, if you vote for freedom, in the long run, you can win. Thank you very much. (Applause) Schulman: What message will it send to the media, to the Democrats, to the Republicans, and to the Libertarian Party, if in January of 1997, it is William Blythe Jefferson Clinton raising his hand to be sworn in for another four years? I assure you, it will not be a message to the Republican Party that our concerns are important. What the message will be to them is the American people don't care about this issue, that's why they reelected Clinton. If we are to have any power at all, we must have a realistic assessment of what our possibilities are. I do not believe that a Libertarian Party, which for 25 years has failed to make an impact in a presidential election, can gain a foothold in politics running in a presidential election. The Libertarian Party, if it is going to become a third party, has to do so at the grassroots level, winning mayorships, winning congressional seats, winning governorships, and winning a senate race. And then, after they have a handful of congresspersons and a senator or two and maybe a mayor of a few cities and maybe a governorship, then they'll have a candidate to be taken seriously for president. And when they reach that level, I would be out there supporting them to the best of my ability because Joe is right, they are the future of Liberty in this country. However, if they cannot get to that point, there is an alternative strategy, and that is a Libertarian caucus within the Republican Party itself. Basically, you do the same thing that the Libertarian Party is, except you organize within the Republican Party and you find Libertarian candidates to run on the Republican ticket until you have a Libertarian Republican caucus in Congress. At that point, you've got a power base to start pushing the Liberty agenda. But the American system of government as it is right now does not favor a third party gaining political power. It is not designed to do that; it cannot do that, and by supporting a third party, you are not advancing Liberty, you are simply advancing a spoiler who will make sure that the worst of the two bad parties remains in power. What the Libertarian vote does, if the Libertarians gain significant victories, is assure that the more statist, the more anti- Liberty of the two parties will always remain in power. It divides us. It is divide and conquer. And we must unite in order to be victorious. I am not happy that we do not have a great Libertarian candidate to vote for this time around. God knows, I wish we had Ronald Reagan to vote for again. It would be great if we had somebody at least of his stature, and he wasn't perfect. We don't have that choice. Our choice right now is between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and its two standard bearers who will be the leadership of that party. But let me give you a danger that is crucial here. If William Blythe Jefferson Clinton wins the presidency again, there is the possibility that our gains in 1994 will be lost. We will lose the Congress as well. This is a risk I do not think we can tolerate. We need to send the following message to the Republicans loudly: Number one, you can't win without us, so you better start taking us seriously, and you better do it now. So I argue that we must support Dole. And two: We must get on his case and put his feet to the fire and make sure he takes us seriously. (Applause) Zychik: What Neil is suggesting to you is that you vote for the lesser of two evils. So let's talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, and let's see exactly where that takes you. History is showing it to you. I want to talk to you about Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler did not overthrow the German government violently. Adolf Hitler won the election. How did he win? He didn't win on his anti-Semitism. Most of the Jews in Germany didn't even take his anti-Semitism seriously. He won because compared to the communists, he was the lesser of two evils. And people went into the booths and they voted for Adolf Hitler to keep the communists out. And you know what? They got what they voted for. They got the lesser of two evils, because if you compare the evil of communism to the evil of Hitler's Germany, it's very clear that the evil of communism is far worse than the evil of Hitler's Germany. Ladies and gentlemen, if you continue to walk into a voting booth and you vote for the lesser of two evils, the day will come when you will be confronted with an equivalent of an Adolf Hitler and the equivalent of a Joseph Stalin. And Bill Clinton is not too far from Stalin. The fact of the matter is this: If you want Liberty, then walk into a voting booth and vote for it. Don't let the Republicans intimidate you into getting you to give them your vote even though they betray you. Fact: Legislation was passed in the House of Representatives to overturn the ridiculous ban on assault weapons. Fact: Bob Dole killed that legislation. Fact: Bob Dole killed that legislation because he made a political evaluation. He bet. His bet was that he could betray you and get your vote anyway. And as Neil said, you must show the Republicans that they cannot betray you, that they cannot take you for granted. Well, Ha! Ha! Ha! How are you going to show the Republicans that they can't take you for granted if every year you walk into the voting booth and vote for them anyway? If you want to show the Republicans that they can't take you for granted, then vote Libertarian. Vote for the party that will not take you for granted. Vote for the party that is pro-Liberty. Don't wait. Don't wait until they have a governor and two senators and a mayor. Vote for them now and help them get that governor, help them get that senator, help get those mayors. Invest in your Liberty. It's really as simple as that. A vote today is a vote for Liberty. A vote next year is a vote for Liberty. And every time you vote for Liberty, you pass the word, and you tell other people and you encourage them to vote for Liberty. And that is how you win a war. You win a war politically with a small margin of voters, that is all you need. Bill Clinton won by 3%. If 4% of the pro-gunners had went and voted for--I'm sorry, if 4% of the vote was pro-gun and had voted for the Libertarians, you can bet that both the Democrats and the Republicans would be singing a pro-gun song to get your vote. This is nothing more than welfare. What the Democrats and Republicans are asking you for is something for nothing. They want to give you nothing and get something in return. They want to give you less gun control than the next guy. That is not Liberty. That is not something. Something is an end to all gun control laws. Something is an end to all registration. Something is an ending, an overturning, an abolishing of the 1968 Gun Control Act. It's calling for an end, an immediate dissolving of the BATF. That's where you stand. That's where the Libertarians stand. And now it takes an act of courage on your part to simply walk into a voting booth and risk your vote. Risk your vote for Liberty. It is far wiser to risk your vote for Liberty than to throw it away for less gun control than the Democrats are offering you. That is no deal. That is no wonderful situation for you. That doesn't secure your right to keep and bear arms. All it does is, it secures the Republicans in their decision to nominate somebody like Bob Dole, who's nothing more than a gun grabber in the Republican party. That is all he is. And it tells the Republicans that they can continue to nominate gun grabbers and get your vote anyway. If you want Liberty, hey--vote for it. Thank you very much. (Applause) Joe Zychik Editor, The Zychik Chronicle http://www.pacificnet.net/~jzychik To receive the ZC free, contact: jzychik@pacificnet.net "All rights are individual." --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00155 Date: 07/26/96 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 08:43pm \/To: NOLAN PENNEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: nra Using an ancient Captain Midnight secret decoder ring at Warp speed, Nolan Penney, sent the following message to Rd Thompson: NP> RT>What will you call it when Clinton ushers in Brady II? He will NP> RT>*definitely* do it if he wins as he will be a lame duck president who NP> RT>cannot be answerable to the voters as he cannot run again. NP> NP> Then you apparently don't understand government. I understand it much better than you think I do. NP> The President NP> (Clinton or Dole) cannot, absolutely, completely and unequivocally NP> _can_ _*NOT*_ usher in law. Duhh!! I was only turning around another statement where the only change was the name Dole for Clinton. Did you respond with this same comment to the other individual or are you just being one-sided? :^) If you feel that the president makes no difference since he cannot make laws, then why do you care if he gets re-elected or not? BTW, do you know what the words "usher in" mean? Let me give you a hint. They mean to serve or to bring something into being; to bring in or observe the entry of something with ceremony (gee, like signing a bill); to mark the beginning of or occurance of something. :^) NP> Only Congress can do that. And congress, even this republican NP> majority congress, has been quite willing to do so actually. The NP> Congress that Dole led. The Dole that has promised to _veto_ NP> anti-gun laws. The Congress that will probably follow Dole into NP> whatever anti-gun land he choses to take them. If you wish to discuss the election of congresscritters, then let's do that and quit this BS about a president. You don't seem to feel that he/she will make a difference. NP> With Clinton, especially as he keeps digging himself in, we might NP> have a lame duck president because of his being so tied up in legal NP> disputes over the various things he keeps getting caught in. Whetever..... If he steps in enough of it, it will catch up to him. Sleep well tonight, Nolan.... RD (The Sandman) sandman@azstarnet.com ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X Press to test..,,,,..Release to detonate. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: My Blue Heaven BBS (520)750-0716 (1:300/704) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DBY00156 Date: 07/26/96 From: CLOYCE OSBORN Time: 06:50pm \/To: EARNEST PADGETTE (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Government Reform EP> (clip) JP>I also get the impression that most of the "reformers" want to "end JP>gridlock" so the government will be free to "do more". EP> The last thing I want is a government that does more of EP> anything. EP I'm with you there, Ernie. The best thing we can say about all the beauracrats shuffling paper is that it keeps them out of bars and off the streets. Regards. Cloyce. --- EZPoint V2.2 * Origin: Res Ipsa Loquitur, Indian Territory (1:147/34.13)