-------------------------------Forwarded Message-------------------------------- >Posted: "March, Jim" > >I am helping a friend with a hideous legal problem in Portland, Oregon. > Among other things, I have found direct evidence that a cop stole 8 guns >right out of the PD properties room by claiming that a judge ordered them >released (I have a signed memo on his stationary to that effect) and the >judge has denied releasing the guns...this is just a small part of what >this cop has done, including perjury and filing false charges. > >I've taken this proof to Portland PD Internal Affairs, only to be >threatened with charges of harboring a fugitive for investigating this >while my friend is missing...I need help, I need publicity, and I can >publish the 90 pages plus pages of evidence, facts sheets and indexes I >have on this case. > >..Any advice you can give would be appreciated! > > -------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe right2arms RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00003 Date: 08/20/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 09:17pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Why guns * Crossposted from: FREEDOM'S_VOICE On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Al Germain posted: >About a year ago an article titled something like 'Why It Had To Be >Guns' was posted on this list. It was authored by either L. Neil Smith, >J. Neil Schulman, or Vin Suprynowicz, I can't remember which. It was >the best piece I have seen justifying a single issue vote. Elections >are coming up again this year, and I can't find a copy of it. If anyone >knows where to find it, can you please post it again or provide a web >address where it exists? Just happened to save it I liked it so much. :) WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith -- Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has _always_ determined the way I vote. People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, _anything_ -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your _friend_ no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about _you_. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with _anything_? If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in _jail_? Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of. He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about? And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about _you_, and it has been, all along. Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a _woman_, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter. But it isn't true, is it? -------------------------------------- L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _The Probability Broach_, _The Crystal Empire_, _Henry Martyn_, _The Lando Calrissian Adventures_, and _Pallas_. He is an NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes? Check out or call 800-682-1776. "They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00004 Date: 08/20/96 From: SCOTT SCHEIBE Time: 12:30am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: RTKBA Web visits GOA Gun Owners of America has a web site at www.gunowners.org They have a link to the poll on All Politics to repeal the Assault weapon ban. I am please to report it was running 575 for to 176 against last night! This will be presented to Bob Dole, not sure how long it runs. One of the scourges from California, Barbara Boxer is sponsoring a "Junk gun" ban bill.. She also has a poll pro or con for it at ftp://ftp.senate.gov/member/ca/boxer/general/junkgun.htm I had trouble reaching it but you can reach /boxer/general/ and find it from there. There is also a link off her web page: www.senate.gov/member/ca/boxer/general/ An up date on Reinventing America which I posted about last week. It was passed overwhelmingly for more gun controls.. I wrote the sysop in charge and protested the overwhelmingly biased back ground information and they way the questions were very biased worded.. I have had no response about my protest. This is on HTTP://pathfinder.com which I believe is run by Time Life.. NRA Life Member Scott Scheibe ... An unarmed society is a society that must live in fear of government! --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A (602)231-9377 PRN/SURV/FIDO/+ (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00005 Date: 08/18/96 From: JOHN DUKE Time: 09:53pm \/To: GUY PUTNAM (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: nra GPActually, that's an anti-gun term. When you drive to work tomorrow morning, look up & down the street & see how many AR-15s you see. At the gun show today the tables were still full of them... John Duke KE4TQP john.duke@nashville.com * 1st 2.00n #2317bt * Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0118 * Origin: The Digital Rodent - v.fc/ISDN - 615-865-9509 (1:116/125) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00006 Date: 08/20/96 From: NOLAN PENNEY Time: 04:36pm \/To: EARNEST PADGETTE (Read 1 times) Subj: The yammering continues EP>NP>Damn! Where IS this source of yours? I can't find ANY of the EP>NP>things you claim pro-gun to mean. All I can find is pro-gun means EP>NP>pro-gun. EP> I'll use smaller words in future. EP Won't help. Pro-gun still won't mean what you claim it to be. EP> *I'M* not the one calling everyone names who doesn't agree EP> with me. You and Guy are the only ones who are demanding EP> everyone follow their lead. I'm not demanding anyone follow my lead. Closest I come is promoting the notion of following ones own mind instead of blindly following the lead of someone. Are you truly unable to discern the difference? EP> As long as you're doing the best EP> you can and not attacking other pro-gun people we have no EP> quarrel. But if you're going to talk the talk, you'd better EP> be ready to walk the walk. EP Grand words. Wonder what you mean. Wonder if you'd be willing to walk this walk of yours. EP> *I* don't claim to be *more* pro-gun than anyone else. Yes you do. Forgotten your rantings to me already? The one where you said no one has done more then you, that no one is more committed then you. EP> I EP> *DID* see those words, or something similiar in recent posts. EP> Now *who* talks that way? Nice allusion. Won't work. I have never claimed to be super anything. These inferences by you miss the mark. Is attempting to smear someone else falsely part of your unique interpretation of being pro-gun? EP> As to insisting anyone vote for a EP> particular candidate, *I* haven't done that. No? Since you like allusions when you cast them at me (incorrectly, but don't let that bother you), lets look at your words where you say voting for Dole is the right choice (re, not voting for dole is the wrong choice). Lets look at your words about a vote not for Dole is a vote for Clinton (it isn't a vote for Clinton unless you vote for Clinton, but don't let that fact slow you down). And lets not forget your sad faces :-( You like to pepper messages about the horrors of not voting for Dole with them. You're pretty clearly insisting people vote for a particular candidate. Your candidate. You've said several times now to several people that voting for your candidate is the right thing to do (implying that not voting for your candidate is wrong). Myself, I don't really care if a person wants to vote for Clinton or even Perrot...as long as that's how they feel and believe. Which is a big difference between you and I. I think a person should vote as they believe, you don't. You want us to vote your way, in the name of damage control. Which is a misnomer since as you have admitted, your candidate has, does and further intends to inflict damage. Myself, I'm tired of voting to inflict damage and voting for mediocrity. Think I'll try voting for what I believe to be a winner (as in what they are, not whether they'll win an election) for a change. EP> Who was it that EP> called people who didn't vote with them "anti-gun" ? Who? Earnest Padgette. That's who. EP> I'm not asking you to go away OR shut up. Actually you have. To both Guy and myself. EP> I'm asking why your EP> rhetoric isn't matched with action. No, you've never asked that. You aren't now either. What you are doing though is making things up to label rhetoric, and implying that I must not be pro-gun actually. And that you are the true pro-gun member, and your way is the right way. One could ask you the same question. In fact, I think I will. Why isn't your rhetoric matched by your action? Why do you claim to be pro- gun when you act so anti-gun? Why is it that your rhetoric doesn't come close to matching your actions, or those actions you demand of others? But to answer your question, the rhetoric you call mine (which isn't mine) is matched. It's called a vote. As well as phone calls and letters. You on the other hand, don't match your own rhetoric or the rhetoric you attribute to myself and Guy. --- * CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY --- InterEcho 1.18 * Origin: The GreyHawk BBS Columbia, MD 410-720-5083 USR V.34 (1:261/1116) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00007 Date: 08/21/96 From: DAN ARICO Time: 09:30am \/To: NOLAN PENNEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Things NP> JP>Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that political parties NP> are JP>not mentioned in the Constitution at all. The Founding NP> Fathers JP>didn't like partisan political parties and had the rather NP> naive hope JP>that none would develop here. NP> I don't buy that. There were political parties at the time of NP> formation of the Constitution. Namely the federalists and the NP> anti-federalists. The founding fathers were members of those NP> parties, and others, namely Jefferson, founded other political NP> parties. Read the section in the Constitution about the selection of President and VP. It's *nothing* like what happens today. They made no provision for political parties. ___ X RM 1.3 02881 X Government: Highly organized street gang with an attitude. --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: Air 'n Sun 703-765-0822 Bang, bang, shoo-oo-oot shoot! (1:109/120) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCR00008 Date: 08/21/96 From: DAN ARICO Time: 09:32am \/To: JIM SMITH (Read 1 times) Subj: Things JS> a volleyball. Not bad I thought! He's still got a long time before JS> he shoots better than his dear old dad. ;-) Just wait. My oldest son has reached the point where he is beginning to outshoot me with a rifle. I just got him and his brother a pair of Anschutz target rifles. ___ X RM 1.3 02881 X Beavis and Butthead in '96 - Vote Democratic --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: Air 'n Sun 703-765-0822 Bang, bang, shoo-oo-oot shoot! (1:109/120)