From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #193 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, July 12 2000 Volume 02 : Number 193 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:22:40 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Derek Smith on Gun Control Thank you for the clarification. I'm copying this as before for list subscribers' information. Scott Bergeson - ----- Subject: Derek Smith on Gun Control Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:05:44 -0600 From: "Todd" To: "Scott Bergeson" I am an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe the Constitution is clear about the right to keep and bear arms. I think the proposed ballot initiative to ban concealed weapons in churches and schools was flawed, and would have opposed it. First of all, it didn’t address the problem, doing nothing to deter criminal activity. Rather, it was aimed at lawful permit holders, when not a single permit holder has committed a crime with a gun in a school or a church. Ever. Also, churches already have private property rights that protect their rights to prohibit concealed weapons. I would only support background checks at gun shows if they are instantaneous, as they are at gun stores. We shouldn’t disadvantage gun show merchants when we have the technology to make instant background checks. That's common sense. And while I recommend trigger locks and gun safes, I oppose the government dictating to gun owners what safety precautions are taken in the home. Having been P.O.S.T. trained as a deputy sheriff, I’ve seen the problem with violent crime firsthand. From that background, I can tell you that more gun laws are not the answer. Rather, we should have strict and harsh sentencing for violent crimes, and we should stop plea-bargaining away gun charges to get a conviction on other charges. In Congress, I will be a consistent and reliable defender of the 2nd Amendment. I can promise you that Jim Matheson won't. I would appreciate your support. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:08:19 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64 On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer > to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's > office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while > exercising your right to vote. Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask: Why does the location of the polling place matter? Unless you have a State issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon openly in plain sight and not "loaded." I doubt very many people consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion. OTOH, if you do have a State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere else in the State. I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission. Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting? Don't you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote absentee? - ---------------- Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:49:32 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64 charles hardy wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson > writes: > > If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer > > to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's > > office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while > > exercising your right to vote. > Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask: Why > does the location of the polling place matter? Unless you have a State > issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running > afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon > openly in plain sight and not "loaded." I doubt very many people > consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be > shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you > actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion. OTOH, if you do have a > State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere > else in the State. I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah > law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in > polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over > from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost > anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission. > Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict > letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting? Don't > you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district > AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make > it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote > absentee? I don't claim to have researched this exhaustively, and suspect a CCW permit meets the requirements of section (2)(b) (but wouldn't want to bet on it). However, seeing how the Granite School District (where my assigned polling place is) police prosecute even CCW holders for having a pocket knife, I don't want to be defenseless or have potential assailants thinking I and other voters might be while exercising my franchise. To the best of my knowledge, such restrictions don't apply to voting absentee in the county clerk's office. You are welcome to research this further and post your findings. Scott P.S. The RKBA supporters appear to have fared rather poorly in the GOP Primary. 53A-3-502. Dangerous materials in the public schools - -- Class B misdemeanor -- Exceptions. (1) A person who possesses a weapon, explosive, flammable material, or other material dangerous to persons or property in a public or private elementary or secondary school, on the grounds of the school, or in those parts of a building, park, or stadium which are being used for an activity sponsored by or through the school is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless a higher penalty is prescribed in Title 76, Criminal Code, in which case the penalty provisions of that title control. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply under the following circumstances: (a) possession is approved by the responsible school administrator; or (b) the item or material is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use. Enacted by Chapter 2, 1988 General Session - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:56:01 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: WorldNetDaily.com article - guns in school Of local interest. There may yet be hope for our youth. :) ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - --------- Forwarded message ---------- South Jordan makes the big time!!!!!! To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/20000628_xnbre_5th_grader. sht ml Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5th-graders vote for guns in school Mock trial's unanimous verdict: Kids safer with armed teachers by David M. Bresnahan - ------------------------------------------------------------------ SOUTH JORDAN, Utah -- A group of fifth-grade students here held a mock trial and delivered a unanimous decision -- that adults with concealed firearm permits should be permitted to have guns in schools. Students at the South Jordan Elementary School have conducted mock court trials for the past seven years. Teacher Laurie Erickson explained that the students selected the topic from a list of several presented to them. The students asked members of the community to participate in the trial and to offer their testimony on the subject of gun control in schools. Students took part as attorneys, judge and bailiff, while the rest of the class members served as the jury. Erickson said the students spent the past two weeks preparing arguments and contacting witnesses to testify on both sides of the issue. Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, was the star of the show. He told the young jurors that he did not personally want teachers to have firearms in school, but he also did not want to deny them their right to carry a firearm if that is their choice and if they have a concealed firearm permit. Janalee Tobias, the founder of Women Against Gun Control, also testified at the "trial." Tobias spoke as a mother, and said she was concerned about violence in schools, telling the students, "I want my kids to be protected." She complained that gun-control advocates often use "their children as props for gun control." She said she was happy the students chose such an important topic and asked such good questions on their own. Three gun control advocates who want all guns banned from schools testified. The students invited their own principal, Richard Allred, to speak on behalf of banning guns in school. Jeremy DeWall, a sophomore at Bingham High School, also testified against allowing in-school firearm possession. PTA President KaRynn Christensen, spoke in direct opposition to the pro-gun Tobias. She told the students that as a mother, she was concerned that a teacher with a gun might suddenly use it on a student. She told them that she is also against using violent means to stop a violent person. In the end, the student jurors declared Cook and Tobias the winners in a unanimous decision. Court is still in session. Before the week is over the fifth-graders will decide on whether to drain Lake Powell, and whether to do chemical testing on animals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:26:42 -0600 From: "Karl Pearson" Subject: RE: GOUtah! Alert #64 So, could I be considered a felon because I [may have been] armed while voting? Karl L. Pearson karlp@colubs.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Scott Bergeson Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 11:47 AM To: Utah Firearms Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64 If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while exercising your right to vote. Also, Derek Smith has refused to provide his position on RKBA both to GOUtah! and to me, whereas Merrill Cook has affirmed his support for RKBA in both his campaign literature and his response to GOUtah!'s poll. For me this issue trumps all others in deciding how to vote. Scott Great opening quote from Mencken! ___________________________ GOUtah! Alert #64 - 23 June 2000 Today=92s Voice of Liberty: "The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." - -- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun. _________________________________ UTAH PRIMARY ELECTION UPON US! VOTE PRO-LIBERTY ON JUNE 27TH! Please look on your voter registration card for the address of your precinct=92s polling place, or look it up on the web at: http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/Elections/elections.html Please go to your polling place this Tuesday, June 27th, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to vote in this very important election. While GOUtah! is not explicitly endorsing specific candidates, we do think there is at least one obvious =93no-brainer=94 in this primary election: Governor Mike Leavitt must be defeated. His Republican opponent in the primary, Glen Davis, is an ardent supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, as is Davis=92 running mate, Greg Hawkins. Please note that the turnout at primary elections is usually light, so you and your pro-liberty friends, relatives, and neighbors can actually make a difference by all showing up to vote. Utah Gun Owners=92 Alliance (UTGOA), one of our allies in the fight to protect liberty, has sent out surveys to candidates who are running in this primary election, in an attempt to ascertain their views on the right to keep and bear arms. The candidates=92 responses (or non-responses, in some cases) are posted on the UTGOA website at: http://www.utgoa.org/pages/candsurvey.html GOOD NEWS REGARDING NAC=92S POLICY ON GUN ADVERTISEMENTS IN SALT LAKE NEWSPAPERS! In our last Alert, we told you that the Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC), which handles all advertising business for the Salt Lake Tribune and The Deseret News, was considering a permanent ban on all gun advertisements in both newspapers. This ban would have covered classified ads and regular retail ads. The proposal was scheduled to be considered at an NAC management meeting on Wednesday, June 21. We spoke on the telephone with Mr. Ed McCaffrey, the director of advertising at NAC, on Friday, June 23, to find out whether the proposed ban had been adopted. He told us that it had been overwhelmingly rejected. Furthermore, he informed us that the NAC will revert to its old policy of allowing gun ads in the =93Thrifty=94 section of the classifieds, provided that such ads meet the standard requirements set forth for all advertisements submitted to the =93Thrifty=94 section. In recent weeks, NAC has not been allowing any gun ads to be placed in the =93Thrifty=94 section. The change back to the old policy is scheduled to occur next Wednesday, June 27, assuming that the necessary reformatting and so forth can be completed before then. If not, the change will take place shortly after that, according to Mr. McCaffrey. Mr. McCaffrey declined to send us a statement in writing, so we will watch carefully to make sure the new policy is implemented as outlined by him over the phone. If there is any deviation from his verbal promises, we will alert you. Some individuals who contacted the NAC in response to our previous GOUtah! Alert were reportedly told that there was no proposal to ban gun ads, and that no such proposal had been submitted for consideration. However, Mr. McCaffrey reaffirmed in our phone conversation on Friday that a complete ban on gun ads was, in fact, one of the three proposals submitted for consideration by NAC management, just as we reported previously. The fact that it was rejected can be attributed, we believe, to the efforts of all you activists out there who bombarded the NAC with phone calls, faxes, letters, and e-mails. Thanks for your work! Thanks also to Mr. James Johnston, who first brought this to our attention. GUN SALES BANNED IN BRAZIL According to yesterday=92s edition of The Washington Post, the President of Brazil has issued an executive decree which immediately suspends the issuing of gun permits in that country for a period of six months. Previously, firearms could be legally purchased by civilians who obtained a permit from the government. Since a separate permit had to be issued for each purchase, the new policy essentially prohibits future purchases of firearms by civilians, although currently licensed owners can keep their old guns for the time being. That might not last for long, however, because a bill currently being considered by the Brazilian Congress would simply ban most civilian gun ownership and would require licensed owners to turn in their weapons. Exceptions would be granted for members of shooting clubs, people living in =93rural areas=94, and private security guards. According to The Post, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso acted unilaterally without waiting for the Brazilian Congress to pass its bill. "Society is demanding from all of us a quicker response,=94 he is quoted as saying. "We could ask, who among us has not suffered because of violence?" The article states that the executive order =93also includes hiring 2,000 new federal agents, providing better training and equipment for police forces and building new prisons.=94 Does any of this sound familiar? Brazilian officials estimate that of the approximately 8 million gun owned by civilians in Brazil, 6 million are owned by criminals who purchased them on the black market without a permit. Brazilian criminologists interviewed by The Post expressed the opinion that the President=92s executive order would not reduce Brazil=92s sky-high crime rate, because nearly all of the violent crimes committed with guns in that country are committed by criminals with unlicensed guns. Only law-abiding people with gun permits will be affected by the new policy, and, according to one crime expert, this might actually cause the crime rate to increase, because criminals will know for sure that their intended victims are unarmed. No kidding. Brazil=92s experience is consistent with what has happened and is happening in other countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, California, etc.) where licensing and registration are mandatory. When people ask you why you don=92t support licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, you need merely point out that the =93slippery slope=94 is indeed very slippery. A thing that can be licensed is a thing that can be banned. ___________________________________________ GOUTAH! GUN RIGHTS INFORMATION OUTLETS If you wish to receive GOUtah! Alerts via e-mail, you may subscribe by sending a blank e-mail message to goutah-subscribe@eGroups.com. To unsubscribe, send a blank message to goutah-unsubscribe@eGroups.com. If you have a dedicated fax machine located in Salt Lake County or Davis County and you wish to receive a fax version of the GOUtah! Alerts, or if you are already receiving the Alerts and wish to stop receiving them, you may fax your request to (801) 944-9937. You may also be added to or taken off the GOUtah! Alerts list by logging onto our website at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah! or at http://www.home.fiberia.com/goutah, or by submitting your request via e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com. There are no charges for receiving GOUtah! Alerts. You may also telephone the GOUtah! Information Hotline at (801) 296-GUNS for the very latest information on issues surrounding your gun rights. The call is toll free in the Salt Lake County/Davis County area, while normal long distance charges apply for the rest of the state. We strongly encourage you to forward, copy and share this information with others, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. _____________________________ This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #64 -23 June 2000. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 2000 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:12:03 -0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) From: Karl Pearson Subject: From: InfoBeat News - Afternoon Edition @ 06/30/2000 (fwd) Bad news in CA. Karl Pearson *** Calif. upholds assault weapons ban SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The state Supreme Court has upheld a key provision of California's 1989 assault weapons ban, clearing the way for the attorney general to expand the list of prohibited guns. The court Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that a provision allowing the attorney general to seek a judge's approval to add weapons improperly gave judges legislative authority. Attorney General Bill Lockyer called the decision a "major victory for gun safety and public safety in California." He said 120 additional weapons, including the "AK" series, will likely be added to the list of outlawed guns as a result of the decision. The law bans the sale, manufacture, distribution and, in most cases, possession of more than 50 military-style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. See http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2567758783-eba - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:33:00 -0600 From: "Karl Pearson" Subject: PoliHumor: How to be a good Democrat I hope not to get flamed for posting an off topic email, and please don't respond to the list regarding the following post. Thanks, KLP How to be a good Democrat 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about morals and sex. 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs. 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison. 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't. 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady. 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a sex offender who lies belongs in the White House. 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:40:52 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment - ----- Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:16:39 -0400 From: "Weldon Clark" To: 2nd-Amendment-News@frostbit.com Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:38 PM July 6 Neal Knox Report -- Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) is talking to members of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee about preventing BATF from being involved in enforcing the Smith & Wesson/Clinton Administration agreement. The subcommittee hasn't yet completed action on the Treasury Appropriations bill, and will probably hold a committee markup next week, "as soon as Congress gets back." On April 7 Rep. Hostettler and 61 other Congressmen wrote Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) asking that the committee prevent BATF from participating in the "Oversight Commission" created by the S&W agreement. Similar restrictions, offered as amendments to the Justice Department and Housing Urban Development funding bills, failed last month, but would probably survive attacks by the gun control crowd if incorporated in the committee bill. NRA hasn't supported the earlier Hostettler amendments arguing they wouldn't apply to later agreements with other manufacturers. Rep. Hostettler submitted NRA's broader language to the House parliamentarian, who said it would be out of order because it would be legislating on an appropriations bill, which is forbidden by House rules. However, broader language might be possible if proposed in the subcommittee bill, though that might require approval of the Rules Committee. The House sometimes winks at the rule against legislating on appropriations bills, but not when the Speaker opposes an amendment. The Wall Street Journal has reported NRA has left Hostettler to fight alone in deference to Speaker Hastert, who doesn't want any hard gun votes. Other Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee members are Republicans Frank Wolfe (Va.), Anne Northrup (Ky.), Jo Anne Emerson (Mo.), John Sununu (N.H.) and John Peterson (Pa.). Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Md.), Carrie Meek (Fla.), David Price (N.C.) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.). Gun rights stalwart Virgil Goode (Va.), an Independent, is also a member and a signer of the letter to Chairman Kolbe. ***************************************** Editor's Note by Weldon Clark – You need to contact your Congressman NOW. You can call your Representative at (202) 225-3121 and your two Senators at (202) 224-3121 at the Capitol Switchboard. Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory: http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/cdframe.htm Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/ http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html Write your CONGRESSMAN OR STATE LEGISLATORS can now be accomplished at the speed of light, thanks to WorldNetDaily's new Legislative Action Center. http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/ ***************************** To begin receiving Neal Knox's bi-monthly newsletter, send a contribution of $25 or more to The Firearms Coalition, 7771 Sudley Rd. No. 44, Manassas, VA 20109. For current news, call 1-900-225-3006 (89 cents per minute) or visit http://www.NealKnox.com (free). ************************************************************ What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia Weapons see http://www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" *************************************************** from The 2ndAmendmentNews Team If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-Mail to listserver@frostbit.com with the following text in the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News Feel free to forward our alerts. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:33:51 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds Edited for legibility - ----- Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:50:03 -0400 From: James.Habermehl@USPTO.GOV To: 1776MISC@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU, americanfreedomlovers@egroups.com Someone on an email list for antique firearms posed a question about the suitability of "The Patriot" for viewing by his 10-year old son. Of course the answers were all positive, with most suggesting he might go see it himself first, and then decide for sure. Apparently, someone forwarded his question to Vin Suprynowicz. Here's Vin's response. Jim H =================================================== Vin Suprynowicz comments: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:54:54 -0800 From: Vin Suprynowicz > ikipniss wrote: >> My ten year old son would like to see the movie... He enjoys history >> and historical fiction. >> He is standing here as I type, because I don't believe it is >> appropriate to let a ten year old see an R rated movie. >> I would Love to take him but feel it is my duty to raise him properly, >> and just because his friends are able to see doesn't mean it is >> appropriate for his age group. >> What are the opinions of you guys/gals who have seen it already.... >> would you let your ten year old see this movie. >> Thanks for your guidance >> Ivan Hi -- The more substantive response to ikipniss (if you'd be willing to forward this -- you didn't include his address) would be to point out that the film rating board ADMITS the only reason they rated this film "R" was because a 10-year-old boy is shown being instructed by his father to shoot and kill British officers. The film has no frontal nudity or sex scenes or foul talk or any of the stuff one might SUSPECT would be indicated by an "R" rating ... some of which stuff actually shows up pretty regularly in PG films, these days. Yes, there are a few "bloody" or "gory" combat scenes, but the camera doesn't zoom in or linger long on any such images -- in fact, combat here doesn't look nearly as realistically gruesome as in the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan." (One critic complained that, in a crucial scene, Gibson gratuitously goes to work with a hatchet on a "British soldier who was already dead." I reply: 1) Gibson's Benjamin Martin had channeled his anger into direct, purposeful action after seeing one of his own sons killed only a short time before -- I think his character showed admirable restraint, and this kind of letting-out of his anger was very understandable and in character, while the critic shows an inexperienced person's common foolish misunderstanding that someone in an adrenaline rush, fighting for his life, is likely to be able to determine and use "only the measured amount of force necessary"; 2) the camera never points down to show the body of the British soldier sustaining the hatchet wounds; it's always discreetly off camera to spare us the real gore; 3) the critic is nuts, and demonstrates that his knowledge of life-and-death situations most likely comes from watching Hopalong Cassidy, the Cisco Kid, or the Lone Ranger. If you throw a hatchet at a fleeing soldier and it sticks in a man's shoulder muscles and he falls down, you'd BETTER not assume he's "already dead;" you'd BETTER run up and follow through with some really mortal blows, or that guy is going to sit up, point his flintlock or his belt pistol at you, and show you just how "dead" he really is.) Obviously, each parent has to make a case-by-case judgment for each kid. But I thought the "R' rating was very bizarre. Who is MORE open to (and also in need of) an understanding of what our ancestors sacrificed -- what patriotism really means -- than young teens, most of whom are about to be subjected to four to six years of relentless feminist, pacifist, socialist propaganda and chemical castration in the government high schools? - -- V. p.s. -- After the movie, of course, everyone in the family WILL want to go out and buy a flintlock. I don't happen to think this is a bad thing, either. Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:20:22 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME Attempts at victim disarmament indicate enmity of the public servants towards the Citizenry. Respect and encourage the right of the People to keep and bear arms to prevent handgun violence. Scott Vanguard of the Revolution http://www.theVanguard.org FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME by Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000 Four years into the British and Australian gun bans, the verdict on gun control is in: disaster. Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials at a loss to explain the debacle. Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the country¹s private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves. The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things, government cannot take care of you as well as you can. In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent, and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73 percent. In Australia today, police can go house to house, enter your home without a warrant, search for guns, copy your hard drive, seize your records, and take you to jail. What they cannot do is protect you. It¹s worse in Britain, where virtually all guns were banned in 1996 following the Dunblane massacre. Americans tend to believe Britain a peaceful place with little crime. Post-confiscation, quite the opposite proves true: the crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. Indeed, it is higher than in every one of the 50 states. As in Australia, British police are incapable of stopping this growing anarchy. Despite having more policemen per capita than the U.S., despite installing more electronic surveillance equipment than any other Western country, robbery and sex crimes have shot ahead of U.S. numbers, property crime is now twice as high, and assaults and muggings are now between twice and three times as high as in America. Perhaps the most telling statistic is the "hot burglary" rate; i.e., those burglaries which are committed while the homeowner is present. In the United States, these burglaries account for just over 10 percent of the total: criminals fear getting shot. In post-gun-ban Britain, however, "hot burglaries" account for more than half of the total, meaning that vastly more Britons face an armed intruder each year, with absolutely no way to defend themselves either from the burglary itself or from whatever other assaults, rapes or murders the criminal may choose to commit. The contrast between this horror story and the American experience is vast. The U.S. crime rate has fallen precipitously throughout the 1990s, largely driven downward by those states which have enacted concealed-carry laws. And in fact, gun ownership has been shown in survey after survey to be one of the single most important factors in preventing violent crime. Of particular note, Janet Reno¹s Department of Justice commissioned a survey in 1994 by the openly anti-gun Police Foundation. That exhaustive study, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," was completed in 1997, and its conclusion was clear: "Guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime." 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." And as the study itself admits, its conclusions are "directly comparable" to other similar studies: the Police Foundation's work was the fifteenth national survey to reach this same conclusion in the past twenty-two years, every one of them having found results in the same range. The common sense of gun ownership is inescapable: a family, or a single mother, alone at home, facing an armed intruder in the middle of the night, does not have time to call 911. By the time the police arrive, no matter how competent they are, no matter how quickly they respond, she and her children will be dead. It's that simple. She can defend herself and her children, or she can face her merciless predator, alone. The fact is simple: guns save lives. Lots of lives. Every day. Criminals would far rather prey on the weak than on someone who can fight back. Private gun ownership means people can help protect their families and keep the peace; it also makes certain that crime does not pay. And if you don¹t believe it, just visit our British and Australian cousins. Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000. - -- Rod D. Martin is National Chairman of The Vanguard, an organization dedicated to the promotion of conservative causes. He is a Fellow of the Kuyper Institute for Political Studies, an elder of Covenant Baptist Church, and an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:20:46 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Doctors promoting the anti-gun agenda? My apologies to any who regularly read Dear Abbey and have already read this article from today's Deseret News. But for those who don't, there is a tid-bit of information in this one that is worth seeing. For the last couple of years I've seen varous internet/email reports warning that medical groups were pushing for doctors to begin including ownership/use of guns in their questions about family medical history and offering advice against the private ownership of guns--especially in homes with children. The last sentence of this letter would seem to confirm that this is actually happening, at least in some places. In a letter encouraging a parent to take her teenage daughter, who has a mustache, to the doctor to rule out serious medical problems that may cause excess body hair, an MD writes (emphasis added): "The visit also gives the pediatricians (or family practioners) an opportunity to touch base with a population notorious for avoiding doctors -- adolescents. Not only are they underimmunized, they are also the group most in need of anticipatory guidance on issues such as abstinence, safe sex, birth control, STDs, drugs, alcohol, smoking, __GUNS__, nutrition, school perfomance, sports, and safe driving." Complete letter online at . ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #193 ***********************************