From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #66 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 Tuesday, June 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 066 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:00:53 -0600 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Guns and Sin WEEKEND JOURNAL --- Taste -- Review & Outlook: Guns and Sin The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones One of the most amazing quirks of the human psyche is the ability of our most intelligent and well-meaning citizens to believe preposterous things -- that the earth's crust is running out of hydrocarbons, for example, or that you can pass a law taking money out of politics. Among the most durable of these heady notions is that violence is caused by guns. The notion is of course running especially strong just now, given the new fad among disturbed teens of shooting up your school. As best we can count, 19 people have been killed in school shootings at Bethel, Alaska (February 1997), Pearl, Miss. (October 1997), West Paducah, Ky. (December 1997), Jonesboro, Ark. (March 24), Edinboro, Pa. (April 24), Pomono, Calif. (April 28), Fayetteville, Tenn. (May 19), and most recently Springfield, Ore. (May 21). No one can doubt that something ghastly is afoot, not only in urban slums but across the American heartland. These social epidemics are not easy to account for. Urban riots erupted in the "long hot summers" of the 1960s, for example, but then went away without any dramatic improvements in the condition of ghettos or the end of the "two societies" alleged by the high-minded Kerner Commission. In the school shootings, common-sense remedies are no doubt appropriate -- an especially watchful eye on troubled students, for example, or holding adults responsible for the security of guns they own. But it would be mistaken to expect any miracle cure, except perhaps the ancient wisdom, "this too shall pass away." The silver bullet of gun control was deflected somewhat by the comments of Robert Ryker, father of the Jacob Ryker, the 17-year-old wrestler who was wounded in the Oregon attack but managed to tackle and subdue the 15-year-old gunman. "He heard a click, and he knew the rifle was out of ammo," the father said, "and he knew it was time to get the gun away." Mr. Ryker, a navy diver and member of the National Rifle Association, added, "I don't know about this hero business. All the boys did what they had to do to survive. They all did the right thing. When they had a chance to jump in, they did." The actions of Jacob Ryker and the comments of his father remind us that the heartland culture where guns are common also has powerful strengths. Independence, a sense of duty, courage and the like are found everywhere, of course, but are particularly strong in places open enough for shooting and hunting to flourish. This is something for sophisticates to ponder. Then too, even if it were possible to eradicate guns, this would not remove violence. Hong Kong, for example, is an enclave proud of its British heritage of tight gun laws. The weapon of choice in domestic violence is the chopper, or oversized oriental meat cleaver. So you read -- in two stories from last year - -- of a trial suspended because jury members are unable to face crime-scene photos, or a schizophrenic hacking off his mother's head, throwing it from a fourth-floor balcony, and returning to the kitchen to wash the chopper as police arrive. As it happens, indeed, another society is just now experiencing a wave of school violence. In February, Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto expressed "grave concern" after the Japanese cabinet met to consider a series of knife attacks by teenagers, including the death of a teacher and a five-year-old girl. The "butterfly" knife, in which the blade snaps out from a double handle, was featured last year in a TV series by pop star and actor Takuya Kimura; it showed macho characters stabbing a table between spread fingers. The knife manufacturer's association felt it necessary to issue a statement saying, "It would be too simplistic to try to transform a debate on educational problems into a discussion of knives." In this media-drenched age, there may be something to the idea that dangerous fads are spread by TV dramas or door-to-door news coverage of tragedies. But more profoundly, what we should learn, or remember, is that human nature has the capacity for both good and evil. Indeed, the tendency among sophisticates to blame inanimate objects such as knives or guns is a kind of defense mechanism against the principle of personal responsibility. The heartland culture represented by Jacob and Robert Ryker, by contrast, better understands the reality that theologians describe as Original Sin. WSJviaNewsEDGE :PAGE: W9 :SUBJECT: INDD WSJ USA Copyright (c) 1998 Dow Jones and Company, Inc. Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 5/29/98 2:06 AM - ----End Forwarded Message(s)---- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 98 22:58:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Prosecutor Appeals Horiuchi Dismissal - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:01:22 -0700 From: Ed Wolfe To: piml@mars.galstar.com (Since we're quick to voice our outrage at blundering and treachorous politicians, we ought to voice our support to Denise Woodbury for trying to get a small measure of justice. -E.W.) BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A prosecutor (sic, should be 'prosecutrix') said Thursday he (sic) is appealing the dismissal of an involuntary manslaughter charge against the FBI sharpshooter who killed the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed state charges against Lon Horiuchi on May 14. He ruled that Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his federal authority and was honestly discharging his duties when he fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver on Aug. 22, 1992, during the siege at Ruby Ridge. Lodge cited a constitutional clause that immunizes federal authorities from liability when acting within the scope of their jobs. Randy Weaver was acquitted of all charges in connection with the 11-day siege of his mountaintop cabin that also claimed the lives of his 14-year-old son and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan. Weaver urged Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury to seek reinstatement of the state charge. Woodbury accused Horiuchi of negligently firing the shot that killed Mrs. Weaver as she stood inside the cabin holding her infant daughter Elisheba on the second day of the standoff. Lodge said evidence indicated Horiuchi did not see Mrs. Weaver behind the door or in the doorway of the cabin when he fired at Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, who was ducking into the cabin. Harris was also cleared of all charges in connection with the standoff. The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting Horiuchi or any of his FBI superiors and reaffirmed the decision last year. A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government is pending. Weaver filed a similar lawsuit, which last year resulted in a $3.1 million settlement. AP-NY-05-28-98 2015EDT - -- Nation In Distress http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of our society by those who refuse to see the consequences of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 98 08:08:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Get an early start on summer vacation! On Fri, 29 May 1998 Charles Hardy replied to Dr. Sarah Thompson: >>Should a teacher who has an episode of serious depression that >>requires involuntary hospitalization lose her job forever, even >>if she's successfully treated? >No one should lose their RKBA except while actually incarcerated or >hospitalized. If someone has not been rehabilited enough to be >trusted with a gun, we should have imposed a longer sentence because >the fact is once they are on the street, if they want a gun, they can >get one. Then I take it you disagree with the NRA's politically correct and federally implemented position that a person who has a record of felony conviction, or a psychiatric commitment, should be forever anathema and defenseless in the world because she has supposedly forfeited her "civil" rights? It does seem irresponsible to me to put someone out on the street but forbid him to defend himself, or even have means to hunt for meat. Of course the ex post facto "domestic violence" misdemeanor gun ban edicts to which you implicitly refer merely exacerbate this infringement on the unalienable right to life. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:10:59 -0600 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: NRA Election Results Thanks to David Sagers for posting these results of the NRA elections. I checked with Arnold Gaunt, one of the unsuccessful candidates, and he has confirmed that these results are accurate. Not Relevant Anymore is now more appropriate than ever. Sarah Elected for a three-year term ending in 2001: Mr Michael P Baker Ms Sue King Ms M Carol Bambury Mr Michael Lee Rep Bob Barr Mr John Milius Rep Bill Brewster Mr Jim Nicholson Mr David G. Coy Mr Oliver North Sen Larry Craig Mr Ted Nugent Mr William Dailey Mr Lance Olson Ms Sandra Froman Mr James Porter Ms Marion P Hammer Mr Harold Schroeder Mr Charlton Heston Mr Dwight Van Horn Ms Susan Howard Rep Harold Volkmer Mr Brian A Johnson Rep Don Young Mr David C Jones Elected for a one-year term ending in 1999: Mr Alfred Ockenfels Not elected: Mr Sanford Abrams Mr Michael Kindberg Mr Jerry Allen Mr Jeffery Knox Mr F E Bachhuber Mr John Krull Mr Michael Beko Mr Clarence Lovell Mr Ray Cahen Mr John Millay Mr James Church Mr Robley Moore Mr Allen Dapp Mr Larry Rankin Mr William Dominguez Mr Albert Ross Mr Howard Fezell Mr Al Rubega Mr Dan Fiora Mr Frank Sawberger Mr Richard Gardiner Mr Thomas Seefeldt Mr Arnold Gaunt Mr Robin Sharpless Mr Fred Griisser Mr Bill Steg'Kemper Mr Wesley Grogan Mr Bill Steigers Mr David Gross Mr Kim Stolfer Mr John Guest Mr John Thompson Mr Fred Gustafson Mr John Trentes Mr Don Henry Mr Franklin Volk Mr William Hunt Mr Glen Voorhees Mr Phillip Journey - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 98 18:42:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NJ Gun Seizure Update - 5-29-98 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:03:19 -0700 From: Ed Wolfe To: piml@mars.galstar.com Parents insist son poses no threat to teacher, students Published in the Asbury Park Press 5/29/98 By AMY HUGHES and ARPIE NAKASHIAN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP -- The 15-year-old boy charged with threatening his English teacher is under court order not to go outside without parental supervision, his parents said yesterday. "One of his friends called to talk to him yesterday and it was like somebody handed him a million dollars," said Denise Krawiec, the boy's mother. "He is isolated." The parents of Robert J. "R.J" Krawiec, the Pinelands Regional High School freshman who police say handed his English teacher a drawing of a person seen through the cross hairs of a rifle scope, said yesterday that their son is not a threat to his classmates or teachers. Authorities and the parents said the teacher was not depicted in the drawing. "This thing has been blown way out of proportion by what is going on in the rest of the country," said Robert J. Krawiec Sr. "For a rural center like this one, he ("RJ") is a normal boy pursuing normal interests like hunting, fishing and sports." Police charged the freshman with making terroristic threats and have said the boy has behavioral problems at school. Authorities said the seizure of his parents' 20 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from their home on Lake Saint Claire Drive was a precaution. The parents object to the seizure and the action against their son. "Other kids get 10-day suspensions and they are allowed to go back to school," said Mrs. Krawiec, referring to juveniles here and in Stafford Township who have returned to school after bringing live bullets to class. "But R.J. draws a picture and he is made out to look like Charles Manson." The English teacher, Sheila Sledden, informed guidance counselors about the drawing shown to her last Friday and contacted the police on her own, said Paul J. Carr, the attorney for the Pinelands Regional Board of Education. The school did not initiate the police investigation or the search of the boy's home, Carr said yesterday. "He ("RJ") is a quiet kid and the only time he strikes out is when he is pushed too hard," said the boy's mother. "Isn't everyone like that?" While the Krawiecs said their son, who is on the football and wrestling teams, has been involved in an "occasional fight" at school, he never initiates fights. "He is a big boy and people are picking on him," Denise Krawiec said. "He is tired of getting picked on and he is doing the best he can not to fight." Officials at the high school have said the freshman, who has not been at school since last Friday, has been disciplined appropriately. But, citing educational statutes that prohibit them from discussing pupil records and disciplinary actions, officials have declined to specify if Krawiec has been suspended. "In situations like this, where there is a threat or a perceived threat, it is always prudent to remove the student," Carr continued. Policy dictates that the student be referred to the child study team for evaluation, he added. Superintendent Clement A. Crea has the authority to suspend the student for up to 10 days. The board can extend that time or expel, but must first hold a hearing, Carr said. A decision to schedule a hearing is pending the results of separate investigations by the Ocean County prosecutor's office and the district, Carr said. "It is appropriate in situations like these that such a hearing take place," Carr said. "Our primary concern is for the safety of the students and staff within the district." The Krawiecs, who teach hunter education as a team for the state Division of Fish Game and Wildlife, legally own all the seized guns. The Krawiecs, reacting to reports that AK-47s were among the items seized, yesterday showed a police search warrant inventory listing what authorities confiscated. It was mostly collectibles and hunting gear. Weapons including, shotguns, rifles, handguns, BB guns, antiques, black powder guns were stored in three locked gun safes in the home. The collection also includes three old military rifles, a bolt-action 8mm Czech rifle and two SKS 7.62 rifles. One of the Russian-designed rifles was made in China in 1945 and is a collector's item from the Korean War. Most of the ammunition was birdshot and buckshot used for hunting. That ammunition was kept in a fourth safe. "We didn't lock it (the gun collection) up to keep it away from the kids, but, for everybody's safety," Denise Krawiec said. "I don't know who might be coming to the house." - --- From: Asbury Park Press http://www.injersey.com/news/story/0,1210,80470,00.html?prev=0+ - -- Nation In Distress http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of our society by those who refuse to see the consequences of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 98 18:42:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Unarmed Dead - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:45:11 -0700 From: Liberty or Death To: fap@world.std.com, roc@xmission.com, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, ignition-point@pobox.com, fratrum@netside.com, garden@netside.com Subject: Unarmed Dead In light of all the anti-gun blather being bleated on Pravda the last couple of weeks, here are some statistics which show what can, and eventually does, happen when a government makes it illegal to own firearms: The following 123 million ordinary human beings did NOT have guns: The 20th century's top nine megamurderers, as estimated in the book "Death by Government" unarmed dead Joseph Stalin 42,672,000 1929-1936 Mao Tse-Tung 37,828,000 1923-1976 Adolph Hitler 20,946,000 1933-1945 Chiang Kai-shek 10,214,000 1921-1948 Vladimir Lenin 4,017,000 1917-1924 Hideki Tojo 3,990,000 1937-1945 Pol Pot 2,397,000 1968-1987 Yayha Khan 1,500,000 1971 (Pakistan) Josip Tito 1,172,000 1941-1987 (Yugoslavia) - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:48:44 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Get an early start on summer vacation! On Sat, 30 May 98 08:08:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted: >Then I take it you disagree with the NRA's politically correct and >federally implemented position that a person who has a record of felony >conviction, or a psychiatric commitment, should be forever anathema and >defenseless in the world because she has supposedly forfeited her >"civil" rights? Yes I do. The simple fact is if they are willing to obey the current law and not obtain a gun, they probably don't pose any threat anyway. Those who do pose a threat can and always will be able to easily buy, steal, or make weapons. - -- 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jun 98 18:34:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: CONGRESS ACTION: May 31, 1998 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/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jun 98 06:56:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Framing The Terms.... 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:18:19 -0400 From: "John A. Quayle" Subject: Framing The Terms.... 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jun 98 06:56:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Framing The Terms.... 2/2 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #66 **********************************