--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00004 Date: 08/30/96 From: GUY PUTNAM Time: 01:36am \/To: JOHNNY BRANDON (Read 1 times) Subj: Info Wanted -=> Quoting Johnny Brandon to All <=- JB> anybody out there who is familiar with a .45 made in argentina during JB> the late 30s into the early 40s, that is referred to as a JB> Ballester-Molina model (the name of the armory that produced the JB> pistols)? I think its supposed to be a pretty good pistol. Heard that only about half the spare Argentine magazines will fit any given gun. I don't know about American mags. I guess it doesn't matter too much if you don't want to have a bunch of mags with it, though I generally like a whole bag full with my pistols. --- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] * Origin: LibertyBBS Austin,Tx[512]462-1776 (1:382/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00005 Date: 08/30/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 07:05am \/To: DAN ARICO (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 Elections Dan was heard muttering to Paul Nixon about 1996 Elections PN> Tapes that purport to prove a connection between CIA drug running PN> out of the Mena a/p. If what is alleged then likely both Bush and PN> Clinton, during his governorship would be implicated. DA> I have my doubts about those tapes, but there is no question about the DA> connections between Dan Lassiter and Bill Clinton. Agreed...probably. --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00006 Date: 08/30/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 07:05am \/To: WYATT DOOLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Granting Permission? Wyatt was heard muttering to Paul Nixon about Granting Permission? PN> F*** Bubba. PN> And his wife. WD> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WD> Not Even With "Yours" I don't think I've ever been _that_ drunk... "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do." --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00007 Date: 08/29/96 From: RICH WILLBANKS Time: 11:59am \/To: DAVE APPEL (Read 1 times) Subj: We? RW>GP> Again, you are just making this up. Dole's anti-gun voting RW>GP> record is just as bad as Klinton's or Metzenbaum's. RW>Really? When was the last time Dole introduced a bill RW>to ban the private ownership of handguns? Or the last RW>time he tried to raise the tax on ammo by 1000%? DA> Your reasoning fits exactly into the trap that Guy is DA> pointing out. Your "excuse" for supporting Dole is that he DA> is "LESS" anti-gun than the democrats. That and the fact that he is the ONLY ONE running that has a snowball's chance in SW Asia. DA> This is Guy's point. In order to get gun-owners to vote DA> anti-gun, "they" put Dole up against someone who is DA> EXTREMELY anti-gun, and made it an "either/or" situation. DA> They make us WANT to vote for an anti-gunner like Dole, DA> because the Look at it this way, all the anti gunners are going to vote for Clinton. If the pro gunners, or less anti gun, voters split their votes between two or three people then who's going to win? The "EXTREMELY anti- gun" guy. DA> Don't ask me who "they" are. I'm still trying to figure DA> that out. But I think "they" are the behind-the-scenes DA> puppet-masters who put Clinton in a position to be elected DA> in the first place. "They" are not the political parties. I'm sorry but I don't see a giant conspiracy of "they". If there were such a thing then other countries would already be under "their" control. If you can't tell me who "they" are then can you at least tell me what "they" want? Remember: Freedom isn't Free! --- timEd-B11 * Origin: My BBS * Dover, TN * (1:379/301.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00008 Date: 08/30/96 From: LYLE KNOX Time: 09:33pm \/To: NOLAN PENNEY (Read 1 times) Subj: RE: THINGS WD>> Mickey Mouse is getting a few votes this year I hope that he WD>> can handle the case load because he has a good chance WD>> of winning several public offices around here. NP> They passed a law several years ago prohibiting allowing NP> non-humans from taking office. :-( NP> Personally, I think the Italians have the right idea, elect NP> a crazy stripper porn queen to office! If we ever did that, half of D.C.'d have to resign. :-) Lyle --INTERNET: lyle.knox@iotp.com --FIDO: 1:114/237 RIME: INNPARK/1037 --- Via Silver Xpress V4.3P SW10419 * Origin: Inn on The Park (tm) Scottsdale, AZ (602)947-3896 (1:114/237) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00009 Date: 08/30/96 From: DICK ROEBELT Time: 02:20pm \/To: RICH WILLBANKS (Read 1 times) Subj: Interstate CCW agreements RICH WILLBANKS spoke thusly to: DICK ROEBELT RW>RW>DR> Congress does NOT have that power. That is reserved to RW>RW>DR> the states. And it is NOT written in the Constitution that RW>RW>DR> I can see. Care to show me? RW>RW>Reread the article. If the Congress has proven that RW>RW>CCW's are acts that should be given FF&C then they RW>RW>would have to be. You state's right issue doesn't hold RW>RW>up. It is written that FF&C SHALL be given in each RW>RW>state not might be given if the state agrees with the RW>RW>act. RW>DR> I am going to try to keep this simple so maybe you can RW>DR> grasp it. RW>No need for insults. We're having a disagreement and RW>if you can't debate it civilly then please just stop RW>replying. If you think that is an insult then maybe this echo is to far advanced for you. RW>DR> The USSC (and the lower courts) has made numerous rulings RW>DR> on licensing issues. They also have spoken to the firearms RW>DR> issue being a state issue. Through those many rulings it RW>DR> is plain and evident that Congress has no jurisdiction RW>DR> (under the current Constitution). Congress can only RW>DR> "encourage" the states to adopt a Compact (a way around the RW>DR> treaty clause) which would have the same effect as the RW>DR> current Driver's License Compact, only for concealed carry. RW>If that is the fact then the FF&C clause is a waste of RW>space in the Constitution. If the states are allowed RW>to decide what things are going to be given FF&C then RW>why did the founding fathers put the article in? Not a "waste of space" at all - except in you mind. The original premise was to INSURE that the basics of property law (all law is actually property law) is held intact. That is (was) for the protection for those who stand to inherit the estate (so to speak). Also, we had slavery back then. In order to prove ownership of all property, both real and chattel, the FF&C was a must. Fleeing slaves who made it to a "free state" was always a bone of contention. Ditto for those criminals who would escape local jurisdiction. At least in the case of fleeing felons, their was and still is an extradition hearing as part of the process. RW>RW>Nothing here. Art. IV Sec 1. clearly states that the RW>RW>power of proving what acts and the effects of those RW>RW>acts being given FF&C. If Congress proves that CCW's RW>RW>are covered by FF&C and the effect of that coverage is RW>RW>that each state must honor the others then I can't see RW>RW>a problem. That power is clearly given to the RW>RW>Congress. RW>DR> Congress cannot "prove" these acts. The court have RW>DR> specifically stated the licensing rights and laws about RW>DR> firearms in general are STATE MATTERS. It is the PEOPLE, RW>DR> through their elected state representatives who determine RW>DR> those laws. RW>Maybe that is the way they have ruled in the past but I RW>still say that it's clearly written out that the RW>Congress has the power to decide what state actions are RW>to be covered by the FF&C clause. While the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the edicts of Congress are not. Congress must act within the parameters of the Constitution. All the power they possess in this area has been previously decided and that power has been wielded time and time again and honed to a point. The "bright line" has been drawn. Your thoughts on this matter have been previously concluded. RW>DR> Why don't you tell us how Congress could "prove" their RW>DR> authority? RW>How about Art. IV Sec 1? IMNSHO, this gives the RW>Congress the powers to decide what state acts, records, RW>and judaical proceedings are covered by FF&C. You have RW>state ACT of qualifying a person AND a state record, RW>the license, that the Congress could "by general laws RW>prescribe" that this ACT and RECORD is now covered. I am still trying to find out (from you) by what stretch of logic or reasoning Congress could act. The courts have said time and time again that a STATE licensing issue is without oversight of the Congress. I will go so far as to say that if Congress hired a construction company to build a nuclear plant within one of the several states and that state's licensing law had to be obeyed prior to construction and said (assigned) company FAILED to qualify, no construction would commence till such time as a qualified company acquired a STATE contractor's license. Even if that contractor was licensed to build such a plant in 2 other states and had previously done so, the first spade of earth would not be turned till the state issued a construction/contractor's license, as is their ABSOLUTE right. RW>The EFFECT of that coverage is that any state that RW>license it citizens to exercise their right to bare RW>concealed arms MUST honor the fact that another state RW>has qualified (the act) and license (the record) one of RW>it's citizens and thereby allow that citizen to carry RW>concealed in their state. Utter nonsense!!! A state like VT which has ZERO licensing is going head to head with a state like NY, which will only give a license to the rich/famous. Under your proposal, where every state has to be the same, we can all be a NYC where only the criminals have guns or Tombstone where anyone from anywhere can openly carry. When (and if) the states band together and pass a uniform law along with their sister states, as they have done for driver's licenses, will their ever be uniformity. BUT, if the USSC ever incorporates the 2nd amendment into the Bill of Rights, my statement will be for all intents and purposes a nullity. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. RW>To me it's simple. If a state trust it's citizens to RW>carry and passes laws to that effect and keeps records RW>then Art IV; Sec 1 gives the Congress the power to RW>place it under the FF&C and there should be nothing RW>wrong with them using it. I believe you may have something slightly backwards. That would depend on which state you are from. It has nothing to do with the "state trust(ing) it's citizens" but rather did the citizens sign away their rights to the legislature? To be armed for self-defense is a god-given right. And for a legislative body to interfere with such a paramount right, the state constitution has to be clear and unambiguous on the power of the legislature to "regulate" said right. And then they may only exercise such power as spelled out in whatever document giving them jurisdiction. Dick The IRS is the perfect example of non accountability. CMPQwk 1.42 84 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0GG * Origin: Doc's Place, All The Fido! (813) 827-9407 (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DC^00010 Date: 08/30/96 From: JOE DUFRESNE Time: 10:32pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Bye, for now Hi y'all. due to Circumstances beyond my control, I will be unable to continue to converse with y'all in this fashion. I may be able to return in a few months. If any of you wish to obtain my snail mail address, please contact me by private e-mail at Joe.Dufresne@sharecity.com ttyl, joe --- * Tag-X Pro v1.60 * Madness takes its toll, exact change please --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: The Privy Ledged BBS, Kearns, Utah (801) 966-6270 (1:311/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DD100000 Date: 08/31/96 From: DAN ECKERT Time: 12:50pm \/To: MAJORDOMO@POBOX.COM (Read 1 times) Subj: subscribe subscribe right2arms 30,DAN ;-) * 1st 2.00 #6899 * Women have all the answers, just ask one of them --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0484 * Origin: MicroData BBS * Spokane, WA * 509-482-2016 (1:346/30) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DD100001 Date: 08/30/96 From: DENNIS JENKINS Time: 08:22pm \/To: STEVE GUNHOUSE (Read 1 times) Subj: LIBERTARIAN? OR REPUBLIC DJ> I thought about it but I think I'll just go ahead and vote for Cli DJ> and make my vote count. He's even coming to town to start his bu DJ> tour and thumb his nose at Rush. SG>Is that for Clinton and for a Republican Congress (gridlock) or for SG>Clinton and a Democratic Congress (the fatalistic approach)? SG>As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't voting for a candidate you like SG>then your vote doesn't really count. You haven't made your preference SG>known, or you've even acted contrary to it. If your vote doesn't reflec SG>a real preference on your part, you haven't expressed *your* opinion. Gridlock would be good. I'll just try and do something with my vote that will count instead of writing some guy in that nobody has even heard of. Dennis Jenkins --- * PW * sorry no taglines * Origin: The STL CATII BBS (314-351-7150) (314-353-9441) (1:100/757) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DD100002 Date: 08/30/96 From: JOHN PERZ Time: 07:15pm \/To: DAN ARICO (Read 1 times) Subj: The Yammering Continues -> JP> I've basicly come to the conclusion that Guy, and maybe one or tw -> JP> others here, are card-carrying Libertarian Party activists who ar -> JP> out to "Get Votes For Harry" no matter what. -> I hope you're not trying to describe me in that statement. I've been -> trying to pursue this in a reasonable manner. Yes you have. It's only the ones who have been castigating anyone who want's to keep Clinton from being re-elected who have been unreasonable. I am certainly not saying that EVERYONE in this echo who is urging a vote for Browne is a Libertarian Party activist. Right now, a pro-2nd voter has two options: Send a message to the Republicans that you won't stand for being screwed over and taken for granted by voting for Harry Browne. OR Try to remove Clinton from the White House by voting for Bob Dole. Unfortunately, I see no realistic third option that will accomplish both of these worthwhile ends. It's an either/or scenario. I concede that EITHER of these options is a defensible choice for a pro-2nd voter to make. For myself, I **CANNOT** cast a vote that I **KNOW** in my heart will help re-elect Clinton. That leaves me no choice but to vote for Dole. I would now like to publicly THANK the Democrats for making their intentions clear at their convention in Chicago. I'm sure it's going to drive a lot of gunowners back to Dole! -> candidate and I don't really care whether you do or not. *You're* the -> one who has to be comfortable with voting for Dole. If you're not, -> maybe you need to think this through again. If you are, that's fine. -> Vote for him. And **You're** the one who has to be comfortable with a vote that will help send Clinton back for four more years. If you're not, maybe **YOU** need to think this through again. If you are, then go ahead and vote for Browne. -> Dole's still a schmuck. Yes he is. Regards John --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Hudson Valley BBS (1:2624/808.0)