From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #144 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, May 30 1998 Volume 02 : Number 144 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:40:15 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: The Probability Broach, excerpt #2 AND the entire book, indeed most of what he's written, is just that good. (Though why he called the characters gov't "anarchism" is curious to me.) Be sure to check out Pallas too for a sort of Libertarian/new west sci fi. Bretta Martyn is for you swashbuckler (Libertarian) sci fi types. For more on the theme of an alternate universe where the whiskey rebellion succeeded see his link http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/world.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 98 00:26:59 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: NJ Gun Seizure Update (fwd) On May 29, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Parents insist son poses no threat to teacher, students Published in the Asbury Park Press 5/29/98 By AMY HUGHES and ARPIE NAKASHIAN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP -- The 15-year-old boy charged with threatening his English teacher is under court order not to go outside without parental supervision, his parents said yesterday.

"One of his friends called to talk to him yesterday and it was like somebody handed him a million dollars," said Denise Krawiec, the boy's mother. "He is isolated." The parents of Robert J. "R.J" Krawiec, the Pinelands Regional High School freshman who police say handed his English teacher a drawing of a person seen through the cross hairs of a rifle scope, said yesterday that their son is not a threat to his classmates or teachers. Authorities and the parents said the teacher was not depicted in the drawing. "This thing has been blown way out of proportion by what is going on in the rest of the country," said Robert J. Krawiec Sr. "For a rural center like this one, he ("RJ") is a normal boy pursuing normal interests like hunting, fishing and sports." Police charged the freshman with making terroristic threats and have said the boy has behavioral problems at school. Authorities said the seizure of his parents' 20 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from their home on Lake Saint Claire Drive was a precaution. The parents object to the seizure and the action against their son. "Other kids get 10-day suspensions and they are allowed to go back to school," said Mrs. Krawiec, referring to juveniles here and in Stafford Township who have returned to school after bringing live bullets to class. "But R.J. draws a picture and he is made out to look like Charles Manson." The English teacher, Sheila Sledden, informed guidance counselors about the drawing shown to her last Friday and contacted the police on her own, said Paul J. Carr, the attorney for the Pinelands Regional Board of Education. The school did not initiate the police investigation or the search of the boy's home, Carr said yesterday. "He ("RJ") is a quiet kid and the only time he strikes out is when he is pushed too hard," said the boy's mother. "Isn't everyone like that?" While the Krawiecs said their son, who is on the football and wrestling teams, has been involved in an "occasional fight" at school, he never initiates fights. "He is a big boy and people are picking on him," Denise Krawiec said. "He is tired of getting picked on and he is doing the best he can not to fight." Officials at the high school have said the freshman, who has not been at school since last Friday, has been disciplined appropriately.

But, citing educational statutes that prohibit them from discussing pupil records and disciplinary actions, officials have declined to specify if Krawiec has been suspended. "In situations like this, where there is a threat or a perceived threat, it is always prudent to remove the student," Carr continued. Policy dictates that the student be referred to the child study team for evaluation, he added. Superintendent Clement A. Crea has the authority to suspend the student for up to 10 days. The board can extend that time or expel, but must first hold a hearing, Carr said. A decision to schedule a hearing is pending the results of separate investigations by the Ocean County prosecutor's office and the district, Carr said. "It is appropriate in situations like these that such a hearing take place," Carr said. "Our primary concern is for the safety of the students and staff within the district." The Krawiecs, who teach hunter education as a team for the state Division of Fish Game and Wildlife, legally own all the seized guns. The Krawiecs, reacting to reports that AK-47s were among the items seized, yesterday showed a police search warrant inventory listing what authorities confiscated. It was mostly collectibles and hunting gear. Weapons including, shotguns, rifles, handguns, BB guns, antiques, black powder guns were stored in three locked gun safes in the home. The collection also includes three old military rifles, a bolt-action 8mm Czech rifle and two SKS 7.62 rifles. One of the Russian-designed rifles was made in China in 1945 and is a collector's item from the Korean War. Most of the ammunition was birdshot and buckshot used for hunting. That ammunition was kept in a fourth safe. "We didn't lock it (the gun collection) up to keep it away from the kids, but, for everybody's safety," Denise Krawiec said. "I don't know who might be coming to the house." From: Asbury Park Press http://www.injersey.com/news/story/0,1210,80470,00.html?prev=0+ - -- Nation In Distress http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of our society by those who refuse to see the consequences of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 07:39:40 -0500 From: larry ball Subject: Re: Fratrum: NJ Gun Seizure Update (fwd) I am searching New Jersey law as it is on the internet. I came across this article. It is an example of the press/media attitude about guns in "Joisey." Read and weap. Note that the author asks, "Is American society all that important?" A Value Judgment by Christopher Taylor Guns kill. The FBI says, "When assaults by type of weapon are examined, a gun proves to be seven times more deadly than all other weapons combined." "Guns have no place in the hands of our children or in the hallways and classrooms of their schools," Senator Diane Feinstein of California said on August 10, 1994. "Children should be able to go to school without fearing for their safety. Indeed, our schools should be safe havens - places where children are able to escape the violence that engulfs so many of their lives. The time has come to remove guns from the schools of America." Feinstein and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota co-sponsored the The Gun Free Schools Act to remove guns from all public schools in America. And a study done by the Emory Center for Injury Control concludes that guns are readily available to America's youth. The reasoning is backed by statistics. Senator Diane Feinstein of California's sources report that in 1994, 135,000 guns were brought to school every day. 272 adults and students were killed or wounded on campus between 1986 and 1990. The Children's Defense Fund reports that every two hours a child is killed by a gun. Conversely, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), financed in part by the federal government, will have exposed 26 million children by 1999 to a program marketing guns. Backed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NSSF has created videos for the superficial purpose of promoting educated use of guns in hunting, but the underlying promotion of hunting and guns themselves, according to an article by Susan Glick and Josh Sugarmann in Mother Jones. Also, a recent survey published in the Electric Library said that the students of many schools do not fear for their lives, and that much of the gun controlling practices are unnecessary. Why is there such a conflict of interests? Is there a problem throughout the United States with firearms in schools, or are most of the statistics biased based upon an isolated region? What could convince everyone that there needs to be drastic measures taken when conflicting opinions can be presented? Does the problem lie in the guns themselves, or in human nature? Where does the solution lie? It would seem that to many, guns are the problem in themselves. The American Firearms Association sees it fit to deny access of firearms for persons convicted of violent misdemeanors and felonies and the Brady Law when the constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. This group also considers themselves to be the moderate..... Does the Constitution pose a threat to national safety, to the safety in schools? Ought there be another amendment to the US constitution? The National Rifle Association considers the Second Amendment to be vital to American society....Is American society all that important? Do our children really deserve rights over safety? Mail Me - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:45:11 -0700 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Unarmed Dead In light of all the anti-gun blather being bleated on Pravda the last couple of weeks, here are some statistics which show what can, and eventually does, happen when a government makes it illegal to own firearms: The following 123 million ordinary human beings did NOT have guns: The 20th century's top nine megamurderers, as estimated in the book "Death by Government" unarmed dead Joseph Stalin 42,672,000 1929-1936 Mao Tse-Tung 37,828,000 1923-1976 Adolph Hitler 20,946,000 1933-1945 Chiang Kai-shek 10,214,000 1921-1948 Vladimir Lenin 4,017,000 1917-1924 Hideki Tojo 3,990,000 1937-1945 Pol Pot 2,397,000 1968-1987 Yayha Khan 1,500,000 1971 (Pakistan) Josip Tito 1,172,000 1941-1987 (Yugoslavia) - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 13:39:45 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: War on Drugs = War on Gun Owners >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:01:37 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: War on Drugs = War on Gun Owners > >The enclosed was written to the Editor of Guns and Ammo >Magazine in response to an excellent article published in >the June, 1998, edition entitled CIVIL FORFEITURE - THE WAR >ON DRUGS COULD BECOME THE WAR ON GUNOWNERS. If possible, >please try to read this article. It contains a lot of >information which is truly sinister. Civil Forfeiture laws >are an issue which directly affect all citizens, no matter >whether they use or have drugs or guns or don't, and we as >citizens must attempt to address with our representatives >NOW. Please try to contact your representatives in Congress >concerning this. > >Thank you, > >Tina Terry >_________________________________ > >Tina Terry >405-C South Beeline Highway >Payson, Arizona 85541 > >To the Editor >Guns and Ammo > >May 28th, 1998 > > >I am gratified to see your publication of the article "Civil Forfeiture >- 'The War on Drugs' Could Become the War on Gun Owners." The situation >which exists in our nation because of these draconian, fascist and >utterly unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws is one which >profoundly affects every single citizen, whether he or she has committed >any crime or not, and whether he or she knows it or >not. To help people fully grasp the urgency and gravity of this >situation, I am enclosing the following, which is an excerpt from a >United States Department of Justice document entitled "Civil Forfeiture: >Tracing the Proceeds of Narcotics Trafficking." This is what the U.S. >Attorneys are using to guide them when property is >seized from a citizen, whether narcotics are involved or not. The last >line should chill the guts of anyone who owns anything - the government >admits baldly that forfeiture proceedings should be encouraged, since >the law has made it virtually impossible for the citizen to put the >government to its proof, and thus to reclaim his property. What is also >so ultimately disturbing is that the government shamelessly admits in >this document that it has made it so hard for anyone to prove ownership >of anything that the citizen now often has virtually no access to the >courtroom, and therefore, no >access to due process of law when his or her property is seized. The >document also encourages civil forfeiture even when criminal charges are >not filed, and practically rejoices that a suspect's pleading the Fifth >Amendment in a potentially criminal context often effectively prevents >that same suspect from then attempting to lawfully reclaim seized >property. > >We should all be asking ourselves and our Congressional representatives: > >When (and how) did our government cease being a servant of the people, >and become so completely their emperor? > >"The Advantages of Civil Forfeiture" > >Although tracing is a complex process, prospects for successful >forfeiture are eased considerably by the procedural benefits of civil >process. The most obvious feature is the lower burden of proof >confronting enforcement officials: proof by a preponderance of the >evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.(8) Furthermore, under >federal law and some state legislation, the burden of proof is placed on >the claimant rather than the government.(9) Thus, enforcement officials >need not achieve certainty in their tracing efforts. They need only >satisfy a relaxed standard of proof This is an advantage of enormous >consequence, as many cases turn on the burden of proof. Moreover, even >if criminal prosecution was precluded by operation of the exclusionary >rule, civil forfeiture may still be possible. Although the exclusionary >rule applies to forfeiture proceedings, tainted evidence may still be >sufficient to meet the lower burden of proof.(10) Indeed, civil >forfeiture may be a viable option despite an acquittal on criminal >charges.(11) > >The civil context provides other advantages as well. For example, >prosecutors may resort to the discovery process to obtain information >pertinent to tracing.(12) The claimant may be deposed and disclosure of >his records compelled. Perjury and contempt sanctions are potentially >available against untruthful or recalcitrant witnesses. And, while the >Fifth Amendment may still be asserted, a civil claimant risks an adverse >factual finding by doing so.(13) This possibility places the claimant in >a particular bind if criminal charges against him are still pending. >Asserting the Fifth Amendment may result in an adverse factual >determination, while answering questions may have incriminating >consequences in the criminal proceedings.(14) And, regardless of whether >criminal charges are pending, discovery is likely to provide useful >information for impeachment if the claimant testifies at the forfeiture >proceeding. Such testimony will often be necessary because, once the >government's evidentiary burden has been sustained, failure to provide >responsive proof will result in an adverse judgment.(15) Often times, >however, such testimony proves counterproductive because it is presented >in an evasive or inconsistent manner. > >A civil claimant is also required to establish his standing to contest >the forfeiture. Frequently, legal title to property will be in someone's >name other than the real party at interest. Most courts will not permit >forfeitures to be contested by such so-called straw men. Thus, before >the prosecution must present its proof, the claimant must establish his >standing. Normally, this requires proof of dominion and control beyond >mere legal title.(16) Federal law and some state statutes require that >this be initially accomplished by filing a verified claim.(17) In >addition, some United States Attorneys offices routinely make standing a >central discovery issue.(18) Thus, civil claimants are by no means >assured automatic access to the courtroom. > >For these reasons, the civil claimant is in a very difficult position >relative to his posture in a criminal trial. Indeed, notwithstanding >tracing obstacles confronting the government, many cases are uncontested >by potential claimants or otherwise lost on standing grounds.(19) This >means that, even when tracing obstacles exist, forfeiture proceedings >should be considered since the government may never be put to its >proof." > >Please send share this letter with as many people as you can, and >requestthat they submit it to their Congressional representatives, and >demand to know why Americans have been stripped completely of due >process of law if and when they are unfortunate enough to have the >government seize their property. The Bill of Rights was originally >written to prevent such violations of property. How in Heaven's >name do these Gestapo-like laws square with the Fifth Amendment, which >clearly states that "no person shall be deprived of property without due >process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use >without just compensation?" I guess the government got around the pesky >Fifth by simply decreeing: "We won't directly deny you due process, but >we 'll make it so hard for you to prove that you own your own stuff that >you'll never get it back. Then we can keep and sell your stuff and give >you nothing because you could never really prove you owned it." And the >fact that the courts, >including the Supreme Court, have, for the most part, upheld these laws >is an additional outrage. It is clear that we subjects of the king have >no legal recourse. > >King George III must be crowing with derisive laughter from wherever he >is now. > >Sincerely, > >Tina Terry > >cc: Congressman J.D. Hayworth > Senator John McCain > Senator Jon Kyle >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 13:46:06 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:09:55 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY > >Amazing how those globalists stick together, isn't it? > > Liberty Belle > >**************** >EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY > >Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on Thursday, former >President George Bush defended Bill Clinton's planned June trip to >China, saying that actively engaging it was the only sensible policy for >the United States, the BOSTON GLOBE reports. "I think he ought to go to >China," the former president said. "I think it would be a big mistake >for him not to go to China." > >The GLOBE's Scott Lehigh reports on Friday that Bush downplayed >Republican accusations that the Clinton administration has let its China >policy be influenced by political donations funneled from China to the >Democratic Party. > >Bush said: "I honestly find it very difficult to believe that anybody >would do something that's not in the security interests of this country >for a contribution to a political party." > >"I think it is sickening if, as alleged, they tried to give money to the >Democratic National Committee," smiled Bush, who joked the Chinese >should have given to both political parties. > >During his 1992 campaign, Clinton was a harsh critic of Bush's policy of >engagement with China. In a speech at Georgetown University, Clinton >even accused his rival of coddling the Chinese -- only to adopt the same >basic policy upon taking office. > >[CLINTON: "The Bush administration continues to coddle China, despite >its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of >Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology... >Such forbearance on our part might have made sense during the Cold War >when China was the counterweight to Soviet power. It makes no sense to >play the China card now when our opponents have thrown in their hand. >[Applause]" ] > >At Harvard on Thursday, the former president insisted that a healthy >US-Chinese relationship is crucial to a peaceful and prosperous future >on Earth. > >"I think it is that big, that important," Bush said. "I am telling you, >if we neglect it, or if we continually bash to feel good, in spite of >the things that they are doing wrong, we make a huge mistake... They are >totalitarians. But they have done remarkable things that have raised the >standard of living and so I think we ought to stay involved with them." >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 13:46:23 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:15:28 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought > >NOTE: Oh Thank God! That little lady in Idaho has balls that clank! >Now let's all get behind her and send her our praise and encouragement. >As a special prize, I think the charges against Horiuchi should now be >upgraded to Murder One -- just to make the whole process worthwhile. > >-- Carl F. Worden > >********************* > >May 28, 1998 > >Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought > >Filed at 8:35 p.m. EDT > >By The Associated Press > >BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A prosecutor said Thursday she is >appealing the dismissal of an involuntary manslaughter charge >against the FBI sharpshooter who killed the wife of white >separatist Randy Weaver. > >U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed state charges against >Lon Horiuchi on May 14. > >He ruled that Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his >federal authority and was honestly discharging his duties >when he fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver on >Aug. 22, 1992, during the siege at Ruby Ridge. > >Lodge cited a constitutional clause that immunizes federal >authorities from liability when acting within the scope of >their jobs. > >Randy Weaver was acquitted of all charges in connection with the >11-day siege of his mountaintop cabin that also claimed the lives >of his 14-year-old son and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan. > >Weaver urged Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury to seek >reinstatement of the state charge. > >Woodbury accused Horiuchi of negligently firing the shot that >killed Mrs. Weaver as she stood inside the cabin holding her infant >daughter Elisheba on the second day of the standoff. > >Lodge said evidence indicated Horiuchi did not see Mrs. Weaver >behind the door or in the doorway of the cabin when he fired at >Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, who was ducking into the cabin. > >Harris was also cleared of all charges in connection with the >standoff. > >The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting >Horiuchi or any of his FBI superiors and reaffirmed the decision >last year. > >A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal >government is pending. Weaver filed a similar lawsuit, which >last year resulted in a $3.1 million settlement. > >Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:44:00 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Two from Vin......Second is very powerful on Guns ....and their advantages FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 1, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give the money back And so the United States Congress finds itself with a tax-receipt "windfall" of $39 billion -- by the methods of accounting to which Washington has now grown accustomed, at any rate. In fact, if the Congress were to go "cold turkey" on dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund -- immediately cease "borrowing" any more of those funds for other projects -- the federal government would still be running a $63 billion deficit. (Government accountants figure the Social Security "trust fund" will start paying out more than it collects in or about the year 2010 -- when the Baby Boomers start drawing more money out than they're paying in. In fact, that prediction may be based on some unrealistic assumptions about the ages at which current retirees will die off -- increased longevity could well bring the day of reckoning even closer. And, of course, there are few if any "funds" actually left in the trust fund -- the solvency of the system depends entirely on the ability of Washington to extract enough in taxes from children still working, to fund the transfer payments to the elderly.) Thus, while President Clinton couldn't resist patting himself and his Democratic allies on the back last week for the gigantic 1993 tax hike which glommed all this booty from the paychecks and bank accounts of hard-working Americans, this perceived "surplus" has launched a new debate in Washington, as to how best to spend the loot. The president wants to declare the money off-limits until he and Congress complete plans to "shore up" Social Security. However, once the federal bean-counters determine how much should be set aside as a retirement reserve, this "does not mean that in the future there could never be a tax cut," the president said. How thoughtful. Extrapolating current trends, White House economists now project a total surplus of $495 billion over the next five years, and $1.5 trillion over the next decade. And based on that, the president says he's not ruling out a little tax cut ... someday. Republicans, meanwhile, appear split on whether to use the surplus to pay down the national debt -- now $5.5 trillion, and expected to grow to $5.9 trillion in five years -- or whether to use it to fund broad tax cuts. Of these three proposals, "setting aside" more money in the Social Security trust fund is the most absurd. Congress will soon grow used to spending these vast new sums, and as soon as we have a slow year (we (start ital)will(end ital) have another slow year, eventually), they will be right back to "borrowing" our retirement funds, to cover their new and larger IOUs. (In fact, they never will have stopped.) It would make about as much sense to loan the $39 billion to the nation's winos. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, in a rare moment of lucidity, has already proposed the gradual privatization of Americans' retirement annuities. The answer surely lies more in that direction -- placing the funds in the hands of a diversified set of private money managers who could actually be indicted for operating the kind of actuarially bankrupt Ponzi scheme now spinning out of control in Washington. As for paying down the debt, that makes better sense, and a government in real surplus should, at the very least, stop selling Treasury Bills, Savings Bonds, and the like -- immediately -- so as to incur no new interest costs. But what the president now as much as admits is that -- thanks to a booming private economy -- current tax rates are producing an avalanche of cash so large that even the legendary spendthrifts in Washington can't immediately figure out how to dispose of it. The answer is to get that money out of the hands of Congress immediately ... before they (start ital)do(end ital) come up with more spending schemes, erecting vast new bureaucratic roach hotels which will be hard as heck to exterminate when the time comes. $39 billion is something on the order of $150 extra, taken and held from every man, woman and child in this nation -- roughly $350 per household, and more from large families. If the surplus really exists -- an important caveat, given the amount of "creative bookkeeping" now in place in the capital -- the best spur to the private economy would be to send out checks in that amount to every American (more to those in higher "tax brackets," of course) on Aug. 15 ... and (start ital)then(end ital) cut taxes. Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gingrich: Give the money back. It's not yours. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA EDITORS: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR MONTHLY BONUS FEATURE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns On May 21, all indications are that pencil-necked 15-year-old misfit Kipland Kinkel, only child of two well-to-do government school teachers, took a Ruger .22-caliber rifle, shot his parents to death in their home, and then headed down to the school cafeteria to wound 22 of his schoolmates, while killing two more. What all the kids in the well-to-do community of Springfield, Oregon were doing in the cafeteria early that morning, the news accounts do not say. Being taught to expect a government dole, even for breakfast? At any rate, it was another shooting in the "gun-free zones" which the "send-a-message" liberals have made of our mandatory youth propaganda camps - -- oops, "public schools." So needless to say, the Usual Suspects were shortly heard from. Within days Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association -- America's largest gun control outfit -- showed up on Katie Couric's smugly hoplophobic NBC "Today" show, "debating" all-guns-to-the-state Congressman Charles Schumer on a typically heads-they-win-tales-we-lose question: whether it is federal or only local authorities who should "mandate" gun locks. Needless to say, Mr. LaPierre never asked why they were debating locks for handguns, when all the recent schoolyard shootings were done with long guns. For that matter, the firearms used in these crimes were not full-auto machine weapons (no innocent American civilians have been killed by such legally-owned weapons in years, except by government agents), nor the "murderous" assault weapons which Messrs. Schumer and Clinton are busily banning, with their "deadly" pistol grips, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. ((start ital)That(end ital) kind of weapon, as it turns out, kills an average of three Americans per year ... fewer than are killed by bowling balls.) Since few to none of the recent school killings have involved handguns, this opportunistic political carrion-feeding on the young dead to promote bad laws already in the hopper makes about as much sense as fighting highway fatalities by requiring more life preservers on pleasure boats. Nor did Mr. LaPierre ever call the gun-banner's biggest bluff -- never asking Schumer "So you're saying gun locks are enough? If you get this law passed you'll never propose another gun control law? This isn't just one more incremental step toward total prohibition?" After all, once the victim disarmament gang effectively outlawed machine guns for most Americans, they didn't hesitate to ridicule the real reason we own guns -- "a safeguard against tyranny," in the words of Hubert Humphrey -- by simpering "Oh, you and your friends think you can stop the 82nd Airborne with your deer rifles?" Similarly, once every handgun in the country is required to be double-padlocked inside a time-locked safe, do we think they'll hesitate to argue, "Since you can no longer get the gun out on short notice, it's no good to defend you against a rapist, so how can you argue you still need it?" Advice from the Germans Highest soprano among the braying state-power bedwetters, as usual, was West Virginia's daily Charleston Gazette: "The slaughter of schoolchildren is a price America pays for being a gun-polluted society. ... The recent mass shooting at an Oregon school was the latest in a never-ending string of horrors. This is what happens in a society saturated with 200 million guns. Any child can obtain a weapon and use it in a moment of childish rage. This is what happens in a society where the powerful 'right to bear arms' lobby cows politicians, making them afraid to take any steps to protect people from the gun danger. How long will America endure this madness?" the coaldust daily ululated on May 22. The fanatical cries to disarm the victims even went international, with Germany's newspaper "Bild" pontificating on May 25 (in the quaintly spastic Associated Press translation): "A 15-year-old murdered his parents in Oregon, shot and killed two schoolmates and wounded 22 others. Again the affected will stand around the coffins, beseech God and bemoan the shameful crime. Probably they will barbarically punish the 15-year-old barbarian. Thereafter they will claim: continuous shooting in television -- only a game. The unscrupulous weapons trade -- a successful business. And the instructions to build bombs in the Internet had nothing to do with the bloody reality. Really not? High Noon in school. Disarm finally!! Also in television and the weapons closets at home. It's not a pistol that makes a man. Playing with violence is instructions on how to kill." We don't really have to respond to our Teutonic critics, do we? Their Jewish and Gypsy minorities took their advice to "Disarm finally!!" between 1928 and 1938 -- gun registration leading to confiscation, just as Mr. Schumer and Mr. LaPierre's back-stabbing NRA plan for us here, and is now underway again in both England and France. They claim European murder rates are lower than ours? Between 1928 and 1945, the German state murdered at least 8 million unarmed civilians from their own and the captured territories (not counting the deaths of men in uniform, though we probably should.) Counting famines created on purpose for political reasons, Joe Stalin and his Communists during the same years murdered civilians numbering at least 20 million. Even assuming not one single murder has occurred in Europe since 1945 -- ignoring Bosnia and all the rest -- that averages out to 400,000 murders per year since 1928, caused by the citizenry being disarmed, while their governments stayed armed -- exactly what's planned for us here. Or have the brave state socialists like Mr. Schumer or Sen. Feinstein called for disarming the DEA, the ATF, and the FBI -- America's SS -- while I wasn't listening? The government dispensary Any death of a child is a tragedy. But if someone has to be callous enough to inject a few facts into this debate, let's start here: Our murder rates are way below the European rate reported above, not in spite of, but (start ital)because(end ital) we are a well-armed nation, where the government (up until the past decade, when they started testing the waters with Waco and Ruby Ridge) never dared attempt such atrocities. (We'll have more now, of course, after federal judge Edward Lodge on May 14 -- a mere week before the Oregon rampage -- dismissed all charges against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, ruling he was "just doing his job" back in 1992 when he shot away the lower jaw and carotid artery of an Idaho woman named Vicki Weaver, wanted for no crime, who he found standing in the kitchen doorway of her home, armed with a baby. Vicki Weaver screamed for 30 seconds as she lay dying, whereupon the FBI agents who had her family home besieged named their encampment "Camp Vicky," and taunted her surviving family members over their bullhorns, asking if "Mom" was going to cook them blueberry pancakes. The fact that Gunner Horiuchi -- who has testified his qualifications include accuracy within one-half-inch at the range from which he shot Mrs. Weaver -- will not even face a manslaughter trial was by far the most important gun-crime-related story of May, 1998 ... yet how much play did it receive in your local newspaper or television station?) Actually, some excellent commentary has moved on the wires in the week since the Springfield cafeteria shooting, though it will be interesting to measure how much of this common sense made it through the nation's anti-gun editorial filters. While "What caused this?" tends to be a rhetorical question, with the inquirer standing ready to answer "guns," isn't it interesting that the day before young Kip Kinkel had his bad day in Springfield, two teens were arrested in Clearfield, Penn. for the 10-days-past murder of 15-year-old Kimberly Jo Dotts, who was dragged into the woods by her teenage friends with a rope around her neck when she threatened to "snitch" about their plans to run away to Florida. There, they hanged young Kimberly Jo by her neck from a tree, before bashing her head in with a rock. How do the gun-grabbers explain the role of the "easy availability of guns" in causing (start ital)that(end ital) schoolgirl murder, in which no firearms were involved? Easy. They just ignore it. In my newspaper, the arrests in Kimberly Jo's death were buried on page 12, on the same day the Kip Kinkel story broke on page one, with photos. And since it didn't fit the anti-gun agenda, Kimberly Jo's horrendous murder was thereafter ignored - -- even as we heard day after day of anti-gun follow-ups about Kip Kinkel's rampage. But even in the Oregon case, there is a far more obvious suspect than "guns," as Maureen Sielaff was quick to detail in the Vigo Examiner (http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com): "Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac," Ms. Sielaff reported early the next week. "Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. "Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the book 'Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs,' by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts." The drug's form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company (a division of Eli Lilly) and last revised on June 12, 1997 -- the paperwork included in each package of Prozac -- lists such other "frequent" symptoms as "chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tinnitus." If this kid gets a good lawyer, look for a "Prozac defense." And if that happens, my cheery thought for the day is that young Kipland could be looking at as little as three-to-seven on the psychiatric farm. "Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings," Ms. Sielaff continues, "these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. ..." In an apparently unrelated incident the same week, I find the Cincinnati Inquirer editorializing on May 14, "Last month, when a classmate suffered a severe asthma attack on a school bus in Mount Airy, Md.., Christine Rhodes, 12, shared her prescription inhaler with the stricken girl -- possibly saving her life. "In a rational world, Christine would be hailed a hero. But 'rational' is not a word that fits the world of education these days. Christine was branded a 'drug trafficker' by school officials -- a black mark that will remain on her record for three years. Makes you wonder what they were inhaling." Two years before, and also in Ohio, the paper noted, "Two middle-school girls were suspended for sharing a packet of Midol." It is not the dimmest, but the brightest of our young men who are bound to go stir crazy as their government incarceration stretches to 13 years and beyond ... as they are forced to spend 12 or 13 years having the sparks of creativity and intellectual curiosity snuffed out, learning less than their grandfathers learned in eight, merely to satisfy the labor unions' economically misguided desire to keep them off the job market, bolstered by the teachers' union full-court-press for full employment now dubbed "dropout prevention." Meantime, as the religious zealots whoop it up, demonizing every recreational drug of choice but their own, just as fast as they do "guns," does anyone really know how many of our schoolchildren (particularly boys) are now doped up by school nurses with Prozac and Ritalyn, relatively new drugs whose long-term psychiatric effects are only now beginning to be discovered? If you shut up enough animals in a small enough cage, they will eventually start killing one another. Do the mass dopings of kids like Kip Kinkel subdue their "escape" response, and if so are the effects actually worse when they finally break through? Is anyone even tracking the (start ital)growth rate(end ital) of these mass drug-dosings of our innocent young men by their government wardens? And doesn't this mean our schools' "zero tolerance" drug policies really only mean zero tolerance for (start ital)competing(end ital) drug pushers? The crime shortage On May 28, I published across the top of our own Op-ed page here in Las Vegas a piece by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute, pointing out that the New York Times ran the story of the Springfield, Ore. shootings "for three straight days on the front page," while "President Clinton used his Saturday radio address to decry the 'changing culture that desensitizes our children to violence'." The only problem is, according to Mr. Glassman, "The truth about violence in America is that it is falling, not rising. From 1993 to 1996, the number of murders fell 20 percent, and just four days before the Oregon shootings, the FBI announced preliminary figures for 1997 that found both murders and robbery down another 9 percent and overall crime off for the sixth straight year. Murders in New York City fell a stunning 22 percent in 1997; in Los Angeles, 20 percent. ... "You have to wonder about the claims of pop psychologists and of the president himself when he says, as he did Saturday, that the rising tide of murders and mayhem on TV, in movies and on video games, is turning kids into killers. U.S. News noted that 'juvenile murder arrests declined ... 14 percent from 1994 to 1995 and another 14 percent from 1995 to 1996'." But if violence is falling, why do these rare schoolyard incidents get so much media play? "One answer may be a crime shortage," Mr. Glassman figures. "At a Harvard symposium recently, one panelist pointed out that local TV news shows have to import violent footage now that local criminals aren't turning out enough product (there were only 43 murders in Boston last year, the fewest since 1961). ... "So, what's the meaning of the schoolhouse slayings? Frankly, not much. The meaning of the hysteria over them ... now, that's worth looking into." Writing for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service a few days later, Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., concurred: "I have now been on television news following every one of the recent school killings answering basically the same question: 'How do you explain the trend of shootings by kids in rural schools?' My answer is always the same: I cannot explain it, because no such trend exists. ... "In 1992, 55 killings occurred in America's schools -- a remarkably small number. By 1997, that number dropped by more than half, to 25. By contrast, 88 people were killed by lightning in 1997. "The Los Angeles County School System, with about 600,000 students in it, has not had a homicide since 1995. The District of Columbia, with about 600,000 citizens, has had about 600 homicides since that time. "Overall, between 1994 and 1996, there was a 30 percent drop in juvenile homicides in America. Ninety kids were arrested in rural communities for the crime of homicide in 1996, compared to 1,800 in cities. ... "Between 1992 and 1996, the homicide rate in America dropped by 20 percent. But the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent. ... Distorted coverage of ... these events has violated recently victimized communities, frightened parents, fomented reactionary legislation and misinformed the public. Worst of all, it may be creating an environment where other troubled youths are copy-catting their well-publicized peers." Too many laws The NRA's standard cry, "Why don't we enforce the laws already on the books?" can get to sound pretty lame through repetition. But in fact, I remember interviewing Marion Hammer of Florida (since elected to head the NRA in Washington) about one of the tourist murders in Florida five years back, and having her point out that the culprit -- a young woman -- had been arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of an illegal concealed weapon while shoplifting -- as well as resisting arrest -- only few days before. The authorities let her out due to a lack of jail space (too many victimless dope smokers tying up the cells, presumably.) Similarly, Kip Kinkel was arrested and booked for bringing a stolen gun to school the day before his murder rampage ... but then promptly released back into his helpless parents' custody. So, it turns out the NRA's recurrent cry has some specific application: Why push for more gun laws, when the cops aren't able enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books? To outlaw everything has the same effect as to legalize everything, except that the cops are thus empowered to harass anyone, any time they want. The Florida tourist-shooting epidemic is also relevant in another way. In 1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of the University of Florida has shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots started removing those stickers, Florida's "tourist murder crime wave" disappeared virtually overnight. Similarly, one of the last places a criminal knows he can find unarmed victims in an increasingly well-armed and peaceful America today ... is in the "gun free school zones" in which the snivelliberals have locked up our children. Hand out more guns In fact, it turns out that if a solution to schoolyard violence is needed, experts with some mighty solid credentials propose that the solution is not to ban guns, but to hand out more: Slated to appear Monday, June 1, I'm publishing in the Review-Journal an excellent piece initially prepared for the Los Angeles Times by John R. Lott, Jr., a fellow at University of Chicago School of Law, and author of ''More Guns, Less Crime'' (University of Chicago Press, 1998), under the headline: "To stop mass shootings, hand out more guns: When Israel armed teachers, the school shootings ended." In that essay, Professor Lott writes: "What might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves. "Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings. "The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Israelis had 'complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said.' "Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter while waiting for the police." (That assistant principal had, fortunately for all, violated federal law by bringing that firearm onto campus, even though he left it in the glove compartment of his car. "More recently," Professor Lott continues, "the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes. Who knows how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?" Dr. Lott's exhaustive studies of multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995 reveal that "only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. "The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, injuries by 82 percent. ... "Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively -- including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen -- are ignored. ... Without permitting law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns, we risk leaving victims as sitting ducks." Sitting sucks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad, that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own self-defense. The gun-grabbers will respond "a resident of the house is more likely to be injured than an intruder." But only if they cleverly include suicides in their statistics, of course. Besides, you can scare away 100 intruders without ever wounding one, just by showing your weapon. Which makes the minuscule "wound" statistics a red herring. Crediting Eddie Eagle All these statistics can get a little boggling, I know. So let's take a specific example. The Elko Daily Free Press reports that on April 7 of this year, an unnamed 15-year-old boy in that northern Nevada community tried to stop an intruder from beating his mother, but found he was not strong enough to do so. The lad therefore raced into his mother's bedroom, retrieving a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the clip, inserted the clip into the weapon, returned, and fired at the assailant three times, hitting him twice and killing him. "He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and possibly the 3-year-old child also present," the newspaper reports. "The mother suffered a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on her body, and a cut to her forehead from the attack." "It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of self-defense," said D.A.. Gary Woodbury, in which case "an inquest is not warranted." If Mr. Schumer's proposed federal "gun lock" bill had been in effect -- or even the non-federal version tacitly OK'd by Mr. LaPierre -- the Elko teenager would have done better attempting to whack his mother's assailant with a fireplace log. Following the successful Israeli example of arming teachers and parent volunteers, Georgia state legislator Mitchell Kaye has now proposed one of the few legislative initiatives likely to directly address the problem: He wants to authorize and encourage Georgia teachers to carry concealed weapons at school. "They know that all the adults in these school gun-free zones are unarmed, and that's the problem,'' Kaye told CNN the day after the Oregon shootings. In a carefully scripted line, the gun-grabbers reply that teachers "are supposed to educate children, not execute them." But we don't give weapons to police officers in the hopes they'll "execute" their suspects, do we? Guns are the great deterrent, preventing crime by their very presence. The NRA does do (start ital)something(end ital) useful. The victim disarmament gang whine that the group's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety and training classes are nothing but "Joe Camel with feathers." But as it turns out, the parents of the young wrestling team member who finally jumped and subdued Kip Kinkel, 17-year-old Jacob Ryker, credit his firearms training with the fact that he was able to detect when Kinkel's .22 rifle was empty, timing his leap when the assailant had to change weapons. Linda Ryker also credited her son's familiarity with firearms for helping Jacob deal with the crisis, keeping his wits about him even after he was shot. With his son shot but recovering, Linda's husband Robert, a Navy diver, proudly wore his National Rifle Association cap during the family's press conference. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #144 *************************