During the first year of the Clinton Administration, 39,595 American lives ended in gunfire. By 1998, the latest year for which statistics are available, that number was reduced by nearly a quarter to 30,708. Much of this progress is attributable to innovative policy strategies and vigorous enforcement of our nation's gun laws by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). America still has a long way to go to end the scourge of gun violence. Unfortunately, John Ashcroft as Attorney General would take us in exactly the wrong direction.

John Ashcroft is undeniably sympathetic to the positions and policies of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry. In its "Election ‘94" round-up, the NRA boasted, "Gun Owners Win Big!" and counted Ashcroft as one of the new senators NRA members had worked hard to elect. Last May, NRA chief lobbyist James Jay Baker stated that reelecting Ashcroft to the U.S. Senate was one of the organization's top priorities. According to The Hill newspaper, Mr. Baker said, "That is a clear good-guy bad-guy race from our stand point. We plan to do whatever it takes to make sure John Ashcroft retains that seat."¹

Not surprisingly, Ashcroft's selection has been hailed by the gun lobby. On January 5, 2001, Neal Knox, former NRA board member and leading pro-gun activist, declared, "George W. Bush's now-complete cabinet is the most solidly conservative, and most generally pro-gun, of any President in memory—including Ronald Reagan's."²

During the 2000 elections, the National Rifle Association claimed that if George Bush won the presidency, the NRA would be working out of his office. With John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the NRA will be firmly entrenched in the Department of Justice.

The Ashcroft Record on Guns

The shared positions of John Ashcroft and the NRA are hostile to an important mission of the Department of Justice: vigorous and impartial enforcement of our nation's gun laws. The following are examples of areas where Ashcroft's record and pro-NRA sentiments are likely to conflict with the mission of the Department of Justice.

Gun Lobby Campaign Spending

John Ashcroft would be the first Attorney General in recent history who has been the beneficiary of massive spending by a special interest group with a political agenda that is in direct conflict with the duties of the office. The NRA spent a combined total of $374,137 on behalf of Ashcroft in his failed 2000 Senate reelection bid. The NRA's Political Action Committee contributed $9,900 directly to the Ashcroft campaign and spent $339,237 in independent expenditures on his Senate effort. The NRA also contributed $25,000 to the Ashcroft Victory Committee in March of 2000.

Dismantling the Brady Law

Ashcroft supports NRA efforts to immediately destroy essential records maintained under the Brady law's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS serves as the foundation for the background check required under the law. Currently the records are temporarily retained for six months because the FBI has determined that to be the time necessary to conduct audits of the system's accuracy and effectiveness. The Department of Justice has described the purpose of the six-month retention rule as follows:

The audit log [constructed from the retained records] enables the FBI to monitor the use of the NICS by firearms dealers, states serving as points of contact, and FBI personnel. The FBI also examines whether the FBI employees and contractors are making correct determinations as to whether potential transferees are disqualified, to ensure that "proceed" responses are not being supplied with regard to persons who are disqualified. Decisions to allow a firearm purchase are not fully automated, and thus officials must review and evaluate records before making a decision. Review of decisions made by NICS examiners is necessary to ensure that responsible individuals make correct decisions on whether a transfer is permissible, and to enable supervisors to provide additional training where necessary.³

In response to the document retention policy, the NRA sued the Department of Justice to require the immediate destruction of the records, which would have seriously undermined the effectiveness of the background check system.⁴ The NRA suit was dismissed by a federal appeals court on July 11, 2000. However, Ashcroft is on record as opposing the position of the Department of Justice and siding with the NRA. On July 21, 1998, he voted for legislation offered by Senator Robert Smith (R-NH) that would have required the FBI to destroy immediately any records relating to an approved handgun transfer.

As recently as last Congress, Ashcroft voted to weaken the Brady law. Current federal law provides the FBI with three business days to conduct background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.⁵ The Department of Justice has determined that, while 95 percent of background checks are completed within two hours, "22 percent of all gun buyers who are found to be prohibited persons are not found to be prohibited until more than 72 hours have passed." The NRA has repeatedly argued, however, that 24 hours is sufficient time to complete the checks. This is in spite of the fact that the FBI has estimated that under a 24-hour rule, more than 17,000 people who were stopped by the current Brady instant check system in a six-month period would have been sold the firearms.

During the May 1999 Senate vote on whether to expand the current Brady background check to all sales at gun shows (not just those by licensed dealers), Ashcroft sided with the NRA and voted against the measure, notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury had recently issued a report concluding, "Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously."⁶ At the same time, Ashcroft supported the NRA's 24-hour position, voting in favor of legislation sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that would have weakened our nation's gun laws by reducing the time allowed to conduct the background check by all gun show sellers—including licensed dealers—from three business days to 24 hours.

Placing Prosecution of Illegal Gun Traffickers at Risk

Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice has taken the lead in prosecuting illegal gun traffickers. Of 1,090 cases involving illegal firearms trafficking recommended for prosecution by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, nearly 90 percent were referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The U.S. Attorney declined prosecution in only 10 percent of the cases. Many of these cases involved licensed gun dealers who were diverting large quantities of firearms to the illicit market.

In 1998 Ashcroft expressed serious concerns regarding a bill sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch—the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997—which would have expanded federal authority to prosecute illegal firearm traffickers. Ashcroft's concerns centered on a provision in the bill that would have added federal firearms violations to the list of offenses that would trigger prosecution under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The change would have subjected firearm traffickers to harsh federal penalties.

The Violence Policy Center has obtained a copy of a handwritten note to Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America (GOA),⁷ in which Ashcroft thanked Pratt for "bringing to my attention the RICO (2nd amendment) problems with the juvenile justice bill." He went on to say, "I am working to see that the RICO provisions are stripped from the bill prior to floor consideration."⁸ He then referenced a letter that he and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) had written to Senator Hatch. The bill was later amended to weaken the provision dealing with illegal firearms trafficking.

Opposing the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines—Placing Reauthorization at Risk

Ashcroft opposes the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.⁹ This 1994 law, which passed with the support of virtually every major national law enforcement organization in the United States, is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004. Reauthorization and much-needed improvements in the law will require the support of the nation's chief law enforcement officer. The NRA strongly opposes the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and has vigorously worked to repeal it. Ashcroft has stated his opposition to the ban.¹⁰ He twice voted—on May 13, 1999, and on July 28, 1998—against legislation offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ban the importation of high-capacity magazines. Absent reauthorization in 2004, it will be legal to once again manufacture semi-automatic assault weapons—including the AK-47 used most recently in the shooting of seven in a Wakefield, Massachusetts, Internet firm and the TEC-9, the weapon of choice of the killers at Columbine High School—along with high-capacity ammunition magazines which can hold 20, 32, or even 100 rounds of ammunition.

Support for Arming Felons

A Department of Justice led by John Ashcroft may literally result in more guns being put in the hands of convicted felons. The Department of Justice has resisted attempts by convicted felons to use the courts to obtain restoration of their firearm privileges. This is the direct result of Congress' refusal to continue funding for the federal "relief from disability" program, despite support for the program from the National Rifle Association. Until 1992, that program existed solely for the purpose of restoring the ability of felons convicted of federal crimes to legally buy and possess guns. In the 10-year period from 1982 until 1992, this guns-for-felons program processed 22,000 applications from convicted felons, and restored gun privileges to approximately one-third of those applicants. Crimes committed by felons who obtained "relief" include sexual assault, homicide, and firearm violations. When Congress de-funded the program in 1992, felons resorted to the courts as a backdoor avenue to obtain restoration of their firearm privileges. The Department of Justice has vigorously fought the cases brought by felons. To date, only the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has agreed to restore the gun privileges of felons although several other federal circuits have considered such cases. Following the Third Circuit's ruling, the lower courts have restored the gun privileges of at least three felons.

In addition, on May 14, 1999 Ashcroft voted for an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) which would have required the FBI to create a database to identify felons who have been granted "relief" to ensure that these felons are able to easily buy firearms when their names are checked through the NICS. The amendment passed the Senate 48 to 47. This database would have included individuals such as Jerome Sanford Brower, who pleaded guilty in an international terrorist plot to transport explosives to Libya. The database would also have included Sherman Dale Williams, who pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal transfer of machine guns. Williams received "relief" despite the fact that local law enforcement officials expressed fears that he would be a threat to the community if armed. Many felons granted "relief" are subsequently rearrested. For example, Michael Paul Dahnert of Wisconsin was convicted in 1977 of burglary. He was granted "relief" in 1986. Two months after "relief" was granted, he was rearrested and charged with first degree sexual assault and four counts of second degree sexual assault. Dahnert received five years in prison.¹¹

Placing Current Federal Gun Laws at Risk

As Attorney General, Ashcroft will be charged with defending federal gun laws from lawsuits seeking to have them invalidated. This may well place all existing laws—as well as any new laws passed by Congress—at serious risk. The gun lobby, firearm manufacturers, or other plaintiffs routinely sue to overturn existing federal gun laws. This has been the case with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires a background check on purchasers buying guns from licensed dealers. Also challenged in court were the federal assault weapons ban, the Gun Free School Zones Act, and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, which prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In each of these cases, the Justice Department zealously defended the law in the courts.

Two important cases are currently pending in which the actions of the Department of Justice could be determinitive. In United States v. Emerson¹², the Department is appealing a ruling which held that a federal law prohibiting firearms possession by persons subject to a restraining order for domestic violence is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (this is virtually the only federal court ruling interpreting the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right). This case is now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Whatever the outcome at the appeals court level, the case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ashcroft has made very clear that his interpretation of the Second Amendment comports with that articulated by the trial judge in Emerson¹³.

The second case was filed November 14, 2000, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.¹⁴ It seeks to weaken the laws regulating the transfer and possession of firearms regulated under the federal National Firearms Act (NFA). That law strictly regulates the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain types of firearms including machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. The NFA requires a background check of buyers of such weapons and that the firearms be registered with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The suit argues that certain components of the background check required before an NFA weapon may be transferred are unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiffs are challenging a regulation requiring certification by a local chief of police, county sheriff, district attorney, or other appropriate local official of the applicant's identity and that the local official has "no information indicating that the receipt or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of local law or that the transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes." This campaign is in response to the actions of some local law enforcement officials who out of a concern for public safety are often reluctant to complete such "sign-offs." Without this requirement, local law enforcement officials will have no control over how many of these dangerous weapons are brought into their jurisdiction.

Support for Criminals Carrying Concealed Handguns

Ashcroft endorsed, and worked on behalf of, a failed 1999 NRA-backed referendum in his home state of Missouri that would have allowed the carrying of concealed handguns by convicted criminals. Opponents of "Proposition B" pointed out that the measure would have granted concealed handgun licenses to convicted criminals, including child molesters and stalkers, throughout the state. Despite these serious concerns, Ashcroft did radio ads supporting the NRA's referendum that, according to Associated Press reports, "blanketed the Missouri airwaves."¹⁵ The NRA and Ashcroft lost the referendum on April 6, 1999, despite outspending their opponents by a five-to-one margin.

Conclusion

America deserves an Attorney General who will work hard to protect our gun laws and reduce gun violence. With John Ashcroft as Attorney General, America risks losing the ground it has gained in reducing firearm-related violence.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 19, 2001

Answers

I still haven't figured out how registering the weapons of law- abiding citizens will keep guns out of the hands of criminals...

scratchin' an itch...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), January 19, 2001.

Fuck you Cherri you commie cunt.

-- (No@dip.com), January 19, 2001.

Cherri's next posting will be the LA phone book.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 19, 2001.

From my perspective, People went out and bought guns in droves during the Clinton Administration because they didn't know just when the guns would be outlawed. As for the number of guns in private hands, Clinton did more to increase it than the early days of the cold war threat and the fear that the russians were coming. I think that that is the primary reason for the decrease in gun deaths is the criminmal element knows the society is much better armed today than 10 years ago. How many times way back then did you hear the phrase "I don't dial 911" or something to the effect that noone would ever find the body? The "I'll take care of the criminal that comes after me" concept has spread to the masses in the past 10 years. The criminals are finaly more affraid than the citizens, and its about time!

-- Just Passin Through (Nobody@nowhere.com), January 19, 2001.

Cherri, why don't you make a big sign about 3' by 4' that says THIS HOUSEHOLD IS GUN FREE and post it in your front yard. Don't do it on a bet but do it because you believe it won't make a difference. Leave it there for six months if it takes that long and report back on the results. But you have to be truthful! Good Luck!

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), January 19, 2001.

Boswell, you're in with Charlie, right? What's the next adventure for the Angels?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 19, 2001.

Bemused, or should I say My boy lollypop, What the hell are you talkin about? You bein a good liberal and enjoyin the wacky grass or do you always ramble for no apparent reason. Did you enjoy your blowjob?

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), January 20, 2001.

Wrong this time Cherri,

Enforcing existing gun laws has been the conservative song all along. The feel good tune has been in passing more laws. And more laws. And more laws until neither you or I would own a gun only because we're fairly law abiding.

Consider this: We've a border that can't keep out tens of tons of drugs every year. Want to change that to drugs and guns?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 20, 2001.

First of all, I noticed that some people, presumably fellow gun owners, have posted some responses in this forum which are unacceptable to any decent or polite person. On behalf of all the civilized, respectful gun owners in this country, I must appologize for those offensive responses.

Many of your comments have merit, but I must address one thing which is very important: As you rightly point out, the Assault Weapons Ban expires in September of 2004. I see that you support this ban, but I must point out that it is terribly flawed, and should be repealed as soon as possible.

First of all, it seeks to enhance public safety by banning various cosmetic features of guns. It bans based on things such as the shape of the stock. Well, no one has ever been killed because a criminal had access to a pistol-grip stock instead of the thumbhole stock. This just doesn't happen.

Secondly, is an outright ban of certain guns the minimum legal response necessary to insure public safety? Is there not some intermediate remedy that could also enhance public safety, without resorting to an outright ban? I'll give you an analogy: Ferraris are incredibly dangerous cars. They can go very fast, and could cause horrendous accidents. However, they are restricted in various ways: insurance is very expensive, and anyone who is not a safe driver will be unable to insure the car at all. Finally, it is an enthusaist's car, not a general transportation car. Therefore, there really are very few problems of accidents with Ferrarris.

Assault weapons are in the same situation. Not a lot of criminals can afford to spend $3000 on a fine weapon such as a Steyer AUG, or even $1000 on a high-quality AR15. Is there some legal position less severe than banning that could get these already- expensive guns out of the hands of criminals?

There certainly is. It's called the NFA program. Incidents of criminal misuse of NFA machineguns owned by civilians are basically zero in the seven decades of the NFA program. NFA ownership requires a big commitment on the part of the enthusiast: background check, fingerprints, waiting, and a perfectly clean record. I'm sure that most enthusiasts would grumble about submitted to all of this just to own an AR15, but if we could own those things (and Steyers... and all the other cool stuff) I think it would be worth it, and I think shooters would accept it.

It seems like the gun control advocates are always on the side of banning, and the NRA is always on the side of no restrictions, and no one is talking about sensible comrpomises like repealing bans and expanding the NFA program.

-- Fidel (fidel@sidereal.kz), March 01, 2001.

Lets see, the liberal politicians and basically all of hollywood is anti-gun,I wonder why?Maybe because they can afford ARMED guards and $20,000 security systems on their homes.Try this, force the anti gunners to move with their families to the inner city,then give them an average joe job,with average income,no ARMED guards,no security sys. and geuss what will happen!...the first time an underprivleged victim of society breaks in and put a 9mm to the head of their daughter demanding crack money,the only gun issue they will be concerned about is whether to go auto. or wheelgun(revolver)!!!!!!! Face the facts anti-gunners, America is the most armed country in the world(meaning the citizens),and there will be alot of bloodshed before we give up our gun RIGHTS!As far as gun control,just ask someone from austalia how its working out,(armed robberies up 44% since the ban),and I wonder why we never see them figures on the news,I wonder!

-- Rob Westenberger (teetee@hotmail.com), March 11, 2001.

Good points Rob,hollywood is only out for itself.I read where s.stallone said they should go door to door collecting everyones handguns,funny thing...I thought his movies(first blood 1,2,3..cobra...on and on)had a few guns in them.liberal=hypocrite!!!

-- Dave Rutner (progun@progun2.com), March 15, 2001.

Wow,since the gun ban in Australia armed robberies up 44%!!!I guess gun control really does work.NOT.Lets see, take away honest citizens guns,while the criminals keep theirs.And now knowing the people arent armed, the criminals are loving it!!!Thats liberal ingenuity for you!

-- Paul Rice (join@NRA.com), March 15, 2001.

All very good points,I like when the anti- gunners use the statistics of children killed by guns,they dont tell their definition of a child is a 1yr. old up to 19 yrs. old including drug dealers, gang related killings etc...the more of that type dead the better!!!

-- Terry johnson (4guns@NRA.com), March 15, 2001.

To the asshole who just posted the last 5 posts using different names, take your fucking gun, shove it up your ass, and pull the trigger. I hate you pro-gun radical freaks, and I will bring my AK-47 over to plaster your neighbors house with your head if you don't shut the fuck up. You give gun owners a bad name.

-- (blow your head @ off. dumbshit), March 15, 2001.

Go suck an egg Squak.

-- Squak and Manny (must@be.related), March 15, 2001.

To Mr.ak-47,Ive read all the columns,and the only one that sounds like a gun nut is you!...the closest youve ever come to a ak is watching t.v.,anyone who gets so angry at the valid points that were made is obviously a anti-gun shit for brains hiding behind his keyboard talking tough.also 90% of these e-mail addresses are made up(I put the NRA in mine,I guess im the same guy too)...bottom line- your a pussy and your mother sucks crack dealer dick!!!shes a nice whore,right? I bet you even lick her maggot infested twat.

-- T.H. (crete76@NRA100%.com), March 15, 2001.

Do you happen to have Mr.ak7's moms phone #?

-- Ed Perry (turnip@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

NRA = National Retards Association

and T.H. is their King Dipshit stupid motherfucker.

ROTFL!!!

-- (T.H. @ got shit. for brains), March 15, 2001.

LOL!

T.H. = Theodore Homofucker, a.k.a. Ron Wesson, Dave Rutner, Paul Rice, Terry Johnson, Ed Perry, and every other dumb fucking NRA jerk that posts on this forum. All the same stupid motherfucker with his head up his ass.

-- (The NRA @ sucks. redneck dicks), March 16, 2001.

Uh, kind sir, have you ever known a woman who bought a gun after being raped? I have and I don't blame them.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

Hey Mr.fakeak7 you know what the real problem is dont you,I have a feeling you look a close relative to the ape,so Ill talk so youll UNDERstand,you be dissen us fo been NRA, an yu get all illin bout you on welfare, an culdent aford da billets fo da ak7.Stop bein a slave to da MONKEY on yu back!jus chil wit a fortty on da PORCH hommi!stop bein wak! dis "redneck"is a bizness owner has 17 assorted firearms dat r worf mor den yul make in yo livetime,so cheel an keep savin fo dem wak new nike's. out.....peaze yo

-- T.H. (NRA@NRA.COM), March 17, 2001.

p.s. Lars,mr.fake ak7 is most the one that does the rapin!Hopefully he'll run into her after she bought the gun,so she could bus a cap in his coconut head!!!!pease yoyo

-- T.H. (JOIN@NRA.com), March 17, 2001.

T.H. = Total Homo

Too much of a wimp to fight like a man, thinks he's tough cuz he got some guns.

Ooooooh, I'm scared!! Wimpy faggot hillybilly bumfucker has guns!! Ooooooh, I'm so scared! He's so tough!!

-- (LMAO@redneck.cocksuckers), March 17, 2001.

ANYTIME,ANYWHERE boon!!!

-- Tom Heart (NRA@NRA.com), March 17, 2001.

I'll beat you so bad that you'll be my slave BOY for the rest of you life....now shine my boots BOY,thats a good boy here's a banana slave!!!!!!!

-- Tom Heart (NRA@100%gun.com), March 17, 2001.

Hmmm, a racist redneck. Now that's a suprise.

You just keep hiding out there in the woods whitey queer boy, cuz if you come into our hood we'll make you into mince meat for our dogs.

-- (home boys @ in. the hood), March 17, 2001.

I'd like to see your "hood" you gangsta wannabee!...do you know whats really funny?...all you homeBOYs go out and buy pittbulls and rotts,new sneakers,and fake chrome hubcaps from K-mart because you think you'll get some respect.....you just get laughed at!!!at least once a week I pull up next to rughead,and even though they drive a $500 car,and even though their phone got shut off at home,they still will act like their talking in a cell phone that was turned off 2yrs. ago.And your statement was typical,"come into OUR hood,and WE"LL make you...." notice you say "WE'LL" because you need yo homies to jump in......get you alone and smack you like a bitch,then send you home to mommie with a FATTER lip!!!by the way,how did you get out of jail?

-- Tom Heart (NRA@NRA.COM), March 18, 2001.

der yu go lyin boss,my 77 cadlac cost $600,wit da fake fone antenna in da bak!!!its illin chillin yo def wak!

-- wakika jamama (peanut@head.com), March 18, 2001.

LOL! You pretty funny there Tommy Homo!

Show me a honky who says he can whoop a black man and I'll show you a motherfucking liar.

Dumb fuckin redneck.

-- (kiss my black ass @ white. trash), March 18, 2001.

I kicked 3 colored asses in my life...one I even kicked his eye out....just because he said "excuse me" to my girlfriend.Now he know that the only white girls colored guys get are the fat, bucked toothed ones we dont want!!!Now that same one eyed jungle bunny cuts my lawn.....for free!If he does a good job I let him wash my Vette!!!piece owt bruh?

-- Tommy Hilfinger (whalebone@lips.com), March 21, 2001.

Yo holmes,check out J.J.Johnson at Sierra Times.com,and read"I dont want to be black anymore".He speaks nothing but the truth,a very courageous black man!!! But I'm sure you"ll call him "uncle tom"!!! Stop livin the lie...bitch!!!

-- Tommy Truth (Pro gun@NRA.com), March 21, 2001.

LOL!

Tommy Homo, a typical example of a Pro NRA gun freak, a fuckin dumbass redneck racist. Probably got crooked teeth, chews tabacky, drinks moonshine, and quit goin to school after 3rd grade. Butffucks possums and billygoats to get his jollies.

Hee heee heee heeeehaaaw!! What a dumb friggin hillybilly!

-- brother man (i could kick your silly ass @ out your. stupid face), March 21, 2001.

Wy do all us nigs smell like sour milk?Man iz takes a bath at leese onec a weak! Know Iz knows dat we lik apes n'shit but wez gotta do wit be reel,its a fakt...we are haff uman an haff ape,jus loock at are skuls,wez be illin!!!man I wants to bee wite so bad,I cants tell our femals from the bros n'shit oh well time to go ta bed gots ta get up erley tomara welfair chek dayy.....tucky fied here i com!!#&^%#

-- Jigga nigga (proslave@cool.com), March 21, 2001.

capn fun aka jigga nigga, don't look now but your skanky white ass is flapping in the wind.

Why do NRA members have always have such stupid grins on their faces?

-- (Truth@of the .day), March 21, 2001.

Answer:

Because they're stupid.

-- (Truth@of the.day), March 21, 2001.

Bush is in now, low life's,so get used to White,male gun owner's ruling the land!!!HA HA HA

-- Ron Treaver (progun@progun.com), March 22, 2001.

Oh I see, not only is "Mr. Pro-gun with 50 different names" a racist, he is also a Neo-Nazi Skinhead.

Got news for you nutcase, the day you think you will rule my world is the day I'll give you a small suprise between the eyes.

-- (get back @ in. cave scum), March 22, 2001.

Oh no,I guess that makes you a pro-gun radical(suprise between the eyes),and all along I thought you were the angry black guy who remains undecided of his identity(coward)!Your a racist and a stinky ape!!

-- Tom (Heat@quest.com), March 24, 2001.