From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #37 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 037 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:01:44 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Citizens Section - Wed March 25, 1998 The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ #Gunowners endure bigotry from many sources They should be lauded rather than criticized for taking personal responsibility of their safety and the safety of others. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Sarah Thompson Sandy The Salt Lake Tribune reported several months ago that Rob Bishop, chairman of the Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools." The Tribune editors responded that Bishop's analogy is a "silly comparison." They further alleged that "the presence of guns in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice. This point of view is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry and ignorance. Bishop is not battling statistics; rather statistics support his position. Scholarly research shows that "concealed carry" decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased. This result is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of concealed carry, violent crime falls 6 to 8 percent. Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are less willing to attack any given person. The presence of people carrying firearms thus protects the general public, the children and even the anti-gun bigots. Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of themselves, their families and even total strangers, should be honored, not shunned. Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace. Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent predators. Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning indictment of government officials who seek to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places. Although some would have us believe that prejudice applies only to skin color, prejudice is defined as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The Tribune, Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City School Board have all declared their anti-gun position without knowledge or examination of the facts. Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun carriers are law-abiding; and Bishop is precisely correct in calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name. The real issue is trust. If elected officials do not trust their constituents with firearms, why should the constituents trust the officials to spend their money, uphold the Constitution or direct the national guard? If certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why should citizens trust them to uphold the law? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of them to break the law because of their own bigotry toward a group of law-abiding citizens. The lawbreakers in government should realize that their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest of us. Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage lawlessness. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:11:54 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting] -Forwarded Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yHu5o-0000bY-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:00 -0700 Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yHu5m-0000bO-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:35:58 -0700 Received: from (yoda.corp.es.com) [130.187.95.61] by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yHu5j-0007as-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:35:55 -0700 Received: by yoda.corp.es.com (8.6.10/e&s/sunos/client/5.1) id KAA04349; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Message-Id: <199803251736.KAA04349@yoda.corp.es.com> Subject: [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting] Bcc: Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com - ----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 - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:19:35 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Citizen article Congrats to Sarah for a very nicely written pro-gun article in the Citizens. - -- 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. "Disperse you Rebels - Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse." -- Maj. John Pitcairn, Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:48:55 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: VANGUARD: Fudging the Numbers -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA12798; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:48:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma012729; Wed Mar 25 12:47:22 1998 Message-Id: <852565D2.00321CE8.00@xdallng1.dal.mobil.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pete_ciancia@email.mobil.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: pete_ciancia@email.mobil.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: VANGUARD: Fudging the Numbers X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Some interesting statistics... - ---------------------- Forwarded by Pete Ciancia/EastCoast/Mobil-Notes on 03/25/98 04:09 AM --------------------------- RodColumn@aol.com on 03/24/98 02:52:13 AM To: cc: (bcc: Pete Ciancia/EastCoast/Mobil-Notes) Subject: VANGUARD: Fudging the Numbers FUDGING THE NUMBERS 23 March 1998 Copyright 1998, Rod D. Martin "Vanguard of the Revolution" http://members.aol.com/RodDMartin/vanguard.htm "Creative statistics" is certainly nothing new, but is unquestionably an area in which Bill Clinton and his friends excel. Take for instance the President's sky-high job approval numbers. While the media marvels that, despite everything, people are generally happy with a President who isn't rocking the boat of prosperity, they completely fail to report the real story: U.S. News and World Report's latest poll reveals that fully 50 percent of Americans disapprove of the President as a person, with a mere 36 percent supporting him. Even worse still, Mr. Clinton's support among Democratic women has dropped a whopping 17 percent. In an impeachment scenario the results of this are obvious: Americans might think their accountant or lawyer or nanny competent, but if they caught her taking bribes from family enemies or sexually assaulting their children, her job would evaporate. No wonder the President hasn't given an interview since January 21st. A lack of proof is all that keeps the pink slip away. Twisted polling numbers of this sort will ultimately have little effect, because the legal process will grind on relentlessly, without any regard to them. In other areas, though, Mr. Clinton's fudged numbers are working magic, specifically a black sort of magic that erodes the Bill of Rights and makes terrible public policy to boot. One such area is gun violence. It bears looking into. In 1994, Mr. Clinton's own Department of Justice commissioned a survey by the anti-gun Police Foundation. The study, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," was completed last year, and it's conclusion was astounding, though you have not heard a word about it from the Administration. The report's bombshell conclusion: "Guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime." Using statistical techniques expressly designed to minimize any pro-gun conclusion, the study's findings were nevertheless profound. In the year studied, 1.5 million Americans used guns to defend their homes, families or property. In the words of the study, literally "millions of attempted assaults, thefts and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period." Much of the rest of the study is devoted to trying to explain away the surveyors' own results -- at one point it even claims that those interviewed may have been insane or drug addicted! -- yet the study itself admits that its conclusions are "directly comparable" to other similar studies. And in any case, it seems a tad difficult to imagine that the surveyors would not have found better data (read: more favorable to their position) if it had been possible to do so. No, the fact is that the Police Foundation's study was the fifteenth national survey to reach this same conclusion in the past two decades. Every one of them has discovered results in the same range, and every one of them has concluded the same thing that this Administration of anti-gun zealots refuses to accept: guns save lives. Lots of lives. Every day. The proof is all around us. Take Florida: violent crime has dropped consistently ever since the state's concealed carry law was passed. Or take Kennesaw, Georgia: having passed a city ordinance requiring every household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime within twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984. In the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a risky business indeed!" Or to put it another way, what idiot would try to rob an armed man when there are so many disarmed targets all around? The President's motivation? Who can say? Some explain it as just a knee-jerk liberal hatred of people being able to control their own lives without state intervention and "protection;" others point to Ruby Ridge and Waco and see something significantly more sinister. But whatever it may be, Bill Clinton is willing to sacrifice the truth here, as everywhere else, to suit his personal agenda. If literally millions of people are robbed, raped or killed as a result of his legislation, he simply doesn't care. Ever since Gennifer Flowers back in 1992, the left has told us that Bill Clinton's betrayal of his wife was his own private matter, and that it had no bearing on what kind of job he did as President. They were wrong. A man who will lie to his wife will lie to anyone, about anything. Make a note of it. Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 23 March 1998 - --------------------------------------------------------------- To receive Vanguard of the Revolution via email send a note to RodColumn@aol.com with the subject heading: subscribe vanguard your name To unsubscribe, send a note to the same address with the subject heading: remove vanguard your name WWW: http://members.aol.com/roddmartin/vanguard.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: RodDMartin@aol.com FAX: (870) 246-4727 Smail: Rod D. Martin Vanguard of the Revolution P. O. Box 55947 Little Rock, AR 72215-5947 - --------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:47:27 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Incumbent Protection Back Again -Forwarded Received: (qmail 3509 invoked by uid 516); 26 Mar 1998 00:24:14 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 3475 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 00:24:09 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 00:24:09 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA07030 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-41.rmi.net (166-93-76-41.rmi.net [166.93.76.41]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11402; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:09:40 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199803260009.RAA11402@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:13:43 -0700 To: tonyheck@juno.com From: Douglas Davis Subject: Incumbent Protection Back Again Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis - ----------------------- >Return-Path: >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:55:41 -0500 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Incumbent Protection Back Again > > Republican Leaders Resurrect Problematic Bill > > by Gun Owners of America > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, > (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org > (Wednesday, March 25, 1998) > >Incumbent Protection Bill revived in the House > > Having died in the Senate, the Incumbent Protection Bill has >now been resurrected in the House. This new draft, like its >predecessors in the House and the Senate, would severely regulate >-- or "chill" -- the free speech of groups like GOA by limiting >their ability to report on incumbents' records during the >election season. This, of course, would benefit the anti-gun >media and incumbents, who would not be limited in their ability >to publicize (and distort) their own records or viewpoints. > > For example, on page 7 of this new bill (H.R. 3485), GOA >"political activity" that would be heavily regulated (and >prohibited in many cases) would be "any activity carried out for >the purpose of influencing (in whole or in part) any election for >Federal office, influencing the consideration or outcome of any >Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal >regulation, or educating individuals about candidates . . . " > > When debating the Senate bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) >summarized this issue quite well: > > The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear . . . > [that] spending is speech and the first amendment applies > to individuals, groups, candidates and parties, as well as > applying to the press. . . . [The press doesn't] like it. > They would like to have more power, not less. They would > like to control our campaigns, control the discourse in the > course of the campaign that goes on, and control the > outcome with their editorial endorsement. But the first > amendment doesn't allow them to control the political > process. It also doesn't allow the Government, through > some statute we passed here, to be put in charge of > regulating either the quality or the quantity of political > speech. (Source: Congressional Record, 2/26/98.) > > ACTION: Gun owners should urge their Representatives to >oppose any bill (like H.R. 3485) that would not only restrict >your First Amendment rights, but the free speech rights of those >groups (like GOA) that represent you. A vote on the House bill >is scheduled for this week. > > To contact Capitol Hill, call 202-225-3121, or use the toll >free number at 1-800-522-6721. Individual office numbers, fax >numbers, and e-mail addresses can be found at the GOA website. > > >GOA spokesmen counter gun grabbers in aftermath of Jonesboro >shooting > > From Fox Cable Network to MSNBC and other media outlets, >spokesmen from Gun Owners of America have been called on today to >counter Chuck Schumer and his fellow gun grabbers in the >aftermath of yesterday's tragic shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas. > > Not surprisingly, the shooting has led to the familiar cries >for more gun control on today's talk shows. As if reading off >the same page, many pundits have trotted out the same old, >worn-out argument that the "availability of guns" is the problem. > > Of course, what these gun grabbers miss is that the young >thugs broke several laws already (murder, no guns allowed within >1,000 feet of a school, possession with intent to commit a crime, >etc.). Moreover, the anti-gun zealots completely ignore the >biggest evidence that their "availability of guns causes crime" >mentality is pure myth. Consider that in the 1950's, when there >were far fewer gun control laws on the books, there was not a >problem with illegal guns in schools. There was no Brady law, no >semi-auto ban, no Gun Free Zones Ban. Guns were more "available" >in the 1950's and yet there was no "gun problem" in the schools! > > So what has changed? Well, the lax punishment of criminal >juveniles and the imitation of T.V. violence are just two of many >reasons. But clearly, guns are LESS AVAILABLE today than they >were 40 years ago. As you contact your elected officials, make >sure they don't buy into this "availability of guns is the >problem" myth. > >*********************************************************** >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. > > > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:09:12 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation (fwd) -Forwarded Received: (qmail 2377 invoked by uid 516); 24 Mar 1998 00:50:31 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 2077 invoked from network); 24 Mar 1998 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (206.214.98.4) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 1998 00:50:03 -0000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA14886 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:49:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from den-co16-15.ix.netcom.com(205.184.147.143) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014860; Mon Mar 23 18:49:33 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980324003630.00689238@popd.netcruiser> X-Sender: pquixote@popd.netcruiser X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:36:30 -0700 To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com From: Patricia Fosness Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation (fwd) Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness - ----------------------- >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:27:06 -0600 >From: Gary Stocker >To: tsra-email-list@Mailing-List.net >Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation > >-- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- >March 22, 1998 > >The House will soon consider asset forfeiture legislation. HR 1835 >provides much needed reforms of existing laws to ensure that the >rights of individuals are protected from government abuse. > >Unfortunately, the Clinton Justice Department is pushing another bill, >HR 1965, that would give the government far-reaching power to seize >the property and businesses of individuals merely suspected of >wrongdoing. > >Please call your Congressman at 202-225-3121, and urge him/her to >support HR 1835, true asset seizure reform legislation, and OPPOSE the >Clinton Administration's power grabbing bill, HR1965. > >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. > > > Regards, Pat Fosness NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection - -------------------------------------------------------------- "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Ghandi - 1927 - -------------------------------------------------------------- Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:19:08 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Rules of Engagement - ----------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] 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 - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #37 **********************************