| John had a gun in 1989 Monday, 05-Jun-2000 16:22:23 John had a gun in 1989 that I
saw, and I remember you being around then. But I didn't tell you about
it. See what I mean
about secrecy. Re: Re: John had a gun in
1989 What's wrong w/ having a gun?
They are legal. Waving it around or aiming it at people in a drunken
stupor, playing Russian
Roulette. that's another story. But to imply having a gun is somehow
deviant is stretching things a bit. Waving it around or
aiming it at people in a drunken stupor well, he did do that too,
according to what Chuck told me a number of years ago. But you'll have
to go to San Quentin or
wherever to find out for sure, and of course Chuck is a convicted
felon... PS. Waving it around or
aiming it at people in a drunken stupor I mean I did know about the one gun I saw, which John kept in his trunk, strictly legal and explainable. The whole gun trip which happened earlier I did not know about.
----Michael M. message deleted------- Re: Re: John had a gun in
1989 Michael, John came to my house, took out his briefcase and showed me his gun, as he gave me a paranoid dissertation on the government forces out to get him. And yes, he did suggest that I buy and learn to use one if I knew what was good for me. I think he had Rodney under tow as his main man . Boy, John really knew how to play everyone's ego right where they had an opening; you know, a need to be specialized . John had guns in the very
early 80's too and he did suggest that people
(those he trusted) get them. I also know that once, while vert high. he
said he felt an attack
coming and commanded a very dear friend of mine and your wifes to shoot
the next person who came through the door--and
that if she said krishna's name it would be fine because the person she
killed would be liberated. that woman who he told, and
who came from a very non-violent background-- refused. vomited. and
then a good friend, one of the IW team, walked
through the door. -----Michael M. message deleted-------- Re: Re: John had guns in
the very early 80's too - Eeewwwww Michael I have been defending you
for days, and thanks for the saner
response I agree with you, we need more
details. What I object to is the dismissiveness of your response. Its a
serious allegation,
although it does need to be supported before being believed. RE: guns and booze The worst thing about it is the
booze. If that's true it certainly precludes any use for "teaching
activities" -- although using
guns for "teaching activities" crosses the line in my opinion anyway. |