From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #36 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Wednesday, March 25 1998 Volume 02 : Number 036 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:50:48 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote: > >Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior > > >Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved > >with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in > >mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this > >forum voted against supporting the bill. > > Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it? > If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to > read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list? > > - They may well have had a BBS in the past, they do not now. As to starting their own list...they have one, or two. Because it takes considerable time and money to maintain, it is for dues paying members only at this time. If someone would care to make a significant donation along with their membership dues, perhaps the USSC could afford to distribute their stuff to a wider audience. For now, though, many of the people who receive USSC correspondence are without access or other requirement to have internet access, and prefer to use newsletters, fax and telephone to correspond. As to how they spend their time, most of these folks have non-desk jobs and have other things to do with their time than to wade thru a bunch of flame wars and petty bickering on the internet. While some may disagree with their philosophy, or their political affiliations, they are doing more than just being keyboard jockeys. In the years that I've been involved with socio/political/philosophical people, I've really never known a set of people who work harder at their "hobby" than this bunch...in the face of support that's a "mile wide and an inch deep". So maybe I can disagree with some of the board's personal philosophy, and I can certainly believe that some of them haven't come to agree with me yet, but I can't fault their willingness to put their backs to the task and work like dogs to accomplish what they do. So, instead of wasting more time on this pettieness, I'm going to go work - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:24:11 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver At 07:41 AM 3/19/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote: >>Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior > >>Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved >>with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in >>mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this >>forum voted against supporting the bill. > >Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it? >If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to >read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list? USSC does not currently have a BBS. It does have a mail list, but that's one-way. I'm perfectly willing to set up a BBS, and have the ability to do so. However, I suspect a request for same from _members_ would be required for the board to agree to such a plan. The above is my opinion only and does not reflect the views of the USSC Board. Sarah To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:14:42 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Interesting letter to the ed Thursday, March 19, 1998 Our Olympic Facelift No one has been more excited about the prospect of the 2002 Winter Olympics being held in Salt Lake City than I have been. I have been enthusiastic to the point of even supporting the notion of some tax dollars being used to support this event. The Olympics would be a wonderful way of showcasing Utah to the world. Some aspects of these Winter Games, however, are troubling me. There seems to be a disturbing trend of using the 2002 Games to shame Utahns into liberalizing liquor laws, further restricting firearms and going full steam ahead on every public works project imaginable. Organizers seem ashamed of our local history and heritage. They appear more concerned about fixing all of us ``yokels'' so we may be ``fit'' to display on the world stage than they are with respecting our rights and traditions. In my estimation, this is lousy public relations for an organization counting on the good will of locals to provide a first-class event. The ``world is welcome here,'' but Utah is our home. Not everyone has to sing in the local ward choir to be a welcome guest, but we shouldn't have to trash our home, deny our heritage or hide our customs to make our guests feel welcome. If SLOC feels we do, then they have lost my support. KEITH TAUFER Salt Lake City - -- 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. "They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry (1736- 1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:15:56 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Core dump Hi all! Well, just when you think it can't get any worse..... my ISP core dumped all my mail. So - anything you sent to me after 12:30 to 1:00 PM MST today (3/19) is probably forever lost in the ether. If it was important, please resend it. Thanks! Sarah Thompson - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:43:25 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Texas Concealed Carry--Violence Policy Center refuted] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------651F7EAA6379 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Of possible interest to some.... (personally, I think using stats to justify rights is a losing battle, but...)(And yes, in advance, I realize that CCW permitting is a priviledge, not a right, etc.) - --------------651F7EAA6379 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA09935; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:45:54 -0700 Return-Path: Received: from ssiinc.com by phbtsus.com with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA2508436475; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:30:35 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23892; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com" via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa005p9; Thu Mar 19 13:32:29 1998 Message-Id: <5DF954E5628@law1.law.ucla.edu> Errors-To: volokh@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Originator: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Sender: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Precedence: bulk From: "Dave Kopel" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Texas Concealed Carry--Violence Policy Center refuted X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Below is John Lott's reply to the Violence Policy Center "study" claiming that Texans with concealed carry permits commit crime at a high rate. License to Kill?: Careful look at critical study actually backs gun permit holders By John R. Lott, Jr. [Originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 6J] There has been some confusion over whether people who have permits to carry concealed handguns are as law-abiding as other Texans. Using the provocative title "License to Kill," the Violence Policy Center recently released a report claiming that "those who do carry concealed handguns get into trouble more often than other Texans." While there is cause to wonder whether the Violence Policy Center overreported the number of permit holders arrested, even its own numbers don't justify that claim. During 1996 and 1997, the first two years that the concealed handgun law was in effect, 163,096 people were licensed. During that period, 263 license holders were arrested for felony offenses, and another 683 were arrested for misdemeanor offenses. By comparison, if permit holders had been arrested at the same rate as the average adult Texan, they would have had 731 arrests for violence crimes and 2,202 for property crimes. Thus, permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as nonpermit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes. The public's ultimate concern is whether permit holders have used their concealed handguns improperly. So let's look at some more statistics to determine that. During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for felonies involving the "deadly conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for the "deadly conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in connection with four deaths. If permit holders had been arrested for murder at the same rate as other adult Texans, 56 would have been arrested. Equally important, relying on arrest rates misses an important difference between permit holders and others who are arrested for murder. While the vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that hasn't been true for permit holders. Of the four deaths mentioned, none has resulted in a conviction. In fact, two so far have been cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense. Thirty-five other permit holders were arrested for other felony "weapon-related offenses," but those involved the unlawful carrying of a weapon in places such as airports and schools. None of those cases apparently involved threats but invariably resulted from people who forgot they had a gun with them. Overall, the experience in Texas is similar to that in other states. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 through 1997. About half, 204,700, currently are licensed. Eighty-four people lost their licenses after using a firearm in the commission of a felony. So far in Virginia, not a single Virginia permit holder has been involved in a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states for which detailed records are available. In December, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, summed up the typical reaction of those police officers who opposed the concealed handgun law before its adoption: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I am a convert." Harris County District Attorney John Holmes admitted he is "eating a lot of crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am doing it on this." In a forthcoming book, I find evidence indicating that concealed handgun laws save lives and reduce the threats that citizens face from rapes, robberies and assaults. Criminals tend to attack victims whom they perceive as weak, and guns can offset the differences in strength and serve as an important deterrent. People don't even have to carry a permit themselves to benefit. The fact that criminals can't tell whether a potential victim has a concealed gun makes them less likely to attack people in general. Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there. In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, studies like those done by the Violence Policy Center needlessly scare people and don't move us any closer to answering that question. John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, which will be published by the University of Chicago Press in May This article is available at http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/OpEdArcv/License%20to%20Kill.htm "La circulation des idees est, des tous les genres de commerce, celui don les avantages sont les plus certains." (Of all the types of trade, the circulation of ideas is the one that results in the most certain benefits). Mme. de Stael, "L'Esprit des traducions." - --------------651F7EAA6379-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 21:37:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Rules of Engagement 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:43:42 -0800 From: "J.J. Johnson" To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com To All Second Amendment Associates, It's time to have another serious discussion about a troubling pattern that has been developing once again. I'm referring to these recent rash of arrests across the country and a few other things... It is very easy to take the knee-jerk approach, and say that they were all "set up" by the government. Even I say that, and it's probably true. But we should not have to spend valuable time giving everyone another crash course about undercover agents, informants, provocateurs, etc. Perhaps it's time to establish some common policies for the best interest of this institution. 1) Let's put it this way: If you can't have a meeting and avoid the discussion of killing people, blowing things up, manufacturing ordnance, or selecting targets, then STAND DOWN YOUR UNIT! You're really not helping the rest of us, and you and your friends are a conspiracy charge waiting to happen. 2) If you find yourself in custody, and you are told to wear a wire for less jail time, use some common sense-- tell your unit that you are wearing a wire. Write a note if you have to. Your unit leader will be more than happy to send false information back to your handlers. 3) As we all understand that it is everyone's responsibility to prevent domestic terrorism, that doesn't mean that we have to make weekly reports to law enforcement, induce crime just to make a case, or end up being a material witness against one or more of our associates in court -- all for thirty pieces of silver. To those who are practicing this behavior, keep in mind that your handlers consider you expendable. They'll have no problem tossing your buns in jail after they're done using you. You also lose friends that way. One can simply read the penal codes to see that many people spend less time in state jails for manslaughter than they do for federal conspiracy or weapons charges. Think about it. 4) If you do not believe that all men are created equal, and are guaranteed certain inalienable rights, then please do the rest of us a favor, and stop using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to hide behind your "ends justify the means" ideology. Let me put this another way: In this country, Freedom, Liberty and Justice must not be guaranteed to [only] a select few, or determined by pigmentation, religion, or national origin. If you have a problem with this, there are other continents you can live on populated with people more suitable to your ethnic background. I only hope your flight out of JFK airport makes it past Long Island. Who am I referring to? Those who have knowingly justified every false and negative stereotype given to this movement. Those whose rantings, actions, and subsequent arrests have done more public relations damage than the Oklahoma City Bombing itself. Those who claim to be "underground", but their enemies always find ways to "dig them up". As usual, I expect to receive reams of character assassinations, name callings, and false accusations for those remarks. Go ahead. My delete key is armed and ready. But I digress... 5) Public Recruiting Breeds Informants! Maybe we were working under a misconception in the first place. Why try to convince people to join something that they're already a member of anyway? Why try to convince people of a war that is already taking place? Face it, folks: Counter- intelligence operatives are getting paid big bucks for what they do. That's why there are so many of them. Of course, we all feel our country and our rights slipping away. This fustration naturally gives some of us a tendency to reach for the sword. To some degree, our ability to remain civilized in the midst of an uncivilized authority has ensured our survival to this point. I say with deep conviction that there are enforcement agents who would love nothing more than to have their photos taken while standing over dead patriots, just like Klansmen who gleamed with pride standing over the burning corpses of dead negroes. Let's not willingly give them the opportunity of that photo-op. There is no need to declare war on them. They have already declared it on us. *** Okay...I've spent enough time on my soap box saying what NOT to do. Sorry, but like I said before, the leaders out there need to stop being "cheerleaders". Stop preaching and start teaching. Queries have come this way asking how could we deal with this problem. Here are my suggestions: NOTE: many of you believe that the following information doesn't apply to you since you're not "one of us". Unfortunately, you opposition doesn't discriminate any longer. If you've got a problem with government, they've got a problem with you. Deal with it. Even if you have taken the pledge not to advocate the use of force to achieve political or social goals, you are not exempt from government's "situational ethics". Most if not all of the people who have been assaulted by the government never expected it to happen, nor did they ever see it coming. Anticipation of this fateful moment, along with subsequent prior planning is the first step to a sound defense. Anything less is uncivilized. [End NOTE] - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 21:37:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Rules of Engagement 2/2 The "system" is designed to neutralize any group that plans anything or anyway to counter the "system". The enemy has changed the Rules of Engagement. Now, it's time to change ours. We need to spend more time at Radio Shack and less time at the Gun Show and Gun Stores. We need to spend more time infiltrating and less time being infiltrated. We need to spend more time scrambling communication gear and less time scrambling to hide our gear. We need to spend more time keeping ourselves out of court and less time trying to build new courts. We need to spend more time becoming fully informed jurors and less time being convicted by them. We need to spend more time making our own lists, and less time worrying about who's on their list. We need to spend more time becoming the deterrent of the next Waco, and less time being the excuse for the next Waco. I could go on and on... Let's take working with communications, for instance. It has a three fold benefit: 1) There's nothing illegal about that discussion 2) It will help provided an early warning system and 3) Operations will be more secure. We know the general protocol of our enemy when we are attacked or assaulted. Communications are the first thing to go. Now is the time to improve our networking skills. To put it simply: Our opposition fears a 50 watt FM transmitter more than it does a .50 cal rifle. Just ask Arthur L. (Lonnie) Kobres of Lutz County, Florida. We are about 5 to 10 years behind the basic technology of audio, video, photographic, and digital use in the field. Our associates in various states have proven that these topics can be debated openly with no fear of a conspiracy charge. Those states that have developed sound and effective networks, have reaped rewards for their efforts by having no arrests to date. Communication networking as our first line of defense must become our top priority. This will take a major attitude adjustment at many meetings. Sure, much of this equipment is expensive. But we are better off selling one of our firearms and buying two-way gear than we are *donating* all of our weapons to the other side due to lack of communications. Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the late 18th century, the Committees of Correspondence were created long before Lexington and Concord ever happened. Think about it. As far as folks *planning* hostile activities, FORGET IT. Your best friend can rat you out. I've even seen the opposition use spouses, cousins and brothers against one another. If you believe that now is the time to act, you're on your own. If you think that now is the time to take action, then you don't need me or anyone else to tell you. If you are wondering when do we draw the line, well... the chalk is in your hand. If you're wondering who your commanding officer is, get on your knees and pray - then go look in a mirror. If you haven't found your commanding officer by then, you're in the wrong business. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. It's called Unintended Consequences. Go read it. Whining and crying about the latest assault on someone's home is counterproductive. Whenever a raid happens, if it can't be stopped, we should at least gather enough information so we could learn from it. How many were there? What tactics did they use? What type of equipment did they use? Who was the informant? How did the media respond? What actions can we take to prevent it next time? Go to any military war college or SWAT briefing. The officers use past battles to learn future combat tactics. Not just victories, but defeats as well. This means less time preparing for the U.N. takeover or the next race war, and more time focusing on the immediate threat: The person(s) who have the hand in your pocket, the foot in your door, and the gun in your face. Yes, working on these principles is a tall order. It means we don't have time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic when the iceberg is in full view -- as we have been doing for too long. Each of us should be prepared with basic the tools for battle. We should all learn, how, where, when, and why we should use them, and how they should be protected. We should all educate ourselves to be prepared for most emergencies. When a time to respond to a given action occurs, each of us should instinctively know what to. Items such as target acquisitions, times, locations and firearms need not be discussed to formulate these polices. TO RESTATE: There will come a day when people may have to respond to aggression. At that point, group response must be spontaneous. Each person willing to defend the sovereign must instinctively know what options are available, and how to carry out the operations. As it become more and more obvious that each of us are slowing becoming targeted for termination solely on our political beliefs, now is the time for a complete strategic overhaul. When a raid takes place, we lose another sword. Another safe house. Another voice for freedom. Even if we don't agree with their politics. None of us are perfect. Nor do I have all the answers. When an event happens, we must admit our errors, learn from our mistakes, make corrections, and move forward. Covers-ups, unnecessary finger pointing, back-biting, and screaming "revenge" must stop. Top priority must be given to protocols, communications, and networking to provide better escape and evasion techniques if and when necessary. This must be done for our own survival before ensuring Liberty in any form. The Second Amendment alone will not ensure Liberty and Justice, nor will it be successful as the only line of defense. Take a good look at the First Amendment. Consider its use as a first strike weapon -- a necessary enhancement to our overall defense strategy. Discussions of these topics at your next meetings will be much more productive... ...and much less incriminating. J.J. Johnson -- And now, back to the battlefield. citizen@mindspring.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:04:17 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd) -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA27118; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:16:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma026997; Mon Mar 23 09:12:11 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:38:46 -0600 From: Gary Stocker To: tsra-email-list@Mailing-List.net Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban - -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- March 22, 1998 The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which develops and coordinates legislative policy making for the GOP in the Senate and is chaired by NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig (ID), sharply criticized the Clinton Administration's "back door" plan for a sweeping new ban on firearms. At issue: thousands of foreign-made firearms -- guns the Committee report accurately termed "legally importable under President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting purposes' import standard." The President's goal: banning guns by circumventing Congress and sing his power to halt imports. "While every firearm sold in the United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the Administration is now attempting to justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role of Congress," the Committee report explained. The next salvo in the battle over the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban will be fired any day now, when the Treasury Department releases its review of the 1968 "sporting purposes" standard. NRA-ILA predicts that the Clinton Administration will misuse this unconstitutional standard and ban as many imported semiautomatic firearms as possible -- all guns legal under his own gun ban -- continuing the Clinton tradition of hypocrisy, abuse of power and elimination of Second Amendment rights by every means possible. Call the Senate Republican Policy Committee at 202-224-2946, compliment them for their document titled "Clinton's New Gun Ban" dated March 16, 1998, and request a copy so you can mail one to your elected representatives. You may also download a copy from the SRPC's website at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/pubindex98.htm Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:31:03 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: March 22 column - counties] A good read from Vin... - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MARCH 22, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Counties join forces against 'green' steamroller Faced with what they see as another ploy by federal agencies and their "environmental" allies to cut off productive use of vast tracts of Western land, eight counties in four southwestern states have founded the Quad-State County Government Coalition. As the federal government moved to put in place its West Mojave regional management plan, designed to restrict human activities on millions more acres via the fiction of declaring the desert tortoise, the Mojave ground squirrel, and other species to be "endangered" or "threatened," the counties -- including Lincoln in Nevada, Inyo in California, and Mojave in Arizona -- "felt they didn't have enough say," and "decided their interests would be served by attacking the listing itself rather than looking for consensus," says an opponent of the group, wildlife biologist Jim Moore of The Nature Conservancy of Nevada. The goal is to present a "united front," explains Kathy Davis, a supervisor in San Bernardino County in California, another signatory. "In the past we've hurt ourselves by fighting each battle as though we were in it alone." Clark County (Las Vegas), which adopted its own desert tortoise habitat plan several years ago (under typical blackmail pressure from the federals), has not joined. The coalition will seek to overturn the desert tortoise "critical habitat" designation and to stop enforcement of the tortoise recovery plan, which the counties argue go too far and tie up too much otherwise usable land. But most significantly, the counties now plan to seek redress -- monetary compensation -- for damages caused by "overly restrictive and unsupported decisions and actions of federal agencies" involved with the tortoise and other wildlife habitat issues. "It's very transparent what their agenda is," carps Moore of The Nature Conservancy. "Their justifications and their counter-arguments are not well respected and not rooted in science." One thing they (start ital)are(end ital) rooted in is the Bill of Rights - -- the Fifth Amendment clearly states the federal government must pay for any land it "takes," as it surely does "take" any land which it high-handedly removes from productive human use (as the Supreme Court has recently agreed, more than once.) But meantime, for the likes of Mr. Moore to contend that these endangered and threatened species listings are "rooted in science" is the height of hypocrisy. Everyone knows the West is positively acrawl with desert tortoises and spotted owls. The question is whether the "Northern" spotted owl and the "Mojave" desert tortoise are really separate species. In a double blind test, could Mr. Moore and his "wildlife biologists" sort from a mixed batch the "endangered" subspecies from the other kind? They know they cannot. Threatened "subspecies" are nothing but a legal invention -- defined by arbitrary, human-set boundaries -- to "protect" vast tracks of land from productive human use ... never the intent of the congressmen who passed the Endangered Species Act in the first place (even if such a scheme is authorized under the Constitution ... a question for another day, though a good one.) For that matter, where is the "science" to prove that tortoises do better on land from which grazing cattle have been banished? In fact, there is at least anecdotal evidence of long standing that tortoises fare better during droughts, on lands which (start ital)are(end ital) grazed by cattle. The tortoises -- which cannot travel as far to water -- acquire moisture from the cattle droppings, the cattle (in this case) filling the ecological niche occupied in previous times by herds of wild grazers. "Science," indeed! The eight counties deserve hearty congratulations for standing up to the federal steamroller -- deluded Eastern collectivists in green suits waving their magic wands and aiming to "restore" the entire West into a vast, uninhabited buffalo plain. Other Nevada counties should strongly consider joining up. There is no evidence that these massive federal schemes are necessary to keep the tortoise or the prairie dog from extinction, nor does anyone believe that is their main purpose. But beyond that, if it ever does come down to mankind being able to survive and prosper here, vs. the preservation of the tortoise, then let us recall that millions of species went extinct on a regular basis, long before mankind was present on this globe, only to have their ecological niches promptly filled by a fresh biological "new try." Even if we have the hubris -- the chutzpah -- to believe we (start ital)can(end ital) amend the harsh rules of survival by which Nature's God chooses which creatures shall survive and which shall pass away ... who is to say we (end ital)should(end ital)? That surely is a matter of religious conviction -- and as it turns out, the federal government is specifically banned from any such establishment of religion, by yet another of those pesky first 10 amendments. 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/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams - ----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. "Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting] - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Guns save lives, says Libertarian Party -- despite tragic shooting at Arkansas school WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday's tragic massacre in an Arkansas school yard - -- where a pair of schoolboys brutally shot and killed five unsuspecting people -- won't cause the Libertarian Party to budge one inch on its 100% pro-gun position, the party's chairman said today. "The Libertarian Party will continue to fight any attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans -- despite efforts by political vultures to exploit this tragedy to advance their anti-gun agenda," said Steve Dasbach, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Guns not only save more lives than they cost, they are a fundamental bulwark in our defense of liberty. Any effort to restrict that right is not only unsafe, it's positively un-American," he said. "Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, survivors, and families of this tragedy. And, like all Americans, we hope that the perpetrators are punished appropriately for this horrific crime. But don't punish the Bill of Rights for the actions of two mentally ill juvenile criminals." Dasbach's comments came 24 hours after two young boys, age 11 and 13, opened fire on classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Their barrage left four students and one teacher dead, and 11 others wounded. But aren't Libertarians somewhat leery of speaking out in favor of guns after such a tragedy? No, said Dasbach: "The time to defend the Second Amendment is not when it is easy, but when it is most difficult. That is when the danger is greatest that politicians -- perhaps well-meaning, but deluded -- will try to revoke our Second Amendment rights. "In fact, failing to speak out now would be to surrender to the demagogues. We know that numerous politicians will swoop in on the blood-stained victims of this tragedy, and use their needless deaths as an excuse to demand that Americans give up their rights in exchange for promised security. But the criminal behavior of young psychopaths should not be the basis of unconstitutional laws," he said. Besides, said Dasbach, the tragedy in Arkansas is an opportunity to remind Americans that guns actually save lives. "For every one innocent victim murdered in Arkansas, there are dozens of Americans who are alive today because of the defensive use of guns," he pointed out. * Research by Peter Hart Associates in 1980 found that 4% of American households reported defensive use of a handgun within the previous five years. * In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year. Every year an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed citizens acting in self-defense. * As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun, reported Kleck in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (New York: Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991). * And a Cato Institute study this year found that violent crime rates dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed "concealed-carry" laws - -- with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and aggravated assaults reduced by 7.7%. "Libertarians know that guns are not the cause of America's rising tide of violence. In fact, they're one of the solutions," said Dasbach. "We believe the most effective way to stop human predators is by repealing the laws prohibiting concealed weapons. We also know that guns are the best defense an individual can have against crime, and that the laws banning guns accomplish only one thing -- victim disarmament." But Libertarians don't support gun rights merely as a deterrent to crime, said Dasbach. "We're also the only political party with the guts to publicly state, and forcefully defend, the true purpose of the Second Amendment," he said. "Ultimately, that purpose isn't about hunting, or collecting, or target shooting. It's not even about stopping criminals. It's about defending freedom against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic. "That's why the Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights, and why Libertarians will continue to support that right," he said. "Yes, we mourn the victims in Arkansas whose lives were needlessly lost because of the actions of deranged criminals -- but we will never let criminals or opportunistic politicians blackmail us into surrendering our fundamental rights." # # # LPUtah LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com LPUtah - ----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. "Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791 - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #36 **********************************