From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: CONGRESS ACTION: May 31, 1998 Date: 01 Jun 1998 18:34:00 -0700 CHAGRIN AT CNN: Once again the nation was assaulted by the news of another out-of-control teenager taking off after his schoolmates with guns. This time the carnage was in Oregon, and in the end the death count was two, the wounded perhaps two dozen. The weapons consisted of a .22 rifle and two semi-automatic handguns (Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady take note -- not a "high powered" rifle, "assault rifle", high capacity clip, laser sight, or bayonet lug to be found). Shamelessly, the media wasted no time trying to use the tragedy to advance their own political agenda. The New York Times demanded "...that congress rise above its traditional allegiance to the contribution wielding gun lobby and enact legislation...", and went on to report freshman Representative Carolyn McCarthy's (D-NY) intention to introduce a bill to, among other things, "...mandate that gun manufacturers produce safer and child-proof weapons" (whatever that means). The carnage at the Oregon school ended when several students tackled the shooter and wrestled him to the ground, disarming him. Two of those heroes were brothers Josh and Jake Ryker (the latter was wounded during the shooting). Predictably, the media circus descended on the Rykers, who held a news conference which was broadcast over FOX and CNN. Typically in such situations, those involved in such an event espouse the media/liberal-approved knee-jerk reaction: such events demonstrate the "obvious" need for more gun control laws. The media should have anticipated that the Rykers wouldn't fall into that typical pattern, however, when Mr. Ryker appeared at the news conference wearing an NRA-ILA cap. So eager were they to advance their political agenda, however, that the reporters plowed ahead anyway. The following exchange took place, no doubt to the growing horror of the news directors in the control booths, watching as someone dared to contradict the approved party line over their network, watching as some common sense managed to emerge: Reporter: Mr. Ryker, did you mean to make a statement wearing that NRA cap? Mr. Ryker: No, I didn't. Reporter: But I understand you to say this event has not prompted you for any type of gun laws? Mr. Ryker: No, not at all. Mrs. Ryker: I would like to say something on behalf of my husband because of his knowledge of guns, his support in the NRA. He has raised my two boys very much aware of guns. They're not afraid of them. They are knowledgeable of them. They know how to respect a gun. And I think that all of that did lead to the fact that my boys did not panic when they seen him, and they tried to assist and help. Reporter: What if he hadn't had a gun? Some would say then he wouldn't be... Mrs. Ryker: Jake took a knife off of him. Josh Ryker: We pulled knives off of him, whatever munitions and weapons he had in his backpack we did not see. Mrs. Ryker: A weapon is a weapon. Josh Ryker: A weapon is a weapon. Mr. Ryker: It's already illegal for the kid to have those in school. Passing any more laws, what's the difference? He's already broke those. What's to stop the person from breaking any new laws you pass? Reporter: So you don't think any new laws should come out of this? Mr. Ryker: No. The shooting in Oregon has had other unexpected fallout, which must be driving Sarah Brady and the rest of the gun banners up a wall in frustration. Some serious commentators are actually discussing the possibility that teachers should be armed to help stop such attacks in the future. In fact, several recent school shootings have been stopped by private citizens bearing their own weapons. The national debate has been pushed in this direction in part because of a recently published book by John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law, University of Chicago, titled "More Guns, Less Crime". The title sums up his analysis of 18 years of FBI crime statistics. Based on that study, Lott concluded that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. ... Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves." Douglas Weil, research director at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (affiliated with Handgun Control Inc., chaired by Sarah Brady) called Lott's study a "...dangerous political agenda...", and went on to draw the predictable conclusion that "...the United States already has more guns in civilian hands than any other industrialized nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the world's highest rates of gun crime." Weil claimed that "...the American people and law enforcement know better." As to what "law enforcement knows", Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (a nationwide organization which is comprised of law enforcement officers, crime victims and concerned citizens) Jim Fotis calls 'right-to-carry' legislation a "proven, street-smart measure that will effectively impact on violent crime and assist victims and police officers." Fotis describes the definition of gun control according to the gun grabbers as "...restricting the rights of, and disarming, peaceable citizens. And the answer to that idea is a loud and clear, unambiguous "NO", at least from real cops. ... Law Enforcement is not the enemy of private gun ownership." Surveys of law enforcement officers bear out Fotis: several 1997 polls showed that rank and file police support a private citizen's right to carry concealed weapons (84.9%); believe that private ownership of firearms increases public safety (87.1%); oppose a ban of semi-automatic rifles (96.8%); that banning firearms with characteristics demonized by the gun banners (laser sights, large capacity magazines, etc.) will not reduce crime (94.7%); that further restrictions on gun ownership will not reduce violent crime (92.1%); and most chiefs of police (89.6%) believe that the Second Amendment protects a citizens right to buy firearms for self defense or sport. Additionally, 87.6% of the chiefs of police do not believe that the media are fair or balanced in reporting the news. As to what the American people know, years of ignorance about the Constitution and American history in general, disinformation about firearms, and ongoing media hysteria, lies, and distortions, has produced a very confused public. A recent poll of public attitudes about guns showed that although people think the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms or own a gun (88.1%); a majority (59.9%) don't think that gun regulations violate that right; think that private citizens carrying concealed weapons would put the rest of us in danger (60.4%); and most (61.1%) think that society tends to look at gun owners in a negative way. Incidentally, for all the blather from the media and liberals about political contributions from the "gun lobby", in the interest of full disclosure Congresswoman McCarthy would no doubt want people to know how much in political contributions she has received from the "anti-gun lobby". According to data from the Federal Election Commission, during the 1995-96 election cycle (in addition to contributions from the usual collection of liberal/democrat sources -- labor and teacher's unions, environmentalists, Emily's List, etc), McCarthy received $7954 in cash and in-kind contributions from the Handgun Control Voter Education Fund; and in the current election cycle (for her upcoming 1998 congressional race), McCarthy has received $2000 so far from the Handgun Control Voter Education Fund. Mr. Kim Weissman BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet: http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ Locate Bills (text and status): http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c105query.html Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Framing The Terms.... 1/2 Date: 02 Jun 1998 06:56:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Skip Wayland Framing The Terms Like many of you, I get vexed about how we -- those who support our Nation's Constitution, and the ideas upon which it was founded -- constantly appear to be the recipients of slanderous remarks from elitists who believe they have attained Nirvana and further believe that we are imbeciles for not following their leadership. Our ideas are continu- ally maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these people. They are very effective at using catchy labels to frame our position while we have simply tried to counter their wild, irresponsible accusations with rational argu- ments leading to well-deliberated conclusions. In spite of our attempts to provide rationality to the issues we many times appear to be losing the battle for the hearts and minds of middle America because our opponents -- with media support -- persist in using sound bites that provoke a visceral effect against our cause. Our opponents don't talk in terms of the academia or the judicatory when they malign us to the public, but we sometimes respond in that manner in our own defense, and when we do we are not understood by the vast majority of people in this nation who have a problem reading the Sunday comics. We find ourselves attempting to defend our position in an argument where the terms and definitions have been outlined by our opponents in feeling, not logic. Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because we allow ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms whose definition has been delineated by our adversary. We end up defending our doctrine against the terms defined by our antagonists rather than conveying our beliefs on the argument itself. This happens over and over again and yet we continue to allow ourselves to be brought into discus- sions wherein the language used is terms defined by the opposition. The following are some of the terms to which I refer: * Saturday Night Special * Cop Killer Bullets * Assault Weapons * Weapons Of Mass Destruction * Designed Only For Killing People * Sniper Rifle * High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems * Hair Trigger * Easily Accessible Firearms * Unregistered Firearm * Dum Dum Bullets * No Sporting Purpose + a bunch more that slip my mind at this point. As you read down that list it is very likely that each of those terms brought some image to your mind or evoked some gut reaction in you at some level. Why?? Why the reaction?? Some of those terms bring forth images that define a natural reaction against the item; like "Cop Killer Bullets". Other terms that we may have used in everyday language have been so skewed in their meaning over the years by our opponents that they now have a different meaning than they originally had, like "Saturday Night Special", which I always thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer and pizza. The point is that we, as a group who support the Constitu- tion and firearms ownership as defined by our Founders, must start defining the terms of the debate from our perspective. We must take the battle to our adversaries using terms that we define; terms that put them on the defensive. We must start paying attention to how we phrase things, and espe- cially make efforts to define terms that bring about the desired visceral effect in people who are open to impression on these issues and get most of their news in broadcast media sound bites. Not only must we define these terms, we also must come up with some mechanism to get these terms into the national mainstream. This is where our opponents do so well. They pick up on these little catch phrases and pass them around among themselves, and then start getting them into media sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using their terms - including us !! This situation must be reversed. We must all strive, by whatever means we have available, to put those who would deprive us of our liberties into a defensive posture that requires them to explain their position with regard to our ideas and terms. Yes, we must continue to offer cogent arguments that support our position. We have, thank good- ness, more and more very capable people who continue to join our camp on these issues. We must always continue to bring good, dedicated people into this conflict on our side. We must, however, strive to get all of those who support us to not only continue in the vein they are currently in but also to start thinking about the terms they use in framing their arguments. If the terms we use can be sharpened to paint a mental picture that elicits a positive portrayal of our position, or a negative portrayal of our opponent's posi- tion, then we can start to present arguments that not only hold up in courts of law, but also the court of public opinion. I, for one, think it is worth a try. We can make it work by passing around ideas. There are a lot of us who are very sharp people who will, hopefully, start using our individual and collective wits to outwit the opposition on a very basic and effective level. But we need some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative, and medical communities, the news media, and to pass this infor- mation around the Nation quickly so the terms that are introduced can get wide spread dissemination. The idea is to pass ideas, and not necessarily for anyone in particular to say that this idea is good and that one is bad. Perhaps a consensus on some terms can be reached at some level. I don't know. This is just an idea I have. I hope someone out there in cyberspace agrees that it is a good one and will pick up the ball and run with it. Perhaps someone out there is willing to be the repository, collection, and dissemination point for this effort. Organizations that are experienced in the battle for our rights have the know-how and the wherewithal to put this together on a national level and make it work. There is nothing wrong with the major organizations working to accomplish their own objectives, BUT... on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of the major, and minor, associates on our side of this debate must achieve a unified front if this effort is to have any effect what-so-ever. The NRA, GOA, LEAA, LSAS, JPFO, etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort and start talking with each other regarding the terminology we use. We also need mechanisms to get it to those who can get it into sound bites. I'll be happy to act as the ini- tial point of contact to get it started but someone else is needed to sustain it. I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfor- tunately I don't know who first coined many of these. If some of these ideas sound sophomoric to you then get off your duff and come up with some of your own. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Framing The Terms.... 2/2 Date: 02 Jun 1998 06:56:00 -0700 1. Always refer to a gun control advocate as a "Victim Disarmament Extremist" or "Predator Advocate" 2. We should refer to ourselves as being "ProChoice AND ProLife" on the firearms issue. Or take the sting out of it and call yourself a: "Self Defense Advocate" 3. Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a "CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE" in addition to any other manner in which it is addressed. 4. Firearms registration or firearms owner registration touted by the "freedom hating left" should be viewed as "Pre-Confiscation Initiatives" 5. Inexpensive handguns (Saturday Night Specials) are "Economically Viable Protection" or simply "Affordable Protection". Attempts to outlaw inexpensive firearms for defensive use should be viewed as an effort to deprive the less fortunate or economically challenged of their CIVIL RIGHTS because it deprives these people of the most effective means to defend themselves and their families against predators of all kinds. 6. Firearms training is "Life Assurance Training" or maybe "Family Self Defense Training" 7. Concealed carry license can be "Predator Neutralization License" or "Family Life Assurance License" or "Victim Protection Measures" or "Threat Reduction Measures. While we're at it... why do we as a people even toler- ate our government licensing us to carry the tool that is most effective in protecting the well-being of ourselves and our families. We should have a Vermont- style right to carry and protect ourselves. Isn't that, in fact, what our Founders intended??? Why do we keep voting in representatives who support "Innocent Victim Disarmament". 8. Expand upon the GOA premise that "Guns Save Lives". They do... We know it... Let's talk about it - IN PUBLIC!! Every pro-gun organization in existence should be on this bandwagon!!! GUNS SAVE LIVES !!! 9. Always refer to the bad guys as "Predators" along with other appropriate pejorative terms like "thieves", "rapists", etc. 10. Firearms owner lists in government possession are: "Round Up Lists" or "Pre-Holocaust Victim Identifica- tion Lists". 11. Any government-required fee for firearms licenses, Brady-type checks, etc. should be referred to as a "Another Gun Tax", "Civil Rights Violations", "Firearms Infringement" 12. Charlton Heston (of "Moses" & "people-shouldn't-be- able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons" fame) FINALLY got it right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as the "Hanoi Jane" of the anti-gun movement. 13. Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero. Other simi- lar symbols for firearms safety or freedoms should be developed and/or expanded upon. JPFO has a very good series that should be brought into the mainstream. This information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda Camps", commonly called public schools. Every pre- puberty kid in the Nation should know who these symbols are and the positive side of what they represent. Our kids are this Nation's future and we continue to allow the fanatical left, victim-disarmament teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children into believing that guns are bad and so are the people who own them. 14. Those in the opposition should be referred to as screw- balls, crackpots, extremists, etc. Although I don't normally agree with calling anyone names but it may get mainstream people thinking that we do have a valid point. I, for one, certainly am of the opinion that many of the Hollywood elite, who donate millions to efforts that would negate our Bill of Rights, can and should be referred to as "crackpot elitist extremists". 15. Let's face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a tragedy. An even larger tragedy is that Sara Brady has become quite wealthy from cynical exploitation of his misfor- tune. Additionally, her efforts have helped build an empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were denied access to defensive firearms because of Brady checks, mandatory waiting periods, and the defeat of concealed carry legislation that she has been instru- mental in effecting. As a community dedicated to restoring and maintaining our liberties how can we give Sara Brady a free pass to continue her "Victim Disarma- ment" work without calling her to task for it at every opportunity??? She is getting rich making speeches to outlaw our freedoms and yet we seldom see anything in print anywhere that says this is happening. Why? (QUOTABLE QUOTES: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, "The Na- tional Educator," January 1994, Page 3. (unverified information provided to me, recently)" 16. Gun control legislation is literally: "Job Safety For Criminals" or "The Safe Streets For Criminals Act/Bill/Law/Regulation" We ALL need to get together on this effort. I'm sure that some of the descriptive phrases we glean from this will be worth the effort, both to our cause and to our funny-bone. Maybe this epistle will get the ball rolling. Hopefully this will spark some interest in getting the scoreboard numbers up in our favor by establishing a system that offers coordination of "reasonable terms" that can be used within this debate. If everyone takes a few minutes to think about this I'm sure we'll have some terms to use that will gain the initiative and turn the tide. Give this a shot... what have you got to lose?? There is a whole lot to gain. Let me know. And... will someone please step forward and volun- teer to be a coordination point for this effort should it get off the ground. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone who is interested in regaining our freedoms and rights in a lawful, peaceful manner. Peace, Skip Wayland "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948); American historian and educator ------------ PEACE ------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Politics Explained - Humor Date: 02 Jun 1998 14:44:30 -0600 >----Forwarded Message(s)---- > > #: 768915 S8/Humour/Jokes/Verse [UKFORUM] > 12-Mar-98 13:49:06 > Sb: Politics Explained > Fm: Juliete Cook 73500,441 > To: ALL > >If this does not explain it guys...LOLOL..well, there's no hope !!!! > > ~Juliete Cook ~ (*)(*) > > > >THE WONDERS OF POLITICS, EXPLAINED BY A BLOKE WITH TWO COWS: >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > >1. FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. > >2. PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts >them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the >cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need. > >3. BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and >puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by >ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government >took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as >many eggs as the regulations say you should need. > >4. FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take >care of them, and sells you the milk. > >5. PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You help to take care of them, and >you all share the milk. > >6. RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but >the government takes all the milk. > >7. DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots >you. > >8. SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for >keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment. > >9. MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts >you. > >10. PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the >milk. > >11. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick >someone to tell you who gets the milk. > >12. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you >vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating >in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". > >13. BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and >they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. > >14. COMMON MARKET BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government >regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays >you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other >and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms >accounting for the missing cows. > >15. ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price >or your neighbours try to kill you and take the cows. > >16. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. > >17. HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your >publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your >brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated >general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for >keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a >Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the >majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to >the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight >cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because >the fung shui is bad. > >18. ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from >milking or killing them. > >19. FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. > >20. TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and >denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. > >21. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of >"ownership" is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering, intolerant >past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of >non-specified gender. > >22. COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You >got to have some of this milk. > >23. SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take >harmonica lessons. > > > > >----End Forwarded Message(s)---- > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Write-thru, May 31] Date: 02 Jun 1998 18:12:32 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA EDITORS: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR MONTHLY BONUS FEATURE (THIS VERSION IS A WRITE-THRU, INCLUDING JUNE 1 FIXES) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns On May 21, all indications are that pencil-necked 15-year-old misfit Kipland Kinkel, younger child (and the only one still living at home) of well-to-do government schoolteacher parents, took a .22-caliber rifle, shot his mother and father to death in their home, and then headed down to the school cafeteria to wound 22 of his schoolmates, while killing two more. What were all the kids in the mill town of Springfield, Oregon doing in the school cafeteria so early that morning? Being taught to expect a government dole and subsidy even for breakfast, it now appears. At any rate, it was another shooting in the "gun-free zones" which the "send-a-message" liberals have made of our mandatory youth propaganda camps -- oops, "public schools." So needless to say, the Usual Suspects were shortly heard from. Within days Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association -- America's largest gun control outfit -- showed up on Katie Couric's smugly hoplophobic NBC "Today" show, "debating" all-guns-to-the-state Congressman Charles Schumer on a typically heads-they-win-tales-we-lose question: whether it is federal or only local authorities who should "mandate" gun locks. Needless to say, Mr. LaPierre never asked why they were debating locks for handguns, when all the recent schoolyard shootings were done with long guns. For that matter, the firearms used in these crimes were not full-auto machine weapons (no innocent American civilians have been killed by such legally-owned weapons in years, except by government agents), nor the "murderous" assault weapons which Messrs. Schumer and Clinton are busily banning, with their "deadly" pistol grips, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. ((start ital)That(end ital) kind of weapon, as it turns out, kills an average of three Americans per year ... fewer than are killed by bowling balls.) Since few to none of the recent school killings have been accomplished with handguns (Master Kinkel, like his recent predecessors in Arkansas, carried a handgun for backup, but preferred to do most of his shooting with his more accurate rifle -- precisely the type of "sporting weapon" which the gun-grabbers tell us is safer to have around), this opportunistic political carrion-feeding on the young dead to promote bad laws already in the hopper makes about as much sense as fighting highway fatalities by requiring more life preservers on pleasure boats. Nor did Mr. LaPierre ever call the gun-banner's biggest bluff -- never asking Schumer "So you're saying gun locks are enough? If you get this law passed you'll never propose another gun control law? This isn't just one more incremental step toward total prohibition?" After all, once the victim disarmament gang effectively outlawed machine guns for most Americans, they didn't hesitate to ridicule the real reason we own guns -- "a safeguard against tyranny," in the words of Hubert Humphrey -- by simpering "Oh, you and your friends think you can stop the 82nd Airborne with your deer rifles?" Similarly, once every handgun in the country is required to be double-padlocked inside a time-locked safe, do we think they'll hesitate to argue, "Since you can no longer get the gun out on short notice, it's no good to defend you against a rapist, so how can you argue you still need it?" Advice from the Germans Highest soprano among the braying state-power bedwetters, as usual, was West Virginia's daily Charleston Gazette: "The slaughter of schoolchildren is a price America pays for being a gun-polluted society. ... The recent mass shooting at an Oregon school was the latest in a never-ending string of horrors. This is what happens in a society saturated with 200 million guns. Any child can obtain a weapon and use it in a moment of childish rage. This is what happens in a society where the powerful 'right to bear arms' lobby cows politicians, making them afraid to take any steps to protect people from the gun danger. How long will America endure this madness?" the coaldust daily ululated on May 22. The fanatical cries to disarm the victims even went international, with Germany's newspaper "Bild" pontificating on May 25 (in the quaintly spastic Associated Press translation): "A 15-year-old murdered his parents in Oregon, shot and killed two schoolmates and wounded 22 others. Again the affected will stand around the coffins, beseech God and bemoan the shameful crime. Probably they will barbarically punish the 15-year-old barbarian. Thereafter they will claim: continuous shooting in television -- only a game. The unscrupulous weapons trade -- a successful business. And the instructions to build bombs in the Internet had nothing to do with the bloody reality. Really not? High Noon in school. Disarm finally!! Also in television and the weapons closets at home. It's not a pistol that makes a man. Playing with violence is instructions on how to kill." We don't really have to respond to our Teutonic critics, do we? Their Jewish and Gypsy minorities took their advice to "Disarm finally!!" between 1928 and 1938 -- gun registration leading to confiscation, just as Mr. Schumer and Mr. LaPierre's back-stabbing NRA plan for us here, and is now underway again in both England and France. They claim European murder rates are lower than ours? Between 1928 and 1945, the German state murdered at least 8 million unarmed civilians from their own and the captured territories (not counting the deaths of men in uniform, though we probably should.) Counting famines created on purpose for political reasons, Joe Stalin and his Communists during the same years murdered civilians numbering at least 20 million. Even assuming not one single murder has occurred in Europe since 1945 -- ignoring Bosnia and all the rest -- that averages out to 400,000 murders per year since 1928, caused by the citizenry being disarmed, while their governments stayed armed -- exactly what's planned for us here. Or have the brave state socialists like Mr. Schumer or Sen. Feinstein called for disarming the DEA, the ATF, and the FBI -- America's SS -- while I wasn't listening? The government dispensary Any death of a child is a tragedy. But if someone has to be callous enough to inject a few facts into this debate, let's start here: Our murder rates are way below the European rate reported above, not in spite of, but (start ital)because(end ital) we are a well-armed nation, where the government (up until the past decade, when they started testing the waters with Waco and Ruby Ridge) never dared attempt such atrocities. (We'll have more now, of course, after federal judge Edward Lodge on May 14 -- one week prior to the Kinkel rampage -- dismissed all charges against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, ruling he was "just doing his job" back in 1992 when he shot away the lower jaw and carotid artery of an Idaho woman named Vicki Weaver, wanted for no crime, who he found standing in the kitchen doorway of her home, armed with a baby. Vicki Weaver screamed for 30 seconds as she lay dying, whereupon the FBI agents who had her family home besieged named their encampment "Camp Vicky," and taunted her surviving family members over their bullhorns, asking if "Mom" was going to cook them blueberry pancakes. The fact that Gunner Horiuchi -- who has testified his qualifications include accuracy within one-half-inch at the range from which he shot Mrs. Weaver -- will not even face a manslaughter trial was by far the most important gun-crime-related story of May, 1998 ... yet how much play did it receive in your local newspaper or television station?) Actually, some excellent commentary has moved on the wires in the week since the Springfield cafeteria shooting, though it will be interesting to measure how much of this common sense made it through the nation's anti-gun editorial filters. While "What caused this?" tends to be a rhetorical question, with the inquirer standing ready to answer "guns," isn't it interesting that the day before young Kip Kinkel had his bad day in Springfield, two teens were arrested in Clearfield, Penn. for the 10-days-past murder of 15-year-old Kimberly Jo Dotts, who was dragged into the woods by her teenage friends with a rope around her neck when she threatened to "snitch" about their plans to run away to Florida. There, they hanged young Kimberly Jo by her neck from a tree, before bashing her head in with a rock. How do the gun-grabbers explain the role of the "easy availability of guns" in causing (start ital)that(end ital) schoolgirl murder, in which no firearms were involved? Easy. They just ignore it. In my newspaper, the arrests in Kimberly Jo's death were buried on page 12, on the same day the Kip Kinkel story broke on page one, with photos. And since it didn't fit the anti-gun agenda, Kimberly Jo's horrendous murder was thereafter ignored -- even as we heard day after day of anti-gun drum-beating follow-ups about Kip Kinkel's rampage. But even in the Oregon case, there is a far more obvious suspect than "guns," as Maureen Sielaff was quick to detail in the Vigo Examiner (http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com): "Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac," Ms. Sielaff reported early the next week. "Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. "Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the book 'Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs,' by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts." The drug's form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company (a division of Eli Lilly) and last revised on June 12, 1997 -- the paperwork included in each package of Prozac -- lists such other "frequent" symptoms as "chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tinnitus." If this kid gets a good lawyer, look for a "Prozac defense." And if that happens, my cheery thought for the day is that young Kipland could be looking at as little as three-to-seven on the psychiatric farm. "Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings," Ms. Sielaff continues, "these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. ..." In an apparently unrelated incident, I find the Cincinnati Inquirer editorializing on May 14, "Last month, when a classmate suffered a severe asthma attack on a school bus in Mount Airy, Md.., Christine Rhodes, 12, shared her prescription inhaler with the stricken girl -- possibly saving her life. "In a rational world, Christine would be hailed a hero. But 'rational' is not a word that fits the world of education these days. Christine was branded a 'drug trafficker' by school officials -- a black mark that will remain on her record for three years. Makes you wonder what they were inhaling." Two years before, and also in Ohio, the paper noted, "Two middle-school girls were suspended for sharing a packet of Midol." It is not the dimmest, but the brightest of our young men who are bound to go stir crazy as their government incarceration stretches to 13 years and beyond ... as they are forced to spend 12 or 13 years having the sparks of creativity and intellectual curiosity snuffed out, learning less than their grandfathers learned in eight, merely to satisfy the labor unions' economically misguided desire to keep them off the job market, bolstered by the teachers' union full-court-press for full employment now dubbed "dropout prevention." Meantime, as the religious zealots whoop it up, demonizing every recreational drug of choice but their own, just as fast as they do "guns," does anyone really know how many of our schoolchildren (particularly boys) are now doped up by school nurses with Prozac and Ritalin, relatively new drugs whose long-term psychiatric effects are only now beginning to be discovered? If you shut up enough animals in a small enough cage, they will eventually start killing one another. Do the mass dopings of kids like Kip Kinkel subdue their "escape" response, and if so are the effects actually worse when they finally break through? Is anyone even tracking the (start ital)growth rate(end ital) of these mass drug-dosings of our innocent young men by their government wardens? And doesn't this mean our schools' "zero tolerance" drug policies really only mean zero tolerance for (start ital)competing(end ital) drug pushers? The crime shortage On May 28, I published across the top of our own Op-ed page here in Las Vegas a piece by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute, pointing out that the New York Times ran the story of the Springfield, Ore. shootings "for three straight days on the front page," while "President Clinton used his Saturday radio address to decry the 'changing culture that desensitizes our children to violence'." The only problem is, according to Mr. Glassman, "The truth about violence in America is that it is falling, not rising. From 1993 to 1996, the number of murders fell 20 percent, and just four days before the Oregon shootings, the FBI announced preliminary figures for 1997 that found both murders and robbery down another 9 percent and overall crime off for the sixth straight year. Murders in New York City fell a stunning 22 percent in 1997; in Los Angeles, 20 percent. ... "You have to wonder about the claims of pop psychologists and of the president himself when he says, as he did Saturday, that the rising tide of murders and mayhem on TV, in movies and on video games, is turning kids into killers. U.S. News noted that 'juvenile murder arrests declined ... 14 percent from 1994 to 1995 and another 14 percent from 1995 to 1996'." But if violence is falling, why do these rare schoolyard incidents get so much media play? "One answer may be a crime shortage," Mr. Glassman figures. "At a Harvard symposium recently, one panelist pointed out that local TV news shows have to import violent footage now that local criminals aren't turning out enough product (there were only 43 murders in Boston last year, the fewest since 1961). ... "So, what's the meaning of the schoolhouse slayings? Frankly, not much. The meaning of the hysteria over them ... now, that's worth looking into." Writing for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service a few days later, Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., concurred: "I have now been on television news following every one of the recent school killings answering basically the same question: 'How do you explain the trend of shootings by kids in rural schools?' My answer is always the same: I cannot explain it, because no such trend exists. ... "In 1992, 55 killings occurred in America's schools -- a remarkably small number. By 1997, that number dropped by more than half, to 25. By contrast, 88 people were killed by lightning in 1997. "The Los Angeles County School System, with about 600,000 students in it, has not had a homicide since 1995. The District of Columbia, with about 600,000 citizens, has had about 600 homicides since that time. "Overall, between 1994 and 1996, there was a 30 percent drop in juvenile homicides in America. Ninety kids were arrested in rural communities for the crime of homicide in 1996, compared to 1,800 in cities. ... "Between 1992 and 1996, the homicide rate in America dropped by 20 percent. But the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent. ... Distorted coverage of ... these events has violated recently victimized communities, frightened parents, fomented reactionary legislation and misinformed the public. Worst of all, it may be creating an environment where other troubled youths are copy-catting their well-publicized peers." Too many laws The NRA's standard cry, "Why don't we enforce the laws already on the books?" can get to sound pretty lame through repetition. But in fact, I remember interviewing Marion Hammer of Florida (since elected to head the NRA in Washington) about one of the tourist murders in Florida five years back, and having her point out that the culprit -- a young woman -- had been arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of an illegal concealed weapon while shoplifting -- as well as resisting arrest -- only few days before. The authorities let her out due to a lack of jail space (too many victimless dope smokers tying up the cells, presumably.) Similarly, Kip Kinkel was arrested and booked for storing a stolen gun at school the day before his murder rampage ... but then promptly released back into his helpless parents' custody. So, it turns out the NRA's recurrent cry has some specific application: Why push for more gun laws, when the cops aren't able enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books? To outlaw everything has the same effect as to legalize everything, except that the cops are thus empowered to harass anyone, any time they want. The Florida tourist-shooting epidemic is also relevant in another way. In 1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots started removing those stickers, Florida's "tourist murder crime wave" disappeared virtually overnight. Similarly, one of the last places a criminal knows he can find unarmed victims in an increasingly well-armed and peaceful America today ... is in the "gun free school zones" in which the snivelliberals have locked up our children. Hand out more guns In fact, it turns out that if a solution to schoolyard violence is needed, experts with some mighty solid credentials propose that the solution is not to ban guns, but to hand out more: Slated to appear Monday, June 1, I'm publishing in the Review-Journal an excellent piece initially prepared for the Los Angeles Times by John R. Lott, Jr., a fellow at University of Chicago School of Law, and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 1998), under the headline: "To stop mass shootings, hand out more guns: When Israel armed teachers, the school shootings ended." In that essay, Professor Lott writes: "What might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves. "Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings. "The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Israelis had 'complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said.' "Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter while waiting for the police." (That assistant principal had, fortunately for all, violated federal law by bringing that firearm onto campus, even though he left it in the glove compartment of his car. "More recently," Professor Lott continues, "the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes. Who knows how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?" Dr. Lott's exhaustive studies of multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995 reveal that "only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. "The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, injuries by 82 percent. ... "Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively -- including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen -- are ignored. ... Without permitting law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns, we risk leaving victims as sitting ducks." Sitting ducks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad, that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own self-defense. The gun-grabbers will respond "a resident of the house is more likely to be injured than an intruder." But only if they cleverly include suicides in their statistics, of course. Besides, you can scare away 100 intruders without ever wounding one, just by showing (or audibly cocking) your weapon. Which makes the minuscule "injury" statistics a red herring. Crediting Eddie Eagle All these statistics can get a little boggling, I know. So let's take a specific example. The Elko Daily Free Press reports that on April 7 of this year, an unnamed 15-year-old boy in that northern Nevada community tried to stop an intruder from beating his mother, but found he was not strong enough to do so. The lad therefore raced into his mother's bedroom, retrieving a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the magazine, inserted the magazine into the weapon, returned, and fired at the assailant three times, hitting him twice and killing him. "He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and possibly the 3-year-old child also present," the newspaper reports. "The mother suffered a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on her body, and a cut to her forehead from the attack." "It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of self-defense," said D.A.. Gary Woodbury, in which case "an inquest is not warranted." If Mr. Schumer's proposed federal "gun lock" bill had been in effect -- or even the non-federal version tacitly OK'd by Mr. LaPierre -- the Elko teenager would have done better attempting to whack his mother's assailant with a fireplace log. Following the successful Israeli example of arming teachers and parent volunteers, Georgia state legislator Mitchell Kaye has now proposed one of the few legislative initiatives likely to directly address the problem: He wants to authorize and encourage Georgia teachers to carry concealed weapons at school. "They know that all the adults in these school gun-free zones are unarmed, and that's the problem,'' Kaye told CNN the day after the Oregon shootings. In a carefully scripted line, the gun-grabbers reply that teachers "are supposed to educate children, not execute them." But we don't give weapons to police officers in the hopes they'll "execute" their suspects, do we? Guns are the great deterrent, preventing crime by their very presence. The NRA does do (start ital)something(end ital) useful. The victim disarmament gang whine that the group's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety and training classes are nothing but "Joe Camel with feathers." But as it turns out, the parents of the young wrestling team member who finally jumped and subdued Kip Kinkel, 17-year-old Jacob Ryker, credit his firearms training with the fact that he was able to detect when Kinkel's .22 rifle was empty, timing his leap when the assailant had to change weapons. Linda Ryker also credited her son's familiarity with firearms for helping Jacob deal with the crisis, keeping his wits about him even after he was shot. With his son shot but recovering, Linda's husband Robert, a Navy diver, proudly wore his National Rifle Association cap during the family's press conference. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Rebuilt surplus military weapons hit streets Date: 02 Jun 1998 18:24:00 -0700 L & J , David Rydel http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns28.htm Rebuilt surplus military weapons hit streets December 28, 1997 Associated Press CHICAGO -- Thousands of powerful, rapid-fire military weapons are being rebuilt and sold to gun dealers for public distribution around the country, the Chicago Tribune reported. More than a dozen gunmakers use scraps from the United States military and armies around the world to rebuild battlefield firearms, the Tribune reported in Sunday's editions. The sale of rebuilt military weapons demonstrates the inability of the nation's numerous gun laws to keep some of the most deadly firearms off the streets. Surplus U.S. firearms that are not used in the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a government program to teach marksmanship and gun safety, are supposed to be destroyed or rendered inoperable. But gunmakers say the military does a poor job of crushing the guns. "If you cut a Chevrolet in half, you may not be able to drive the car, but that doesn't mean you can't use the engine and other parts," said William Dailey, attorney for Springfield Armory Inc., a gun company based in Geneseo, Ill. Military officials say they do a thorough job of cutting up the weapons, and that the law does not allow them to prevent gun dealers from bidding on the scrap metal. But Jack Friese, whose Baltimore-based company Armscorp USA makes semiautomatic M-14s powerful enough to pierce lightly armored cars, said he gets regular notices from the military announcing sales and inviting him to bid on the scraps. For the last 23 years, Friese has used international contacts to negotiate deals for millions of foreign and U.S. military firearm parts. Dailey said that military rifles are too cumbersome and bulky to be used in crimes. But the Tribune traced one military weapon -- the powerful M-1 carbine -- to more than a dozen murders in the 1990s. In all of the cases, the killers bought the weapons at gun shops and gun shows. Gun shows, one of the best markets for secondhand weapons, are almost totally free of state and federal regulation despite a 1993 federal investigation that found stolen military weapons being routinely sold at them. More than 95 percent of the nation's estimated 240 million guns are in private hands, the Tribune reported. For the most part, the resale of these guns goes unregulated by federal or local laws. All content copyright 1997 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Fratrum: Gun Control Bills before Congress (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 03 Jun 1998 09:49:56 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:30:57 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id CAA13641; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma012513; Tue Jun 2 02:25:23 1998 Message-Id: <9806020641.0kro@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Jun 01, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, These are the bills before Congress on gun control. I don't know the present status of the bills, but at least you know what we are facing at the federal level. En Agape, Gene ======================================== 1 . Yates Firearm Registration and Crime Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1998.IH] 2 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain muzzle loading firearms are to be treated as antique firearms for purposes of the Federal firearms laws. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3140.IH] 3 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.922.IS] 4 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2359.IH] 5 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit gunsmiths to obtain a Federal firearms license without having to comply with State or local laws relating to zoning of firearms businesses. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2342.IH] 6 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2722.IH] 7 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.723.IS] 8 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1570.IH] 9 . Consumer's Choice Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2734.IH] 10 . Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.27.IH] 11 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.339.IH] 12 . To prevent children from injuring themselves with firearms. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.814.IH] 13 . Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1147.IH] 14 . Personal Safety and Community Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.816.IS] 15 . Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.837.IS] 16 . Firearms Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.788.IH] 17 . Trigger Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2673.IH] 18 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the prospective application of certain prohibitions relating to firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.262.IS] 19 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to a government official engaged in official conduct while... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2255.IH] 20 . Child Firearm Access Prevention Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1917.IS] 21 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.658.IS] 22 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1264.IH] 23 . To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to ban the importation of firearms that have been cosmetically altered to avoid the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2702.IH] 24 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.26.IH] 25 . To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.992.IS] 26 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government entities. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.445.IH] 27 . Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.133.IS] 28 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.424.IH] 29 . Stop Arming Felons (SAFe) Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1228.IH] 30 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1044.IH] 31 . Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local governments should be encouraged, and have the right, to pass laws and ordinances designed to preserve and protect the safety... (Introduced in the House)[H.CON.RES.70.IH] 32 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1074.IH] 33 . Gun Safety Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.116.IH] 34 . To require the national instant criminal background check system to be established and used in connection with firearms transfers by November 28, 1997. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.102.IH] 35 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Reported in the House)[H.R.424.RH] 36 . Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.12.IH] 37 . Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.466.IS] 38 . Brady Voluntary Compliance Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2935.IH] 39 . To reform criminal procedure, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.168.IS] 40 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Passed by the House)[H.R.424.EH] 41 . Violent Crime Control Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.135.IS] 42 . Public Health and Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.787.IH] 43 . Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.136.IS] 44 . Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.796.IS] 45 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1349.IH] 46 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.553.IS] 47 . Federal Gang Violence Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.54.IS] 48 . Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.2022.IS] 49 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3532.IH] 50 . Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.362.IS] [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FCO 6-3-98 -Forwarded Date: 03 Jun 1998 10:13:39 -0700 Received: from lists1.best.com ([206.86.8.15]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 03 Jun 1998 02:40:57 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id AAA19972 for fco-errors@lists.best.com; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806030759.AAA19972@lists1.best.com> BestServHost: lists.best.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fco-errors@lists.best.com Errors-To: fco-errors@lists.best.com Reply-To: chris@nealknox.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ======================================================================== Online Report to the F I R E A R M S C O A L I T I O N 7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44 Manassas, VA 20109 ====================================================================== June 2, 1998 http://www.NealKnox.com Vol. 5, No. 5 ====================================================================== See last page for subscription and administrative information. ====================================================================== In this issue: May 20 Shotgun News Column An opportunity for offense Telephone Log http://www.nealknox.com/phonelog/4_98-5_98.html ======================================================================== A Note from Chris If you haven't visited the Hard Corps Home Page recently, you might want to stop by and take a look. It isn't finished by any stretch (no web site is ever really finished), but it has been given a little more polished look and a search engine. The latest change is the addition of a separate page for the telephone logs (which I no longer inflict upon your mailbox). These scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update line (1-900-225-3006 $0.89 per minute) are an as-it-happened legislative history which amount to a diary of the Second Amendment movement. Also, check out the new "News and Notes" section at http://www.nealknox.com/news/. This new section will feature items from the Web and the general press. The inaugural entry is a featur from the Washington Post on a 25% drop in Maryland handgun sales. Points that Neal has made for years about the danger of crooks moving up the violence scale to more-deadly weapons and the lack of impact of legal gun sales on crime are borne out in the story, although those subtleties seem to have escaped the reporter. The story is included complete and also has a link to the original Post story. * * * * * This mailing contains only one Shotgun News Column, however I wanted to get at least one bulletin out before the NRA Convention in Philadelphia. It promises to be unpleasant; the Second Amendment Action slate was defeated pretty soundly in the face of ferocious negative advertising. See http://www.nealknox.com/fc/nra98/election.html for results. This meeting is an important one, nonetheless; for the first time since the members assembled in Seattle in 1983 voted away their right to elect the Executive Vice-President, the members meeting has substantive business to transact. There are several changes to the Corporate Charter on the agenda. Under New York Not-for-Profit Corporation law, only the assembled members may amend the Corporate Charter. If you do attend, expect the room to be set up to make a floor debate as uncomfortable and as difficult as possible. At last year's Seattle meeting the room was dark with the podium lit with spotlights until a speaker pointed out that the meeting belonged to the assembled members and that they were not an audience come to watch a floor show. In previous years there have been as many as eight or more microphones on the floor. Last year had four. I'll be surprised to see more than two this year. It will be difficult to be recognized and the gavel will come down sharply on the opposition. I suspect that there will be a lull in the agenda sometime around noon. During that lull while people wander out for a bite to eat, watch for a hurried motion to adjourn. Whether the motion is technically out of order or not, it will be ruled in order by the chair and the gavel will crash. The only way to avoid losing the meeting in that scenario is to develop a very heavy backside. Send someone out to get a steak sandwich. The annual Secret Meeting[1] will occur the night before at 7:00 PM, Friday, June 5 at the Holiday Inn Select, Center City. The meeting is in a meeting room on the "meeting level" above the restaurant. [1] Secret Meeting. Prior to the 1977 Cincinnati meeting where the membership took back their organization the NRA leadership was shocked, yes, shocked, that the planners of the revolution met in secret. The loyal opposition's meeting before the meeting has come to be known as The Secret Meeting. ======================================================================== I wrote and am solely responsible for everything above this line. Chris Knox ======================================================================== Opportunity For Offense By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 20) -- A football team with an almost- impenetrable defense, but no offense, will lose. The gun rights lobby has had such a near-perfect defense for decades. Until the last dozen or so years, the only time we have lost in Congress, or most state legislatures, was when some particularly horrifying crime or series of crimes caused the public to demand that legislators "DO something" -- even if that law had no chance of preventing a repetition of the event that repulsed the public. In football terms, the only time the anti-gunners could score was with the "Long Bomb," a "Hail Mary Pass" that depended upon a great deal of luck -- either good or bad. But in recent years, the anti-gun crowd has been able to score by "moving the ball on the ground," pounding away with consistent small gains -- "three yards in a cloud of dust." First was the long fight over the "armor-piercing bullet ban," which started as a broad ammo law in 1979, but passed as a neutered -- though symbolically important -- first-ever outright Federal firearms ban in 1986, two years after NRA-ILA watered it down and threw in the towel. Then came the slow march through committees and both houses of the so-called "assault weapon" ban and Brady waiting period (and its NRA-alternative "Instant Check" which is proving to be worse). When Brady passed in late 1993, and the Feinstein semi-auto and magazine ban was enacted in 1994, gun owners and the Second Amendment took it on the chin. But it loaded every chamber on NRA's only continuing national offense -- organized political action. As even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged in January 1995 to Cleveland Plain Dealer editors and in his State of the Union speech, those gun law votes resulted in large numbers of anti-gun Democrats being defeated, giving control of Congress to Republicans for the first time in 40 years. In those heady days, both House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole promised votes to repeal the '94 ugly gun ban. Gingrich delivered; the House voted to repeal. Dole reneged, after assuring that gunowners stayed neutral in the '96 Republican primaries. But Gingrich also said -- to NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre, ILA Director Tanya Metaksa and me in a 1 1/2-hour meeting with the Republican leadership -- that no anti-gun legislation would pass on his watch. He was mistaken. Every Republican Senator, and much of the House, voted in late '96 to ban all firearms ownership forever for so-called "domestic violence misdemeanors" -- which can be as insignificant as a fistfight between two brothers 30 years before. No positive legislation has moved in this Congress, Clinton will get away with his dictatorial ban on the importation of 59 "non-sporting" semi-autos, and the stage seems set for one or more anti-gun amendments -- such as trigger locks, one gun-per- month or a "safe storage" law -- to pass at least one house in this election year. Even without any new anti-gun legislation, I doubt that Republicans will hold their thin 11-seat House majority this fall. With anti-gun Democrats in command of key committees next year (though all Democrats certainly aren't anti-gun), we would almost certainly face even worse problems in Clinton's last two years. Republican political strategists -- reading the same misleading "opinion polls" that Clinton Democrats were reading in '94, the ones that say the public likes Brady and dislikes "assault weapons" -- are telling GOP candidates that gunowners have nowhere else to go, so they should ignore the gun rights issue. But those political handlers are forgetting the gun-owning, mainly blue-collar union member Democrats who brought the Republicans to power. Those folks are disappointed and disgusted with Republicans "who don't do what they promise to restore gun rights," and even more will go back to their Democrat roots, as so many did in 1996. Except for aborted attempts to overturn the 1994 "ugly gun" ban, the only time the gun lobby has been on offense in Congress - -- when we set the agenda, called the plays, and made the anti- gunners defend against us -- was in 1978-82 when we challenged the Gun Control Act of 1968 with the original McClure-Volkmer bill, literally the Gun Decontrol Act until it was gutted by "friends." We have a tremendous, never-repeatable opportunity to again go on offense -- in a battle that we can win, that can bring more allies (from both parties) than we have seen in years, and one that will win elections for demonstrated pro-gunners this fall. I'm talking about a challenge to the permanent, second stage of the Brady Act, with its costly "Instant Check" -- which may take up to three days -- scheduled to go into effect on ALL guns this November. Most hunters, plinkers and claybirders are completely unaware that the Brady Act will affect long guns. Most have never been concerned about gun laws, because it has been 30 years since new or proposed laws directly affected the only guns most of them use. The anti-gun crowd has left those folks alone for a reason: there are too many long gun users to mess with. And that's the same reason we need to make those hunters and claybirders aware that their rights and pocketbooks will be trampled along with handgunners. What will fire them up is the "$13-$16 Federal user fee" which FBI spokesmen have said will be charged if the gun dealer directly calls the FBI system, rather than a state system. That's not much on an expensive shotgun, but it's a big tax on a used .22 rifle. Strangely, if a state legislature has set up its own "instant check" system -- as 19 have -- we're told the FBI doesn't plan to charge the state for conducting the check. Why? Obviously to get gun owners in 31 states to back a new state gun law. Why? Because there are Federal laws against the Feds using sales information to create a national gun registration system, but the states can create the Federally accessible gun registration systems that the Clinton Administration wants. When the Feds also start taking advantage of the provision of the Brady law that allows them a wait of up to three days on all firearms purchases -- as they will -- what's the effect on the guy who wants a new pump shotgun for opening day of quail season? Between fees, waits and unjustified gun purchase denials, a lot of fresh anger is going to be created come November. We need to do whatever we can to productively harness it -- against the politicians who don't keep it from happening, and against the legislative packages that most gunowners have previously ignored. Granted, I'd prefer to repeal the entire Brady Act, and the Instant Check that rode in with it, but that's not going to happen -- unless enough fire is stirred up by the long gunners to give the handgunners some relief. ====================================================================== Copyright (c) 1998 by Neal Knox Associates 7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44 Manassas, VA 20109 Reproduction and non-commercial distribution of this bulletin by any means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained. ====================================================================== Do not put your credit card number in e-mail. ====================================================================== Dear Neal, Enclosed is my retainer for your services as my Capitol Hill lobbyist: $500 [ ] $250 [ ] $50 [ ] $25 [ ] Other:____ [ ] Quarterly [ ] Bill my MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] Monthly [ ] Once [ ] Card No. ________________________________________ Expiration Date _____ Mr. [ ] Mrs.[ ]________________________________________________________________ Ms. [ ] Signature_______________________________________________________________ Address__________________________________________ Phone ________________ City _____________________________________________State ____ Zip________ Email Address ______________________ Print and mail to: Firearms Coalition 7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44 Manassas, VA 20109 ====================================================================== PGP users: Remove the leading asterisks from the BEGIN and END lines before using this key. *-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy8Q4mIAAAEEALKdSCTF6BvTg4luk1IOYtiQyxPotnTjjijSawo9htwZeFS/ KU0WAPkeDuhgKSN3H5242irpkfUu8g84fAPBH6a6joaFN7OchRa49WXnz2dReT0V iT9xeec9rPSASH04dz+lEONeDZ17yh/JGt+tjYq0CIenFZ9JMCGz4I2lBJDFAAUR tCdDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBXYXJyZW4gS25veCA8Y2tub3hAY3JsLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAv pxqvIbPgjaUEkMUBAS8BA/9PP4teu4vja6dTXkOMhVN8xgf1fl66VCc2V4A0/lli uRdf75GS1uQd+pzPIZoIReU440uuLfNSMqAAjCLHDja9ViAUllTk7YIKJMe53+nZ UnQndT2a6ikeQgh/kFxFM1z4NHgTBZ/KMg3td45WzEA3XpjWACrXWNAtYplaQ0hg Iw== =VDsh *-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ======================================================================= "None genuine without this signature." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNXUEGCGz4I2lBJDFAQF3wAQAon+juse6vlcUq6DIEkMMyudJgpiD3OER badU47/KqktKZm9IO0cn540SfZsjG5pnAR61Ct/qgCA5sZlYWR2U/Lv139WcBAs8 a+hyBY28eosRrrleCEFA9yVKLqiwfBZhzGnHDBwJR26fWEDdm4S+k7hK1AEY1gF8 0Ek4dpiPXB0= =fIHZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL -Forwarded Date: 04 Jun 1998 08:31:02 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:50:51 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA05834; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005711; Tue Jun 2 09:48:51 1998 Message-Id: <199806021321.IAA27547@monarch.papillion.ne.us> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: mriddle@monarch.papillion.ne.us Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >From the *liberal* Boston Globe, reposted as fair use for commentary on current events and political discussions: THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL Author: By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Staff Page: A23 Section: Op-Ed Page Some boys -- sorry, Father Flanagan -- are bad. Some are downright evil. By all accounts, Kip Kinkel was one of them. Reports on the grisly shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., make it clear that he was one vicious adolescent. He was the kind of punk who took pleasure in flinging rocks down on cars from overpasses and torturing small animals with firecrackers. He was obsessed with bombs and had a furious temper. Though his parents apparently did their best to control and correct their son, their best wasn't good enough. Now they are dead, one Thurston 10th-grader is dead, and 23 other students are wounded. And Thurston gets added to the grim roll of American schools where students, in 1998 alone, have become murderers: Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pa. Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, Ark. Heath High School, West Paducah, Ky. Pearl High School, Pearl, Miss. Bethel Regional High School, Bethel, Alaska. And it isn't even June. There have always been brutal, coldblooded kids. But there haven't always been brutal, cold-blooded kids pulling .22-caliber semiautomatics from beneath their coats in the school cafeteria and opening fire. And there hasn't always been the dread, which deepens with each new atrocity, that no community is immune from this teenage mayhem, that the next child slaughtered by a schoolmate could be -- yours. It didn't come out of the blue. School hallways aren't running red with blood for no reason. Grief-stricken mourners who sob and ask ``Why?'' need our comfort and love. But their question has answers. >From Sunday's New York Times: ``But he did not just tell friends in private that his mind was full of violence. Once day in a literature class, when it was his turn to read his dreams from his journal, Kip stook up and told the class that he wanted to kill. But school officials said such talk was not unusual among students, and was often dismissed as just blowing off steam.'' Not unusual. Often dismissed. A teenager talks of yearning to murder, and his elders respond with: ho-hum. And then they are horrified when he turns to murder. Is he deranged? Or are they? Kids -- the worst kids -- become homeroom hit men when they are bombarded with messages telling them: Do what you like. No one will judge you. No one cares. The public schools they attend, so utterly transformed from the public schools their parents and grandparents attended, shun the enforcement of standards. Modern educational theories are built up around the notions that wrong answers are as good as right answers, that grades are oppressive, that ``truth'' is a relative concept. In countless schools, students are encouraged to think that they can have what they like and do what they like, because encouraging them to think otherwise would bruise their self-esteem. And nothing, but nothing, is more important than a child's self-esteem. Least of all self-control. ``I want to have all the firepower I can,'' Kip Kinkel reportedly said, ``so I can kill as many people as I can.'' Once a kid who talked that way in school would have been yanked by the collar and marched before a principal, who would have taught him one of life's great lessons: Shut up. He would have learned to control his mouth, which in turn would have helped him control his thoughts. If he was an unregenerate delinquent, he would have been expelled. He would not have been indulged or ignored in the belief (or the hope) that he was just ``blowing off steam.'' Steep schoolchildren in the belief that they are entitled to much but responsible for little, and you raise a crop of irresponsible and demanding adolescents. Train teachers and administrators to flee from discipline, to retreat before student obstinacy, to abhor authority -- moral and otherwise -- and you wind up with middle and high schools that are little more than day care for teenagers. In parochial and most other private schools, educators still manage to convey to students the axiom that benefits must be earned and that choices beget consequences. Perhaps that is one reason these bloody assaults have not been occurring in their cafeterias and classrooms. In far too many public schools, by contrast, students learn one thing early and well: No matter what you do, there is no price to pay. Don't do the homework and you'll pass anyway. Cut classes and you can still graduate. Spray graffiti on the walls and you won't be kicked out. Curse out a teacher and it will be tolerated. Old joke: A rowdy kid, a troublemaking truant, is finally yanked out of public school by his parents and enrolled in a Catholic school. Quickly the complaints about him stop. He attends class. He does his homework. He stops mouthing off. At semester's end, his report card shows all As and Bs -- to his parents' delight. ``So tell us,'' they finally ask him: ``What got you to straighten up and fly right?'' ``Well,'' he says, ``on the first day I walked in and there on the wall was a guy nailed to a cross. I figured these nuns were serious.'' When American public schools were serious, they weren't the scene of monthly murder sprees. But we have taken rigorous education, clear values, and serious discipline out of the classroom. Something else was bound to fill the void. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 1/3 Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "ONE MAN WITH A GUN CAN CONTROL 100 WITHOUT ONE." - LENIN "NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE." - P. HENRY "NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - T. JEFFERSON "POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN" - MAO TSE-TUNG "EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN." - P. HENRY dear george and henry: the info below is a bunch of quotes which you may find interesting neal and melissa seaman 789-5357 NOW CONSIDER THE RESULTS OF GUN CONTROL: * The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler * Good News: Bill Clinton is building us a bridge to the future. Bad News: Ted Kennedy is driving us across. G. Gordon Liddy Show, 30 August 1996 * All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." - SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933. ANNOY A GUN-GRABBER: RECITE FACTS! "Before we can prepare for the future, we must first understand the past!" 20,000 GUN LAWS DON'T WORK! "WITHOUT THE SWORD, THE LAW IS ONLY WORDS." "SHAKE & BAKE", JANET RENO'S RECIPE A LA WACO. 1836: REMEMBER THE ALAMO. 1993: REMEMBER WACO! "GUN CONTROL" IS A CRIME. REVOLUTION IS A BIRTH RIGHT!! "FREE MEN HAVE ARMS; SLAVES DO NOT." - WM. BLACKSTONE "ONE MAN WITH A GUN CAN CONTROL 100 WITHOUT ONE." - LENIN "DEAR GOD, THEY HAVE WEAPONS!" - SS TROOPER, WARSAW, 1942 "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." WHAT PART DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? 2ND AMENDMENT: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICIANS AND RULERS! "NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE."--P.HENRY "...A CIVILIZED NATION HAS FULL GUN REGISTRATION." - ADOLPH HITLER "NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - JEFFERSON "WHEN ONLY COPS AND THE MILITARY HAVE GUNS, IT'S A POLICE STATE!" "REMEMBER THE ALAMO"........"REMEMBER IDAHO"........REMEMBER WACO!" "POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN" - MAO TSE-TUNG "EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN." - P.HENRY "BAN IGNORANCE, NOT GUNS! "HAPPINESS IS A BELT-FED WEAPON" AN ARMED NATION IS A FREE NATION. GET THE SHOTGUN. THAT'LL LEARN 'EM." AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY! BATF: BAD ATTITUDE TOWARDS FREEDOM 67 MILLION GUN OWNERS CAN'T BE WRONG... AN INALIENABLE RIGHT CANNOT BE LICENSED! BATF: BRUTALIZING AMERICA THROUGH FORCE. ADDRESS ALL FLAMES TO DKORESH@WACO.ORG ARMED WOMEN = POLITE MEN. - CHARLES CURLEY BATF: BASTARDS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE FREEDOMS BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6 !! ALL WHO LOVE LIBERTY ARE ENEMIES OF THE STATE. BATF MOTTO: ONE DOWN, NINE AMENDMENTS TO GO! AND THE BATF WENT IN TO "PROTECT THE CHILDREN". A WEAPON IN EVERY HAND, FREEDOM ON EVERY SIDE. BATF = BASICALLY, ANOTHER TRUCKLOAD OF FASCISTS. ALL THE GUN CONTROL WE NEED WAS ENACTED IN 1791! BETTER TO "GUN-PROOF" KIDS THAN TO "KID-PROOF" GUNS BETTER TO BE CAUGHT WITH IT THAN CAUGHT WITHOUT IT. A GUN IN THE HAND IS BETTER THAN A COP ON THE PHONE. A POLICE STATE IS GREAT, SO LONG AS YOU'RE THE POLICE. ARMED WITH A FULLY-AUTOMATIC .357 ASSAULT REVOLVER... ARMED WOMEN DETER RAPISTS OVER 400 TIMES EACH DAY. A NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A CALL FOR GUN CONTROL. A GUN IS LIKE A PARACHUTE. WHEN YOU NEED IT YOU NEED IT! "THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS CRAZY." - HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT...TO BE ARMED... GEORGE WASHINGTON BATF: BUREAU OF ASSASSINS, TERRORISTS AND FIRE STARTERS A HANDGUN RESPONDS FASTER THAN 911 FOR CRIME PROBLEMS. A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! "A RIGHT DELAYED IS A RIGHT DENIED." - MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. "HELL,I DON'T WANT CLINTON AND SCHUMER HERE EITHER" - SATAN "A GUN IS LIKE A SEATBELT; WHEN YOU NEED IT YOU NEED IT NOW! DOUBLE TAP" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DRAFT BEER OR DANCING. ARMED WITH A FULLY-AUTOMATIC .38 SPECIAL ASSAULT REVOLVER... A GUN HOLSTERED TO MY HIP DETERS MORE CRIME THAN ANY LAW. "YOUR KID MAY BE AN HONOR STUDENT BUT YOU'RE STILL AN IDIOT!" A GOVERNMENT THAT OUTLAWS GUNS IS AN OUTLAW GOVERNMENT. 99% OF ALL GUNS HAVE KILLED FEWER PEOPLE THAN TED KENNEDY. ANYONE COMING FOR MY GUNS BETTER BE PREPARED TO MEET GOD. "BUT I DON'T WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF . . . " - BRADY LAW SUPPORTER. BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED. BATF - "CONSTITUTION, WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING CONSTITUTION!" A GOVERNMENT CANNOT OPPRESS AN ARMED AND UNWILLING CITIZENRY. AND LEAD US NOT INTO INTERPRETATION, BUT DELIVER THE CONSTITUTION... "GUN REGISTRATION IS NOT ENOUGH." -ATT'Y GEN. JANET RENO, AP 12/10/93 BETTER TO HAVE A GUN & NOT NEED IT, THAN TO NEED A GUN & NOT HAVE IT. "WE ALREADY *KNOW* WHO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY ARE." - AT&T AND ATF A GOVERNMENT THAT IGNORES THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN IGNORE ANY LAW. "NOBODY NEEDS A GUN LIKE THAT!" HE SAID, SURROUNDED BY BODY GUARDS. AMAZING FACT: THE FEDERAL GOV'T IS EXEMPT FROM MOST LAWS THEY PASS. A GUN IS INANIMATE, THEREFORE IT CAN NOT CAUSE CRIME. ONLY PEOPLE DO! "GOVERNMENT'S A DISEASE MASQUERADING AS ITS OWN CURE." - L. NEIL SMITH ANY GOVERNMENT THAT SPIES ON ITS HONEST CITIZENS,CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. AN UNARMED SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY THAT MUST LIVE IN FEAR OF GOVERNMENT! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 2/3 Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700 GO ARMED, GO SAFE. DISARM? SORRY, I'M AN AMERICAN. CHOOSE LIFE - CARRY A FIREARM! GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL EYES OPEN, MOUTH SHUT, SAFETY OFF. FIREARMS ARE FOR HUNTING... TYRANTS. GUN CONTROL IS A TIGHT PATTERN ( ( (::) ) ) GUN CONTROL - ALL CRIMINALS SUPPORT IT!!! DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND ARM BEARS! GIVE ME LIBERTY...OR EAT HOT LEAD, FASCIST! BUY ONE GUN A MONTH AND PISS OFF A LIBERAL... FOR REAL FEMININE PROTECTION, TRY A FIREARM. GUN CONTROL - FEDERALLY SANCTIONED SUICIDE. GUN CONTROL - UNILATERAL VICTIM DISARMAMENT! CRIME SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY ARMED CITIZENS. GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO HIT YOUR TARGET! FREE MEN DO NOT ASK PERMISSION TO BEAR ARMS. BILL CLINTON'S FAVORITE VEGETABLE: JAMES BRADY FORGET GUN CONTROL, I WANT *CRIMINAL CONTROL* GUN CONTROL CAN WORK! TO ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE... ENSLAVEMENT IS LIKE OLD AGE, IT CREEPS UP ON YOU. EVERY 12 SECONDS, SOMEONE PROVES SARAH WRONG! FIREPOWER IS A FRAME OF MIND, AND A FULL MAGAZINE. FREEDOM: BROUGHT TO YOU BY GOD, GUNS, AND GUTS! CRIME CONTROL: FIRE A WARNING SHOT INTO HIS HEART! FIRST THE SECOND; SECOND THE FIRST; THEN THE REST... GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS; IT'S ABOUT CONTROL. BLESSED BE THE PESSIMIST FOR HE CARRIES EXTRA AMMO. DETERRENCE, NOT DISARMAMENT. ARMS ARE DETERRENTS. CRIME: LAW DEFINES. POLICE ENFORCE. CITIZENS PREVENT! BUY DON'T BUY THE LIE! GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL. BURY YOUR GUNS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT DON'T GIVE THEM UP! GANGS DON'T KILL PEOPLE WITH LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS. DENY GOD CREATED MAN, COLONEL COLT MADE THEM EQUAL! BUT IT'S NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON, IT'S A DEFENSE WEAPON! EVER SEE AN ANTI WITH A "NO GUNS" STICKER ON HIS HOUSE? ELIMINATE REPEAT OFFENDERS: DECLARE THEM GAME ANIMALS. BY THE GUN WE SEEK PEACE, BUT PEACE ONLY UNDER LIBERTY. GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO DROP A LIBERAL AT 500 YARDS! GUN CONTROL IS DEAD WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO WIND UP DEAD. BLACK FACE MASK, SUBMACHINE GUN, SILENCER, IT'S THE BATF!!! CLINTON, IS GOOD AT GRABBING WOMEN, & GUNS...NOTHING ELSE. GOVERNMENTS NEVER DISARM THEMSELVES, ONLY THEIR SLAVES. CITIZENS OWNING GUNS ARE GOVERNED; ALL OTHERS ARE RULED. BLACK TALON: WHEN YOU CARE ENOUGH TO SEND THE VERY BEST! CRIMINALS LOVE GUN CONTROL, IT MAKES THEIR JOB MUCH EASIER. FOUR BOXES KEEP US FREE: [1] SOAP [2] BALLOT [3] JURY [4] AMMO! GIVE UP YOUR GUNS WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE GIVES UP THEIRS. GUN CONTROL "PROTECTS" YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO SHOOT BACK. DECLARE "OPEN SEASON" ON CONSTITUTION DECONSTRUCTIONISTS. CRIME CAUSES GUN CONTROL LAWS, GUN CONTROL CAUSES CRIME. EXCUSE ME MR. CRIMINAL WHILE I TAKE THIS $%#! LOCK OFF MY GUN! DISARMED AND ILL-INFORMED? YOUR GOVERNMENT LIKES YOU THAT WAY. CHARLES SCHUMER STILL ALIVE? PROOF THAT GUN OWNERS AREN'T VIOLENT. DON'T TRY TO SCARE AN ARMED MAN. SUCCESS WILL GET YOU A TOMBSTONE. CHARLES SCHUMER IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY SOME ANIMALS EAT THEIR YOUNG. BLAMING THE GUN FOR MURDER IS LIKE BLAMING THE TYPEWRITER FOR LIBEL.. CRIMINALS AND LIBERALS WANT AN UNARMED POPULACE. COINCIDENCE OR NOT? GUN BANS WORK! JUST LOOK HOW SAFE NEW YORK CITY AND WASHINGTON DC ARE! HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN. HUNT WITH YOUR KIDS, NOT FOR THEM. I'LL CONTROL MY OWN GUNS, THANK YOU. HCI STANDS FOR HELP CRIME INCREASE! GUN CONTROL: A CRIMINAL'S BEST FRIEND. GUNS IN THE RIGHT HANDS PREVENT DEATH. HCI -- (H)ELP FOR THE (C)RIMINALLY (I)NSANE GUN FREE ZONES ARE FREE FOR CRIME ZONES. GUN CONTROL WORKS. ASK SCHINDLER'S JEWS. I'M THE NRA, MILITIA, A VOTER, AND PISSED OFF! GUN CONTROL: HITTING YOUR INTENDED TARGET. GUN CONTROL LAWS PROTECT VIOLENT CRIMINALS. I LOVE THE SMELL OF GUNPOWDER IN THE MORNING! GUNS DIDN'T MAKE AMERICA UNSAFE - CONGRESS DID! GUN NUT?? NOT ME! I'M JUST A FIREARMS ENTHUSIAST! GUN CONTROL WORKS, ASK ANY COMMUNIST COUNTRY! GUN CONTROL: A LAME EXCUSE FOR CRIMINAL CONTROL. GUN CONTROL TREATS THE SYMPTOM, NOT THE DISEASE. GUNS ONLY HAVE TWO ENEMIES: RUST AND POLITICIANS. GUN OWNERS ARE CITIZENS. ALL OTHERS ARE SUBJECTS. GUNSHOWS - THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND REAL PATRIOTS! IF GUN CONTROL'S SO GOOD, WHY DO ITS ADVOCATES LIE? GUN CONTROL: BREATHE, RELAX, AIM, SIGHT, AND SQUEEZE GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT? I'M A BURGLAR'S WORST NIGHTMARE -- AN ARMED CITIZEN! GUNS DON'T MURDER PEOPLE, CRIMINALS MURDER PEOPLE. GUN CONTROL WORKS... LOOK AT ALL THE CHALK OUTLINES! GUNS CAUSE CRIME LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAUSES LIES. I CARRY A PISTOL BECAUSE MY AK-47 WON'T FIT IN MY PURSE. IF IT CAN'T OVERHEAT, IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FIREPOWER! IF NOT FOR POLITICIANS, WE WOULDN'T NEED ASSAULT RIFLES! I MAY BE PARANOID...BUT THEY STILL WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS! GUN OWNERS ARE `SPECIAL', LIKE THE JEWS IN NAZI GERMANY! I'LL GIVE UP MY GUNS WHEN THE POPE'S WIFE TAKES THE PILL!! I'M WITH THE NRA, AND IF I CAN'T VOTE TWICE, I'LL SHOOT YOU. GUNS = POWER AND THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS A MONOPOLY. IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, HOW WILL LIBERALS COLLECT TAXES? I CARRY A PISTOL 'CAUSE MY SHOTGUN WON'T FIT THE HOLSTER. GUN OWNERS ARE THE JEWS OF THE 90'S IN A FASCIST AMERICA. GUN-GRABBER GUTS...THE RAREST SUBSTANCE IN THE UNIVERSE. IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ME WITH A GUN WHY TRUST ME WITH A CAR? IF RON OR NICOLE HAD A GUN, WOULD O.J. HAVE NEEDED A TRIAL? GUN CONTROL: THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUNS HAVE THE CONTROL! HITLER THOUGHT PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP WAS A PROBLEM TOO. I WOULDN'T SPIT IN SCHUMER'S MOUTH IF HIS GUTS WERE ON FIRE. IT DOESN'T SAY "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SPORTING GOODS!! IF GUNS CAUSE CRIME THEN VIDEO CAMERAS CAUSE KIDDIE PORN! GUNS EQUAL POWER. AND THE GOVERNMENT WANTS ALL THE GUNS. GUN CONTROL PROTECTS CRIMINALS FROM WORK RELATED INJURIES. I HOLD MY BREATH FOR NOUGHT, EXCEPT TO SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER... IF THOMAS JEFFERSON WERE ALIVE TODAY, HE'D PUKE ON SARAH BRADY!! IF WE LOSE THE SECOND, THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS ARE ACADEMIC. I BELIEVE IN SANTA, THE EASTER BUNNY, TOOTH FAIRY AND GUN CONTROL.... HELP WIN "THE WAR ON DRUGS"! SHOOT FIRST, SPARE NO MERCY... RELOAD. HORRID MISCHIEF WOULD OCCUR...DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF ARMS. - PAINE IF A MAN WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, HE IS YOUR ENEMY. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE HONEST CITIZENS HELPLESS AND DEFENSELESS. GUN REGISTRATION??! HOW ABOUT REGISTERING GANG MEMBERS INSTEAD!! GUN CONTROL: GOVERNMENT DENTISTS PULLING YOUR "TEETH OF FREEDOM"! IF G. WASHINGTON GRABBED GUNS LIKE CLINTON, WHERE WOULD WE BE NOW??!! SELF CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL! KEYSTONE KOPS + GESTAPO = BATF SAFE SEX IS WEARING YOUR .45 TO BED. SLAVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Classroom Culture that Spawned Kip Kinkel Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:07:00 -0700 THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL Author: By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Staff Page: A23 Section: Op-Ed Page Some boys-sorry, Father Flanagan-are bad. Some are downright evil. By all accounts, Kip Kinkel was one of them. Reports on the grisly shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., make it clear that he was one vicious adolescent. He was the kind of punk who took pleasure in flinging rocks down on cars from overpasses and torturing small animals with firecrackers. He was obsessed with bombs and had a furious temper. Though his parents apparently did their best to control and correct their son, their best wasn't good enough. Now they are dead, one Thurston 10th-grader is dead, and 23 other students are wounded. And Thurston gets added to the grim roll of American schools where students, in 1998 alone, have become murderers: Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pa. Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, Ark. Heath High School, West Paducah, Ky. Pearl High School, Pearl, Miss. Bethel Regional High School, Bethel, Alaska. And it isn't even June. There have always been brutal, coldblooded kids. But there haven't always been brutal, cold-blooded kids pulling .22-caliber semiautomatics from beneath their coats in the school cafeteria and opening fire. And there hasn't always been the dread, which deepens with each new atrocity, that no community is immune from this teenage mayhem, that the next child slaughtered by a schoolmate could be- yours. It didn't come out of the blue. School hallways aren't running red with blood for no reason. Grief-stricken mourners who sob and ask "Why?" need our comfort and love. But their question has answers. From Sunday's New York Times: "But he did not just tell friends in private that his mind was full of violence. Once day in a literature class, when it was his turn to read his dreams from his journal, Kip stood up and told the class that he wanted to kill. But school officials said such talk was not unusual among students, and was often dismissed as just blowing off steam." Not unusual. Often dismissed. A teenager talks of yearning to murder, and his elders respond with: ho-hum. And then they are horrified when he turns to murder. Is he deranged? Or are they? Kids-the worst kids-become homeroom hit men when they are bombarded with messages telling them: Do what you like. No one will judge you. No one cares. The public schools they attend, so utterly transformed from the public schools their parents and grandparents attended, shun the enforcement of standards. Modern educational theories are built up around the notions that wrong answers are as good as right answers, that grades are oppressive, that "truth" is a relative concept. In countless schools, students are encouraged to think that they can have what they like and do what they like, because encouraging them to think otherwise would bruise their self-esteem. And nothing, but nothing, is more important than a child's self-esteem. Least of all self-control. "I want to have all the firepower I can," Kip Kinkel reportedly said, "so I can kill as many people as I can." Once a kid who talked that way in school would have been yanked by the collar and marched before a principal, who would have taught him one of life's great lessons: Shut up. He would have learned to control his mouth, which in turn would have helped him control his thoughts. If he was an unregenerate delinquent, he would have been expelled. He would not have been indulged or ignored in the belief (or the hope) that he was just "blowing off steam." Steep schoolchildren in the belief that they are entitled to much but responsible for little, and you raise a crop of irresponsible and demanding adolescents. Train teachers and administrators to flee from discipline, to retreat before student obstinacy, to abhor authority-moral and otherwise-and you wind up with middle and high schools that are little more than day care for teenagers. In parochial and most other private schools, educators still manage to convey to students the axiom that benefits must be earned and that choices beget consequences. Perhaps that is one reason these bloody assaults have not been occurring in their cafeterias and classrooms. In far too many public schools, by contrast, students learn one thing early and well: No matter what you do, there is no price to pay. Don't do the homework and you'll pass anyway. Cut classes and you can still graduate. Spray graffiti on the walls and you won't be kicked out. Curse out a teacher and it will be tolerated. Old joke: A rowdy kid, a troublemaking truant, is finally yanked out of public school by his parents and enrolled in a Catholic school. Quickly the complaints about him stop. He attends class. He does his homework. He stops mouthing off. At semester's end, his report card shows all As and Bs-to his parents' delight. "So tell us," they finally ask him: "What got you to straighten up and fly right?" "Well," he says, "on the first day I walked in and there on the wall was a guy nailed to a cross. I figured these nuns were serious." When American public schools were serious, they weren't the scene of monthly murder sprees. But we have taken rigorous education, clear values, and serious discipline out of the classroom. Something else was bound to fill the void. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 3/3 Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700 IT'S THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE GUNS STUPID! PRO-FREE SPEECH, PRO-GUN, PRO-FREEDOM! LET'S WIN THE WAR ON CRIME, ARM VICTIMS!!! LAWS DON'T STOP CRIME...ARMED CITIZENS DO. NO GUNS, NO PEACE...KNOW GUNS, KNOW PEACE. SARAH BRADY: THE WOMAN OF HITLER'S DREAMS. IT DOESN'T SAY..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, MUCH". SO MANY LIBERALS... TOO FEW FLAME-THROWERS... SEND SARAH BRADY FOR A RIDE WITH TED KENNEDY. SWITCH BLADE LAWS STOP STABBINGS TOO...UH HUH... SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT MAYBE THE FIRST DOMINO..... IT'S NOT ONLY FOR THE GUNS. IT'S FOR THE FREEDOM!!! PATRIOTIC, NOT PSYCHOTIC. *I* TRUST ME WITH MY GUN. THE 2ND AMENDMENT ARMS PATRIOTS, NOT SPORTSMEN! TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME: ARM THE CITIZENS (VICTIMS)! TECHNICALITY: A LIBERAL'S VIEW OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. KNOW GUNS AND BE SAFE.NO GUNS, AND NOBODY'S SAFE! SARAH BRADY...BECAUSE SOMETIMES IPECAC ISN'T ENOUGH. SAVE ME FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAVE ME FROM MYSELF! SECOND AMENDMENT RELATED "SPORTING USE": TYRANNICIDE. MOST CRIMINALS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY ARMED CITIZENS! SMITH & WESSON - THE ORIGINAL POINT-AND-CLICK INTERFACE! RENO, NV RENAMED TO DOGPOOP, NV FOR BETTER REPUTATION. OBVIOUSLY SOME UNNAMED AGENCY'S SICK SENSE OF HUMOR... NO COMPROMISE - NO SURRENDER - NO FIREARMS PROHIBITION! THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOESN'T SAY "...ONLY THESE FIREARMS..."! KEEP CLOTHES & GUNS WHERE YOU CAN FIND THEM IN THE DARK. THE 2ND AMENDMENT GUARENTEES ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. NEVER EVER VOLUNTEER TO GIVE UP YOUR PERSONAL FIREARMS! THE 2ND AMENDMENT: IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM. KNOCK KNOCK!! "BATF! OPEN UP OR WE'LL SHOOT YOUR CHILDREN!" OF COURSE GUN CONTROL "WORKS." THE QUESTION IS FOR WHOM! NO GUNS?? WHAT SHOULD I USE FOR DEFENSE, HARSH LANGUAGE?! LUKE 22:36 "...HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, SELL HIS ROBE TO BUY ONE." POISON GAS: INSTRUMENT OF DEATH - DACHAU, AUSCHWITZ, WACO... RUBY RIDGE RULE #6: IT'S OKAY TO KILL THOSE AT SOCIETY'S FRINGE. IT'S NOT A ASSAULT WEAPON, IT'S A SECURITY ENHANCEMENT DEVICE! SPEAKING WITHOUT THINKING IS LIKE SHOOTING WITHOUT TAKING AIM. LEXINGTON AND CONCORD WERE THE FIRST GUN CONTROL PROTESTS!. LESS THAN 1/5TH OF 1% OF THE GUNS IN THE US ARE MISUSED IN CRIME. MAY THE FLEAS OF A THOUSAND CAMELS INFEST JANET RENO'S CROTCH! LIMITED INFRINGEMENT..LIKE BEING A LITTLE BIT PREGNANT.IT IS OR ISN'T! JANET RENO DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A METER MAID. SARAH MUST BE AN ONLY CHILD. NOBODY'S SO HORNY TO RISK HAVING TWO! THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS IN CASE THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES THE OTHER 9! SOME MEN ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL THEM! THE 1ST COUNTRY HITLER CONQUERED ... WAS GERMANY WITH GUN CONTROL. THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS TO ASSAULT AS THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS TO SLANDER. PROOF THAT GUNOWNERS AREN'T VIOLENT...CHARLES SCHUMER IS STILL ALIVE. SCHUMER'S SURGEON MUST BE GREAT! THE LOBOTOMY SCARS HARDLY SHOW... IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. - D. KORESH LIBERALS AND BANDITS BOTH WANT THE POPULATION UNARMED. COINCIDENCE? THE DOCTORS SHOULD HAVE THROWN SCHUMER OUT AND KEPT THE AFTERBIRTH. NEW GAME, NEW RULES. WE CHANGE THE LAW. YOU'RE OUTLAWS. - GOVERNMENT LIBERALS ARE MORE COMFORTABLE SEEING 2 MEN FRENCH-KISSING THAN ARMED. THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT. GUNS ENSURE IT. TYRANTS LIKE AN UNARMED POPULOUS. WACO WAS JUST ANOTHER INDIAN VILLAGE. WIN THE WAR ON CRIME. ARM THE VICTIMS. WACO - THE BATF'S REPLY TO PATRICK HENRY. YEAH, I FIRED A WARNING SHOT...IN HIS CHEST. THEY CAN HAVE MY GUNS...158 GRAINS AT A TIME! WACO, TEXAS, THE TIANANMEN SQUARE OF AMERICA THREE WORDS THAT QUELL RIOTS: "SHOOT TO KILL." WANT MY GUNS? COME INTO RANGE AND GET THEM! THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS LIMITED INFRINGEMENT. YOU NEVER NEED A GUN UNTIL YOU NEED ONE BADLY. WHEN THE 2ND GOES, THE REST ARE ONLY DOMINOES! THE RIGHT TO BUY WEAPONS IS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE. THE RIGHT TO ARMS IS FREEDOM'S INSURANCE POLICY. WE'RE NOT HUNTING DUCKS... WE'RE HUNTING TYRANTS. WELL, OF COURSE *ARMED* PEASANTS TEND TO BE UPPITY! THE US IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY. ASK THE IRS OR THE BATF. THIS IS AMERICA. THIS ISN'T A POLICE STATE - JUROR, WACO WE'RE FED-UP!!! AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! VERMONT: STATE WITH LOWEST CRIME RATE & NO GUN LAWS. WHEN OUTLAWS ARE OUTGUNNED THEN... NO MORE OUTLAWS! WHAT'S OUR SECRET INGREDIENT? A FREE MAN AND HIS RIFLE. WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THIS... **I'M NOT GIVING UP MY GUNS!** THOSE WHO WOULD BE ENSLAVED, MUST FIRST BE DISARMED. THEY WANT TO DISARM YOU - REFUSE TO BE DISARMED! - LIDDY TRUST NO GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO DISARM ITS CITIZENS. TO DETER CRIME, PLACE A GUN NUT BEHIND EVERY DEAD BOLT. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH GUNS! VERMONT: LEAST GUN CONTROL AND CRIME. DC: THE OPPOSITE. TRAVELLING UNARMED IS LIKE BOATING WITHOUT A LIFE JACKET. THE MOST COMMON ELEMENT IN CRIME IS CRIMINALS. NOT GUNS. YES, I'M PARANOID, AND THEY DO WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY! TRUST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WON'T TRUST ME WITH A FIREARM? WHEN GOVERNMENTS FALL, PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE LINED UP & SHOT. THEY'RE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS--THEY'RE CIVILIAN DEFENSE ARMS. WHAT'S THE BEST DEFENSIVE GUN? THE ONE YOU HAVE WITH YOU! WHEN THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS, GIVE THEM THE BULLETS FIRST. THE PROBLEM ISN'T REPEATING RIFLES, IT'S REPEATING OFFENDERS. WITHOUT A GUN, THE FLAG YOU'RE WAVING MAY AS WELL BE WHITE! WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR'S GUNS? THE FAMILY THAT SHOOTS TOGETHER -- SHOULDN'T BE MESSED WITH! WANT MY AMMUNITION? YOU CAN HAVE IT ONE BULLET AT A TIME. WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? WACO: AMERICA'S FIRST TIANANMEN SQUARE. WHERE'S THE NEXT ONE? THE GOVERNMENT TOOK MY GUNS, I'M SAFER NOW, THANKS FUEHRER! THUGS W/ GUNS ARE BAD, BUT THUGS W/ GUNS AND *BADGES*...UH OH! WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE GUNS! WE WERE MEANT TO BE ARMED, THE LORD GAVE US A TRIGGER FINGER! TO BURGLAR: STOP!!! PLEASE READ THIS HCI BROCHURE WHILE I CALL 911! WARNING TO CRIMINALS: DON'T BOTHER RUNNING. YOU'LL ONLY DIE TIRED! THEY CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS. THE SWISS ARE ARMED. THE SWISS ARE FREE AND AT PEACE. THINK ABOUT IT. THOUGHT CRIMES, POLITICAL CLEANSING AND GUN CONTROL GO HAND IN HAND... WACO: THE FBI FORBADE THEM SURRENDER...THEN MASSACRED CHILDREN & ALL. WE SHOULD FORGIVE OUR ENEMIES--AFTER THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND SHOT! THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR GUNS INTO PLOWSHARES'LL PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DON'T. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Sly Sez: "Go Door-to-Door and Collect The Guns...." Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:07:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Availability of Guns is Not the Problem "The first thing we would like to do is give Mr. Stallone an award for hypocrisy at least of the week, if not the month or the year. Here's a man that's making at least hundreds of millions of dollars off of firearms, glorifying violence, if you will, the way he uses them. And for him to turn around and say that other people's ought to be confiscated is just a little bit much," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America on "Direct Line with Paul Weyrich," remarking with regard to a statement made by actor Sylvester Stallone that we should go door to door and confiscate every gun as a result of the recent school shootings. Pratt added, "The fact of the matter is...there was a grisly murder of some teenagers involving a young lady, a fellow student, that was going to snitch on them and they hung her and beat her head with a rock. And that, it seemed to me, would have been at least as worthy of the kind of coverage that we were being treated to with the Jonesboro and other kinds of episodes. But it didn't happen because there is an agenda - the media, most of the media -- certainly shares the views of President Clinton and others that somehow guns are just bad and need to be removed. And what we've been pointing out is that there was a great deal more access to guns by young people within our lifetime, people that are in our organization - Gun Owners of America - even in New York City, [students] went to school with their rifles because they had team practice. I've talked to teachers from Pennsylvania schools that said, 'Oh yeah, the shooting range was right underneath my feet when I taught.' So to say that somehow we've got to get guns further away from Americans because kids have too much access, ignores the fact that when guns were readily available, much more than they are now to kids, we didn't have this kind of problem. The folks that are responsible for the problem don't want us to talk about - 'you can't put the Ten Commandments on the wall of a school, why the court said a kid might be influenced by it.' Well, you'd hope so. Like, 'Thou shalt not kill.' That would be a good place to start." Contact: Larry Pratt @ Gun Owners of America 703.321.8585 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Prozac & School Shootings Date: 05 Jun 1998 16:49:07 -0700 Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting by MAUREEN SIELAFF Maureen@Vigo-Examiner.com The Terre Haute Vigo Examiner SPRINGFIELD, OREGON - Before going on a wild shooting spree at his Springfield Oregon high school that left 2 dead and 22 injured, Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac. This particular drug has factored in almost all wild shooting sprees which have taken place in the last ten years. Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. Prozac is commonly given to youths as a treatment for depression. In the book "Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs," by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts. The following information is taken from form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company, a division of Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana. It was last revised on June 12, 1997, and can be found in each package of Prozac: Anxiety and Insomnia: In clinical trials for the depressed, held in the U.S., 12% to 16% of those tested reported increased anxiety, nervousness, or insomnia. In similar trials for those diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorders insomnia was reported in 28% of the patients, and anxiety was reported in 14%. Altered Appetite and Weight: In controlled U.S. clinics 11% of patients treated with Prozac reported an anorexic appetite. However, only rarely have patients discontinued treatment with Prozac because of this symptom. Those diagnosed with OCD, again, came in at a higher rate of 17%. Other symptoms: (considered to be frequent by Dista) chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tinnitus. The outcome classification (%) on the Clinical Global Impression improvement scale based on two studies showed that of those who took 40mg of Prozac, 0% were reported to be no worse, 33% showed no change, 28% were minimally improved, 27% much improved, and 12% very much improved. Meaning that of those tested only 39% showed any reasonable improvement from taking this drug. Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings, these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. Though Prozac does indeed help many people suffering from depression, it appears that it does indeed also drive many into homicidal rages. When Kip Kinkel's home was investigated, several bombs that he had constructed were discovered. With a ban on bombs already in place, he nevertheless managed to have several in his possession that he might well have taken to school instead of guns. So the question arises, if guns had been banned like bombs, would the danger have been averted? The unmistakable answer is that it would not. And with the shootings correlating far more closely with the psychiatric drug Prozac, why is the public put in such great danger by its widespread use, while efforts are directed instead toward something that shows no correlation? On Tuesday, May 19th, Kip Kinkel's father took away his rifle, after finding that Kip was taking the gun out of the house on unsupervised ventures into the woods. The next day, Wednesday, May 20th, 15 year old Kip Kinkel showed up at Thurston High School with a dangerous attitude and a newly purchased stolen gun that he had gotten from another student. A security guard caught wind of the arrangement and the two boys were arrested, booked, and then released to their parents. On Thursday, May 21st, Kip Kinkel walked out of his home after shooting his parents with the rifle his dad had taken away from him and proceeded to the high school. He walked into the cafeteria and fired off 51 rounds of ammunition which resulted in the deaths of two of the students and injuries of various degrees to 22 other students ages 14 through 18. The onslaught ended when one of the wounded students, a 17 year old wrestler, tackled Kip, and other students piled on top of Kip to help restrain him. Those who have known Kip Kinkel present very differing portrayals of his life and his demeanor on an everyday basis. Gun control advocates are outraged that "a gun" has again taken the lives of innocent citizens. Others are saying that Kip Kinkel is just an average kid who went about on a daily basis doing stunts that average kids do. Still others paint a depressing picture of a child and a family in crisis and at the end of their ropes, and of a young boy who for years had displayed his unhappiness, albeit apparently reasonless, by doing acts which should have been considered highly questionable and certainly not normal. A close family friend told reporters that Bill Kinkel had begun confiding in him about four years ago about severe behavioral problems with his son. The friend stated that the boy's parents sought counseling and attempted to maintain a very structured home life. "As parents, they just kept trying." The day before the shooting spree Mr. Kinkel contacted the Oregon National Guard to inquire about having his son enrolled in the Guard's Youth Challenge Program. An official with the Guard stated that Mr. Kinkel seemed at the end of his rope, and that he wanted to get his son "mainstreamed back into school." The Guard YCP takes in children who "are on the razor's edge, ready to fall on the dark side." Obviously Kip Kinkel was already over the edge. His attitude regarding life and his subsequent behavior was irrationally ignored by not only his closest friends but also the teachers, the school nurse, school management, and police officials. Most had the attitude that he was just a kid, that no one needed to be concerned. But how could this be? All were well aware of the boy's bizarre behavioral patterns. Although they might say what a nice kid they thought he was, most can follow up with one story or another of comments and actions that definitely describe a boy that is anything but "average". Apparently it is easier to drug our youth, to fill their bodies with drugs that many times have worse side effects on their minds and spirits than the problems they have. You name the attitude and there is a drug to supposedly help or cure it. It may be time to take the War On Drugs to where it can really be effective; getting these society cop-out drugs out of our children's lives. It may be time we rise and help our children through productive activities and quit drugging them senseless. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Prozac & School Shootings Date: 06 Jun 1998 21:04:44 -0600 At 04:49 PM 6/5/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting > > by MAUREEN SIELAFF > Maureen@Vigo-Examiner.com > The Terre Haute Vigo Examiner Prozac doesn't cause crime any more than guns cause crime. Many criminals use guns. Many criminals use drugs. But neither drugs nor guns are _causal_. Only _people_ can commit crimes. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Heston snipes at President Clinton during NRA speech Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Heston snipes at President Clinton during NRA speech 5.30 p.m. ET (2131 GMT) June 6, 1998 By Dinah Wisenberg Brin, Associated Press PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Charlton Heston lashed out at President Clinton on Saturday as he called on members of the National Rifle Association to unify behind him. Despite fierce opposition from a minority faction, Heston is expected to be elected president of the NRA during the group's 127th convention, which started Friday. Heston criticized the media and politicians and took special aim at Clinton: "Mr. Clinton, sir, America did not trust you with our health care system. America did not trust you with gays in the military. We did not trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns.'' More than 40,000 NRA members attended the convention, headlined "The Second Amendment, America's First Freedom,'' which ends Wednesday. The organization's board of directors is expected to select Heston as the NRA's president on Monday. "I came here to heal,'' the 73-year-old actor said, calling for an end to quarreling within the NRA. He noted the right of members to disagree, but then added: "Once the votes are counted, the die is cast. Get together or get out of the way.'' Heston has been criticized by NRA board member Neal Knox, 62, who has been quarreling with the leadership for more than 20 years. Last year, Heston unseated him as first vice president. Knox and other NRA members contend Heston has an uneven record on gun rights, noting his appearances in support of the nation's first federal gun-control law after Robert Kennedy's assassination 30 years ago. They also did no like his comment on a radio program last year that semiautomatic AK-47s were inappropriate for private use. Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre accused Knox "and his gang'' of damaging the organization and of turning the Internet "into a sewer pipe of lies about the NRA and its membership.'' "To attack and malign Charlton Heston is unforgivable. This man has done more for our cause in one appearance than you will do in a lifetime,'' LaPierre said. The NRA, LaPierre said, is engaged in a more important "culture war'' against outside enemies--television anchors, Hollywood celebrities--who attack the Second Amendment right to bear arms and treat gun owners as second-class citizens. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Fourth Check on Big Govt Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700 The fourth check on big government by Jerry D. Troyer In 1787 the 13 new States refused to support the proposed Constitution without a "Bill of Rights". This great country has a Republican form of government. It is a government designed to prevent tyranny. The sons of liberty joined to erect four fences around their government, so it could not get out of bounds: The Executive, The Legislative, The Judicial, and The Individual. Each was a check, or balance, on the other. After God, the individual came first. A government with its powers nailed down; fastened and confined to the proper defense of the individual---to his pursuits of life, liberty, property and happiness, those inalienable rights endowed by The Creator.(1) In this Republic, a Citizen is not required to be a member of a majority to have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The "Bill of Rights" is the cornerstone in a wall guaranteeing citizen rights. The power of citizens acts as a check on the tyranny of government power It is impossible to hope that the power of government can be balanced against the rights of the individual without the Second Amendment. The individual's right to defend life and property predates the Constitution. Also, this right is guaranteed by both the Second and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. The roots to the right to bear arms can be traced back to the Fourteeth Century. At that time, English weapons restrictions made an exception for both self defense and defense of one's dweling.(2) In the "new World" the roots to the "Right to Bear Arms" starts in 1623. The following is a quote from that era. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "bring their pieces to church." In 1658, it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his home and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and, in 1644, it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine on any citizen who was not armed.(3) The above excerpt gives a solid foundation to the individual "Right to Bear Arms" before the Constitution. The "Founding Fathers" fear of big government is documented in their written record. Today people have said that times have changed and there is no longer a need for arms in the hands of citizens. These people say that the police or government can protect citizens from threats to life and property. To decide if citizens should be disarmed consider the responsiveness of government to the needs of citizens in other areas. In addition, a threat to your life is an immediate need requiring an immediate response. If the government is slow to respond, the citizen loses his life and/or property. The right to bear arms is so important it cannot be left in the hands of government alone. Constitutionally, the government exists or representatives hold office through the consent of the governed. This is a basic concept which checks government power. Consider the following two situations. Could an unarmed government function if all its citizens were armed? Recent events suggest that individual interest would dominate all the government's activities and group interest would suffer. Could an unrestrained (armed) government keep the Republican form with free but disarmed citizens? The actions of various governments around the world show individual rights disappear to be replaced by group interest (the people in control of the government). Should our Government fear its Citizens? Is it necessary that our representatives fear being voted out of office? And fear opposition by force if certain individual rights, are taken from the people? In order for the four checks and balances basic to a Republican form of government to work, the power of the people must remain strong. The "Right to Bear Arms" is critical to maintaining all the rights of the people. The rights of an individual to remain free requires them to exercise their check and blancing power as a part of their government. A people will not long remain free if they expect the government to control itself. Notes: 1. Walton, Rus. "One Nation Under God". The Rebirth of America. The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. 1986. P. 19. 2. Hardy, David T. "Armed Citizens, Citizens Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment". 9 Harv. J. L. Pub. Pol'y 559,566-67 (1986) 3. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Report Of The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary, S. Doc. No. 2807, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.3 (1982). All Rights Reserved copywrited August 10, 1994 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Fed Gun Registration To Begin Nov.30 Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/federalup.htm#registration Alan Korwin For Publication 557 Words One Time North American Serial Rights (602) 494-0679 FAX (602) 996-4020 Phone May 26, 1998 The issue is no longer "if" or "whether" the federal government will register gun owners nationally. It is their announced plans, and the system is nearly completed. They'll tell you on the phone, they'll mail you the brochure, you can read about it on their website (not any website, their website). These are the highlights: The name and full ID of every retail gun buyer in the country will be recorded by the FBI, starting Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000, when they become mandatory. A tax of up to $16 will apply to every purchase, unless your state's police cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is waived); 19 such states are "playing" as of this date. The FBI may lower its tax, working in concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid acceptance of registration. The official public comment period has ended. FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from this business) claim they have to do all this for security purposes. For audit purposes. They claim they have to under the Brady law. They claim it's just an instant check. None of these claims are supported. Gun owners will be kept online for at least two years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year revolving online registry will include between eight and fourteen million people -- all the most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and quasi-permanent backups are planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada in June, if the interface specs are on time. Compare these phrases: Instant check. Ongoing long-term storage. See? They're not the same. Congress enacted an instant check. Ongoing long-term storage is the FBI's idea. Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer act, which unequivocally prohibits recording this information in a government facility. The FBI is simply ignoring it. Claiming it doesn't apply. The only glitch -- a minor one, apparently -- is the intent of Congress: instant check, record nothing. I know, I know, you can argue the validity of the instant check itself, but at least it's a law. The rogue actions of the bureaucracies here are against the law. Prohibited by law. We don't need another law -- this is already illegal -- just enforce the law against the government -- or forget the whole notion of "the rule of law." Proposed legislation to require short time frames merely has the horrendous effect of breaching the protection of McClure-Volkmer, which now blanketly prohibits any recordation whatsoever. Saving instant-check data is the opposite of the Brady law. Brady says if the sale goes through the records shall be destroyed. Only a corrupt reading of the phrase destroy all records ends up meaning save all records and do whatever you want with them for as long as you deem proper. If there's any question about Brady, check McClure-Volkmer, the law Charles Schumer tries to repeal every year. OK, so we've lost. Our own government plans to collect the name and address of every innocent person who gets a gun after Nov. 30th. How did we get into this mess anyway? Registration used to be the most feared and staunchly resisted facet of government power grabs. Why haven't we heard about this? The implications of that question are too chilling to verbalize. I'll have more for you shortly. -- Alan Korwin * NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed under fair use without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/06/98 Time: 12:38:08 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The End of Activism Date: 08 Jun 1998 00:52:53 -0600 This apparently didn't get processed the first time I sent it out. Apologies if it shows up twice! S. This is to let you all know that effective June 4, 1998, I have resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council. My intention is to devote full time to my family, writing, and other interests. Effective as soon as I get confirmation that this note has gone out, I will also be unsubscribing from the utah-firearms list. Those people who wish to contact me privately can still do so at this address, but please don't just send copies of every single post to me. If I wanted to read them all, I'd stay subscribed! Those interested in my general reasons for resigning are invited to read my essay "The End of Activism" which can be found at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/sarah.htm or at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/F_EndActivism.html. It will be on my Web page as soon as the new design is finished. Best wishes to all of you, Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) Subscribe to "The Righter", a weekly column focusing on civil liberties and individual action. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA's President God -Forwarded Date: 08 Jun 1998 10:15:27 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 08 Jun 1998 10:00:25 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA01504; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma001289; Mon Jun 8 11:54:49 1998 Message-Id: <001501bd92ee$943ded00$180b81ce@bugbox> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: mcgehee@mosquitonet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This morning on the radio I heard Charlton Heston's defense of his statements about AK-47s being "inappropriate" for private ownership. He says he doesn't have to like all guns to defend the right to own them. On the one hand, this is actually sound -- we have the right to expect our government to regard guns, as well as speech and religion, in exactly this way. And if he's sincere, Heston appears to be better for gun owners than, say, Dan Lungren. On the other hand, should Heston succeed in his quest to become NRA's president, he'd better stick more closely to the script thereafter. If he ever thought it was tough dealing with just one director on a movie set, he may have serious difficulty with 2.8 million directors, many of whom are just watching for an excuse to yell, "CUT!" As president of the NRA, Charlton Heston will be expected to avoid discussions of the merits of particular guns if there are any he doesn't like. He'll have to limit his statements to legal and constitutional issues, and the conclusions of the growing body of scientific research that supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. He's already proven he's not immune to the willingness of Big Media to twist words to fit a Big Media political agenda. Where his opinion differs from that of the association's grassroots membership, Heston will have to be a good soldier and keep his personal opinions private. Welcome to power, Chuck. Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ You have GOT to see http://www.llano.net/LCRP/page5.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Talking Points for Tienamen Square -Forwarded Date: 08 Jun 1998 14:37:42 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA04208; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 03:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma004067; Sat Jun 6 03:43:33 1998 Message-Id: <97bfcc5e.3578e854@aol.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: BludyRed@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Some humor to lighten things up. Unfortunately, it isn't really funny when you think about it. Regards, Dennis Baron ---------------------------------------------- Talking Points for Tienamen Square Commentary by Dennis Shea, a regular feature of MSNBC. The following is Draft No. 3 of a speech prepared for delivery by President Bill Clinton during his upcoming visit to Tiananmen Square in Beijing. It was recently subpoenaed by eager prosecutors in the Office of Independent Counsel. > More than 25 years ago, President Richard Nixon traveled to your country and inaugurated a new era in U.S.-China relations. Today, I stand before you, a proud and faithful bearer of the Nixonian legacy: invoking executive privilege, stonewalling criminal investigations and pursuing the policy of constructive engagement. Constructive engagement has been one of the great success stories of the 20th century. Whether it#s the network of slave-labor camps throughout China; the aggressive saber-rattling of your military in the South China Sea; the wholesale destruction of Tibetan culture; the persecution of millions of Christians and other religious minorities; the brutal suppression of political dissent; the vending of Chinese nuclear technology to Pakistan and Iran; the violation of American copyright laws by Chinese profiteers; and the crushing of pro-democracy demonstrators here in Tiananmen Square, it#s as clear as egg-drop soup that the People#s Republic is working hard to take its rightful place as a responsible member of the community of civilized nations. My friends, the policy of constructive engagement is working and working well. (Pause for applause.) Yes, we#ve had some bumps in the road. In recent weeks, I ve lost a lot of face trying to explain why I allowed one of my fat-cat buddies to sell you critical missile-guidance technology. Some have even accused me of proving Karl Marx right: We capitalists will indeed provide the rope by which we will hang ourselves. But I have patiently endured these indignities because the policy of constructive engagement must prevail. (Pause for applause.) It is sheer folly to allow the presence of 13 Chinese nuclear-tipped missiles targeted at American cities to interfere with the deep and abiding friendship between our two peoples. (Pause for applause.) And speaking of people, I want to take this opportunity to express my most profound thanks to General Liu, his enterprising daughter Chaoying, and the other valiant fighting men and women of the People s Liberation Army for their generous contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign. Your financial support was the great wall that prevented those running-dog Republicans from running away with the White House in 1996. Imagine if arms dealers like Wang Jun and hustlers like Johnny Chung had not visited me in the Oval Office. Our bilateral relations would be very different today had those encounters not taken place. You know, back home we ve been hearing a great deal these days about so-called Asian values. The experts tell us these Asian values are inimical to democracy. So, it is doubly gratifying to see how the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have proven the experts wrong by so avidly embracing one one of the most basic red-white-and-blue values. Your willingness to participate in the democratic process by making cash contributions to my campaign means there s real hope that true, American-style democracy can take root here, too. Your experience with soft-money schemes will prove invaluable as you learn the art of bundling contributions to get more political bang for the buck; use independent expenditures and issue ads to evade campaign-spending limits; exploit tax-exempt organizations to promote your own partisan agenda; and shake down potential campaign donors in exchange for official actions. To assist you on the long march to American-style democracy, I have asked my friend Harold Ickes to serve as my personal envoy to the People s Liberation Army. There is no one in the United States today better equipped to navigate the complex web of campaign finance laws. If there is a loophole to be found, Harold Ickes will bore right through it. And, besides, he s out of a job and needs the work. (Point to Harold in audience. If appropriate, ask him to stand up.) Yes, my friends, the future of democracy here in the Middle Kingdom is as bright as the Hong Kong skyline. And, indeed, I look forward to the day when the People s Liberation Army establishes its own political action committee to dole out $5,000 contributions to pliant politicians of every party. I would be remiss if I did not extend congratulations to those unsung heroes, the nameless Chinese bureaucrats who have stubbornly refused to turn over bank records to the imperialist swine masquerading as congressional campaign-finance investigators. The ruthless efficiency with which your bureaucracy has stonewalled the Thompson and Burton investigations in Congress is a continuing source of inspiration for my own administration s initiative to reinvent government. So, President Li Peng, Premier Zhu Rongji, John Huang, Charlie Trie and all our friends who have either pleaded the Fifth or fled the country, as an expression of our deep appreciation, Vice President Gore and I would like to make this commitment to you today. We commit to invite you to every donor maintenance event sponsored by the Democratic National Committee during the next election cycle. It s been our experience that Buddhist temples provide a wonderful setting for these important non-fundraising opportunities. (Optional: But of course, we d have to fly you to Los Angeles, since any Chinese citizen walking into a Buddhist temple here in Beijing would likely be thrown in jail.) Today I stand before you, a man of limited means and unlimited ambition. (Feign sincerity, squint eyes and bite lip.) I am reminded of the words of your late great leader Chairman Mao, who sagely observed, Water too pure breeds no fish. The same, of course, can be said for politics: Politics too pure breeds no graft, no petty selfishness, no opportunities for corruption. And, in the end, where would that get us? I d be back in Little Rock and you#d have a bunch of defective rockets. (Pause, wait for applause.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: The Supremes define "carry" -Forwarded Date: 09 Jun 1998 08:53:01 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA06690; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma006505; Tue Jun 9 10:36:18 1998 Message-Id: <357D454F.14EBEC26@netmail3.mnet.uswest.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pfosnes@uswest.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Call me paranoid, but considering how far reaching these types of decisions can be, I think we have a whole new problem associated with this decision. Though I'm not a lawyer, it seems that when a word is defined by the SC, that definition can pass along to other laws. For those of us in Denver who can have a vehicle confiscated for carrying a firearm, this is particularly worrisome. For all the verbal assurances that a gun in the trunk won't be considered a problem, I'd still advise avoiding travel through the city and county of Denver if one has a firearm. The surrounding counties are a better choice. > Gun Law > > Splitting 5 to 4, the Justices traded dictionary definitions and > literary references in interpreting a Federal law that imposes a > five-year mandatory sentence on anyone who "uses or carries a firearm" > in connection with a narcotics crime. > > The question for the Court was whether traveling in a car with a gun in > a locked glove compartment or trunk -- as opposed to carrying a gun on > one's person -- met the law's definition of "carry." The narrow > majority, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, held that it did. > > Justice Breyer traced the word "carry" to the Latin words "carum," for > car or cart, and "carricare," meaning "convey in a car." He said that > modern journalistic usage, as well as works including the Bible, > "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moby Dick," use the word carry in the sense of > "convey in a vehicle." Congress intended the word in its ordinary, > everyday meaning, he said, without the limitation that some lower courts > have placed on the statute of requiring that the gun be "immediately > accessible." > > Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found the literary evidence > "highly selective" and unpersuasive. She offered quotations of her own, > from Rudyard Kipling to the television show "M.A.S.H." to Theodore > Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" to show that "carry" is > properly understood to mean "the gun at hand, ready for use as a > weapon." > > The decision, Muscarello v. United States, No. 96-1654, upheld rulings > by Federal appeals courts in New Orleans and Boston. Justices John Paul > Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas > joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion. Chief Justice William H. > Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter joined the > dissent. --------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <357D4045.B4F8D2D2@netmail3.mnet.uswest.com> Reply-To: pfosnes@netmail3.mnet.uswest.com Organization: U S WEST X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit First segment (long) is about extradition between states - the first sentence pretty much says it all.. Last segment (short) is about the definition of "carry". That one could have some far reaching consequences and it's interesting to see who voted which way on it. June 9, 1998 SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP Right of States to Extradite Fugitives Is Upheld By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON -- States have an unalterable duty to return other states' fugitives, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a unanimous opinion that gave the New Mexico Supreme Court no choice but to extradite an escaped parolee whom the state court had deemed to be a "refugee from injustice" in the Ohio prison system. Even accepting as "credible" the fugitive's testimony that he faced serious threats of injury at the hands of prison officials if returned to custody in Ohio, the Court said, "this is simply not the kind of issue that may be tried in the asylum state." The unsigned, five-page opinion made no new law; Supreme Court precedents dating to the 19th century have left states essentially no discretion in extradition cases as long as proper procedures are followed and the individual's identity and fugitive status are confirmed. Nonetheless, this was not an ordinary case. By a 4-to-1 decision in September, the New Mexico Supreme Court acknowledged the weight of precedent but declared that it would not give those cases a "mechanical reading" that would have the "intolerable result" of sending a fugitive "back to face death or great bodily harm." The state court characterized the case as "unique" and said its reading of the Federal and New Mexico Constitutions obliged it to shelter the fugitive, Timothy Reed, from Ohio's extradition demand. Reed is a Lakota Sioux who became an active advocate for Native American religious rights while serving a 25-year prison sentence, for theft and robbery in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility at Lucasville. Under the name Little Rock Reed, his articles on Indian affairs and prisoners' rights were published in national magazines and circulated at academic conferences. After some delay, his parole was granted in 1992. Once freed, Reed continued to write and speak critically of Ohio's prison system and was ordered by parole officials to cancel speaking engagements. In March 1993, six weeks before his parole was to end, Reed was in a minor traffic accident in a borrowed car and paid a $105 fine. He got into an argument with the car owner's husband, who complained to parole officials that Reed had threatened him. The incident led to a misdemeanor charge of "terroristic threatening." His parole officer ordered Reed to report to the parole office and told him that he would be returned to the Lucasville prison without a hearing. According to the New Mexico Supreme Court opinion, Reed knew, as an experienced jailhouse lawyer, that United States Supreme Court precedent gave prisoners the right to a hearing before their paroles could be revoked. He believed that Ohio prison officials planned to violate his rights, and his sources among the inmates told him that his life would be in danger if he returned. He fled to Taos, N.M., where he worked as a paralegal and continued to speak out on prison issues until he was arrested in response to Ohio's extradition request in October 1994. While New Mexico officials wanted to return Reed to Ohio, the New Mexico trial court, in a decision affirmed by the State Supreme Court, granted him a writ of habeas corpus and barred his extradition. The state courts found that Reed was not a "fugitive from justice" but a "refugee from injustice," in the State Supreme Court's words, because "the uncontroverted evidence shows that he left Ohio under duress and under a reasonable fear for his safety and his life." New Mexico appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that its state court ruling threatened a "profound expansion" of the role of states in extradition proceedings. Instead of automatically rendering prisoners as demanded, New Mexico said, extradition would become "a process by which asylum states audit the functioning of penal institutions in their sister states." Ohio, which was not a party to the case, filed a brief signed by 39 other states, including New York and Connecticut, that urged the Justices to overturn the decision. The Court issued its ruling Monday, New Mexico v. Reed, No. 97-1217, on the basis of the written briefs, without ever having accepted the case for argument. Omitting nearly all the facts of the case, the unsigned opinion quoted the Constitution's extradition clause, which requires that a fugitive "shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled be delivered up." As long ago as 1861, the Court said, "we held that the duty imposed by the extradition clause on the asylum state was mandatory." The opinion concluded that the Supreme Court of New Mexico "went beyond the permissible inquiry in an extradition case." Within hours of Monday's ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court complied by revoking its earlier decision. Kay Bird, a spokeswoman for the New Mexico Attorney General's office, said that "the wheels are in motion" to have Reed arrested and returned to Ohio. Reed's lawyer, Stevan D. Looney, said he was trying to reach his client and would have no immediate comment. In a telephone interview tonight, which Reed initiated from an undisclosed location in New Mexico, he said he planned to turn himself in to Ohio authorities "after I am confident that there will be enough publicity that I will be treated fairly." He said he expected to present evidence at a parole revocation hearing in Ohio that he was forced to flee and that his flight should be regarded as a minor parole violation. Gun Law Splitting 5 to 4, the Justices traded dictionary definitions and literary references in interpreting a Federal law that imposes a five-year mandatory sentence on anyone who "uses or carries a firearm" in connection with a narcotics crime. The question for the Court was whether traveling in a car with a gun in a locked glove compartment or trunk -- as opposed to carrying a gun on one's person -- met the law's definition of "carry." The narrow majority, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, held that it did. Justice Breyer traced the word "carry" to the Latin words "carum," for car or cart, and "carricare," meaning "convey in a car." He said that modern journalistic usage, as well as works including the Bible, "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moby Dick," use the word carry in the sense of "convey in a vehicle." Congress intended the word in its ordinary, everyday meaning, he said, without the limitation that some lower courts have placed on the statute of requiring that the gun be "immediately accessible." Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found the literary evidence "highly selective" and unpersuasive. She offered quotations of her own, from Rudyard Kipling to the television show "M.A.S.H." to Theodore Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" to show that "carry" is properly understood to mean "the gun at hand, ready for use as a weapon." The decision, Muscarello v. United States, No. 96-1654, upheld rulings by Federal appeals courts in New Orleans and Boston. Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter joined the dissent. --------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [goamail@gunowners.org: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand] Date: 09 Jun 1998 17:31:02 -0600 Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org ACTION: Send the message at the bottom of this page to the Representatives that are NOT listed below. Or call 202-225-3121 and let your Rep. know that now is the time to cosponsor HR 1009! (June 9, 1998) -- Gun Owners of America today put Representatives on notice in Washington that the cosponsorship of H.R. 1009 would be counted as a ratings vote in 1998. Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) is the chief sponsor of this very important bill repealing the Lautenberg gun ban. In a prepared statement, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt told Congressmen that, "This unconstitutional law must be repealed, and Congress owes it to the people to put Rep. Chenoweth's bill to a vote. "But if Congress doesn't, then Gun Owners of America will rate the cosponsorship of her bill instead of a vote. Those who cosponsor H.R. 1009 will be listed as having cast a pro-gun vote. All the others will be ranked as having cast an anti- gun vote and will have to answer to their constituents in November." The Lautenberg ban, passed in 1996, imposes a lifetime gun ban on those who have committed minor infractions in the home-- "offenses" as slight as shoving a spouse or spanking a child. "So far, only 37 Representatives have taken a stand for freedom and cosponsored H.R. 1009," Pratt said. "This is one of the most important bills in the Congress, and Rep. Chenoweth deserves a lot of thanks from the American people." Current cosponsor list for H.R. 1009: BATEMAN (R-VA) BUNNING (R-KY) CANNON (R-UT) CHAMBLISS (R-GA) CHENOWETH (R-ID) (sponsor) COBURN (R-OK) COMBEST (R-TX) COOKSEY (R-LA) CRAPO (R-ID) CUBIN (R-WY) DICKEY (R-AR) DOOLITTLE (R-CA) GIBBONS (R-NV) GOODE (D-VA) HALL (D-TX) HASTINGS (R-WA) HEFLEY (R-CO) HERGER (R-CA) HILL (R-MT) HOSTETTLER (R-IN) KIM (R-CA) KOLBE (R-AZ) LAHOOD (R-IL) LEWIS, R (R-KY) McINTOSH (R-IN) PAUL (R-TX) PICKETT (D-VA) REDMOND (R-NM) RIGGS (R-CA) SKEEN (R-NM) SMITH (R-MI) SPENCE (R-SC) STUMP (R-AZ) THORNBERRY (R-TX) TIAHRT (R-KS) WATTS (R-OK) WICKER (R-MS) YOUNG, D (R-AK) -- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for fax numbers and e-mail addresses or call your Rep. and ask) Dear Representative Gun Owners of America has announced that cosponsorship of H.R. 1009 will be considered a pro-gun vote on its upcoming Candidate's Vote Rating. Please become a cosponsor of H.R. 1009, the bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban. The Lautenberg law makes a mere misdemeanor grounds for denying citizens, including police, the right to keep and bear arms. It is a grave infringement on the rights of Americans and must be repealed. The Chenoweth bill has the support of gun groups, women's groups, civil rights groups and other organizations concerned with constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Please let me know how you intend to act. Sincerely, *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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. "War to the hilt between capitalism and communism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. In order to win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist." -- Quoted by Dmitri Z. Manuisky, Lenin School of Political Warfare (1931). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA Posts Signs at Philadelphia Convention "NO GUNS" -- Here is full story. Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thought this might be of interest to Second Amendment Supporters-- My name is H Howard Lewis Bloom and I am the listowner of pa-rkba@listbox.com .. Pennsylvania's only pro-gun mailing list. This post concerns the NRA convention and the "no guns" signs at convention. Here are the players: NRA James Land, NRA Secretary Tanya Metaska, Director NRA/ILA Tom Wyld, Director of Public Affairs and ILA Communication Bill Powers, NRA Spokesperson .. works for Wyld Convention Center Kelly Lynch, In charge of entire convention The Philadelphia Inquirer Article: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Jun/05/city/CARR05.htm NRA Secretary Jim Land knew in February of this year of a new regulation put forth by the convention center concerning the carrying of concealed weapons on the property. The convention was booked 4 years ago, and during the February meeting to go over logistics, Ms. Kelly Lynch told Jim Land and his people about this so-called regulation. Mr. Land had put together conventions in cities with laws against carrying of firearms in public buildings. According to Mr. Land, "I got so used to the laws, that I never checked whether it was a law in Philadelphia." Herein lies the problem: Mr. Land admitted to me, that he goofed big time on the issue. I informed him that the convention center was indeed public property, not private property and that there is no prohibition against carrying a firearm concealed with a permit. None. I asked Jim Land why he didn't use NRA/ILA and the lawyers on staff to research this. He claimed no excuse. He did tell me that he would not be fooled again and would take better care to find out all facets of so called laws. I thought he was sincere. If I opened his eyes and made him a bit more careful, then it was worth the legwork by me on Friday afternoon. I spoke to Kelly Lynch of the convention center about the signs. According to Ms. Lynch, the signs were printed a month ago by NRA for the convention. I asked her about this regulation concerning firearms in the building. She claimed that the employee manual states very clearly ... I reminded her that patrons to the building aren't on her payroll. She then told me that patrons aren't allowed either. I wanted her to fax me a copy of this document that states this, but to date she has not faxed it. The crux of the matter is that this is a public building. Lynch went on about the board of directors and they could make rules ... blah blah blah .. I reminded her that this building is owned by Pennsylvania and that there are no laws concerning the carrying of concealed firearms. Ms. Lynch admitted that there has never been an occasion to place a sign in the convention center before the NRA came to town, and the signs will come down as soon as NRA closes the doors on Sunday. Sound like discrimination to you? You bet your a** it is. I presented my concerns to Ms. Tanya Metaska on Saturday afternoon during a lull in her book signing activities. Ms. Metaska is in charge of NRA/ILA. She said she wasn't going to argue with me, that I was always right, and she was finished speaking with me. I was very courteous to Tanya, I introduced myself, shook her hand and told her of my concern. She showed mild animosity and gave me the impression that she didn't give a d*** about the entire concern. When you look at the article above, remember, that the premise is that NRA doesn't trust people with guns at its own convention. A black eye for sure that we didn't need blackened. Something which could easily have been avoided. Major Questions: Why did NRA choose anti-gun Philadelphia for their convention? Will monies from convention be used for anti-gun purposes by Philadelphia? Why didn't the organization properly get advance information? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Schoolkids aren't using movie bullets Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- PRJ , PIML , Norm Olson , L & J , David Rydel Would all of you write this worthless "reporter"? email him at: Mitch Albom Keep it nice, give him facts, and don't call him names because it will only reinforce his ideas of law-abiding gun owners. http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/qmitch75.htm Schoolkids aren't using movie bullets June 7, 1998 What if someone fired a gun at Charlton Heston? Someone who had a bad day at work. Someone who broke up with his girlfriend. Someone who was mad at his parents. Or a 5-year-old kid who watches too much TV. Perhaps that would change Heston's point of view. The actor has just been chosen as president of the National Rifle Association -- with a personal goal of showing the public who gun users really are. But here, in turn-of-the-century America, this is who gun users really are: the angry worker, the jilted lover, the unloved child and the schoolkid. That's the fact, Jack -- er, Chuck. Now as far as I know, Mr. Heston has never been the victim of a random shooting. He has never been sentenced to a wheelchair by a bullet meant for someone else. He has never lost a child because the kid next door decided to take the family arsenal to school. Yet he says limiting guns would be terrible. He should at least have some experience in what "terrible" is all about. Terrible isn't missing a hunting trip, or canceling a visit to the pistol club. Terrible is finding out that your wife, a schoolteacher, is in a body bag. Heston and the NRA say they don't condone such shootings. Then again, Heston once wrote in Gun & Ammo magazine: "Gun owners know enough to keep children away from firearms." Right. These would be the gun owners whose kids just shot up the schoolyard. Real-life horror Now let's be honest: Gun control is an argument you can never win. This is not the first time I've written about it, and I am prepared for the flood of angry letters that come pouring in from people who half the time don't even read the entire column before they start writing. Some of the letters are intelligent, and I thank you for those. Most of them, however, go like this: "You communist liberal piece of trash! Read your Constitution! Guns don't kill people; people kill people! And if we didn't have guns, all the (fill in ethnic group) would just take over! You jerk!" OK. I lied a little. It's worse than "jerk." But I don't care. At some point in life, you either take a stand, or you do nothing and thereby take a stand anyhow. Doing nothing is what the NRA folks would like. (Actually, they would like to repeal the few paltry gun control laws we've managed to pass.) But mostly, they want to make sure no new laws get through. That's why they've picked Heston to battle what they perceive as a wave of antigun publicity in the wake of school shootings in Arkansas and Oregon. But that should make you suspicious right there. Those dead children aren't a publicity campaign. They're a real-life horror. Any group that worries about public relations in light of that tragedy should be suspect. Think about Heston. He's an image. A handsome face. A movie actor. But these are not movie bullets, folks. And it's not Ben Hur you have to worry about pulling a piece on your 9-year-old. Don't throw gasoline on fire Now, I am not naive. I know that taking guns away does not automatically solve our problems. Until we slow down, value love, stop chasing unsatisfying goals, until we stop alienating youth and abandoning children, until we stop desensitizing ourselves to where we think killing doesn't hurt, then our tango with violence will not end. But you don't throw gasoline on a fire. Why make guns readily available to an angry, tense, hair-trigger society? Yes, I know the rhetoric. "Take away guns and only criminals will have them." The NRA wants you to believe in a massive futuristic black market, where every evildoer automatically knows where to shop. Come on. Right now, they can just go to the gun store. Meanwhile, people involved in the most shocking shootings today are often not criminals at all. They're folks who just snap, and who have access to guns when they do. If the guns weren't available, they wouldn't know where to get them in the heat of the moment any more than you or I would know where to instantly buy a pound of heroin. And please don't quote me the Second Amendment. I know all about the Second Amendment. It was written in 1789. The idea of "right to bear arms" was to keep the states free from invasion -- not to shoot an eighth-grader. Back in 1789, we didn't have TV, movies or the Internet to turn us violent. It's a different world. How come people who so smugly cite the Second Amendment have no interest in going back to using muskets? Maybe we should ask Charlton Heston. People always remember him as Moses in "The Ten Commandments." I remember him in "Planet of the Apes," at the end, when he breaks into tears upon discovering the destroyed Statue of Liberty: "You finally did it!" he wails. "You maniacs." He is talking about killing one another. Maybe he forgot that movie. To leave a message for Mitch Albom, call 1-313-223-4581. All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The NRA is worse than USELESS Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, snetnews@world.std.com I'd like to know why the writer of the [preceding] post -below- was so surprised that Ms. Metaska wasn't interested hearing about how gun possession was prohibited at a gunowner's convention. The NRA has a long, sorry history of never seeing a compromise it didn't like and every time they compromise, we get screwed. As far as I'm concerned, the leadership at the NRA is USELESS. Actually, they're worse than USELESS because they lead well meaning but naive or misinformed gunowners to believe that they actually give a fat rat's ass about your gun rights. The only thing the NRA leadership is concerned with is riding a fine line between a wholesale sellout and raising just enough stink that those checks and money orders keep coming in. If you think that's just too cynical and "they wouldn't do that" - then the only other explanation is that they're IDIOTS. To put it as politely as I can, the people that think the NRA is doing something for them are mistaken because the NRA leadership are COLLABORATORS. The list of NRA SELLOUTS goes on forever but here's a couple of my personal favorites: The NRA leadership was the proximate cause for the setting of the precedent that the federal government can ban the sales of fully-automatic firearms to law abiding citizens in exchange for a worthless crumb. The NRA leadership was the proximate cause for the setting of the precedent that the federal government can require you to pay a tax for the privilege of having your firearms federally registered and eventually confiscated by way of the "Instant Screw" system. If the NRA leadership really gave a about your gun rights, they'd wake up out of their coma and realize that gunowners are engaged in a streetfight, not a collegiate debating event, and the stakes are our lives, not a plastic, $10 trophy. In a street fight, you pick up a garbage can and bash it over your opponent's head. You break a bottle in half and grind it into your opponents face. You do what the Army recommends, which is to "continue to kick and stomp until victim is subdued." The time for Wayne LaPierre and his Sunday coffee klatch presentation is over. In otherwords, it's time to use techniques like blackmail. I can't believe that there isn't enough dirt in D.C. to make more than a few politicians uncomfortable. Why doesn't the NRA stop sending out those stupid hats and start hiring some private investigators with long lenses? Why don't they start going after every Congressrat that votes for gun control and ruin a few marriages with a suggestion that there might be more where that came from? Why don't they let it be known that they'll take some of that hat money and post a "Dirt Bounty?" That shouldn't be hard to do, but nooooooooooooooooooo, doing something effective might get results. God forbid that should happen, they might actually have to stop schmoozing with the pols and go get an honest job. Of course, if "dirty" a.k.a. street fighting against the likes of a tapeworm like Schumer is too much for the somnambulent NRA rank and file, bringing up the subject of where the authority for Executive Orders comes from might be a good start, but don't hold your breath for that to happen (and if *you* don't know where that authority comes from, I would politely suggest putting down your American Rifleman long enough to find out...) Frankly, in my completely un-humble, obnoxious, pissed-off, and un-apologetic opinion, if you're sending any money to those Vichy swine, you're helping them screw this country and you'd be doing America a favor by sending your money to ANYBODY else. Or, you can just keep doing what you've always done - sending the NRA your money - and get what you always get - which is SCREWED. >Major Questions: >Why did NRA choose anti-gun Philadelphia for their convention? >Will monies from convention be used for anti-gun purposes by Philadelphia? >Why didn't the organization properly get advance information? BECAUSE ALL THEY WANT IS YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE - UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Also, telnet agitator.dynip.com] "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Schoolkids are using . . . movie themes Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com TO: Mr. Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press Your article suggests more ignorance than malice, or else I would not be writing to you. As a former Detroiter, now happily a Texan for many years, I urge you to try and see the gun issue for what it really is. Don't be afraid, go out and meet some of the fine people who own guns for lawful purposes. Don't get all your information from Sarah Brady and Josh Sugarman as you apparently are doing. Schoolkids may not be using movie bullets, but they are using movie themes in acting out their aggression. Neither the NRA, nor any other mainstream organization that believes that the Second Amendment means what it says, advocates that children have unsupervised access to firearms, period. However, thinking adults realize that a good kid will not become a bad kid because of a gun. To think otherwise is totemism that should be exorcised from a modern society. You attack Charleton Heston, but not Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis, et cetera--those who glamorize the use of firearms for murder mayhem and destruction. Don't you think there is a real connection between Hollywood and gun violence? Heston has nver portrayed the misuse of firearms. Yet you attack him instead of those who flagrantly undermine standards of proper behavior regarding guns. That is illogical at best. And it could be labeled in much less kind terms. We have seen several decades of gun laws that impacted on law-abiding citizens while they did little if anything to staunch the criminal use of firearms--just as our drug laws have done nothing to curb drug use. In fact, Federal Government statistics show a reluctance to prosecute those criminals who can be prosecuted under existing laws, while bleating in unison for still more laws that presumably will not be enforced either. To paraphrase you, That's the fact, Jack -- er, Mitch! When I lived in Michigan it was a felony to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, and those were only issued to the polictically well-connected. Is that law being enforced today, against those who are not simply carrying out of legitimate concern for their safety on dangerous streets, but rather against those who are committing other crimes? No? Then why not? Anthony F. Herbst, Ph.D. El Paso, Texas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA chief Heston confronts Clinton on gun laws Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NRA chief Heston confronts Clinton on gun laws 11.26 p.m. ET (326 GMT) June 8, 1998 PHILADELPHIA -- Actor Charlton Heston became president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Monday and challenged the federal government to enforce more strictly the gun laws it already has on the books, rather than enact new ones. Heston, the star of popular Hollywood epics who says he wants to bring the NRA back into the "mainstream'' of American politics, said President Clinton should choose a "model city'' where federal gun control laws would be fully enforced. "I promise never to say anything mean about President Clinton if he'll give us one model city where the federal laws will be enforced ... criminals will be prosecuted and punished,'' Heston told reporters. Heston said he had no particular city in mind but ''Philadelphia would be pretty good.'' "There are 20,000 gun laws on the books, but they don't do any good unless we prosecute the ones who bust them,'' the Oscar-winning actor said. The man who portrayed Moses in the classic "The Ten Commandments'' said the U.S. Justice Department viewed the enforcement of gun laws as a nuisance and that the federal judiciary thought the crimes were beneath them. Heston said Philadelphia police officers told him during the NRA's 127th annual convention in the city that they would like nothing more than to have gun laws enforced so that criminals would be prosecuted and jailed. Some 80 percent of the 425 homicides in Philadelphia last year were committed with handguns, police report. As Heston was being elected president at a raucous meeting, Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell met with gunmakers to ask them to voluntarily implement safety features like trigger locks. He also asked that they support pending Pennsylvania state legislation limiting gun purchases to one a month. Rendell has threatened to sue gunmakers the same way the attorneys general in more than 40 states have sued the tobacco industry for the harm their product cause. Asked about Heston's model city suggestion, Rendell said he did not think it would have much impact on crime. "We ought to do what Mr. Heston suggests, but that will have a marginal impact,'' he said. The NRA is hoping that the square-jawed action hero will be able to counter images that the organization is filled with gun-loving extremists who are out of touch. "I think it's a question of restoring the image that the NRA has enjoyed for...127 years,'' he told reporters. On Saturday, he told NRA members: "Too many gun owners think we've wandered to some fringe of American life and left them behind. We will win back our rightful place in the mainstream of American political debate.'' A recent rash of shooting rampages at U.S. public schools has also put gun advocates on the defensive. Heston said teen-agers who shoot at their schoolmates are, in most cases, already hardened criminals. "They're already career criminals, or trembling on the brink,'' he told reporters. In a convention speech, Heston blasted President Clinton for signing gun control measures including a ban on the manufacture and importation of assault weapons. "Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems, and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military, and we don't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you with our guns,'' Heston told hundreds of cheering NRA members. The White House shot back Sunday. "Mr. Heston is entitled to his opinion. But he has once again proven that he is out of the mainstream in American political thinking,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told USA Today. Heston will serve a one-year term of the organization which claims some 3 million members. He can be elected to a second term next year, an NRA spokesman said. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Right Wing Press Nuts Date: 10 Jun 1998 08:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Scourge of the Free Press by John Pittman Hey "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That poorly punctuated, confusingly written 26-word section of the Constitution is at the center of the heated debate over "freedom of the press." There is a great deal of disagreement over who or what "the press" is. Most people mistakenly believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to print whatever one pleases, without government interference. Still others have noted that "the people" are not mentioned in the "free" press clause. This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers to protect the government's sole authority to print money and regulations. The phrase "the press" refers to the Government Printing Office's press in Washington. One historian claims that "the press" actually refers to the wine press, which is why the Prohibition Amendment was passed to remove the First Amendment right of the people to distill liquor. We all know there is no such thing as a "free" press. Go ask any printer in town, and he'll tell you he paid good money for his printing press. Even Xerox machines aren't free. Much closer to the truth is the old saw, "Freedom of the press is for those who own one." Here we see the true motives of the "free press" nuts, mostly newspaper publishers, who use the high-sounding words of the First Amendment to justify what are merely commercial enterprises. We hear a lot about "the people's right to know", but really it's all about the publisher's right to make money. Newspapers never have room for the real news; somehow it gets crowded out by all those paid advertisements. Some legal scholars still claim that the "free press" clause protects the people's right to publish whatever they like. Nonsense! The courts have repeatedly upheld restrictions on newspapers, including laws against litter, fraud, and libel. To properly interpret what the Founding Fathers meant by a "free press," we must at least place their ideas into the proper historical context. The press was an essential tool of the colonists against King George 220 years ago. But it was a primitive instrument at best. Presses could only print two pages a minute. The colonists never envisioned our modern high-speed presses, much less the ready availability of xerox machines and laser printers. Today's presses can reproduce lies, destructive ideas, and hatred, at the rate of thousands of pages an hour. The Founding Fathers never meant to permit the public to wield so destructive an instrument. The modern press is dangerous: it is widely known that the newspapers were responsible for whipping up the Spanish-American war. How many times have newspapers printed lies that destroyed the honor of innocent people? The press prints all types of destructive literature; just think of the children whose lives have been ruined by their finding printed works of Marx, Sartre, Anthony Lewis, or Bill Minor, left lying about by some thoughtless adult. The press helps spread hate. If only the government had prohibited the press from printing the news about Limbaugh, or Liddy, or David Duke, or the Ku Klux Klan, no one would be attracted to those causes. We must debunk the myth of the "free" press. The newspapers have attracted many readers by spreading misinformation and fear. They have perpetrated a lie, which many in the public swallow, that if the government is allowed to regulate the press in any manner, confiscation of all printing presses will soon follow. Journalists have a formidable lobby. One such shadowy organization is called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the RCFP. Politicians and judges dare not cross the RCFP. In fact, they actively court the press, because they want good coverage of their political campaigns. The courts use presses themselves to print their opinions. Supreme Court justices were recently caught taking favors from the West Publishing Company. These conflicts of interest help explain the lack of proper regulation of the "free" press. But the Court and the Congress also fear the press. When gun regulations are imposed, no gun nut has ever dared pull one on a congressman or a judge in retaliation. But you let just one congressman or judge attempt to reign in the free press, and every editorialist in the country will scream "Stop the presses!" and then launch a full attack against that brave soul. Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. That is why we must begin regulating the press immediately. The integrity of our public institutions is compromised by the "free" press run amuck. The news is too important to entrust to unregulated private enterprise. The public has a right to know that what it reads is the truth. Only government regulation can make that possible. Many Americans take the middle ground on the issue of regulating the press. They read the comic page in their home town newspaper, and have no intention of confiscating printing presses. But they see no reason why any ordinary citizen needs to own one. Radical gun and "free" press nuts actually think it's up to them to protect our freedom. Cooler heads realize it's the Government's job to do that, since the Government is the source of all our liberty in the first place. What we don't need are these "weekend warriors," guns ablaze, presses awhirl, galloping across the political landscape, to "protect" us from the government. We'd be better off trusting the government to do that. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NEW BILL TARGETS GUN SHOW and MATCH TRANSFERS -Forwarded Date: 10 Jun 1998 12:28:59 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA11540; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma011366; Tue Jun 9 19:25:20 1998 Message-Id: <199806092318.TAA11052@fs1.mainstream.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: jean@riverview.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list NEW BILL TARGETS GUN SHOW and MATCH TRANSFERS Firearms sales and trades at gun shows have always been a priority target ofthe anti-gunners. But a new bill that claims to regulate gun show transfers also targets sales between individuals at match events such as the National Matches at Camp Ferry, and seems to require licensing and reporting by the Amateur Trapshooting Association for its annual Grand American. The measure is HR-3833, authored by Rep. Rod Blagc?jevich (D-IL), which claims to better regulate the transfer of firearms at gun shows. Co-sponsors of HR-3833 include Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), John Conyers(D-MI). Danny Davis (D-IL), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), James McGovern (D-M A), and J errold Nad Icr ( I)-N Y). The bill would require anyone holding a "gun show" to have a license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, meaning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), 30 days before an event, would be responsible for initiating background checks between any two nonFFL persons transferring a firearm, and supply the government with copies ofall documents collected during the show within 30 days of the closing of the event. The documents collected would include the names and addresses of both parties to the transfer, as well as the serial number, make and model of the firearm, and the date and location of the transaction. Ifthe total regulation of firearms transfers conducted at "gun shows" organized by collector organizations were not enough, HR-3833 defines "gun shows" to include any event, including competitions "or other sporting use of firearms in the community" at which 50 or more ffirearms-including handguns, long guns and muzzleloaders that employ modem primers for ignitionare present. The 50 guns need not be offered for sale. That definition would include just about every club competition in the country, meaning that if the measure passes, every such event would have to have a license issued by ATF, conduct background checks (in all likelihood "instant checks") through the Justice Department's NICS. and send all documentation to the government-or no such private sales between individuals could be transacted. The prospects for a straight-up vote on HR3833 may be slim, but it could be moved as an amendment to other legislation. - - UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES _____________________________________ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are incline to obey the law. - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: No Four Corners Militia Date: 10 Jun 1998 18:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded: Dear MSNBC and Tom Brokaw: I am the Liaison & Intelligence Officer with the Southern Oregon Militia. I talk to IOs throughout the United States every day, sharing and acquiring information. Our intelligence gathering capabilities within this nation are quite well established, are overwhelmingly reliable and reach all the way to the White House. Last night your Mr. Brokaw stated on the NBC nightly news that the three suspects wanted in the killing and wounding of police officers in the Four Corners area of Colorado belonged to a group calling itself "The Four Corners Militia". This was news to all of us in the Militias, since we happen to know that no militia group exists in that area. As usual, Mr. Brokaw relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center for his information. When are you people going to finally put the SPLC to the test and demand documentation and/or proof that their "information" is reliable? Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that they refuse to provide you with verifiable sources, or could you care less? The truth is that the SPLC uses scare tactics at our expense in order to raise more and more money for their own benefit. The SPLC recently identified 19 Patriot/Militia groups in Oregon. They included groups organized to reduce and control Oregon's high property taxes, groups that assist parents who choose to home-school their children, etc. Give me a break! Those aren't Patriot/Militia groups, yet you people contoinue to use the SPLC to tell you what the Militias are up to. The truth is, the SPLC doesn't really know anything about us, and in this case it appears they manufactured a name for a non-existent group just to continue to promote their lies. Wake up and smell the coffee, Tom: You've been used! Stop by the house some time. You want to see the "real" militia, don't you? Carl F. Worden Liaison & Intelligence Officer Southern Oregon Militia - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Right Wing Press Nuts Date: 10 Jun 1998 18:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Scourge of the Free Press by John Pittman Hey "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That poorly punctuated, confusingly written 26-word section of the Constitution is at the center of the heated debate over "freedom of the press." There is a great deal of disagreement over who or what "the press" is. Most people mistakenly believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to print whatever one pleases, without government interference. Still others have noted that "the people" are not mentioned in the "free" press clause. This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers to protect the government's sole authority to print money and regulations. The phrase "the press" refers to the Government Printing Office's press in Washington. One historian claims that "the press" actually refers to the wine press, which is why the Prohibition Amendment was passed to remove the First Amendment right of the people to distill liquor. We all know there is no such thing as a "free" press. Go ask any printer in town, and he'll tell you he paid good money for his printing press. Even Xerox machines aren't free. Much closer to the truth is the old saw, "Freedom of the press is for those who own one." Here we see the true motives of the "free press" nuts, mostly newspaper publishers, who use the high-sounding words of the First Amendment to justify what are merely commercial enterprises. We hear a lot about "the people's right to know", but really it's all about the publisher's right to make money. Newspapers never have room for the real news; somehow it gets crowded out by all those paid advertisements. Some legal scholars still claim that the "free press" clause protects the people's right to publish whatever they like. Nonsense! The courts have repeatedly upheld restrictions on newspapers, including laws against litter, fraud, and libel. To properly interpret what the Founding Fathers meant by a "free press," we must at least place their ideas into the proper historical context. The press was an essential tool of the colonists against King George 220 years ago. But it was a primitive instrument at best. Presses could only print two pages a minute. The colonists never envisioned our modern high-speed presses, much less the ready availability of xerox machines and laser printers. Today's presses can reproduce lies, destructive ideas, and hatred, at the rate of thousands of pages an hour. The Founding Fathers never meant to permit the public to wield so destructive an instrument. The modern press is dangerous: it is widely known that the newspapers were responsible for whipping up the Spanish-American war. How many times have newspapers printed lies that destroyed the honor of innocent people? The press prints all types of destructive literature; just think of the children whose lives have been ruined by their finding printed works of Marx, Sartre, Anthony Lewis, or Bill Minor, left lying about by some thoughtless adult. The press helps spread hate. If only the government had prohibited the press from printing the news about Limbaugh, or Liddy, or David Duke, or the Ku Klux Klan, no one would be attracted to those causes. We must debunk the myth of the "free" press. The newspapers have attracted many readers by spreading misinformation and fear. They have perpetrated a lie, which many in the public swallow, that if the government is allowed to regulate the press in any manner, confiscation of all printing presses will soon follow. Journalists have a formidable lobby. One such shadowy organization is called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the RCFP. Politicians and judges dare not cross the RCFP. In fact, they actively court the press, because they want good coverage of their political campaigns. The courts use presses themselves to print their opinions. Supreme Court justices were recently caught taking favors from the West Publishing Company. These conflicts of interest help explain the lack of proper regulation of the "free" press. But the Court and the Congress also fear the press. When gun regulations are imposed, no gun nut has ever dared pull one on a congressman or a judge in retaliation. But you let just one congressman or judge attempt to reign in the free press, and every editorialist in the country will scream "Stop the presses!" and then launch a full attack against that brave soul. Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. That is why we must begin regulating the press immediately. The integrity of our public institutions is compromised by the "free" press run amuck. The news is too important to entrust to unregulated private enterprise. The public has a right to know that what it reads is the truth. Only government regulation can make that possible. Many Americans take the middle ground on the issue of regulating the press. They read the comic page in their home town newspaper, and have no intention of confiscating printing presses. But they see no reason why any ordinary citizen needs to own one. Radical gun and "free" press nuts actually think it's up to them to protect our freedom. Cooler heads realize it's the Government's job to do that, since the Government is the source of all our liberty in the first place. What we don't need are these "weekend warriors," guns ablaze, presses awhirl, galloping across the political landscape, to "protect" us from the government. We'd be better off trusting the Government to do that. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand Date: 11 Jun 1998 08:17:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes: << Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >> Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not required) to avoid talking about gun control. Scooter! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand Date: 11 Jun 1998 09:44:39 -0600 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:59:43 EDT > From: FreeUtah@aol.com > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > Subject: Re: [goamail@gunowners.org: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand] > > In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes: > > << Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not. > > ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- > > Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >> > > Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not > required) to avoid talking about gun control. > > Scooter! > > - I wonder where "Scooter" gets his information? Is he an officer of the GOP? A candidate who has been so instructed? Or was this information part of a GOP statement/press release? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' -Forwarded Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:37 -0700 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:46:29 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' Copyright # 1998 Nando.net Copyright # 1998 Reuters News Service PHILADELPHIA (June 6, 1998 11:44 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott struck out Saturday at those who would limit the right of Americans to bear arms, telling diners at the National Rifle Association annual banquet "you are the mainstream of America." "The rights of the American people are not negotiable," Lott said. "The Bill of Rights is a package deal...You don't get to pick and choose...you get the whole deal," the Mississippi Republican assured the several hundred NRA members who swapped their T-shirts for jacket and ties to the dinner. "You are the mainstream of America," he told the gathering, adding that those who doubted it "just reveal how far out of the mainstream they really are." Lott warned that if the NRA lets Washington gut the Second Amendment that guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms, "we might as well fold up the flag and meltdown the Liberty Bell." Earlier on Saturday, Academy Award winning actor Charlton Heston, who portrayed Moses in the classic "Ten Commandments," told the delegates that if elected president of the 3.5 million-member pro-gun group, he would lead it back "to the mainstream." Heston, who is expected to be inducted as president of the group on Monday, said that in the future he would only support pro-gun candidates. Then in remarks directed at President Bill Clinton, who successfully banned the manufacture and importation of several types of assault weapons, Heston said: "Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military and we don't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you with our guns." Most of the 50,000 NRA members attending the 127th national convention looked as though they had travelled in from Main Street, America. There were plenty of grandfatherly looking men with baseball caps and potbellies and families strolling the aisles of the exhibition hall at the Convention Centre in Philadelphia. It could almost be a county fair, except for the rows of guns, rifles, ammunition and accessories lining the walls. Adolescents lined up at rifle maker Winchester's booth to pay $2 to play "Total Recoil." The contestant holds an electronic rifle to shoot images of birds and animals. Their parents were busy looking over the new lines of rifles. At the nearby Colt booth, enthusiasts could heft various types of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols made by the company whose weapons are credited with winning the American West. "We're just a group of people who are willing to fight for our freedom. Freedom to own a firearms for the purpose that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution," explained Teddy Jones, 69, of Torrance, California, who was attending the convention with his wife of 22 years, Judith. Both are NRA members, as are their son and 6-year-old grandson. Judith Reuhl, 56, of Cincinnati, Ohio, waited outside the hall surrounded by packages as she waited for her husband, John, an NRA member. "I'm not a member, but I do shoot skeet with him. My son and my son-in-law and my brother-in-law are members," she said. One package contained information from the NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program for children. "I'm bringing that back for my six-and-a-half year old grandson, Alex. He's getting to that age," she added. By LESLIE GEVIRTZ, Reuters - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation -Forwarded Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:48 -0700 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:50:38 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation What an honor it is to address the Free Congress Foundation. At a glance "Free" reads as a verb rather than an adjective. "Free Congress." Not a bad directive for Mr. Clinton. Anyway. I like it when the party of Lincoln honors our free heritage. This nation has been blessed by the minds and mettle of many good people, and indeed Abe was among the best. A man of great moral character#a trait often lacking among our leaders. This is disturbing, but not without remedy. One good election can correct such ills. Above all, I hope those of us gathered here tonight have more in common with Mr. Lincoln than just party affiliation. Better than we grasp a common vision that simply wear the cloak. Even our President pretends to be a conservative when it suits him. We must be more than that. I know it#s not easy. Imagine being point man for the National Rifle Association, preserving the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve#as a moving target for pundits who#ve called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile and crazy old man." Maybe that comes with the territory. But as I have stood in the crosshairs of those who aim at Second Amendment freedom, I have realized that guns are not the only issue, and I am not the only target. It is much, much bigger than that # which is what I want to talk to you about today. I have come to realize that a cultural war raging across our land storming our values, assaulting our freedoms, killing our self-confidence in who we are a what we believe. How many of you own a gun? A show of hands maybe? How many own two or more guns? Thank you. I wonder how many of you own guns but chose not to raise your hand? How many of you considered revealing your conviction about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it? Then you are a victim of the cultural war.. You are a casualty of the cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don#t care one way or the other about owning a gun. But I could#ve asked for a show of hands of Pentecostal Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or school vouchers-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room with a film crew? See? You have been assaulted and robbed of the courage of your convictions. Your pride in who you are, and what you believe, has been ridiculed, ransacked and plundered. It may be a war without bullet or bloodshed, but with just as much liberty lost: You and your country are less free. And you are not inconsequential people! You in this room, whom many would say are among the most powerful people on earth, you are shamed into silence! Because you choose to own guns # affirmed by no less than the Bill of Rights. But you embrace a view at odds with the cultural warlords.. If that is the outcome of cultural war, and you are victims, I can only ask the gravely obvious question: What#ll become of the right itself? Or other rights not deemed acceptable by the thought police? What other truth in your heart will you disavow with your hand? I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So # what color star will the pin on gun owners# chests? How ill the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive. Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment of the NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the warfare that#s going on. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. After enough breakfast-table TV hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next Rikki Lake, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid shows, enough revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the TV anchor who cocks her head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or even worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or even worse NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse male working stiff, because not only don#t you count, you#re a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you hand them over, but your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something about your new America#and until you do, would you mind shutting up? That#s why you didn#t raise your hand. That#s how cultural war works. And you are losing. That#s what happens when a generation of media, educators, entertainers and politicians, led by a willing president, decide the America they were born into isn#t good enough any more. So they contrive to change it through the cultural warfare of class distinction. Ask the Romans if powerful nations have ever fallen as a result of cultural division. There are ruins around the world that were once the smug centers of small-minded, arrogant elitism. It appears that rather than evaporate in the flash of a split atom, we may succumb to a divided culture. Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in God#s almighty presence, I treasure both. The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old dead white guys who invented our country. Now some flinch when I say that. Why? It#s true#they were white guys. So were most of the guys that died in Lincoln#s name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures shaved heads and while hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I#ll tell you why: Cultural warfare. Now, Chuck Heston can get away with saying I#m proud of those wise old dead white guys because Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan know I fought in their cultural war. I was one of the first white soldiers in the civil rights movement, long before it was fashionable. In 1963 I marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King to uphold the Bill of Rights. As vice-president of the NRA I am doing the same thing. But you don#t see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this, do you? It#s not because there aren#t any. It#s because they can#t afford the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or ATF or NBC or even W-J-C. It spas the strength of our country when the personal price is simply too high to stand up for what you believe in. Today, speaking with the courage of your conviction can be so costly, the price of principle can be so high, that legislators won#t lead and citizens can#t follow, and so there is no army to fight back. That#s cultural warfare. For instance: It#s plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm. But if I stand up and say so, why is the media assault on me such a slashing, sinister brand of derision filled with hate? Because Bill Clinton#s cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That#s what is now literally underway in England and Australia. Line of submissive citizens, threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly surrendering family heirlooms, guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact does not unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the cultural war. You know that I stand first in line in defense for free speech. But those who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society. I#ve earned a fine and rewarding living in the motion picture industry, yet increasingly I find myself embarrassed by the dearth of conscience that drives the world#s most influential artform. And I am an example of what a lonely undertaking it can be. Nobody opposed the obscene rapper Ice-T until I stood at Time-Warner#s stockholders meeting and was ridiculed by its president for wanting to take the floor to read Ice-T#s lyrics. Since I held several hundred shares of stock he had no choice, though the media were barred. I read those lyrics to a stunned audience of average American people#shocked at lyrics that advocating killing cops, sexually abusing women, and raping the nieces of our Vice-President. The good guys won that time: Time-Warner fired Ice-T. The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives#also dear friends. I don#t despise their lifestyle, though I don#t share it. As long as gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It#s the right thing to do. On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton#s cultural shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers#and then claim it#s time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved. Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They#re about the currency of cultural war # money and votes # and the Clinton camp will let anyone in the tent if there#s a donkey on the hat, a check in the mail or some yen in the fortune cookie. Mainstream America is counting on you to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time and resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it is a divine duty for women to hat men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as a means of adolescent merchandizing, violence as a form of entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to lord-knows-what. We have reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it#s time to pull the plug. Americans should not have to go to war every morning for their values. They already go to war for their families. They fight to hold down a job, raise responsible kids, make their payments, keep gas in the car, put food on the table and clothes on their backs, and still save a little to live their final days in dignity. They prefer the America they built # where you could pray without feeling na#ve, love without being kinky, sing without profanity, be white without feeling guilty, own a gun without shame, and raise you hand without apology. They are the critical masses who find themselves under siege and long for you to get some guts, stand on principle and lead them to victory in this cultural war. Now if this all sounds a little Mosaic, the punchline of my sermon is as elementary as the Golden Rule: In a cultural war, triumph belongs to those who arm themselves with pride in who they are and then do the right thing. Not the most expedient thing, not what#ll sell, not the politically correct thing, but the right thing. And you know what? Everybody already knows what the right thing is. You, and I, and President Clinton, even Ice-T, we all know. It#s easy. You say wait a minute, you take a long look in the mirror, then into the eyes of your kids or grandkids, and you#ll know what#s right. Don#t run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you are and what you believe, and then raise you hand, stand up, and speak out. Don#t be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow, steady process. And it#s in your hands. Yes, we can have rules and still have rebels # that#s democracy. But as leaders you must do as Lincoln would do, confronted with the stench of cultural war: Do what#s right. As Mr. Lincoln said, "With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in#and then we shall save our country." Defeat the criminals and their apologists, oust the biased and bigoted, endure the undisciplined and unprincipled, but disavow the self-appointed social engineers whose relentless arrogance fuels this vicious war against so much we hold so dear. Do not yield, do not divide, do not call truce. Be fair, but fight back. It#s the same blueprint our founding fathers left to guide us. Our enemies see it as the senile prattle of an archaic society. I still honor it as the United States Constitution, and that timeless document we call the Bill of Rights. Freedom is our fortune and honor is our saving grace. Thank you. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes: << Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >> Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not required) to avoid talking about gun control. Scooter! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand Date: 11 Jun 1998 19:12:00 -0700 On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:44:39 -0600 Will Thompson asked: >> Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not >> required) to avoid talking about gun control. >> Scooter! >I wonder where "Scooter" gets his information? Is he an officer >of the GOP? A candidate who has been so instructed? Or was this >information part of a GOP statement/press release? Scooter has a close relationship to a GOP candidate. AFAIK there was no GOP press release to this effect. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Waco = Tiananmen Square! Date: 12 Jun 1998 07:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thursday, June 11, 1998 http://www.usajournal.com/page20.htm WACO IS OUR TIANENMAN SQUARE - By Jon E. Dougherty JUNE 11 - I just finished viewing my press copy of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." Though I am jumping into the fray a little late, when the "The government subject turns to Waco the rule is, 'Better late of the United than never.' First of all I want to say that I, like millions of other Americans, watched the siege of Waco unfold on CNN. I watched throughout the weeks when negotiations got nowhere; I watched as music was blasted into Mt. Carmel; I watched as the FBI brought in combat helicopters, armored personnel carriers, troops. And I watched as the Feds cut off power to the village, deprived over 80 men, women and children of sleep, and spun yarn after yarn on national television. I listened to gung-ho idiots in the ATF blame the whole thing on David Koresh; I heard numerous federal spokesmen laying on the propaganda so thick you could hear it dripping from every syllable in their speech. I listened to impotent congressmen wringing their hands in terror - scared to death they might actually have to exert some leadership to bring the situation under control [which they didn't do]. And, finally, I watched as Mt. Carmel burned to the ground. Then, for months afterward, I listened to dozens of witnesses appear before dozens of inquiries into the Waco massacre. For every charge eyewitnesses to the carnage made, there was the ATF, the FBI, and the Justice Department, denying any and all culpability, and rabidly blaming the 'cultist' Koresh for leading his "sheep" down the mass-suicide trail to a burning oblivion. There were times when I had my doubts about some of the Davidian claims -- which goes to show how strong government propaganda can be. But now - only now - do I know the real truth. The government of the United States - this "bastion of freedom and respect for human rights" killed the Branch Davidians as surely and as ruthlessly as a Third World banana republic murders its citizens. The truth, as I see it, will probably be lost in the plethora of outrage already exhibited by a number of other people, congressmen and pundits. But as far as I'm concerned, there can never - never - be enough outrage expressed over Waco. As a Christian, I have to pity the liars and co-conspirators who helped cover this up for the federal government. As a fellow citizen who is truly concerned about their safety, my advice to every ATF, FBI, Justice spokesman and government witness who contributed to the slaughter and the ensuing cover-up is this: You people had better pray to God, Almighty that the majority of your fellow American citizens don't see this film. If they do, there is no telling what will happen to each of you - if God doesn't judge you first. In this twisted world of corruption, deceit, and arrogance of power, never in my entire life have I seen such a display of US government ruthlessness and duplicity. To make a timely comparison, Waco is our Tianenman Square; Christ-loving believers in freedom and democracy were gunned down, burned up and rolled over by tanks in exactly the same manner as the Chinese government perpetrated against their own people in 1989. The difference is, the Chinese government didn't care if it went public and our government - in order to maintain a facade of righteousness and, most probably, control of the masses, lied like dogs to keep the truth from getting out. For every government assertion of "fact" the filmmakers in "Rules of Engagement" countered them with truth - well documented, substantiated and easily seen truth, not innuendo or rumor. Despite what the majority of Americans have been told, for example, there is ample evidence that federal agents [or someone acting on behalf of the government] did shoot Davidians as they tried to escape the burning buildings; did roll over Davidians with Bradley Fighting Vehicles [the "tanks" in the film footages and news clips]; did fire at Davidians from helicopters [FBI negotiators admitted as much in the tapes made of the negotiations over the phone]; and did shoot first when initiating the raid. I want to admit something here. I am a veteran corpsman of the Navy and Marine Corps; and I spent 15 years as a civilian paramedic. When it comes to tragedy, blood, and guts, I've seen it all and I've done it all. I don't wear my heart on my sleeve and I abhor whining people. Having said that, what I saw documented in 'Rules of Engagement' was powerful enough to bring even me to tears. Maybe it was the thought of having to defend my own children some day. Maybe it was the feeling of utter helplessness at knowing arrogant, federal killers who posed with automatic rifles atop their tanks purposely burned over 80 women and children to death. Maybe it was a realization that unless people start to give a damn about their government and what the people running it are doing to them [then laughing about it over a drink], we will see more of this kind of senseless bloodshed. Maybe it was knowing that even after staunchly compelling evidence was presented to them, our lawmakers did absolutely nothing to punish those responsible for this massacre. That would include President Bill Clinton, who bears full responsibility for the actions of those government thugs employed under him. I'll tell you, I have recommended dozens of books and other materials for people to review. I have done so because of the content contained in each of those works. But if I never recommend another book, thesis, or film again, I would recommend that every American who can scrape together about $25 bucks [pool your money with a neighbor, if you have to] get a copy of this film. No, I'm not selling it, but plenty of people are. Find them and buy a copy today. Only knowledge and the strongest possible resolve by hordes of American people will prevent similar government abuses in the future. I pray they don't ever do this to my wife and kids, and I believe you will too, once you see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." *** (c)1998 Covenant Syndicate. WACO - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT/DOCUMENTARY(NOM FOR 1998 ACAD AWARD) Forward via: APFN@netbox.com APFN WEB WHY WACO? http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm Other Waco web pages: WHY WACO? http://www.esotericworldnews.com/whywaco.htm EORONETH ON WACO http://members.tripod.com/~Eoroneth/koresh.html WACO - MOUNT CARMEL CENTER http://www.flash.net/~wyla/ WACO LINKS http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-links.html WACO - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT/DOCUMENTARY(NOM FOR 1998 ACAD AWARD) http://www.waco93.com WACO-INFORMATION FROM FREEDOM OF INFO ACT(FOIA) http://www.indirect.com/http://www/dhardy/waco.html WACO WHITE PAPERS http://www.illusions.com/opf/wacoind.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Third Glock from the Sun? Date: 12 Jun 1998 07:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- L & J , David Rydel -----Original Message----- Just forwarded to me in email. Funny! -- Neil ++++++++++++++++++++++ June 11, 1998 A Show That Says Yes to Firepower By GARY KRIST "In Hollywood . . . there are more gun owners in the closet than homosexuals." -- Charlton Heston, new president of the National Rifle Association. In an announcement that took Hollywood insiders by surprise, Helen LaCorcia, star of the hit ABC sitcom "Helen," admitted today that she has for many years secretly been the owner of a handgun. "It's time to come clean," Ms. LaCorcia said, patting a holster strapped stylishly under her left shoulder. "If Hollywood and the rest of America can't accept me for what I am, it's their problem, not mine." Ms. LaCorcia, appearing at a hastily called press conference, then drew her Sig Sauer 9-millimeter semiautomatic and brandished it in front of the cameras. "And yes, it's loaded," she said. "Deal with it." Later, in an unscheduled appearance on "Oprah," Ms. LaCorcia elaborated on her revelation. "Hollywood has been hypocritical on this issue for years," she said. "Everyone knows that the industry is full of weapons enthusiasts, but no one wants to admit it. They're all afraid that nobody will cast them if word gets around that they're packing heat." Asked if her eponymous television character will also be coming out as a gun owner, the gamine comedian said: "Absolutely. In fact, we've already scripted an episode in which Helen meets someone -- someone special -- who takes her to a firing range and persuades her to fire off a couple practice rounds. She's converted immediately." Ms. LaCorcia then added, "We're hoping to get Quentin Tarantino for the part." Across the nation, gun industry analysts were quick to hail the announcement as a milestone. "Sure, we've had plenty of sitcoms with pistol-toting sidekicks and best friends," said Graydon Menaker, media critic for Guns & Ammo magazine. "But this is the first time we'll be seeing a fully armed major character in a top-rated comedy series. It's historic." Some television executives were more cautious. "The audience for shows like 'Helen' tends to be a lot more pacifist than we realize," said Les Goreham, the vice president for product placement at CBS. "Our friends at ABC are in uncharted waters here." Lobbyists and representatives of gun-control organizations responded to the announcement with derision. "These are supposed to be family shows," complained Adelaide Tift of Americans Against the Propagation of Firearms. "Next we'll have the Nanny toting a .22-caliber Beretta. Or Frasier with an Uzi in his briefcase. And where will it end? 'Third Glock From the Sun'?" The real test of Ms. LaCorcia's decision, however, will come from regular watchers of "Helen," and at least some of them were cheering her courage. "I'm proud of her," said Malia, a self-described munitions performance artist from New York. "It's about time someone stood up and showed the world that owning a handgun doesn't make us any different from anyone else. I had actually lost interest in the show recently, but now I'll be glued to my set every week." But other longtime fans were less certain in their reactions. "I guess I'll still watch it," said Jennifer, a Chicago native who has been a devotee of the show since its premiere. "As long as the writers don't get too trigger-happy, you know? I watch 'Helen' to have a few laughs, not to be lectured at about the social acceptability of possessing weapons." Looking suddenly embarrassed, she quickly added, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Gary Krist is the author of the novel "Bad Chemistry." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company -- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF FOUR J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com Voice & Fax: (500) 44-JNEIL Internet: jneil@pulpless.com Personal Web Page: http://pulpless.com/jneil/ Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay online with a credit card, then download books in HTML or Adobe Acrobat format from the web at http://pulpless.com/ *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. To Discuss Ideas: mailto:lloyd@a-albionic.com http://msen.com/~lloyd/ For Ordering Info & Free Catalog: mailto:james@a-albionic.com http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html For Discussion List: mailto:majordomo@mail.msen.com text in body: subscribe prj **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: *********************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: A Letter to My Senator -Forwarded Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:45:13 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA11534; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma011368; Fri Jun 12 13:20:04 1998 Message-Id: <199806121656.LAA18860@monarch.papillion.ne.us> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: mriddle@monarch.papillion.ne.us Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:41:53 -0400 (EDT), Kevin McGehee wrote: >Larry Ball wrote: >--------------E2932E63C3BB1A9177E21AC0 >Content-Type: application/msword; name="Hagel1.doc" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Hagel1.doc" > >0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAGAAAAAAA >AAAAEAAAGwAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAABkAAAD///////////////////////////////////// The "key" is the Content-X lines. This was a MIME-encoded attachment in Microsloth Word format. The NOBAN server stripped enough of the header that the "attachment" didn't come across as such. It's quite possible to 'unpack' this using a command-line MIME unpacker and then open the Hagel1.doc file in your word-processor. Here's what you get: June 12, 1998 Chuck Hagel U.S. Senator 346 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-2706 Dear Senator: Thank you for your response to my postcard request that you remove your name from cosponsorship of S.10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act. You state that the bill fundamentally reassesses the federal role in fighting juvenile crime. I object to your position regarding this bill from two vistas: 1. Even though I wish to be tough on crime (probably tougher than most) I object to the increasing federal presence in this arena. 2. The bill makes further incursions into infringement of the second amendment. We do not need more federal law to combat crime. We need rigorous enforcement of existing law. Recent federal legislation such as R.I.C.O., Property Seizure, and the Ex Post Facto provisions of the Lautenberg Act have set dangerous milestones in possible AND actual deprivation of liberty. If the Senate feels it must do something, figure out how to get tough with the judges and other criminal justice bleeding hearts. Define for them that the issue at stake in the criminal justice milieu is the vindication of the social covenant and NOT rehabilitation of criminals who have never been "habilitated" in the first place. We need to concentrate on the possible and forget the impossible. You agree that the bill has certain provisions that put new burdens on legitimate gun owners and that these burdens will be removed as the bill progresses through the legislative process. Forgive me a little wheeze that sounds like hooey. I would prefer that you remove your name from cosponsorship until at least these "burdens" are removed. I have been around for some years and do not trust the "legislative process" to protect my rights. This whole idea is almost and oxymoron. This concern should be clear when you consider the defacto gun tax, gun and gun owner registration that is now in place under the "Insta-Check" law. Please remove your name from the S.10 list. Again, thanks for your response. Cordially, Larry Ball - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' -Forwarded Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:47:34 -0700 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:46:29 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' Copyright # 1998 Nando.net Copyright # 1998 Reuters News Service PHILADELPHIA (June 6, 1998 11:44 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott struck out Saturday at those who would limit the right of Americans to bear arms, telling diners at the National Rifle Association annual banquet "you are the mainstream of America." "The rights of the American people are not negotiable," Lott said. "The Bill of Rights is a package deal...You don't get to pick and choose...you get the whole deal," the Mississippi Republican assured the several hundred NRA members who swapped their T-shirts for jacket and ties to the dinner. "You are the mainstream of America," he told the gathering, adding that those who doubted it "just reveal how far out of the mainstream they really are." Lott warned that if the NRA lets Washington gut the Second Amendment that guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms, "we might as well fold up the flag and meltdown the Liberty Bell." Earlier on Saturday, Academy Award winning actor Charlton Heston, who portrayed Moses in the classic "Ten Commandments," told the delegates that if elected president of the 3.5 million-member pro-gun group, he would lead it back "to the mainstream." Heston, who is expected to be inducted as president of the group on Monday, said that in the future he would only support pro-gun candidates. Then in remarks directed at President Bill Clinton, who successfully banned the manufacture and importation of several types of assault weapons, Heston said: "Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military and we don't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you with our guns." Most of the 50,000 NRA members attending the 127th national convention looked as though they had travelled in from Main Street, America. There were plenty of grandfatherly looking men with baseball caps and potbellies and families strolling the aisles of the exhibition hall at the Convention Centre in Philadelphia. It could almost be a county fair, except for the rows of guns, rifles, ammunition and accessories lining the walls. Adolescents lined up at rifle maker Winchester's booth to pay $2 to play "Total Recoil." The contestant holds an electronic rifle to shoot images of birds and animals. Their parents were busy looking over the new lines of rifles. At the nearby Colt booth, enthusiasts could heft various types of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols made by the company whose weapons are credited with winning the American West. "We're just a group of people who are willing to fight for our freedom. Freedom to own a firearms for the purpose that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution," explained Teddy Jones, 69, of Torrance, California, who was attending the convention with his wife of 22 years, Judith. Both are NRA members, as are their son and 6-year-old grandson. Judith Reuhl, 56, of Cincinnati, Ohio, waited outside the hall surrounded by packages as she waited for her husband, John, an NRA member. "I'm not a member, but I do shoot skeet with him. My son and my son-in-law and my brother-in-law are members," she said. One package contained information from the NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program for children. "I'm bringing that back for my six-and-a-half year old grandson, Alex. He's getting to that age," she added. By LESLIE GEVIRTZ, Reuters - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation -Forwarded Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:47:43 -0700 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:50:38 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation What an honor it is to address the Free Congress Foundation. At a glance "Free" reads as a verb rather than an adjective. "Free Congress." Not a bad directive for Mr. Clinton. Anyway. I like it when the party of Lincoln honors our free heritage. This nation has been blessed by the minds and mettle of many good people, and indeed Abe was among the best. A man of great moral character#a trait often lacking among our leaders. This is disturbing, but not without remedy. One good election can correct such ills. Above all, I hope those of us gathered here tonight have more in common with Mr. Lincoln than just party affiliation. Better than we grasp a common vision that simply wear the cloak. Even our President pretends to be a conservative when it suits him. We must be more than that. I know it#s not easy. Imagine being point man for the National Rifle Association, preserving the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve#as a moving target for pundits who#ve called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile and crazy old man." Maybe that comes with the territory. But as I have stood in the crosshairs of those who aim at Second Amendment freedom, I have realized that guns are not the only issue, and I am not the only target. It is much, much bigger than that # which is what I want to talk to you about today. I have come to realize that a cultural war raging across our land storming our values, assaulting our freedoms, killing our self-confidence in who we are a what we believe. How many of you own a gun? A show of hands maybe? How many own two or more guns? Thank you. I wonder how many of you own guns but chose not to raise your hand? How many of you considered revealing your conviction about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it? Then you are a victim of the cultural war.. You are a casualty of the cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don#t care one way or the other about owning a gun. But I could#ve asked for a show of hands of Pentecostal Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or school vouchers-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room with a film crew? See? You have been assaulted and robbed of the courage of your convictions. Your pride in who you are, and what you believe, has been ridiculed, ransacked and plundered. It may be a war without bullet or bloodshed, but with just as much liberty lost: You and your country are less free. And you are not inconsequential people! You in this room, whom many would say are among the most powerful people on earth, you are shamed into silence! Because you choose to own guns # affirmed by no less than the Bill of Rights. But you embrace a view at odds with the cultural warlords.. If that is the outcome of cultural war, and you are victims, I can only ask the gravely obvious question: What#ll become of the right itself? Or other rights not deemed acceptable by the thought police? What other truth in your heart will you disavow with your hand? I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So # what color star will the pin on gun owners# chests? How ill the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive. Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment of the NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the warfare that#s going on. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. After enough breakfast-table TV hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next Rikki Lake, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid shows, enough revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the TV anchor who cocks her head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or even worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or even worse NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse male working stiff, because not only don#t you count, you#re a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you hand them over, but your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something about your new America#and until you do, would you mind shutting up? That#s why you didn#t raise your hand. That#s how cultural war works. And you are losing. That#s what happens when a generation of media, educators, entertainers and politicians, led by a willing president, decide the America they were born into isn#t good enough any more. So they contrive to change it through the cultural warfare of class distinction. Ask the Romans if powerful nations have ever fallen as a result of cultural division. There are ruins around the world that were once the smug centers of small-minded, arrogant elitism. It appears that rather than evaporate in the flash of a split atom, we may succumb to a divided culture. Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in God#s almighty presence, I treasure both. The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old dead white guys who invented our country. Now some flinch when I say that. Why? It#s true#they were white guys. So were most of the guys that died in Lincoln#s name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures shaved heads and while hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I#ll tell you why: Cultural warfare. Now, Chuck Heston can get away with saying I#m proud of those wise old dead white guys because Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan know I fought in their cultural war. I was one of the first white soldiers in the civil rights movement, long before it was fashionable. In 1963 I marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King to uphold the Bill of Rights. As vice-president of the NRA I am doing the same thing. But you don#t see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this, do you? It#s not because there aren#t any. It#s because they can#t afford the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or ATF or NBC or even W-J-C. It spas the strength of our country when the personal price is simply too high to stand up for what you believe in. Today, speaking with the courage of your conviction can be so costly, the price of principle can be so high, that legislators won#t lead and citizens can#t follow, and so there is no army to fight back. That#s cultural warfare. For instance: It#s plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm. But if I stand up and say so, why is the media assault on me such a slashing, sinister brand of derision filled with hate? Because Bill Clinton#s cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That#s what is now literally underway in England and Australia. Line of submissive citizens, threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly surrendering family heirlooms, guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact does not unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the cultural war. You know that I stand first in line in defense for free speech. But those who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society. I#ve earned a fine and rewarding living in the motion picture industry, yet increasingly I find myself embarrassed by the dearth of conscience that drives the world#s most influential artform. And I am an example of what a lonely undertaking it can be. Nobody opposed the obscene rapper Ice-T until I stood at Time-Warner#s stockholders meeting and was ridiculed by its president for wanting to take the floor to read Ice-T#s lyrics. Since I held several hundred shares of stock he had no choice, though the media were barred. I read those lyrics to a stunned audience of average American people#shocked at lyrics that advocating killing cops, sexually abusing women, and raping the nieces of our Vice-President. The good guys won that time: Time-Warner fired Ice-T. The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives#also dear friends. I don#t despise their lifestyle, though I don#t share it. As long as gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It#s the right thing to do. On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton#s cultural shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers#and then claim it#s time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved. Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They#re about the currency of cultural war # money and votes # and the Clinton camp will let anyone in the tent if there#s a donkey on the hat, a check in the mail or some yen in the fortune cookie. Mainstream America is counting on you to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time and resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it is a divine duty for women to hat men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as a means of adolescent merchandizing, violence as a form of entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to lord-knows-what. We have reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it#s time to pull the plug. Americans should not have to go to war every morning for their values. They already go to war for their families. They fight to hold down a job, raise responsible kids, make their payments, keep gas in the car, put food on the table and clothes on their backs, and still save a little to live their final days in dignity. They prefer the America they built # where you could pray without feeling na#ve, love without being kinky, sing without profanity, be white without feeling guilty, own a gun without shame, and raise you hand without apology. They are the critical masses who find themselves under siege and long for you to get some guts, stand on principle and lead them to victory in this cultural war. Now if this all sounds a little Mosaic, the punchline of my sermon is as elementary as the Golden Rule: In a cultural war, triumph belongs to those who arm themselves with pride in who they are and then do the right thing. Not the most expedient thing, not what#ll sell, not the politically correct thing, but the right thing. And you know what? Everybody already knows what the right thing is. You, and I, and President Clinton, even Ice-T, we all know. It#s easy. You say wait a minute, you take a long look in the mirror, then into the eyes of your kids or grandkids, and you#ll know what#s right. Don#t run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you are and what you believe, and then raise you hand, stand up, and speak out. Don#t be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow, steady process. And it#s in your hands. Yes, we can have rules and still have rebels # that#s democracy. But as leaders you must do as Lincoln would do, confronted with the stench of cultural war: Do what#s right. As Mr. Lincoln said, "With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in#and then we shall save our country." Defeat the criminals and their apologists, oust the biased and bigoted, endure the undisciplined and unprincipled, but disavow the self-appointed social engineers whose relentless arrogance fuels this vicious war against so much we hold so dear. Do not yield, do not divide, do not call truce. Be fair, but fight back. It#s the same blueprint our founding fathers left to guide us. Our enemies see it as the senile prattle of an archaic society. I still honor it as the United States Constitution, and that timeless document we call the Bill of Rights. Freedom is our fortune and honor is our saving grace. Thank you. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Old Post, But A Harbinger of *DOOM*!!! Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- HOUSE TO STEP-UP ASSET FORFEITURE HR1965 --- a new asset-forfeiture bill --- has passed out of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and may be headed on the fast track through Congress. We have examined the bill, and it is a nasty piece of work. If you are in business, it allows the federal government to seize your inventory and assets on the flimsiest of evidence. Even if the original warrant is struck down by a court, the government would be given additional time for "discovery" to examine business records and build a case to continue holding the assets! This bill masquerades under the guise of providing "a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and other purposes." As with the IRS, it puts the burden of proof on the defendant, puts the burden of establishing what constitutes "excessive fines (8th Amendment) on the defendant, provides for seizure without a warrant by the Attorney General, Treasury (BATF), and Postal Service under a variety of conditions. It allows seized assets to go to crime victims --- and regulatory agencies. And it allows seizures by the Food and Drug Administration for violations of regulatory bureaucracy! Since agencies like the FDA write their own rules, almost anything you can think of can become a "violation of regulatory" standards. We suggest that you let others know about this --- and your elected representatives --- while there is still time. The bill runs about 25 pages and may be obtained from the congressional website. ### COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus, unless otherwise noted. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Stallone on Guns in America Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, fratrum@netside.com, garden@netside.com QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS MRC 6/12 The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal of the 2nd amendment. MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned stations and syndicated to other markets. Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think, urban warfare." Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there." "Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'" - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Stallone on Guns in America Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, fratrum@netside.com, garden@netside.com QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS MRC 6/12 The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal of the 2nd amendment. MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned stations and syndicated to other markets. Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think, urban warfare." Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there." "Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'" - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Oregon school yard shooting -Forwarded Date: 12 Jun 1998 19:27:56 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA05588; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005424; Fri Jun 12 20:47:06 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Purloined from another list; ------------------- >From: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" >Subject: Oregon family: "Gun Control!" ... "screw that" >Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:07:55 -0700 (PDT) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >Oregon family: "Gun Control!" ... "screw that" >by Sun Tzu's Newswire Staff >Sun Tzu's Newswire //STN98022// >San Diego -- June 10, 1998 9:58 AM Pacific Time >Apparently Handgun Control, Inc. and the Children of Hitler did not >win many converts following the school shootings by Kip Kinkel in >Oregon. News of this broke during the annual meeting of the U.S. >National Rifle Association in Philadelphia, where actor Charlton >Heston was elected president of the gun rights group. > >Washington Post reported on this development on Monday. > >The Post wrote; "There is no advertisement yet featuring >Jacob Ryker, the 17-year-old wrestler at Thurston High School in >Springfield, Ore., who was able to end the shooting rampage there >by tackling teenage gunman Kip Kinkel even though he had been >wounded in the chest and hand. But Ryker, his brother and parents, >who belong to the NRA, were featured guests here all weekend. > >"The media expected these torn-up parents to cry, 'Gun control!' but >screw that," said Rob Ryker, Jacob's father, a Navy deepsea diver. >"Whoever thinks this was a gun issue alone, they don't have the big >picture." > >Heston, similarly, pulled no punches in his first day as president. >Referring to the Second Amendment, he said, "Those wise old dead white >guys who invented this country knew what they were talking about." > >Of his loner status as a Hollywood gun enthusiast, he said: "I suspect >there are as many gun users in the Hollywood closet as there are >homosexuals."; the Washington Post reported. > >Hollywood insider Heston has made similar references while being heard >on the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show. He told guest host Tony Snow that >there are as many closet conservatives in Hollywood as there closet >homosexuals. > >The "Children of Hitler" refers to the lobby imitating Nazi dictator >Adolf Hitler whose government specifically outlawed firearms ownership >by Jews and Gypsies, and extended the prohibition to the people of all >occupied territories, including Germans not trusted by Nazi leaders. > >Reliable U.S. sources with military connections say it is too early to >tell if the Clinton administration will try to silence Rob Ryker, >because of his affiliation with the U.S. Navy. > >SOURCES: >(1) "New Voice Of the NRA Sounds Familiar" >By Dale Russakoff, Washington Post Staff Writer >Tuesday, June 9, 1998; Page A06 >=A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company >(2) Rush Limbaugh radio show >(3) "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny, 1992, Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman, >available from Amazon.com > >---- @ > >Sun Tzu's Newswire Online Index at URL: > http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn.htm > > Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. > A. J. Liebling, The Wayward Press - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Stallone on Guns in America Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, fratrum@netside.com, garden@netside.com QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS MRC 6/12 The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal of the 2nd amendment. MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned stations and syndicated to other markets. Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think, urban warfare." Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there." "Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'" - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "larry larsen" Subject: stalone Date: 14 Jun 1998 11:16:29 -0600 type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to: Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr. Orlando, FL 32835 USA Larry S. Larsen http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/ _=_____________________________! <|------==(______)-------- |____| |/////_____________45 ACP___|___| \ /|( )/ / /) ___| / o/ / / /o___/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "larry larsen" Subject: Fw: Stallone on Guns in America Date: 14 Jun 1998 11:17:07 -0600 -----Original Message----- |type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to: |Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr. Orlando, FL 32835 USA | |-----Original Message----- |From: SCOTT BERGESON |Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 12:05 AM |Subject: Stallone on Guns in America | | || ||---------- Forwarded message ---------- ||Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:05:04 -0700 ||From: Liberty or Death ||To: roc@xmission.com, ignition-point@pobox.com, || liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, fratrum@netside.com, garden@netside.com ||Subject: Stallone on Guns in America || ||QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS || ||MRC ||6/12 || ||The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate ||every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor ||Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo ||films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal ||of the 2nd amendment. || ||MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a ||June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned ||stations and syndicated to other markets. || ||Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the ||time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this ||is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think, ||urban warfare." || ||Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London ||a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, ||this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. ||It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there." || ||"Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have ||in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview ||with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It ||has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain ||dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets ||are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the ||rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'" || ||- Monte || || -------------------------------------------------------------------- || "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." || - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" || -------------------------------------------------------------------- || || || ||- || || | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "larry larsen" Subject: Fw: SLC/Ogden gun shows Date: 14 Jun 1998 22:20:59 -0600 can't some of you northerners help this fellow? larry -----Original Message----- |OK, Thanks anyway. |Rick | |> ---------- |> From: larry larsen[SMTP:larsenl@infowest.com] |> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:14 PM |> To: 4414 ACS/B |> Subject: Re: SLC/Ogden gun shows |> |> Rick, |> Sorry I can't help you very much, I live in St. George, and am not up |> on the |> SLC gun shows. But I forwarded your message and they can tell you |> about it. |> Larry |> -----Original Message----- |> From: 4414 ACS/B <4414ACS.B@salem.aorcentaf.af.mil> |> To: 'larsenl@infowest.com' |> Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 5:17 AM |> Subject: SLC/Ogden gun shows |> |> |> |Mr. Larsen: |> | |> |Hello. I'm writing you from overseas. I'm active duty USAF and reside |> in |> |Layton. I'll return to Utah around 4 July. Can you tell me if there |> are |> |any upcoming gunshows in the SLC/Ogden areas (Jul-Aug timeframe)? I |> |have no other access to this info. I ask for two reasons: |> | |> |1) I'm looking to purchase a Glock, and |> |2) I'm looking to take the CCP class which I know is offered at some |> gun |> |shows. |> | |> |Would you happen to be the same person? |> | |> |Thanks, |> | |> |Rick Charles |> | |> |rockonyc@yahoo.com |> |(801) 774-6216 |> | |> | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: stalone -Forwarded Date: 15 Jun 1998 13:53:45 -0700 Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0ylGME-0002XF-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:18 -0600 Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0ylGMB-0002Wl-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:15 -0600 Received: from (infowest.com) [204.17.177.10] by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylGMA-0001HE-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:14 -0600 Received: from default (dialup1-02.infowest.net [207.49.61.5]) by infowest.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28078 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:13:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <01bd97b8$2b7b00e0$883d31cf@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to: Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr. Orlando, FL 32835 USA Larry S. Larsen http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/ _=_____________________________! <|------==(______)-------- |____| |/////_____________45 ACP___|___| \ /|( )/ / /) ___| / o/ / / /o___/ - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: Fw: NRA - House Judiciary comm. June 10] -Forwarded Date: 15 Jun 1998 15:35:25 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 06:17:32 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA04327; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma004233; Mon Jun 15 08:13:56 1998 Message-Id: <358503C1.40786565@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from unlinfo3.unl.edu (unlinfo3.unl.edu [129.93.1.18]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08185 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:26:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from THE-SPA.COM (ipad2.the-spa.com [204.97.227.3]) by unlinfo3.unl.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA15624 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:18:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CRL.crl.com ([168.75.122.5]) by THE-SPA.COM with SMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 5706700 ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:31:06 EST X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19980614191215.29a7b000@intrcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by falcon.inetnebr.com id GAA15658 We need letters to Congress on this. TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON H.R. 3949 THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998"=20 HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME JUNE 11, 1998=20 Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting=20 me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by=20 the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.=20 I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle=20 Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all=20 levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal=20 experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our=20 members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear=20 about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks=20 conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system.=20 They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less=20 than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by=20 law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it=20 will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for=20 state conservation programs.=20 Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the=20 drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check=20 system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for=20 background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis=20 that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who=20 attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a=20 public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language=20 authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever=20 tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee.=20 Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the=20 Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment-=20 or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal=20 Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National=20 Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers=20 to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that=20 wasn't passed until two years later.=20 The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At=20 the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working=20 Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must=20 hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most=20 vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense=20 -- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to=20 the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun.=20 Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the=20 overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds=20 collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun=20 owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and=20 game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well=20 suffer from the imposition of this new tax.=20 Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and=20 jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority=20 to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the=20 imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged=20 today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI=20 has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected=20 -- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI=20 is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S.=20 Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it=20 should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes=20 from American gun owners.=20 As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have=20 brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter,=20 it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the=20 instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check=20 will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by=20 pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths.=20 The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a=20 firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership --=20 that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still=20 owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and=20 of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for=20 customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the=20 work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a=20 defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local=20 gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of=20 the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get=20 back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds=20 insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this=20 situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the=20 subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution.=20 I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's=20 bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks.=20 As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee=20 during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members=20 of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun=20 owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now.=20 For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a=20 firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all=20 records of the system with respect to the call (other than the=20 identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records=20 of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC =A7922(t)(2).=20 The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It=20 doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with=20 the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records.=20 This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the=20 Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no=20 "rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be=20 maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such=20 records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or=20 controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof,=20 nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or=20 firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308,=20 May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456.=20 Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act=20 itself, which specifies that: "No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may -=20 "(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system=20 established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a=20 facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State=20 or political subdivision thereof; or=20 "(2) use the system established under this section to establish any=20 system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm=20 transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited=20 by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law,=20 from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat.=20 1542 (Nov. 30, 1993).=20 We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their=20 proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions,=20 since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records=20 in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of=20 registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves.=20 The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous=20 step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second=20 Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun=20 owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by=20 the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail=20 policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know=20 it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as=20 'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles=20 Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement.=20 Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a=20 situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was=20 South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law=20 enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.=20 Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably=20 toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun=20 politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for=20 example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle=20 registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous=20 weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners=20 of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in=20 those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a=20 gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by=20 voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is=20 anathema to liberty.=20 Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years,=20 based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen=20 criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the=20 privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent=20 provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's=20 plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and=20 unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create an=20 intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely=20 strained our support.=20 In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief=20 Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to=20 destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power=20 to confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI=20 from violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those=20 areas and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was=20 intended. [Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it=20 represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in=20 the current and preceding two fiscal years.]=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/14/98 Time: 20:24:06 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: So much Due Process Date: 15 Jun 1998 20:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- L & J , David Rydel , Boris Tiraspols Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing. Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S. Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally selected yes men, or should I say henchmen? The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where it belongs? What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what they have been doing now for many years. Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835 as soon as possible. Mark Smith __________________________________________________________________ U.S. Department of Justice [U.S. DoJ Seal] (313) 226-9501 United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 May 15, 1998 Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer: At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal, state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill (H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary Committee approved last summer. This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects. We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and local law enforcement. The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair. You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835. Sincerely, SAUL A. GREEN United States Attorney - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: "Crank Up the Enola Gay" -Forwarded Date: 16 Jun 1998 08:39:27 -0700 Duke, [...] " . . . Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, the brutalization of prisoners (a lesson well-learned by the Vietnamese, but I digress)... [...] In every enterprise, no matter the size, it is the leadership which sets the pace, the theme, the modus operandi, the limits of acceptability: the code of conduct. Let us not fault another for his or her ability to learn and produce something better than we, let us learn from out mistakes - and theirs - and step forward with the confidence that we can still do what needs to be done better than before. It is imperative that we understand where that mindset of the Japanese comes from and in doing so, we will also understand what drives them to be the way they are. Merely poking insults at them may appease our own puerile desires to effect some sort of temporary psychological relief, but we achieve nothing by it. Remember here, that the Japanese citizen is subject to the same brand of idiotic and socialistic mind control as we Americans, only their's is much more pervasive. Our cultures are so far divided, that we can not hope to effect a change within their system in a reasonable period of time to show them that liberty is a concept which knows no parallel to that of their own. Allow me this: If we gunnies know that by reaching out to our non-gunnies and showing them that being one isn't a bad thing - and can in fact be a _good_ thing - then let's do it likewise with those foreign peoples. Heck, who knows, maybe one of them will inspire a whole culture to change! ET . . . . Convinced that the republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind, my prayers and efforts shall be cordially distributed to the support of that we have so happily established. . . Thomas Jefferson Now, if only we could reclaim our republic . . . ET Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:28:56 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA18612; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma018427; Sun Jun 14 21:25:54 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Duke, [...] " . . . Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, the brutalization of prisoners (a lesson well-learned by the Vietnamese, but I digress)... [...] In every enterprise, no matter the size, it is the leadership which sets the pace, the theme, the modus operandi, the limits of acceptability: the code of conduct. While the very essence of the acts perpetrated upon the Chinese peoples in the last great war was in fact a signature of the mindset of those who conducted that war, what happened at Nanjing was perhaps minor in its extent when considering the other travesties conducted against man by man, in still other epochs. In that matter of who would be building what and where, I hasten to remind the writer that while we Americans had the edge from approximately the middle of WWII to its end, it was indeed the greedy capitalists who decised to dump the edge in the name of more and more money in the form of market share. Nothing against capitalism here, just that when money is the only motive, it usually results in a mindset that is the equivalent of rapacious avarice. I don't need to run the gamut of history which immediately proceded WWII to provide you with the painful examples of what happened to U.S. industry. The single most important factor which inspired the Japanese was the thinking of a U.S. citizen in the name of Edward Demming. Demming tried his darndest to get U.S. industry, especially the automotive portion to adopt his statistical process control. But it seems that what worked darned well during the war wasn't on the minds of the greedy bastards who were the captains of industry. If you could make it cheap - not inexpensive, but cheap - enough to sell anywhere and reap a large profit, then that is exactly what happened. Oh, and don't forget, the only other major player who was able to produce a significant product immediately following WWII was Australia, since its industry wasn't destroyed by the war. But compared to the output of the U.S., it was insignificant. Let us not fault another for his or her ability to learn and produce something better than we, let us learn from out mistakes - and theirs - and step forward with the confidence that we can still do what needs to be done better than before. It is imperative that we understand where that mindset of the Japanese comes from and in doing so, we will also understand what drives them to be the way they are. Merely poking insults at them may appease our own puerile desires to effect some sort of temporary psychological relief, but we achieve nothing by it. Remember here, that the Japanese citizen is subject to the same brand of idiotic and socialistic mind control as we Americans, only their's is much more pervasive. Our cultures are so far divided, that we can not hope to effect a change within their system in a reasonable period of time to show them that liberty is a concept which knows no parallel to that of their own. Allow me this: If we gunnies know that by reaching out to our non-gunnies and showing them that being one isn't a bad thing - and can in fact be a _good_ thing - then let's do it likewise with those foreign peoples. Heck, who knows, maybe one of them will inspire a whole culture to change! ET . . . . Convinced that the republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind, my prayers and efforts shall be cordially distributed to the support of that we have so happily established. . . Thomas Jefferson Now, if only we could reclaim our republic . . . ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Clinton Wants Brady Extended Date: 16 Jun 1998 08:47:59 -0700 Clinton Wants Brady Bill Extended .c The Associated Press By JIM ABRAMS WASHINGTON (AP) - The administration hopes to extend the Brady Act five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, which is due to expire in November, a senior White House official said Sunday. ``We think that's a priority because it has worked effectively,'' presidential adviser Rahm Emanuel said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' The 1993 Brady Act set up the waiting period and required the establishment of a national system to perform instant checks on would-be gun buyers. Under the act, the nationwide instant check system replaces the waiting period on Nov. 30 this year. The waiting period is designed to weed out convicted felons and others who are barred from buying guns. It gives local law enforcement agencies time to check criminal records before a gun permit is issued. Backers say the waiting period can also head off crimes of passion by imposing a cooling off period on legal gun buyers. ``There is good common sense to the five-day cooling-off period,'' Emanuel said. Twenty percent of guns used in murders are bought within the week of the murder and ``we think the cooling off period is very, very important'' in stopping crimes of passion, he said. In 1996, police checked the backgrounds of 2.6 million would-be handgun buyers, with 70,000 sales blocked because of felony records and other reasons. The new instant check system will use a network of computers administered by the FBI to give on-the-spot approval to legal gun buyers and flag unauthorized buyers. A gun dealer will be notified within three days whether to reject any flagged sale or go ahead with it. Tanya Metaksa, the main lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said similar instant check systems are superior to waiting periods and are already working in 19 states. ``Nobody to date has even suggested that we go and keep the five-day wait,'' she said in an interview. While supporting the instant background checks, the NRA is pushing legislation to stop the FBI from imposing a gun tax to pay for the reviews. ``They plan also to charge like $30,'' NRA association president Charlton Heston said on NBC. ``I don't approve of that.'' Attorney General Janet Reno last week urged states to administer the background checks, using the FBI system, rather than relying on FBI manpower. The Justice Department said the FBI plans to charge $13 to $16 per background check to states that don't do their own. Reno said the check system, designed to handle up to 15,000 requests an hour, is on track to go nationwide in November. Emanuel said the administration's top gun control goal this year is congressional passage of laws requiring child safety locks on all handguns and extension of the Brady Act to juveniles. Emanuel said the White House is also looking at legislation making parents responsible for gun crimes committed by their children. AP-NY-06-14-98 1344EDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Resource from the anti-gunners (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 16 Jun 1998 12:46:45 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id AAA14805; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma014677; Sun Jun 14 00:44:04 1998 Message-Id: <9806140434.0lub@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Jun 13, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Courtesy of Join-Together, we hear that--- "To assist you in your efforts, we have prepared this Sample Law section outlining a handful of gun laws which are commonly introduced at the state level. These laws are intended to provide you with sample legislation that has been successfully enacted in various states. " They also mention a brochure: Addressing Gun Violence Through Local Ordinances: A Legal Resource Manual for California Cities and Counties - this from the Legal Community Against Violence in SF, CA. It might be worthwhile to browse through some of the info there and use it to be go ahead and get ready to block any of these proposals if/when they are introduced in your area. Sorry I don't have a better URL, but they use frames at JTO, so go to http://www1.jointogether.org/gv/ , and get to the Strategy |Public Policy section. ______________________________________ Bob Mueller Second Amendment Research Network - http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html D, 6/52 ADA Alumni Association Commander http://www.gather.com/d652ada/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "larry larsen" Subject: Fw: Rambo the hypocrite Date: 16 Jun 1998 21:06:48 -0600 Got this from another mailing list. larry -----Original Message----- |Dear Gentlepeople, | |I find it rather ironic that Mr. Stallone would like to confiscate |firearms back in the US. If one would run him in the state of California, |he would come back with dozens and dozens of firearms under his name. |Point of fact, he has a CCW and would always carry concealed. I know this |for a fact because I have stopped him twice (vehicle stops) and been |involved in the countless calls when his bodyguards would beat the shit |out of someone when his ex, Brigdette, would start fights. Stallone would |always appear and would tell the handling unit, out of courtesy, he was |carrying. Of course his bodyguards, all off duty or ex cops, would also |be carrying. | |Once again the elite and privileged mandate their hypocrisies on the |masses. | |Regards, |Sean Collinsworth |www.voirdire.com | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "larry larsen" Subject: more stallone Date: 16 Jun 1998 21:09:08 -0600 . Interestingly, Stallone could not get a concealed carry in L. A. County. So when ever he was filming in some Podunc county in CA, he would show up, give a photo of himself to the local chief of police and get another CCW for a different gun (one gun, one CWW). Larry S. Larsen http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/ _=_____________________________! <|------==(______)-------- |____| |/////_____________45 ACP___|___| \ /|( )/ / /) ___| / o/ / / /o___/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [American Spirit] Date: 17 Jun 1998 11:38:16 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- A Frenchman, an Englishman, and a New Yorker were captured by a fierce Amazon tribe. The chief comes to them and says, "The bad news is that now that we've caught you, we're going to kill you, and then use your skins to build a canoe. The good news is that you get to choose how you die." The Frenchman says, "I take 'ze poison." The chief gives him some poison, the Frenchman says, "Vive la France!" and drinks it down. The Englishman says, "A pistol for me, please." The chief gives him a pistol, he points it at his head says, "God save the queen!" and blows his brains out. The New Yorker says, "Gimme a fork." The chief is puzzled, but he shrugs and gives him a fork. The New Yorker takes the fork and starts jabbing himself all over the stomach, the sides, the chest, everywhere. There's blood gushing out all over, it's horrible. The chief is appalled, and screams, "What are you doing???" The New Yorker looks at the chief and says, "So much for your canoe, you savage!" ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: WW on unjust laws Date: 17 Jun 1998 11:41:12 -0600 From Today's Deseret News. Some lawmakers don't understand or respect meaning of Constitution Last updated 06/17/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT By Walter Williams What's the standard battle cry and promise of the Republican Party? We've heard it: tax cuts, federalism and limited government. I'd really appreciate it if a Republican representative or senator could tell me under which of those categories Sen. John McCain's so-called tobacco bill falls. If passed, the measure would add about a dollar to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, forcing smokers to pay an estimated $516 billion more in federal taxes over a 25-year period and increasing federal power over our lives. Some Republican congressmen don't even understand or respect the meaning, purpose and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Then, there are naives who think that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause covers their activities. James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, warned: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." The "detail of powers" to which Madison refers is the Constitution's Article I, Section 8. There are other Republicans who fully understand the limit of powers granted Congress by the Constitution but are afraid to voice it out of fear they will be misunderstood and labeled as big-tobacco supporters and anti-children. Their fear may be justified. Whether it's primary school, secondary school or college, very little is taught about the Constitution's meaning and spirit. Most Americans think that Congress has constitutional authority to do anything that's "wonderful" and sanctioned by a majority. Little do we realize that our constitutional ignorance has allowed us to fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers. Today's Congress and White House have no more moral legitimacy than King George III and the British Parliament had in the 18th century. They should be held in the same contempt our founders held for King George and his Parliament. Oppressive taxation by the British Parliament such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Act and regulatory oppression through the Trade and Navigation acts energized the founders. Leading Americans, including signers of the Declaration of Independence like John Hancock, either engaged in smuggling or supported it to avoid oppressive taxation and regulation. Their open defiance led to Britain's Parliament passing the so-called Coercive Act (1774) and Restraining Act (1775) that led to our founders saying they had enough — hence the Declaration of Independence. We should have the courage of our founders and let Congress know that we have a Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have shed their blood to defend it against foreign destruction; we should be just as willing to defend it against domestic aggression. We are far short of the point where we need to take up arms, but we have reached the point where we shouldn't sheepishly obey the illegitimate acts of Congress. "So what are you saying, Williams?" you ask. I'm saying that if a Republican Congress legislates oppressive taxes on cigarettes, we should adopt our founders' responses to Britain's oppressive acts. You say, "Williams, smuggling is against the law." I say not every law is deserving of obedience. History shows that considerable human suffering and government oppression could have been avoided simply by citizens asking whether a law is just before they obey it. Before I would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, Oriental Exclusion Act, apartheid laws, anti-miscegenation laws and alcohol prohibition, I would have asked: Is the law moral? Creators Syndicate Inc. -- 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. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: So much Due Process Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- L & J , David Rydel , Boris Tiraspols Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing. Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S. Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally selected yes men, or should I say henchmen? The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where it belongs. What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what they have been doing now for many years. Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835 as soon as possible. Mark Smith __________________________________________________________________ U.S. Department of Justice [U.S. DoJ Seal] (313) 226-9501 United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 May 15, 1998 Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer: At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal, state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill (H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary Committee approved last summer. This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects. We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and local law enforcement. The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair. You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835. Sincerely, SAUL A. GREEN United States Attorney - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Action Requested.... 1/2 Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- We need letters to Congress on this. TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON H.R. 3949 THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998" HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME JUNE 11, 1998 Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr. I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system. They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for state conservation programs. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee. Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment- or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that wasn't passed until two years later. The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense -- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun. Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well suffer from the imposition of this new tax. Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected -- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S. Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes from American gun owners. As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter, it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths. The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership -- that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Action Requested.... 2/2 Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks. As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now. For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC §922(t)(2). The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records. This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no "rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456. Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act itself, which specifies that: "No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may - "(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or "(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law, from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat. 1542 (Nov. 30, 1993). We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions, since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves. The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as 'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement. Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns. Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is anathema to liberty. Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years, based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create an intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely strained our support. In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power to confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI from violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those areas and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was intended. [Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in the current and preceding two fiscal years.] =============================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/14/98 Time: 20:24:06 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 1/3 Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Text & Letter from Constitution Society Jon Roland to Congressman Letter from Jon Roland of Constitution Society-- Executive Order a Threat to Federalism by Jon Roland Mon, 8 Jun Dear Congressman: This concerns three matters that require urgent action by Congress. The first is an Executive Order signed by President Clinton in Birmingham, UK, on May 14, 1998, entitled "Federalism", which is attached. It was posted on the White House Web site without a number, but other sources indicate its number is 13083. To the lay reader its provisions seem harmless. It makes ritual recognitions of the principles of federalism and compliance with the Constitution, but then, in Sec. 3(d), asserts elements which are not what they seem. I urge you to initiate rescission of this Executive Order within the 30-day period provided by statute. One of the problems with the language of many statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, and executive orders is the opening they provide for bureaucrats determined to twist such language to expand federal power into areas not authorized by the Constitution or intended by the authors. It is the duty of Congress to be alert to the ways such language can be abused to subvert the Constitution and, in this case, the principles of federalism. Upon careful analysis of the language of this executive order, I have concluded that it will be used by the federal executive branch to assert administrative control over the day-to-day operations of every function of state and local government, by intimidating state and local officials into clearing almost every decision they make with federal bureaucrats and agents. My investigations have revealed the operation of a long-term program by elements of the federal government to infiltrate and control state and local government. This program involves the placement into key positions of persons who take their orders not from their nominal superiors, but from federal agencies. This is being done with state and local law enforcement agencies, state and local prosecutor's offices and courts, legislative staffs, and executive agencies of all kinds. The aim appears to be to gain de facto control of state and local government, and is being used to block action against high-level wrongdoing, especially by federal agencies. Its apparent aim is nothing less than to reduce state and local government to divisions of the federal executive branch. I further urge Congress to launch a general review of all executive orders, and the recission of all those which assert powers not in compliance with constitutional law. The second matter concerns information I have received that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be in violation of statute concerning the maintenance of data on firearm purchases. The name and full ID of every retail gun buyer in the country will be recorded by the FBI, starting Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000, when they become mandatory. A tax of up to $16 will apply to every purchase, unless a state's police cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is waived); 19 states are cooperating as of this date. The FBI may lower its tax, working in concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid acceptance of registration. The official public comment period has ended. FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from enforcement) claim they have to do all this for security or audit purposes, pursuant to the instant check provisions of the Brady Act. None of these claims are compatible with statute. Gun owners will be kept online for at least two years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year revolving online registry will include between eight and fourteen million people -- all the most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and quasi-permanent backups are planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada in June, if the interface specs are on time. Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer act, which unequivocally prohibits recording this information in a government facility. The FBI is simply ignoring it, claiming it doesn't apply. Saving instant-check data is contrary to the Brady Act, which provides that if the sale goes through the records shall be destroyed. The only data which might be properly stored, pursuant to the instant check provisions of the Brady Act, would be a record of persons whose rights to keep and bear arms have been disabled or restricted, in whole or in part, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. I urge you to initiate action to terminate all such illegal actions by the FBI or any other agency or private organization acting as a contractor of the federal government. I further urge a third measure, legislation prohibiting the use of social security numbers for any other purpose than the collection of income taxes and the payment of refunds and social security benefits. There is an ongoing effort by the federal government to gain control over the daily lives and right to work of every person, by creating a national identification system based on the social security number. This is a power that is already being abused to suppress critics of governmental abuses. It is a power that the national government must not be allowed to exercise under any pretext. Jon Roland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 2/3 Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Birmingham, England) For Immediate Release May 14, 1998 EXECUTIVE ORDER [13083] - - - - - - - FEDERALISM By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States. (b) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States. (c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5). Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles: (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances. (b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the Constitution. (c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power of the States. (d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. (e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. (f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems. (g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility of -- and should encourage opportunities for -- States, local governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative effort. Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications: (a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. (b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments only after determining that there is constitutional and legal authority for the action. (c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion. (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 3/3 Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700 Sec. 4. Consultation. (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of State and local governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. (b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, unless: (1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or local government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or (2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation, (A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with representatives of affected States and local governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and (B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by States or local governments. Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers. (a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes. (b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate. (c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor. (d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency. Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order. Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and OMB Circular A-19. (c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order 12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked. (d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of this order shall complement the Executive order entitled, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," being issued on this day. (e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gird Up Thy Loins Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:55:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hearthside, June 17, Gird Up Thy Loins! God said, "Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. (Job 38:3 Webster's) With the usual "hurry up!s" and "would you please!s" we finally left late for our Sunday morning breakfast on the way to church. It is the single time in the week when we do not sit together for meals, and every one of us look forward to it. The kids sit by themselves at the lunch counter. Helen and I sit alone in a booth. We say two graces. There was little time to scan the paper, but a quick glance at the political cartoon in the op/ed section caught my eye. It was big. The captain read, "Phrases you would not know if there were no guns in America." It depicted a man standing in front of the liberty bell, with names and phrases behind and around him: "Grassy knoll." "John David Hinckley." "Sirhan Sirhan." "Ruby Ridge." "Waco." You can guess the cartoonist's perspective. The guns that rang out at Waco rang against the infants and children at that farm by a tyrant gone mad. Many of those children had not yet learned to say "gun," and few of them knew what it meant to "gird up your loins" for battle... but we who survive may learn. Some other phrases that would be suppressed if there were no guns in America: "Freedom." "Liberty." "Independence." "Security." "Survival." "Food." "Concord and Lexington." Guns never made America free, of course. Concord and Lexington; inseparable in the minds of free men, and inseparable from free men's minds: "It was the act more than the action. It meant resistance; it meant war and not peace -- independence, not submission. The minute-men at Lexington had stood in silent protest; they dispersed when once they had asserted their rights even in the face of death. The minute-men at Concord gave back blow for blow; their guns were the first declaration of independence. A skirmish? Yes. But a skirmish that was indeed a battle, more eventful in the history of the world, so Bancroft asserts, than were Agincourt and Blenheim." (Eldridge Brooks, _The Century Book of the American Revolution_, 1897) It is not the guns that made America free. Concord and Lexington themselves went well for freedom, but it was not enough. Some may discover it is never enough. It was that long march home... When the 20 minute conflict in Concord was over, the British soldiers who had come to "just follow orders" and suppress liberty by seizing guns were "attacked in flank by the men of Concord and the neighboring towns and driven under a hot fire to Charlestown." (from a monument at Old North Bridge.) None hotter! By the time they got back to Lexington, those men who made their silent protest were no longer silent. At Fiske's Hill, they sent the tyrant's soldiers running. It seemed to "rain rebels" for the remainder of the day, according to one British soldier, and it opened a 7 year fight. For freedom. "Well, all would not die. There were men good as new -- From Rumford, from Saugus, from towns far away, -- Who filled quick and well, for each soldier that fell, And we drove them and drove them and drove them all day, We knew, every one, it was war that begun, When that morning's march was only half done. (Edward Everett Hale, from "Story of Massachusetts") Guns never made America free. Free men made America free. Thank God, however, that free men have guns. They always will. It is part of being free. "Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them." (Jeremiah 1:17 Webster's) "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. "(Luke 22:36) Gird up your loins. Dave and Helen Delany --- "Liberty Begins at Hearthside" Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 http://www.hancock.net/~freedom * * * * * Free! ><> To Subscribe (or unsubscribe) Send request to hearth@hancock.net and ask about Hearth Tabs: regular doses of historical perspective! Free! Freedom implies slavery's existence, and freedom ain't free! Without wax, HHW><> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: UPS & Theft Date: 18 Jun 1998 08:22:22 -0700 I received this in the mail. It contains pointers concerning the shipment of firearms. I considered the information appropriate to post to the list. Regards, Dennis Baron Forwarded Mail >>As a gun owner and an 11-year UPS driver, I get alot of questions from people regarding the safest way to ship and insure firearms through UPS. Theft of firearms and other items by UPS employees, though rare, unfortunately does occur but there are a lot of surpisingly simple and inexpensive ways to virtually gurantee that you wont be a victim. Please pass this information along to anyone who may benefit from it. There are 2 ways that things get stolen from UPS...pilfering and overlabeling. Pilferers are mostly thieves of opportunity. Handguns, jewelry, cameras and prescription narcotics are their favorite targets because they are easily identifiable and can quickly be shoved into a pocket or inside of a shirt due to the SMALL SIZE of the packages they come in. The red and black "adult signiature required" (ASR) labels that are legally required to be on these package are often a dead giveaway.They are also called "steal me stickers" by thieves. Since most UPS facilities are fenced in and require employees belongings to be searched upon exiting, the size of the item is critical. The BEST way to protect your handgun is to simply put it in a big box. One gunsmith on my route "disguises" his handguns by putting them in used Amway boxes!! This works VERY well. Look at the box you are shipping your handgun in...if you can stick it inside your pants or under your shirt easily, it is vulnerable. As far as the ASR labels go, you are required by law to have them on firearms shipments. What many customers dont know, however, is that they can get a more "discreet" ASR label that is incorporated into the UPS tracking label. These are better because the words "adult signiature required" are very small and unnoticeable. More importantly, this barcode will electronically "prompt" the driver at the other end to get a signiature...if he accidentally tries to "release" the package on the customers porch without getting a signiature he will be unable to do so since the DIAD (that electronic clipboard that you sign) will read the barcode and will force him to get a signiature in order to complete the delivery. You can order these special tracking labels through your Customer Service rep, or you can print them yourself with the UPS shipping software. Another more sophisticated method of theft is "overlabeling". This involves several conspirators who plan ahead and may get jobs at UPS for that very purpose. What they do is to print up a bunch of fake labels, with generic barcodes and phony return addresses, that are all addressed to a storage unit or apartment that they have rented in advance. One or more employees who are sorting and processing these packages will then slap the phony label over the authentic one, and the package will then proceed along its merry way to the "destination" where an unsuspecting driver will deliver it to another accomplice who signs for it using a fake name. This will go on for a week or so until the thieves move on to another address to avoid suspicion. Since the original barcode is covered up, it is impossible to even trace these packages and they simply "vanish". The theives who do this will also target handguns and jewelry, but since they arent trying to sneak it past a guard they have the freedom to target larger packages such as rifles, TV's and computers. How do you avoid this? Its simple...put an address label on ALL 6 sides of the box. A package so labeled will be passed up by a prospective thief, since he must now try to cover up 6 labels instead of only one. This is too risky, since the areas where these packages are sorted are often under electronic surveillance. If you are a gunsmith or store owner who ships UPS, and the package you are shipping is worth over $1000, then inform the driver who picks it up and have him initial the pickup record. These "high value" packages are audited,segregated from other packages, they are not sorted or run over conveyor belts, and they are subject to a chain-of-custody type procedure that will prevent their being stolen. I feel 100% safe in saying that a handgun that is shipped in a larger- than-normal box of good quality, with a discreet ASR barcode and address labels on all 6 sides, will NEVER get stolen or lost. Its an unfortunate that a few of the 16 million pieces a day that we ship are in danger of being stolen, but if you take these simple precautions you wont be a victim. << - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: COLT CAUGHT RED HANDED Date: 18 Jun 1998 10:18:29 -0700 Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Richard Miller -Chairman P.O Box 345 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Phone: 908-889-6468 OR 732-946-3908 ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*** June 17, 1998 COLT'S CAUGHT RED HANDED DONATING TO CHARLES SCHUMER'S CAMPAIGN FUND At the National Rifle Association annual meeting the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS) distributed a flyer which lambasted Colt's Manufacturing for it's "anti gun" lobbying activities. CNJS leaders were approached by outraged Colt's sales personnel who claimed we were not accurate and they were attacked unfairly. CNJS Legislative Committee Chairman, Alan Rice received a telephone call from Colt's lobbyist, Beth Lavach who complained loudly about the flyer. Ms. Lavach asserted that Colt's is not anti gun and supports individual rights. It seems that our target, Colt's President Ron Stewart was correct, based upon his remarks on ABC News Nightline and as published in American Firearms Industry Magazine. We can only surmise that Colt's employees were upset because we published the truth! If our first publication about the truth behind Colt's upset their salesmen, they will be very upset when they learn that CNJS researchers have discovered that the owner of Colt's, investment bank Zilkha and Company and one of it's principals, Donald Zilkha have donated at least $1500.00 to the notorious gun prohibitionist and criminals best friend, Congressman Charles Schumer. CNJS researchers have also learned the Mr. Zilkha has donated at least $10,000.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the committee which provides funding to candidates like Senators Frank Lautenberg, Daniel Moynihan, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy! This is an outrage! * Mr. Zilkha and Charles Schumer are both hypocrites, Congressman Schumer wants to ban all guns and has introduced legislation to do so; Mr. Zilkha's company owns a firearms manufacturer. His company's civilian products would be outlawed if Mr. Schumer has his way. Anyone who has purchased a Colt's product in the last few years has helped Congressman Charles Schumer! Firearms owners across America should know that Mr. Zilkha resides in New York City, Charles Schumer's home town! We can only assume that his goal is to ruin America by making it as gun free as New York City. In New York City self defense against predatory criminals is impossible. We are reliably informed that Colt's is spending huge sums to develope and market a so called "smart gun". This gun will not fire unless a special bracelt is worn. Self defense will be impossible without the special bracelet! The actions of Colt's officials are detrimental to American style freedoms and liberties! Firearms owners should beware, in our previous flyer we urged a boycott of Colt's, our call for a boycott has taken on a new sense of urgency. Colt should also be called; at their expense, 1-800-962-2658, express your outrage and anger that a firearms company and it's principals would donate to these notorious gun prohibitionists. On Federal Election reports Mr. Zilkha lists his employer as Colt's Manufacturing. * SOURCE: Federal Election Commission Reports as collated by the Center for Responsive Politics. -------------------------- GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Interesting Advice Date: 18 Jun 1998 10:31:08 -0700 larry ball writes: >>I do not see my effort as destructive. I see what the NRA is doing as destructive. Something has to change. Can't you see this?<< OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER. The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want. I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life and politics outside your own sphere of operation. I agree totally with your "Rights" concept as it applies to rights in general and gun ownership in particular. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American voters, and a goodly number of gun owners have no idea of the concepts you are proposing. To use the gun issue as a vehicle to promote the "inalienable right" concept at this time, is, IMO, suicidal to our cause. You've got the cart before the horse. It is similar to asking people who cannot do simple arithmetic, to accept the concepts of solid geometry. When they don't understand, don't teach them arithmetic, keep pushing the specialized concepts. While you attempting to undo decades of liberal indoctrination, the gun grabbers are laughing at us, and using emotion and practical political methods to fulfill their agenda. Here you are in 1998, attempting to compel your "rights agenda" on a population that has been inculcated with just the opposite, from almost all quarters, for the last 100 years, and you are using the gun issue to do so. And you'll start by demanding that the NRA follow your lead. The NRA is NOT working to convince YOU of anything. They are dealing with a public that cannot differentiate between an auto and a semi-auto rifle, a press that reinforces the public#s misconceptions, and politicians that depend on that public for their votes. The "N" in NRA stands for National; not Nebraska, not Neal, and not New York City. One of Charlton Hestons original intentions was to use the NRA stage as a mechanism to educate children on the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Dammit, Larry some history books used in schools today, actually state the 2nd Amendment applies only to state militias. Most newspaper editorial boards promote the same thing. To use your concepts, as a inviolable dogma for political activism against gun controllers, and expect an essentially ignorant public to support that is unrealistic. You will be branded a lunatic and a 'right wing nut' and relegated to the dungeons of ineffectiveness and rabble rousing. It is certainly imperative to understand that what you propose is our ultimate goal. Had Virginia, held out for "Vermont" carry or insisted on no instant check, I would not be carrying a gun today. As it is, to get "shall issue CCW" the silly alcohol/restaurant ban (which does not and never did apply to open carry) was a bone thrown to some anti's to get their vote. I may be carrying with permission, but in New Jersey, I did not even have the opportunity to get that permission. WHILE I am carrying a gun, I will work to get the silly ban repealed. We are about the same age Larry. We've come a long way in the last 30 years. It is my firm belief, that had the NRA not been there, and in most cases, acted the way they did, we would be a disarmed nation today, or at minimum in the same situation the Australians now find themselves in. Let me give a personal analogy. Many things annoy me. I consider spam and junk mail an invasion of my privacy, especially ones that are duplicates. I get aggravated at people who post GOA alerts to this list as if members of Noban don#t get them directly. Your recent long forward from #C-News# concerning ESCHELON and social security was SPAM in my book. I subscribe to ROC. If I want C-news, I#ll get it. I get NOBAN in digest form. It averages about 45K of text. After I delete all the duplication caused by people who do not crop the posts they are responding to, the file size is usually about a third of the original. I am continuously deleting kilobytes of headers footers and entire previously posted material because some folks just hit reply, write their comments and send the whole damn thing back again. I am just as busy as they are. So are the people who DO have the consideration to crop what they send. I've got several choices here: I can send the all the offending stuff back to the originators, and annoy them. That will probably get me put on a kill filter. I can cancel my subscription to Noban in disgust, and deprive myself of even the information that is important. I can put up with it, cussing the inconsiderate, yet realizing that what I get is preferable to nothing. I can hope, and on occasion drop hints that it might be in everyone's best interest to be a bit more considerate and trim what they post to the list. Some may listen some never will, though the situation probably will improve. I can start a e-mail campaign to others to boycott NOBAN until the situation changes to my satisfaction. Others are deprived of the input of the boycotters, and the offenders have free rein to dominate the list. This runs the very real risk of diminishing or negating the effectiveness of the list. Along with this I can stop asking people to sign on to Noban because it does not operate they way I want it to. I read about a dozen gun boards a day. I subscribe to several lists. About half of what I read is pissing and moaning about the NRA. For some folks, that is ALL they post. They complain that the support they get is NOT the support they WANT, or they complain that they do not get support on some personal political crusade or other. I wonder how much better off we would be if those folks spent their time calling Congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and working campaigns. I took Bill Vance's advice and bought Heinleins book on taking back our government. I am doing just what Heinlein said. I joined a party here and am answering phones. We shall see. About a month ago, a fellow who writes for LSAS scheduled a free 2 hour seminar on the Second Amendment. He got a room at a local library in the evening.. He advertised on local radio and cable TV. He posted numerous notices on VA-RKBA, our state "hard core" gun rights discussion list dominated by members of VCDL, the "take no prisoners Second Amendment advocates". Flyers were available at gun shops. Quite a few activists live in the Hampton Roads area. Ed gives a great presentation with slides transparencies, the whole nine yards. Sections on media bias, dealing with politicians, history of the BOR etc. THREE PEOPLE SHOWED UP. Me, my wife and one gun owner from the community. All those "hard core" activists were to damn busy bitching about the NRA to come. They are all experts on the Second Amendment and political activism anyway. They sure as hell know what#s wrong with the NRA It's damn near all I've read on that list since it formed in February. One person posts a message about what a creep Heston or Metaksa is and six others post #I agree# or #right on# The librarian on duty remarked to me that not too many people seem to interested in the 2nd Amendment. I didn't know what to say to her. I'm NOT accusing you of this Larry, I know better. I just agree with Paul Watson and a few others. Your targets are wrong and your priorities are screwed up. You can flame me till doomsday, but I've damn near had it. Regards, Dennis Baron - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Interesting Advice Date: 18 Jun 1998 17:06:00 -0600 DAVID SAGERS wrote: > > larry ball writes: > >>I do not see my effort as destructive. I see what the NRA is doing as > destructive. Something has to change. Can't you see this?<< > > OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the > last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER. > The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want. > > I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue > of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component > > I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious > toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life > and politics outside your own sphere of operation. > [snippage of the social utility of rights argument] > Regards, > Dennis Baron As the world's largest gun control legislation writing organization, I belive the NRA needs to be starved and brought to it's knees. The argument that we have to "consider the realities of life" all the while giving things away in order to be well liked is, IMNSHO, bullpucky. The following says it better than I could ever hope to. Rights vs. Social Utility (originally published in The Libertarian Enterprise (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html)) RIGHTS VS. SOCIAL UTILITY By Sarah Thompson, M.D. I recently received an e-mail from some gun rights advocates which proposed the following: 1. The Constitution is the standard argument for the right to keep and bear arms. 2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne", don't think the Constitution matters. 3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott have demonstrated that firearms ownership has social utility. 4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second Amendment as the basis of our arguments and attempt to persuade the public to accept gun ownership on emotional terms as having "social utility". My response follows: It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the Constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't either. But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is irrelevant, that all that matters is "social utility"? Do you want to change the rules of engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you do so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost. Rights are unchanging and immutable, because they are of nature, or God, if you're so inclined. "Social utility" is so inconstant and capricious as to be virtually meaningless. If, someday, someone comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then willingly turn in your firearms? And who gets to define "social utility" anyway? It was of tremendous social utility for the British to disarm the lawless and rebellious colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. The current administration thinks it is social utility to label any and all dissenters "terrorists", and then to deprive them of all rights, harass, disarm, and imprison them. Is thatreally what you want? Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly not about the relative niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how important it is. But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not just the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person, but the tyranny of any government, state, church or group that wishes to inflict its will on any other individual or group by force. There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's excellent, but it's totally irrelevant to rights. Its utility is in demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens. However, if you use social utility as your primary argument, you are playing the enemy's game. But the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda, the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and have infinitely more resources, than the right to keep and bear arms movement ever will. Never, ever agree to play by the enemy's rules! While it's true, as was stated in the letter, that the law rarely establishes norms but rather follows cultural norms, this is no argument for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to influence the polls. It's bad enough that Congress operates that way. Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the goal of all this was to create and preserve a culture where respect for the Constitution, respect for individual rights and liberties is the norm! If, instead, the goal is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore our neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night, maybe we all need to reevaluate what we're doing and why. Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted openly that the disarmament of British subjects had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with eliminating the influence of the "American gun culture". He was successful, and the vast majority of British "sheeple" happily agreed to be disarmed, foolishly believing that they were creating a "safer society". Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will be attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared "enemies of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as disarming, or exterminating, gunowners and anyone else misguided enough to take the Constitution literally. The reason we are being "allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints into databases. Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is to reclaim our rights regardless of what Congress does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. We do need to educate the people, but not to accept the social utility of firearms. Those who would be citizens of a free state must be educated to understand the concepts of individual rights, responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is tyranny. Any other path is doomed. (c) 1997 Sarah Thompson, M.D. To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to majordomo@aros.net. In the BODY of the message put "subscribe righter-list" (without the "quotes"). Let me know if you have problems. Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this message is left intact. Re-publication, whether print or electronic, requires the permission of the author. ©1998 Sarah Thompson, M.D. the_righter@therighter.com http://www.therighter.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Another Poll Date: 18 Jun 1998 18:09:55 -0700 >>Forwarded message At the New Jersey News: http://www.nj.com/news/ ..they are asking the question... In a recent speech, new NRA president Charlton Heston asked, "I want to know who's with me and who's against me?" What's your answer? O With him. I agree with the NRA's agenda O Against him. I disagree with the NRA's agenda ..why not let 'em know what you think? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Volunteers Needed for Primaries Date: 19 Jun 1998 13:26:58 -0700 There are a number of great people running in important primaries Tuesday. If you have the time, they could sure use your help between now and then. If you'd like to help, reply to me or call my voice mail at 276-6123 (local from most of Utah) and we'll steer you toward someone you can feel good about helping. Mike ======== The Mavis Manool Ridgway Memorial - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack Date: 20 Jun 1998 22:03:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To all, A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election. Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election, in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign? David Parsons Denver,CO Information web sites: Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html 6/18/98 Press Release by Richard Mack Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today, 6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle have started to fall together. These are the facts as I know them to be at this point. 1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff. 2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with the company has been much less than the others. 3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined. 4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election. 5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account, was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client. 6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them. 7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time. 8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker, who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election. 9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to. 10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's election committee. In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political corruption and governmental witch-hunts. Richard Mack - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FBI & IRS raid Richard Mack Date: 22 Jun 1998 09:07:03 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To all, A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election. Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election, in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign? David Parsons Denver,CO Information web sites: Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html 6/18/98 Press Release by Richard Mack Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today, 6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle have started to fall together. These are the facts as I know them to be at this point. 1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff. 2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with the company has been much less than the others. 3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined. 4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election. 5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account, was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client. 6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them. 7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time. 8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker, who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election. 9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to. 10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's election committee. In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political corruption and governmental witch-hunts. Richard Mack - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Callahan Date: 22 Jun 1998 11:18:24 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:11:00 -0600 Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26736; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:00:41 -0600 Received: from [204.68.24.182] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id za686711; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:59:07 -0600 Received: (qmail 27823 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000 Received: from www01.netaddress.usa.net (204.68.24.21) by 204.68.24.180 with SMTP; 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 21056 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02 -0000 Message-ID: <19980621215902.21055.qmail@www01.netaddress.usa.net> X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline When Overson and Horiuchi were giving $10,000 of our money to Planned = Parenthood, wasn't it Mary Callahan who said "No", and continued saying = "No" until she prevailed? A small thing, but she was anything but = inneffective when it counted. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D1= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Taken from another list... Date: 22 Jun 1998 14:24:12 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:42:01 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA27067; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:30:25 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA17603; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma017538; Mon Jun 22 05:37:30 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 >X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:19:10 -0400 >To: Matthew Gaylor >From: Matthew Gaylor >Subject: J. Neil Schulman's Proof that US Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber > Gun Tragedies > >Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:33:15 GMT >From: jneil@loop.com (J. Neil Schulman) >Subject: Proof that Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber Gun Tragedies > >Do privately owned firearms result in more harm >or more good? The World Wide Web Gun Defense >Clock counts up a private defense using a firearm >every 13 seconds in the United States, using a >calculation derived from the National Self >Defense Survey conducted by criminologists at >Florida State University in 1994. Included on the >site are references for the gun-defense statistics >as well as comparisons to accidents and crimes >involving guns. There is also an extensive quote >from a prominent criminologist who is himself >opposed to private ownership of guns who >nonetheless finds the research on self defense >with a privately held gun irrefutable. An eye >opener for anyone whose only opinion on private >ownership of guns is drawn from current political >debates and news reports! > >Here's the text of the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock at >http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html > > > The World Wide Web > GUN DEFENSE CLOCK > > Every 13 seconds > an American gun owner uses a firearm > in defense against a criminal. > > Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: > > (Graphic Counter: Approximate count as > of this time today: 01758190) > > WANT TO KNOW MORE? > > > Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during > The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State >University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone >"almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been >used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once >every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed >someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in >defense.) > >In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either >threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a >gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. > > In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound >or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called >"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In >64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, >which means that the media could also find out and report on them if >they chose to. > > In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger >to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate >were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept >for defense will most likely be used against a family member or >someone you love. > > In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing >two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter >of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial >arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent >chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) > > In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable >handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the >defender's home. > > Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of >Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal >of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, >Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 > > Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in >Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, >considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the >country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control >advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If >I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all >guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... >What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The >reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut >case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have >theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense >against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for >the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can >it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a >gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to >believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not >have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does >not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart >Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and >Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and >Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the >elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their >conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their >methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in >advance and have done exceedingly well." > > So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in >this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and >even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing. > > By Comparison: > > A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United >States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, >it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news >media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition. > Source: National Safety Council > > A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United >States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities >are not completely innocent victims but themselves have >criminal records. > Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the >Chicago Police Department > > Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely >causes the person seeking death to use another means. While >gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban >of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the >gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types >of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges. > Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American >Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990 > > Copyright =3DA9 1996 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved. > > > > Webmasters: Add A Link to The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock from >your WWW page by adding this Icon to your page: > >(Icon says: Check the Count on the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock!) > > Simply copy the following HTML code to your page: > > > > > >**************************************************************************= >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per = week) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 >Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3D3DFA@coil.= com >**************************************************************************= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: [Fwd: Drown Moses] Date: 22 Jun 1998 14:32:21 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:27:55 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26818; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:17:34 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA07642; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma007601; Sun Jun 21 21:25:27 1998 Message-Id: <358DA43B.EBB4DD75@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarded to promote more discussion --------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA16568 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:24:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from AVAtin@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id UBABa04311 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 85 Larry, your publication of your friend's opposing view is noble. = Obviously, however, he has missed the point (in fact, many points) of the disagreement= with the NRA leadership that many members are expressing. As another Life Member who has not resigned his membership, and who did not vote for or against either slate, let me respond to several of his statements lest he thinks that you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Your friend writes: =20 <> =20 Actually, it is perfectly logical when taken in the context of the entire document of the Bill of Rights and its companion, the Constitution. Of = all the first ten amendments, the Second Amendment does not specify which = entity of government will be permitted to control firearms ownership. It simply = and elegantly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.= =20 The First Amendment said only that Congress shall pass no law = restricting First Amendment freedoms enumerated therein. It did not prohibit the = Courts or the Executive or the State governments from doing so, although the mechanism specifying what powers the federal establishment had were = already provided for in the Constitution, which did not say that the Executive or = the Courts could restrict those freedoms. The other amendments restrict the ability of the governments and courts to quarter troops, violate due = process, seize property, etc., and finally limit the federal governments powers to those not already reserved to the states or to the people. Since the = right of the people to keep and bear arms had already been enumerated in the Second Amendment, any action by the federal or state government to diminish or restrict that right (infringe upon it) is illegal, hence the right IS absolute.=20 <> A Washington state supreme court ruling only this month said that the = First Amendment protects the right to lie. In a false advertising case, it = ruled that the truth is out there if a person is willing to do the research. = Does lying damage others? Have not gun owners nationwide been damaged by the = media which associates law-abiding citizens with hate groups, criminals, = traitors, lunatics? Is it damaging to blur the distinction between semi-automatic weapons used by sportsmen and target shooters with full-automatic weapons = used by terrorists and the enemies of freedom? =20 <> First, freedoms were not granted in the Constitution, they were enumerated = in the Bill of Rights. Freedoms came from natural law, and the Creator. = Second, how does my right to own the firearms of my choice for which I pay my = hard- earned money and for which I use for my lawful purposes damage or infringe upon other peoples freedoms? <> =20 Logical people must assume no such thing--reference the above arguments. = If the NRA believes that we must accept certain restraints, they have not = implied that belief in their editorials or their fund-raising letters. Has the leadership lied to us?=20 <> I don't believe that the proposal was to attack Midway. My understanding = was that the proposal was to convince Midway to assist our cause by temporarily= suspending their program. If I can help convince them to aid our cause to = get the NRA leadership back on the right track, I shall. Finally, like many others, I'm not at odds with the NRA leadership. I was supportive of Mr Heston's position that the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of all the other freedoms we enjoy. But I think that enough questions have been raised for which we haven't received satisfactory = answers or explanations that a moratorium on blind automatic support for every NRA position can no longer be expected from the membership. Am I an extremist?= I don't think so. But I think that the new FBI regulations are a direct extension of the NRA's compromise on insta-check, and I think that the = ONLY reason that any government agency wants to keep records of gun purchases = or transfers or transactions is to facilitate the ultimate goal of disarming = the law-abiding public, which in turn will lead to the loss of the rest of the freedoms that we haven't lost already. Thanks for letting me add my two cents --------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Re: Clinton Supports Brady Date: 22 Jun 1998 17:25:05 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:57:58 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA27635; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:47:40 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA03800; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma003599; Mon Jun 22 18:52:38 1998 Message-Id: <358ED81B.B7973006@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 Even though I knew this was coming to pass, just to read of it sickens me. = Really it does. This was brought about by our own beloved NRA. And just think, = there are those in the gun rights fraternity that will do nothing to bring them to heel. = "They are the only thing between us and total deprivation," is their refrain. Oh really? REALLY! The only thing! Well folkses, I am 61 years old = just this month. It is too young of an age. I will bet my bottom dollar that I = will live to see not only continued rape of the 2nd Amendment, but the final mutulation = killing of it. Wanna bet our politcal champion is right in there all they way = championing the cause of "reasonable" regulation of our rights? Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com brian.beck@usa.net wrote: > Our dictator has again joined in the fight for gun prohibition...not to > mention centralized registration via State and FBI collusion. Plus more > fees, restrictions and classes of prohibited categories to infringe upon > the RKBA. > > Criminals, by definition (and by Supreme Court decree) do not have > to comply. > > Anyone out there ever involved in a fist fight at some point of their > youth? Will, soon today's kids will forever become a felon WRT to > firearms ownership for that reason. Why not add running a stop sign > to the list! (they will). > > I once heard that over half of the "blocked" sales were due to > administrative errors on the governments part. Gee did not see that > statistic anywhere. > > And with ten million "block" would we expect to see at a least 5 million > convictions for committing a felony? What's that you say, the real > number is less than a dozen? Let me see, the conviction rate fo > speeding tickets is several thousand times greater. > > Its obvious, the existing laws don't work; therefore, we must need more! > > HOPEFULLY, some of you on this list will start investigating Reno's > "statistics" department, to find out what type of bald-faced lies they > are conjuring up. Try certified mail and cite the Freedom of Information= > Act. Same for the FBI's NICS. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bradylaw980622.html > > Clinton Calls for Expansion of Federal Gun Law > > "By keeping guns out of the hands of criminals...we have helped cut the > crime rate to its lowest point in a generation." > > -- President Clinton > > June 22 -The Brady law blocked some 69,000 handgun purchases in > 1997--more than half of the them because the would-be gun owner was = either a > convicted or indicted felon. > > These rejections account for only 2.7 percent of the 2,574,000 applicatio= ns > nationwide for handgun sales during the year, the Justice Department's = Bureau > of Justice Statistics reported Sunday. > > Since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became law in February > 1994, through Dec. 1997, the bureau estimates some 242,000 handgun > purchases out of 10,356,000 applications have been blocked. > > The law was named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, > who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald > Reagan. > > President Clinton hailed the success of the law in keeping guns out of = the > wrong hands, but called for an expansion of the law to bar violent = juveniles > from owning guns for life. > > "By keeping guns out of the hands of criminals-and putting more police > in our communities-we have helped cut the crime rate to its lowest = point in > a generation," Clinton said. > > Denying Criminals Firearms Felony convictions or indictments topped the = list > of reasons for rejections, and accounted for 61.7 percent of last year's = handgun > permit denials. The second most frequent reason for denial was a record = of > domestic violence, which was responsible for 11.2 percent, including 9.1 > percent who had misdemeanor domestic violence convictions and 2.1 = percent > who were under court orders restraining them from harming or stalking an > intimate partner or child. > > Another 5.9 percent of the denials were for buyers who turned out to be = fugitives > from justice. > > State law prohibitions accounted for 6.1 percent of the rejections, drug = addiction > for 1.6 percent, mental illness for 0.9 percent and local law prohibition= s for 0.9 > percent. > > The remaining 11.7 percent of the denials came from all others barred = from > handgun purchases under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, including = illegal > aliens, juveniles, dishonorably discharged servicemen and people who = have > renounced U.S. citizenship. > > The estimates were based on a sampling of the chief law enforcement = officers > whose agencies conduct the background checks. > > New Guidelines for Gun Dealers Beginning this November, pre-purchase > checks will be required for all firearms-not just handguns-bought from = federally > licensed dealers. The dealers must checks through an automated system > Justice Department officials promise will be operable by then. > > Unless a state has set up an approved permit system, the dealers will = use > computers or the telephone to contact the FBI's national criminal = background > check system directly or go through a state agency serving as an FBI = contact > point. > > Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno urged states to do their own = criminal > background checks, rather than leave them to the FBI. "No one knows more > about state records than the states themselves," she said. > > About half the states have so far agreed to do their own checks. > > Gun dealers will likely pass on the cost of the check to customers. The > Justice Department wants states to perform the background checks to > save money at the FBI and to prevent confusion over different state = laws. > > The FBI plans to charge $13 to $16 per background check to states that = will > not do their own. > > The Associated Press contributed to this report. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N= =3D1 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Major Anti-gun Hysteria on ABC Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/guns/guns_intro.html ABC News.com: Armed in America June 22, 1998 -- For noncommercial educational use only. -- The gun won. He remains in critical condition. On Thursday night, two men shot an 18-year-old youth to death on a street corner in Las Vegas. On Wednesday, 18-year-old Damon Damar Ingram was shot and killed as he walked his dog on a street in the nation's capitol. His 17-year-old assailant pumped 10 bullets into Ingram's body. Ingram's parents buried their son in his cap and gown. On Tuesday night in Idaho, a State Police officer was shot in the head and killed. That same night in Baltimore, police found a 52-year-old man dead in a vacant lot from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Last Sunday, officers arrested 49-year-old Frances Boice in rural South Dakota. Police say she shot and killed her 51-year-old husband in upstate New York before fleeing to the heartland. Welcome to a week in the United States, one of the world's most free and violent countries. Where people carry guns to protect themselves from the other people who own somewhere between 200 million and 250 million guns. A recent study found that Americans murder each other with guns at a rate 19 times higher than any of the 25 richest nations surveyed. There are plenty of theories why, but few real explanations. After a particularly shocking killing, several countries have chosen to ban handguns outright. But that hasn't happened in the United States, which has a Constitutional protection for gun owners, and a lot of scared people who want protection in a society that's starting to mirror its movies. The death toll mounts. Copyright (c)1998 ABCNEWS and "http://www.starwave.com" Starwave Corporation. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When the Law Breaks In Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- David Rydel http://nebonet.com/headhome/dadmisc/lawbreak.htm WHEN THE LAW BREAKS IN Added June 17th, 1998 INTRODUCTION Here are several examples of the jackbooted, gestapo tactics of the police state in which we now live, as documented in 1995 by the Washington Times. Read this and mourn for the loss of your freedoms. From the Washington Times Phone 1-800-636-3699 National Weekly Edition April 3-9, 1995 "WHEN THE LAW BREAKS IN..." by Samuel Francis (nationally-syndicated columnist) Most Americans who keep up with the news today know about the atrocities inflicted by the federal leviathan at Waco and on the family of Randy Weaver in Idaho. In both cases, federal police deliberately provoked innocent people in ways that led to the violent deaths of the innocent. What few Americans know is that such horrors are far from rare. In January 1994, several defenders of gun rights and civil liberties wrote to President Clinton detailing some of these horror stories. Whether he's bothered to reply I don't know, but what he has to say about the matter is unimportant. What's important is that Americans understand what is happening -- to them and their country. On August 25, 1992, the California home of a law-abiding citizen named Donald Carlson was invaded by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration shortly after midnight on the claim that they were looking for illegal drugs. Mr. Carlson, asleep at the time, thought robbers had broken in; he dialed 911 and reached for his hand gun. DEA agents riddled him with bullets; After seven weeks in intensive care, he survived -- sort of. No drugs were found. In October the same year, the DEA paid a similar visit to Donald Scott, also in California, this time bringing along the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for extra protection against the dangerous Mr. Scott, also a law-abiding citizen. Busting into the house while he was asleep, a deputy sheriff shot Mr. Scott and killed him. Again, no illegal drugs were found. A year earlier, in September, 1991, a small federal army composed of some 60 agents from the DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) the National Guard and the U.S. Forest Service (where, you have to wonder, were the Boy Scouts and the Little League) arrived in the living rooms of Mrs. Sina Brush and two neighbors in New Mexico just after dawn. Mrs. Brush and her daughter were handcuffed in their underwear and forced to kneel while the American gestapo searched the house for drugs. No drugs were found. These aren't the only instances of armed invasions and violent attacks by federal police. There are other recent cases not mentioned in the letter to Mr. Clinton. Last summer, the ATF paid a visit to Harry and Theresa Lumplugh in Pennsylvania. The ATF needed only 15 to 20 men, armed and masked, to handle the couple, whom they forced to open safes and hand over private papers while held at the point of a machine gun. One of America's finest kicked the Lumplughs' pet cat to death. No charges were brought against the Lumplughs. Last year, four ATF agents raided the bedroom of Monique Montgomery at four in the morning. She reached for a gun and was shot four times and killed. Nothing illegal was found. In Ohio, the ATF raided the house of businessman and part-time police officer Louie Katona III, pushing his pregnant wife against a wall and causing her to miscarry. Nothing illegal was found. In almost all of these cases, the feds showed up in the middle of the night, garbed like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his latest thriller and proceeded to bully, beat, humiliate, intrude and sometimes wound or kill the victims they'd selected. In none did any of the victims violate any law; in several, the police had relied on intelligence known to be unreliable. In the Scott case, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office found that the raid was in part motivated by the desire of the Sheriff's Office to seize Mr. Scott's ranch under federal asset-forfeiture laws. Last year, on a TV talk show discussing Waco, I listened to caller after caller phone in to report mini-Wacos in their own areas that no one else had ever heard of. Maybe some of them were cranks and made it up. But the horrors I've just described have to make you wonder if we really live in the United States anymore. In none of the cases I know about have any of the federal agents been charged; few have been disciplined; almost none made the national news. What can be done about it? I guess "Write your congressman" doesn't quite cut it, does it? What should be done about it is that the Congress should forget its "Hundred Days," its "Contract with America," its constitutional amendments and its happy talk about the "Third Wave." It should find out who authorized these and similar raids and who committed these atrocities against law- abiding citizens. It should abolish the agencies responsible, and it should make certain that the tyrants and murderers in federal uniform who planned, authorized or committed these crimes are brought to justice. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" WEB SITE - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Critics Gain in Court Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/gunsb.htm Gun critics make some headway in court By TED GEST For gunshot victims and family members trying to recoup their losses, the $20-billion-plus-a-year American firearms industry long has seemed a promising target. But over the years, manufacturers have fended off the assault by arguing that they can't be held liable under legal doctrines that normally are invoked against defective products. "When guns fire and kill someone, they are working perfectly," says law Prof. Andrew McClurg of the University of Arkansas, who tracks firearms-liability cases. Now, gun critics are retooling their theories and scoring a few victories. Most prominent is a federal lawsuit in Brooklyn, N.Y., against the entire firearms industry and its trade associations. In May, a judge refused to toss out the case, in which 20 victims or heirs charge that manufacturers are legally negligent by selling products that they know will make their way into criminals' hands. Those leading the case are Katina Johnstone, whose husband was killed in San Francisco by a robber using a stolen Smith & Wesson revolver, and Freddie Hamilton, whose son was murdered in New York City with a never-recovered handgun. "It is possible," declared Judge Jack Weinstein, "that plaintiffs will be able to show that a substantial cause for the killings that are at the heart of this suit is the operation of a large-scale underground market." Just as whistleblowers have emerged to provide inside information against tobacco manufacturers, an affidavit has emerged in the Johnstone-Hamilton case from a former Smith & Wesson executive who charges that the Massachusetts-based firm made marketing decisions with the knowledge that some of its products would be used in crime. The other recent breakthrough occurred in a San Francisco case filed by relatives of four persons killed in a 1993 office-building massacre. A Nevada pawnshop that sold the gunman an assault pistol used in the shooting agreed in April to a $150,000 settlement to family members. The Washington-based Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, calling the payment the first of its kind, now is pursuing a claim against the gun's manufacturer, a firm called Intratec. "This is just the first hole in the dike of the gun industry's invincibility," says the center's Dennis Henigan. The group is testing a legal theory akin to the Brooklyn case: that manufacturers are negligent by producing guns that are attractive mainly to criminals. Other victims are succeeding with traditional product-liability arguments. The Georgia-based manufacturer of Glock pistols has settled several lawsuits alleging that the guns discharged unintentionally; critics, including police officers, maintain that models requiring only five pounds of pressure on the trigger go off far too easily. The handgun-violence center makes similar charges in a suit pending in California against the Beretta firearms firm. The group wants Beretta to provide safety devices with pistols sold for self-defense. For its part, the firearms industry is treating the lawsuit barrage as more of an annoyance than a serious threat. "Manufacturers lose control when their products reach distributors, let alone retailers and consumers," says Richard Feldman of the American Shooting Sports Council, an Atlanta-based industry organization that was sued in the Brooklyn case. Minimizing the ex-Smith & Wesson official's appearance, Feldman says that "it isn't exactly a startling revelation" that criminals use guns that initially may have changed hands legally. He notes that judges routinely reject lawsuits involving guns, on the ground that "any tool can be very dangerous when it is misused." That kind of thinking doesn't faze gun-control advocates. They believe that arms makers' immunity from liability is likely to erode, even if it happens at the same, slow pace that has marked litigation against tobacco manufactuers. "No other product manufacturers get the luxury of complete immunity from legal responsibility," says Arkansas Prof. McClurg, who believes that "negligent marketing" claims have a clear shot at passing muster in court. Send comments to webmaster@usnews.com Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Mayors seek solution for gun control Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- L & J , David Rydel Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson Maybe the knife industry will be next, then scissors. BTW, it is illegal in Britain for anyone under 21 to buy scissors. Are we far behind? http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns22.htm Mayors seek solution for gun control City leaders won't sue if industry will help June 22, 1998 BY MELANIE EVERSLEY Free Press Washington Staff RENO, Nev. -- The U.S. Conference of Mayors said Sunday it would not sue gun makers, as earlier hinted, opting instead to try working with the firearms industry to pass tougher gun laws and end pro-gun advertising. But Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer warned the gun industry that lawsuits weren't out of the question. "I can assure you," Archer told gun industry representatives at the U.S. Conference of Mayors' annual meeting in Reno, Nev., "if there is no relief, that you will hear from mayors." Archer did not specifically say Detroit may file a lawsuit against gun makers, but he hinted it might not be out of the question. "I do think it's foreseeable to see individual cities filing lawsuits because I'm not as optimistic as others might be that the dialogue that may take place is going to bear any kind of realistic fruit," Archer said after the meeting. Archer spoke after Mayor Edward Rendell of Philadelphia said the mayors "agreed to hold in abeyance any thought of a lawsuit." Rendell has taken the lead on the issue within the conference, a powerful Washington-based lobby of 300 mayors. "If there is going to be a lawsuit, it makes sense for hundreds of cities to join in that lawsuit, but then again, let's see where we're going." The gun issue has escalated nationally in recent weeks with word that Philadelphia and Chicago, both frustrated in their efforts to stop gun violence, particularly by and against children, were considering filing lawsuits against the gun industry. A lawsuit would mirror the aggressive stand many states have taken against the tobacco industry to seek reimbursement for tobacco-related health care costs. Philadelphia's legal action would have sought financial repayment of police overtime, health care and other costs associated with firearm violence. Chicago's suit would have blocked the industry from advertising that appeals to criminals, such as ads that praise a weapon's ability to ward off fingerprints. But instead of suing, the mayors' group will assemble a task force to work with the gun industry. The task force would operate for three years and would include mayors, gun makers, and members of the American Shooting Sports Council, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties, Rendell said. The mayors want the industry to: * End advertising that convinces people they need guns for safety in the home. * Support local legislation already passed in Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina that prevents anyone from making mass purchases of guns. Such guns are generally sold to young people. The legislation limits gun purchases to one per month, blocking people from making mass gun purchases and then selling those guns to minors. * Help develop ways to make more affordable technology that prevents anyone but the person fitted with a gun from using it. The gun task force will issue its first report in January, Rendell said. Richard Feldman, executive director of the sports council, who attended the meeting, said while his group does not completely agree with the mayors on various ways to curb the use of guns, there is common ground. "Lawsuits cost million of dollars -- they cost millions of dollars for the cities, if you decide to go that route, they cost millions of dollars for our industry," he said. "That's millions of dollars that won't be spent on child safety locks, that won't be spent on new technology." Melanie Eversley can be reached at 1-202-383-6036. All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USNews: Sunset or new dawn: Taking gun makers to court 1/2 Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 L & J , David Rydel Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/980622/22guns.htm U.S. News 6/22/98 Childproofing guns A novel legal strategy focusing on safety poses a threat to manufacturers BY GORDON WITKIN Before he died, Kenzo Dix wrote an essay for his ninth-grade English class that said, "When I pass away, I want to leave something that people will remember me by. A gift to the National Rifle future from me." Kenzo's mother, Lynn Association: Its gun Dix, hopes that gift will be a safer safety rules include gun "so there are no more victims." advice on locking up That's part of the reason she sued guns. Other Beretta U.S.A. Corp., the maker of childproofing the semiautomatic pistol that a precautions are in schoolmate, apparently unaware a the Youth Hunter single bullet remained in the Safety Quiz. chamber, used to accidentally kill Kenzo. Handgun Control Inc. and the Center to It has been four years since Kenzo Prevent Handgun was killed in Berkeley, Calif., and Violence: Safety Lynn Dix is hoping that this week a rules include judge might finally clear the way for instructions on Beretta to stand trial in an Oakland taking apart a courtroom, perhaps as early as July. handgun to prevent a If that happens, the case will be child from using it. closely watched by all sides: It's Information is also rare that suits against gun companies available on Child ever get to trial, and Dix's lawyers Access Prevention intend to pursue an important new laws and legal legal theory--that the gun's design action against the is defective because it fails to gun industry. incorporate available safety features that would prevent kids from firing National Institute it. of Justice: This branch of the U.S. There has been gun news recently that Department of seems, on the surface, more Justice studies law important. Show business icon enforcement and Charlton Heston took over the public safety. For presidency of the National Rifle more on the need for Association last week, pledging new gun safety moderation but telling President features, read Clinton, "America doesn't trust you "Firearms and with our 21-year-old daughters, and Violence" or we sure, Lord, don't trust you with "Illegal Firearms: our guns!" And Luke Woodham went on Access and Use By trial for killing two students last Arrestees." fall at a high school in Pearl, Miss. But the Dix case--if allowed to go Beretta U.S.A. forward--could ultimately be more Corp.: The venerable consequential. For years the gun gun manufacturer debate has been about restrictions on (founded in 1526) is sales of firearms. In recent months, being sued in an though, the issue of gun design has Oakland, Calif., moved to the forefront, confounding court over the past political alliances and changing accidental death of the tenor and substance of the gun Kenzo Dix, shot by a debate. friend playing with a Beretta For gun control groups, the new semiautomatic argument--which they hope to showcase pistol. in the Dix case--is that gun companies carry the same burden of Colt Manufacturing responsibility as car manufacturers, Co.: As reported in which have incorporated seat belts, U.S. News this week, air bags, locks, and keys in an Colt is working with effort to make their products safer, the National to prevent unauthorized use, and, not Institute of Justice coincidentally, to ward off lawsuits. to create a "smart" But instead, charges Dennis Henigan gun that can only be of the Center to Prevent Handgun used by the owner. Violence, most gun firms have Colt's firearms exhibited a "callous disregard for safety guidelines safety, and watched kids die year compare unsecured after year and done nothing about guns to other it," even though "some safety household hazards improvements would involve simple such as bleach and mechanical devices." charcoal lighter fluid. The technology is available; a few gun companies have added some of Related U.S. News those devices, like key-operated Articles: internal locks or "loaded-chamber indicators," which show whether a gun Again: In is loaded through a color-coded Springfield, Ore., a display or a pop-up pin. Such familiar school features might have prevented 31 scene-bloody kids, percent of the 1,501 accidental grieving parents, a shooting deaths in an earlier year, teen accused of according to a 1991 General murder. (6/1/98) Accounting Office report. Gun safety advocates further argue that firearms The children of should be "personalized" so only Jonesboro: Horrific authorized users can operate them, scenes of urban through use of technology that crime are often permits the gun to fire solely when attributed to ghetto held by someone wearing a special culture. Now, in the transponder, or identifier. aftermath of the ambush at Westside Beretta's defense. Gun companies Middle School in counter that holding a manufacturer Arkansas, a responsible for misuse of a product different question that works exactly as intended would is being asked: Is stand the civil liability system on there also a its head. Beretta argues that virulent culture of responsibility in the Dix case belongs with the father who left a violence in the loaded gun in a camera bag and the rural South? young shooter who ignored basic rules (4/6/98) of gun safety. The personalized gun Prayer circle technology wasn't available when the murders: In Paducah, Dix gun was produced in 1992, says Ky., heroism, Beretta, and the weapon in question forgiveness, and the actually had a loaded-chamber search for a motive. indicator. (12/15/97) [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USNews: Sunset or new dawn: Taking gun makers to court 2/2 Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700 So far gun makers have won most of the lawsuits alleging widespread Handgun stealing liability for injuries caused by made real easy: their products, and they still cling Thousands of guns to hope the Dix case might be are stolen straight dismissed this week. But the legal from firearms ground may be shifting along with the makers, stores - political ground. Eighty-six percent even military bases. of those questioned in a 1996 poll (6/9/97) favored legislation requiring new handguns to be childproof, and recent Weapons bazaar: How schoolyard shootings have intensified surplus American interest in keeping guns from kids. arms get into the Gun control advocates believe that wrong hands. even unsuccessful lawsuits have (12/9/96) helped promote their cause, since "the industry didn't invest any money Can "smart" guns in personalizing technology until save many lives? The lawsuits began to be filed," charges newest idea for gun Henigan. The cases are now arriving control: "smart" at a faster clip. In October, a trial pistols that can be is slated to begin in federal court fired only by their in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the case of owners. (12/2/96) Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, in which nine plaintiffs allege that gun manufacturers produced too many of their wares, with the result that guns landed more easily in the hands of juvenile criminals. Last week, a spokesman for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said the city is considering an unprecedented suit against gun manufacturers, and Daley told a press conference that "the key is to get a lawsuit whereby the manufacturer is held liable, just like the smoking industry." The tobacco wars yield lessons for the gun wars. One is that the industry can win repeatedly in court but end up damaged if just one case with a compelling legal theory is successful. "And I have no doubt," says Stephen Teret of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, "that at some point one of these firearms liability suits is going to be won by the plaintiffs." The issue of gun design is arising on other fronts as well. Late last year, Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger issued rules requiring guns sold there to include trigger locks and load indicators. The rules were to go into effect in stages this year, but manufacturers sued in January, arguing that Harshbarger had exceeded his authority, and a hearing on the matter is slated for next week. And this week, Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was fatally shot on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, will introduce legislation mandating new handgun safety features, including safety locks and child-resistant triggers. While new NRA president Heston struck familiar don't-tread-on-us themes at last week's convention in Philadelphia, some gun makers are pushing to get on the pro-safety side of the safety debate. Manufacturers in 1989 formed the American Shooting Sports Council to create a voice separate from that of the NRA. The group opened a Washington office last year, and its executive director, Richard Feldman, orchestrated a White House event last fall in which executives from 15 gun manufacturers shared a podium with President Clinton to announce they would voluntarily ship trigger locks with their firearms. The agreement drew criticism from several sides. One gun control group, the Violence Policy Center, said the lack of federal standards for the locks made the deal virtually meaningless. Meanwhile, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote to gun makers, saying, "You have helped Clinton to co-opt, to steal yet another issue. And he will use it to destroy you." Feldman says the deal made sense in part "because an accident prevented is a lawsuit avoided." Colt for cops. No one has gone further--or proved more controversial within the industry--than Colt's Manufacturing Co., whose storied history dates to the early 1800s. Working with a $500,000 grant from the National Institute of Justice, Colt is about to complete work on its second prototype of a personalized gun, which uses radio signals that allow the weapon to recognize and respond to a transponder worn by the authorized user. The weapon is designed for use by police officers; studies show that 16 percent of murdered cops are slain with service weapons wrested from them or a fellow cop. Gun control groups hope the technology will be available to police officers in two to three years and eventually to civilians. Colt President Ron Stewart has argued that gun makers must change their basic outlook in order to survive. Writing in last December's American Firearms Industry, Stewart stated that the industry's response to the anti-gun lobby was "pathetically inadequate" and said manufacturers must "take the high ground and pre-empt [the gun control advocates'] next strike," in part by creating a research and development program to improve gun safety. "If we can send a motorized computer to Mars," wrote Stewart, "then certainly we can advance our technology to be more childproof." For sharply differing reasons then, both gun control advocates and gun makers appear at least momentarily to be pointed in the same direction: toward a safer gun. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Sarah oh Sarah Sweet Sarah!!! Date: 23 Jun 1998 08:23:56 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:37:37 -0600 Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA28082; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:27:12 -0600 Received: from [209.180.83.1] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta687225; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:46:41 -0600 Received: from [209.180.82.151] by mail.lgcy.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa550046 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:56:39 -0600 Message-ID: <358F51ED.82F063D6@lgcy.com> Reply-To: legal@lgcy.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This is not new, but she said, and I quote: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady, Chair, Handgun Control, Inc. A SOCIALIST AMERICA ???---------Did I read that right? Yes I did, but the alarming thing is that there are those in this valley that would have socialism. They actually think that life under the socialist system is just great, dandy and wonderful. I have been to socialist countries before and I have seen that way of life. Let me tell you that it was not the way I want to live. It has once been said that COMMUNISM is SOCIALISM in a hurry. What do you think light rail is? Oh, isn't that a little bit socialistic folks? It is really amazing that there are those in politics that pledged that light rail would be a thing of the past if they won their much coveted post. When they finally won, they turned around, broke their promises, and embraced that vehicle that is a reality in the most socialist cities of the world. I give up, may these people and their supporters rot in their filth. It is a fact that a lot of the former Soviet countries are more free than this country. It is a fact that our education in America has fallen from # 1 to about # 35. Are we proud of this? The State of Utah has the highest rate of child molestation in the U.S.A. today. A large percentage of the people at the State Prison System are there for sex crimes. A great man once said " By their fruits, Ye shall know them." Think about it! ...........................................................................= ...........Joe http://www.jeffry.com/links.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: www.abcnews.com poll Date: 23 Jun 1998 10:55:18 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:15:07 -0600 Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28300; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:04:45 -0600 Received: (qmail 3773 invoked by uid 516); 23 Jun 1998 16:10:26 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 2948 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1998 16:09:17 -0000 Received: from mail13.digital.com (192.208.46.30) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 1998 16:09:16 -0000 Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92]) by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0f) with ESMTP id MAA06094 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by SBUAMAZKO2AE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:09:17 -0400 Message-ID: <19789B47B8BAD111BC110000F8BCCCCF438D70@SCSWEXC1> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey ----------------------- I'm really starting to think "Why bother?" with these polls. ABC news seems to have dropped any semblance of objectivity, right down to the phrasing of their question. Note that the yes vote is phrased in a direct manner whereas they split the no vote between two no answers (to reduce the % for either one) and at the same time put in some biting sarcasm just for spite. Josef Goebbels would be proud of today's media; he was a rank amateur by comparison. Roger ABC news' question today: =20 Would you support a ban on certain classes of guns? Yes. Guns DO kill people. No. I'm too big a fan of the Second Amendment. Maybe, if a gun were held to my head. For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Primary Elections Date: 23 Jun 1998 11:21:11 -0600 I'm sure most everyone on this list has already done so, but if not, get out and vote today. I stopped by the polling place about 10:00 am and it was, and had been according to the election judges, a complete ghosttown. (I voted with ballot number 0011 in my precint and I've got a feeling they are numbered sequencally.) -- 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. "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1787-1788 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: pa-rkba-digest V1 #1060 Date: 23 Jun 1998 14:20:38 -0600 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > - Felons have been prohibited from buying guns for a long time > (GCA 68) >=20 > - Dept. of Justice(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs(OJP), > Marianne W. Zawitz, "Guns Used in Crime", Bureau of Justice > Statistics(BJS) Selected Findings Number 5, July 1995, NCJ-148201. > This report noted that; > + Over 40 Million handguns have been produced in the > US since 1973 >=20 > + Most guns are NOT used to commit crime. >=20 > + Most crime is NOT committed with guns. >=20 > + Most gun crime IS committed with handguns. >=20 > + During 1993 there were 4.4 million murders, rapes, > robberies, and aggravated assaults in the US. More > than 1/4 of these violent crimes involved the use > of a > gun. (Therefore, a little less than 3/4 were > committed > WITHOUT the use of a gun.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > - DOJ, OJP, BJS, "Survey of State Prison Inmates", March 1993, > NCJ-136949. > + 73 percent of inmates who had ever possessed a > handgun DID NOT purchase it from a licensed dealer. > - US General Accounting Office, Report to the Committee on the > Judiciary, US Senate and House of Rep., "Gun Control: Implementation > of > the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act", January 1996, GAO > GGD-96-22. >=20 > + During the first year of "Brady" (Feb 28 '94 - Feb 28 > '95) there were 18570 applications for > handguns denied in the jurisdictions sampled. The reasons for denial are as follows; > Category/Reason Number % >=20 > Criminal History > Felony 8299 > 44.7 > Misdemeanor 452 2.4 > Other 292 > 1.6 >=20 > Other Brady Categories > Fugitives 160 > 0.9 > Drug Use 357 > 1.9 > Mental 38 > 0.2 > Dishonorable Discharge 49 0.3 > Illegal Alien 149 > 0.8 > Renounced Citizenship 0 0 >=20 > 1994 Crime Act 145 > 0.8 >=20 > Traffic Offenses 1413 > 7.6 >=20 > Administrative > Brady form sent to wrong 7012 37.8 > agency =20 > Incomplete/Inaccurate form 138 0.8 > Violation of state law 33 > 0.2 > Other 33 > 0.2 >=20 > + The GAO did NOT try to determine if all the denials > were valid; they just reported the numbers > from the sampled jurisdictions. > + GAO also stated "Policymakers recognize that even a > perfect felon identification system may not keep felons > from obtaining firearms and that Brady may not directly > result in measurable reductions of gun-related crime." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Waco:TROE Tonight!] Date: 23 Jun 1998 16:41:02 -0600 Maybe of some interest... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!] Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:00:15 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > Maybe of some interest... > > ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- > > XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be > on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight. > > ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- > > -- > > 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. > > "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for > the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last > resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- > Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 > After looking at PBS/Frontline, my bet is that it's this one that will be on The home videocassette ($19.95 plus shipping and handling) of FRONTLINE's "WACO-- The Inside Story," can be purchased through WGBH Educational Foundation at: Mailing Address: WGBH/WACO--The Inside Story P.O. Box 2284 South Burlington,VT 05407-2284 Phone Number: 1-800-255-9424 Original Air Date: October 17, 1995 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!] Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:01:40 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > Maybe of some interest... > > ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- > > XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be > on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight. > > ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- > Yup, From KUED's page.... 8:00 p.m. Frontline: Waco: The Inside Story. Frontline investigates the FBI siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and its fiery end. (CC) (S) (E) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!] Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:12:58 -0600 Bummer!! But thanks for the correction. On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Will Thompson posted: >Charles Hardy wrote: >> >> Maybe of some interest... >> >> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- >> >> XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be >> on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight. >> >> ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- >> > >Yup, > >From KUED's page.... > > 8:00 p.m. > Frontline: Waco: The Inside Story. > Frontline investigates the FBI siege of > the Branch Davidian compound in > Waco, Texas, and its fiery end. (CC) > (S) (E) > >- > > -- 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. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes Date: 24 Jun 1998 08:45:33 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:59:58 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA28807; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:49:37 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id AAA24989; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma024840; Wed Jun 24 00:56:11 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980624042223.008cead8@inet.realresume.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: rlh@recon.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 Forwarded from another list, sanitized to preserve anonymity. ----- Today in Baton Rouge, we attended, along with a few hundred FFL dealers, a conference concerning the November 1998 Brady Law changes. = Some of it was informative and ATF presented itself in a concerned manner. =20 The focus was a demonstration of how the November 1998 Brady forms = will be handled. To summerize the demo, there will be three ways to validate a gun purchaser. =20 First will be by phone. The charge will be $13-$17. This price is subject to change. You will be able to call 8 AM until 2 AM, seven days a week except Thanksgiving and Christmas. You will speak to an operator and the only information given will be name, address, and general information about the purchaser and whether the purchase is a long gun or a pistol or both. No other info is needed. Second will be by modem. The package is not complete for this transaction. The demo works just like the phone verification but you key all information in. The charge will be less. There was no range of = charges given. =20 Third will be by key pad. It was not demonstrated and not much information was given. =20 Concealed carry permits are exempt as are certain LE purchases. =20 There will be a NTN (NICS tracking number) given for every transaction= . Upon approval, the NTN will go on your record book and 4473. Upon disapproval, the NTN will be given to the purchaser and s/he will be given the right to appeal. =20 The database that is checked basically checks the responses given on the 4473. Example: John Doe lies about a domestic violance charge on the 4473. The charge is in the data base and he is denied. If he is clear, no hits come up and he is approved. The other option is a wait status. This can be caused by lack of info such as John Smith on Main Street in Erath, Louisiana, is just too general and multiple hits will inevitably = come up. =20 Each firearms dealer will have to join the FBI/NICS group. We do not know if there is a charge for this. =20 I actually felt good about ATF after this meeting. I do not care for the charge on my customers, but if all works as planned it should not be = an inconvience. =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Mother Jones- another gun poll Date: 24 Jun 1998 15:30:54 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:10:11 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29403; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:59:47 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA29007; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma028697; Wed Jun 24 16:06:56 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: Eaco@TerraSys.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 These guys never learn. We trounced them a few years ago... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- <> S N A P P O L L ___________________________________________________ THIS WEEK'S POLL: The mayors of Philadelphia, Chicago, and New Orleans are threatening to sue gun manufacturers in an attempt to hold them responsible= for gun violence in the cities. Do you think gunmakers should be liable for deaths and injuries caused by their products? Vote and discuss at: http://www.motherjones.com/ <> So far the results are: 22.19% say Yes=20 77.81% say No=20 311 have voted=20 Vote early and vote often... DVC -- Regards, >>Dick<< - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Colt Cries "Foul" Over Lies.... Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Colt will not stand by silently while the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS) tells lies about our Company. We are preparing to take the appropriate legal action against the individual parties responsible and their sponsor for liable, slander, trade disparagement, tortious interference with contractual relations and/or other causes of action. Our company does not contribute to political campaigns or political parties. Colt is proud to be the developer of advanced technology and looks forward to bringing a new option to the firearm consumer. We do not now, nor have we ever, supported a mandate for Smart Guns. Since 1836 Colt has proudly sold firearms to millions of people. We continue to fight for and support an individual's right to own a firearm. Accusation Colt supports a mandate of the Smart Gun Truth As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported the week of the NRA show, "While technology such as this should not be mandated," Stewart wrote, "it should be an option for the consumer." In fact, CNJS was aware of this but continued to make this false accusation. Accusation Colt is actively lobbying to mandate this gun. Truth Colt testified, in writing, at the New Jersey hearing opposing this legislation to mandate a Smart Gun. These Bills were defeated through the combined efforts of the NRA and Colt. Colt has also had several conversations with their respective congressional delegation opposing any activity in the United States Congress to mandate the effort. Accusation Colt has been "Caught Red Handed Donating to Charles Schumer's Campaign Fund". . Truth Colt does not have a Political Action Committee. Colt does not contribute to any political campaigns or political candidates. Mr. Zilkha is not an employee of this company but is a non-employee Chairman of the Board. He is one of many owners and has other companies, including some in New York. He has contributed to a number of Republicans including Speaker Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and George Bush. Accusation Mr. Stewart's mismanagement has placed Colt in dire financial condition. Truth To the contrary, Mr. Stewart and his management team have brought financial stability to Colt. This is evidenced by the introduction of many new and well-accepted products as well as the recently announced acquisition of Saco Defense. Accusation Colt supports the mandate of trigger locks. Truth Colt was one of the only major manufacturers not present at the "Rose Garden Ceremony". In fact, we are on record as opposing it because it presents a false sense of security to the consumer. Just as Colt will continue to protect your right to own a firearm, we will be equally vigilant in protecting the truth. The following letter was sent on June 18, 1998: VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL June 18, 1998 Mr. Richard Miller, Chairman Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen P.O. Box 345 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Mr. Alan Rice, Chairman Legislative Committee Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen P.O. Box 345 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Re: Libel and Slander Against Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc., Ronald L. Stewart, Its President and CEO, and Donald E. Zilkha, Its Chairman Dear Mssrs. Miller and Rice: Please be informed that the law firm of Gadsby & Hannah LLP represents Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Colt's"), Mr. Ronald L. Stewart, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Donald E. Zilkha, its Chairman, the latter two gentlemen of whom are private individuals. Reference is made to the so-called "Public Service Message" of the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen that was distributed at the NRA Show in Philadelphia earlier this month and the message of June 17, 1998 released on the Internet and appearing at the http://GunsSaveLives.com website. Our clients take strong exception to the truth of your collectively outrageous statements. To be blunt, your statements are transparent lies without substance or foundation. We can only conclude that each of you made these statements with actual malice, i.e., each of you had knowledge of the falsity of your statements or recklessly disregarded the truth. The result of your defamatory, slanderous and otherwise wrongful conduct, including your call for a boycott against Colt's, is gross injury to the reputation of Colt's and its business. Moreover, the reputation and trade profession of Mssrs. Stewart and Zilkha personally have been irreparably harmed. Enclosed is a copy of our rebuttal that was disseminated in an attempt to stem further damages caused by each of you. In view of the foregoing, we hereby demand that each of you and the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen do all of the following: 1. Immediately cease and desist from making any further slanderous or libelous statements against Colt's, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Zilkha, or any other directors, officers, employees or representatives of Colt's; 2. Advise us in writing of the dates, times, places, forums, publications, Internet websites and audiences to whom the subject statements were published; and, 3. Publicly retract the subject statements, end the boycott and issue a public apology to Colt's, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Zilkha in each of the venues you identified in item (2) above. Please remit in writing to the undersigned, at our Washington, DC address, the information requested no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 1998. We hereby reserve all our rights and remedies that could be exercised by our clients against you and the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen at this time. If you fail to fully comply with this demand, you will leave us with no other alternative but to seek all legal remedies, including, but not limited to, damages for libel, slander, trade disparagement, tortious interference with contractual relations and/or other causes of action, against you, the Coalition of New Jersey Sportmen, together with any or all of its Board Members, Sponsors, and Trustees, as individuals. Should a lawsuit be commenced, we will not only seek damages but all of our attorneys' fees and costs associated with such legal action. Very.truly.yours, Michael_A._Hordell Gadsby & Hannah LLP 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 enclosure cc: via first class mail Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Officers and Board Members Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Defender Sponsors Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Trustees - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ABC GUN POLL (we are losing big) VOTE OFTEN!!! Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Click here to vote. http://www.abcnews.com/ "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn'tspeak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."--Pastor Niemoller Sincerely, David E. Parsons Denver,CO Home Page http://members.tripod.com/~DAVIDPARSONS/index.html ICQ# 7869261 ICQ - World's Largest Internet Online Communication Network http://www.mirabilis.com/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Mayors won't aim at gun makers -- yet Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- David Rydel Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson http://www.freep.com/news/metro/qarch23.htm Mayors won't aim at gun makers -- yet But Archer sees litigation as possible route June 23, 1998 BY MELANIE EVERSLEY Free Press Washington Staff RENO, Nev. -- Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer on Monday became the third big-city mayor to raise the possibility of legal action against gun manufacturers. Archer's comments at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Reno came one day after the conference decided to not yet pursue a joint lawsuit against the gun industry, which some mayors say has a responsibility to help curb violence in America's cities. The group, a Washington-based lobby of 300 mayors, instead opted to form a task force of mayors and gun makers that would push for legislation and gun-safety technology. The task force would make its first report to the mayors' group in January. Chicago and Philadelphia have contemplated suing the industry, seeking either to change gun-related advertising or to recoup the municipal costs of violence, but have not yet taken official action. Detroit could follow those two cities, Archer said. "We will consider if the discussions that are to take place this summer, with the results to be unveiled at our meeting in January, do not prove to be fruitful," Archer said. "I think it's important that our citizens are protected, to be sure, but I also believe that there needs to be, if we can't work it out, litigation." Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell, who led Sunday's push at the mayors' meeting for taking a more diplomatic approach with the gun industry, suggested a joint lawsuit might still be the better route for cities once the task force releases its findings. "As the first city really to contemplate a lawsuit, I'm not ruling out a lawsuit. We'd certainly be strengthened if the Detroits, Chicagos and Philadelphias and many other cities banded together to form that lawsuit ...but I think we can wait for the next four to six months to see what progress we make with the gun manufacturers," Rendell said Monday. "I'm encouraged by the fact that Mayor Archer feels as strongly as he does on this -- let's see where we go," he said. All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Sorry...I couldn't resist... Date: 25 Jun 1998 08:02:27 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:07:55 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA29985; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:57:33 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA23861; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:05:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023709; Thu Jun 25 06:03:26 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 >Today's Quote: > >"There is no truth to the rumor that President Clinton's visit to >Tiananmen Square is a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser," > > "It is just a'donor-maintenance event.'" > > -- Terry Campo. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: FW: GSL> U.S. State Department advising carry weapons for Date: 25 Jun 1998 08:39:44 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:07:26 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA00123; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:57:03 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA04155; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma004025; Thu Jun 25 10:04:09 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: KGrubb@carnival.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 forwarded from GSL >DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME > >Conditions had deteriorated rapidly in Algeria when, on May 2, the >U.S. State Department warned against travel in that nation. "The >department urged Americans who choose to ignore the travel warning to >exercise caution," so reported the May 3 Lexington, Kentucky, Courier >Journal, "and [to] take the same precautions that U.S. Embassy >personnel and U.S. oil companies ... in Algeria take, including ... >using armed guards at the airports and carrying weapons for >protection." NRA member Robert Zoeller sent the clipping in with a >note that read: "To me it seems ironic that United States citizens are >being encouraged to ignore Algerian gun control laws while in that >country, while at the same time the Clinton-Gore Administration is >attempting to disarm the American public here at home." Couldn't have >put it better ourselves. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: ALERT! Dangerous desiccant? (fwd) Date: 25 Jun 1998 14:14:36 -0600 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Reply to ALERT! Dangerous desiccant? I have worked with desiccants from several manufacturers, all MIL-spec, = and have found no corrosion or compatibility problem with metals. United = Desiccants said that there is a possible concern with the brown Kraft = paper bags on electronics, but desiccants are made to be stored with metal = parts. Mil-spec desiccants are corrosion tested on steel copper aluminum and = brass. United confirmed that there is no corrosion from either the Kraft = paper or desiccant itself on any of the above metals. This type of = desiccant contains dry granulated clay, similar to kitty litter, and is = made to be placed in containers with metal parts during shipping or = storage. I have done engineering tests myself where the Kraft paper bags, the only = ones with the sulfur paper, were placed directly on steel and aluminum = parts for a year. The bags did not cause corrosion even on a type of = steel that will rust in a few hours in a humid environment. At my present employer there is a concern that the desiccant bags could = break open and granular desiccant would contaminate chemicals. To prevent = the possible contamination of stored chemicals, the desiccant bags are = placed inside cotton bags and the cotton bags are placed inside perforated = plastic bottles. They have used desiccant this way for over 30 years = without a problem. A similar application for a gun safe could be to put the desiccant inside = an old sock (without holes) and hang it inside the safe. If you want = double protection you could make a lot of holes in a plastic bottle and = put the desiccant-filled sock inside the plastic bottle. The sock and = bottle will prevent direct contact of the sulfur-containing paper with = valuable metal.=20 United Desiccant's Quality Manager said that there is a very small amount = of sulfur in the Kraft paper which can be leached if there is enough water = available. Excess water with sulfur could then drip on the electronic = components. Electronics are very sensitive due to very thin layers of = copper and the circuits can be damaged by the slightest corrosion from = sulfur. Neil Sagers --=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:47:40 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA29927; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:37:19 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA19277; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma019159; Thu Jun 25 03:38:27 1998 Message-Id: <9806250720.0nge@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 Jun 24, Jacques Tucker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] A WMSA member in the boonies of Missouri advises us that he ordered = various cartridges and surplus military ammo cans from the Cheaper Than Dirt catalog. CTD is a firm in Ft. Worth that apparently has a full page ad = for their catalog in the American Rifleman mag. He says there was also desiccant listed in the catalog just under the ammo cans, so he ordered a batch to help preserve the items he planned to = store. A cautious fellow, he called the desiccant manufacturer to verify it was wise to use it with his ammo, etc. "Oh," said the lady who answered, "don't use that for metal. It has sulphur in the paper and will destroy any metal." The manufacturer of the desiccant is United Desiccants, 127 Christine Dr., Belen, NM 67002. Their toll free line is 800-989-3374. The MilSpec on = the 5.5 oz. packages is MIL-D-3464 Type I and II. Our member called the NRA several times to alert them of the problem. He indicates they really don't care. "It doesn't matter." Advertising revenue may be more important, I suppose? He was able to get credit from the vendor, CDT, for just trashing this stuff. It costs more to ship than it's worth. Let your gunner friends know of this potential disaster. Jacq' Jacques Tucker Western Missouri Shooters Alliance [------------------------- 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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - --=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: DesNews Pro-Brady Editorial Date: 26 Jun 1998 17:27:50 -0600 From Today's DesNews: Letters to the editor may be submitted via email at . Be sure to include s-mail address, phone number, and name. Extend Brady law: It works Last updated 06/26/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT Deseret News editorial Four years ago, when Congress passed the Brady law, opponents said it was a naive misunderstanding of the criminal mind. Criminals, they said, don't buy guns at the store. They steal them or come about them some other way. Well, never underestimate the stupidity of the criminal mind. According to the latest estimates from the Justice Department, 69,000 people were denied handguns in 1997 because of the Brady law. Of those, 61.7 percent were turned down because of prior felony convictions or indictments. Another 11.2 percent had a record of domestic violence. In four years, nearly a quarter of a million handgun purchases have been thwarted this way. Turns out a lot of criminals, at least the ones who have a conviction somewhere in their past, aren't so smart after all. Aren't you glad the Brady law is in place? More to the point, aren't you glad Congress didn't bow to pressure from the gun lobby and reject Brady four years ago? True, the 69,000 represented only 2.7 percent of the 2.6 million applications for handguns last year. But our guess is 69,000 unstable people could do a lot of damage if they were armed. The small percentage merely proves what researchers, criminologists and, yes, gun lobbyists have said all along — that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. The trick is to stop the handful most likely to cause mischief. Brady imposes a five-day waiting period for all handgun purchases to allow for background checks and to keep people from buying guns in a fit of passion. The waiting period is set to expire in November when a nationwide instant background check system is expected to be in place. At that time, the law will be broadened to require background checks for all firearm purchases, not just handguns. Not surprisingly, the battle lines are being drawn again. President Clinton wants to extend the five-day wait, while gun lobbies, including the National Rifle Association, want it to disappear. Keeping track of rejected sales is easy. However, keeping track of deaths and injuries avoided through a five-day cooling off period is impossible. The cool down is nevertheless an important argument for making people wait. Contrary to all the clamoring four years ago, no one has suffered a deprivation of constitutional rights through the Brady law. By some estimates more than 40 percent of American households today contain at least one gun. An extension of the Brady waiting period seems only prudent. It is no doubt a major contributor to the nation's steadily declining crime rate. -- 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 difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." -- Will Rogers - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes Date: 26 Jun 1998 22:01:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is exactly the type of mentality that we DON'T need. At 07:03 AM 6/25/1998 -0600, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:58:04 -0400 (EDT) >From: Richard Hartman >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes >Forwarded from another list, sanitized to preserve anonymity. >----- >Today in Baton Rouge, we attended, along with a few hundred FFL dealers, >a conference concerning the November 1998 Brady Law changes. Some of it >was informative and ATF presented itself in a concerned manner. >The focus was a demonstration of how the November 1998 Brady forms will >be handled. To summerize the demo, there will be three ways to validate >a gun purchaser. >First will be by phone. The charge will be $13-$17. This price is subject >to change. You will be able to call 8 AM until 2 AM, seven days a week >except Thanksgiving and Christmas. You will speak to an operator and the >only information given will be name, address, and general information >about the purchaser and whether the purchase is a long gun or a pistol >or both. No other info is needed. >Second will be by modem. The package is not complete for this transaction. >The demo works just like the phone verification but you key all information >in. The charge will be less. There was no range of charges given. >Third will be by key pad. It was not demonstrated and not much >information was given. >Concealed carry permits are exempt as are certain LE purchases. >There will be a NTN (NICS tracking number) given for every transaction. >Upon approval, the NTN will go on your record book and 4473. Upon >disapproval, the NTN will be given to the purchaser and s/he will be >given the right to appeal. >The database that is checked basically checks the responses given on >the 4473. Example: John Doe lies about a domestic violance charge on the >4473. The charge is in the data base and he is denied. If he is clear, >no hits come up and he is approved. The other option is a wait status. >This can be caused by lack of info such as John Smith on Main Street in >Erath, Louisiana, is just too general and multiple hits will inevitably >come up. What this pleasant and informative gun dealer neglected to mention (and the pleasant and informative Gestapo agent neglected to tell him) is that in order to verify the identity of the purchaser, a government issued ID will have to be presented. That ID will sooner than later be tied back to an SSN (and the fingerprint or retina scan or some other biometric method of identification that goes with it) and ALL of that data will be available to any other government agent any time they want it. "........271, that subject is a known gun-owner, approach with caution......." can't you just picture that Glock 21 coming out of the holster and staring you in the face over an inspection sticker.....? >Each firearms dealer will have to join the FBI/NICS group. We do not >know if there is a charge for this. >I actually felt good about ATF after this meeting. I do not care for >the charge on my customers, but if all works as planned it should not >be an inconvenience. What an A**HOLE! He "actually felt good about ATF"??? Isn't it nice that the friendly Gestapo agent told him how pleasant and convenient his trip to the resettlement camp is going to be... When the roundups of gunowners and their weapons start, we can thank the sniveling, obsequious, traitorous rats at the NRA, and brain-dead dealers like this. _________________________________________ _________________________________________ "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Mother Jones- another gun poll Date: 26 Jun 1998 22:01:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- At 07:04 AM 6/25/98 -0600, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT) >From: "R. Lunn" >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Mother Jones- another gun poll >These guys never learn. We trounced them a few years ago... Mother Jones is still locked in the '60s....what do you expect from counter-culture hippies? >---------- Forwarded message ---------- ><> >SNAP POLL ___________________________________________________ >THIS WEEK'S POLL: The mayors of Philadelphia, Chicago, and New Orleans are >threatening to sue gun manufacturers in an attempt to hold them responsible >for gun violence in the cities. Do you think gunmakers should be liable >for deaths and injuries caused by their products? >Vote and discuss at: >http://www.motherjones.com/ ><> >----------------------------------------------------------- >So far the results are: >22.19% say Yes >77.81% say No >311 have voted >Vote early and vote often... >DVC >-- >Regards, >>>Dick<< - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Control Date: 27 Jun 1998 19:58:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded messages ---------- By Bill de Forest Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ Read your stuff. Real good. I am a management supervisor at Kaman Aerospace in Bloomfield, Connecticut. I live in Granville, Massachusetts, a real small town that only has grades pre-school through 8th. In answer to the shooting sprees in schools across the U.S. our chief of police, John B. Michnovez, thought it was time to start a pistol shooting and handgun safety course in our elementary school. Talk about bold. He approached the principal of Granville Elementary, Bob Thompson who agreed it was essential, in the light of the recent shootings, that children be taught pistol shooting by experts -- and not the movies -- and sponsored a course in the school. That's _bold_! Letters were sent home to the parents who also thought it was a good idea. The chief got an NRA Pistol Shooting instructor, Ms. Teryl A. Deegan, who started off with a lecture on the Second Amendment and started to explain calibers, stating that 9mm was a Communist round and she would not talk about it. Toy guns were used as the demo with a day two at an indoor pistol range in Manchestern Conn. My 11 year-old Jerome shot 50 .22 rounds and passed the written course with the mandatory 80. This is what I call grass roots. A police chief and an elementary school principal staked all on this one. _You must keep up your work. It is making a difference_. ====================================================================== _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is delighted to have shared this letter with our readers. -- Libertarian Self Reliance In The Face Of Y2K http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/7731/ Ron provides: >>The chief got an NRA Pistol Shooting instructor, Ms. Teryl A. Deegan, who started off with a lecture on the Second Amendment and started to explain calibers, stating that 9mm was a Communist round and she would not talk about it.<< That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Everyone knows the 9 mm parabellum is a Nazi round! :-) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Really Good Gun News 1/2 Date: 28 Jun 1998 22:07:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I don't know who wrote this, but I'd like to thank him for sharing his viewpoint. -E.W. To all true friends of liberty: One of the most interesting things about news reports is the way that the same basic information can be presented and yet tell very different tales. My all-time favorite has to be the Carter-era news release on the standby gas rationing system that was then being implemented. In this particular story, it was pointed out that the rationing system would be triggered by a 20% shortfall in the nation's gas supplies. The system was designed to ensure that every American would receive 70% of his normal supply. So what we had was a system that would automatically turn a 20% shortfall into a 30% shortfall. By careful presentation of the facts, however, it made it look like this was a good deal for the average joe. Incidentally, all of the gas rationing coupons had the same picture of George Washington as is found on the one-dollar bill. They could therefore be exchanged, not just for 70% of your usual gallon of gas, but also for four quarters from any bill changing machine. Thus completely useless for their designed purpose, the coupons were stored for many years at the Pueblo Army Depot in southern Colorado and eventually destroyed by burning inside the ammunition igloos in which they were kept. The point of all this is that there is often a surprising amount of good news to be found in what might otherwise be considered as disastrous tidings. Take, for example, the recent Brady bill stories. That the administration is interested in expanding Brady provisions to rifles and shotguns is surely not welcome intelligence. That either 230,000 (according to some sources) or 17 (according to others) convicted felons have been thwarted in their desire for a handgun is really beside the point. Who cares how many have been denied a gun? Let's look, instead, at the real story here. Slipped in to those Clinton-sponsored stories about how many bad guys have been disarmed and how the program should be expanded is some really, really encouraging news. Over 10,000,000 Brady checks have been performed in the past four years. Imagine! Ten million handgun sales (minus somewhere between 17 and 230,000). Two and a half million a year! Nearly 7,000 a day, including Sundays and holidays. By god, it makes you PROUD to be an American, doesn't it? We're still number one at something and it's something that's damned important, to boot. Imagine equipping the United States Army with just one year's worth of handgun sales. Every soldier would have five handguns strapped to his waist. Imagine equipping them with all of the handguns sold since Bill Clinton took office. You'd need a line of native bearers to carry those 28 handguns. A good-sized truck to carry each soldier's share of the rifles and shotguns. A small convoy for his portion of the ammunition and reloading components. Let's not forget that these ten million Brady guns are just those sold through FFL dealers. Think of the additional millions, perhaps tens of millions, that changed hands between one private owner and another. These are the statistics that really matter. Do you think Bill Clinton really cares whether even one armed thug is gotten off the streets (I mean someone other than Franciso Duran)? For the first time, amalgamated statistics are landing on his desk and he can quantify just how "successful" his effort at disarming America has been. At the same time, he can blandly slip the real story (America's frantic rearmament) past the inattentive patriots who are too busy moaning about the next wave of evil NWO legislation. I say: Thanks, Bill. You've done more to awaken America and cause even the most zombie-like citizen to rush out and buy a gun than any other living human being. Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Mark Koernke, John Trochmann, et al ain't got nothing on you, baby. You are the merchants of death's number one butt boy and the biggest spoke in the wheel of your own utopia. Nice going, moron. Please don't come over to our side because we want to win. Millions, I repeat: millions, of Americans who would never have considered owning a gun now have a little bit of insurance tucked underneath the bed. So don't give up on your fellow citizens just yet. We're halfway home if you don't alienate them with stupid human militia tricks. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Really Good Gun News 2/2 Date: 28 Jun 1998 22:07:00 -0700 I dare say that the percentage of Americans who own guns is at an all-time high. The number of Americans who own a gun is certainly at an all-time high. The number of guns owned by Americans is certainly at an all-time high. The quality (and military usefulness) of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high. The stockpile of ammunition and reloading components owned by Americans is at an earth-shattering, most Third-world continents can't even come close, all-time high. Don't whine about the Brady bill. After all, the primary proponent of this gun control legislation is someone who is brain-damaged. Rational arguments just aren't going to work on someone who's only running on half-a-lobe. They don't make sense to most liberals and network correspondents either. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Let's look at another interesting story-- the New Black Panther Party's avowed defense against the Klan in Jasper, Texas. Why is this so objectionable to so many patriots? It seems like capital news to me. Up to now, the media has been able to portray the militia as some sort of funky white suburban street gang. Having a highly-publicized appearance of a new black militia is of tremendous value to those of us who are dedicated to the restoration of constitutional liberty. I welcome any and all who are willing to make their stand for freedom. I especially welcome those whom the liberal media dare not portray as right-wing lunatics. These are not the branded "Uncle Tom" black conservatives but the real McCoy radical activist left proclaiming themselves as a militia. See how much ground we have gained. Even those who do not agree with us politically now find advantage in using our methods and rhetoric. When our opponents must fly our colors in order to garner popular support-- they have already lost. Whatever victory they attain will redound to our credit and not to theirs. We should support these efforts to the absolute limits of our abilities. There is a line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic that goes: "I have seen him in the watchfires of a hundred circling camps..." Someone finally shows up to build a blaze next to ours and we want to turn them in for playing with matches. Get real. Get your priorities straight. There is a vast awakening in America. It would be even vaster if it weren't for the legions of morons we have allowed to shelter under our banners. They have to go if we are ever to make this thing work. So often we make the mistake of going for numbers, numbers right now-- without realizing that for every Christian Identity or Republic of Texas loser in our ranks, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of more like-minded patriots who will never swell our ranks for fear of contamination by these dangerous anti-American fanatics. People with money. People with important connections. People whose help we desperately need but aren't going to get. People who won't touch us with a ten-foot-pole because of our hobnobbing with nazis. Don't kid yourself. Look at deeds, not words. None of these Identity swine love the United States. They all seek for a New World Order of their own-- a successor state to be built on the ruins of a failed America. The destruction of America is a crucial element of their plans-- yet they have neither the numbers or the resources to make their twisted dreams of a racial-religious empire a reality without the help of those unwitting dupes in the militia. You wonder why the FBI and the ATF are so interested in the militias? Well, wonder no more. If you harbor traitors in your ranks, you yourself have earned a traitor's wage. This is a struggle in which only the most virtuous will prevail. It is a struggle between love and hatred. If you do not love your fellow man. if you do not love America, if you do not value the mighty deeds of your forefathers, you are not going to win. To all of you who know that America belongs to those who are willing to fight for her in her hour of greatest need, I say: Let us go forward together. The Union forever - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: gun poll (fwd) Date: 29 Jun 1998 19:06:23 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:45:40 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03544; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:35:15 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA29599; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma029523; Mon Jun 29 20:43:29 1998 Message-Id: <9806300008.0o16@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 Jun 29, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] http://www.thirdage.com/polls/?lmenu We are getting wiped on this one too. Josh [------------------------- 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: "David Sagers" Subject: Today's Trib - Permissive Atmosphere Date: 30 Jun 1998 08:30:02 -0600 Tuesday, June 30, 1998=20 Permissive Atmosphere =20 Tom Metcalf's generalizations (``How Many Deaths,'' Forum, June 7) = typify the liberal outlook on life. People cannot be trusted, they need to = be watched at all times or they will hurt themselves or break something, = and we are not smart enough to have firearms. Israel and Switzerland = immediately come to mind. In both places, everyone is armed, everyone = knows this, and most people are accordingly polite. Vermont has basically = the same situation.=20 Children in this country, at least those raised in a liberal, = permissive atmosphere, know that they can get away with anything. Add = Prozac, Ritalin, a defective personality trait or two and voila! Instant = headline. Fifteen minutes of fame.=20 KELLY C. PHELPS=20 Monroe=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Time Magazine Poll Date: 30 Jun 1998 12:39:29 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:53:29 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04129; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:43:02 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA05379; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005336; Tue Jun 30 13:50:45 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980630174101.008db5c8@inet.realresume.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: rlh@recon.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 There are five questions, just under 5000 responses so far, and the = numbers are in our favor. So are the comments on their bulletin board. Let's keep them that way. Remember, politicians use modern Clinton "poll-itics" to = pick safe legislative targets. Let's make certain every such poll shows that = more anti-gun laws will be met with the same kind of response they heard in November 1994. http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: South Carolina News Pole Date: 30 Jun 1998 15:30:18 -0600 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Like Chicago, vote early and vote often! --=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:59:55 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04285; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:49:28 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA16225; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma016052; Tue Jun 30 16:55:58 1998 Message-Id: <9806302026.0o3m@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk 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 Jun 30, Jeff Quinton wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] http://www.palmettojournal.com [------------------------- 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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - --=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: July 3 column - classic July 4th] Date: 30 Jun 1998 20:40:48 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 3, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Most Americans should be ashamed to celebrate the Fourth NOTE: This "classic" column was originally published on July 3, 1997. What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July has become. So long as we stick to grilling hot dogs and hamburgs, hauling the kids to the lake or the mountains, and winding up the day watching the fireworks as the Boston Pops plays the 1812 -- written by a subject of the czar to celebrate the defeat of our vital ally the French -- we can usually manage to convince ourselves we still cling to the same values that made July 4, 1776, a date which still rings in history. Great Britain taxed the colonists at far lower rates than Americans tolerate today -- and never dreamed of granting government agents the power to search our private bank records to locate "unreported income." Nor did the king's ministers ever attempt to stack our juries by disqualifying any juror who refused to swear in advance to "leave your conscience outside this courtroom and enforce the law as the judge explains it to you." The king's ministers insisted the colonists were represented by Members of Parliament who had never set foot on these shores. Today, of course, our interests are "represented" by one of two millionaire lawyers -- both members of the incumbent Republicrat Party -- among whom we were privileged to "choose" last election day, men who for the most part have lived in mansions and sent their kids to private schools in the wealthy suburbs of the imperial capital, for decades. Yet the colonists did rebel. It's hard to imagine, today, the faith and courage of a few hundred frozen musketmen, setting off across the darkened Delaware, gambling their lives and farms on the chance they could engage and defeat the greatest land army in the history of the known world, armed with only two palpable assets: one irreplaceable man to lead them, and some flimsy newspaper reprints of a parchment declaring: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. ..." Do we believe that, still? Recently, President Clinton's then-Drug Czar, Lee Brown, told me the role of government is to protect the people from dangers, such as drugs. I corrected him, saying, "No, the role of government is to protect our liberties." "We'll just have to disagree on that," the president's appointee said. The War for American Independence began over unregistered, untaxed guns, when British forces attempted to seize arsenals of rifles, powder and ball from the hands of ill-organized Patriot militias in Lexington and Concord. American civilians shot and killed scores of these government agents as they marched back to Boston. Are those Minutemen still our heroes? Or do we now consider them "dangerous terrorists" and "depraved government-haters"? In "The Federalist" No. 46, James Madison told us we need have no fear of any federal tyranny ever taking away our rights, arguing that under his proposed Constitution "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," and predicting that any usurpation of powers not specifically delegated would lead to "plans of resistance" and "appeal to a trial of force." Another prominent federalist, Noah Webster, wrote in 1787: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." Is this still true today? Or -- as we all prepare for the new National thumbprint ID Card, pre-screening by Washington before we can accept a new job, and national firearms registration (including long guns) beginning Dec. 1, 1998 -- are those who arm themselves and make contingency "plans of resistance" against government usurpations instead branded "conspirators" and "terrorists," and ridiculously associated with Timothy McVeigh? (McVeigh was kicked out of the only militia meeting he is ever known to have attended -- in Michigan. His actions surely reflect more directly on the screening process of the outfit that gave him his training in munitions -- the United States Army.) In Phoenix last week, an air conditioner repairman and former Military Policeman named Chuck Knight was convicted by jurors -- some tearful -- who said they "had no choice" under the judge's instructions, on a single federal "conspiracy" count of associating with others who owned automatic rifles on which they had failed to pay a $200 "transfer tax" -- after a trial in which defense attorney Ivan Abrams says he was forbidden to bring up the Second Amendment as a defense. Were the Viper Militia readying "plans of resistance," as recommended by Mr. Madison? Would the Constitution ever have been ratified, had Mr. Madison and his fellow federalists warned the citizens that such non-violent preparations would get their weapons seized, and land them in jail for decades? Happy Fourth of July. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke -