ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200011

Internet Message Format | 2000-11-30 | 62KB

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: refresher are we free? do we have rights?
Date: 01 Nov 2000 14:20:27 -0700

While I take some issue with item (v) since I think many (most?) current
gun laws are unconstitutional and deserving of immediate repeal/being
overturned, this is, on the whole, a fine list of one liners.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------

Quick Refresher Course

a.  An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.

b.  A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

c.  Colt: The original point and click interface.

d.  Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

e.  If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

f.  If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

g.  Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

h.  If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

i.  Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

j.  The United States Constitution (c) 1791.  All Rights Reserved.

k.  What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

l.  999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

m.  Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

n.  Know guns, Know peace and safety.  No guns, no peace nor safety.

o.  You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.

p.  911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.

q.  Assault is a behavior, not a device.

r.  Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.

s.  If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.

t.  Only a government that is afraid of its citizens try to control them.

u.  You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

v.  Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more.

w.  When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

x.  The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

y.  "....a government by the people, for the people....."

z.  PLEASE PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' TO -10- FREE CITIZENS.

________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw:  LP RELEASE: Guns vs. Football
Date: 01 Nov 2000 14:23:01 -0700

This Press Release from the national Libertarian Party makes some good
points about the real danger of "guns in schools" vs the dangers of
universally accepted and sponsored activities.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
When football is outlawed only outlaws . . . :-)

Fatality fumble: Football kills as
many students as school shootings

WASHINGTON, DC -- High school football killed as many students last year
as
did guns -- which means politicians should either stop using school
shootings as an excuse to attack the Second Amendment or start passing
"football control" laws, the Libertarian Party said today.

"According to the latest statistics, a football is as deadly as a gun,"
said
Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "So why do first downs
continue to be exalted while the Second Amendment continues to be
vilified?"

A new study from the National School Safety Center (NSSC) reported that
there were 15 "school-associated deaths" caused by violent crime --
including guns -- during the 1999-2000 school year.

That number is unchanged from the 1998-1999 school year, when 15 students
were killed by guns, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

There have been zero student gun deaths so far during this school year.

By comparison, 15 high school football players died during regular season
and playoff games in 1999, according to the National Federation of State
High School Associations.

Another 11 athletes have died in high school games and practices since
late
August of this year -- and that number is expected to rise during
playoffs.
In addition, another 29 players this year have suffered "catastrophic
injuries" on the field, leaving them paralyzed or seriously disabled.

These numbers have Libertarians wondering: Given the carnage on our
nation's
high school football fields, why the outcry about guns -- and the utter
silence about football fatalities?

"When 15 students are tragically killed by guns during a school year,
every
politician and anti-gun lobbying group expresses practiced outrage, and
immediately demands new laws that infringe on the Second Amendment," said
Dasbach. "But when 15 students are tragically killed by football, the
silence is deafening.

"If the preventable death of any young person is a tragedy -- and it is
--
then why wasn't there a Million Mom March demanding an end to high school
football? Why no calls from Bill Clinton for 'reasonable' football
control
laws? Why no saturation media coverage as dead football players are
carried
off the field in stretchers? Why no class-action lawsuits against
Spaulding
for manufacturing cheap Saturday Night Special footballs?

"Could it be that politicians get more yardage attacking guns than
attacking
football?"

This "outrage gap" is especially puzzling, said Dasbach, because the
Constitution doesn't guarantee an explicit right to "keep and bear"
footballs.

"Football is nothing more than entertainment and sport. Guns are a
Constitutionally protected civil right," he said. "While every new
gun-control law triggers a fight about the scope of the Second Amendment,
football has no such protection.

"If he wanted to, President Clinton could lobby for an absolute ban on
high
school football, in order to save the lives of 15 young people every
year.
The fact that he doesn't, and the fact that groups like Handgun Control,
Inc. don't demand such legislation, reveals that their real motive is not
to
save lives, but to advance an anti-gun political agenda."

Of course, Libertarians wouldn't support a ban on football any more than
they support a ban on guns, said Dasbach.

"Protecting the lives of young people who play high school football is
the
job of parents, school officials, and coaches, not politicians," he said.
"And protecting the Second Amendment is the job of every American, since
so
many politicians have fumbled their duty to defend the fundamental human
rights -- including the right to keep and bear arms -- guaranteed in the
Constitution."

#       #       #

________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karl Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thought: Gun control and Paul Harvey
Date: 01 Nov 2000 18:12:26 -0700 (Mountain Standard Time)

First, some History....

Sarah Brady, the president, and spokesperson, for Handgun Control, Inc.,
an ardent supporter of removing all firearms, stated: "For us to realize
our goal of a Socialist America, we MUST DISARM THE CITIZENS."

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because
you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't
matter?

CONSIDER:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million
Jews, gypsies, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
"educated" people (doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, business
owners, . . .), unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at
approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from
the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars.

The results Australia wide: Homicides are up 3.2%. Assaults are up 8%.
Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countries' state of Victoria,
homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures
show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians claim
to be at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been
observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully
expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
lives and property and, yes, gun control laws only affect the law-abiding
citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your
representatives.

OPINION: Paul Harvey's comment on Columbine High shootings:

How can we blame it all on guns?

For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in
Littleton, CO. If only the parents had kept their children away from the
guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the
guns.

It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken
homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average
of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day.
After all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been
because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It
couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where
they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of
the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children
look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the
average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of
sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption. It couldn't have
been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which,
to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most
sadistic way possible. It couldn't have been because we have sterilized
and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we
do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the
receiving of the material with love.

It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been
seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake
created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to
raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because we give two-year
prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.

It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that
they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some
primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out
condoms as if they were candy.

It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws
of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that
actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the President gets away
with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

Paul Harvey


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Not all reporters are bad
Date: 02 Nov 2000 08:25:02 -0700

Hunter provides:

-----

None of my comments made the cut, but my Taurus .357 did. <laugh> Guess its
more audiogenic than I am.

http://www.nhpr.org/audio/2000/10-31d-00.ram

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: General Election
Date: 02 Nov 2000 13:35:27 -0700

Just a reminder that the General election is less than a week away.  This
Saturday/Sunday is the final weekend before the election.  PLEASE make
sure to vote.

If you have any reason to think you might be away from your voting
precinct or otherwise unable to vote this coming Tuesday, please take a
trip down to your county clerk's office and cast an absentee ballot today
or Friday.

If you have any good pro-self-defense pro-RKBA candidate running in your
area--whether it be federal, Statewide, local legislative or Senate
races, county-wide races, etc--please think about what you can do to help
that candidate win--or at least do well enough that pro-RKBA candidates
will be willing to run in the future.

A typical voting precinct has about 250 homes in it.  In my suburban
neighborhood, my wife and I have found that the two of us can pretty well
cover that many homes, leaving flyers on door steps, with just a few
hours effort.  We'll be going through our precinct on Saturday to leave
flyers for the candidates/issues we support.

Calling friends and neighbors you know or believe to be friendly to RKBA
and encouraging them to get out and vote can help remind and motivate
good people to take the few mintues to vote.

If possible, consider volunteering to be a poll watcher on
Tuesday--contact the local/county/State offices of your political party
to find out how to do this.  If you know your neighbors well enough to
know how they are likely to vote, a poll watcher with a cell phone and
someone else at home willing to help can make a HUGE difference in the
election.  Poll watchers have access to who has and has not voted yet.
Throughout the day, simply make note of those neighbors likely to support
good candidates who have not yet voted, call home on the cell phone (many
polling places also have pay phones available but check before counting
on one being there) and give those names to whomever is helping you.
That person then phones those people and reminds them to get to the
polls.  Of course, there is no need to remind those hostile to your
rights to vote.

Or, you may consider volunteering to babysit for someone else in your
area who is more able to be a poll watcher.

Offer to babysit for an hour while pro-RKBA neighbors go to the polls.

Provide transportation to the polls for pro-RKBA neighbors or family
members who may have trouble or hesitancies driving themselves.

Contact candidates and finally get that last minute yard sign put up.  So
many people go to the polls uniformed that seeing a sign in a trusted
neighbor's yard may be what tips the scales in how they vote.

Consider making a contribution to a pro-RKBA candidate.  Especially if
they've fought the good fight in an unfriendly district and have not won,
a little financial help can mean the difference between them or other
pro-RKBA candidates being willing/able to run in the future.  And even if
they don't win, pro-RKBA candidates can make a difference.  A fence
sitting--or even anti-gun--incumbant will be a little less likely to take
a vocal lead in damaging our rights if he has to mount real and serious
campaigns than if he simply wins re-election without any effort.

None of us can do everything and some can do more than others.  But we
can all do something.  Do what you can do even if it is just getting
yourself and one other pro-RKBA voter to the polls.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: UTGOA Alert.
Date: 03 Nov 2000 11:32:36 -0700

The latest from UTGOA:


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>


 My Groups | UTGOA Main Page


AOL follow-up
Guns in the news
Davis endorses Orton
Hostettler victory
Candidate ratings


AOL follow-up

Since UTGOA last told you about the three AOL employees who were fired
for having guns in the parking lot, we've gotten a LOT of mail.  Please
be patient- your mail will be answered!  Thanks to all of you who wrote!

One correspondent who asked to remain anonymous, has offered to hire or
help find jobs for the affected employees, one of whom is still
unemployed.  Thank you, kind sir!  We need more people like you!

Mitch Vilos, attorney for the employees, will be on Jim Dexter's "Radio
Liberty" tomorrow (Friday) between 11 AM and 1 PM.  (UTGOA does not know
exactly what time Mitch will be on the air.)  The program is on KTKK, 630
AM.


Guns in the News (thanks to our friends at GOUtah! and US-DIN!)

æARMED IN PUBLICÆ SEGMENT TO BE BROADCAST ON 10:00 NEWS
THURSDAY NIGHT, NOV 2 ON CHANNEL 4-KTVX-TV

On Thursday, 2 November KTVX News will air a segment
entitled æArmed in Public.Æ Interested parties are
encouraged to watch.

Note from UTGOA: We also encourage you to respond to KTVX.  Let them know
how good (or bad) their reporting is!  [e-mail]


Glen Davis Endorses Bill Orton!

Because we know that many Utah gun owners supported Glen Davis in his
quest to replace anti-gun Governor Mike Leavitt, we thought you'd be
interested in the following...

On October 30, Glen Davis announced that he is endorsing Bill Orton,
Democrat candidate for Governor.  In his press release, Davis wrote:

"In an effort to unify the Republican party, while at the same time
upholding Republican principles, I have made a good faith effort to
support Governor Leavitt by offering him a conditional endorsement, and
endorsement founded in Republican principles.  Governor Leavitt's
response?  Ignore the facts, stay the course, I will not budge!  He
reasons that committing to specific pledges 'would not look good'.

"Having met with Bill Orton, and having discussed in detail issues and
principles that Republicans stand for, I am convinced that Bill Orton is
more honest, more open-minded, more objective, and more principled than
Mike Leavitt.

"On November 7th, I, Glen Davis, will be voting for Bill Orton for
governor.  I am confident that tens of thousands of enlightened
Republicans throughout Utah will be doing the same."

Orton's candidate survey responses are available at
http://www.utgoa.org/pages/candsurvey.html.  Leavitt did not respond.
Davis scored 100%.


Hostettler Victory (thanks to our friends at GOA)

Hostettler's "Gun Owner Protection Act" Becomes Law!
  -- Get GOA's Voter Scorecard to check on your local races

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org


ELECTION ALERT:  Go to http://www.gunowners.org/votetb.htm on the
GOA website to check out your Representative and Senators' grades.
Check http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm to see how they voted.

(Thursday, November 2, 2000) -- Great news!  Representative John
Hostettler (R) this week secured a tremendous victory for gun owners
when his "gun owner protection act" was signed into law.

The need for this legislation began earlier this year, when
President Clinton imposed a vast array of new gun restrictions upon
gun owners -- restrictions that came about as part of the horrendous
deal he cut with gun maker, Smith & Wesson.

Thankfully, Hostettler responded to this sell-out by crafting
legislation to protect your rights.  He worked hard to get it passed
into law.  On Monday, Hostettler's "gun owner protection act" became
law.

Clinton wanted the sell-out deal with Smith & Wesson to become a
model for other gun makers.  He was hoping that other manufacturers
would "voluntarily" agree to impose further restrictions upon decent
people like yourself.  Clinton wanted to bypass the Congress and use
private industry to tighten the noose around the necks of gun
owners.

But something happened on the way to the gallows.  John Hostettler
forced his legislation through the Congress and by the President.
His legislation (attached to the Defense Authorization bill,
H.R. 4205) will prevent the DoD from rewarding S&W with fat
government contracts when they buy their service weapons.  Thus, the
major incentive for other gun makers to join S&W is now gone.  And
the chances that President Clinton can get other gun dealers to
impose restrictions upon folks like yourself are virtually gone.

All of this thanks to Rep. John Hostettler.   He has, almost
single-handedly, quashed the President's plans to bypass Congress
and impose draconian curbs upon our gun rights.  Gun owners should
thank Rep. Hostettler for his tireless defense of the 2nd Amendment.


Pro-gun Voter Guide Rating Now Online! (Thanks to GOA)

Remember! UTGOA does NOT endorse candidates.  This information is from
Gun Owners of America, and provided as a courtesy to UTGOA's subscribers.


Now you can get behind the rhetoric your Representative and Senators
are dishing out and hold their feet to the fire.

When you go to http://www.gunowners.org/votetb.htm on the GOA
website, you will find a Congressional rating that doesn't look at
what they say.  It analyzes what they've done.

This rating is a valuable tool.  Please use it.  If your
representative or senator has anything less than an "A," look for
his or her bad votes.  (You can find their votes at
http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm on the GOA site.)

We need to hold incumbents accountable for their voting record.

That is why in this rating GOA has included not only each
Congressman's grade, but also his or her record on just some of the
key votes relating to your Second Amendment rights.

And then there are the challengers.

GOA has asked the tough questions of challengers to formulate this
rating.  We have also looked at their records while holding lower
office (if applicable).

So please, study this rating.  Make copies of it and hand it out.

And don't forget to vote on Election Day --

Tuesday, November 7, 2000.

FOR UTAH CANDIDATES, see http://www.utgoa.org  Check both the legislative
record (what they've done!) and the candidate survey (what they say!).

REMEMBER TO VOTE NOVEMBER 7!




PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE!  JOIN US TODAY!


UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance,
www.utgoa.org, and Sarah Thompson, M.D.  All information contained in
these alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise
attributed.


This is a one-way list.  Please do NOT try to post to the list.  It won't
work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from the list.
Comments may be sent to [e-mail].  Thanks!


Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no
changes are made, UTGOA is clearly credited, and this message is left
intact.


To subscribe to the UTGOA list, send a blank email to utgoa-subscribe at
egroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org.  For
more information, see http://www.egroups.com/group/UTGOA.

Archives of the UTGOA alerts can be found at:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/UTGOA
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[e-mail]


________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RKBA Election Day
Date: 06 Nov 2000 08:10:41 -0700

Today if your polling place is a public school.
Vote absentee at your county election clerk's
office instead.

Scott

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RKBA Election Day
Date: 06 Nov 2000 10:34:51 -0700



On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:10:41 -0700 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
writes:
> Today if your polling place is a public school.
> Vote absentee at your county election clerk's
> office instead.

Why?

Unless you regularly carry an openly visible, and unloaded weapon around,
I'm unaware of any stutory difference between a school and any other
polling place.

A CCW permit is as valid at a school as anywhere else under current
statute--though if you are an employee of the school district there may
be (IMHO, illegal) employment policies in place prohibiting you from
possessing any weapon regardless of whether you have a permit or not.

However, I know some States have laws specifically prohibiting ALL
weapons (except govt controlled, of course) in polling places.  I haven't
searched Utah code yet to see if anything similar exists here.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Utah Elections
Date: 09 Nov 2000 12:17:34 -0700

Election  commentary from UTGOA


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>



Utah election
National races
Presidential election
UTGOA needs your help!

Wow!  What an election!  Thanks to ALL of you for your hard work on
behalf of liberty!

As of now, we still don't know who our President will be, so we're
focusing on Utah races.  And as you might expect, there's good news and
bad news.  (Note: All election results are based on information from the
Lt. Governor.  It is possible that there will be recounts in close
races.)

Anti-gun Governor, Mike Leavitt will be back for four more years.  And
he's already talking about passing more gun control!  Be prepared for
lots more anti-gun legislation in January.

Sen. Orrin Hatch will be returning for another 6 years.  Although Hatch's
record on guns has been abysmal recently, he is marginally better than
Democratic opponent, Scott Howell, who is known for his extreme anti-gun
views.  Unfortunately, the two solidly pro-gun third party candidates
didn't have much of a chance, but we applaud their efforts.  UTGOA
suggests contacting Sen. Hatch and   urging him to OPPOSE all gun control
bills and to kill his horrible Juvenile Justice bill unless ALL gun
control language is removed - including mandatory gun show background
checks, mandatory trigger locks, and restrictions on safe and legal
firearms use by our children.

Congressmen Jim Hansen (1st district) and Chris Cannon (3rd district)
will also be returning for two more years.  Please congratulate them and
ask them to defend our gun rights, regardless of who becomes president.
Jim Matheson, the new Congressman from the 2nd district, received a lot
of money from Handgun Control, Inc.  He claims that won't influence his
vote, but we're a bit skeptical.  Please contact Jim Matheson and ask him
which it is:  Does he support pro-gun Utah values, or anti-gun HCI
values?  Let all three know you'll be tracking their votes!

Our new Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, refused to complete our
candidate survey.  However, we're hopeful that he'll be an improvement
over anti-gun Beagle Forum queen, Jan Graham.  UTGOA suggests you contact
Mr. Shurtleff, and politely ask him to be a strong defender of gun
rights.

The good news is that we have TEN new state legislators who have
indicated their support for gun rights on the UTGOA candidate
questionnaire.  They are:
Brent Parker, House 5
Glenn Donnelson, House 7
Morgan Philpot, House 45
Jim Ferrin, House 58
Mike Thompson, House 59
Max Young, House 71
Curtis Bramble, Senate 16
Bill Wright, Senate 17 (currently the Representative from House 67)
Scott Jenkins, Senate 20
Dan Eastman, Senate 23

Full election results are available at:
http://electionresults.state.ut.us/
Contact info is available at:
http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/a2000candidates.htm

Of course politicians can and do lie.  We don't know whether these
candidates will really support our gun rights, or whether they were
willing to "say anything" to get elected.  So, UTGOA suggests you CALL
your legislators, whether or not they're on this list.  (This is
especially important for those on the list, of course!)   Congratulate
them for winning, and ask them where they stand on gun rights.  Ask them
specifically if they are willing to sponsor or co-sponsor pro-gun
legislation, and how they intend to vote on banning guns in schools and
churches.  Let them know that gun rights are extremely important to you,
and that you (with help from UTGOA) will be watching their every move and
vote.

Please let UTGOA know what you find out!  We need to get to work right
away to craft some pro-gun bills for the 2001 session.

Special kudos to the UTGOA supporters in Weber County.  They put up some
signs letting people know what a terrible record Sen. Joe Hull had on gun
rights.  Sen. Hull responded by having his attorney threaten to sue one
of them!  (Apparently he's not supportive of the First Amendment either!)
 So, UTGOA sent postcards to gun rights supporters in Sen. Hull's
district, telling them the truth about his lack of support for gun
rights, and letting them know that challenger Scott Jenkins had a perfect
score on our candidate survey.  We were told that Joe Hull's seat was
safe, and that he couldn't be beaten, but we didn't back down.  And
thanks to pro-gun folks like you, Scott Jenkins squeaked by with 50.81%
of the vote!  So the next time a legislator tells you that he doesn't
care what you think about gun rights, remind him of what happened to Joe
Hull!


National Races

See the analysis by David Kopel at
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel110800.shtml
One line summary:  The Senate is now much more anti-gun.  Not much change
in the House.


Gore vote fraud?

Do you know someone on active military duty overseas?  There are
currently reports that overseas military personnel were denied absentee
ballots.  Since most military personnel would be likely to support
Bush-Cheney, given the current administration's decimation of our
military strength, these missing ballots could be critical!

If you know a member of our military forces who may have been
disenfranchised, we suggest you see
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&artic
leid=880

For more on this subject see: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ and follow
the links.


Thanks again for all your hard work during caucuses, conventions, the
primary election and the general election!  Take a much-deserved rest,
because the battle for our rights will begin anew in January when the
legislature convenes!


Utah Gun Owners Alliance needs YOUR help!

Did you see the UTGOA yellow election postcards?  UTGOA sent out a record
number of postcards letting gun owners know how their candidates scored
on our candidate survey and how they actually voted.  Based on the
results above, this was a very successful program!

But postcards and stamps are EXPENSIVE!  So are mailing, printing, and
collating surveys.  If you like what Utah Gun Owners Alliance is doing,
PLEASE JOIN US or SEND A CONTRIBUTION!  We need your help to preserve our
gun rights!   See http://www.utgoa.org/pages/join.html.  THANKS!


PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE!  JOIN US TODAY!

UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance,
www.utgoa.org, and Sarah Thompson, M.D.  All information contained in
these alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise
attributed.

This is a one-way list.  Please do NOT try to post to the list.  It won't
work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from the list.
Comments may be sent to [e-mail].  Thanks!

Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no
changes are made, UTGOA is clearly credited, and this message is left
intact.

To subscribe to the UTGOA list, send a blank email to utgoa-subscribe at
egroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org.  For
more information, see http://www.egroups.com/group/UTGOA.

Archives of the UTGOA alerts can be found at:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/UTGOA
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[e-mail]



________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw:Electoral College
Date: 09 Nov 2000 15:58:41 -0700

Folks, especially if Bush ends up holding Florida and winning the
election while Gore wins the popular vote, this article and any others in
support of the Electoral College need to be spread far and wide.  It's a
long but wonderful read that provides one of the best and most simple
defenses of the College in terms of a sports analogy I've ever seen.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------

You all may want to check out this spectacular article on the Electoral
College.  It goes over the easily understood mathematics of the EC and
also
contains some surprising arguments for federalism (localizing control)!

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fw:Electoral College
Date: 09 Nov 2000 18:59:03 -0700

charles hardy provided:

>You all may want to check out this spectacular article on the Electoral
>College.  It goes over the easily understood mathematics of the EC and also
>contains some surprising arguments for federalism (localizing control)!

>http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

This analysis neglects the most important aspect of the
Electoral College in checking vote fraud. A State's vote
is limited by its census enumeration, and even then is
districted so 100% of Florida's vote reported for Gore
helps him no more than a bare plurality.

Scott

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sensible Media Control Measures
Date: 15 Nov 2000 23:37:14 -0700

http://www.sierratimes.com/edjwb111500.htm

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Olympic hypocrisy
Date: 16 Nov 2000 11:37:32 -0700

A[ologies to any who don't like forwards from the newspaper but this is
too choice not to share.

I wonder how the bi-athelon shooters feel about this mentality.

From today's SLTrib at <http://www.sltrib.com/11162000/utah/44036.htm>



==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>


Utah's 'Oly Guns' Idea Fails to Amuse IOC
                                                  Thursday, November
                                                  16, 2000


     BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH
     (c) 2000, THE SALT LAKE
     TRIBUNE

         What may be the most
     valuable souvenirs of the
     2002 Winter Olympics
     are secreted away in a
     vault at the Salt Lake
     County Sheriff's
     Department, probably
     never to be viewed by the
     public.
         The pair of sleek, black
     .40-caliber semiautomatic
     pistols are engraved in
     24-karat gold with the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Games logo and the five
     Olympic rings. The guns are rare not only because there has never
been
     an official Olympics handgun, but because there never will be,
according
     to the International Olympic Committee.
         The prototype pistols are all that remains of a failed
sponsorship deal
     to outfit Utah law enforcement officers conducting 2002 Games
security
     with special "Olympic edition" SIG Sauer firearms.
         After Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and his staff spent
     more than two years winning the approval of the Salt Lake Organizing
     Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee, the merchandise licensing
     contract was killed by the IOC in May, only hours before it was to
have
     been signed.
         "I felt it was a good thing for law enforcement to have
everybody with
     the same weapons. I had Sen. [Orrin] Hatch helping us and Mitt
     [Romney] approved it, but the IOC was very queasy and put the kabosh
     on it," said Kennard. "I was quite disappointed. Heaven forbid we do
     anything for law enforcement to thank these men and women for
putting
     their lives on the line."
         Although Kennard figured the licensing deal could yield as much
as
     $500,000 to SLOC, IOC Director of Marketing Michael Payne rejected
     it. SLOC asked IOC Vice President Dick Pound to intercede, but he
     "dismissed it outright," according to an IOC spokesman.
         "Please understand that the U.S. is unique in its relationship
with
     firearms," said Franklin Servan-Schreiber, director of IOC
     communications in Lausanne, Switzerland. "The rest of the world
would
     not understand, nor accept, the idea of a firearm with the Olympic
rings
     on it."
         The Olympic movement has licensed almost any product, from
     champagne to condoms, as the "official" nonesuch of the games. Yet
     firearms, along with tobacco and hard liquor, remain taboo with the
     European-based IOC.
         "It's an excellent gun, a work of art, that would only be
carried by the
     trained men and women protecting these Games," said Salt Lake County
     Sheriff's Range Master and Firearms Unit Director Nick Roberts, the
     catalyst for the proposal. "SIG wanted to help the cops, to do
something
     good for law enforcement, just to be able to say in their brochures
in
     2001 that they were an official licensee."
         Roberts was boarding a plane May 17 to deliver the completed
     agreement to SIG Arms President Dieter Strich when he got the call
that
     the IOC had abruptly nixed the deal. He and Kennard reworked the
     contract -- including removing the Olympic rings and just allowing a
Salt
     Lake 2002 logo to be engraved -- and offered to go to Switzerland at
     their own expense to plead the case of law enforcement. But SLOC
     withdrew its support for the gun deal and never broached the subject
     with the IOC again. Through a spokeswoman, SLOC President Mitt
     Romney declined comment.
         The plan would have allowed SIG Arms, the North American
     subsidiary of Swiss gunmaker SIG Sauer, to manufacture at its New
     Hampshire plant between 5,000 and 6,000 commemorative sidearms of
     various calibers and models as specified by officers. Each would be
     engraved with Olympic logos and serial numbers identifying the
particular
     law enforcement agency and limited-edition issue. The handguns were
to
     be sold only to certified law enforcement personnel or agencies at a
     discounted price.
         For every gun sold, SIG Arms would pay a $30 royalty to SLOC,
     with a minimum guarantee of $150,000 for licensing rights to use the
Salt
     Lake logo and Olympic rings on the weapons.
         Additionally, SIG Sauer was to donate 120 model 551 and 552
     automatic tactical rifles, similar to AR-15 assault rifles, to be
divvied up
     among SWAT teams of Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, West Valley
     City, Ogden, Provo, Park City and the state Department of Public
     Safety. The company would also pay for training the SWAT teams in
use
     of the rifles, and training a Salt Lake County Sheriff's employee as
a
     factory armorer.
         "Every agency would get the training and rifles for free, and
that way
     no matter what happens during the Olympics, the people protecting
these
     Games would be working from the same sheet of music," said Roberts.
     "It was an administrator's dream."
         Kennard also saw the sidearms as a way of rewarding law
     enforcement officers who will be working long hours in potentially
     dangerous situations without leave or vacation during the Olympics.
         "These guns would have been probably framed or put in lock boxes
     after the Games, to be passed down to future generations as
keepsakes,"
     said the sheriff. "But the IOC didn't want the Olympics being
associated
     in any way with weapons."
         Licensing a gunmaker may conflict with the IOC's mission of
     "Olympism," to promote peace through education and sports. However,
     guns are used in events such as biathlon and skeet, with several
     manufacturers boasting in advertisements and Web sites how many gold
     medals their weapons have won in Olympic competitions.
         And guns came to symbolize the Salt Lake bribery scandal. IOC
     President Juan Antonio Samaranch noted last year that "Utah, Salt
Lake
     City, is a state where guns are very popular. I have been to Salt
Lake
     City twice and I got a gun both times."
         Those specially engraved firearms -- a pistol, a rifle and a
shotgun --
     were among 10 Browning Arms Co. guns purchased by the Salt Lake
     bid committee as gifts for IOC members. IOC members are barred from
     accepting gifts valued at more than $150, although Samaranch said he
     was immune from that limit. Today, the Browning guns given to
     Samaranch remain in their velvet-lined cases, piled beneath hundreds
of
     other gifts in a storeroom at IOC headquarters in Switzerland.
         Kennard finds the IOC ruling baffling and frustrating.
         "It's a little silly because we already have our own guns and
there will
     be armed security personnel and highly trained SWAT teams at the
     Olympics," he said. "Weapons will certainly be there, they just
don't want
     to recognize it."
________________________________________________________________
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.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: OFF TOPIC--Seamstress reccomendation
Date: 16 Nov 2000 16:57:41 -0700

This is completely off-topic, but I think some here will find it useful.
Besides that, good service is getting so rare that when I find it I like
to reward it if possible.

If anyone is in need of a good seamstress capable of doing leather
repair, I can happily reccommend "Susan" who does business as "The
Leather Surgeon."  She works out of her home in Utah County, but at the
present time has a weekly pick up / drop off at a location in Midvale.
Her phone number is [phone].

I have no relation nor connection to her other than as a satisfied
customer.  She put a new nylon full liner and new elastic cuffs and
waistband in my leather naval aviator style jacket.  I found her prices,
schedule, and quality of work to all be very good.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Workplace firearms policy
Date: 28 Nov 2000 16:36:20 -0700

Friends,

It would seem that some time ago, with no fanfare and no input from
employees, my employer changed and enlarged some of its official
employment policies.

One of those changed was the security policy.  This policy--as required
by certain federal regulations--has and does allow for the searching of
employees' personal effects as they enter, leave, or are at the
workplace.  No problem there, we are talking about valuable proprietary
information or even government classified documents.

However, a new section has been added to this portion of the policy which
lists "items normally prohibited" from company premises and property.
You guessed it, "firearms, hunting weapons," and even "alchoholic
beverages" are listed in this section along with the usual assortment of
"illicit drugs, stolen property, explosives, cameras and other recording
devices," etc.

There is no exemption to the firearms restriction for holders of State
issued Concealed Weapons Permits--only for sworn peace officers on
official business.  Further, the restrictions on such items includes not
only the buildings themselves, but extend to the company owned (but
completely open and uncontrolled) parking lots AND personal vehicles
parked therein.

Thus, my employer now has a policy in place which, officially, as
currently written, allows for termination for the same reason as those 3
AOL employees: simply having an otherwise perfectly legal firearm in the
trunk of your car in the company's parking lot.  Or, similarly, to
terminate an employee who runs down to a State Liquar Store on his lunch
hour and buys some wine for dinner and leaves the unopened bottles in his
car in the parking lot.

Our buildings do require magnetic badges to open the doors, but these
doors are, with few exceptions, sheet glass and most are unattended even
during business hours, let alone after hours.  We have no armed security
of any kind, only unarmed "rent-a-cops" with radios, and certainly no
metal detectors or other means to physically prevent someone with
ill-intent from bringing weapons into our buildings.

I've spoken to my HR department already and they've agreed to review the
policy since the parking lot restriction on weapons in cars was
apparantly not intended but just got lumped in since cars are subject to
search for classified or other documents.  Which is fine, I have no
problem if they ever feel a need to search my car.  I just don't want to
get fired when they find a legal firearm in it.  I may be able to make
good ground on that front but have serious doubts as to my ability to
persuade them to just go ahead and exempt permit holders outright,
buildings and all.

Without generating a lot of discussion on whether or not a company
*should* be able to prohibit legally carried weapons or not--(Because,
with all due respect, quite frankly at this point I don't care whether
anyone else thinks they should or not; I've made up my mind on that point
and I simply want to know whether I have a legal leg to stand on under
current State law.)--has anyone out there faced a similar situation at
their workplace?  If so, were you able to reverse the policy or obtain an
exeption?  What reasons/arguments/tactics were most (or least) effective
in persuading the employer?

My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.

Can anyone reccommend an attorney who is knowledgable in these matters
and friendly to the gun owner's point of view?  Honestly, I don't care to
use an attorney unless push-comes-to-shove and I am actually terminated
for refusal to promise to comply with the policy as written, at which
point I'd want to pursue a wrongful termination suit.  But I recognize
that good legal advice may well prevent it from ever coming to that, so I
am open.

Finally, if anyone knows of any employers in the SL valley or Northern
Utah County area who are in need of digital ASIC designers (Masters
Degree and 5 years experience) and who have competitive
compensation/benefits plans AND are either silent about or friendly to
legal gun possession in their company policies, please let me know, just
in case.

Thanks for any info.  Feel free to reply privately to me at
<[e-mail]> if you want to for any reason.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy
Date: 28 Nov 2000 19:38:19 -0500



--On Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:36 PM -0700 charles hardy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.

I don't know what the laws really say and I am not a lawyer but a case
could probably be made that companies are "places of public accomodation"
since they have to comply with all the other inane laws about
discrimination etc.

Chad



Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC
Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting
Chad Leigh
[e-mail]            [e-mail]


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy
Date: 28 Nov 2000 18:36:40 -0800



charles hardy wrote:
>
>
> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.
>


I can't speak for Utah, nor am I an attorney.  The issue is
(unfortunately) settled in Washington (state) courts.  The issue
is one of conflicting rights: the individual RKBA versus the
(property) rights of the employer to establish conditions of the
workplace.

Case law here comes down on the side of the employer.  The
employee has the option of choosing other employment, but for a
variety of reasons, the employer is given preference here.  You
can talk about the employer assuming liability for your safety
should he prevent you from providing your own, but that only
works AFTER you are injured in an incident and IF the civil trial
jury agrees with you.

I know of several companies with similar policies, but who choose
to ignore it when it comes to parking areas.  More or less a
"don't ask, don't tell" solution.  The problem here is that if
some nutcase (employee) with a gun in the parking lot goes off
the deep end, the company will be sued for failure to enforce a
stated policy.

Joe W

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy
Date: 28 Nov 2000 18:36:40 -0800



charles hardy wrote:
>
>
> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.
>


I can't speak for Utah, nor am I an attorney.  The issue is
(unfortunately) settled in Washington (state) courts.  The issue
is one of conflicting rights: the individual RKBA versus the
(property) rights of the employer to establish conditions of the
workplace.

Case law here comes down on the side of the employer.  The
employee has the option of choosing other employment, but for a
variety of reasons, the employer is given preference here.  You
can talk about the employer assuming liability for your safety
should he prevent you from providing your own, but that only
works AFTER you are injured in an incident and IF the civil trial
jury agrees with you.

I know of several companies with similar policies, but who choose
to ignore it when it comes to parking areas.  More or less a
"don't ask, don't tell" solution.  The problem here is that if
some nutcase (employee) with a gun in the parking lot goes off
the deep end, the company will be sued for failure to enforce a
stated policy.

Joe W

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: "Give It to Them Straight" by John Ross, Author, Unintended
Date: 30 Nov 2000 13:28:06 -0700

"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross, Author, Unintended Consequences

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue,
and letting our enemies define the terms.
------------------

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW:
The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are
at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to
give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry,
that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
------------------

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a
30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity
magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never
done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no
sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with
arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A
gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices
obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect
myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity
weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
freedom is that they're good practice."
------------------

THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with
shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep
guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if
studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be
illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's
not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important
that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the
technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population.
We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How
does that sound?"
------------------

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of
resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID
reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review
board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined,
e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own
a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment.
Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government
as chief nanny."
------------------

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly
AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the
Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the
issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued
muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers
are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore,
according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no
one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite
transmission."
------------------

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody
murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a
right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's
interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you
want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property.
If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16.
This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks,
nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state
and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and
shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could
get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public
property."
------------------

Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren.
I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean,
in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to
open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that
MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of
the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY
what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom?
And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"

-