From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: "The Best Defense" Date: 04 Mar 1999 18:43:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Roundtable@flinet.com THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999 Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma By Robert Stacy McCain James Wayne Horne had a record of nearly 30 arrests, with three state prison terms behind him, when he broke into Sammie Foust's Cape Coral, Fla., home in 1996. Horne was on crack cocaine. He wanted money. He had a knife. He cut and beat the 49-year-old woman so badly that she required hospitalization. Horne didn't go to the hospital. He went to the morgue, because Mrs. Foust found her pistol and shot him dead. The story of how a .25-caliber pistol saved Mrs. Foust's life is just one of more than a dozen dramatic accounts of armed self-defense by ordinary citizens in Robert A. Waters' new book, "The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm." The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott] "There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr. Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.] Mr. Waters, 55, said he chose the 14 accounts in "The Best Defense" from among "several thousand cases" he had collected over the years. The Ocala, Fla., resident said his interest in such stories began "about 10 years ago" when he saw a story in the local newspaper about a man who shot an intruder. "At that point, I started collecting clippings" about citizens defending themselves with firearms, he said. Among the violent encounters recounted in Mr. Waters' new book: * With a .45-caliber pistol, Doug Stanton of Ashland, Ohio, ended the 1995 killing spree of Jerry Hessler, who had murdered four persons and wounded two others in a psychotic revenge plan. * Judy Davis of Orange County, Fla., was stalked by an obsessive man she had once briefly dated. When he continued stalking her despite restraining orders and two criminal convictions -- he was twice released on probation -- Miss Davis bought a .38 revolver that saved her life when the stalker broke into her home and attacked her. * On Dec. 2, 1994, the long criminal career of "Dixie Mafia" boss William "Pappy" Head ended when he and an accomplice made the mistake of trying to rob a jewelry store in Richmond whose owner, Gary B. Baker, made sure he and his employees were always armed. A retired counselor to the disabled, Mr. Waters is himself a gun owner -- but "not a collector or a real major gun enthusiast," he said. He hopes the stories in "The Best Defense" will help counter media stereotypes of gun owners. [What, that they won't take out their own trash, but dump it on other people who may not be armed at the time?] "Gun owners are portrayed as being militia types. ... A lot of people try to portray gun owners as vigilantes, cowboys and wackos," Mr. Waters said, explaining that the people he interviewed for the book "were nothing like that. They were normal, everyday citizens who were going about their everyday lives when they were brutally attacked. And because they had a gun, they were able to survive the attack." Mr. Waters noted that his home state of Florida is one of several states that license citizens to carry concealed weapons. "Since the law was passed in 1987, more than 300,000 permits have been issued, and the murder rate has fallen 21 percent," he said. "Many criminals will tell you that they do anything to avoid an armed citizen. One reason, for instance, they don't rob 'mom and pop' stores, as opposed to chain stores, is because in the 'mom and pop' stores, many times the owners will keep a gun. Many [retail] chains have policies prohibiting clerks from keeping guns." Mr. Waters cited the research of University of Chicago professor John R. Lott Jr., whose recent book "More Guns, Less Crime" demonstrated that private gun ownership deters violent crime. But such research is sometimes ignored, Mr. Waters said, and many media accounts continue to promote legislation against gun ownership. "I think it's based on emotion," Mr. Waters said of the current "mania" for gun-control laws. "I think Dr. Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida State University have proven that gun control makes minimal difference in the murder rate. However, emotionally, it's a lot easier to blame a firearm [for crime], rather than blaming the criminal." Statistics and research are inadequate when gun-control advocates appeal to such common emotions, Mr. Waters said. "One of the reasons I wrote this book was to bring some emotional presence to the pro-gun side of the debate," he said. "Any time a child or a teen-ager is murdered with a gun, it's all over the national media. And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of cases of people using guns for self-defense and to defend others. But these stories are generally local stories. They're not usually carried by the national media." Mr. Waters added, "The pro-gun side needs to debate less about the Second Amendment and more about issues that really matter to people, such as self-defense." Though he defends the Second Amendment guarantee of citizens' rights to "keep and bear arms," Mr. Waters said, "I'm not totally opposed to all forms of gun control." He supports the recently implemented instant background check because "criminals should be stopped from getting firearms as much as we can." [Yet they should be loosed on society!?] However, he has concerns about efforts for federal gun registration laws "because I think they will eventually lead to confiscation." The recent efforts by several cities to sue gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals is "absurd," Mr. Waters said. "It's almost like suing a pencil manufacturer because a kid makes an F in class." While gun ownership is unpopular in some places, Mr. Waters said reaction to his book in Florida has been very positive. He was even invited to address a gathering of retired teachers. "Ocala is a very conservative town," he said. One thing Mr. Waters learned in interviewing citizens who had used their firearms in self-defense is that they had usually done everything they could to avoid killing someone. [Letting a violent criminal go allows him to kill others.] "Most Americans have a healthy respect for human life," he said. Not criminals, though. "I think a lot of them are sociopathic. In other cases, their minds are so clouded with drugs, such as crack cocaine, they go out to rob and steal to get these drugs, and it doesn't matter who gets in their way." Copyright 1999 News World Communications, Inc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers Date: 04 Mar 1999 18:43:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dammit. They just won't stop will they ?! U.S. Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers 1.52 p.m. ET (1853 GMT) March 2, 1999 WASHINGTON -- A group of U.S. lawmakers offered legislation Tuesday that would allow the government to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns like it does other consumer products. The bill, backed by New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, would make firearms subject to government regulations in the same way as everyday products such as toys, toasters and washing machines. "It is outrageous that our government is powerless to regulate this industry and is unable to warn consumers of the risks which guns may pose,'' Kennedy told a news conference. Under the bill, called the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would regulate the manufacture and sale of guns, develop safety standards and evaluate product safety. It would have the power to restrict guns that posed an unreasonable risk of death or injury, and set a penalty of $500 for civil violations of the act. A host of proposals for restrictions on guns have died in Congress amid fierce Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law requiring federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from a licensed gun dealer. The bill was named after former White House spokesman James Brady, who was shot and wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy said the new legislation would be a first step toward regulation of the industry. Supporters said it could serve as a model for negotiated settlements of lawsuits filed against the gun industry by mayors and individuals. A federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., earlier this month found gunmakers liable for shootings with illegally obtained handguns because of negligent marketing and distribution practices. Several U.S. cities have filed lawsuits seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for firearms violence. comments@foxnews.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: "The Best Defense" Date: 05 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700 On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted: >THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999 > >Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma >------------------------------------- >By Robert Stacy McCain >------------------------------------- [...] > >The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even >though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end >peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a >gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise >this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime >more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott] > >"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack >a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr. >Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's >not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.] [...] You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott. Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues. The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to other forms of self defense or combat. Ask a cop how many hours of training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook or subjecting himself to grave harm. Do you suggest that only those able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense? A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing would-be carjacker and apprehend him. The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened. Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally questionable. The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him. Some 90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees. Your thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person protects themselves witha gun. Apply this same faulty logic to other situations. I have an alarm system on my car and house. I drive an old, ugly car without a stereo. I have stickers and lights on both indicating to potential criminals that alarms are present. I have a large dog at home. I am also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my keys with me. Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm, with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog? By adding alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt to even identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him. Gads, just driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step to avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and doors unlocked is a much easier tarket. Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public? Did you ever consider that by properly locking your bike you are encouraging thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their bike? Do you feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional measures to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you bike? Does this make me "uncharitable"? Of course not. It means I've taken responsibility for myself. Others would be wise to do likewise. But their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or kill a criminal. That remains true whether we are talking about locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it begins. And thank you for posting the article. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: The Firing Line Possible USA Today Ad Date: 05 Mar 1999 14:39:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The folks at http://www.firingline.com have an idea. They want to place an ad similar to the following in USA Today: To Whom it May Concern, No More. Not one more type of firearm, variant of a firearm, or individual firearm. Not one class of ammunition, caliber nor type of bullet. Not a single accessory, tool nor book related to firearms. No more limits on the types of guns, the number of guns, nor the amount of ammunition that I can own. Nor any restrictions on the frequency with which I can add more of the aforementioned to my collection. If you want them, come take them, all at once... otherwise, Leave us the Hell Alone. The actual discussion is at http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/Forum10/HTML/000279.html I think this is an excellent idea. Mosey over and read the discussion. !!! - Monte ------------------------------------------------------ "Black Holes are where God divided by zero" ------------------------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: "The Best Defense" Date: 05 Mar 1999 16:14:00 -0700 On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott. > Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the > safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues. Nolo contendere > The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense > is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or > physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared > to other forms of self defense or combat. Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate. > Do you suggest that only those > able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense? Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally. Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available. And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's arrests of speeders. > A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing > would-be carjacker and apprehend him. Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move, unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one. > The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of > deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the > life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened. Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO. > Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the > back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally > questionable. If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass. Don't let the situation go there. > The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be > displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy > yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him. Display !== brandish My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing. Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be implicit, but does not include departure. Saying "no" is sufficient to make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape arrest. OTOH, if he left because he saw you were carrying openly, then you never commanded him to leave or submit to arrest, and you probably never noticed any threat or his departure. > Some 90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never > fired and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees. > Your thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person > protects themselves witha gun. Then the battle was lost though the attacked survived. I have no objection to your carrying openly so the attack is never made, but beware of pickholsters. > Apply this same faulty logic Sez you. > to other situations. I have an alarm system on my car and house. > I drive an old, ugly car without a stereo. I have stickers and lights > on both indicating to potential criminals that alarms are present. If you must carry concealed, perhaps you should wear your permit on your hat or lapel, and put a warning sign on your car door. Then, if you must still draw your concealed gun, the need to shoot will be unequivocal. Comparing a gun to an alarm system, this would be like an "alarm" that when activated causes a shotgun or antipersonnel mine to pop up and threaten to discharge if the intruder doesn't immediately vacate the premises. > I have a large dog at home. I am > also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my > keys with me. Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and > home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm, > with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the > doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog? Certainly, but none of this save perhaps the dog approaches brandishing, unless your "alarm" appears life-threatening to intruders. Skip the gun and carry a personal alarm. Perhaps you could take the dog with you, and leave an intrusion-activated recording of a barking and clawing dog at home. > By adding alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt > to even identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him. Gads, > just driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step > to avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and > doors unlocked is a much easier tarket. Correct. Restrict yourself to passive defenses if active defense bothers you. I suppose I can be assured you won't install one of those flamethrowing carjacking deterrent systems on your car? :) > Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public? Car too, sometimes with a dog in it. > Did you ever consider that by properly locking your bike you are > encouraging thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their > bike? No. I increase the general difficulty of bicycle theft. They must at least walk to more bikes, or spend time defeating my lock. My lock does not threaten to shoot them if they persist. > Do you feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional > measures to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you > bike? Funny you should ask. I have some guilt feelings that I did not obtain identification information such as descriptions and car tag number of some thugs who, in retrospect, were attempting to steal my next door neighbor's jeep and who then proceeded to steal my parents' van 4 1/2 miles away. > Does this make me "uncharitable"? Of course not. It means I've taken > responsibility for myself. Others would be wise to do likewise. But > their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to > take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or > kill a criminal. That remains true whether we are talking about > locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we > are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it begins. Brandishing without ability or intent to follow through and apprehend or dispatch the criminal indicates irresponsible lack of preparation. Don't do it. If you must scare the criminal, brandish your CCW permit. If the crime has not begun, your brandishing a weapon is a crime, just as brandishing a guillotine in your doorway would. > And thank you for posting the article. You're welcome. If you think "militia" applies to the National Guard, then you must think "Freedom of Speech" applies to the Government Printing office. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: "The Best Defense" Date: 05 Mar 1999 17:30:24 -0700 On Fri, 05 Mar 99 16:14:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted: >> The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense >> is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or >> physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared >> to other forms of self defense or combat. > >Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate. Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far different than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest of someone who immediatly flees when he sees your gun. > >> Do you suggest that only those >> able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense? > >Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared >to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then >only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally. >Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic >appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available. Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately. Neither do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw until one must shoot immediately. See below for brandishing. >And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's >arrests of speeders. And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1% of all living humans. The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be beyond our ability. > >> A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing >> would-be carjacker and apprehend him. > >Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you >despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or >I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move, >unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or >don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one. I believe most of us believe in the concept of "escalation of force." I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting. If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene. And if it isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much better position to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster. In fact, the act of getting in position to shoot is, in itself, brandishing. > >> The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of >> deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the >> life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened. > >Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims >is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO. Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently been elected a judge or seated on a jury. And your proven track record of seeing things in far different ways from almost everyone else means you do not even qualify as that legal myth of "a reasonable man." And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained? We are not talking about opening cell and letting someone go, we are talking about split second decisions with major legal repurcussions. Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an immediate threat. I contend they are beyond what we should expect of non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends to flee. The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in virtually every case a citizen is likely to face. > >> Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the >> back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally >> questionable. > >If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from >the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass. >Don't let the situation go there. You better not have to ask "if" when it comes to the law before you start employing deadly force if you want to retain your freedom afterwards. And, while "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to potentially end up in court. Change the law and we can all start playing John Wayne, until then, my first obligation is to prevent immediate harm. Once the immediate danger is passed, my obligation, and right, to shoot someone, is in grave question. > >> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be >> displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy >> yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him. > >Display !== brandish Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish. And whether I pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have brandished a weapon. Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may well move from brandishing up to assult. (NOT assault and battery, but merely assault.) ALL of which is justified if you reasonably believe you are about to come to harm. > >My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or >openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing. See above. >Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately >or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be >implicit, but does not include departure. Sez you. Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot. Don't point it at anyone you are not willing to kill. But I defy you to make your "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands" argument fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury. Drawing a weapon and aiming it at a criminal makes a strong statement. It also makes it possible to get your first shot off VERY quickly IF it is still needed at that point. It may be. It may not be. I'll leave that to a QUALIFIED weapons instructor to advise on and for each individual to decide for themselves. >Saying "no" is sufficient to >make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape >arrest. There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest. I have no objection if someone thinks that is the right thing to do. And if they are lucky enough to get me sitting on their jury, they'll probably end up with at least a hung jury, if not an acquittal, if they shoot the perp EVEN if they are not fully justified under current law. But the odds of getting me on your jury are pretty slim so don't make anylife decisions based on that. :) The basis of your objection is that by not effecting an arrest, you have doomed someone else to certain harm. First of all, you have no evidence this is true. Lott's study indicates crimes against person's decrease in areas where people CCW but that property crimes increase. It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for him and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back to stealing parked, unattended cars. Second of all, if the potential next victim had taken responsibility for himself and been armed, he would not be an unarmed victim. Many of these people who do not carry, are the same ones who vote and lobby to restrict my ability to RKBA. They can fend for themselves. I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you. I've made my point. The last word on this topic is yours if you want it. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time." -- General George S. Patton - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: "The Best Defense" Date: 05 Mar 1999 23:50:40 -0700 At 11:55 AM 3/5/99 -0700, you wrote: > >On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) >posted: > >>THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999 >> >>Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma >>------------------------------------- >>By Robert Stacy McCain >>------------------------------------- > >[...] >> >>The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even >>though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end >>peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a >>gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise >>this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime >>more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott] >> >>"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack >>a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr. >>Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's >>not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.] >[...] > >You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott. >Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the >safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues. >The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is >that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or >physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to >other forms of self defense or combat. Ask a cop how many hours of >training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many >hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order >to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook >or subjecting himself to grave harm. Do you suggest that only those >able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense? > >A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing >would-be carjacker and apprehend him. The law, and I believe most >people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is >reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is >IMMEDIATELY threatened. Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, >rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally) >dangerous, and morally questionable. > >The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be >displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy >yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him. Some >90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired >and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees. Your >thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person >protects themselves witha gun. Thanks Charles and Scott. This is actually an interesting and difficult question. No less an authority than Col. Jeff Cooper advises that you should never draw your gun unless you intend to fire it immediately. OTOH, I agree with Charles that shooting a fleeing carjacker would be morally and legally suspect. The real problem is that brandishing, even justifiable brandishing, is illegal, and the law needs to be fixed. Having to choose between shooting and not drawing one's gun at all is altogether untenable. Fortunately, Rep. Wright's brandishing bill never saw the light of day, as it would have made things worse than they already are. I don't think it's too soon to start working on legislation that will protect people who brandish, or who shoot, for legitimate self-defense or defense of others. As the law stands now, the criminal has the right to sue YOU for injuries or for "emotional distress". Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Cops with Guns! Date: 06 Mar 1999 07:47:00 -0700 Like I said, never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot him. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- And they want to take away our hunting rifles & shotguns! 3/6/99 -- 1:15 AM Prosecutor says trooper forgot gun was loaded in fatal shooting LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A state trooper was shot and killed during a self-defense exercise by a fellow officer who forgot his gun was loaded, a prosecutor said. Mark Wagner, 37, was shot once in the chest Thursday at the patrol's station in North Platte. According to Lincoln County Attorney Kent Turnbull, officers had completed one defensive training segment when a trooper loaded his weapon. After a break, officers began another training session that also involved pointing unloaded weapons, but the trooper forgot his weapon was loaded, Turnbull said Friday. No charges will be filed against the trooper, whose name was not disclosed, because the shooting was an accident, Turnbull said. ``It's just a terrible tragedy, not only for Mark Wagner and his family but for the other trooper involved as well,'' Turnbull said. State Patrol Maj. Bryan Tuma said Thursday that Wagner, a 12-year veteran, was taking part in annual training when shot with either a Glock .40-caliber or .45-caliber semiautomatic. No civilians or officers from other departments were in the room when the shooting happened, Tuma said. Tuma said troopers are not required to wear bulletproof vests during the training. He did not think Wagner was wearing one. North Platte is about 220 miles west of Lincoln. Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news1024.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: "The Best Defense" Date: 06 Mar 1999 01:04:00 -0700 On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Charles Hardy wrote: > Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far > different than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest > of someone who immediatly flees when he sees your gun. You stop an attack by disabling the attacker. Scaring him off merely postpones/shifts the attack. So don't conceal your gun. > Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or > otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is > different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately. > Neither do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw > until one must shoot immediately. See below for brandishing. If apprehension is not an option, yet you desire to venture out armed with a concealed weapon, perhaps you need one that can be aimed and shot while remaining concealed. > >And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's > >arrests of speeders. > And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1% > of all living humans. The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT > you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be > beyond our ability. And note that his arrests are for infractions that do not put others in immediate jeopardy. Those attempting to kill, maim (rather more directly than the nebulous threat minor speeding poses) or rape others need to be stopped, not merely diverted. > I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting. You shouldn't, so long as that is merely a potential threat. An actual attempt to commit a life-threatening crime calls for immediate termination of the attacker, in my view. That the courts may not uphold such a position is a serious moral indictment on them. > If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take > someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene. If by threat you mean actual attempt, I consider this a moral abdication on your part. > And if it isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much > better position to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster. Get an aimable concealed holster? In the case of carjacking, one of those flamethrower devices is a functional equivalent. > In fact, the act of getting in position to shoot is, in itself, > brandishing. Only if telegraphed to the one you're in a position to shoot. Or does Utah have some contrary legal definition? > Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently > been elected a judge or seated on a jury. Doesn't happen. Ray Uno was the last. If you argue that the prudent action is strategic retreat, since the legal system won't support moral actions, that is moral only in a very local sense of living to fight another day. > And your proven track record of seeing things in far different ways > from almost everyone else means you do not even qualify as that legal > myth of "a reasonable man." Nor anyone who believes in the NIOFP. Candidates supporting same rarely get the proportion of votes that would be required to hang a jury. > And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained? In the crime scene? Analogous to a chemical "reaction cage". If you're afraid of the courts punishing a reasonable defense, get a realistic-looking toy gun and scare criminals off. Perhaps a starter pistol so they think you're just a lousy shot. > we are talking about split second decisions with major legal > repurcussions. Thus the need for the training I recommended. If you don't have the training, don't go armed, as you may not have the reflexes to take a prudent action. Or better yet, get trained. > Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an > immediate threat. I contend they are beyond what we should expect of > non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends > to flee. Perhaps so. So don't "brandish" until you are immediately threatened, and shoot immediately before he flees. If you can shoot from concealment, the brandishing doesn't begin until your attacker perceives the discharge. > The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to > leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal > and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in > virtually every case a citizen is likely to face. May be the case in our questionable legal system. Don't wait that long. > unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to > potentially end up in court. Good reason not to brandish, which is a crime in its own right. > >Display !== brandish > Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish. And whether I > pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the > gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have > brandished a weapon. So why bother to carry concealed, if ending concealment is your plan? > Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may well move from > brandishing up to assult. Threatening constitutes assault, brandishing merely intensifies it, and escalates it to an actual attack if you point the gun at someone. > Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot. Don't point it > at anyone you are not willing to kill. But I defy you to make your > "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands" argument > fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury. So don't openly point it at anyone unless and until you intend to shoot him. This "advice" does not apply to anyone prepared to apprehend. > There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest. I suppose we'll have to differ on this, but I have heard of a "law" making "misprision of felony" a crime. > It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the > barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for > him and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back > to stealing parked, unattended cars. Or moves to a venue with strict victim disarmament. > I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you. I've made > my point. The last word on this topic is yours if you want it. This strikes me as a rather coy response, since you chose to respond to my editorial asides. Perhaps you should instead write a response to 13-year-old Christy House' letter "Limit Gun Ownership" in today's Tribune, conveniently placed right next to their editorial "Still Crazy About Guns", in which she uses the argument that "I never hear stories about how someone's life was saved because that person had a trusty gun right then and there" in support of making guns harder to get. --- "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."-Ghandi "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is a lot more polite." -Clint Johnson No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. - Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Charles Scumbag strikes again Date: 07 Mar 1999 09:57:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Senate bill designed to spur more city suits over guns By Vicky Stamas WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - Three Senate Democrats introduced legislation Thursday designed to give cities, counties and states more financial incentives to sue gun manufacturers. The bill offered by Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Charles Schumer of New York, would let localities challenge gunmakers in court for federal as well as local costs associated with treating crime victims. Examples of federal costs that cities could recover would be disability, unemployment, Medicaid and other aid to shooting victims. "If enough cities successfully sue the industry it could be brought to its proverbial knees," Lautenberg said. He said the bill would fortify cities that already have filed gun suits and encourage more cities to do the same. The bill comes on the heels of another Democrat-backed bill sponsored by New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy. That bill would allow the U.S. government to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns like it does toys, toasters and other every day consumer products. A host of proposals to restrict guns have died in Congress amid fierce Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law requiring federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from a licensed gun dealer. Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, blasted the Lautenberg/Durbin/ Schumer bill and two mayors who backed it at Thursday's press briefing -- Atlanta's Bill Campbell and Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas. Both mayors have filed suit against the gun industry. "Doubtlessly, this promise of more easy money is the reason why several big-city mayors are lining up to support this bill," charged Barr, whose state recently passed a law that prevents any of its local governments from suing the gun industry. Lautenberg struck out at Barr and the National Rifle Association (NRA) for trying to preempt cities' efforts to seek compensation for costs related to gun violence. "It is wrong for the NRA or any of their agents to try and preempt these suits," Lautenberg said. "I will use any and all possible means to kill federal legislation blocking the suits in the United States Senate." "The gun lobby right now is trembling in its boots," Schumer added. "The problem for the gun lobby is that there are 50 states and 440 large cities with big crime problems and even the NRA cannot get their hooks into every state legislature to bar their right to seek damages," Schumer said. Under the Lautenberg/Durbin/Schumer bill, localities recovering federal dollars could keep two-thirds of the federal portion, with one-third of that share going toward law enforcement, one-third toward education and one-third toward discretionary spending. The other third of the federal portion would be returned to the U.S. for crime prevention, injury prevention research and similar programs, under the bill, dubbed "The Gun Industry Accountability Act." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Goodbye Gun Shows? Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.sofmag.com/1999sof/0499/cg.html COMMAND GUIDANCE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, April, 1999 PAGE UPDATED: 3/2/99 Good Bye Gun Shows? by Robert K. Brown Gun shows are the latest bugbear of the anti-gunners. Chicago Con-gressman Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) is pushing HR 109 to impose massive new federal controls on gun shows. Anyone intending to put on a gun show would be required to submit an application, including all sorts of personal information, and a fee, to the ATF for a federal license. Within 30 days after the show, the licensee must then submit to the ATF copies all records and documents involved in firearms transfers at the show, including the names, addresses and ages of all purchasers, including the make, model and serial number of all weapons transferred. In short, the whole panoply of background-checking, record-making and reporting is extended to (1) the gun-show operator, and (2) collectors and other private citizens not now so oppressed. It is claimed that a significant percent of guns used in crimes change hands at gun shows. This is merely the excuse for yet another axis of attack on private ownership of firearms. A study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, released in December 1997, shows that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. Most of the exhibitors at gun shows are already Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders subject to the existing background-check and recording requirements, and it is a felony for anyone knowingly to sell a firearm to a felon or other disqualified person, so apparently even this minute percent represents sales to a "straw man" with a clean record who then transfers the gun to the criminal. "Straw man" transactions are also already illegal. In short, laws already in effect, if enforced, are quite adequate to deal with this non-problem. Clearly, then, the real objective here is to extend the whole apparatus of background checking, record-keeping and reporting to gun collectors and ordinary, law-abiding private citizens outside the rather vague statutory definition of a "dealer." There is no such thing as a "private dealer;" this is a myth invented by the gun-grabbers. If a person falls within the statutory definition of a "dealer," he or she must get an FFL or go to jail. Attacking gun shows is a first step toward abolishing all privacy regarding firearms, on the way to universal gun registration, to be followed, no doubt, by confiscation. Or, I should say, attempted confiscation, followed by armed resistance, bloodshed and tragedy. The gun grabbers try to paint the picture of gun shows as being a sort of "Tupperware party" at which anything goes. This is simply not true. Attendees, buyers, sellers and dealers are still subject to federal laws forbidding sale of guns known to be stolen, sale of guns to known felons, and so on, as well as whatever state and local laws apply. In short, HR 109 is another hypocritical "feel-good" bill that will accomplish none of the objects it seeks to promote, but will certainly drive yet another nail in the coffin of our Second Amendment and other rights. You do nothing for the prevention of crime by taking the means of self-defense away from the intended victim. Phone your congressmen now: 202-224-3121. Write them too: U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Do it today. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Hoplophobe Hypocrites Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 7:41 PM This was in today's Orange County Register: Book triggers wrath of gun opponents March 7, 1999 John R. Lott Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would inspire death threats. But he's gotten more than his share of them recently, from a seemingly unlikely source. You see, Lott gets death threats from people who hate guns. Lott, 40, is a lanky, soft-spoken, professorial-looking guy which is appropriate, since that's exactly what he is: a professor of law and economics at the University of Chicago. Until a couple of years ago he was simply another anonymous egghead, grinding out arcane research papers for publication in obscure professional journals. Unless you subscribe to International Review of Law and Economics or Journal of Legal Studies, you'd probably never heard of him. But then Lott published the results of his exhaustive statistical research on the relationship between crime rates and private gun ownership, particularly the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Simply put, Lott concluded that an armed citizenry prevents crime and deters criminals a conclusion summed up in the title of his book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws." The national news media picked up on Lott's thesis. And suddenly this obscure professor who doesn't even have a gun in his home found himself the prime target in a nasty political gunfight. From the way many gun-control proponents reacted, you would have thought that Lott had called for the mandatory arming of preschoolers. On radio and TV and in the newspapers, they attacked and vilified both Lott and his study, calling him a tool of the gun manufacturers and his study a sloppy piece of research sometimes without even having read it. Lott was generally philosophical about it. As he told me Thursday during a visit to Orange County, "With most academic work, you're lucky to get 10 people to read it. So it was nice to get the attention." But perhaps naively, Lott, who is married and the father of four young boys, never expected the personal hostility he's gotten from some individual gun control advocates. "We started getting death threats at home," said Lott. (Presumably, the death would be effected with a knife or a club.) "People would ask if I had kids, and if they walked home from school. People would cut out articles from newspapers about gun deaths and send them to me, with a note saying, 'I hope this is you next.' ... Tuesday I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I got about 40 calls. Most of them were very nice, but some ... people just go bonkers." Now don't misunderstand. Lott certainly isn't saying that the threats and personal attacks are representative of all gun-control advocates. He believes most of them are well-intentioned people who sincerely abhor violence of all kinds. But gun control is an emotional issue, nationally and here in Orange County. (It may become even more emotional here in the coming weeks, when Sheriff Mike Carona unveils his program to loosen restrictions on granting permits to carry concealed weapons.) So maybe it's a good idea for everybody to remember that even though the news media tend to portray only gun owners as potentially violent fanatics, there actually are some fanatics on both sides of the issue. Just ask Professor Lott. Not all "gun nuts" are people who own guns. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.freep.com/news/locway/qlobby9.htm Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege March 9, 1999 BY MELANIE EVERSLEY Free Press Washington Staff With more and more lawsuits attacking gun manufacturers, the people who make firearms and the people who shoot them are starting to feel like targets. Lawsuits in New Orleans, Chicago and other cities seeking to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence -- the sort of lawsuits that Detroit and Wayne County are mulling -- are not fair, said Jack Adkins of the American Shooting Sports Council, an Atlanta-based organization that represents gun makers. "The firearm industry is feeling that they're under a state of siege," Adkins said. For almost a year, the group has tried to carve an agreement with members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The conversations have not gone well. Among changes cities want are new safety devices that permit only a gun's owner to shoot it. One industry insider says the technology to personalize guns has been around for some time, in the form of locks, which are available with any gun. "Frankly, that technology has existed for decades," said Jeff Reh, general counsel for Beretta USA, in Accokeek, Md. The industry believes gun limitations should focus on criminals, not all gun buyers, Adkins said. That theme runs strong through the entire gun-advocate community. The suits do not take into account that hunters practice safety, or that guns usually only hurt or kill people when they get into the hands of criminals, said Jo Swartz, board member of the Wayne County Sportsmen's Club in Huron Township. Swartz has been shooting skeet for about six years and hunting for about three. Her husband, David, and 18-year-old daughter, Jennifer, are hunters too. "I just enjoy being outdoors," said Swartz, who lives in Brownstown Township. People who use guns legally, for sport, believe in safety, advocates say. Swartz said her group, which has 200 members, teaches youngsters about guns so that they will not get into trouble. "We know there have been accidents with children and firearms. If the kids are educated, the curiosity is not there and they don't think it's a toy," she said. For their part, gun advocates have been throwing a lot of energy into defending what they view as their Second Amendment right to bear arms. When a news story said that Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm was considering suing the gun industry on behalf of the state, gun advocates flooded her with calls. And the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, a Lansing organization that represents 500 local groups throughout the state, recently adopted a resolution urging the Legislature to prohibit any lawsuit against the gun industry. Said Swartz, "It doesn't make any sense to go after the gun companies because once they sell the guns, it's no longer their responsibility." RELATED STORIES 'Don't feel as though you are invincible' A mom learns to cope, but 'it's not fair' Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege Like to carry a weapon? Tag along to the morgue With guns, everyone pays All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Are Americans headed for world government? Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990308_xex_are_american.shtml MONDAY MARCH 08 1999 [WND Exclusive Commentary] Are Americans headed for world government? By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com A few days ago, eight black helicopters belonging to the elite Delta Force hit buildings in Kingsville, Texas with real explosives and live ammunition in a training exercise that scared local civilians. Similar events have occurred in Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Washington, New Orleans, Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, including a Chicago suburb where they bombed an abandoned seminary. So what's the fuss about a military training exercise? Well, Tomas Sanchez in Texas is concerned, and he's no dummy. Sanchez is emergency management coordinator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and head of the military police unit of the Texas State Guard under the National Guard. He's also had 30 years service in Navy intelligence work with a top secret clearance, and he's one of the few people who've seen Presidential Decision Directive 25. Here's what he said about the Delta Force special operation: "The scenario if I were creating this ops plan [is that] martial law has been declared through presidential powers and war powers act, and some citizens have refused to give up their weapons. They have taken over two of the buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot handle it. So you call these guys in. They show up and they zap everybody, take all the weapons, and let the local Police Department clean it up." Sanchez and other military experts believe PDD 25 is the document being used to authorize such military action with the U.S., and he said, "It's a done deal. I think there's some UN folks involved in this thing too." Before you dismiss this as all part of some conspiracy nonsense, you should know that on February 20, 1997, Ronnie Edelman of the U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter explaining the Clinton administration's views on the Second Amendment and handguns as follows: "The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type." Relevant to the UN, when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was secretary-general, he supported the report of the Commission on Global Governance, which said: "We strongly endorse community initiatives to ... encourage the disarming of civilians." We also know that President Clinton has been deferential to the U.N., saying on Oct. 19, 1993, that his administration was engaging in a political process regarding Somalia "to see how we can ... do all the things the United Nations ordered to do." And U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was court-martialed several years later for refusing to wear U.N. insignia on his American military uniform. Are Americans headed for world government? Over a century ago, Cecil Rhodes developed a plan that would bring about a world government. On July 20, 1992, Bill Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate, Strobe Talbott, wrote an article for Time, in which he declared: "Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all," and "the case for world government" is "clinched." President Clinton made Talbott number two at the State Department, and in June 1993, the World Federalist Association gave Talbott its Global Governance Award for his article. On June 22 of that year, President Clinton sent a letter to the WFA noting that Norman Cousins, a past WFA president, had worked for world peace and "world government," and President Clinton concluded his letter by wishing the WFA "future success." All of this in no way means that the president and the U.N. are going to send military forces to your home to break down your door and confiscate your firearms. But the actions and quotations above are troubling and do not auger well for the future of our freedoms, rights, and national sovereignty. ------- Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., is the author of "Secret Records Revealed," pertaining to President Clinton and others (Hearthstone Publishing, 800-652-1144). © 1999 Western Journalism Center - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban Date: 11 Mar 1999 23:30:24 -0700 This is enough to make you sick. Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah Shooting Sports Council. (It's the March 11 news story.) While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators. Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights? UGH! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com PROTEST the Gun Ban! NO-lympics 2002! Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page and join the nolympics mail list! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment Date: 11 Mar 1999 10:53:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I have a photocopy of this official letter. Mark Ms. Deleted Address: Deleted Dear Ms. Deleted We received your letter of March 12, 1997, and are pleased to respond to your question about the Second Amendment. In your letter, you relate a statement made by Sarah Kemp Brady to the effect that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to possess firearms. This is, in fact, correct. Althought those who oppose any form of gun control commonly assert the the Second Amendment confers the right to individual ownership of firearms, this view is not sustained by case law interpreting that amendment. The courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment protects only against federal attempts to disarm or abolish organized state militia, and does not confer on an individual the right to own or possess firearms. This has been the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the eight United States Courts of Appeals which have considered the issue. Thank you so much for your interest in this important issue and we hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Ronnie L. Edleman (sig.) Principal Deputy Chief Terrorism and Violent Crime Section - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: S. 154 `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999' Date: 13 Mar 1999 21:40:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Call your Senators about this one. 106th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 154 To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 19, 1999 Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'. SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION. (a) AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE- Section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second sentence the following: `Each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition of ammunition at the place of business of such importer or manufacturer for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Secretary, shall include the amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later than the close of business on the date specified by the Secretary.'. (b) STUDY OF CRIMINAL USE AND REGULATION OF AMMUNITION- The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the National Academy of Sciences to-- (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a report with recommendations on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or restricting the availability of ammunition. SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF AMMUNITION. Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, the following: `(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a fee of $10,000 per year;'. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 3/3 Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] KELLERMANN'S CORPSES In the conclusion of Kellermann's 1986 New England Journal of Medicine paper (his "43 times" study), he stated the following: "We noted 43 suicides, criminal homicide, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection" -- presumably deaths of friends and family members. According to Dr. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997), there are between 1,400 and 3,200 "legal civilian defensive homicides" yearly. There is a factor in research called "external validity" that concerns the degree to which the conclusions of a study apply to populations outside the study population -- in this case, to the rest of the United States. So we ran the figures to see how they came out. In order to get the total number of yearly estimated deaths if Kellermann's 43-times factor was extrapolated to the rest of the United States, one needs to multiply the number of "legal civilian defensive homicides" by Kellermann's factor of 43, and then add in that same number of "legal civilian defensive homicides." However, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, firearm-related deaths from all causes, in the home and outside, totaled 35,957 in 1995. Subtracting that figure from Kellermann's prediction produces a discrepancy of anywhere from approximately 10,000 (using the low-end estimate) to 67,000 deaths (using the high-end estimate). GUNS & AMMO/APRIL 1999 *********************************************************************** Beyond the Mainstream Media's Addendum: In a review of Robert Waters' book "The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm" in the Washington Times Weekly Edition March 8-14 edition: Mr. Waters said "The pro-gun side needs to debate less about the Second Amendment and more about issues that really matter to people, such as self-defense." As much as we wish that simply referring to the Second Amendment would be enough to disarm gun control advocates, we agree with Mr. Waters that highlighting a person's ability to defend [herself] in the manner [she] chooses is the best angle to use against the anti-gunners. Below is a letter to the local newspaper by a female editor here at Beyond the Mainstream Media. Please note the last paragraph. Woman especially should ask gun control advocates: "Why are you limiting my options on how I defend myself?" Letter to the Editor; "...considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't." "...a comprehensive 1993 study covering all forms of gun violence and encompassing every large city in the nation...gun control laws had no significant negative effect on violence." "...gun control laws are more likely to disarm the general public than criminals." "...Americans use guns of all types to defend themselves 2.5 million times each year, while guns are used in just over 500,000 crimes each year." "...evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners." "Although government has taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect individuals. These rulings are probably consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people would largely be responsible for their own safety." -- "Gun Control and Crime", Morgan O. Reynolds, Texas A&M University and W. W. Caruth III, National Center for Policy Analysis (1997). I, personally, am not about to surrender my responsibility to protect myself to some government entity. If you, as a citizen of a free country, do not recognize your duty and responsibility to arm yourself against society's predators, please, do not infringe upon my efforts to ensure my own safety. -- Jill Laughlin ********************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ********************************************************************** HERE COMES THE FLOOD is a First Amendment publication of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' and is edited by Scott Laughlin. You are welcome to redistribute this post in its entirety. Beyond the Mainstream's objective is to provide timely information on current issues of the day with an bias to Free Market economic analysis, anti-statism commentary, and legal research all with an awareness of the computer design defect known as Y2K. We scan many 'outside the mainstream' media publications (financial newsletters, alternative magazines, patriot and constitutionalist legal research, libertarian writings, Bible studies, etc.) to bring you commentary on items that might otherwise have gone unreported by the mainstream "journalism" outlets. ********************************************************** Did someone else forward this post to you? To be certain of receiving all issues of our E-Journal, please consider subscribing directly. Currently the service is totally free and carries no obligation. Your e-mail address remains strictly confidential. To receive "HERE COMES THE FLOOD" on a regular basis (up to 2 or 3 times a week) send the following message "Please subscribe [Your Name] to the HERE COMES THE FLOOD list: [Your e-mail address]" to: BeyondMainstreamMedia@home.com. To unsubscribe, all you have to do is ask. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 2/3 Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Since then, other cities have filed similarly frivolous lawsuits. Rendell and other like-minded politicians are preparing to soak firearm manufacturers for all they' can get by using blatantly doctored scientific reports to advance firearm prohibition in the process. Paul Heiruke, mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, called Rendell's ideas "interesting and novel." Helmke told The Washington Times that part of the theory of the tobacco suits was that tobacco products are dangerous but the buyer doesn't know it ... everyone knows guns are dangerous." But the case against "dangerous" firearms is based on the same kind of flawed, junk-science 'research" the EPA used in making its case for the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. For example it's now common knowledge (isn't it?) that a gun kept in the home for self-protection is "43 times" more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. Never mind that the junk-science 'research" which spawned this factoid has been discredited. Never mind that the one who concocted it was Arthur Kellermann, whose brand of "science" has been so blatantly inferior that Congress has cut off funding to both Kellermann and the CDC for future research on guns and violence. And never mind that the thousands of corpses of our spouses and children, inferred from Kellermann's conclusions, are nowhere to be found. Still, the damage has been done, and the myth persists and is repeated ad nauseum. And people like Rendell and Helmke continue to knowingly use these lies in the formulation of public policy. In attempting to make its case against second-hand smoke, the EPA resorted to the same kind of underhanded perversion of the scientific method. Although the EPA had 58 studies available on which to base its conclusions, it used only 31 of these. In their suit, the plaintiffs charged that inclusion of the omitted studies "would have undermined the EPA's claim of causal association between ETS exposure and lung cancer." In finding for the plaintiffs, the court agreed that the EPA's study selection process was "disturbing" and that the EPA had hand-picked the data it used. In the tobacco case, the court was unable to conclusively determine whether the EPA's omissions were intentional or coincidental. When it comes to firearms and firearm-related violence, however, this tactic of selective omission is used so routinely by politically motivated "researchers" that there can be no doubt of its intentional nature. THE TRUTH BE DAMNED People like Rendell and Helnike deliberately ignore any research that weakens their case and shows the benefits of firearm ownership, like the research of Drs. Gary Kleck and John Lott. Kleck is one of the most prominent researchers on defensive gun use in America. According to Kleck, in a study with colleague Dr. Marc Gertz published in 1995, ordinary law-abiding Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times or more each year. About 75 percent of those instances involve handguns. Further, use of a firearm is the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal attack. The presence of a firearm at the time it's needed the most means that lives are saved, rapes are prevented, injuries are avoided, medical costs are minimized and property is protected. Lott is the author of the most exhaustive study to date on the deterrence of violent crime through the concealed carry of handguns. His is the first systematic analysis of nationwide crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United States, between 1977 and 1994. Unlike the EPA researchers, Lott didn't pick and choose his numbers. Before the results of Lott's research became available, firearm prohibitionists could always point their finger at the dead child killed by a gun and his grieving family -- all ghoulishly exploited by a mainstream media committed to civilian disarmament. Conversely, law-abiding gun owners could only point to the less sensational account of a would be victim saved by the presence of a gun -- one who had lived to tell his or her tale of survival. Showing that "nothing" happened is a tough act! But now we know with certainty that nothing did happen -- that the violent crimes that should have taken place didn't -- because Lott's sophisticated computer-assisted research confirmed that firearms provide a measurable deterrence to violent crime. Recent findings like these, ignored by unscrupulous mayors, lawyers and a corrupt mainstream media, serve to underscore the one major difference between tobacco and firearms. While second-hand tobacco smoke may not be dangerous enough to actually cause cancer and may even be a non-factor in the public health equation, there is overwhelming evidence of the benefit to society from the possession and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. SCIENCE IN THE WITNESS BOX One of the big differences between the tobacco industry and the firearm industry is the virtually limitless money pit available to tobacco. Robert Ricker, director of the Government Affairs Department of the American Shooting Sports Council, a broad coalition of industry-related groups, elaborated on that in a television segment that aired on December 23: "We don't have the big bucks that the tobacco companies did. The tobacco industry bought itself out of a difficult situation. We're going to have to fight." The firearms industry has all the science on its side to back it up in demanding court relief for itself at the hands of the same underhanded tactics. It can prove that falsified research, intended to harm it, has been systematically used by America's firearm prohibitionists to implement restrictive firearm laws and to mold public opinion to their way of thinking. Now, with the decision in North Carolina against the EPA, it has legal precedent on its side. Sound public policy can only be formulated when premised on truth and accuracy. Quietly accepting the continuing pattern of outright lies and deception from junk scientists, aided and abetted by a mainstream media bankrupt of all journalistic integrity -- all of which is calculated to change our actions and attitudes about firearm ownership -- will not serve us well. A viable firearm industry is in the interest of all Americans who wish their children to live in the safest society possible and who care about passing down their birthright of liberty to future generations. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 1/3 Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ******************************************************* >>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE COMES THE FLOOD <<<<<<<<<<<<<< ******************************************************* The E-Journal of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' Edited by Scott Laughlin March 12, 1999 ******************************************************* Guns & Ammo April 1999 Second Amendment Fight for your firearms freedom! By Drs. Paul Gallant and Joanne Elsen SECOND-HAND GUNSMOKE 'Cooking Statistics' to Eliminate Freedom and Eradicate the Firearms Industry. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report about the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. That report was prepared with a singular purpose which was the ultimate elimination of tobacco products in America. It formed the basis for countless bureaucratic and legislative rulings about tobacco use throughout the country. By scaring Americans about the false dangers of second-hand smoke, anti-tobacco forces could plunder the tobacco industry through legalized extortion and eventually drive it out of business. But there was one small problem. The EPA report was rigged. The tobacco industry fought back and, on July 17, a United States District Court in North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco industry. America's firearm prohibitionists have been trying to pull the same kind of scam about a different kind of second-hand smoke -- second-hand gunsmoke. Instead of the tobacco industry and cigarette smokers, the targets are America's gun manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners. In place of the EPA's junk science on tobacco, they've cited junk science and falsified "research" on firearms and firearm-related violence. And, just like the EPA's second-hand smoke reports, these "scientific" reports are designed to ultimately put America's gunmakers out of business. A perfect example appeared in the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine. In order to inflate his figures and "prove" that the risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the benefits, Dr. Arthur Kellermann counted 15 persons 'killed under legally excusable circumstances" -- i.e. violent criminals -- among his collection of "victims." In another study published just one year earlier, Kellermann lumped together lawful self-defense with outright murder in order to "prove" that when a woman is armed with a gun, the victim was "five times more likely to be [her] spouse, an intimate acquaintance or a member of [her] family than to be a stranger ..." That statistical sleight-of-hand provided him a pretext to "seriously question" the "wisdom of promoting firearms to women for self-protection." Kellermann's research has been funded by American taxpayers through the Centers for Disease Control. Unlike most of us, Kellermann is apparently unable to understand that felons killed by law-enforcement officers in the line of duty are not "victims." Nor is he able, apparently to comprehend the difference between lawful self-defense and murder FIRST-HAND LIES The plaintiffs in the tobacco lawsuit were six tobacco companies. The defendants were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the agency's administrator, Carol Browner. The lawsuit against the EPA centered around the Radon Research Act of 1986, which required that the EPA "establish ... an advisory group comprised of individuals representing the States, the scientific community, industry and public interest organizations to assist [the EPA] in carrying out the research program ... for indoor air quality." However, presiding Federal Judge William Osteen found that the EPA had failed to establish such an advisory committee. Further, he questioned whether the findings in the EPA's research report would have been different if the proper committee had been formed in the first place. Under such circumstances, Osteen concluded that an atmosphere more conducive to an unbiased set of conclusions would undoubtedly have existed. Claiming that the EPA's report was doctored by the anti-tobacco lobby the plaintiffs challenged the EPA's evaluation of the respiratory health effects of breathing second-hand tobacco smoke ("environmental tobacco smoke" or ETS) and its subsequent classification as a carcinogen. They charged that 'the EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies ..." Even then the EPA needed to "adjust" its scientific methodology in order to demonstrate what amounted to only a weak relative risk." In short, "... the EPA's [second-hand smoke] Risk Assessment was not the result of reasoned decision making," but of a predetermined decision based on a dislike of tobacco use, by a hand-picked, biased, partisan committee. In deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Osteen cited litany of abuses perpetrated by the EPA and found that not only had the EPA exceeded the authority given it by Congress, but it "disseminate[d] findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion ...." [emphasis ours] DOWN THE SAME CROOKED PATH There is no more perfect example illustrating the parallel in tactics used against the tobacco industry and against America's gunmakers than the actions and ideas articulated by Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell. In early 1998, Rendell set out his plans to file suit against gun manufacturers and hold them liable for the criminal misuse of lawfully manufactured firearms. The Washington Times reported that Rendell's suit would target the nation's nearly four-dozen gunmakers, arguing that they have created a "public nuisance" by knowingly flooding cities with more handguns than they could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3 Date: 23 Mar 1999 17:25:35 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:07:32 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13856; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:50:49 -0700 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27030; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9903232222.00zk@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Mar 23, Chuck S wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] Please Repost where it might do some good. Feel free to copy and leave at = your local gun shop or gun shows. Friends, I am posting this to inform you of a grass roots initiated legal action, = which seeks to overturn the "CLEO Certification" requirement for individual = ownership of machineguns and other "NFA Firearms." I believe this effort will be = successful but donations are needed NOW! For those of us who truly believe that the = Second Amendment "ain=3D92t about duck hunting," this represents a solid = opportunity to actually win a round in the fight to restore our rights.=20 Background This may come as a surprise to some of you, but private ownership by = individuals of machineguns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, suppressors, destructive= devices, and AOWs (Any Other Weapon =3D96 pen guns, some short shotguns = and the like) is perfectly legal, except where otherwise prohibited by State law = or local ordinance (This leaves you Californians out, btw). Under the = National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34) such firearms (a.k.a. Title II, Class 3, or = NFA firearms) became regulated via a federal tax (similar to liquor taxes). = For most NFA firearms the tax is $200 and for AOWs the tax is $5. (See Note = 1). In order for an individual to make or obtain an NFA firearm (See Note 2), = the tax payment is sent with two copies of a) ATF Forms 1, 4, or 5, b) recent = photographs and c) fingerprint cards to BATF. All this is very similar to the = paperwork requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun license in those states = that have "shall-issue" CCW laws. =20 But guess what? There=3D92s one additional "gotcha" in this process. On = the back of the ATF forms is a section entitled "LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION" and = this turns out to be the spoiler for most people interested in NFA Firearms. = Currently, ATF will not approve a transfer (i.e. will not accept the tax payment) = unless this section of the form is filled out and signed by the "chief law = enforcement officer" (CLEO) having jurisdictional authority (to issue or serve a = criminal warrant) for the applicant. =20 The CLEO certification states that the person signing has "no information = that the transferee will use the firearm=3D85for other than lawful purposes=3D85= " and that "the receipt and/or possession of the firearm=3D85would not place the = transferee in violation of State or local law." Sounds simple, right? It turns out = that Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, particularly in urban areas, will simply not = sign the certification. They are not legally bound to, nor does it make much = political sense for them to do so (to them anyway). =20 For those of you out there who are on good terms with your sheriff, police = chief, district attorney, or district criminal judge =3D96 then good for you. At = least 'til the next election. For the rest of you, this means you probably aren=3D92t "allowed" to = obtain some of the most interesting and unique firearms available in the world. Too = bad. By the way, unlawful possession of one of these things can get you 10 = years in club fed and $100,000 lighter in the bank account. Not recommended for = the entertainment value. Fortunately, there may be some relief on the horizon. 1934 Group The 1934 Group is a non-profit corporation established to take on legal = issues in the NFA arena. It is entirely donor supported. Donations are NOT = tax-deductible because this IS a lobbying organization. The corporation was organized = after several months of brainstorming and data gathering by an informal group of = individuals, dealers, and manufacturers in the NFA world who realized that none of the = "mainstream" gun rights organizations were fighting their fight. So they decided to do = something about it. =20 Attorneys Jim Jeffries III and Steven Halbrook have agreed to pursue a = case to overturn the CLEO certification requirement - Provided that the 1934 = Group, through its contributors, supplies the financial ammo to see this through. = These two highly respected attorneys need no introduction to those of us active = in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment. To date, hundreds of = individuals or their companies have pledged thousands of dollars to get this started. = Thousands of dollars more will be required to see it through and I urge you to = provide support for this effort through your own financial contributions and by = spreading the word.=20 Donations in personal or company check, money order (Please make a = notation on the "memo" field of your check if you prefer to stay anonymous to the = CL3 community) or cash can be sent to:=20 1934 Group=20 12701 NE 9th PL Suite #D312=20 Bellevue, WA 98005=20 For more information, check out the 1934 Group web site at=20 http://www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm _Small Arms Review_ publisher Dan Shea has written about the 1934 Group = and their efforts in the March issue of that magazine, which by the way is THE = journal to have for those interested in, or involved with, the NFA community. = See=20 http://www.smallarmsreview.com/ Jim Jeffries, in a letter to Dan Shea, has outlined the case by the 1934 = Group. The letter is posted on James Bardwell=3D92s web site at:=20 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cleo_lawsuit/jeffr= ies_shea_letter.txt So there, now I=3D92ve said it. Here=3D92s an opportunity to win one = again. For those gun owners who believe this doesn=3D92t affect them, well, all I can do is = paraphrase Franklin - We must hang together in this fight, or surely we=3D92ll hang = separately. Oh, and I don=3D92t duck hunt either. But without folks like us, the duck = hunters will be toast eventually. And for those of you who will protest that this effort is wrong because it = doesn=3D92t go far enough (NFA34 is un-Constitutional and all that=3D85), I hear you = and trust me, you're preachin' to the choir. But the law is what it is, regardless = of eloquent arguments to the contrary. So I choose, for now, to fight this = particular battle within that context. Finally, I have no financial stake in any of this except that if we win, = my boys might get to keep some of their daddy's guns. Thanks for your time. Chuck S=20 Spring, Texas=20 March 23, 1999 Note 1: For an interesting and enlightening take on NFA34, take some time = to read _Unintended Consequences_, by John Ross. Note 2: Unlicensed individuals may not obtain machineguns manufactured = after May 1986, but this is a battle for another time. [------------------------- 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 =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy = a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus = Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA'99: What Happened to the 1998 Member Initiated Bylaw Amendments? Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 Forwarded by: chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) and Gary Westfall On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:48:12 -0500, "Dean Speir" wrote: As the 1999 NRA Board of Directors campaign winds down, there is one issue which has yet to be addressed by NRA or any of the current Board, and that is what happened to the seven members-initiated NRA Bylaw Amendments which were to have been discussed and voted on at the last membership meeting in Philadelphia. Instead, Director Oliver North, seemingly stooging for "The Winning Team" triumvirate of out-going President Marion Hammer, Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre and the Charlton Heston/Angus McQueen (Mercury Group) entry, stepped to an open microphone and moved that the meeting be closed. This was quickly followed by a second from former NRA President, Joe Foss, an NRA icon, and Ms. Hammer was quick to gavel the proceedings to an early close. Some of the movers of the ByLaw amendments like Joe Tartaro, one of the architects of the celebrated "Cincinnati Reforms" of 1977, were left at dead microphones. Those initiatives, five of which were actually on the ballot, were "referred to the Board for consideration" by outgoing President Hammer. The problem is, that under the laws of incorporation of the State of New York (where NRA is chartered), the Bylaws can ONLY BE AMENDED BY THE MEMBERSHIP, and not by the Board of Directors. There are other considerations at work as well, but that action alone and the "circular-filing" of legally presented amendments in contravention of NRA's own bylaws, are reason enough to suggest that something unwholesome is at work within NRA, something which does not trust its general membership to respond to anything which has not been spoon-fed to them by The Winning Team. This isn't a "dissident faction" (read "Knoxite") versus "The Winning Team" deal... Neal Knox and his merrie band of hard corps Second Amendment faithful had their shot and, for whatever reasons, blew it. They let NRA staff and at least one of NRA's vendors run rough-shod over the organization and ultimately lost control of matters. It's really about how the general membership is going to make themselves heard and their wishes known to the leadership of NRA, a leadership (and staff) which is running the Board of Directors rather than the other way around. A leadership (and staff) which is (and there's no other word for it) profligate with the money the membership is continually sending them in response to a steady barrage of insultingly witless fund solicitations disguised as "polls" and "membership surveys," and cries for "emergency financial help" wrapped in certified mailings! Look closely sometime at where that membership money is going! And not just the little stuff such as those dreadful solicitations and appeals, but some of the little known "big ticket items." Ask yourself why the NRA needs to expend enormous sums to prop up personality-oriented organizations such as Marion Hammer's USF, or Roy Innis' CORE, or LeRoy Pyle's LEAA. But you can't ask this of The Winning Team leadership, because your microphone will be cut off and others will be informed that you are a "malcontent" or a "rabble-rouser." And you can't ask this of the bulk of the current Board of Directors, since they either don't know, or they are too frightened for their continued political existence to answer honestly and openly. Those who don't absolutely toe The Winning Team line are not only not supported for re-election, they are actively campaigned against and listed in the "Do Not Vote For" column. Study that list of 14 names closely... sure, Sally Drews Brodbeck was one of the Knox faithful whose husband got into an ugly physical confrontation with one of Marion Hammer's "security guards" in Philadelphia last June, and Howard Fezell was the prime mover in the successful lawsuit a year ago which forced The Winning Team to obey its own bylaws... they are both naturals for the "Do Not Vote For" list. But what about people such as Bob Hodgdon and Glen Voorhees? What does one suppose that their transgressions were which landed them on The Winning Team's "enemies list." (And make no mistake, that extraordinary Do Not Vote For column is an "enemies list" in the disgraceful tradition of the Nixon administration's darker side.) The Fitzgerald v. NRA decision (available upon request) of 1974 was very clear that NRA cannot use "corporate instrumentalities" (read: "The American Rifleman" at the time, now also "The American Hunter" and "The American Guardian") to influence corporate elections: "The principles enunciated above make it clear that officers and directors cannot utilize corporate instrumentalities such as The American Rifleman to perpetuate themselves in office." [383 F.Supp. 162, United States District Court, D. New Jersey; Thomas FITZGERALD, a New Jersey Citizen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 772-73.] This is very much at the root of the sole Bylaw Amendment on this year's ballot... those who control the NRA publications control how the membership which bothers to vote, votes. The rest of the time leadership and staff are content to treat the membership like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed the occasional shovelful of horse manure... except for the regularly scheduled pleas for money. Passage of this year's Bylaw Amendment will make it even harder for anyone who has not curried favor with leadership and staff to make a meaningful run for the Board of Directors. And without strong, independent voices on the already over-sized BoD, we will continue to see an NRA which is out of the control of its members, and wholly in the grasp of self-interested leadership, staff and vendors on the NRA's teat. There should be one and only one agenda of the NRA, and that is preserving our Second Amendment rights and firearms heritage. And I don't see as how the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons portion of the Crime Bill, the Lautenberg Amendment or regional atrocities such as Prop. 17 in Pennsylvania (never mind the Utah/Olympic fiasco) can be anything but antithetical to those objectives. But that's what our recently constituted NRA has brought us. It's about "power"... damn the original objective... "we can deal with the gun rights stuff later, let's just stay on top in the NRA, and if we have to dirty up some soon-to-be-former friends and colleagues," [shrug] "ecccch." Well, that's not the NRA to which I signed on for Life. Please, study the bios and ballots carefully, and if there's things which seem strange to you, ask some tough questions about them, especially if you have access to any of those who are running for the BoD this year! Don't be content with the horse manure spoon-fed you by The Winning Team in the publications, fund solicitations and NRA-ILA fax alerts. The completed NRA 1999 Ballots must be received by 11 April in order to have them counted. Time is running out. - Dean Speir, Life NRA +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ It's not a perfect world out there... it's why we _have_ guns! Internet: garyw@uswest.net (Gary Westfall) AirPower Information Services The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989! BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com http://www.airpower.com http://www.airpower.dynip.com This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! 1/2 Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill. http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/quotes/freedom.html RKBA Defenders, It is one thing for the relatively few American citizens who subscribe to the RKBA Listserv to share this information amongst ourselves. It is another to convey this information back to Congress and let them know that we seek action on this matter. The rule of the squeaky wheel holds true in politics and this is no time for us to remain silent. Please contact your Congresscritters. I've written a letter which you may wish to cut and paste to the GOA mass- mailer for U.S. Congress. Also, you can select all Senators and/or Representatives by doing a right-button click, holding it down and scrolling down the address list. http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html We must put a stop to this now, rather than face the consequences later. In Liberty, Rick V. Dear Senator, I am very, very alarmed by reports coming in from Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio, California and from many other states. The U.S. military (the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment Airborne, Combat Applications Group, CAG, or "Night Stalkers" -- commonly referred to as "Delta Force") is conducting night-time practice assaults on civilian areas using night vision devices, unmarked helicopters and, in at least some instances, live ammunition. There was and is no need to conduct operations anywhere close to civilian-occupied areas -- unless the purpose is to get civilians used to night-time raids, or worse yet, to prepare for these troops for actual operations AGAINST CIVILIANS. This is highly alarming and extremely dangerous. The potential for military mishaps, such as the helicopter crash that ended the failed Iranian Hostage rescue attempt at "Desert One," or stray live rounds hitting civilians is tremendous. As great as this risk is, it is not the most dangerous aspect. What possible objective can these raids have other than to be setting the stage for the implementation of Clinton's Executive Orders, which the House and Senate have failed to stop? You MUST initiate an investigation into the matter and put a stop to this! The American armed services are meant to protect and serve the U.S. Constitution and the citizens of the United States. This series of raids works directly against both missions. These raids, coupled with their likely purpose and the unconstitutional, unilateral and secret attempt by Clinton to absolve these specialized troops under Presidential Decision Directive 25, sets the stage for a military seizure of power. He is purporting to grant authority he himself cannot give. Every elected official, soldier and law enforcement officer has sworn an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic." By attempting to release elite fighting units from the constraints of the Constitution, Clinton is violating his Oath, attacking the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, and threatens to unleash brutal, unchecked, deadly force against American civilians. According to the sources cited below, the 160th Group has been granted authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the law, including the Posse Comitatus Act. "They will follow and do whatever the president tells them to do. In that regard, they are somewhat dangerous," stated one source. I urge you to put a stop to these operations; to repeal PDD 25 and all other similar assaults on our Constitution. Ours is a nation of laws. The President cannot be allowed to write laws unilaterally, or in secret, or those which purport to absolve his hand-picked henchmen of legal liability. PDD 25 is the worst of all worlds rolled into one. You must put a stop to this NOW. Respectfully submitted, Richard E. Vaughan, Esq. At 10:48 AM 3/22/99 -0500, jurist@attymail.com, wrote: >The U.S. military (the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment >Airborne, Combat Applications Group, CAG, or "Night Stalkers" -- >commonly referred to as "Delta Force") is conducting night-time practice >assaults on civilian areas using night vision devices, unmarked >helicopters and, in at least some instances, live ammunition. The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta Force are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate. The 160th is based at Ft. Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are the taxi drivers for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in the sky". >He is purporting to grant authority he himself cannot give. Every >elected official, soldier and law enforcement officer has sworn an oath >to "uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and >domestic." By attempting to release elite fighting units from the That should be "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" >constraints of the Constitution, Clinton is violating his Oath, >attacking the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, and threatens to >unleash brutal, unchecked, deadly force against American civilians. If you want to turn off your CongressCritter, one sure way is not to have all your facts straight, especially those that are easily verified (in the articles you referance in fact) The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! Internet: joesylvester@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) AirPower Information Services The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989! BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com http://www.airpower.com http://www.airpower.dynip.com This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server. Joe Sylvester wrote: >The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta >Force are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate. The 160th is >based at Ft. Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are >the taxi drivers for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in >the sky". [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! 2/2 Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Jurist responds: Okay... ...you might want to take a look at all the URLs I posted at the bottom of the message. The articles cited to in the URLs go into greater depth in unit identification -- that's why they are included. There certainly is a distinction between the various units, be they Delta, Special Forces, Rangers, et cetera. Point of fact, the Night Stalkers have been identified by the sources, once again, --- in the URLs -- as being involved with the night-time NVG raids, but Marine and Navy units have also been involved in night urban assaults as well (Laser Cup, Last Dance, what have you). Many units are involved, some of which have yet to be identified, due to OPSEC and lack of unit markings on the aircraft. For example: "H Howard Lewis Bloom" pa-rkba@mailman.pobox.com wrote: >"I'm a pilot. I flew out to Lancaster (LNS) a few months back to practice >some in pattern emergencies and had to taxi around "Crystal 17". Crystal >17 was what they called themselves and what the tower called them. There >were no markings on this black helicopter, no markings at all. I have no >idea who they were, or what they were doing, as there was absolutely no >way to identify them save for their own identification of "Crystal 17"." Reports have come in concerning even National Guard units. They range from plans to activate all units and have them standing by for New Year's Eve 2000, to withdrawal of ammunition from NG units, to stockpiling of MRE's. Indeed, last year many Eastern European units were reported as undergoing joint operations with Marines in my old stomping grounds of Camp Lejeune, NC. Splitting hairs over First Battalion or Second Regiment ignores the fact that those at the highest levels of government show every indicator of turning America's finest against Americans. This is a perversion of the American system and is nothing less than treason. As a former Marine, it makes me seethe to think that I may be forced to choose between violating my own oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (which is still in effect from the time I took it!) to giving up my Arms, giving up my Freedom, giving up on America, or firing on my Brothers in Arms. This is despicable and tragic. I want to head this off by all possible peaceful means -- hence the need for us to take political and legal action NOW. As far as pissing off Senators or Representatives, you must be operating with a different Congressional animal from the kind I have met. Many haven't a clue about the Constitution, or oftentimes, about the content of the Bill they are voting for. That Bills are constantly being introduced -- much less passed -- in Congress that violate the plain-language prohibitions against ex post facto laws, search and seizure, freedom of speech and assembly, et cetera, shows this to be true. Whether through ignorance or contempt, the result is the same. Moreover, we have fewer prior-service in Congress than we've had in a very long while. What we *do* have in government are the Sarah Lister types, who -- like Clinton -- 'loathe' the military and have no concept of how the inner workings of a military unit functions. Here are some more URLs -- please have a look first.... Rather than attack each other over inanities, let's turn our attention to heading this thing off before the "exercises" stop and the "operations" begin. This is for real people. In Liberty, Rick V. Why attack the military? -------------------------- http://freeweb.digiweb.com/pages/RKBA/atak_mil.htm Night raids on Civilian Areas http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990319close4.asp http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990309_xex_new_livefire.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990226_xex_inside_view_.shtml Examples of Lister/Morris in top levels of US Government: http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn9779.htm http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/nsu/militari.htm http://www.neopolitique.org/articles/oct97-military.html http://tiger.bpa.missouri.edu/Research/Centers/CSOC/Howard_Schwartz.html http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-4.4.1997.8.html http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/morris/morris.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895263769/o/qid%3D901808185/sr%3D2-2/002-0511558-1324255 The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA At 06:45 AM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >Joe Sylvester wrote: >>The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta Force are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate.The 160th is based at Ft. Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are the taxi drivers for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in the sky". >Jurist responds: >Okay... >...you might want to take a look at all the URLs I posted at the bottom >of the message. The articles cited to in the URLs go into greater depth >in unit identification -- that's why they are included. There certainly >is a distinction between the various units, be they Delta, Special >Forces, Rangers, et cetera. Been there, done that. I made the point because any little inaccurracy, even inconsequential ones, will be used to discredit the entire thesis. >Point of fact, the Night Stalkers have been identified by the sources, >once again, --- in the URLs -- as being involved with the night-time NVG >raids, but Marine and Navy units have also been involved in night urban >assaults as well (Laser Cup, Last Dance, what have you). >Splitting hairs over First Battalion or Second Regiment ignores the fact >that those at the highest levels of government show every indicator of >turning America's finest against Americans. This is a perversion of the >American system and is nothing less than treason. NO? You don't say? :( >As a former Marine, it makes me seethe to think that I may be forced to >choose between violating my own oath to uphold and defend the >Constitution (which is still in effect from the time I took it!) to >giving up my Arms, giving up my Freedom, giving up on America, or firing >on my Brothers in Arms. This is despicable and tragic. I want to head >this off by all possible peaceful means -- hence the need for us to take >political and legal action NOW. Tell me about it. They and you are my brothers in arms too. I just wore a different colored "suit". See .sig >Rather than attack each other over inanities, let's turn our attention >to heading this thing off before the "exercises" stop and the >"operations" begin. Twer not an attack, just a correction/clarification. Call it *constructive* critisism. >This is for real people. I guess that means it leaves me out. I've been called a lot of things, egghead, fatso, even "Sir", but never a real person. :) Dennis J. Sylvester Captain USAFR(ret) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: What? MORE Helicopter raids in civilian areas? - WHY? Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Ladies and Gents of the RKBA, What's going on here? I used to play helicopter commando with the Marines. We had lots of space and "combat towns" on board base to do training with. There was and is no need to conduct operations anywhere close to civilian-occupied areas -- unless the purpose is to get civilians used to your presence ('lulling' into a false sense of complacency?). When you play connect-the-dots with the personalities in charge of the USA, their political agenda and the intentions and capabilities of their allies in the press, overseas (Red China et al) and in Congress (58 Socialists there - http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.caucus.html), it does not look good. For those of you with plans of cacheting valuables - pay attention to the scenario given below. Believe me, all this has *everything* to do with the RKBA, and with Freedom. We must pay attention and find out just what is going on. We have 8 months left. Buy your Night Vision equipment now. In liberty, Rick V. Not ready for rumble Sleepers alarmed by helicopter-borne commandos Friday, March 19, 1999 By Torsten Ove, Post-Gazette Staff Writer In the black of a peaceful winter night in the Beaver County countryside, the first mean machines came chop-chop-chopping low and loud over Don and Phyllis Wilfong's house at 3:27 a.m. yesterday, rattling the windows and obliterating any hope of sleep. A second intimidating ruckus followed about five minutes later. Then, five minutes after that, another. "It sounded like they were landing on the house," said Phyllis, 57, of New Sewickley, who bolted up in bed with Don and the couple's suddenly very alert Chihuahua. "It shook everything. Our house was shaking. Our bed was shaking. I don't know how anyone couldn't hear that. I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on." Short answer: A squadron of 12 military helicopters was on maneuvers, and lots of people got scared. ... So, were these the dreaded black helicopters of legend? Were they filled with commandos out to sabotage the nuclear power plant in Shippingport? Was this a prelude to an invasion? And wasn't that the Cigarette-Smoking Man in the lead chopper? "We've been taking calls all morning," said Capt. Michael Mastroianni of the Penn Township police in Westmoreland County. "We don't know who they were. Needless to say, the military doesn't check in with us." ...Everyone had the same question: What's up with these helicopters? ...Maybe Beth Nicholson and her husband, Shawn, could explain. At 3:30 a.m., a group of choppers churned over their house on Stiefel Avenue in Franklin, Beaver County. Fifteen minutes later, another group blasted by, and 25 minutes later, a third. ...Not a war, but a one-day training operation, the exact details of which remained sketchy yesterday. "According to the Army, the choppers were taking part in a joint Army and Air Force Special Operations training mission called "Exercise Laser Cup." [PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART] ***[S]pecial forces officers were to practice finding buried items near an old mine.**** [end item] ....Flying at night is necessary because almost all special forces missions are conducted in darkness. ...Soldiers practicing urban warfare techniques slid down ropes from hovering helicopters amid simulated explosions and gunfire. ...Trouble was, no one seemed to know about it, and finding out who owned the choppers proved an exercise in frustration. When asked if the helicopters might have come from his unit, for example, an officer at the Army Reserve base in Oakdale said the outfit "has no rotary-wing assets." Translation: We don't have choppers. ... "We made some inquiries, but nobody would tell us who they were," said Jay Schall, a supervisor at the Westmoreland County 911 center. "I would prefer they notify us so we can tell the people who call. But [the military] doesn't have to tell us anything. They're federal and we're county. There's nothing we can do about it." http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990319close4.asp http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990309_xex_new_livefire.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990226_xex_inside_view_.shtml The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial Date: 24 Mar 1999 21:49:31 -0700 (MST) While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific responses, etc.? Scott On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 utbagpiper@juno.com provided: > Keep schools, churches gun-free=20 > Deseret News editorial > An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns > should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur. SNIP > 90 percent of Utahns believe > all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent > think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from > churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in > 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private > businesses open to the public. SNIP to end - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: FYI: Important Gun Data Date: 25 Mar 1999 11:47:10 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Gunflower@lgcy.com ---------- This gun data brought to you by the National Center For Policy Analysis DAILY POLICY DIGEST Wednesday, March 24, 1999 PointCast can automatically load NCPA's Policy Digest summaries on your desktop for easy reading. For information go to http://www.ncpa.org/pointcast.html LAWSUITS IGNORE BENEFITS OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE The mayors of Chicago and New Orleans have filed lawsuits against the gun industry, arguing that their cities should be reimbursed for the public health and safety costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries. Gun control advocates have compared these suits to those against the tobacco industry. But a new National Center for Policy Analysis study concludes that unlike tobacco, guns produce tangible social benefits. Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually -- often merely showing the weapon. And research supports the view that the best defense against violence is an armed response. For example: o Women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to suffer serious injury if they respond with a firearm than if they defend themselves with less effective weapons or offer no resistance (see Figure II http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/gif/s223fig2.gif ). o The Justice Department says only one-fifth of the victims who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury, compared to almost half of those who used weapons other than firearms or had no weapon. Socially, the benefits of defensive gun use exceed the costs of firearm crimes by as much as $38.9 billion -- an amount equal to about $400 per year for every household in America. Serious crime in the U.S. is at a 20-year low, and one reason is that since 1987, 22 states have made it easier for private citizens to get concealed carry permits. For instance, economist John Lott found that: o Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent (see Figure III http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/gif/s223fig3.gif ). o Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults. These lawsuits would not only establish bad policy, but bad law, concludes the study. Courts have recognized that firearms are no different from other potentially dangerous products and have held that legislatures should decide whether guns should be legal and widely available. Furthermore, it is a well-established tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Suing Gun Manufacturers" Hazardous to Our Health," Policy Report No. 223, March 1999, National Center for Policy Analysis, 12655 N. Central Expy., Suite 720, Dallas, Texas 75243, (972) 386-6272. For text go to http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html For more on Liability and Guns http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime51.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Request: negative effects of gun control Date: 25 Mar 1999 16:43:09 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Anybody care to help this person: I am 15 and doing a report on the negative effects of gun control. I would like any info as to where to get statistics and other info. Any other help is appreciated. Thanks! We have a new web site! http://www.onelist.com Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services Internet: colt45@arizonaone.com (Paul Nixon) AirPower Information Services The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989! BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com http://www.airpower.com http://www.airpower.dynip.com This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:57:33 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb. If this should arrive at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the message. Dear Mr. Gottlieb, I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons in an effort to head off more onerous legislation. It is this same exact flawed reasoning that has severely damaged our fundamental right to self defense, as recognized by the U.S. Constitution and many State Constitutions. As anyone can recall from the dark days leading into WWII, the name Neville Chamberlain is remembered as being associated with cowardly concessions that served on to encourage a beastial tyrant on to greater efforts. The people of Czechoslovakia were betrayed by their allies and given up to the wolves in order to obtain "peace in our time." Please note this next part is given with the greatest respect, but brought out because it is quite relevant: I take it from your name that your are of Jewish extraction. Nothing need be said as to how the Jews suffered under this same man who failed to be bought off with concessions. However it should be noted that Hitler's rise to power and the fate of the Jews was sealed by the gradual disarmament of any opponents to the State under the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, which became the blueprint for the Gun Control Act of 1968 http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm If there is a learning curve when dealing with guns, freedom, gun laws and anti-gun activists, we must know that gun laws merely serve to disarm the law-abiding. We must know that those seeking gun laws are doing so for ulterior motives or because they are "useful idiots" whose thinking ignores history, law and fact -- neither of which is a proper basis for a change in the laws. Particularly when the Rights being attacked are FUNDAMENTAL to LIFE ITSELF. We must know that any time only the government has guns, freedom is on the brink of extinction, and oftentimes mass slaughter of civilians results. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/DBG.CHAP1.HTM results. I submit now is not the time for concessions. Now is the time for a ROLLBACK -- going on to the offensive -- so to speak. We need to hold up the 1968 Gun Control Act up as the NAZI LAW that it is. We need to indelibly stain the supporters of that law as NAZI LAW supporters and keep pounding them with that drumbeat: 'a NAZI LAW has no place in the American body of laws' and 'What?! YOU support and defend a NAZI LAW???' These tactics are the sort that the Left has used with the glaring differences of 1) it being based on TRUTH and 2) that a repeal of the NAZI 1968 GCA will SAVE lives. I urge you to cease any further attempts at placating our enemies. Their mindset is a Totalitarian one and I shudder to think what kind of society it will be when they are FINALLY placated. Your friend in Liberty, Richard E. Vaughan, Esq. http://freeweb.digiweb.com/pages/RKBA/commies.htm The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA New laws - justified by WHAT facts???? YAHOO NEWS WASHINGTON (Reuters) Monday December 28 12:31 AM ET - The violent crime rate in the United States fell almost 7 percent in 1997 to the lowest level since the National Crime Victimization Survey was started 25 years ago, the Justice Department announced Sunday. In 1997, the last year for which full statistics were compiled, there were an estimated 39 violent crimes per 1,000 U.S. residents 12 years or older. That was lower than the 42 per 1,000 the year before and represented a 21 percent drop since 1993. The nation's murder rate alone fell by 8 percent meaning the 18,210 murders last year were 28 percent lower than in 1993. The survey was begun by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1973 and at that time there were an estimated 48 violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Violent crime went up drastically in the 1980s but the rate has been coming down in recent years. Most categories of crime were down in 1997 with property crime also reaching its lowest level since the survey's beginning. Last year there were an estimated 248 attempted or completed property crimes per 1,000 U.S. households, down from 266 the previous year and 554 in 1973. Robbery fell the most among 1997 violent crime, down 17 percent, while the statistics for rape and sexual assault did not change from the year before. The West had the highest crime rate in 1997, and about half of the violent crimes were committed by someone the victim knew. ``As in previous years, males were more vulnerable to violent crime than females, younger people more vulnerable than older people and blacks more vulnerable than whites,'' the department said in a statement. ``Persons in urban areas had violent and property crime rates that were higher than the rates for suburban and rural residents.'' Still, the survey estimated that only 37 percent of all crimes and 44 percent of all violent crimes were ever reported to police. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/pl/story.html?s=v/nm/19981228/pl/crime_2.html (URL may wordwrap) MORE AMMO "National crime rates have been falling at the same time as gun ownership has been rising... states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership." http://www.toledoblade.com:80/editorial/edit/8k23fole.htm MURDER STATISTICS ARE BEING SCRUTINIZED Wash. Times, 07/02/1998 at C5 "In the first half of 1997, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles led the nation in slayings. Baltimore placed fifth and the District [of Columbia] sixth, according to statistics released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." [ALL have had long-standing gun bans!] Thirty-one states now have Right-to-Carry (RtC) laws. As states passed RtC reform over the 19 years encompassed by the monumental University of Chicago Lott/Mustard study, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Violent crime such as murder, rape and aggravated assaults were down in every category of statistics collected wherever the citizen's right to carry concealed arms was recognized. http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/guncont.html Indeed, Americans use privately-owned guns 2,500,000 times each year to thwart violent attacks against themselves and their loved ones. Where concealed handgun laws had been in effect for 5 years, murders declined by at least 15%, rapes by 9% and robberies by 11%. Permit holders were found to be extremely law-abiding, and data on accidental deaths and suicides indicate there were no increases. In fact, studies have shown that you stand a greater chance of being shot by a cop than by a gun-toting civilian: 11% of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents mistaken for criminals, while only 2% of those in civilian shootings were so misidentified. Moreover, private citizens in urban areas encounter and kill up to three times as many criminals as do law enforcement personnel. Women also benefited under the relaxed carry laws, but those who behaved passively when they were attacked proved to be 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who defended themselves with a gun. Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/lottgun.htm General Firearms Facts http://amfire.com/afistatistics/general.html Firearms and Crime Statistics http://www.av.qnet.com/~harv/stats.htm Most violent crime committed by repeat offenders, about one-third of whom are already on probation, parole or pretrial release. http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/eocp2.html Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/tennmed.html John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns". - THE Definitive Study, showing that beyond a reasonable doubt, Guns Save Lives and stop crime. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html Large City Crime Rates - FBI Confirms Downward Trend http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/crime/index.html Report: School crime down http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9810/15/school.violence.01/ Suter vs Kellerman home invasion study http://rkba.org/letters/suter.kellerman.home-invasion Gun Control Kills Kids (Freedom, Genocide and Gun Control) http://www.webspan.net/~hhr/myths.html Second Thoughts of an Armed Liberal - Debunks some myths http://www.arcrafts.com/2think.html Statistics Links http://www.aloha.net/~davidht/koloa/refstats.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:18:32 -0800 Scott Bergeson wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > From: jurist@attymail.com > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > > This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb. If this should arrive > at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the > message. > > Dear Mr. Gottlieb, > > I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons > in an effort to head off more onerous legislation. > This is NOT true. "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for support of the bill. As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized access to a firearm. HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option. The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel totally irrelevant to th efacts in this case. This issue is being promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun rights community. By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the issue. The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story. Joe Waldron Executive Director, CCRKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:21:35 -0800 Scott Bergeson wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > From: jurist@attymail.com > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > > This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb. If this should arrive > at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the > message. Interesting, too, that the message is supposed to be directed at Mr. Gottlieb and CCRKBA, but it seems to be making it's way through the various gun list on the 'net. That may say more about the real motives of the message than the words indicate. Joe Waldron Exec Dir, CCRKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial Date: 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700 I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the final results. They never responded. The Trib has refused to make survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article and/or graphs. =20 Sarah At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote: >While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent >on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but >how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are >based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling >firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was >approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific >responses, etc.? > >Scott > >On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 utbagpiper@juno.com provided: > >> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20 >> Deseret News editorial > >> An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns >> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur. >SNIP >> 90 percent of Utahns believe >> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent >> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from >> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in >> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private >> businesses open to the public. >SNIP to end > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: DesNews editorial Date: 26 Mar 1999 06:28:06 -0700 (MST) Thank you. I will consider this refusal of the papers to answer a tacit admission of their prevaricated use of "statistics". Scott "Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can use statistics." ---------- I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the final results. They never responded. The Trib has refused to make survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article and/or graphs. =20 Sarah At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote: >While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent >on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but >how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are >based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling >firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was >approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific >responses, etc.? >Scott >On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 utbagpiper@juno.com provided: >> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20 >> Deseret News editorial >> An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns >> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur. >SNIP >> 90 percent of Utahns believe >> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent >> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from >> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in >> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private >> businesses open to the public. >SNIP to end - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Pre-emptive concessions? Let's hear your side of it. Date: 26 Mar 1999 07:18:10 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu, jwaldron@halcyon.com, utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com, PRN@airgunhq.com Say it ain't so, Joe, No, Scott did not write this letter, it was I who penned this -- warts and all. I have to admit, the grammar was not the best I have ever composed, but on closer examination of the facts, I have seen nothing -- other than indignant denials -- to prove it wrong. Scott just did me the favor, I suppose, of reposting my article to a wider audience. Now, please keep in mind that I have no intention in joining or forming a new circular RKBA firing squad. We have plenty of enemies already, both foreign and domestic, to keep our bloodpressures up and our keepboards smoking. You may not have noticed, but I did couch my terms in the tentative fashion, as I did not want to start shooting before I understood the whole story. At this point I have visited both the CCRKBA website AND GOA's website to try and get both sides of the story. [http://www.ccrkba.org/] [http://www.gunowners.org/] I found very little on the CCRKBA's website that directly addressed this issue, [as a matter of fact, I DID call the 1-800 number to give the U.S. Attorney in question a ration; but the receptionist hadn't a clue of what the message posted on the site referred to]. GOA's site at http://www.gunowners.org/swadocs.htm, on the other hand, has about six files that document the back-and-forth between Larry Pratt and Alan Gottlieb. In one section, Mr. Gottlieb is quoted as saying: >"A pro-active approach to the child safety issue is more than damage >control. It is about reaching out to legitimately concerned citizens >with the message that gun rights are not incompatible with safety and >responsibility. If we allow our enemies to hijack the issue of child >safety, we put ourselves on the losing side of a battle that could >decide the war." Perhaps you interpret it differently than I do, but in this particular instance, it stinks very strongly of "pre-emptive concession." In case you have been paying attention over the past 20-odd year years, THAT TACTIC HAS NOT WORKED FOR US! It HAS worked to salami-slice away our Second Amendment rights. I, for one, have no intention of cooperating with the Executioners of the Constitution. I want to expose them as the liars they are. I want to get a COMPLETE ROLLBACK of all gunlaws until we have nothing left but the Second Amendment, okay? That's where I am coming from. Concessions aren't part of my vocabulary. In my letter, I suggested we go on the counterattack and demand the repeal of the NAZI LAW that is the Gun Control Act of 1968. http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm I hope that isn't part of the 'inaccurate drivil' you were referring to. Now, between SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and GOA, I know of no organization in the USA who has had the gumption to use this excellent club that is available to us and shame the Left into repealing this NAZI LAW. None have come forward and taken action. None have demanded that they wanted the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution and NOTHING LESS than the Constitution. Instead, we're constantly backpeddling, cringing, and now -- so it would seem -- all too eager to commit suicide rather than allow someone else to shoot us. I'm sick of it. Now, I HOPE we are all on the same team. Larry has put up facts on his website, to include reposts of your (?) organizations' transmissions to him. The way I see it, he has introduced evidence sufficient to show that Alan is making pre-emptive concessions. I now invite your, level- headed, factual response rebutting what has been proferred. As far as the supporting information included with my initial letter, by calling it "inaccurate drivel" you attack every major argument we have against the introduction of mandatory gunlock legislation. Okay Joe, I yield back my time and the floor over to you. Let's hear the facts, as you see them please. Let's try to keep the bloodshed within the family to a minimum. Best regards, Rick Vaughan, Esq. jurist@attymail.com Joe Waldron wrote: > Scott Bergeson wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > > From: jurist@attymail.com > > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > Dear Mr. Gottlieb, > I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons > in an effort to head off more onerous legislation. > This is NOT true. "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for > support of the bill. As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, > Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and > has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized > access to a firearm. HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option. > The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel > totally irrelevant to the facts in this case. This issue is being > promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun > rights community. By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the > issue. The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at > http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story. > Joe Waldron > Executive Director, CCRKBA The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda Date: 26 Mar 1999 22:41:00 -0700 It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda Charley Reese The Orlando Sentinel March 21, 1999. The ignorance and inability to think of many Americans is appalling. The choice is either to believe that or to accuse them of something even worse -- deliberate lying and propaganda. This is plainly evident in the current propaganda campaign being directed against the private ownership of firearms. Let me quote from an article published in the New York Times. The headline states, "To rejuvenate gun sales, critics say, industry started making more powerful pistols." The story is based on assertions by Tom Diaz, who is described as a "former congressional expert on handgun control." Now, first of all, congressional expert is an oxymoron. Here is an example of Diaz's propaganda: "The increase in pistols that are more deadly began with a shift in design from revolvers, which generally hold six rounds, to faster- firing semiautomatic pistols with larger magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition . . . ." Now, what's wrong with that? First, magazine capacity has nothing to do with the power of a pistol. That is a factor of the cartridge. Second, semiautomatic pistols were invented in 1899 by George Luger, a German. There has not been a "shift in design" from revolvers to semiautomatics. Semiautomatics and revolvers both have been around for virtually all of this century. Finally, revolvers can be fired as rapidly as semiautomatics or close enough to make no difference. Again, rapidity of fire has nothing to do with the power of the gun. Diaz then makes a totally false statement, if the reporter has accurately summarized his argument. Here it is: "The next step was the introduction of higher-caliber ammunition, moving from the older and smaller .22- or .38-caliber pistols to the larger 9-millimeter or .40-caliber handguns." Maybe they just don't know math. They sure know nothing about the history of firearms. Caliber refers to the diameter of the bullet. A .38 caliber, which is expressed in inches, is the same as a 9 millimeter, which is expressed in the metric system. Furthermore, calibers of pistols in the 19th century tended to be larger -- .50 caliber in some cases, .45 caliber or .44 caliber. Apparently, this congressional expert never saw many cowboy movies as a child. Then he tries to blame manufacturers for producing very small, lightweight pistols. That's also nonsense. Small pocket pistols have been in production for more than 140 years. Has he never heard of the Lincoln assassination? Lincoln was killed with one shot from a tiny pocket pistol, popularly referred to as a derringer. Though many manufacturers made them, Henry Deringer invented the first one in 1852. Notice that his name, misspelled, became the generic name for pocket pistols. Diaz' thesis, which is false, is part of trying to rationalize suing gun manufacturers. He purports that they are making more powerful pistols to combat lagging sales. As I've pointed out, that's total nonsense. Americans, for historical reasons, traditionally favor revolvers while Europeans traditionally favor semiautomatics. Until recently, the .38-caliber revolver was the standard police weapon in America -- the 9mm semiautomatic is the standard police and military weapon in Europe. The 9mm cartridge is only marginally faster than the .38 police special and the same diameter. The most widely used 9 millimeter cartridge today is the 9 millimeter Luger introduced in 1902. The .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935. Heifer dust can't trump the facts. [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] A.K. Pritchard http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/ To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask! "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." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: "Atlas Shrugged" banned in Sweden? Date: 26 Mar 1999 22:41:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Stan Moskal wrote: > Will these special units, when the chips are down, follow orders and > actually carry out actions against American civilians? Granted many > of the Nazi's acted because they were just following orders, but I'd > like to think that in general the American military is different. > Especially an all volunteer force made up of Americans. Will these > professional "super soldiers" actually attack and kill Americans? > I mean they are not FBI or BATF thugs are they? ARE THEY? (Good question Stan) QUESTION 46 - Would you shoot and kill American Civilians Resisting Disarmament? The Combat Arms Survey: Question 46 http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario About the Combat Arms Survey that contained Question 46, U.S. troops attitudes towards firing on U.S. citizens. >"46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, > transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty > (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned > over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number > of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) No opinion Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree The Responses Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded. The outcome of the survey was as follows: Strongly disagree 127 42.33% Disagree 58 19.33% Agree 56 18.67% Strongly agree 23 07.67% No opinion 36 12.00% Total: 300 100.00% Summary of the responses to question 46. The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey questions; >"This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent > of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks > on their response or written comments in the margin space." >Is there a problem here? What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire. > In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated > from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily > organized into a unit that would obey such orders. > http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario OKAY AND HERE'S HIS EXCUSE FOR THE PURGE OF THE MILITARY: Left setting Conservatives in the military for a purge and redefining Conservatives as 'Terrorist.' http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm Don't be fooled. They LABEL and thus EQUATE Conservative, patriotic and Constitutionalist with "KKK," "Nazi," "Facist" and soon "Terrorist." AND HERE'S HIS (CLINTON'S) HAND-PICKED HENCEMEN "I can tell you specifically. In my humble opinion, based on my background, the scenario if I were creating this ops plan... Martial law has been declared through presidential powers and war powers act, and some citizens have refused to give up their weapons. They have taken over two of the buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot handle it. So you call these guys in. They show up and they [kill] everybody, take all the weapons, and let the local P.D. clean it up," "Presidential Decision Directive 25 is the authority given to them to operate and to be not covered by posse comitatus. ... "Some military sources, too, are concerned with the way the CAG has evolved, and he is very concerned about the way the group has been granted authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the law, including the Posse Comitatus Act...." "They will follow and do whatever the president tells them to do. In that regard, they are somewhat dangerous." "Everything is training for them. You train like you fight and you fight like you train. There's very little distinction between the two."... [T]hey were under the direct control of the Department of Justice,"... "If they are told to shoot somebody they will shoot them, you know, without question," claims the source." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS Remember hearing anything about the U.S. experiments when people were ordered to give electrical shocks, with increasing severity, to other people? Well, even Americans continued to administer shocks up to very high levels. - Milgram's study on Obedience to Orders http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~cultsock/MUHome/cshtml/Obed.html http://www.cyber.vt.edu/mbo/commres/lectures/ethics/milgram/obediance.html http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcook/milgram.htm THEY'RE ALREADY KILLING AMERICANS - Bonus Marchers - Kent State ("Four Dead in OH-HI-OH") - Ruby Ridge - Waco - Sallisaw - Taft - All the unreported incidents..... Police are receiving military-style training, which is great for the battlefield, but not appropriate for a traffic stop for exceeding the speed limit - and Citizens are getting slaughtered. Govt. says "it's okay" http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo102.htm http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeguns.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police1page1.htm http://civilliberty.miningco.com/msubmenu5.htm http://www.bakersfield.com/special/taftshooting/ Who's behind all these so-called "laws?" Not Americans! (for the most part) Surplus Weapons and the MicroDisarmament Process - "Increase in U.N. Involvement in the MicroDisarmament Process" Essentially, the excuse to divide humans into two groups: those government-armed humans and suubject-unarmed humans. Like Clint Eastwood said: >"Ya know Tuco, there are two kinds a' people in this world... Those who have guns, and the kind who dig... now DIG!" More - yes you guessed it, U.N. involvement in domestic disarmament http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/events/micro/laurance.html http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/brief3/chap5.html And just in case you *still* aren't depressed enough already, I got this tidbit in from Sweden this morning. Sounds like the United States is the last holdout. Once the RKBA/Freedom goes in the United States, who is left to rescue us? Where is there a place simply to flee to? Nowhere. It is up to us. >"Those Swedes not accepting the system are leaving. In a few years they > will have very big problems here, as not only big companies are leaving > Sweden, but also well educated people. Somehow this all reminds me of > Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged". Do you know that book? It is forbidden here > in Sweden!" Please contact your Congresscritter and demand a Rollback. In liberty, Rick V. The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA -