9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

[ see end of article for address to send contribution to bring
this case to the Supreme Court ]

9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment

In a decision that annihilates the 2d Amendment, the federal
9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in _Hickman v. Block_
that a "plain reading" of the Second Amendment reveals that the
true intent of the Amendment was only to protect a right of the
states to maintain militias and not to protect an individual right.
The Lawyers' Sec-ond Amendment Society (LSAS) views the
decision as a very bad and very significant one that needs to be
appealed, and is now attempting to raise the $50,000 needed to
appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it is
attempting to get a rehearing en banc, by the full 9th Circuit
Court to review the opinion that was issued by a 3 judge panel.
LSAS noted that the opinion was fraught with factual errors that
reveal the poor scholarship of the judges who wrote it. For
example, LSAS pointed out footnote 10 of the opinion, where
the court stated "the Second Amendment is not incorporated
into the Bill of Rights." !!! (The first 10 amendments *are* the
Bill of Rights). Furthermore, in its discussion of the _US v.
Miller_ case, LSAS noted that "the Court in Hickman did not
carefully read _Miller_ because it erroneously stated Miller had
been convicted at trial, rather than acquitted, and that Miller,
rather than the U.S., was the appellant." LSAS feels the
time is ripe for a Second Amendment case to be brought before
the Supreme Court, which has been dodging the issue for many
years. It feels that Hickman is the case. In it's latest newsletter,
LSAS argued:

We actually have little to lose by appealing. As it is, Congress,
the courts, and most legislatures are already proceeding on the
assumption that the Second Amendment protects only a "state's
right." This is why we have some 20,000 gun control laws
nationwide, including the Brady law and the "assault weapon:
ban. If we lose, then we are merely back where we started;
namely, in the political arena where such national groups as the
NRA have proven so effective. . . . On the other hand, if we
win the benefits are myriad. In a nutshell, a win would cut off
gun control at the knees. . . .

The LSAS is soliciting donations for this effort of $5.00 per
person. Send checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund" to
18034 Ventura Blvd., #329, Encino, CA 91316.

LSAS email alerts can be obtained by writing LS...@aol.com.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

In article <4q6rnl$e...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, bitb...@nowhere.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
}[ see end of article for address to send contribution to bring
} this case to the Supreme Court ]
}
}9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment
}
} In a decision that annihilates the 2d Amendment, the federal
}9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in _Hickman v. Block_
}that a "plain reading" of the Second Amendment reveals that the
}true intent of the Amendment was only to protect a right of the
}states to maintain militias and not to protect an individual right.
}The Lawyers' Sec-ond Amendment Society (LSAS) views the
}decision as a very bad and very significant one that needs to be
}appealed, and is now attempting to raise the $50,000 needed to
}appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
}The LSAS is soliciting donations for this effort of $5.00 per
}person. Send checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund" to
}18034 Ventura Blvd., #329, Encino, CA 91316.

Where was this "LSAS" group when the Fresno ruling
was handed down, and why did they not make any effort
to appeal it?

Too late, now, of course - the filing deadline has expired....

(Indeed, where was the NRA through all this? Odd that they
should brag about how they "stand up for the 2d Amendment",
and yet do nothing as gun control laws are repeatedly affirmed
in court case after court case....)


Mitchell Holman

"The Second Amendment "applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms."
Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir 1971).

JadeGold

unread,
Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96
to

On Jun 18, 1996 18:15:17 in article <9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d

Amendment>, 'bitb...@nowhere.com (Lawrence Kennon)' wrote:


>9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment
>
>In a decision that annihilates the 2d Amendment, the federal
>9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in _Hickman v. Block_
>that a "plain reading" of the Second Amendment reveals that the
>true intent of the Amendment was only to protect a right of the
>states to maintain militias and not to protect an individual right.
>The Lawyers' Sec-ond Amendment Society (LSAS) views the
>decision as a very bad and very significant one that needs to be
>appealed, and is now attempting to raise the $50,000 needed to
>The LSAS is soliciting donations for this effort of $5.00 per
>person. Send checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund" to
>18034 Ventura Blvd., #329, Encino, CA 91316.
>
>LSAS email alerts can be obtained by writing LS...@aol.com.

Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this? $50,000? Heck, I'd bet Wayne
LaPierre spends more than $50,000 on greens fees in three months. The NRA
probably spends more than $50,000 on espresso and biscotti at their Waples
Mills offices in a month.


Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/21/96
to

In article <4q7213$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:

>Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this?

Previously:

Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:

>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>one of the armed services.

Heinrich Himmler said:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
serve the State."

/\
/ \
/ \
=====/======\=======
\ / \ /
\/ GUN \ /
/\ OWNER \/
/ \ /\
/ \ / \
====================
\ /
\ /
\/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Big O

unread,
Jun 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/21/96
to

Do note - the 9th Circuit Court has a very long record of having more of
its rulings overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court than any other Circuit
Court. Now that's a record no court should be proud of.

--
"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat

"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will."
Alexander Hamilton

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Frederic Bastiat

"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income
pie, decent government is impossible."
Friedrich A. Hayek

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jun 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/22/96
to

rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
>In article <4q7213$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
> Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:
>
>>Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this?
>
>Previously:
>
>Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
>
>>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>>one of the armed services.
>
>Heinrich Himmler said:
>
>"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>serve the State."
>
First of all, where did you get that quote?

And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.

I propose you post this in alt.veterans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocket-book often
groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
FDR

Food for thought at my web page: http://www.cs.com/gthaler


Big O

unread,
Jun 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/22/96
to

In article <4qhl2u$j...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
<gth...@cs.com> wrote:

=| rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
=| >In article <4q7213$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
=| > Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:
=| >
=| >>Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this?
=| >
=| >Previously:
=| >
=| >Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
=| >
=| >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
=| >>one of the armed services.
=| >
=| >Heinrich Himmler said:
=| >
=| >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
=| >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
=| >serve the State."
=| >
=| First of all, where did you get that quote?

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary
citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

-- Heinrich Himmler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA
and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the
above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his
weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
-- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a
sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the
overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or
police."
Hitler's Secret Conversations - 1941-1944
Farrar, Straus and Young - 1953
Pg. 345

and from the left-wing socialists

"Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms...unless this is
done, the victory of socialism is impossible."
V.I. Lenin

Gail -- mighty fine company you keep!

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/24/96
to

In article <johannp-2206...@news.aimnet.com>,

joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) wrote:

>"Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms...unless this is
>done, the victory of socialism is impossible."
> V.I. Lenin
>
>Gail -- mighty fine company you keep!

Yes indeed, Gail, "Buddy", JadeGold,and Holman are keeping "fine company",
the company of thugs and mass murderers. But then thugs are the blood
brothers of those on the left.

lk

Clayton_Cramer

unread,
Jun 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/24/96
to

Gail Thaler wrote:
>
> rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
> >In article <4q7213$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
> > Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:
> >
> >>Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this?
> >
> >Previously:

> >
> >Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
> >
> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
> >>one of the armed services.
> >
> >Heinrich Himmler said:
> >
> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
> >serve the State."
> >
> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>
> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.

He wasn't. He was pointing out that the "We love the state"
crowd believes that only the government should be armed -- like
a certain other political movement.

I remember just a few years ago when you couldn't be a real
liberal unless you called anyone to the right of George McGovern
a "fascist" or a "Nazi."

> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.

I propose that you post this in the 1960s.


> Food for thought at my web page: http://www.cs.com/gthaler

--
Clayton E. Cramer cra...@optilink.dsccc.com or cra...@sonoma.edu
Software engineer, historian, graduate student, husband and father. It's
amazing what you can do if you don't worship at the glass idol. My web page:
http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc/

Larry J. Elmore

unread,
Jun 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/24/96
to

On 22 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
> >>one of the armed services.
> >
> >Heinrich Himmler said:
> >
> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
> >serve the State."
> >
> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>
> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
>
> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.

What? Where in the world did he call the National Guard and US armed
forces Nazis? He was pointing out the extreme similarity between one
statement made recently, and one made 60 years ago by a Nazi. I _am_ a
veteran, and I find the original remark to be offensive, not the response
quoting Himmler (There's a lot more just like that from that time and
place...).

-- Larry J. Elmore, Sophomore, Computer Science, Montana State University --
-- gle...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu --
-- "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to --
-- prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from --
-- keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams --
-- "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may --
-- have a gun." -- Patrick Henry --
-- Sic pacem, para bellum. --


Francis A. Ney, Jr.

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

In article <4qhl2u$j...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> gth...@cs.com writes:

> >Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
> >
> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
> >>one of the armed services.
> >
> >Heinrich Himmler said:
> >
> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
> >serve the State."
> >
> First of all, where did you get that quote?

From a legitimate source, though the quote was not exact.

> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.

Where did he say this, please? Lying again, I see.

> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.

Who would agree with the sentiment. Oops.

This is SO EASY!

---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
"[E]lections amount to no more than choosing between the scum that floats to
the top of the barrel and the dregs that settle to the bottom."
- L. Neil Smith


Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

In article <znr835703793k@Digex>,

cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) wrote:

>> >Heinrich Himmler said:
>> >
>> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>> >serve the State."
>> >
>> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>
>From a legitimate source, though the quote was not exact.

You wouldn't have, or know where I coud get an exact quote?

Thanks,

Lawrence Kennon | replies to rke...@ix.netcom.com

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) wrote:
>In article <4qhl2u$j...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
><gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>=| rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
>=| >In article <4q7213$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>=| > Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:
>=| >
>=| >>Larry(s), why can't the NRA fund this?
>=| >
>=| >Previously:
>=| >
>=| >Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
>=| >
>=| >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>=| >>one of the armed services.
>=| >
>=| >Heinrich Himmler said:
>=| >
>=| >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>=| >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>=| >serve the State."
>=| >
>=| First of all, where did you get that quote?

>
>"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary
>citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
>-- Heinrich Himmler
>
Where did you get that quote?

>"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA
>and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
>campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the
>above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his
>weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
>-- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
>

Where did you get that quote?

>"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
>subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
>allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
>by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a
>sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the
>overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or
>police."
>Hitler's Secret Conversations - 1941-1944
>Farrar, Straus and Young - 1953
>Pg. 345
>

Ah. Hitler's Secret Conversations--

I didn't think we had subject races here; but I will check this
out. It would be nice to have an author's name.


>
and from the left-wing socialists
>

>"Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms...unless this is
>done, the victory of socialism is impossible."
> V.I. Lenin
>

Still no cite. Where and when did he say this.

>Gail -- mighty fine company you keep!
>

Seeing as I have not suggested taking guns away from anybody for
any reason, I don't know how you can say that. Well, I guess I
can. You seem to like putting words in people's mouths without
giving the source.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocket-book often
groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
FDR

JadeGold

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

On Jun 25, 1996 15:55:17 in article <Re: 9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d
Amendment>, 'rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon)' wrote:


>>> >Heinrich Himmler said:
>>> >
>>> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>>> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>>> >serve the State."
>>> >
>>> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>>
>>From a legitimate source, though the quote was not exact.
>
>You wouldn't have, or know where I coud get an exact quote?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lawrence Kennon | replies to rke...@ix.netcom.com
>

Sooooo, Larry(s). You only posted this "quote" multiple times, yet you did
not know if it was accurate or not? Gunlunacy hits a new low.

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

In article <4qpd34$d...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Jade...@usa.pipeline.com(JadeGold) wrote:

>Sooooo, Larry(s). You only posted this "quote" multiple times, yet you did
>not know if it was accurate or not? Gunlunacy hits a new low.

Jade, you are the one who believes that everything should serve the
state, that one should join the National Guard if one wishes to
be able to shoot firearms. At a philosophical level you would not
be in any disagreement with the likes of Heinrich Himmler who
believed that people existed to serve the state. You are kin.

lk


Francis A. Ney, Jr.

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

> In article <znr835703793k@Digex>,


> cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) wrote:
>
> >> >Heinrich Himmler said:
> >> >
> >> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
> >> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
> >> >serve the State."
> >> >
> >> First of all, where did you get that quote?
> >
> >From a legitimate source, though the quote was not exact.
>
> You wouldn't have, or know where I coud get an exact quote?
>
> Thanks,

By the time you get this, you should already have it. I saw the complete and
correct quote (among others) in the thread six hours ago.

Big O

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to
In article <4qpjvm$6...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
<gth...@cs.com> wrote:


=| Seeing as I have not suggested taking guns away from anybody for
=| any reason, I don't know how you can say that. Well, I guess I
=| can. You seem to like putting words in people's mouths without
=| giving the source.

Komrade Gail -- if Hitler and Lenin personally said it to your face with a
million witnesses in attendence you would still deny they said it.

Joe Sylvester

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
In article <4qs8ks$1...@news.mainelink.net>, aut...@mainelink.net says...
>
>Hi,
> Just a small fact for those who've been telling us that Hitler's
>Nazis and Stalin's government banned the possession of guns by their
>citizens.
> Try reading the German and Soviet statutes: neither prohibits the
>possession of firearms by their citizens.
> Incidentally, you really would *love* reading the debates among those
>who framed our Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to
>allow the states to maintain a militia. Why? Because the framers were
>adamantly opposed to the USA maintaining a standing army.
> But, of course, times do change.
> Ain't you just pleased as punch to know these facts? I expect, with
>your dedication to truth and the Constitutuon, that you'll give these
>facts wide dissemination whenever you're discussing gun laws.
> [Yeah, fat chance.]
> Jim
>
If this is the case, why did the Senate defeat a change to the second
amendment that would have added, "for the common defense" to the "right of the
people to keep and bear arms". Why would some of the proposed amendments,
which where distilled into the second amendment, contain references to "any
lawfull purpose" and one even contain the phrase "for ...hunting" while
another stat the right was to arms "for defense of themselves and the state".
?

If they'd meant the power of the states to maintin an armed militia, they
would have written that. Some of the proposed amendments had such language.
They were distilled into the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state"

--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
("Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>)
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !


keba...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
aut...@mainelink.net writes:

> Hi,
> Just a small fact for those who've been telling us that Hitler's
> Nazis and Stalin's government banned the possession of guns by their
> citizens.
> Try reading the German and Soviet statutes: neither prohibits the
> possession of firearms by their citizens.

Let's try reading them, shall we:

"Decree and Instructions

DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS

The Council of People's Commissars has resolved that:
1) All citizens and civil organizations should surrender machineguns,
rifles, revolvers of all kinds - whether working or defective - as well
as cartridges, and all models of sabres.
This decree applies to all organizations which posses the above mentioned
weapons, and which are not part of regular military detachments approved
by the People's Commissarat of Military Affairs or the Revolutionary
Military Council of the Republic.
NOTE: All certificates for keeping weapons are therefore invalidated. [...]"

Decree signed by V. Ulyanov (Lenin), et al. December 10th, 1918

"INSTRUCTION FOR THE DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS
ON THE SURRENDER OF WEAPONS
1) The Military Commissarats are ordered not to take rifles
and revolvers in the possession of members of the Russian Communist
Party [...]"

Signed by V. Ulyanov, et al. December 10th, 1918

"DECREE ON THE ISSUING, KEEPING AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS

To combat the illegal keeping of arms and the negligent and unskillful
use of them, the Council of People's Commissars resolved that:
S1. The keeping and use of firearms is only permitted to those
whose service-related firearms (Army, those attached to the Army,
militia, etc.), as well as to persons, to whom this right is given
under the resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars (Decree
of 10 December 1918, Decree on hunting, etc.) [...]"

Signed by V. Ulyanov (Lenin), et al. July 20th, 1920


"WEAPONS LAW
18 March 1938

The German Government has adopted the following law, which is
herewith promulgated:
[...]
SECTION IV. Acquistion, Carrying, Possession, and Importation
of Firearms and Ammunition
[...]
S 15.
(1) Firearms acquisition permits or firearms carry permits are
only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and only
if a demonstration of need is set forth.
(2) Issuance should not take place:
1. to persons under 18 years of age;
2. to persons under trusteeship and the mentally retarded;
3. to Gypsies, or to persons who are itenerant like Gypsies;
4. to persons under police supervision or known to have lost
their civil rights, for the duration of police supervision
or the loss of their civil rights.
5. to persons convicted of high treason, or against whom facts
are presented which give reason to suppose that they are
actively subversive;
6. to persons, who on account of: deliberate attacks on life
or health; public disorderly conduct or tresspassing;
resistance to government authority; an offense dangerous
to the public or misdemeanors; for a punishable offense
against property; a hunting or fishing offense legally
punishable by more than two weeks imprisonment, if three
years have not elapsed since the sentence was served. [...]

S19.
(1) Those to whom a firearm is supplied for official purposes
do not require a firearms acquistion permit or a firearms
carry permit:
1. Those in service of the central government, the states,
the Central Bank, the German Autobahnen Company;
2. Deputy leaders of the Nazi Party from Ortsgruppenfuhrer
upwards, the S.A., the SS, and the National Socialist
Motor Corps from Sturmfuhrer upwards, as well as Hitler
Youth from Bannfuhrer upwards, to whom the Fuhrer's
deputy - or those in specified positions to whom the
Law gives the right to carry firearms; further the
members of the S.A. Guard Regiment at the Feldherrnhalle,
and in cases authorized by the Fuhrer. [...]"

Waffengesetz of March 18th, 1938, _Reichgesetzblatt,_ Teil I.
pp.266-267, signed by Interior Minister Frick

"Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938

With a basis in S 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938, Article
III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of
13 March 1938, and S 9 of the Fuhrer and Reichschancellor's decree
on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October
1938 are the following ordered:

S 1.
Jews (S 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship
Law of 14 November 1935) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing,
and carryiong firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or
stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition
are to turn them over to the local police authority. [...]"

Signed by Interior Minister Frick, November 11th, 1938
published in _Reichgesetzblatt,_ Teil I., p.1571.


You were saying?

> [...]


> Ain't you just pleased as punch to know these facts? I expect, with
> your dedication to truth and the Constitutuon, that you'll give these
> facts wide dissemination whenever you're discussing gun laws.
> [Yeah, fat chance.]
> Jim

You can count on it.

--
**x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. The University Of Memphis
*(==) * <keba...@cc.memphis.edu> Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.
* \' * NRA/JPFO/ASM/GOP/U-U [Clinton Gone '96]
*(=)*** t.p.g.FAQ: http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq

"...[G]overnment being instituted for the common benefit,
the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power
and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of
the good and happiness of mankind."
--Tennessee State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

.._. .._ _._. _._ . _.._ ___ _.
46 75 63 6B 20 45 78 6F 6E 21

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to 4qs8k...@news.mainelink.net
In article <4qs8ks$1...@news.mainelink.net>, aut...@mainelink.net wrote:

> Incidentally, you really would *love* reading the debates among those
>who framed our Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to
>allow the states to maintain a militia.

I didn't notice any cites from the founders debates supporting your
position. I would guess that either you are a liar, or simply a
dupe of HCI propaganda. So, which is it?

lk

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
"Larry J. Elmore" <GLE...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
>> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>> >>one of the armed services.
>> >
>> >Heinrich Himmler said:
>> >
>> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>> >serve the State."
>> >
>> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>>
>> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
>> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
>>
>> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.
>
>What? Where in the world did he call the National Guard and US armed
>forces Nazis? He was pointing out the extreme similarity between one
>statement made recently, and one made 60 years ago by a Nazi. I _am_ a
>veteran, and I find the original remark to be offensive, not the response
>quoting Himmler (There's a lot more just like that from that time and
>place...).
>
Yes and the others were exposed as phonies. He is implying that
the National Guard and the other armed services in the U.S. are
capable of genocidal murder.

I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the
American people for any reason, never mind for setting up a fascist
state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
would go along with such a scheme.

This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment. JadeGold
and most citizens and most courts agree. If you and Larry find that
offensive, I am sorry. I don't know if he/she is actually proposing to
disarm everyone but for those people. If she is, I would suggest that
you find some way to argue with him/her without using a Nazi analogy.

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) wrote:
>
>In article <4qhl2u$j...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> gth...@cs.com writes:
>
>> >Jade...@usa.pipeline.com said:
>> >
>> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>> >>one of the armed services.
>> >
>> >Heinrich Himmler said:
>> >
>> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>> >serve the State."
>> >
>> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>
>From a legitimate source, though the quote was not exact.
>
Show me the exact quote with the legitimate source. I have asked
several times to no avail. There have been fake Hilter quotes before.
And I have several books on the Holocaust and find no trace of it.

>> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
>> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
>

>Where did he say this, please? Lying again, I see.
>

I am not lying. I made an inference. If he using a fake quote from a
Nazi to the effect that the only thing that stands between us and
a genocidal, fascist government and it's armed forces, than I would
like to know why. (also this thread is not about gun-grabbing; JadeGold
disagrees with his interpretation--he clipped the part of the post
that made that clear. So, I am suggesting he is editing the post to
cast aspersions, then backs it up with a quote he has never
substantiated)

>> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.
>

>Who would agree with the sentiment. Oops.
>
>This is SO EASY!
>

Not if they read the entire exchange as outlined above.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to


What a decision to make - supply sources for your argument, in which
case Kennon will accuse you of "appealing to authority", or *not* supply
them, and let him whne about how you don't *have* any authority......


Mitchell Holman


"Logical fallacy known as the argument from authority. Try again."
Larry Kennon, taking a break from posting federal code sections and
quotes from the founding fathers to tell us what he thinks of posters
who "argue from authority"....

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
In article <4qut3l$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:

> What a decision to make - supply sources for your argument, in which
> case Kennon will accuse you of "appealing to authority", or *not* supply
> them, and let him whne about how you don't *have* any authority......

The logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" is the claim that
A is true because B says it is so and B is an authority. One may
feel that something is more likely to be true because an authority
says it is, but logically that is irrelevant.

I have cited this fallacy several times. In all cases I have done so
when the poster seemed to be saying that something is true because
an authority says it is so.

I hope that helps you clear up your thinking on this matter.

lk

Mr. Jones

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
JadeGold wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 1996 12:38:05 in article <Re: Gunloon Proven Wrong! Vol. I No. 5
> was: Re: 9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment>, 'rke...@ix.netcom.com

> (Lawrence Kennon)' wrote:
>
>
> >>Sooooo, Larry(s). You only posted this "quote" multiple times, yet you
> did
> >>not know if it was accurate or not? Gunlunacy hits a new low.
> >
> >Jade, you are the one who believes that everything should serve the
> >state, that one should join the National Guard if one wishes to
> >be able to shoot firearms. At a philosophical level you would not
> >be in any disagreement with the likes of Heinrich Himmler who
> >believed that people existed to serve the state. You are kin.
>
> Thus, you admit deliberately making up quotes and falsely attributing them.
> Larry(s), keep up the good work; the NRA frequently employs public
> relations people to write Letters to the Editor using pseudonyms and phony
> titles.


This guy sounds like Clinton. He doesn't care how baseless the
accusation, just so long as some mud sticks.

Dude, no matter how hard I try to misconstrue what Kennon wrote,
I still don't see your point.

Tim

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
In article <4qut3l$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) writes:
>From: hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman)
>Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment: LOTSA LIES
>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 21:08:55 GMT

>In article <4qtt6u$i...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence


>Kennon) wrote:
>}In article <4qs8ks$1...@news.mainelink.net>, aut...@mainelink.net wrote:
>}
>}> Incidentally, you really would *love* reading the debates among those
>}>who framed our Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to
>}>allow the states to maintain a militia.
>}
>}I didn't notice any cites from the founders debates supporting your
>}position. I would guess that either you are a liar, or simply a
>}dupe of HCI propaganda. So, which is it?

> What a decision to make - supply sources for your argument, in which
> case Kennon will accuse you of "appealing to authority", or *not* supply
> them, and let him whne about how you don't *have* any authority......

Actually, the anti's set the rules of "appealing to authority" in
citing the appeals court cases. We just Trump 'em by appealing to the
ultimate authority, the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights and their
contemporaries.

Reminds me of a scene from "Annie Hall". While waiting in a theator
ticket line, a long-winded academic type is spouting forth about what
Marschall McLuhan really means. Woody Allen pulls the real Marschall
McLuhan out from behind a movie poster. McLuhan then tells the academic
type he has everything completely wrong. Loved it.

Piece,

Dr. P

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to
In article <4qs8ks$1...@news.mainelink.net>, <aut...@mainelink.net> wrote:
> Just a small fact for those who've been telling us that Hitler's
>Nazis and Stalin's government banned the possession of guns by their
>citizens.
> Try reading the German and Soviet statutes: neither prohibits the
>possession of firearms by their citizens.

You've read all the statutes of Nazi-era Germany and the former Soviet
Union? I'm impressed. Original language, or translation? Across the
entire scope of the history of these regimes, or at some specific
given time? In this day and age, unless you're a historian with a
special research interest in such things, that's quite an
accomplishment!

What a remarkable insight: regimes that routinely imprisoned and
executed persons for engaging in politically disruptive speech and
writings had no real problem with their ownership of firearms! This
changes my entire perspective, though I'll have to give it some more
thought. I just hope I'm not in for another disappointment like
the time I found out the USSR Constitution's protections of free
speech and assembly didn't have any real meaning in practice.

> Incidentally, you really would *love* reading the debates among
>those who framed our Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment

>was to allow the states to maintain a militia. Why? Because the
>framers were adamantly opposed to the USA maintaining a standing army.

Ahhhh. This clears it up. You don't have the same definition of the
word "reading" the rest of us do. I have "examined and grasped the
meaning of" the documents you adduce and they support no such
interpretation, except the "standing army" part. Anti-federalists and
federalists alike were united on the issue of private ownership of
firearms, however: they were very, very much in favor of it, and not
only in the context of the "militia."

> Ain't you just pleased as punch to know these facts? I expect, with
>your dedication to truth and the Constitutuon, that you'll give these
>facts wide dissemination whenever you're discussing gun laws.
> [Yeah, fat chance.]

I am always happy to disseminate facts in such debates when they are
at my disposal, and to incorporate new ones into my thinking when
appropriate. Perhaps you can specify the relevant portions of the
Framers' writings that led you to the conclusions you draw above, and
we can go from there.

[Yeah, fat chance.]
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Baldwin_n...@gifl.com

unread,
Jun 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/27/96
to

From: bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)


Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment: LOTSA LIES

In article <4qs8ks$1...@news.mainelink.net>, <aut...@mainelink.net> wrote:

--
|Fidonet: Bal...@netcom.Com 1:377/51.2
|Internet: Baldwin_n...@gifl.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.


Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services
>in the U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.

I am not implying. I am saying it. It is an established fact of
history that Americans, just like a lot of other peoples, are
quite _capable_ of genocide. Ever hear of Wounded Knee?

>I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the
>American people for any reason,

HCI and others of their ilk have said quite plainly that that
_is_ their goal.

>Or that any armed service member would go along with such a

>scheme [genocide].

In fact there are people in our armed services right now who
would do _just_ like German soldiers and "follow orders".
For me this is not theory. I have personally seen some service
members say exactly that, they would fire on American citizens
if ordered to do so. Period.

>I would suggest that you find some way to argue with him/her
>without using a Nazi analogy.

Why? It is absolutely apropos. JadeGold is saying exactly the
same thing that Nazis said years ago, the only legitimate
"bearing of arms" is in defense of the state. JadeGold is
profoundly a statist, a collectivist, and ultimately
the philosophical blood brother of murderers.

Did you know that Heinrich Himmler found it difficult to
view the "camps". It did upset him. But he had his ideal
to follow. The JadeGolds of this world may not want to create
a world where "camps" become possibilities, but reality is
what it is, and what they stand for is exactly what makes
"camps" possible.

lk

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4qus6q$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>>> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
>>> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
>>
>>Where did he say this, please? Lying again, I see.
>>
>I am not lying. I made an inference.

An extremely stupid inference. A classic case of not being
able to see the forest for the trees. Is this what passes
for being educated these days?

The Himmler quote, and a quote that was given to me by a Jewish
friend in the gun rights movement (and as far as I know it is
valid), went:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
serve the State."

Says one thing, and one thing only -- one can have and use
firearms _only_ in the service of the state.

JadeGold's quote:

"Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
one of the armed services."

Says exactly the same thing. That is why I say that at heart
JadeGold is a statist and a collectivist.

>If he using a fake quote from a
>Nazi to the effect that the only thing that stands between us and
>a genocidal, fascist government and it's armed forces,

No, I am saying that the one thing that protects us against a
fascist (totalitarian) government and it's army is an armed
populace. That is exactly what the founders thought, said, and
wrote time and time again. That is what the 2nd Amendment is
about and that is another example of the anti-gunloons not being
able to see the forest for the trees.

lk


Larry J. Elmore

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
On 27 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
> Yes and the others were exposed as phonies. He is implying that

> the National Guard and the other armed services in the U.S. are
> capable of genocidal murder.

No, he wasn't, and I still can't understand how you read that into his
response. Your suggestion that if someone wants to shoot guns, they ought
to join the National Guard or Army, sounds _exactly_ like Himmler's
similar suggestion. What he is saying, since analogy is apparently beyond
you, is that there was another time and place where one had to join a
military or paramilitary organization to shoot firearms. A time and place
we have great reason to abhor.

> I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the

> American people for any reason, never mind for setting up a fascist

> state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
> would go along with such a scheme.

I suppose you missed Diane Feinstein's "60 Minutes" interview? Or never
listened to Charles Schumer? There's more than a few others that have
expressed that very wish. You yourself, in fact. "If you wish to shoot
firearms, join the NAtional Guard or Army."

> This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment. JadeGold
> and most citizens and most courts agree. If you and Larry find that
> offensive, I am sorry. I don't know if he/she is actually proposing to

> disarm everyone but for those people. If she is, I would suggest that


> you find some way to argue with him/her without using a Nazi analogy.

If you want to know the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try reading both
the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, as well as the debates about
the constitution. Then you will know what the framers _intended_,
regardless of what modern judges with agendas more pressing than their
constitutional duties might say. One hardly needs to be a lawyer to know
what the framers meant, and that is exactly what they intended when they
wrote it.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4r0i33$k...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:

}
}In fact there are people in our armed services right now who
}would do _just_ like German soldiers and "follow orders".
}For me this is not theory. I have personally seen some service
}members say exactly that, they would fire on American citizens
}if ordered to do so. Period.

What is wrong with that? Would you expect National Guardsmen
(or regular Army) to quell a domestic riot and *not* be prepared to
"fire on American citizens"?

Mitchell Holman

"In the final analysis it doesn't matter what the courts think."
Larry Kennon, showing how he deals with rulings he doesn't like.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <pproctor.17...@sam.neosoft.com>, ppro...@sam.neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor) wrote:

}
} Actually, the anti's set the rules of "appealing to authority" in
}citing the appeals court cases. We just Trump 'em by appealing to the
}ultimate authority, the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights and their
}contemporaries.
}

Then why do you constantly cite the Miller case?

Mitchell Holman

"As far as I know this is an absolutely valid quote. However I will attempt to get a
correct attribution."
Larry Kennon, displaying his "post-it-first, worry-about-whether-it-is-correct-later"
style of argument....

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4quv3b$1...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
}In article <4qut3l$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
} hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}
}> What a decision to make - supply sources for your argument, in which
}> case Kennon will accuse you of "appealing to authority", or *not* supply
}> them, and let him whne about how you don't *have* any authority......
}
}The logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" is the claim that
}A is true because B says it is so and B is an authority. One may
}feel that something is more likely to be true because an authority
}says it is, but logically that is irrelevant.
}
}I have cited this fallacy several times. In all cases I have done so
}when the poster seemed to be saying that something is true because
}an authority says it is so.


Does this mean you will not be posting anymore conclusions
from Dr. Suter, Prof. Kleck, and the other "authorities" that you
use to buttess your position?


Mitchell Holman

" People should be only allowed to have the hand grenades and claymores they
are issued for militia service and one person on each block should be issued
an M-60 with appropriate ammunition."
Larry Kennon, agreeing that government should limit civilian gun ownership.

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4r13n5$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:

> What is wrong with that? Would you expect National Guardsmen
> (or regular Army) to quell a domestic riot and *not* be prepared to
> "fire on American citizens"?

Any National Guardsmen or regular Army who fire on citizens because
they won't surrender their firearms for an illegal seizure will
be treated just like the Nazi war criminals were treated at
Nuremberg.

lk

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
In article <4r149v$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:

> Does this mean you will not be posting anymore conclusions
> from Dr. Suter, Prof. Kleck, and the other "authorities" that you
> use to buttess your position?

Sutre, Kleck, et al _argue_ for their conclusions. They do not say
"believe me because I am an authority". I understand that Kellerman
won't release the primary data on at least some of his studies.

lk

Nosy

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
<In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:
< "Larry J. Elmore" <GLE...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
< >On 22 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
< >> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
< >> >>one of the armed services.
< >> >
< >> >Heinrich Himmler said:
< >> >
< >> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
< >> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
< >> >serve the State."
< >> >
< >> First of all, where did you get that quote?
< >>
< >> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
< >> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
< >>
< >> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.
< >
< >What? Where in the world did he call the National Guard and US armed
< >forces Nazis? He was pointing out the extreme similarity between one
< >statement made recently, and one made 60 years ago by a Nazi. I _am_ a
< >veteran, and I find the original remark to be offensive, not the response
< >quoting Himmler (There's a lot more just like that from that time and
< >place...).

< Yes and the others were exposed as phonies.

Were they? Where and when?

<He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services in the
< U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.

No, he's not.

< I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the
< American people for any reason,

Really? Why does Thaler believe that Major Owens introduced
a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

What does Thaler think is the ultimate objective of "Brady II"
with its expensive licenses and requirements that persons
submit to *in home* inspections by Federal agents, please?

Thaler's previously shown a remarkable lack of knowledge
about firearms issues.

I'm surprised she learned nothing at all from the last
time she posted to tpg.

<never mind for setting up a fascist
< state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
< would go along with such a scheme.

< This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Yes, it is. Too ban that Thaler and others are trying
to drag diverse red herrings into it.


Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
In article <4r1ie7$1...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
}In article <4r13n5$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,

} hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}
}> What is wrong with that? Would you expect National Guardsmen
}> (or regular Army) to quell a domestic riot and *not* be prepared to
}> "fire on American citizens"?
}
}Any National Guardsmen or regular Army who fire on citizens because
}they won't surrender their firearms for an illegal seizure will
}be treated just like the Nazi war criminals were treated at
}Nuremberg.

How many National Guardsmen are sufficiently trained in the
finer points of probable cause and constitutional history to presume
the law they are enforcing is "illegal" or not? Since *you* cannot
predict whether a search warrant will be upheld or not, why should
they?

And who determines the illegality of a search, except the federal
courts you have so much contempt for.........

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
In article <4r1ihs$1...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
}In article <4r149v$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,

} hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}
}> Does this mean you will not be posting anymore conclusions
}> from Dr. Suter, Prof. Kleck, and the other "authorities" that you
}> use to buttess your position?
}
}Sutre, Kleck, et al _argue_ for their conclusions. They do not say
}"believe me because I am an authority".

If you are not trying to impress us with their status as figures
of authority and thus bolster their credibility, why do you spend
so much time posting their credentials?

Do you think we really *care* that Dr. Suter is the self-appointed
"National Chair" of his one-man "Doctors for Integrity in Public Policy
Research"? Or how many awards Prof. Kleck has won, or how
Roy Copperund is an "esteemed scholar"?

If anyone is posting "appeals to authority", it is you.........

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> How many National Guardsmen are sufficiently trained in the
> finer points of probable cause and constitutional history to presume
> the law they are enforcing is "illegal" or not?

How many "lobsterbacks" were "sufficiently trained" in the "rights of
man" at Lexington and Concord? They got taught.

lk

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to


Wow. First you equate National Guardsmen to Nazis, and now
to the American Revolutionaries.

*Do* let us know when you make up your mind(s), won't you?

Mitchell Holman

"Discrimination against _anyone_ for any reason in private affairs _should_ be legal."
Larry Kennon, showing his wealth of experience as a victim of discrimintion...

Enturbulated

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
In <johannp-2606...@news.aimnet.com>, joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) writes:
>In article <4qpjvm$6...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler

><gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>=| Seeing as I have not suggested taking guns away from anybody for
>=| any reason, I don't know how you can say that. Well, I guess I
>=| can. You seem to like putting words in people's mouths without
>=| giving the source.
>
>Komrade Gail -- if Hitler and Lenin personally said it to your face with a
>million witnesses in attendence you would still deny they said it.

Why the needless ad hominem when Gail seems to be asking for a source ?

Regards

Pim


---Annoy a fool, ask him to back up his beliefs with facts---
"An enemy may be deprived of property, lied to, tricked, sued
or destroyed by any means" L Ron Hubbard--Fair Game Policy,
"If guns are outlawed, how can we shoot liberals?"
Mississippi State Senator Mike Gunn running for Congress


Lawrence Kennon

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <31D552...@ix.netcom.com>, Lawrence Kennon <rke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> }Mitchell Holman wrote:
> }>
> }> How many National Guardsmen are sufficiently trained in the
> }> finer points of probable cause and constitutional history to presume
> }> the law they are enforcing is "illegal" or not?
> }
> }How many "lobsterbacks" were "sufficiently trained" in the "rights of
> }man" at Lexington and Concord? They got taught.
>
>Wow. First you equate National Guardsmen to Nazis, and now
>to the American Revolutionaries.

Mitchell,
You know very well that I did not "equate National Guardsmen to Nazis".
I most certainly didn't equate the National Guards with "American
Revolutionaries". If anything just the opposite on that last.
I would have at least believed you were honestly confused if you
had accused me of equating the National Guard to "lobsterbacks"
(assuming of course that you actually know what that term refers
to).

I at first thought that people like you and Gail were reasonably
intelligent even if you are on the wrong side. But Gail first
missed the entire point and similiarly accused me of comparing the
National Guard to Nazis. Now you think I am comparing the National
Guard with American revolutionaries? I may have been mistaken when
I first assumed you and Gail at least were perceptive.

lk

Big O

unread,
Jun 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/30/96
to

In article <DtsAE...@eskimo.com>, ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:

=| In <johannp-2606...@news.aimnet.com>, joh...@aimnet.com (Big
O ) writes:
=| >In article <4qpjvm$6...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
=| ><gth...@cs.com> wrote:
=| >
=| >
=| >=| Seeing as I have not suggested taking guns away from anybody for
=| >=| any reason, I don't know how you can say that. Well, I guess I
=| >=| can. You seem to like putting words in people's mouths without
=| >=| giving the source.
=| >
=| >Komrade Gail -- if Hitler and Lenin personally said it to your face with a
=| >million witnesses in attendence you would still deny they said it.
=|
=| Why the needless ad hominem when Gail seems to be asking for a source ?

You want sources?

Start with the JPFO.
(They now have a web site: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html)

Start with the books _Lethal Laws_ and _"Gun Control": The Gateway to Tyranny_.

--
"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat

"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will."
Alexander Hamilton

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Frederic Bastiat

"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income
pie, decent government is impossible."
Friedrich A. Hayek

Rkennon_ix...@gifl.com

unread,
Jun 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/30/96
to

From: Lawrence Kennon <rke...@ix.netcom.com>


Subject: Re: 9th Circuit Court Trashes 2d Amendment

Mitchell Holman wrote:

lk
--
|Fidonet: Rke...@ix.Netcom.Com 1:377/51.2
|Internet: Rkennon_ix...@gifl.com

David L Evens

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Mitchell Holman (hol...@cyberramp.net) wrote:

: In article <4r1ihs$1...@news.mpd.tandem.com>, rke...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
: }In article <4r149v$o...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
: } hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
: }
: }> Does this mean you will not be posting anymore conclusions
: }> from Dr. Suter, Prof. Kleck, and the other "authorities" that you
: }> use to buttess your position?
: }
: }Sutre, Kleck, et al _argue_ for their conclusions. They do not say
: }"believe me because I am an authority".

: If you are not trying to impress us with their status as figures
: of authority and thus bolster their credibility, why do you spend
: so much time posting their credentials?

Because you keep demanding that only people with credentials are
believable. Of course, we all know you reallly mean only those with
credentials who happen to agree with you that murder is a good thing.

: Do you think we really *care* that Dr. Suter is the self-appointed

: "National Chair" of his one-man "Doctors for Integrity in Public Policy
: Research"? Or how many awards Prof. Kleck has won, or how
: Roy Copperund is an "esteemed scholar"?

Of course you don't care, you only care when the authority agress that
murder (especially government-supporter mass murder) is a good thing.

: If anyone is posting "appeals to authority", it is you.........

Then why do you use them to the exclussion of evidence?

--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

"Larry J. Elmore" <GLE...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>On 27 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
>> Yes and the others were exposed as phonies. He is implying that

>> the National Guard and the other armed services in the U.S. are
>> capable of genocidal murder.
>
>No, he wasn't, and I still can't understand how you read that into his
>response. Your suggestion that if someone wants to shoot guns, they ought
>to join the National Guard or Army, sounds _exactly_ like Himmler's
>similar suggestion. What he is saying, since analogy is apparently beyond
>you, is that there was another time and place where one had to join a
>military or paramilitary organization to shoot firearms. A time and place
>we have great reason to abhor.
>
No one has cited a source for the Himmler quote. And Larry(s) have
posted:

In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services
>in the U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.

I am not implying. I am saying it. It is an established fact of


history that Americans, just like a lot of other peoples, are
quite _capable_ of genocide. Ever hear of Wounded Knee?

>> I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the

>> American people for any reason, never mind for setting up a fascist


>> state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
>> would go along with such a scheme.
>

>I suppose you missed Diane Feinstein's "60 Minutes" interview? Or never
>listened to Charles Schumer? There's more than a few others that have
>expressed that very wish. You yourself, in fact. "If you wish to shoot
>firearms, join the NAtional Guard or Army."
>

I did not say that. You may have a problem reading attributions. I have
heard Senator Feinstein rue that guns existed (because she catapulted to
Mayor of San Francisco through the gun murders of Harvey Milk and
George Moscone by a fellow supervisor--she discovered the bodies) in
a "if wishes were horses" statement. And Schumer backs banning of
hand guns. But I never saw a statement that they support the use of
the National Guard to disarm Americans.

>> This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment. JadeGold
>> and most citizens and most courts agree. If you and Larry find that
>> offensive, I am sorry. I don't know if he/she is actually proposing to
>> disarm everyone but for those people. If she is, I would suggest that
>> you find some way to argue with him/her without using a Nazi analogy.
>
>If you want to know the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, try reading both
>the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, as well as the debates about
>the constitution. Then you will know what the framers _intended_,
>regardless of what modern judges with agendas more pressing than their
>constitutional duties might say. One hardly needs to be a lawyer to know
>what the framers meant, and that is exactly what they intended when they
>wrote it.
>

It would help your cause if you resisted Nazi analalogies and using
the n word. (Larry and Peter Proctor, respectively)

>-- Larry J. Elmore, Sophomore, Computer Science, Montana State University --
>-- gle...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu --
>-- "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to --
>-- prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from --
>-- keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams --
>-- "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may --
>-- have a gun." -- Patrick Henry --
>-- Sic pacem, para bellum. --
>

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) wrote:
>In article <DtsAE...@eskimo.com>, ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) wrote:
>
>=| In <johannp-2606...@news.aimnet.com>, joh...@aimnet.com (Big
>O ) writes:
>=| >In article <4qpjvm$6...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
>=| ><gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>=| >
>=| >
>=| >=| Seeing as I have not suggested taking guns away from anybody for
>=| >=| any reason, I don't know how you can say that. Well, I guess I
>=| >=| can. You seem to like putting words in people's mouths without
>=| >=| giving the source.
>=| >
>=| >Komrade Gail -- if Hitler and Lenin personally said it to your face with a
>=| >million witnesses in attendence you would still deny they said it.
>=|
>=| Why the needless ad hominem when Gail seems to be asking for a source ?
>
>You want sources?
>
>Start with the JPFO.
>(They now have a web site: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html)
>
Ah, yes. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms.

>Start with the books _Lethal Laws_ and _"Gun Control": The Gateway to Tyranny_.
>

Both published by the JPFO. Wouldn't a real publisher want to provide
the public with this information, if it were true?

You're pretty gullible, Big O.

>"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>
>
>"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
>made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
>liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
>make laws in the first place."
> Frederic Bastiat
>
>"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will."
> Alexander Hamilton
>
>"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone
>seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
> Frederic Bastiat
>
>"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income
>pie, decent government is impossible."
> Friedrich A. Hayek

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Don't you even remember what you write, Larry(s)?

In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services
>in the U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.

I am not implying. I am saying it. It is an established fact of
history that Americans, just like a lot of other peoples, are
quite _capable_ of genocide. Ever hear of Wounded Knee?

Gail Thaler

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

ata...@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wrote:
><In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:
>< "Larry J. Elmore" <GLE...@trex2.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>< >On 22 Jun 1996, Gail Thaler wrote:
>< >> >>Respect the second amendment? Then join the National Guard or
>< >> >>one of the armed services.
>< >> >
>< >> >Heinrich Himmler said:
>< >> >
>< >> >"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
>< >> >ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
>< >> >serve the State."
>< >> >
>< >> First of all, where did you get that quote?
>< >>
>< >> And I find it offensive in the extreme that you would call the
>< >> National Guard and our Armed Forces NAZIS.
>< >>
>< >> I propose you post this in alt.veterans.
>< >
>< >What? Where in the world did he call the National Guard and US armed
>< >forces Nazis? He was pointing out the extreme similarity between one
>< >statement made recently, and one made 60 years ago by a Nazi. I _am_ a
>< >veteran, and I find the original remark to be offensive, not the response
>< >quoting Himmler (There's a lot more just like that from that time and
>< >place...).
>
>< Yes and the others were exposed as phonies.
>
> Were they? Where and when?
>
Surely you know by now the fake Hitler quote, the fake George Washington
quote and the fake Freud quote? Even Larry knows about them.

><He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services in the
>< U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.
>

> No, he's not.


>
In article <4qurr3$7...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>He is implying that the National Guard and the other armed services
>in the U.S. are capable of genocidal murder.

I am not implying. I am saying it. It is an established fact of
history that Americans, just like a lot of other peoples, are
quite _capable_ of genocide. Ever hear of Wounded Knee?

>< I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the
>< American people for any reason,
>

> Really? Why does Thaler believe that Major Owens introduced
> a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
>
> What does Thaler think is the ultimate objective of "Brady II"
> with its expensive licenses and requirements that persons
> submit to *in home* inspections by Federal agents, please?
>
> Thaler's previously shown a remarkable lack of knowledge
> about firearms issues.
>
> I'm surprised she learned nothing at all from the last
> time she posted to tpg.
>

><never mind for setting up a fascist


>< state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
>< would go along with such a scheme.
>

>< This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment.
>

> Yes, it is. Too ban that Thaler and others are trying
> to drag diverse red herrings into it.
>

I didn't bring in the Himmler quote.

Watch out for those black helicopters.

Rick Fisk

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Gail thinks that self publishers aren't real publishers.

> You're pretty gullible, Big O.

And just exactly what do you think that the JPFO says is
wrong?

>
> >"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocket-book often
> groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
> FDR
>
> Food for thought at my web page: http://www.cs.com/gthaler

--

Rick Fisk
Rash Behavior
http://www.rash.com
gui...@rash.com

"You know damned well what me mean by 'house nigger' and how we are using
it. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you are really dumber than a rotted tree
stump." ---Buddy KKK 1996/05/05
Message-Id: <4mj0t2$2...@portal.gmu.edu>

Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:

>I do not believe that anyone seriously considers disarming the

>American people for any reason, never mind for setting up a fascist


>state that would commit genocide. Or that any armed service member
>would go along with such a scheme.
>

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United
States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them...
'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.
I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA),
"60 Minutes," February 5, 1995


>This thread is about the meaning of the Second Amendment. JadeGold
>and most citizens and most courts agree. If you and Larry find that
>offensive, I am sorry. I don't know if he/she is actually proposing to
>disarm everyone but for those people. If she is, I would suggest that
>you find some way to argue with him/her without using a Nazi analogy.
>

I suggest you get a copy of "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" by
Prof. Sanford Levinson. Prof. Levinson is in the liberals "approved"
list. Which makes his article which appeared in the Yale Law
Journal, Vol 99, pp637-659.

Sam A. Kersh
sa...@i-link.net
===============================================================
If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.

Note: in off-seasons, substitute "fishing" for "hunting"

Bert Hyman

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <4r8h0j$q...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>Both published by the JPFO. Wouldn't a real publisher want to provide
>the public with this information, if it were true?
>
Then, of course, all those books about alien abductions published by "real"
publishers are true? They're just operating a selfless public service
to print the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything?

>You're pretty gullible, Big O.
>

Hah!
--
The opinions expressed here are the opinions of the author and do not
represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions.

Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN be...@winternet.com

rafe b.

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <31D810...@rash.com>, gui...@rash.com
[Rick Fisk] says...

>And just exactly what do you think that the JPFO says is
>wrong?


For starters, Rick, JPFO wholeheartely endorsed Larry
Pratt, head of GOA, and formerly a campaign officer
for Pat Buchanan, as a "righteous Gentile."

Unfortuntely, Pratt not long ago shared a podium in
Bronson, Colorado, with a bunch of Christian Identity
dirtbags, including Pete Peters, the baddest CI
dirtbag of them all, and Bo Gritz, formerly with
David Duke.

Secondly, JPFO resorts to printing their ads in
"The Washington Times" -- an ultra-reactionary
newspaper owned and operated by Sun Myung Moon
and the Unification Church (aka the Moonies.)
Why is that, Rick?

Then, of course, there's the JPFO-JBS connection.
Sounds to me like the JBS is trying to "gain some
respectability" with that one.

JPFO keeps some strange company, I'd say...

Can you demonstrate any "mainstream" Jewish support
for JPFO? And given that they are a militant pro-
gun lobbying organization, why does JPFO enjoy
tax-exempt status, BTW?

rafe b.


keba...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:

> joh...@aimnet.net wrote:
> [...]
>>Start with the books _Lethal Laws_ and _"Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny_.


>
> Both published by the JPFO. Wouldn't a real publisher want to provide
> the public with this information, if it were true?
>

> You're pretty gullible, Big O.

JPFO always cites their sources so that skeptics can follow up
on their scholarship. In "Lethal Laws," for instance, they cite
the official law books of the countries where genocides have
resulted in the deaths of 56 million people during this century,
documenting the 'gun control' laws which helped make those
millions of government-caused murders possible. They provide
facsimile copies of the laws in their original languages, and
a side-by-side translation.

You don't have to take JPFO's word for it, you can check the
facts for yourself in the primary sources. What's more gullible,
checking the facts in the original sources, or believing the lies
produced by the anti-gun activists who don't cite their sources?

--
**x*dna Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. The University Of Memphis
*(==) * <keba...@cc.memphis.edu> Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.
* \' * NRA/JPFO/ASM/GOP/U-U [Clinton Gone '96]
*(=)*** t.p.g.FAQ: http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq

"...[G]overnment being instituted for the common benefit,
the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power
and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of
the good and happiness of mankind."
--Tennessee State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

.._. .._ _._. _._ . _.._ ___ _.
46 75 63 6B 20 45 78 6F 6E 21

Francis A. Ney, Jr.

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <4r9dc7$a...@thumper.cis.varian.com> ra...@tiac.net writes:

> >And just exactly what do you think that the JPFO says is
> >wrong?
>
> For starters, Rick, JPFO wholeheartely endorsed Larry
> Pratt, head of GOA, and formerly a campaign officer
> for Pat Buchanan, as a "righteous Gentile."

Translation: if you're pro-2ndAm, you can't be a "righteous Gentile."

> Unfortuntely, Pratt not long ago shared a podium in
> Bronson, Colorado, with a bunch of Christian Identity
> dirtbags, including Pete Peters, the baddest CI
> dirtbag of them all, and Bo Gritz, formerly with
> David Duke.

"Guilt by association" is the rule in the court of Rafe.

> Secondly, JPFO resorts to printing their ads in
> "The Washington Times" -- an ultra-reactionary
> newspaper owned and operated by Sun Myung Moon
> and the Unification Church (aka the Moonies.)
> Why is that, Rick?

Perhaps because the Washington Post won't publish a pro-gun ad if you paid
triple rates. First amendment only belongs to them which own the printing
presses, don't you know...

> Then, of course, there's the JPFO-JBS connection.
> Sounds to me like the JBS is trying to "gain some
> respectability" with that one.

JPB is pro-gun, JPFO is pro-gun. Now if the JBS would just drop the jewish
conspiracy BS...

> JPFO keeps some strange company, I'd say...

I could say the same thing about sharing the newsgroup with you, Rafe. You're
as strange as they come. Pure squirrel food.

And of course, everything coming from the talking heads at ADL and SPLC are
gospel, even when they are proven to be lies.

I think the words we're looking for here are 'double standard' and
'hypocrite.'

---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
"[E]lections amount to no more than choosing between the scum that floats to
the top of the barrel and the dregs that settle to the bottom."
- L. Neil Smith


Rick Fisk

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

rafe b. wrote:
>
> In article <31D810...@rash.com>, gui...@rash.com
> [Rick Fisk] says...
>
> >And just exactly what do you think that the JPFO says is
> >wrong?
>
> For starters, Rick, JPFO wholeheartely endorsed Larry
> Pratt, head of GOA, and formerly a campaign officer
> for Pat Buchanan, as a "righteous Gentile."

And what about this is wrong? That he heads another
pro gun organization?

I know that the Press tried to insinuate he had some
aryan nation ties or some such thing. You will provide
us with the reason Pratt is not a "righteous gentile" won't you?

>
> Unfortuntely, Pratt not long ago shared a podium in
> Bronson, Colorado, with a bunch of Christian Identity
> dirtbags, including Pete Peters, the baddest CI
> dirtbag of them all, and Bo Gritz, formerly with
> David Duke.

Hmm. This is wrong? To speak on behalf of his
organization. I guess that makes the ACLU eveil as well eh?

>
> Secondly, JPFO resorts to printing their ads in
> "The Washington Times" -- an ultra-reactionary
> newspaper owned and operated by Sun Myung Moon
> and the Unification Church (aka the Moonies.)
> Why is that, Rick?

Maybe because the New York times and other papers
won't print their ads? The NRA has trouble finding
papers to accept their buisness as well.

You tell me what that means rafe.

>
> Then, of course, there's the JPFO-JBS connection.
> Sounds to me like the JBS is trying to "gain some
> respectability" with that one.
>

> JPFO keeps some strange company, I'd say..

So does the ACLU. So do you. Kennemur BuddyK
Rack Jite. And you complain when we call you a shill for
NAzi's and racists.....feh

>
> Can you demonstrate any "mainstream" Jewish support
> for JPFO? And given that they are a militant pro-
> gun lobbying organization, why does JPFO enjoy
> tax-exempt status, BTW?

Rafe Lies. The JFPO isn't a lobby. What a dolt.

Please show us where the JPFO is a lobby. You should
be able to do this...public record and all that.

Pesky details and facts..Rafe can't seem to deal with those.
>
> rafe b.