RAY  wrote:

>RR:  The alleged documents falsified in the above NRA website are
>bogus.  They don't exist.  I know.  I called the California AG's office
>which confirmed the bogus nature of these NRA forgeries.
>         Why you naive creatures continue to believe so-called
>NRA evidence is beyond me!
>

Who was your point-of-contact; what was the phone number and what
"questions" did you ask.  This assertion by Robert Ray is most certainly
as bogus as his alleged call to BATF regarding "door prizes" and
auctions last year.

RayRay's long history of lying and forgery has destroyed his credibility
years ago..

		 RAY Re-writes FP #29

Let's take a look at RAY's P.L.O. mentality..  RAY  re-writes Hamilton's
FP #29 to get it to say what RAY wants...   

>..................from DejaNews Archive...........

Re: 2nd Amendment for Dummies 
 
Author:   RAY
Email:        Kira@Interaccess.com
Date:     1998/09/30
Forums:           talk.politics.guns 
Message-ID:  

>EA:  FP #29 uses the phrase "well-regulated" twice, the first time to refer to
>  the authority of Congress.

RR:  That's debatable.  The first reference merely says a
well-regulated militia should be under the regulation of
Congress.  But we should not so easily assume that
'regulation' meant the same in the sentenced as
'regulated.':

    "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense
of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the
regulation and at the disposal of that body which is
constituted the guardian of the national security."

RR:  Later Hamilton clearly uses 'well-regulated militia' as
one that is well-trained:

     "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the
other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the
purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions,
as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the
people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

>NOTE...Please re-read the above paragraph and note the phrase
>NOTE..."character of a well-regulated militia.."  

RR: If we take his second reference as the true meaning of
the phrase, it can be used with no deficit in the first
reference:  "If a well-TRAINED militia be the most natural
defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under
the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is
constituted the guardians of the national security."

    But the reverse does not hold true.  If we claim his
first well-regulated' reference meant the militia was
controlled by Congress, it will NOT work when we insert it
into the second reference:  "...of going through military
exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary to
acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to
the character of a congressional controlled militia..."

>NOTE...In the above paragraph, RAY has re-writen "character of a 
>NOTE...well-regulated militia.."   to read "congressional controlled militia.."
>NOTE...Not only does RAY hide behind a hired gun aka "body guard," his total
>NOTE...lack of ethics allows him to re-write FP #29 without bothering to say he's 
>NOTE...changed a thing...

    Hamilton had two ideas here, not one.  He wanted the
militia to be well-regulated (as in trained,) and he wanted
it to be regulated (as in controlled) by the Congress. 
>...............end of RAY blather....................................

Does this above give you any idea of RAY's "standing" as an
"intellectual"  or credibility?


Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., Life Member
JPFO