HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:18:34 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1ihtnbINNh9j@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301061641.51@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>> >  I think you've got it!  Mass. should have a law that *every*
>> >applicant for the FID (or whatever you call it) must first drive
>> >to Montana and back, stopping in at least 3 houses of worship
>> >on the way.
>> 
>> Wayne Lo didn't have an FID.  He was able to buy a gun in Mass under an
>> act of law that allows "hospitality" to out of state visitors.
>
>Absolutely right.  Then you say:
>
>> And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
>> ammo ) unless you live in Boston.
>
>So he didn't have one, but could have gotten one trivially if he had to.  
>Still absolutely right.
>
>So what's your point?

Tom Maroney was confused when he wrote that article for the Middlesex
News. He didn't even bother to read the AP wire.

 
-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:51:26 GMT

In article <9301051955.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!linus!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:55:06 GMT
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301051955.18@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <0tsrqk_@dixie.com> <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> <pa142548.604.726244364@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 13
>In article <pa142548.604.726244364@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?
>>>
>>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
>>can't get carry permits.
>
>When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
>shoot at somebody?

I didn't ever have to.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:48:26 GMT


You know, this whole thread started me thinking. If we turned
this about and proposed the following, I wonder how many of
the pro gun control far-left-wing crowd would approve:

- When someone is *convicted* of a felony, confiscate their
  drivers license or state ID card. 

- Issue them a new drivers license or state ID card with a
  big red circled gun with a slash through it. Actually,
  there would be no need to issue the drivers license
  or state id card until their release from prison.

(For all practical purposes, every FFL I've ever know required
showing a drivers license or state ID & they record the
number). This would remove the hassle from the dealers (it isn't
anything more than they do now, really) and put it back on the
state (generic usage) where it more nearly belongs. Of course,
I can see flaws in this, but not necessarily any which are
worse than the flaws in the Brady Bill. I wonder how Teddy,
Howie, and Little Joe would like the reinstitution of
the "scarlet letter" idea for felons :-) :-) :-).

Actually, I tend to agree that once the persons debt to
society is paid, they should have their rights restored.
If they're trusty enough to release back into society,
they should have their citizenship rights reenabled.
That said, I agree that far too many serve far too little
for far too much. (Eliminating, regulating, and taxing
current "victimless" crime sounds like the way to go for reducing
the prison population IMHO. Lets have the cops spend more time
on the crimes of violence and property theft).
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:00:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <viking.726742130@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

> >Mace - requires a FID card
> >Pepper gas - requires a FID card
> 
> 	Have the required an FID card for oven cleaner yet?  Works far
> better than this stuff, especially if you hit the eyes.

Oddly enough, I first heard this in a "gun laws" class given by the
Worcester PD.  No permit is required, but you can get hosed for using
it because it does permanent damage.

> >Saps - requires a pistol permit
> >nightstick - requires a pistol permit

> 	Do all the Red Sox players have these permits? 

Roger Clemens doesn't... anymore.  Not since his little dustup in Texas.
The Framingham police showed up at his door to collected it when Roger-boy 
didn't bother to answer their two letters...  They decided he was "unfit"
to possess such a license with a temper like his.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: ftarnol@nma.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:55:04 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NMA Impl & Support
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

As many of you are aware, hunters in Colorado lost the spring bear
hunt to an ARM petition drive that placed a Constitutional amendment
banning the hunt on the November ballot.  Colorado, like many other
states, has a provision that allows citizen initiates to be voted on
by the electorate.

The late filing of this petition did not give sportsmen's groups the
opportunity to organize or finance an effective campaign to defeat
this initiative.  Since the initiative was narrowly worded and only
affected the spring bear hunt, a certain amount of apathy among
hunters was probably also responsible for its passage.  

I have recently heard, second-hand, that the same group that sponsored
the spring bear hunt initiative now plans to go after the archery bear
hunt.  If we begin now, we have time to organize and plan a campaign
to defeat this latest attack on our hunting heritage.  We cannot afford
to lose seasons or hunters to campaigns that ban us from the field.
While I am not personally a bow-hunter or a bear hunter for that matter,
the loss of any season lowers participation in hunting.  According to the
NRA, only 7-8% of Americans hunt today.  That makes us the most vulnerable
of minorities.  ARM groups can continue to chip away at the hunting
population until our hunting rights are gone.

Let me get off my soapbox for a minute.  My real purpose in writing
is to gather ideas for how we can defeat the coming initiatives.  How
do we explain hunting to others in a convincing manner?  I've had
some success one-on-one with non-hunters who are not closed-minded,
but our numbers are so small that one-one-one solutions don't seem to
be the answer.  If I could buy a 60 second commercial to run on radio
or TV, what should its content be?

I'll pass along any suggestions I get.
-- 
+******************************************************************************+
| Fred Arnold   NRA Life                                                       |
|    Voice (303) 896-8084                                                      |
|      FAX (303) 896-7644                                                      |
+******************************************************************************+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:20:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.175413.14522@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>So you're advocating that all people with the money in hand should be 
>>able to buy guns?
>
>This is pretty close to what I would advocate the law be changed to.
>It's none of the gov't damn business as to who owns firearms.  We
>shouldn't even have dealer licensing or serial numbered guns in my
>opinion.
>
yep.  i completely agree.  heck, i even advocate (for those able to
legally do so) people go out and buy "non-papered" guns.  those
"reasonable" (yeah, right) voices pushing for gun registration as
a means of thwarting criminals have this annoying habit of being
replaced by gungrabbing s.o.b.s a few years down the pike.
while the gungrabbers can't provide a bit of evidence that their
pet bans will do shit to stop criminals, those registration lists
are a juicy way of getting at some of those eviiiiiiiiiiil guns.

>>I steal your wallet and use your SS number and other pertinent
>>information to make myself an identity that will allow me to pass
>>the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.
>
congratualtions.  i won't bother you with one gungrabber's
suggestion: requiring all toy guns be painted with an orange
barrel so that cops would know when real guns are being
pointed at them(!).  if you were a cop, would this law
make you feel safe if enacted? 

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment Foundation and CCRKBA problem
Organization: Boeing
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:41:06 GMT

In article <9301061652.AA12393@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:
>
>
>Dear Alan,
>
>In October I received mail from your organization thanking me for a
>phone pledge I did not make.  When I called to question this mail I was
>promised a resolution including a follow-up call and a copy of your
>financial statement.  I received a call saying a "problem solicitor
.
.
.
>                             Later,
>
>                             Joe Gugliemino
>

Just to balance the issue, I have been a member of the CCRKBA for the last
2 years.  I have found them to be very efficient and informative.  I have 
not be troubled by erronious solicitations.  However, I think that writing
to Alan to correct the problem is the proper method and hope you receive
satisfactory treatment.





-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."
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 04:34:57 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0I7A4.A5K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>
>>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>>
>>>They don't want people to own handguns either.
>>
>>But your not worried about felons having guns?
>
>What we got here is a failure to communicate.  Some men, you just
>can't reach.  Now, take him over here.  He's bringing this upon
>himself.  Son, are you dense, or what?  Or, are you an AI undergoing a
>Turing test?
>What the hell is a felon doing walking the streets?  If someone has
>proven themselves to be a menace to others, why do we let them free
>after they've committed their crime?
>Stick to the topic at hand please, or is that beyond your capability?

Ok.  Citizens have a "right" to have guns.  Due to the current state of
society, criminals can buy illegal guns any time they want.  Some states
are enacting or have enacted laws that make it difficult to buy and carry
a gun, but in these times it is more important than ever for honest
citizens to have guns, because there are so many criminals getting illegal
guns.

What is actually being done to get rid of illegal guns?

What percentage of illegal guns are stolen from homes in the first place?
( When I'm away from home for a few days, my guns are locked up about as
  well as can be expected. )

Lets here some ideas how states can get the revenue to build more prisons.

And the bottom line, why did the states start backing off on easy ownership
of guns?  Seriously.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:20:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> Getting a home defense weapon in Massachusetts is relatively easy.

"Relatively" as compared to what?  Getting a date with Cindy Crawford?
Winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes?

It's easier than getting one in Washington DC, NY City, Chicago, or
parts of California.  It's harder than just about EVERY OTHER place in
the United States.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:51:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

>ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan11.031609.25808@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>>	You just live in the wrong state, that's all.  Here in WA
>>>CCW permits cost $23 for 4 years.   The only people who are not
>>>eligible are those with a criminal record.  It takes about a month
>>>for the permit, and the police are required to issure the permit
>>>if they can't find a record of conviction in that time.

>>On the other hand, hasn't WA banned Class III's entirely?  (Due, I think to 
>>Canadian pressure.)

>	That is true.   If not for that, it would be a great place, no
>income tax either.

Lowery and the Seattle PI are pushing hard to correct the situation.

Larry

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:33 GMT

In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
>>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
>>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
>>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
>>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.
>
>That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
>and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
>allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.

WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put 
in place.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: DENNIS_@NCSU.EDU (DGA)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:03:17 GMT

In article <9301061141.17@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:41:16 GMT
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5133412@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>><In article <1i9o21INNguh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>><>In article <9301021327.48@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>><>> In article <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>><>> >In article <9212311212.23@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.  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.

My wife carefully selected me as, first her boyfriend, and then her 
husband.  One of the criteria she used in assessing my suitability as a 
potential life mate was my proclivity to beat, stab, strangle, bludgeon with 
large rocks, shoot, or otherwise damage her.  (Granted, many women are not 
as clever as my wife.)  She does not have the same opportunity to be 
selective of potential rapist and muggers.

My point is that the threat posed to some women by husbands or boyfriends 
does not diminish the threat of other assailants to a woman. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 04:01:26 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
>>can't get carry permits.

>When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
>shoot at somebody?


So Rick, how many times have you used your seatbelt?  Does the low
probability of your needing your seatbelt preclude you from wearing it?
Or have you figured out when you're going to have a wreck and only
wear it then?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: anon.49@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty
Date: 13 Jan 1993 09:37:10 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.49@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


> Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not.  I will respond briefly
> and generally to some of the numerous responses I got:

No, you're not, I am the former anon.526 - this anon.39 fellow is an imposter!

> 
> o Am I a radical pacifist declare that I will give another person
> nearly limitless benifit of the doubt before using a gun?
> 
> In a way, yes.  I recognize that we live in a peaceful society.

What rot - anyone can tell you are a sad, pale imitation of me.


Ignore this anon.49 idiot - he's not me!!!!!


--
** 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.
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 14:25:54 GMT

In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
>in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.
>
>I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

First, no one is talking about issuing call adult Californians a firearm.

Second, you believe wrongly.  The only change would be a dramatic increase 
in good manners and a decrease in police harassment.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan5.200325.26064@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>I wouldn't be suprised if this is true, but is it?  Are there actual 
>reporting requirements for a small withdrawl of $100s?  Where can I see 
>this statute?    How about deposits of $100s?
>
>I know that a transaction of $10,000 requres a rat call as a SOP, 
>but I wasn't aware of regs on C notes.  In some countries it is
>illegal for banks to talk about your business to anyone, and I
>wish it was like that here, but it's not so.

It's mainly banks in coastal areas, where there is a lot of drug 
traffic, that $100 bills are looked on with suspicion.  The FBI
asked the Office of Thrift Supervision, the FDIC, and the Office of
the Controller of the Currency to get banks to keep tabs on the
movement of $100 bills.  Note that the three organizations are
all under the umbrella of the Treasury, along with BATF.

I know this because my SO works for the OCC as a bank examiner.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:20:42 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
> in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.

People in California are so, so different from people, say, in Montana, or
Pennsylvania, or Washington state.

> I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

I never argue religion.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape