HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: I'm sorry for confusing Bartz with Betz
Date: 9 Jan 1993 13:55:07 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


I give my sincere apologies to Chris Bartz for libeling him by confusing
him with Andrew Betz.  It was Mr. Betz and and not Mr. Bartz who
replied to my posting and said:

>the flag-burning issue is tripe, but if you can bring down opponents
>of gun rights using tripe, then they decided it was worth it.

and which I characterized as:

>...defends the NRA on the grounds that when it shot down
>what's-his-name in Colorado (sorry, I forget who Neal Knox said it
>was) by ragging on his vote to protect flag burning, it wasn't
>sincere, it was cynically exploiting an issue that it doesn't care
>about.

I think this is an accurate characterization, except that Mr. Betz may
only have been giving an assessment of the NRA's actions and not a
defense.  However, to avoid further confusion, and especially to avoid
claims of personal libel, here is the original and my paraphrasing,
whose accuracy any interested reader can vouch or dispute.

I apologize again for confusing these two people.  I think my error
is understandable as regards the last names, but I admit that
the first names have nothing in common except that they are
both traditional Christian names.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
From: anon.452@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: *** A M E N D M E N T  has only two M's ***
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:06:07 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.452@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


Repeat after me:

"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.
"Amendment" has only two M's.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)    anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au   (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias)  anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au    (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)      anon.post.g@pax.tpa.com.au (post to g)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au          anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Left/Right
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:35:53 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <viking.726556946@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Speaking in more general terms, did anyone read the Random Shots article in
>>this month's Handguns magazine?  He makes a point that I have been hoping
>>to see in gun magazines:  that it may be a cause for concern that many
>>people in the pro-gun movement make it part of the hard right political
>>package.  While there's a great deal of merit to many conservative
>>positions, my feeling is that the GOP had better lose its far right
>>contingent, if it wishes to succeed in future elections...
>
>	Lose the far-right?  Wouldn't do any harm to the GOP, that's for
>certain.  However, pro-gun is seen as a right-wing stance only because
>the left-wing stance has never been for it, traditionally.  The left wing
>tends to harp on the other amendments, but discard the 2nd.  Thus, the
>Democrats are somewhat left of center and are hardly pro-gun, while the
>Republicans are somewhat right of center and are generally pro-gun.
>That they do or do not adopt the positions in their platforms is to be
>expected.  How that affects the views on gun ownership?

I agree with you, that that has been the case up until now.  What I'd like
to see is the Democrats losing some of their more foolish positions (e.g.,
anti-gun, opposing capital punishment for even the most violent criminals)
and the GOP losing some of its farthest-right positions.  We seem to agree
that both parties have their share of twisted views...

>	I dunno, but I've never been afraid of some rich Republican
>stopping his Mercedes, placing the car phone on hold, and stepping
>out with a gun.  Now Senator Kennedy, there's a man I wouldn't want
                                                 ^^^
>holding a gun, let alone driving a car!  (alright, that was uncalled for.)

No argument there; my only point of contention is your abuse of the word
"man".  I'm not sure WHAT he is but he isn't a man...

>	More in line, however, is the GOP getting tough with the
>criminals by placing them in jail and mandating harsher sentences
>for the pot smoker, and the Democrats getting tough by doing the same
>to the weapon used.  Both tend to ignore the self-defense aspect.

Personally, I'm against having pot be illegal AND most current gun laws.

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Criminal rehabilitation? Hah!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:10:02 GMT

speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:

>G'day Dan,

	G'day yourself!

>>        Ar the risk of being cheeky, it's the USA version of Austrailia
>>to the Brits of over a century ago.  Look how both turned out.
> 
>Ok, ok. Explain yourself. I can't let this one slip through to the
>keeper.

	Simple.  Austrailia was the dumping grounds for British criminals,
and Britain seems to be a fairly good place to live if one ignores those
pesky Irish and the royals.  However, Austrailia managed to make itself
into a fairly great nation.  Near as I can tell, both turned out alright.

	To the Brits, I don't think it mattered if the Austrailians
lived or died.  Likewise, I'm sure.  Still, the matter remains that
both areas serve as fine nations, and this can only be due to
Austrailia having provided a benefit to Britain, and visa-versa.
Given that the criminals dumped in Austrailia would be aghast at the
crimes of today, I admit there is little basis for comparison of
criminals and thus the comparison isn't particularly valid.  I was
being a bit cheeky, though, and the exercise seems to have worked.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:17:42 GMT

In <1ikgh3INNp26@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>Don Baldwin laments that the gun lobby is weighed down with the label
>of hard-core conservative.
[...]
>In case you missed it, the NRA attacked one of its enemies in Colorado
>last year by raising the issue of flag burning.  Guess which side it
>was on.

Eh?  [in an offended tone] What the f--- business of the NRA is flag
burning?  Is this another example of an organization getting waaaaay
beyond it's proper mission?  Can someone supply some details here?


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: fist@iscp.bellcore.com (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: New Canadian Gun Laws (part 1)
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:09:32 GMT
Organization: Leave the %$#$@#$ By-Laws ALONE !!

Don't blame us, it's your country, you elected them,
you live with em. We have our own problems. :-)

Ought to be interesting when they interview ex spouses
for the permits.

Watched Ross Perot this morning with his new "organization"
to watch the govt and set up his "Town Network". Membership
is $15.00 a year and he really ripped into Clinton already.
"He's not even sworn in yet and he is already hedging on
his campaign promises to balance the budget" and then out
came the "Graphic Aids" he's made so famous (Perot Graphs). 
Should be an intersting 4 years with a stiff increase in
PVC pipe sales I'm thinking.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:24:58 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>	Previously it has been thought that anon.526 was the
>	multiple personality known as Susan/Kylie/etc.
>	However, this posting style resembles the other
>	personality from Oz which identified itself as
>	"David Bowman". 

I thought the original mp was David/Susan/Kylie.   It's
all the in archive, if there is doubt, but who cares.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:54:23 GMT

In article <9301101355.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>	How come you never answer a direct question?   How come
>>you answer each question with a question, or merely switch the
>>topic?   Now, to answer _your_ question, as you should be doing
>>to the questions in the posts you respond to, nowhere has he 
>>stated that the Indiana permit system doesn not work near Chicago.
>>It works fine in all of the state:  the intention is to give a
>>vehichle for law abiding citizens to carry within the law.  The problem 
>>near the IL boarder is that criminals from Chicago come over and make
>>trouble.  These criminals buy guns in IL, where they are legally
>>forbiden to have them (but they don't care because they are 
>>criminals, remember).  It is a spillover problem of "undesireable"
>>people from IL.
>
>He basically said that the gun law wasn't working in the corner of the
>state near Chicago.

Nope, nope, nope.  I state my points clearly.  I did not say that.  I
said that most of the state had a low rate of violent crime, except in
the corner near Chicago.  Do not put words in my mouth, I don't leave
you any room to make assumption to do so.

Indiana, in it's constitution, says that all male citizens are members
of the unorganized militia, and shall not be have their right to bear
arms abridged unless they are guilty of violent crimes.  We have a
problem with the sexist language, but it has never been used as a
reason to deny a female the same right.  We also have a fairly low
crime rate.


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Can dishonorably discharged gays stay in the NRA?
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:09:42 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


It is an administrative discharge under Honorable conditions, same as
mine was.

I got mine under Chapter 11, "Failure to maintain the established
standards of the service."  My failure was being 1/2 pound overweight
at the end of the six month 'fat boy plan.'

So you can see where my opinions of the standing military in peacetime
will be.

sig under repair
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Stolen Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<16B523082.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301101324.49@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:52:57 GMT

<In article <9301101324.49@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

<   >       No, they'll just find a way around it.  They'll buy smuggled guns,
<   >or simply steal one.
<   >
<   >       Hell, they're stealing them *now*.

<   Often from the homes of honest gun owners.

	And often from the police. Does it follow that Kelly will
	argue for disarming the police?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:48:44 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <8110303@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>In talk.politics.guns, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
> >I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
> >psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
> >a handgun.
>
>Please consider the following questions seriously.  It is my attempt to
>to understand whether what you advocate has a chance at success.
>
>
>What criteria would you use?

Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
family, community, and society.

>How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  

FBI report
State police and court report
verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors

>How fast could you get the relevant information?  

The first two in probably 72 hours.
The last would probably take a couple of weeks.

>What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  

The ability to understand police and court records, and the ability
to understand basic psychology.

>What would be the probability of making the wrong decision?  

20% or less?

>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?

None, under current laws.

>Keep in mind that the wrong decision could be to deny as well as allow.
>Either way, lives could be in jeopardy.

This is true.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Flag burning and term limits
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:46:15 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1il5irINN4vj@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>Chris Bartz defends the NRA on the grounds that when it shot down
>what's-his-name in Colorado (sorry, I forget who Neal Knox said it
>was) by ragging on his vote to protect flag burning, it wasn't
>sincere, it was cynically exploiting an issue that it doesn't care
>about.
>

What the hell are you talking about.  I never said any such thing.
I would never defend an organization for ragging about flag burning.
I never said any such thing and I DEMAND an apology.


Maybe I can sue you for libel and get a court order to find out
who you are.
-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:15:55 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B4AEBCC.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP>
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> random@cbnewse.cb.att.com(David L. Pope) writes:
>>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
>       The same reason we don't require the police be informed for
>every object that could be used as a deadly weapon.  Because it's
>none of their business unless I use that object in a crime.  As
>agents of the government, the police should be watched closely.  When
>they get to keep records of everything that *might* develop into a crime,
>they might start thinking it's their job to jump in whenever somebody
>has the capability to commit a crime, rather than when they actually do.
>       In fact, it's already happened.  My favority being the quote
>from a Florida police officer on the war on drugs and civil forfeiture.
>He said, "When you take away someone's money, you take away their
>ability to purchase narcotics"
>       As someone who A) has money, and B) has never purchased narcotics
>I find this very, very scary.  What, then, if they decide that can
>prevent shootings by confiscating guns, beating by confiscating baseball
>bats, and child abuse by confiscating children?
>       And where exactly did good intentions turn into a police state?

This could easily be an anti vehicle registration and insurance debate.

Just remember when taking money out of the bank as cash that the government
believes that only drug dealers use $100 bills.  A withdrawal of as little
as $1000 can get you silently reported to the government if you take it as
$100 bills.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ARCHER.648.726424779@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>There is slightly more to it than that.
>
>What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I have yet to 
>put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't pointed at.

I can say the same thing, myself, but I've seen other people who weren't
quite so lucky.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:20:41 GMT

In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>>what's so unreasonable about it?
>
>I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>a handgun.

Why? There is no way to prevent someone who is not "psycologically able" 
from getting a handgun.  All you can do is place a political tool at the
hands of people who think that no one should own a handgun.

>Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
>shooting at other crack dealers.

Funny, Boston is the heart of Dukakis-Kennedy country, I used to be a 
resident.  A law-abiding civilian can't get a carry permit in that city for 
love or money.  Yet the criminals are still shooting at each other.

[snip]

>You seem to imply that if EVERYONE had a gun, there would be no crime
>and no shots fired.

No.  I don't see where anyone has implied that.

>
>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.

It takes one minute to train even an idiot to not hurt themselves or 
others:  don't point the end with the hole in it at anything you don't want 
a hole in.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:32:58 GMT

In article <g2yrn9@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Boy's kinda slow, huh?  Yeah, we tend to ignore those nuts over in
>East Arkansas, er, I mean Nashville.  They occasionally steal a bit of
>our money and call it "taxes" but otherwise, they are pretty much
>ignored.
>

OCCASIONALLY?  THe Smokies generate HALF the revenue of the state!  Guess 
where it is spent:  where the most votes are!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:26:07 GMT

In article <9301061141.17@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>	Maybe she reads the newspapers and is aware that violent
>>	attack isn't as rare in Massachusetts as it was 40 years
>>	ago?
>
>And according to the newspapers, specifically the Boston Globe and the
>Middlesex News, the state attorney general's office has released statistics
>that show that women are more in danger from being killed by husbands and
>boyfriends than any other circumstance.  

Then this is a reason for them to be armed.

>This statistic must be fairly
>accurate if the police chief's association of Massachusetts has publicly,
>in print, stated that they are willing to be lenient about giving gun
>permits to women who have domestic violence related court orders in effect.

ANd it seems that even the PCA of Mass agrees with me.

>
>>	Perhaps the police could arrest persons accused of committing
>>	criminal acts *after* the act has occurred?
>>
>>	Does this concept seem too radical for Kelly?
>
>It doesn't help murder victims very much.

Are you proposing that persons who MAY commit criminals acts be arrested 
before they can commit them?  Why?  How will you determine this?

(I omit discussion of the consitutional problems prior restraint imposes 
here as I am interested in the practial problems this approach poses.)

>
>>	So, to answer the question: you don't, because people
>>	with criminal records generally do not buy their firearms
>>	from licensed dealers, they obtain them by other means.
>
>Because under most states laws they can't.

Not legally, but they do anyway, in spite of the law.

>
>><   And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>><   the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>><   amount of danger from me.
>>
>>	Which statistics would those be, please, and where were they
>>	published?
>
>See above.
>
>>	"If it's in the newspaper, it must be true!"
>>					----Dudley DoRight of the Mounties
>
>Obviously, from your point of view, there are no murders or crimes, since
>they publish news of them in the newspaper.

This does not follow.  Just because not every thing in the paper is true 
does not imply that everything in the paper is not true.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)