ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9704

Internet Message Format | 1997-04-29 | 206.4 KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Anti-gun Editorial in Tribune
Date: 01 Apr 1997 10:35:52 -0700


Coming from a NJ police supervisor, this ranting isn't a surprise.
That the tribune passes it off on us is sad.  Let them know how you
feel about it... <[e-mail]> be sure to include full name,
snail mail address and phone number.

                 Call a Halt to the Domestic Arms Race

 BY HUBERT WILLIAMS
 FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
     NEWARK, N.J. -- The reality of policing in America includes
 dealing with citizens who possess firearms: About 200 million guns
 are in private hands. So huge is the domestic arsenal that American
 police must be aware that a firearm may be at hand in any situation
 they encounter. Tragically, in thousands of situations each year, the
 potential for injury or death by firearms is realized.
     Since November 1994, seven police officers and federal agents in
 the Washington area have been killed in ambush attacks. In the past
 few weeks, two young Washington police officers were murdered in cold
 blood. One, a highly commended officer, was shot as he sat in his
 patrol car at a stoplight by a man who walked up to him and, without
 provocation, fired three bullets into his head; the other officer --
 the victim of a robbery as he parked his car in front of his home
 where his wife and young son were asleep inside -- was murdered by
 his attackers because he was a police officer.
     On Feb. 28, two men in full-body armor, armed with a deadly cache
 of assault weapons loaded with armor-piercing ammunition -- known as
 ''cop killer'' bullets -- engaged the Los Angeles Police Department
 in an hours-long, rolling gun battle in broad daylight on a busy
 commercial street. When it was over, the two gunmen lay dead, and 11
 officers and six citizens had been shot or injured.
     In 1992 handguns were used to murder 13 people in Australia; 33
 people in Great Britain; 60 people in Japan; 128 in Canada; and more
 than 13,000 in the United States. More Americans die from firearms
 injuries every two years than during the entire Vietnam War.
     The statistics are numbing. America has an epidemic of gun
 violence. Yet we regulate guns less than we do automobiles,
 children's pajamas and teddy bears.
     The impact that guns have on our lives continues to generate
 passionate debate. Americans are ambivalent about guns: They fear
 them, and at the same time they feel safer possessing them, as
 reflected by the number of states that have or are considering
 concealed weapons laws, often called ''right-to-carry'' laws.
     For the nation's police, the nexus of drugs and guns creates
 daily and deadly challenges to their ability to control crime and
 ensure public safety. It used to be anathema to kill cops, but that
 line has been crossed, if not crossed out altogether. The nation's
 police have become the targets, outgunned by gangbangers, drug thugs
 and fanatical gun freaks who believe they're on a righteous mission.
     Law enforcement's inevitable and understandable response to the
 escalating violence is to augment its capacity to respond with
 high-powered munitions of its own. The stakes have been raised, but
 the price of public safety must be measured in more than dollars.
     Democracy requires a delicate balance of interests; in this case
 the police must provide for public safety without sacrificing the
 freedoms that Americans treasure. Will more and bigger guns make us
 safer from the violence that has us gripped in fear?
     In the short term, of course, the police must be given the
 firepower that's required to combat the firepower they now face. In
 the long run, however, we need fewer guns. Semiautomatic weapons and
 other weapons of war have no legitimate place in civil society and
 ought to be banned outright, right now. Unless we muster the national
 resolve to do so, the body count will continue to rise and democracy
 remains the ante in this deadly, high-stakes race to arm ourselves
 against each other.Hubert Williams, police director of Newark, N.J.,
 from 1974 to 1985, is president of the Police Foundation.

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
 member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
 others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
 warrant."
    -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859


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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Tribune - Citizens section
Date: 02 Apr 1997 09:43:50 -0700

The April 2, 1997 Salt Lake Tribune Citizens sections has a petty good
pro gun article on the front page.

If I understand correctly, these articles are written by "citizens" rather
than professional journalists.

You must be a subscriber to receive the Citizens section



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Tribune - Citizens section
Date: 02 Apr 1997 10:56:46 -0700


On Wed, 02 Apr 1997,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>The April 2, 1997 Salt Lake Tribune Citizens sections has a petty good
>pro gun article on the front page.
>
>If I understand correctly, these articles are written by "citizens" rather
>than professional journalists.
>
>You must be a subscriber to receive the Citizens section

The citizen is distributed each Wednesday in both the DesNews and the
Tribune along the Wasatch Front area.  Their online address is
<http://www.NACorp.com/citizen.html> though the page does not yet
contain the articles, only information on submitting articles or
advertising.

The articles are written by citizens rather than journalists.  They do
not pay for submissions but will send you a nice T-shirt if they print
your article.  It doesn't seem too difficult to get an article printed
and I encourage those here to submit something if they're so inclined.
The 700 to 1000 word length allows one to make much better arguments
than is possible in the letters to the editor section.

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791


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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Coming to Utah Soon...
Date: 02 Apr 1997 12:35:47 -0700

CLAYTON E. CRAMER
Internet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]



February 16, 1997

Editorial Office
Journal of American History
1125 East Atwater Ave.
Bloomington, IN 47401-3701


Dear Sirs:

Michael Bellesiles, "The Origins of Gun Culture in the United States,
1760-1865," in the September 1996 issue presents some fascinating
data concerning the rarity of working firearms in antebellum American
probate records.  Using this data, he paints a startling picture of
antebellum America.  According to Bellesiles, privately owned firearms
were uncommon. Professional hunters did most hunting until the  1840s,
when "gentlemen" aping the British upper classes took up  sport hunting.
Marksmanship was extraordinarily poor because  few people cared
about shooting.  Finally, the masses held a  generalized contempt for gun
ownership and most did their best  to avoid owning a gun.

As clever a piece of work as Bellesiles's article is, I believe those  who
claim that gun ownership, hunting, and high marksmanship  were
common.  Why?  Because these are the opinions of the  people who
lived in that period.  The writings from 1810-1840  clearly refute
Bellesiles's claims about the rarity of guns in this  period.  Anne Newport
Royall's Letters from Alabama, 1817-1822  (University of Alabama Press,
1969), pp. 181-189, mentions guns  for self-defense and hunting, with
nothing indicating that either  were unusual.  On p. 203, Ms. Royall refers
to bear-hunting in her  native Virginia in the same way that we might
refer to driving a car to work.

Philip Gosse, an English naturalist in Alabama in the 1830s,  describes
the attitude of the population towards hunting and  firearms that
contradicts Bellesiles's claims:

Self-defence, and the natural craving for excitement,  compel him to be a
hunter; it is the appropriate  occupation of a new, grand, luxuriant
country like this,  and one which seems natural to man, to judge from  the
eagerness and zest with which every one  engages in it when he has
the opportunity.  The long  rifle is familiar to every hand; skill in the use of
it  is the highest accomplishment which a southern  gentleman glories in;
even the children acquire an  astonishing expertness in handling this
deadly weapon  at a very early age. [Philip Gosse, Letters from Alabama
(London: Morgan & Chase, 1859), pp. 130-131]

Bellesiles's claims about the poor marksmanship of the militias  would
startle Gosse:

But skill as a marksman is not estimated by quite  the same standard as in
the old country.  Pre-eminence
 in any art must bear a certain relation to the average
 attainment; and where this is universally high,  distinction can be won
only by something very exalted.   Hence, when the young men meet
together to display  their skill, curious tests are employed, which remind
one of the days of old English archery,, when splitting  the peeled wand
at a hundred paces, and such like,  were the boast of the greenwood
bowman.  Some of  these practices I have read of, but here I find them in
 frequent use.  "Driving the nail" is one of these; a  stout nail is hammered
into a post about half way  up to the head; the riflemen then stand at an
immense  distance, and fire at the nail; the object is to hit the nail  so truly
on the head with the ball as to drive it home.   To hit at all on one side, so
as to cause it to bend or  swerve, is failure; missing it altogether is out of
the  question.  [pp. 130-131]

Gosse (pp. 132-133, 226-234, 256-272) also describes  widespread
hunting of squirrels, wild hog, and varmints  with rifles.  The Alabamans
hunted for sport, food, and to  protect their crops from damage.

Bellesiles's agrees that gun ownership was more common  in the South
than in the North, but even Northern accounts  of life in the period
1810-1840 clearly show that the U.S.  was already a "gun culture."  Rev.
William C. Smith's  Indiana Miscellany (Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock, 1867),
pp. 18-22, describes settlers who are heavily armed with  guns for
self-defense against Indians-because the  Indians commonly carried
guns.  On p. 39, Smith describes  the morality of the early Indiana
settlements by telling us.  "it was a rare thing to hear... the report of a
hunter's gun  on the holy Sabbath day...."  Smith thus implies that gunfire
was not rare the rest of the week.

During the War of 1812, Smith (pp. 77-78) tells us of a  shortage of
provisions for the settlers, who had fortified  their villages,

but usually they had plenty of meat.  All the men  were excellent
hunters-some of them real experts.   The country abounding in game,
they kept the forts  well supplied with venison and bear-meat....  When
considered at all admissible to venture outside the  fort to labor, the men
went in company, taking their  trusty rifles with them....  Some of [the
women]  could handle the rifle with great skill, and bring  down the game
in the absence of their husbands....

Sandford C. Cox's Recollections of the Early Settlement  of the Wabash
Valley (1860) describes Indiana in the 1820s  and 1830s using the
journals and memoirs of the early settlers.   The settlers use guns for
hunting, self-defense, assisting law  enforcement-and criminally-so often
in Cox's book that there  is no point in giving page references.  Flip the
book open  anywhere and start reading.

Charles H. Haswell's Reminiscences of New York by an  Octogenarian
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1896) describes  New York City life from
1816 to 1860.  The incidents and tone  suggest that guns were an
ordinary, not particularly contemptible  part of life, even in the urban East
of the 1830s.  Haswell's entry  for November 1830 (p. 261) tells of
shooting a "ruffed grouse" at  144th Street and 9th Avenue in Manhattan,
"and it was believed by  sportsmen to be the last one to suffer a like fate
on the island."   Haswell also describes the opening of commercial
hunting  facilities on Manhattan.  This suggests that sport hunting on
Manhattan was already common, at a time when Bellesiles  suggests
that sport hunting was still unusual in America.

Haswell's entry for May 2, 1830 refers to a dispute between two
newspaper editors at the Capitol in Washington DC.  "[U]pon the
appearance of Webb in a threatening manner, [Duff Green] drew  from
his breast a pistol and presented it at Webb, who immediately  ceased all
hostile demonstrations...."[p. 244]  Haswell's description
 is not at all condemnatory of Green.  Apparently the rest of the  society
did not condemn him either, for Green published the 1830  census for the
government two years later.

Haswell's February 1836 entry describes a mob that gathered to  burn
"Saint Patrick's Church in Mott Street."  The effort came to  naught,
however, because "the Catholics... not only filled the  church with armed
men" but put so many men on the walls,  presumably armed with long
guns, that he described the walls  as "crenellated."[pp. 312-313]

Perhaps Bellesiles is correct, and the notion that America has  always
been a gun culture is a modern misunderstanding.  If so,  quite a number
of people in antebellum America shared that  misunderstanding.  (With
the exception of State v. Huntly (1843), I  found all these sources that
contradict Bellesiles' claims in a few  hours in a small university library.)  I
give the opinions of antebellum  Americans about the prevalence and
respectability of guns and  hunting more credence than Bellesiles'
conclusions.

Very Truly Yours,





Clayton E. Cramer
Received: from lists1.best.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA06548; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:18:26 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id KAA12296 for [e-mail]; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]


-------------- BEGIN firearms-alert.v001.n205 --------------

    001 - [e-mail]           - GOA Georgia Alert!  February 21, 1997
    002 - Rick Voden <rickv@execpc. - Weekly Reader for kids

--------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n205.1 ---------------



Your Help is Needed to Stop the Georgia Cave-in to BATF and Bill Clinton
Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, Virginia 22151
703-321-8585 / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

BATF empowerment bill, HB 163, is moving in the legislature.
Zell Milller's Payoff to Bill Clinton?
The Vote Could Happen Monday. You Must Act Quickly!

February 21, 1997 -- A legislative trick play has put harmful legislation on
the "Special Order" calendar for a vote on Monday, February 24, 1997.

    GOA members and supporters across Georgia are urged to call and FAX Gov.
Miller and their state Representative.  You should oppose HB 163 -- a bill to
empower certain federal agents to enforce the laws of this state and to
arrest persons violating the laws of this state.   The bill especially
empowers BATF agents to harass law-abiding gun owners.

    Recently HB 163 passed committee.  The House will likely vote soon on this
cave-in to the BATF.  As usual with the reign of the political bosses in
Atlanta, it has been rammed through without the knowledge of gun owners as a
favor to select anti-gun federal officials.

    HB 163 also appears to grants immunity to BATF agents to the same extent and
under the same circumstances as certified state law enforcement officers.

    1)    This bill will create a whole new industry for BATF agents to harass and
intimidate law-abiding gun owners.  BATF will "write traffic tickets" around
gun shows and gun clubs.  This will position them to search your person and
vehicle virtually at their own whim.

    2)    BATF agents will be free to stick their nose into any and every instance
of firearms transactions at gun stores and gun shows in order to increase
their statistics.

    3)    This bill violates the spirit of the 10th Amendment and state
sovereignty.  Crime is a    local not federal matter.  It should stay that way.
 Keep your police local.  Keep them close to the people not to some
bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

Here's what you can do:

    Urge your Representative to vote against HB 163.

    * Call the House switchboard at [phone]/FAX: [phone]  --
        Oppose HB 163. On weekends or during breaks look in the phone book
under
        "elected officials" for local numbers.
    * Use the toll free number 1-800-282-5800 and ask to be connected to your
        legislator.
    * Call and ask for his or her home and direct FAX numbers at 404-656-0152.

Urge Governor Miller to veto HB 163 if it reaches his desk.

    *** Call Governor Miller at [phone] / FAX: [phone] -- Oppose
HB 163.

Copy and Distribute
Also call local radio talk shows.  Let people know what is going on in
Atlanta!
Any ?s Call GOA
Guns Save Lives

-- MORE --

(Use the following print-and-FAX messages to save time and deliver your
opinion.)

******************************************************************************
*******************
Dear Representative________________:

    I oppose HB 163, the bill to surrender Georgia's sovereignty to Bill
Clinton's federal agents.

    This bill will create a whole new industry for BATF agents to harass and
investigate     law-abiding gun owners.  BATF will "write traffic tickets"
around gun shows and gun clubs.  This will position them to search your
person and vehicle virtually at their own whim.

    This bill violates the spirit of the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty.
 Crime is a local not federal matter.  It should stay that way.  Keep your
police local.  Keep them     close to the people not to some bureaucracy in
Washington, D.C.

    Please write to me and tell me how you vote.

                        Sincerely,

                        ______________________________________

                        ______________________________________

                        ______________________________________

******************************************************************************
*******************
Dear Governor Miller:

    I oppose HB 163, the bill to surrender Georgia's sovereignty to Bill
Clinton's federal agents.

    This bill will create a whole new industry for BATF agents to harass and
investigate     law-abiding gun owners.  BATF will "write traffic tickets"
around gun shows and gun clubs.  This will position them to search your
person and vehicle virtually at their own whim.

    This bill violates the spirit of the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty.
 Crime is a local not federal matter.  It should stay that way.  Keep your
police local.  Keep them     close to the people not to some bureaucracy in
Washington, D.C.

    Please write to me and tell me you will not sign this bill.

                        Sincerely,

                        ______________________________________

                        ______________________________________

                        ______________________________________

******************************************************************************
*******************




--------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n205.2 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I heard a teacher walking through the lounge today mumbling to herself,
"That's amazing, simply amazing. I didn't know that about kids and guns."

I asked her about it and she showed me what she was looking at.  The
TEACHER'S GUIDE for THE WEEKLY READER, "The largest newspaper for kids in
the world".  It is distributed (through subscription) to many schools.

This is what the teacher's guide for Edition 4, Vol. 78, Issue 13, Jan. 10,
1997 said:

[Quoted with some deletions for brevity]

DISCUSS BEFORE YOU READ
  -How many kids under age 15 do you think die each year as a result of
gun-related accidents? (approximately 2,000).

SHARE BACKGROUND FACTS
  -Every two days, 25 children die of gunshot wounds
  -Every day, 1.2 million latchkey kids go home to a house in which a gun is
kept.
  -Every day, 135,000 kids take guns to school.

WEEKLY WRITER
  -WRITE A LETTER.  Invite students to write a letter to their senator or
representative about gun violence.  The letter can propose solutions to
curbing violence or simply ask that more be done to prevent gun violence.


--Last October, schools across the country took action against gun violence
when they participated in the Pledge Against Violence.  The pledge commits
students to promise to never use guns, to never take guns to school, and to
warn their friends away from guns.  In addition, many students wrote essays,
invited families of gunshot victims to speak at their schools, or planted
trees in rememberance of gunshot victims.

[End Quoted material]

This is from the Fourth Grade Edition of the Weekly Reader.  Not my grade
level.  I just happened to come across this teacher's guide, cover page.
I'll try to get a copy of what the kids got.

You might want to inquire of your kids and their schools (especially fourth
grade) as to whether or not they use the Weekly Reader.

Weekly Reader website:  http://www.weeklyreader.com

related article:  http://www.weeklyreader.com/features/gfour6.html

-------------
Best wishes,
Rick
[e-mail]
--------------------------Please do not comment via firearms-alert





--------------- END firearms-alert.v001.n205 ---------------




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  4 million DGU per year
Date: 02 Apr 1997 12:52:14 -0700


Several people who attended the March 11 debate at Stanford University
pitting myself and Don Kates against  Eric Gorovitz and Mark Pertschuk,
have asked about my reference to "the 15th study of the protective uses
of guns."
 That study notes, "...the NSPOF [National Survey of the Private
Ownership of
Fireams, a study commissioned by the decidedly anti-self-defense Police
foundation]  data suggest that from 4 to 23 million DGU's [Defensive Gun
Uses] occured in 1994...."  This cite is particularly useful because the
author, Prof. Phil Cook of Duke U., has been Kleck's arch-critic in the
academic literature and HCI's most frequently cited researcher in
opposing
Kleck.  Cook has been deriding Kleck & Gertz 2.5 million since before it
was published.  In a paper presented on 11/20/96 to the American
Society of
Criminology entitled "You Got Me: How Many Defensive Gun Uses Per
Year?"
(draft date 10/24/96) Cook describes how he reproduced Kleck & Gertz
survey and he found a _low_end_ estimate of 4 million protective uses
annually.  It is somewhat amusing that after finally admitting the validity of
Kleck's work, Cook's last paragraph in the paper reads:

"To sum up, surveys are a decidedly flawed method for learning about
the frequency with which innocent victims of crime use a gun to defend
themselves.  On the other hand, even if we could develop a reliable
estimate of this frequency, it would only be of marginal relevance to the
ongoing debate over the appropriate regulation of firearms commerce,
possession, and use."

When Cook disputed Kleck's data, he felt that the number of defensive
uses was relevant to the debate.  Now, after validating Kleck & Gertz'
work,
 Cook, to the sound of our raucous laughter, dives into an epistemological
abyss ("knowledge is unknowable") for cover.

Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Jury Rights
Date: 02 Apr 1997 12:57:30 -0700

--------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n229.2 ---------------


Alcohol prohibition was eventually overturned because juries refused to
convict on Volstead Act violations.  As the USA moves incrementally
towards gun prohibition, it will become increasingly important for citizen
jurors to understand their rights of jury nullification.  I urge you to watch
noted
RKBA attorney Stephen Halbrook Monday on CSPAN.

Edgar A. Suter MD
---------------------
Forwarded message:

Jury Nullification: CSPAN covers forum


Announcement--A public forum

JURY NULLIFICATION:  A "Right," A "Power," or an Invitation to Anarchy?

The American Bar Association Section on Individual Rights and
Responsibilities is sponsoring a forum on Jury Nullification on Monday,
March 31, 1997 at 9:30 am  to Noon, at Georgetown University Law
Center,
Room 200, 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.

C-SPAN has replied that it will cover the forum.

The discussion will be moderated by Prof. JAMES E. COLEMAN, JR.,
Duke
University Law School.

Panelists include--
        Senior U.S. Judge JACK B. WEINSTEIN, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
        Assistant U.S. Attorney General ANDREW FOIS (Assistant AG for
Legislative Affairs; former U.S. prosecutor; former Chief Counsel,
Subcommittee on Crime, U.S. House of Representatives)
        PAUL GRANT, Esq., Parker, Colorado, Attorney for LAURA KRIHO
(a
Colorado juror who advocated jury nullfication during a drug prosecution)
        LISA KEMLER, Esq., Alexandria, VA,  Attorney for LORENA
BOBBITT (a
Virginia woman acquitted of slicing off her husband's penis)
        STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, Esq., Ph.D., Fairfax, VA, specialist on the
Second Amendment, (also argued this year in the U.S. Supreme Court
against the Brady Bill on behalf of Arizona and Montana sheriffs)
        ANGELA JORDAN DAVIS, Professor, American University,
Washington
College of Law (former Director, Public Defender Service, Washington
DC)
        JEFFREY ROSEN, Professor, George Washington University Law
School
(author of "One Angry Woman" in _The New Yorker_ Crime and
Punishment issue,
Feb. 24, 1997).

Sponsored by the Criminal Justice Committee of the Section of Individual
Rights and Responsibilities of the American Bar Association.
In Cooperation with The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, the National
Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the National Association of
Criminal
Defense Lawyers.

For more information, call the ABA section office at 202-662-1030.

NEWS MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT DOLORES BEASLEY, ABA PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, 202-662-1092.

Continuing Legal Education Credit applied for.

Check with C-SPAN for broadcast times.

Eric E. Sterling  <[e-mail]>
President, The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
1899 L Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036-3804
Tel. [phone]  Fax  [phone]

     The Jury Rights Project ([e-mail])

===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 03/29/97  Time: 17:07:37
http://www.constitution.org/         mailto:[e-mail]
==========================================================



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Get ready, the propaganda machine is in full gear...
Date: 03 Apr 1997 16:54:18 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <[e-mail]>

Here ya go guys, Get ready, the propaganda machine is in full gear...

Eddie



02/17/1997 11:52 EST

Neurosurgeon: Time To Ban Guns

By TOM WELLS
Associated Press Writer

MIAMI (AP) -- Pediatric neurosurgeon John Ragheb had doubts whether
he should even try to operate on the pigtailed 9-year-old. Part of her
brain had been turned to sauce by a stray bullet.

But because Ragheb believes in miracles, he went in, cutting away
three-quarters of the child's skull on the left side and removing a chunk
of her brain about 2 inches across.

The girl, a playground victim of cross fire, survived. And Ragheb moved
on, facing what he regards wearily as an unending stream of children
with gunshot wounds to the head.

In 10 years as a neurosurgeon in Baltimore, Ragheb had operated on
two children with brain damage from gunshots. Since moving to Miami
seven months ago, he has operated on five. In just the first six weeks of
this year, four Miami-area kids have been shot.

``I just returned from a convention of pediatric neurosurgeons, and
everyone was talking about this. It's a crescendo. It's happening all
across the country,'' he said. ``We are in an epidemic of children dying
by guns. I hate to use the word epidemic, but that's what it is.''

Bullets killed 5,833 American children through age 19 in 1994, the latest
year for which complete figures exist, according to the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence.

Judy McCollum, the 9-year-old whose shooting shook Ragheb, was
wounded Aug. 25 when a feud between female rivals for a
neighborhood man erupted in gunfire.
``This one made me cry,'' said Detective Frank Castillo, a veteran cop
who grew up in the rough South Bronx of New York City. ``She was a
real smart, real gifted girl. She was always dancing and singing.''

He said he was so upset after seeing Judy at the hospital that he shut
himself in a closet at home and played his trumpet, the same trumpet on
which he plays taps at the funerals of police officers.

Ragheb, too, was haunted by the vision of the girl's shattered head
when he got home that night. He looked in on his three sleeping children
and said a little prayer, thanking God they were safe.

``I am a gun owner. I am a gun enthusiast. I like skeet shooting,'' he said.
``But it is time to ban guns in the United States.''

People who oppose a ban should see what a bullet does to the brain of a
child, he said.

``The brain has the consistency of Jell-O. A bullet shatters the skull and
drives some of the bone into the brain. As the bullet continues, it creates
a tunnel of absolute destruction,'' he explained.

``But there is also a shock wave outside the tunnel, just like the ripples of
a pebble in water. The shock wave can be the single greatest source of
devastation. It destroys the cortex, the part of the brain we think with.''

Ragheb, who is also a professor at the University of Miami, said that in
Judy's case, the bullet went in just above her left eye and went straight
back into the left half of the brain. For right-handers, that is the dominant
hemisphere.

``It controls the speech and language and how we think. Even if the
person remains alive, the bullet there destroys the person. After all, how
we think and talk is who we are,'' Ragheb said.

From Judy's CAT scan, he could see the damage was extensive. ``But
when you are dealing with a child, you have to give the child the benefit
of a doubt,'' he said. ``They are more resilient than adults.''

``I am not tremendously religious. My mother had to drag me to church
every Sunday when I was growing up in Detroit,'' he continued. ``But I
have to think that there is a force beyond what we do, beyond what I am
capable of doing.''

Judy now walks with a cane and utters ``dah-dah'' when she wants
something. That sets off a guessing game by her parents that ends only
when they hit upon it and she nods. In her wheelchair, she wiggles her
body when she hears music she likes. She can write her name on a
slate.She will probably never recover completely.

``Every time I see one of these kids, it makes me think about what's
happening to our society,'' Ragheb said. ``We've got to start making sure
that handguns are not available.

``And we must teach our children -- in school and at home -- that it's not
like on television, that we can't use guns for conflict resolution.''



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compromise: NEVER justified when PRINCIPLE is involved !!!!!!!
Date: 05 Apr 1997 13:36:52 -0700

>Subject: Compromise: NEVER justified when PRINCIPLE is involved !!!!!!!
>
>Compromise . . . never
>            justified when principle is involved.
>
>By H.L. Richardson
>
>Compromise? It's regrettable the word compromise has been so convoluted,
>because there
>are two basic kinds, often incompatible with each other. One is a
>physical compromise, the
>other, one of principle.
>
>Let me give several examples. My wife and I want to go to a movie. She
>wants to see a
>love-'em-up and I want to see a shoot-'em-up. We compromise and pay to
>see a comedy. My
>buddy and I are going hunting together. He wants to eat breakfast at the
>Road Kill Cafe and I
>want to dine at Mae's Country Kitchen. We compromise by eating at one on
>the way and the
>other coming back.
>
>There is no real principle involved in either example, each of us might
>be put out a bit by not
>getting our own way but no harm occurs to either one's principles.
>"Giving in" and taking
>others into consideration is a proper attitude for harmonious
>relationships; we all do it
>constantly. There's not a marriage that can last more than two weeks if
>multitudinous physical
>compromises aren't made by both sides.
>
>Physical compromise is a necessary good, often the mark of an
>understanding and gentle
>person.
>
>On the other hand, compromising principle is another matter. Allowing
>oneself to be trapped
>into bargaining away rights is destructive to character and should be
>viewed as utter
>foolishness.
>
>When an anti-gun legislator presents a bad piece of legislation and then
>offers to water it
>down, he's not really compromising now is he? We must always ask,
>exactly what is being
>compromised? What is he giving up? That legislator first asks for 100
>per cent of our rights and
>then, through negotiation, takes only 10 percent. He may have
>compromised his original
>request, but we have forsaken principle by giving him that 10 percent.
>
>If a thief sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet, then
>decides, good naturedly, not
>to keep your credit cards and the pictures of your kids, no compromise
>is involved. He may be
>personable, even polite, but still a thief and you, the victim.
>
>When the legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to
>use police force to
>accomplish it, what's the real difference between them and the thief?
>Darn little!
>
>They hide behind the excuse that they're legislating democratically. The
>fact they do it by a
>majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does
>not constitute right,
>no more than a lynch mob can justify their act because a majority
>participated.
>Democratically, we elect men and women to office but we have to ask . .
>. to do what? To
>abrogate our rights? Restrict our freedom? Destroy our ability to
>protect our lives, family and
>property? The answer is a resounding NO!
>
>We elect representatives to uphold the Constitution and to protect our
>rights, not to negotiate
>them away in the name of compromise and democracy. Our forefathers
>understood that
>certain rights were inalienable, God given, untouchable by mere men.
>That's why they
>delineated these uncompromising principles in the Bill of Rights. They
>weren't kidding when
>they said it was necessary to bind men down by the chains of a
>Constitution.
>
>We, at Gun Owners of California, are often asked why we aren't more
>amenable, willing to
>compromise. Our answer is that we are always willing to make concessions
>that are physical,
>but not of principle. When we politically compromise and allow antigun
>legislation to pass, no
>matter how insignificant it may appear to be, we have abdicated our
>responsibilities.
>Abdication is the word for surrendering our principles legislatively.
>Honor binds us to resist with
>all our might.
>
>It is our duty to oppose ANY AND ALL attempts at watering down the
>principles embodied in
>the Second Amendment.
>
>We are obligated by principle, to vigorously oppose any move that
>diminishes the same
>freedom enjoyed by our fathers.
>
>There are those in the gun movement who call out for pragmatism,
>bipartisan cooperation
>and dialogue with our opposition. It has been tried for decades and what
>has been our
>reward? Lost ground. Retreat. A few crumbs from the table. Many gun
>owners have been
>victims of their own decency, believing some hope exists in dealing with
>our implacable
>enemies. They have been intimidated by the names we are called when we
>refuse to abdicate
>our rights.
>
>It's a mortal sin when a gun organization caves-in and justifies any
>loss in the name of
>compromise. It's not compromise, it's abdication pure and simple; let's
>call it by its real name .
>. . abdication.
>
>We should all concentrate on regaining the ground we have lost and begin
>by not giving
>another fraction of an inch. For those of us at Gun Owners, retreat is
>over.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Check it out!!
Date: 05 Apr 1997 20:59:00 -0700

Hi all!

Check out the ALL NEW!!  Women's Firearms Alliance, Inc. WEB PAGE,
now making its debut on a server near YOU!
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

If we've linked you, we'd appreciate reciprocity.  If you'd like to
be linked, send a request to me at [e-mail]

Comments and suggestions welcome!  (Please remember we're still
under construction!)

Enjoy!  MUCH more to come!

Sarah



Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Great American Insult
Date: 06 Apr 1997 16:35:40 -0600

>Subject: The Great American Insult
>
>
>Sorry to ruin your evening,
>But you got to read this folks...
>
>
>Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:26:44 -0600
>From: [e-mail]
>
>Subject: NAVY PUBLIC AFFAIRS CALLED ME "CRACKPOT" AND HANGS UP!
>
>This afternoon I heard a report that the John Paul Jones missile frigate
>in San Diego flew the Red Chinese Naval flag.  If this was not bad
>enough, the reason it was flown, and our flag removed, was that it is
>traditional protocol when a foreign warship is in our harbor, we will
>fly their flag on our masts to "HONOR" them.  Imagine my anger an
>disgust as a veteran, to have a country that kills their young, eats
>their fetuses, disallows freedom of any sort - religion, pursuit of
>liberty, and in general, against every tenet of our Constitution - and
>this is a country of honor, I ask?
>
>Having said the above, I took it upon myself as a veteran, and a US
>citizen, to call the Command and voice my extreme disapproval to the
>Office of Public Affairs, and to pass my feelings on to the highest
>levels of the Navy.  I was met with the old "we were only following
>orders".  Haven't we heard that somewhere before?  I spoke to the Deputy
>Command Officer of Public Affairs.  Unfortunately, I will have to get
>her exact rank and name Monday morning.  But, the reason I am writing
>tonight is that I ask all who read this to stand with me and never allow
>an officer of our military to simply call any one of us a "crackpot" and
>hang the phone up.  If this is what we allow in the military, the time
>will come when we will not be called crackpots - but we will be silenced
>by our own forces - Remember...they will raise the flag of a country
>that kills their own.  What could that country possibly have in store
>for us.  I reiterate, they will then call us crackpots and hang up on
>us.
>
>If you are disturbed you will also call and demand that we not honor the
>Chinese flag.
>
>The number I called was [phone].  Also - the Department of Defense
>Public Affairs office at (703)-695-0192.  I'm sorry this is a toll call
>for most of you.  Please distribute this post freely and as widely as
>possible.  You can call your Congressmen and Senators and let them know
>what happened to me, and that you will not let it happen to you.
>
>The woman officer who hung up on me said the orders came from the State
>Department, the President and the Chief Naval Officer.
>
>What is happening to our wonderful United States of America.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANYBODY SURPRISED ?
Date: 06 Apr 1997 16:43:58 -0600

>Subject: ANYBODY SURPRISED ?
>
>
>Subject: anybody surprised?
>
>.c The Associated Press
>
>NEW YORK (AP) - A convicted drug dealer who donated $20,000 to the Democratic
>National Committee and later met with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice
>President Al Gore was solicited by a party fund-raiser in Cuba, The New York
>Times reported today.
>
>Jorge Cabrera wrote the check in November 1995 from an account brimming with
>cash from cocaine sales, the Times said, citing unidentified congressional
>investigators.
>
>Within two weeks of the contribution, Cabrera met with Gore at a dinner in
>Miami and was photographed with the vice president. Ten days later, Cabrera
>attended a Christmas reception at the White House and had his photograph
>taken with Mrs. Clinton.
>
>The Democrats say the money has been returned.
>
>Congressional investigators told the Times that Vivian Mannerud, a
>Cuban-American businesswoman from Miami, had promised Cabrera an invitation
>to the Miami fund-raising dinner honoring Gore if he gave the money. She made
>the request during a meeting at Havana's Copacabana Hotel, the newspaper
>said.
>
>The Times said bank records show $11,900 from drug sales were deposited into
>Cabrera's account to help cover the DNC donation.
>
>The revelations about the location of the solicitation of Cabrera's gift,
>plus the source of the money, emerged from congressional investigators'
>conducting interviews in Miami, the Times said.
>
>Ms. Mannerud, who owns Airline Brokers Co., an airline charter service that
>operates in Havana, the Bahamas and Mexico, said she could not recall
>soliciting a contribution from Cabrera in Cuba, although she vaguely
>remembered meeting him there.
>
>The Times said it's unclear whether Ms. Mannerud or other Democratic
>fund-raisers knew about Cabrera's criminal past. The donation was returned
>last October.
>
>``Once we found out about Cabrera's past, we immediately returned the money,
>and we feel we have put this behind us,'' said DNC spokeswoman Amy Weiss
>Tobe.
>
>Three weeks after attending the White House party, Cabrera was arrested on
>charges of smuggling 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States. Last
>year, he pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced to 19 years in
>prison and fined $1.5 million.
>
>In 1983, Cabrera pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for conspiring to
>bribe a grand jury witness and served 42 months in prison, the Times said. He
>also served a year in prison after pleading guilty in 1988 to filing a false
>income tax return.
>
>AP-NY-04-04-97 0840EST
>
>Copyright 1997 The Associated Press.  The information  contained in the AP
>news report may not be published,  broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
>distributed without  prior written authority of The Associated Press
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Column, April 16
Date: 09 Apr 1997 11:26:35 -0600

>    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 16, 1997
>    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>    Let the impeachments begin
>
>    Leaders of 76 national, state and local bar associations issued a joint
>letter to House Speaker New Gingrich April 6, urging the Speaker to resist
>any efforts to impeach federal judges over disagreements with their
>rulings.
>
>  The lawyers' groups wrote: "The genius of the American system of
>government is the careful balance created by the founders between the three
>branches of government. Moving to impeach judges for individual decisions
>-- a kind of legislative referendum on judicial decision-making --
>threatens to destroy this delicately crafted balance."
>
>  The bar associations' letter apparently comes in response to a call last
>month from House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, that Congress should
>indeed impeach federal judges whose rulings are "particularly egregious."
>
>  It's a striking image: a star chamber assembly-line for the removal of
>judges, systematically defrocking the ministers of the bench for making up
>the law as they go along.
>
>  Let's get concerned when they've dismissed the first 50 ... with no
pensions.
>
>  More interesting is this oft-repeated assertion that the "delicate
>balance of powers" is now operating as intended by the Founders.
>
>  How absurd.
>
>  Mightier than any federal authority, in the scheme of the founders, were
>the sovereign state legislatures, empowered to appoint U.S. senators to
>veto any federal attempt to assume coercive powers over the states beyond
>those specified in the 431 words of Article I, Section 8 of the
>Constitution.
>
>  That "check and balance" went a-glimmering in 1913, of course. Shall we
>now count the number of things our state legislatures need "federal
>permission" to undertake?
>
>  But even above the states were the people, authorized by the Second
>Amendment to keep their arms, not for "sporting use," but as a specific
>guarantee that any potential federal tyrant would always face the prospect
>of a populace too well-armed -- with "assault weapons" -- to tolerate any
>usurpation of our liberties.
>
>  Beyond that, the people were granted the final veto over any attempt by
>government to deprive a fellow citizen of his life, liberty, or property,
>when the Sixth Amendment guaranteed that "in all criminal prosecutions,"
>the defendant could be convicted only by unanimous vote of an "impartial
>jury," randomly selected from the local populace.
>
>  Does anyone still believe our federal officials have no intention of
>disarming citizens who might resist federal tyranny? How many of the 20,000
>gun control laws enacted in the past 65 years have been tossed out by these
>proud courts? How many armed militiamen summarily set free (and their guns
>returned) on a plain reading of the Second Amendment?
>
>  Are we still better armed than the federals -- or do we now cower in fear
>of the knock on the door by the ATF, the DEA ... the IRS?
>
>  How many federal agents who swarmed out to murder armed but peaceful
>citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco have been indicted and tried for those
>crimes, by these attorneys and judges who now blubber so earnestly about
>the "delicately crafted" balance of powers?
>
>  Under current Supreme Court rulings, do defendants still get their
>guaranteed jury trial "in (start ital)all(end ital) criminal prosecutions"?
>
>  When we now accept, as routine, weeks of careful pre-screening of
>prospective jurors (witness the Oklahoma City bombing case) to make sure
>all will agree in advance to employ the death penalty, does this encourage
>jurors to enter the jury box under a "presumption of innocence"?
>
>  Can a jury still be said to be a "random and impartial" cross-section of
>the community, when any honest enough to admit they despise federal gun
>controls, or the federal tax system, or the government murders at Waco, are
>summarily dismissed; when the panel is carefully stacked to contain only
>those who will swear in advance an oath of obedience to the federal judge,
>to "accept and enforce the law as I give it to you" -- when they're sifted
>so fine that they must even explain the meaning of the bumperstickers on
>their cars?
>
>  Ah, this proud federal judiciary. How long has it been since they ruled
>that (start ital)any(end ital) expansion of the federal welfare/police
>state exceeded constitutional authority -- that (start ital)any(end ital)
>gang of federal bureaucrats  must be immediately disbanded and turned out
>to fend for themselves? Sixty years? How wonderful, that the federal
>government could grow to 20 times its previous size, without ever assuming
>a single power not specified in those 431 little words.
>
>  As impeachment is the only means by which a judge can be held
>accountable, would it really be such a bad thing if a few ambitious lawyers
>were thus called down from their high seats, put under a hot light, and
>asked to explain how their rulings to date reflect the sacred oath they all
>took to protect and defend our inconvenient Constitution ... the
>abandonment of which oath, surely, is as much a "high crime and
>misdemeanor" -- every bit as dangerous to the future of the Republic -- as
>handing over the plans of West Point to the Redcoats?
>
>Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
>Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
>site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
>column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
>Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.
>
>***
>
>
>Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]
>
>Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking."
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: New penalties for interstate handgun traffickers sought
Date: 10 Apr 1997 08:00:44 -0600


>http://www.foxnews.com/news/wires/n_0409_278.sml
>
>
>April 9, 1997
>10.48 p.m. EDT (0248 GMT)
>
>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bills their sponsors claim would reduce the
>interstate trafficking of guns from states with weak gun-control laws to
>those with strong ones were introduced Wednesday in Congress.
>
>The legislation, introduced in the House by Rep. Charles Schumer,
>D-N.Y., and in the Senate by Sens. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., and
>Richard Durbin, D-Ill., would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences
>for people convicted of smuggling five or more guns across state lines
>in one year.
>
>The lawmakers said the bills are aimed at "gun kingpins'' who thrive on
>the demand for weapons from members of street gangs and other violent
>criminals. Gun lobbyists counter that a law already exists; it's just
>not being enforced.
>
>"Whether it's a drive up the interstate or a trip to the state next
>door, the trend is clear,'' said Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The
>criminal's best friend is the gun kingpin.''
>
>The legislation would impose mandatory minimum sentences of three years
>for a first office, five years for a second offense, 10 years if a
>smuggled weapon is used in a crime and seriously hurts or kills someone,
>15 years for a "kingpin'' who smuggles 50 or more guns in a year, and 25
>years for a "kingpin'' if a smuggled gun is used in a crime and
>seriously injures or kills someone.
>
>With the new penalties, Torricelli predicted, "a lot of these people are
>going to get out of the business.''
>
>But Durbin said the bill also is aimed a testing the mettle of the gun
>lobby.
>
>"We're going after criminal gunrunners and criminals using guns,'' he
>said. "If the gun lobby can't get on board on this legislation, it is
>very clear to me that their highest priority is the sale of firearms and
>not the elimination of crime.''
>
>Tanya Metaksa of the National Rifle Association said the 1968 Gun
>Control Act already makes it a felony to sell handguns across state
>lines or to known criminals.
>
>"If one buys or sells a handgun across a state line, that's a five-year
>penalty. If one sells a firearm to somebody who is a known criminal or
>who it's known they're going to commit a crime with a gun, that's a
>10-year penalty,'' Metaksa said. "The problem is that this
>administration and prosecutors are not prosecuting violations of the '68
>Gun Control Act.''
>
>Schumer's office issued a report saying that Florida, Texas, South
>Carolina and Georgia account for one-fourth of the guns traced from
>out-of-state crimes.
>
>Three of the states have only the federal Brady law requiring background
>checks and five-day waiting periods for gun purchases. And the only
>additional measure in South Carolina limits purchasers to one gun a
>month.
>
>Calculated on a per capita basis -- how many guns bought in one state
>are traced to out-of-state crimes per 100,000 population in the
>originating state -- the top five "exporters'' are Mississippi, South
>Carolina, West Virginia, Nevada and Kansas, the report said.
>
>The top five states in terms of crimes committed per capita with
>out-of-state guns are New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts and
>Rhode Island, according to the report.
>
>Metaksa dismissed the report as a "tally'' of ATF firearms traces. She
>said ATF generally only traces guns when asked to do so by local police.
>The numbers, she said, can be easily skewed and there is no certainty
>that all of the guns traced were actually used in a crime.
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Shooting pedestrians]
Date: 10 Apr 1997 13:07:14 -0600


FYI...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pedestrians in the United States are almost twice as
likely to be killed by a stranger in a car than a stranger with a gun,
says a report released Tuesday.  The report also showed that while
pedestrians account for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities, only 1
percent of federal highway safety funds are spent on pedestrian safety.
The study was done by the Environmental Working Group and the Surface
Transportation Policy Project. The most unsafe cities for pedestrians,
according to the report, are Ft. Lauderdale, Miami and St. Petersburg,
Florida; Atlanta; and Dallas. The safest are Pittsburgh, Boston,
Milwaukee, New York City and Rochester, New York.

--
----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
 we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall
 have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
 terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
 .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
 federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever
 remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Open Carry, Desert, Dogs]
Date: 11 Apr 1997 12:26:45 -0600


Forwarded from our friends to the south...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 1250

I just got back from a run in the desert.  I was carrying openly, as is my
custom.  Today I was glad that I was, even though I never had to fire a shot.
While running, I saw two medium sized dogs, about 60 - 70 lbs.  I slowed when
they did not run off, and stopped to face them.  I believe that a dog has a
natural tendency to chase a running form.  I yelled at them to "Go Home!, and
this seemed to help stop the false charges the most aggressive of the pair was
making.  He was very hard to dissuade, and one time when he got withing 10 feet,
I felt compelled to draw my Glock.  It took me about 3- 4 minutes (I had my
stopwatch going for the run) to slowly extricate myself from the situation.  The
dog just did not want to back down, and took every slow, backward step I made as
an invitation for another false charge.  Luckily, his partner was not so
aggressive, and when he withdrew, the aggressive dog eventually followed him.
This event occurred more than 100 yards from any house, so I wasn't invading
their territory.  One dog is bad enough, but two can treat you just like dogs
treat a bear in the hunting videos.  I have been bit once, and I would rather
not have it happen again.

I thought the list might find this interesting.
Dean W.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"...while the legislature has power in the most comprehensive manner to
 regulate the carrying and use firearms, that body has no power to
 constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a
 revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The
 provisions in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear
 arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law
 to the contrary." PEOPLE v. ZERILLO 219 Mich 635


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [poland gun laws]
Date: 11 Apr 1997 17:05:09 -0600


FYI

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

An article in today's [Arizona] Republic says that Poland (the nation)
is considering liberalizing it's gun laws to make it easier for an
ordinary citizen to own a gun.  If the law passes Polands parliament
it would be legal for anyone to own a handgun or rifle if they are an
adult with no criminal record who has passed an exam on gun use and
gets a doctor's certificate of health.

The article says that if approved it would end the current system
"reminiscent of Communist authoritarianism - under which gun permits are
handed out at the whim of the local police chiefs.  Applicants currently
are forced to persuade the official that they need a weapon.  "
"The new measure liberalizes gun ownership in the sense that an applicant
cannot be denied permission to won a gun after fulfilling the criteria."

This is being done in response to an increase in crime (or the reporting of
crime) since the democratic reforms began in 1989.

Anyone see any parallels with this and [Arizona] HB2218?  As Poland
moves toward freedom Arizona moves toward a system "reminiscent of
Communist authoritarianism" !!!

Be sure to include this in your letters to Representative Groscost and
to your district representatives.

To make it easier to include the article in your letter or fax (for a
multimedia look) use this link to get a 258K tif file of the article.

http://www.crl.com/~skimmel/poland.tif

note: pkzip only reduced the size of the file by about 40k so it didn't
seem worth it.

Purely for educational and non-profit research purposes of course.

--

Steve Kimmel
[e-mail]

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic,
 and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
 without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." --
 James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Safe Kids Campaign
Date: 12 Apr 1997 16:25:54 -0600

Yet another group that thinks that disarming their parents is the best
way to keep kids safe.  Check it out and send them feedback!

Sarah


>http://www.safekids.org/fact96/firearm.html
>
>>                      UNINTENTIONAL FIREARM INJURY
>>=20
>> Unintentional shootings account for more than 20 percent of all
>> firearm-related fatalities among children ages 14 and under and have
>> become more common as the availability of firearms has increased.
>> Americans possess more than 223 million firearms, including 77 million
>> handguns. Nearly half of all homes in the United States have some type
>> of firearm and one in four homes have a handgun. The majority of gun
>> owners keep firearms in the home for protection. A firearm bought for
>> protection is more likely to be a handgun, found in a home with
>> children and to be stored loaded and unlocked. As a result, a gun in
>> the home for protection is rarely used for this purpose and is 43
>> times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to be used in
>> self-defense.
>>=20
>> Exposure to guns and access to a loaded firearm increases the risk of
>> unintentional firearm-related death and injury to children.
>> Unrealistic perceptions of children's capabilities and behavioral
>> tendencies with regard to guns are common, including misunderstanding
>> a child's ability to gain access to and fire a gun; distinguish
>> between real and toy guns; make good judgments about handling a gun
>> and consistently follow rules about gun safety. Important steps in
>> preventing unintentional firearm-related death and injury among
>> children are to promote the safe storage of firearms in the home and
>> to reduce their availability and accessibility.
>>=20
>> DEATHS AND INJURIES
>>=20
>>    * In 1993, more than 200 children ages 14 and under died from
>>      unintentional firearm-related injuries. Children ages 10 to 14
>>      accounted for more than 60 percent of these deaths.
>>=20
>>    * Each year, an estimated 1,500 children ages 14 and under are
>>      treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional
>>      firearm-related injuries. Approximately 38 percent of these
>>      injuries are severe enough to require hospitalization.
>>=20
>> WHEN AND WHERE FIREARM DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCUR
>>=20
>>    * Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or
>>      around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home of the victim
>>      and nearly 40 percent occur in the home of a friend or relative.
>>=20
>>    * Most childhood unintentional shooting deaths involve guns that
>>      have been kept loaded and accessible to children. It is estimated
>>      that 3.3 million children in the United States live in households
>>      with firearms that are always or sometimes kept loaded and
>>      unlocked.
>>=20
>>    * One-third to one-half of all firearm owners keep firearms loaded
>>      and ready for use at least some of the time. Nearly 15 percent of
>>      firearm owners with children in their home currently keep
>>      firearms both loaded and unlocked.
>>=20
>>    * Most unintentional firearm-related deaths among children occur
>>      when children play with loaded guns.
>>=20
>>    * Unintentional shootings among children most often occur when
>>      children are unsupervised and out of school, and increase during
>>      the summer months (June to August) and the holiday season
>>      (November to December).
>>=20
>>    * More than 40 percent of unintentional shootings occur in the
>>      afternoon hours between noon and 5pm.
>>=20
>>    * More than 70 percent of unintentional firearm shootings involve
>>      handguns. When long guns (shotguns and rifles) are responsible
>>      for unintentional shootings, they most often occur in non-urban
>>      areas.
>>=20
>>    * Rural areas have higher rates of firearm ownership and
>>      unintentional firearm-related injuries than urban and suburban
>>      areas. Shootings in rural areas are more likely to occur outdoors
>>      and with a shotgun or rifle, as opposed to indoors and with a
>>      handgun in urban areas.
>>=20
>> WHO IS AT RISK
>>=20
>>    * Firearm ownership in the home (especially a firearm kept loaded
>>      and unlocked) is associated with an increased risk of
>>      unintentional firearm fatalities among children. Owners of
>>      firearms in the home tend to be male, Caucasian and living in the
>>      South, in rural areas and in single family dwellings.
>>=20
>>    * Male children are far more likely to die from unintentional
>>      firearm-related injuries than females. Of those children ages 14
>>      and under who are killed from an unintentional shooting, nearly
>>      90 percent are male.
>>=20
>>    * African-American children, especially males ages 10 to 14, have
>>      higher death rates from unintentional shootings than Caucasian
>>      children.
>>=20
>>    * Children living in the South are three times more likely to die
>>      from unintentional firearm-related injuries than those living in
>>      the Northeast.
>>=20
>>    * Children living in rural areas have higher death rates from
>>      unintentional firearm-related injury.
>>=20
>>    * Nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a
>>      gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their
>>      children. However, one study found that when a gun was in the
>>      home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the
>>      gun was kept.
>>=20
>>    * Generally, before age 8, few children can reliably distinguish
>>      between real and toy guns or fully understand the consequences of
>>      their actions.
>>=20
>>    * Children as young as age 3 are strong enough to pull the trigger
>>      of many of the handguns available in the United States.
>>=20
>> FIREARM PREVENTION EFFECTIVENESS
>>=20
>>    * Two safety devices, trigger locks and load indicators, could
>>      prevent more than 30 percent of all unintentional firearm
>>      fatalities.
>>=20
>>    * Every unintentional shooting in which a child age 5 and under
>>      shot and killed themselves or others could have been prevented by
>>      a child-proof gun safety device.
>>=20
>> FIREARM LAWS AND REGULATIONS
>>=20
>>    * Firearms are unregulated consumer products. There is no
>>      government agency that regulates the design of handguns for
>>      safety. In addition, most gun laws in the United States target
>>      gun users, not gun manufacturers.
>>=20
>>    * Currently, 15 states and five cities have enacted Child Access
>>      Prevention (CAP) laws, which may hold adults criminally liable
>>      for failure to either store loaded firearms in a place
>>      inaccessible to children or to use a safety device to lock the
>>      gun.
>>=20
>>    * In the first year following passage of Florida=EDs Child Access
>>      Prevention law, unintentional firearm fatalities among children
>>      ages 14 and under declined by more than 50 percent.
>>=20
>> HEALTH CARE COSTS AND SAVINGS
>>=20
>>    * The total annual cost of unintentional firearm-related deaths and
>>      injuries among children ages 14 and under is approximately $3.5
>>      billion. Children ages 5 to 14 account for more than $3.2
>>      billion, or nearly 95 percent, of these costs.
>>=20
>>    * Among children ages 14 and under, unintentional firearm injuries
>>      account for nearly half of the total cost of all firearm
>>      injuries, which include homicide, suicide and unintentional
>>      firearm injuries.
>>=20
>>    * Hospital treatment for a firearm-related injury averages between
>>      $7,000 and $14,000 per case.
>>=20
>> PREVENTION TIPS
>>=20
>>    * Gun owners should always store firearms unloaded and locked up,
>>      with ammunition locked in a separate location, out of reach of
>>      children.
>>=20
>>    * Gun owners should use trigger locks, load indicators and other
>>      safety devices on all firearms.
>>=20
>>    * All parents should teach children never to touch a gun and to
>>      tell an adult if they find a gun.
>>=20
>> 9/96
>>=20
>>        National SAFE KIDS Campaign Homepage | National SAFE KIDS
>>      Week 1997 | The National Office | State and Local Coalitions
>>          | National SAFE KIDS Campaign Sponors | Fact Sheets |
>>           Frequently Asked Question | Family Safety Check List |
>>=20
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>> The National SAFE KIDS Campaign
>> 1301 Pennslyvania Ave, NW, Suite 1000
>> Washington, DC 20004-1707
>> 202-662-0600 Phone | 202-393-2072 Fax
>> http://www.safekids.org | [e-mail]
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ONE DAY IN PEACE, JANUARY 1, 2000.
Date: 14 Apr 1997 17:17:16 -0600

I received this from a somewhat misguided friend (who means well!),
with copies to about a zillion people.  I thought this was a good
opportunity to educate people that GUNS are NOT the problem.  The
letter and my response follow.....

Sarah

>Just passing this on. Please do the same.
>
>Irene
>
>
>Ronald Shlensky wrote:
>>
>> cannot resist passing this on. I know the person involved and he seems
>> reliable
>> Ron
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:38:56 -0700
>> From: [e-mail]
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Please help-
>>
>> ONE DAY IN PEACE, JANUARY 1, 2000.
>>
>> This is a 24-hour concept where no guns are fired anywhere on earth...
>> including on television.  What if, for 24 hours, whosoever happens to be at
>> war on December 31, 1999, agrees that for one whole day no guns would be
>> fired?  The silence would be golden.
>>
>> And what if the television programmers of the world agreed to not air any
>> programming with a violent content?  (It would probably be
>> easier to get warring nations to stop firing than it would be to get the
>> world's television programmers to not air violent programming.)
>>
>> At present, this ONE DAY IN PEACE concept is beginning to get further
>> circulation.  On April 6, 1997, it will be 1000 days until January 1, 2000.
>>
>> This is a thought-wave campaign.  Which is to say, the more people who
grasp
>> this thought, the more it comes into reality...
>>
>> One Day In Peace, January 1, 2000... pass it on... expect a miracle.

I suppose one can't fault anyone for indulging in such pie-in-the-sky
idealism.  It certainly would be nice if there were no more need for
guns.  But humans, and human psychology, being what they are, it just
isn't ever going to happen.  The strong will always prey on the weak.
Guns are our only defense against tyranny - the tyranny of crime, the
tyranny of governments, the tyranny of the large, strong, etc. over
the small, weak, etc.

So, once you get all the dictators, military leaders, tyrants, murderers,
rapists, wife abusers, child abusers, criminals, governments,
terrorists, and just plain nuts to seriously agree to this, I'll be
more than happy to surrender my guns for the day.

Until then, I'll trust that "An armed society is a polite society",
to quote Robert Heinlein, and I'll stay armed.

I am, as always, willing to agree not to INITIATE violence.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: As Street Cops See It
Date: 14 Apr 1997 17:23:44 -0600

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-04/14/005L-041497-idx.html
>
>
>> [Image]         As Street Cops See It
>>=20
>> [Image]
>>                 Monday, April 14 1997; Page A16
>> Talk Central    The Washington Post
>> Section:
>> discuss hot     Any doubt as to why so many street cops hold politics
>> topics of       and politicians in such low regard should have
>> the day         vanished after a reading of Sen. Frank R.
>> online.         Lautenberg's defense of his domestic violence gun
>>                 ban, more commonly known as the Lautenberg amendment
>> All             ["No Guns for Wife-Beaters," op-ed, April 3].
>> Editorials
>> and Op-Ed       Sen. Lautenberg wants the public to believe that his
>> columns from    law will protect the innocent against the violent. It
>> this            won't.
>> morning's
>> Washington      Having spent 13 years pulling street patrol in New
>> Post.           York, I've found the only way to control criminal
>>                 violence is to control criminals. Cops don't learn
>> All             this concept studying political science or the law.
>> editorials      We learn it on the street, up close and personal,
>> and             where things get ugly.
>> commentary
>> from            If a man wants to beat his spouse to a pulp, he isn't
>> Sunday's        going to pay attention to Sen. Lautenberg's firearms
>> Washington      ban. And because most spousal murders and assaults
>> Post Outlook    are committed by bludgeoning -- punching and kicking
>> section.        -- Mr. Lautenberg's amendment fails to help most
>>                 domestic violence victims.
>>=20
>>                 The other point the Lautenberg amendment misses is
>>                 that wife and child beaters should be tried and
>>                 convicted as felons. It's long been a federal offense
>>                 for felons to possess a firearm or ammunition. And
>>                 such violent degenerates have no place in society,
>>                 and certainly not in law enforcement or the military.
>>=20
>>                 But until we lock up violent felons for a long time
>>                 and make life in prison tougher than life on the
>>                 outside, we won't make a dent in violent crime rates
>>                 or reduce domestic abuse. Until we hold the purveyors
>>                 of criminal violence responsible for their despicable
>>                 acts and exact swift, certain and serious punishment,
>>                 they will still sneer at our laws and continue to
>>                 rob, rape and kill.
>>=20
>>                 As long as excuse-makers, such as Sen. Lautenberg,
>>                 continue to blame violence on everything from guns to
>>                 dysfunctional families rather than holding a criminal
>>                 responsible for his actions, nothing will change, and
>>                 many innocent Americans will continue to suffer.
>>=20
>>                 JAMES J. FOTIS
>>=20
>>                 Falls Church
>>=20
>>                 The writer is executive director of the Law
>>                 Enforcement Alliance of America, an organization of
>>                 50,000 police officers concerned with criminal
>>                 justice reform.
>>=20
>>                      =A9 Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
>>=20
>>                                    Back to the top
>> [Image]
>> [Home Page, Site Index, Search, Help]
>
Reproduced for non-profit and educational uses only.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Apr 1997 17:34:53 -0600


Editor (Op-Ed)
The Salt Lake Tribune
Fax submission: [phone]                            April 8, 1997

Dear Sir:
In the past month, The Tribune has published at least three editorials
demonizing firearms: ("Eerie Silence on Guns" Mar. 8;  "Too Many Guns",
Mar. 11; and "Call A Halt to the Domestic Arms Race", April 1.)  I'm
certain you consider your First Amendment right to a free press absolute.
And as far as I know there is no law against publishing misinformation or
sensationalism.  I consider my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
as absolute as your right to a free press. Perhaps you'll allow me the
opportunity to present an opposing opinion based on fact rather than fear.
The only "eerie silence" I've noted is the sound of 15,000 legal carriers
of firearms in Utah  NOT firing or otherwise misusing their firearms.  If
the system isn't broken, what "common sense" is there in "fixing it"?  In
fact, the system appears to be working, since the crime rate in Utah
decreased in 1996, the first full year in which the new concealed carry law
was in effect.  This decrease was as predicted by the study published by
Lott and Mustard of the University of Chicago, but was attributed to
everything BUT the concealed carry law by state officials and the Tribune.
More to the point, "common sense" is NOT what determines the legality of a
law.  That is decided by the courts in accordance with the Constitutions of
the Utah and the United States.  Both state
that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    I agree that private property owners, including churches, have the right
to ban firearms on their premises.  However, should they choose to exercise
that right, they should be held responsible for the safety and well-being
of those who are in or on their property.  This applies even more to
government buildings, paid for by all taxpayers including gun owners, since
people have no choice about patronizing them, while they are free to
boycott private businesses which ban firearms.  While the state may permit
firearms to be banned from houses of worship, it is ludicrous to even
consider mandating that firearms be banned from churches, since  the
government may not interfere in the free exercise of religion.  Further, it
is rather cowardly for religious groups to ask the government to take a
stand for them, rather than making the decision on their own. Given the
recent problems with church burnings, anti-Semitism, etc., it seems to me
that some religions might welcome members who carry firearms responsibly.
While the LDS Church has expressed the opinion that firearms are
"inappropriate" in churches, perhaps the Church and its members might also
keep in mind the history of the United States government's hostility
towards the Church and show a bit more consideration for those willing to
take on the responsibility of self-defense.
    While the recent Empire State shooting was tragic, it is unlikely that
more gun control laws would have prevented it.  There are already multiple
laws banning the possession of firearms in New York City, and Ali Hassan
Abu Kamal had already shown his complete disregard for the law.  Someone
intent on mass murder is certainly not going to be deterred by firearms
restrictions, bans or waiting periods.  What might have deterred Abu Kamal
was the knowledge that one or more of his victims was armed and could
retaliate.  One could hypothesize that this was his reason for choosing a
site in New York City instead of Florida (where he purchased the firearm),
where many citizens carry firearms legally.  Unfortunately, the criminals
in New York City know that their victims have been conveniently disarmed
for them by the very government charged with ensuring their well-being.
    Hubert Williams of the Police Foundation seems to confuse cause with
method.  Firearms, even in the hands of criminals, do not choose their
targets or initiate attacks.  That people no longer have respect for the
police and are willing to go as far as ambushing and murdering them in cold
blood is not the fault of firearms.  Perhaps his foundation could
investigate the real reasons for such inhuman behavior.  I suspect that he
is correct in blaming "the nexus of drugs and guns" although he neglects to
note the hypocrisy of a government that wages "wars" on drugs and firearms
while tacitly allowing them to be smuggled into the country.  Yet there is
much evidence indicating the government allowed drugs to be smuggled into
Los Angeles in order to fund the Contras, and that more recently the
Chinese (COSCO) shipped assault weapons into California in return for
campaign contributions.  Could it be that the very administration so
committed to banning firearms is in fact responsible for the recent
shoot-out between police and gang members in Los Angeles?
    Mr. Williams also ignores the data collected in the National Survey of
Private Ownership of Firearms in the United States (NSPOF) conducted for
the Police Foundation (of which he is President) and analyzed by Cook and
Ludwig.  This study indicates that there are up to 4.7 million defensive
gun uses (DGUs) per year, a figure even higher, although compatible with,
Kleck and Gertz's previous estimate of up to 2.5 million DGUs per year, as
well as with numerous other smaller studies.  Thus the benefit of firearms
ownership for good citizens far outweighs the harm done by criminals with
firearms.
    However, arguing statistics can only lead us down a blind alley.
Attempting to justify the ownership of firearms with statistical studies
implies that if the results of these studies were different, confiscation
or banning of firearms might be acceptable.  This is as logically bankrupt
as attempting to use statistics to justify freedom of speech or of the
press.
    Ownership of firearms is a natural right which derives from the right to
self-defense, a right which is inherent in all living things.  It is not
granted by the Bill of Rights, but rather guaranteed and affirmed by that
document.  The intent of the founding fathers was to allow us to protect
ourselves from tyranny.
    There are two types of tyranny that confront us today.  One is the tyranny
of government, best exemplified by the Nazis and by the numerous murderous
regimes in power throughout the world today.  All of the genocides of the
twentieth century have been preceded by gun control and confiscation laws.
While our government has many checks and balances to prevent such abuse of
its citizens, many people today are alienated from their government and
feel it does not represent their best interests.
    The other form of tyranny, known to all of us, is the tyranny of crime.
We have become used to the idea that it is not safe to go out alone at
night, that we must keep all doors locked at all times, that we must be
ever vigilant, that there are certain areas or even cities where it is not
safe to go.  Women especially live under the constant fear of assault,
rape, robbery, and muggings, and have become accustomed to severely
limiting their activities and travel.  This is a very real and pervasive
form of terrorism and tyranny in which the behavior of vicious criminals
determines the freedoms of the law-abiding and peaceful citizens.
    Rather than an archaic concept designed to protect the colonists from the
predations of King George, the Second Amendment is a vital and essential
element in the war we wage against the tyranny of violent crime today.  The
right to self-defense, and the right to defend oneself and one's family
from tyranny are inherent, natural rights and neither can be, nor should
be, restricted.  Those people who choose to be responsible for their own
safety and that of their families, who take the time  to learn how to use
firearms safely and responsibly, who by the very act of carrying firearms
deter violent offenders from attacking both the armed and the unarmed
populace, who refuse to allow criminals to restrict their lives,
are true heroes and heroines in the finest American tradition.  They, and
their firearms, should be lauded by law enforcement and citizens alike, not
demonized by government and its lapdog press.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Sandy, UT

Dr. Thompson is a former emergency physician and psychiatrist who now
specializes in firearms research and policy.  She is Director of Women's
Affairs for Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, a non-profit think
tank based in California, and a founding member of the Women's Firearms
Alliance, Inc., a non-profit educational and lobbying organization based in
Salt Lake City.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Column, April 23 -Forwarded
Date: 16 Apr 1997 16:04:58 -0700

Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA10220; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 03:33:11 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
          by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.4-q-beta2/8.8.4)
      id DAA00757; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 03:23:04 -0600
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 03:23:04 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130501af7a498cdd68@[192.9.150.95]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail]
Resent-Message-ID: <"mUvEH1.0.gB.hf9Lp"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/266
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 23, 1997
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Debunking the bad science of the baby-doctors

    Dr. Bernard Feldman, of the Department of Pediatrics of the University
of Nevada School of Medicine, wrote to me on April 9:

  "Each time the issue of gun safety and control is brought up, your
editorials invoke the issue of Second Amendment rights, rather than
discussing the real issue of gun-related violence and deaths due to
gunfire.

  "Pediatric firearm injuries are reaching epidemic proportions in the
United States. In 1993, one American child (under age 20) was killed every
92 minutes by gunfire. Additionally, five more were wounded in the same
time. Half of the gunshot deaths occurred with the dead kid's own finger on
the trigger, being signed out by the coroner as either an accident or
suicide. Handguns kept at home are 10 times more likely to injure a
household occupant than an intruder. In that same household, suicide is
five time more likely to occur and domestic homicide three times more
likely.

  "Violence due to gunfire should be treated like any other epidemic
disease. If society wishes to protect children from having a slug of lead
slamming into their heads or chests and succumbing to this disease, ...
parents should know whether guns are present in the homes of their
children's friends and, if they are, ask whether the gun is locked in a
safe place not accessible to children. In this way parents can make
informed decisions about allowing their children to play in such a home.
...

  "If your editorials would promote such preventive measures, you would be
doing your readers a far better service than stirring up hysteria about the
loss of constitutional rights. Certainly, our founding fathers would have
had second thoughts about the Second Amendment if they could have predicted
the consequences of allowing the citizenry to retain their right to keep a
loaded musket in their homes."

    #  #  #

  Knowing that no rebuttal by a mere layman would carry much weight in the
face of the kind of grasp of statistical and causative reasoning displayed
here by Dr. Feldman, I contacted Dr. Edgar A. Suter, M.D., national
chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, of San Ramon, Calif.,
to ask if he'd be willing to briefly respond.

  The next day, Dr. Suter answered via fax:

  "Dear Mr. Suprynowicz: According to the latest review of the 1990 Harvard
Medical Practice Study, every year 180,000 Americans die from physician
negligence -- nearly five times the number of Americans who die by gunshot.
Careless doctors kill the equivalent of two jumbo jet crashes every three
days.

  "Are physicians an epidemic public health menace? Of course not, because
physicians save so many more lives than they take -- and so it is with
guns, where every year 2.5 million Americans use guns every year to protect
themselves, their families, and their livelihoods. Guns are used to save
lives, prevent injuries, avert medical costs, and protect property.

  "Dr. Feldman's discussion of 'costs' of guns in the absence of a
discussion of their benefits is poor accounting -- like trying to balance a
checkbook by tallying withdrawals without adding deposits. Even Dr.
Feldman's claim of an 'epidemic' is false, as any careful physician can
observe from FBI data. Violence has been stable to declining for every
racial and demographic group in the U.S. (start ital)except(end ital) for
inner city teens and young adults involved in drug trafficking.
Three-quarters of homicide 'victims' are criminals.

  "Dr. Feldman's American Academy of Pediatrics pretends that 20-year-old
dueling drug dealers are 'innocent children.' Sensationalized reporting of
relatively rare tragedies involving 'innocent children' notwithstanding,
the most certain means of avoiding homicide in the U.S. is to avoid the
drug trade.

  "By definition, criminals break laws. Predators who ignore laws against
rape, murder, and drug trafficking also ignore gun laws. It is only the
innocent victims who respect and are impeded and disarmed by gun laws.
Victim disarmament is (start ital)not(end ital) a policy that saves lives.

  "As to suicide, gun controls have been shown to reduce (start
ital)gun(end ital) suicides, but not (start ital)total(end ital) suicide
rates because many lethal means (hanging, leaping, and auto exhaust) are
even more accessible than guns. Suicide rates in the supposed gun-free
paradises of Japan and Europe far outstrip U.S. suicide rates. ...

  "Without exception, all 15 of the studies of the protective use of
firearms demonstrate one to four million -- or more! -- protective uses of
guns annually, saving about 400,000 lives annually. The benefits of guns
far outweigh the combined detriment of criminal, suicidal, and careless gun
misuse -- 400,000 lives saved dwarf 38,000 gun deaths.

  "The University of Chicago Lott & Mustard study of progressive reform of
concealed handgun laws, allowing good citizens to protect themselves where
they are at greatest risk -- outside their homes -- demonstrated that,
rather than "blood running in the streets," the net outcome of these
reforms has been thousands of lives saved and violent crimes prevented.
Guns offer an overwhelming net benefit in our society.

  "We can give Dr. Feldman some credit for his gun safety suggestions, but
his suggestion that we treat crime as a disease is as ridiculous as
treating disease as a crime."

    #  #  #

  In the limited space available, Dr. Suter could only touch on the kinds
of statistical manipulation now in regular use by the nation's baby doctors
in their well-organized "Guns are a Disease" campaign.

  For a really detailed dissection of this fraud, I recommend the Winter,
1997 special edition of "The Firearms Sentinel," featuring the treatise
"Disarming the Data Doctors: How to Debunk the 'Public Health' Argument for
'Gun Control'," by Richard W. Stevens, adjunct professor of Legal Research
and Writing, George Washington University School of Law.

  The publication is available at $5 (50 copies for $29.95) from Jews for
the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2874 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee,
Wisc. 53207.

  The JPFO web page is at http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking."






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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun lessons for kids
Date: 16 Apr 1997 19:17:43 -0600


From today's Tribune.  Maybe of some interest...

 [Image] [Image]       Wednesday, April 16, 1997       [Image] [Image]

              Daughter's Gun Lessons Lead to Duel in Court

 KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWS SERVICE
     SANTA ANA, Calif. -- Rodney Fetter's passion for guns
 started early in life, with a grandfather who worked as a gunsmith
 and a father who loved to hunt.
     So it seemed only natural that when Fetter had his own child, he
 would pass on his hobby. He believes in starting early, and last
 month gave his daughter her first lesson in handling guns.
     The girl is 5 years old.
     And before Fetter's daughter has even pulled her first trigger,
 his plan to teach her gun skills has landed in court, where an Orange
 County judge will decide if it endangers the child.
     The girl's mother, Susan Fetter of La Habra, Calif., has obtained
 a temporary restraining order to keep her ex-husband from allowing
 the child, Nicole Rose, to touch any guns. A hearing is set for April
 23.
     ''She's 5 years old. She doesn't know the difference between a
 real gun and a fake gun,'' said Susan Fetter, 37. ''I'm scared to
 death for her safety.''
     Rodney Fetter, 31, said the lessons would keep Nicole safe. He
 owns seven guns, and keeps a rifle and a .357-caliber handgun at his
 home in Norco, Calif., although neither is loaded.
     He planned to start Nicole's lessons with a Red Ryder BB gun --
 the first gun he ever used -- and eventually build up to a real
 pistol. He received his first gun ''probably at 6,'' he said.
     ''If she knows how to use them and handle them, she's safe,''
 Rodney Fetter said. ''It's like teaching [kids] to use a computer.''
     California law does not set an age at which children can use
 guns, but rather leaves it to the discretion of a parent or guardian.

     Nicole, a preschooler who loves to read books with her mother and
 is learning to play tennis, doesn't like to discuss the gun issue.
     When her mother was asked about the upcoming court battle, the
 girl scrambled off the couch and crawled onto the lap of her mother's
 boyfriend, who was seated in a rocking chair nearby.
     Susan Fetter said her daughter is very sensitive, loves her
 father, and feels the stress between her parents.
     But Susan Fetter, who works as a travel agent, said she has no
 choice but to fight to keep guns out of the girl's hands.
     The judge probably will focus on whether Rodney Fetter's plan
 would jeopardize Nicole's health, safety and welfare, said Ron
 Gutierrez, a social worker with Legal Services for Children, a San
 Francisco agency that represents children's rights in court.
     ''It's a pretty big safety issue, teaching a 5-year-old to shoot
 a gun -- even a BB gun,'' Gutierrez said. ''It's a pretty big risk.''

     Susan Fetter learned of her ex-husband's plans in February, when
 he dropped off Nicole after a visit.
     Fetter said she heard him tell the girl ''Nicole, practice
 closing one eye so you can learn to shoot that gun.''
     Susan Fetter obtained a temporary injunction ordering Rodney
 Fetter not to use firearms with Nicole, allow Nicole to shoot
 firearms or involve Nicole in gun activity.
     Susan Fetter said she is terrified that her daughter will begin
 to feel comfortable around weapons and may harm herself or someone
 else.
     Rodney Fetter, a truck driver and warehouse worker, said it's
 ridiculous to believe he would put his only child in jeopardy. He
 would tell her never to touch the gun unless he is present.
     ''I'd be supervising her for a long time until she's got it
 down,'' he said.
     Nicole was excited about learning to shoot the gun, he said,
 before the girl's mother convinced her it was bad.
     ''All I want is mutual respect,'' Rodney Fetter said.
     ''[Susan's] going to do stuff with Nicole that I don't agree
 with, but who am I [to say no] as long as it's reasonable and she's
 not hurting Nicole.''
     Social worker Gutierrez said the plan would endanger the girl
 because of her age.
     ''Even with the father's instruction, even if he rigorously tried
 to instill in her proper safety procedures for handling a gun, she
 still would not be able to fully understand,'' Gutierrez said.



--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the
 minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace
 the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their
 protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles,
 muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are now but little used in
 war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be
 considered as 'arms' which the [the people] have aright to bear." STATE
 v. KERNER; 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25 (North Carolina Supreme Court,
 1921.)


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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Gun lessons for kids
Date: 17 Apr 1997 10:02:57 -0600


------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4B18.16DB2450
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems to me that this article isn't about guns at all but about the =
state, either real or potential dictating what a parent can or can not =
teach his or her children or expose them to.  IMHO there are a lot more =
dangerous aspects of everyday life for a five-year-old than knowing how =
to safely handle a gun.
Glenn Clapp                  | The total sum of all trivial
Pioneer Digital Technologies | mal-design unnecessarily adds
Salt Lake City, Utah         | to the trauma of everyday=20
801.363.4062       | life.  - Donald A. Norman




------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4B18.16DB2450
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4B18.16DB2450--



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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Gun lessons for kids
Date: 17 Apr 1997 10:42:31 -0600


This guy needs to get a  hold of Massad Ayoob.  Mr. Ayoob gave his 6 year
old daughter her own .22 and she was shooting much earlier.  He also has
bulletproof (sorry :-) credentials.

If this poor guy can line up the people he can win this

Chad

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Women's Personal Protection Class
Date: 17 Apr 1997 12:42:00 -0600

Women's Firearms Alliance, Inc. is sponsoring a special FREE Patriot's
Day seminar on Women's Personal Protection.  This class is a 2 hour
discussion of various methods of personal protection and their pros
and cons.  It is NOT a firearms class.  There will also be discussion
of how to avoid or defuse situations where you may need to defend
yourself.

The class will be taught by Jan Teegardin, an NRA certified firearms
instructor, martial arts gold medalist, range master, and educator.

The class will be held frm 9-11 AM on Saturday, April 19, at the
Lee Kay Center, Public Shooting Range, 5600 West, 2100 South.

Registration is required as space is limited.

For registration or information contact the Women's Firearms Alliance,
[phone].

A complete schedule of upcoming classes is available at
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

April 19 -
The Battles of Lexington and Concord
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Waco Inferno
The bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City
If you value freedom and liberty, REMEMBER!!


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Re: People freaking out about open carry]
Date: 18 Apr 1997 17:02:42 -0600


Not having the lawful ability to carry openly as our friends in
Arizona do, questions about carrying a gun are less prevelent here.
However, I thought the following was short enough to pass along for
your consideration.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>I think we should carry openly whenever possible in order to acclimate
>all of the newcomers we have in Arizona.  Be sure to be friendly and
>polite, so as to confuse people who expect you to be some sort of
>maniac.

Yup, I always return my shopping cart, hold the door for total strangers,
say please and thank you to everyone, say Ma'am and Sir alot.  It's not at
all what they expect.

I don't get asked about it much but when I do, I have my answers ready:

Q. Are you a cop?
A. <looking very perplexed that they would ask this...> No, why do you ask?

Q. Are you expecting trouble?
A. Absolutely not.  Who's going to hassle a man with a gun?

Q. Is that a real gun?
A. Yes, very real.

Q. Why do you have that?  (Some people can't bring themselves to say the
"g" word.)
A. Part fashion statement, part political statement and the rest for the
same that reason you have a jack in your trunk.

Even as we've all practised so as to be prepared in the event of trouble,
so should we have our answers ready in the event of questions.

--
Marconi

You have the God-given right to kick the government around -- don't
hesitate to do so. -- Edmund Muske

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Ships are very safe when in port. Unfortunately a ship's mission has
 nothing to do with staying in port!" -- Anonymous


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: No more "A" ratings for gun grabbers
Date: 13 Apr 1997 16:30:00 -0700


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

To whom it may concern:

In September, 1996, NRA Directors Richard L. Carone, Judge Paul
Heath Till, Prof. Joseph Olson and I co-sponsored a resolution to
prevent NRA-ILA from giving A ratings and awards to politicians
who vote to violate our right to keep and bear arms, and get NRA-
ILA to adopt a more objective grading system (stop lying to members).

Wayne LaPierre, Tanya Metaksa, and Marion Hammer argued against
the "no-A's for gun grabbers" resolution, claiming that ILA needs
to be able to give A ratings and awards to gun grabbers because,
for example, "members won't volunteer for a non-A-rated candidate
even it's the lesser of two evils". In other words, members won't
work for a gun grabber unless ILA lies to them. The "winning team"
successfully prevented the resolution from coming to the floor for
a vote. Instead, it was deferred to an "election conference" and
the May meeting.

In December, Jeff Dissell posted a request on Conservative Diner
and elsewhere, In which I asked readers to send documentation of
ratings problems and instances where ILA has given A's to gun
grabbers. I understand a dozen or so responses were received.
These were to be turned over to me. I've been told many times
over the last two + months that they'd be sent right away, but
they never arrived. I'd like to review them well before the May
meeting, but I must assume they'll never be sent.

If you're one of the activists who sent documentation, please resend
to [e-mail], or mail on disk to Russ Howard, 1140 Highland
Avenue #119, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266.

Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

Russ Howard
NRA Board Member




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Businesses and guns]
Date: 18 Apr 1997 17:37:12 -0600


From a discussion on the Arizona list, food for thought...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>So, let us assume that business establishments open to the public may not, by
>law, discriminate based on race, creed, color or national origin. Next
>question: May establishments discriminate against people who are exercising
>their natural/constitutional/human/civil rights? Example: Somebody walks into
>KMart with a t-shirt that reads "HITLER WAS RIGHT," but the person conducts
>himself in an otherwise orderly fashion. Does the store have a right to eject
>that person, based upon the offensive nature of his t-shirt? On the other

Something I just remembered that has some significance to this.  One of the
big accident/liability lawyers that specialize in motorcycle accidents has
started taking on lawsuites against businesses that have "no colors - no
biker attire" policies.  The literature I've seen (but didn't keep) cites
several court decisions that support the "open for business to the public =
acceptance of conditions regarding discrimination, etc." school of thought,
as well as legal precident protecting the wearing of clothing displaying
offensive slogans, etc.  I'll see if I can find one of their ad's somewhere.

Scott
--
   Scott Benjamin                      [e-mail]

Scott's Liberty Notes http://personal.riverusers.com/~scottb/

  "The ultimate result of protecting men from the results
   of their own folly is to fill the world with fools."
                      Herbert Spencer

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be
the one controlling it."
     - Clint Eastwood


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Column, April 19
Date: 18 Apr 1997 20:55:50 -0600

>(*) are comments by Bill Watts.
>
>( Warning:
>
>Language may be strong. But, then again, so are my feelings.
>
>Also, if this is not THE wake up call or call to arms, then nothing is. )
>
> ----------
>From: vinsends-request
>Subject: Column, April 19
>Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 1:16AM
>
>
>    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 19, 1997
>    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>    Papers, please?
>
>    Less than 60 years ago, American audiences would boo and hiss when the
>train carrying their cinematic heroes squealed to a halt and was boarded by
>the haughty "state police" of some totalitarian regime, demanding of each
>passenger in turn: "Travel papers? Identity card?"
>
>  Well, it's 1997 in America. Welcome to "The Lady Vanishes."
>
>  In New Orleans last year, citizen Martin McCay didn't get to vote. The
>state of Louisiana wouldn't let him, because he refused to produce his
>Social Security card.
>
>  Don Haines of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington reports a
>little-known provision of a new federal law establishes a national medical
>data base, under which patients' lifelong medical histories will be
>centrally organized -- and accessible to government agents -- by Social
>Security number.
>
>  A little-noticed provision of the new immigration law signed by President
>Clinton in September prohibits federal agencies from accepting most state
>drivers' licenses as identification unless they display the citizen's
>Social Security number. And Cyndee Parker, of Georgia's Coalition to Repeal
>the Fingerprints Law (www.mcwebs.com/repeal/), reports Georgia now hosts
>the federally-subsidized pilot program under which law-abiding drivers are
>required to provide digital fingerprints in order to receive a state ID or
>drivers license.
>
>  "Buried at approximately page 650 of the new National Defense bill, also
>known as Public Law 104-208, Part B, Title IV, the American public was
>given a national ID card," Ms. Parker reports.
>
>  Her group "found that the national law not only mandates a national ID
>card, but found how it is to be used.
>
>  "In Section 401-403, pilot programs have been initiated by the U.S.
>Attorney General, one of which is the 'Machine Readable Document Pilot
>Program.' In this particular program, employers would have to 'procure' a
>document reader linked to the government's Social Security Administration
>in order to have the potential employee swipe their new driver's
>license/national ID card through the reader. Then, it would be up to the
>federal government to either approve or disapprove the applicant for
>employment" -- all in the name of fighting "illegal immigration," of
>course.
>
>( Ok, I'd like to hear some real fact's concerning the "illegal immigration
>crisis." First, just how many illegal immigrants are presently in the US?
>Secondly what makes you think that those who employ illegal immigrants will
>give a rats ass whether or not they have their government issued National
>ID?  Since they must work under the table, the ID is next to worthless for
>fixing the "problem." This is nothing more that a sham and a blatant attempt
>to put the final nail in the coffin of liberty. Period.
>
>It's time to write the whole thing off. The nation founded on liberty is
>DEAD. )
>
>  Congressman Dick Armey, R-Tex., promptly decried the move as "an
>abomination and wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual
>freedom."
>
>( Well who the F*** voted for it? Asshole!
>
>Anyone one to take bets that Army voted for it?
>
>What? You don't read the laws you pass?
>
>If ever there was a need for an amendment, it would be to bar any passing of
>legislation that cannot , or has not been, read and understood in one day by
>an average man. Sort of like the legal maxim: that makes laws void for
>vagueness, except I want it done before the fact, before the damage; as it
>were. )
>
>  And did the GOP leadership of which Rep. Armey is a part then promptly
>bend on every available sail to get said legislation repealed?
>
>  Yeah, right.
>
>( Yeah right, is right.
>
>Why did they vote for the piece of shit in the first place then?
>
>This pisses me off to no end. I sincerely hope I'm not alone.
>
>But you know what? As much as it pisses me off about the shit that the
>politicians are doing, some credit must be put on ourselves. WE, WE the
>people, need to start reading these laws for ourselves. The main weapon of
>the modern day tyrannists is the law. Therefore, know your enemy and know
>his weapons or you will be defeated. If we haven't been defeated already. )
>
>  All this despite the fact that, when Social Security was set up 60 years
>ago, "The American people were solemnly promised the number would never be
>used for anything other than Social Security," recalls Roxana Hegeman of
>the Associated Press.
>
>( Promised being the operative work. Who is liable when the promises are
>broken?
>
>If no one is liable, then there is no promise.
>
>F*** your promises, put it in black and white. In the law, I might add. )
>
>  In fact, early Social Security cards bore a warning across the bottom,
>instructing the bearer not to reveal its number to anyone but a bona fide
>representative of the Social Security Administration.
>
>  By the 1960s, that warning had been diluted to the ambiguous, "Not for
>purposes of identification."
>
>( Diluted in direct proportion to the dilution of the value we have of our
>rights and liberty. )
>
>  Today, the warning on the card has disappeared, and young mothers with
>babes in arms, visiting the bank in hopes of opening their tot's first
>joint account, are routinely advised to "come back when she's been assigned
>her number" -- assuming the poor infants can even escape the maternity ward
>without being dragooned into this "voluntary" federal bunko scheme.
>
>( Well my daughter doesn't have one and she'll never get one unless she, by
>her own  free will, get's one for herself. And I don't give a flying F***
>that I can't deduct her from my income taxes. I didn't have my child to have
>a tax deduction. What a deceitful and covert way to get a totally voluntary
>program to be effectively mandatory. I'll ignore the fact that the whole tax
>system is voluntary as well. )
>
>  "It is really scary because the Social Security number has become a de
>facto identification number -- the kind of thing you find in totalitarian,
>authoritarian societies," protests Mr. Haines of the ACLU.
>
>( Oh really Mr ACLU. What are you going to do about it. Isn't this the same
>organization that will "defend" every right except the right to keep and
>bear arms? What are you going to do Mr ACLU; tell and beg the government to
>stop? )
>
>  There've been sporadic attempts to slow the rush toward a "national ID
>number." Section 78 of the federal Public Law 93-79 -- the Privacy Act --
>specifically prohibits any government agency from denying any right,
>benefit or privilege to an individual who refuses to disclose his or her
>Social Security number. But even that law grants an exemption to agencies
>that demanded the number before Jan. 1, 1975.
>
>( The government is and has never been in any position to deny a right for
>any reason. Period. The mere fact that they had to codify this is proof
>positive that our system is out of control, if not altogether terminal. If
>you have to ask the government for a right, then, you don't have any. Not to
>mention that if you don't know what your rights are, then again, you don't
>have any. )
>
>  Overall, the story is predictable. Bureaucrats and lawmakers swear up and
>down those who worry a new government scheme will progressively erode our
>remaining liberties are nothing but gibbering paranoids.
>
>( Then put in writing and swear up and down to it under penalties of perjury
>like we ignorant slaves do on a 1040. )
>
>  Years later, when the Cassandras are proven right, does anyone apologize
>and agree to disassemble the whole, hateful regime? Of course not.
>
>( No we'll get a new and improved regime, that "feels our pain," that
>promises to fix the problems of the old regime. Ad infinitum, ad nausium. )
>
>  The real solution is to pay off the current obligations of the
>cross-generational Ponzi scheme known as "Social Security," burn all the
>cards, and allow Americans to go back to saving for their own retirements as
>they see fit.
>
>( No the real solution, or scenario, will be to let the whole F***ing system
>collapse and let the government default on it's "obligations" as it
>inevitably will. Then maybe the people will wake the F*** up and realize
>that they have been and always will be lied to by the government. Sometimes
>the bitter medicine is the better medicine.  )
>
>  But until the U.S. government thus declares de facto bankruptcy, the very
>least the Republican Congress could do is immediately pass a law making it
>a felony for anyone but an agent of the Social Security Administration to
>ask a fellow-citizen for his or her "Social Security number."
>
>( The only law I want them to pass is the one that makes it a crime,
>punishable by life in prison or death, for them to promise anything they
>don't intend, or can't, deliver. That would end all the above problems. )
>
>Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
>Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
>site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
>column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
>Syndications.
>
>***
>
>Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]
>
>Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking."
>
>***************************************************************************
*
>****************
>
>Bill Watts
>http://www.nothinbut.net/~wwatts/
>
>  --
>
> The jury has a right to judge both the
> law as well as the fact in controversy.
>
> John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S.
> Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford,
> 1794:4
>
> To consider the judges as the
> ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
> questions is a very dangerous
> doctrine indeed, and one which
> would place us under the despotism
> of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson
>
> If we can prevent the government from
> wasting the labors of the people under
> the pretense of caring for them, the
> people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
>
> The Libertarian Party:
>  http://www.lp.org/lp/
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

April 19 -
The Battles of Lexington and Concord
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Waco Inferno
The bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City
If you value freedom and liberty, REMEMBER!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington Post review of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" I
Date: 19 Apr 1997 00:48:35 -0600

Thanks to Michele Moore for forwarding this to me.

Sarah

================================================================
PART ONE OF TWO:
==================
The Washington Post has reviewed at length "Waco:  The Rules of Engagement."
The entire text is contained in two posts.  But first this reminder:

"Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be showing:

    THE USA FILM FESTIVAL
    AMC GLEN LAKES THEATER
    9450 N. Central Expressway
    Dallas, Texas
    214-855-6286

    Showing Monday at 7:15pm
    April 21
===
    SEBASTOPOL CINEMAS
    6868 McKinley Street
    Sebastopol, CA 95472
    707-829-3921

    Showings begin April 26
===
    THE DOBIE THEATER
    2021 Guadalupe
    Austin, Texas
    512-472-3456
    Dobie Homepage

    Showing May 2 - 8
===
    ATLANTA FILM FESTIVAL

    AMC PHIPPS PLAZA 14
    3500 Peachtree Road N.E.
    Atlanta, GA
    (across the street from The Lenox Mall)

    June 1
===
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH FILM FESTIVAL

    (more details as they become available)

    June 6 & 8
===

>From the Washington Post:

Still Burning

                         Was Waco a Massacre? Four Years Later, The
Question Hasn't Been Extinguished

                         By Richard Leiby and Jim McGee
                         Washington Post Staff Writers
                         Friday, April 18 1997; Page C01
                         The Washington Post

              You can't believe your eyes. But the man on the screen, a
distinguished scientist, makes it all seem true. He is pointing out bright
bursts that look to him like machine gun fire. You are witnessing what
could be a military-style slaughter of civilians -- My Lai in America.
First they were gassed, then
burned, then shot.
               It all happened on April 19, 1993, according to a new
documentary film, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement."
    It's all a load of bunk, says the government -- but still, you have to
wonder. This is not another quickie video cranked out by militia nuts. It's
a serious documentary that quotes real experts, cost
nearly $1 million and was first screened in January at Robert Redford's
prestigious Sundance Film Festival. In the handful of cities where the film
has played, audiences are stunned and angered
when they leave the theater.
                         "One of the most disturbing films you'll ever
see," the San Francisco Chronicle said in its review. "It is the
documentary that will not go away," wrote a columnist in the Boston Globe.
                         "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" suggests that the
government's version of events -- as recounted in official reports and
three sets of congressional hearings -- basically amounts to a lie.
Contrary to all testimony, the film alleges that federal forces shot at
Branch Davidians on April 19, probably with machine guns. The filmmakers
say the muzzle flashes are visible on a heat-sensitive surveillance tape
made that day by the FBI.
                         Of course, there's another possibility: that the
film's central conclusion is dead wrong. That's what the FBI says, backed
by top officials of the Justice Department. They perceive "Waco" as
anti-government propaganda, and potentially dangerous. Timothy McVeigh was
inspired to blow up a federal building, prosecutors say, to avenge the
Branch Davidians who died.
                       Somewhere between these polar opinions lurks that
most elusive of commodities, The Truth. Finding it presents a challenge
worthy of a high-tech thriller -- it's an excursion into the fever swamp of
conspiracy and unthinkable cover-up, with detours into physics textbooks,
FBI headquarters and secret military labs.
                       Who shot at whom? What's the evidence? It's basic
police work -- but it's rarely simple.
                       Waco was a singularly complicated event - the
longest, largest and deadliest federal law enforcement operation in U.S.
history. It began with a botched raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms on Feb. 28, 1993, that led to the deaths of four ATF agents and
six Branch Davidians, members of a small, heavily armed sect focused on the
Bible's book of Revelation.
                         The FBI oversaw the 51-day standoff that ended
with a tear gas assault by tank-driving commandos. At least 76 more
Davidians (including 30 women and 25 children) died from fire, suffocation
and gunshots. Before any investigation -- before the vast majority of the
bodies had been pulled from the ashes -- President Clinton was unequivocal
about who was to blame. He told
reporters that "a bunch of religious fanatics decided to kill themselves."
The FBI has always contended that its agents never fired on April 19, even
when fired upon -- that the Davidians shot themselves and each other.
Autopsy reports showed that 19 Branch Davidians had
gunshot wounds. But Justice Department officials now acknowledge that the
ballistics work done after
Waco was rudimentary at best.
                        Maybe for that reason alone, Waco isn't settled
yet, at least in some minds. Wild theories about flame-throwing tanks and
death squads have circulated since the beginning. It's a lot like Dallas
1963, and its infamous grassy knoll: New "evidence" can always be found,
more questions can always be raised.
                         The "Waco" filmmakers claim to have found proof of
government malevolence -- in the form of a grainy, black-and-white
videotape recorded by an FBI surveillance aircraft circling overhead. Shot
from an altitude of about two miles, the video was made with an infrared
camera designed to detect heat sources, including bursts of weapons fire on
the ground.
                         Called Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR), this
technology was widely used in the Persian Gulf War to detect enemy tanks
and installations. The military refers to FLIR (pronounced "fleer") as a
form of "night vision" technology.  The 90-minute FLIR tape shows things
not recorded by TV news cameras, which were set up more than a mile away
and provided only a view of the front of the compound. In 1994, during the
criminal trial of the surviving Branch Davidians, federal prosecutors
used the FLIR tape to help show that the Branch Davidians started the fire
that consumed their compound on April 19.
                         The 165-minute "Waco" documentary was produced by
former CNN newsman Dan Gifford, his wife Amy, and Mike McNulty, who has
been investigating Waco independently for years. It is
heavy on C-SPAN footage from congressional hearings, audio tapes of FBI
negotiations and home videos made by the Branch Davidians. But its shocking
conclusion -- that FBI agents were intent on murdering Branch Davidians -
relies largely on the opinion of an expert who analyzed the FLIR tape.

                         `Something Terrible'

                       A portrait of Jesus stands guard over the big-screen
TV in Edward Allard's living room in Springfield.  A lifelong Catholic,
Allard is a man of conviction and certitude. He also holds a doctorate in
physics and is a former supervisor of the Department of Defense's night
vision laboratory at Fort Belvoir. He knows what he is seeing on that tape
-- he says the weapons signatures are so clear as to eliminate all doubt.
He cues up the FLIR video and plays it in slow motion, frame by frame, each
frame representing a
30th of a second.
                   "Right there, something terrible happens," he says,
pausing the tape.  He's pointing to an area on the screen where he believes
a team of men is firing into the burning cult compound. He has counted 44
distinct flashes in that area.  He also points out bursts near an Army M-60
tank that's destroying the back of the compound -- "an infantry-tank
maneuver," as he sees it.
                       Where are the shooters? They aren't visible, Allard
says, because their bodies are roughly the same temperature as the ground
-- FLIR would not distinguish between the people and the background. They'd
fade to gray.
                         Allard, 63, worked for the Defense Department and
as a thermal-image consultant for more than 30 years. He has agreed to
serve as an expert witness in a civil lawsuit being waged by attorneys
representing the estates and families of dead Branch Davidians, who say the
government acted recklessly, negligently and perhaps criminally at Waco.
                   In a federal court motion filed last October, former
attorney general Ramsey Clark argues that Allard's analysis "leaves no
doubt that the U.S. repeatedly fired gunshots into the church and at its
occupants."
                         Allard's assertion "is outrageous and absurd," the
Justice Department responds in its motion. However, the government has
produced no expert testimony on FLIR to answer Allard's claims in
the civil case, or in the movie.  The Justice Department issued a statement
yesterday saying that the gunfire theory is contradicted by all available
evidence. "The allegations presented by The Post are irresponsible and
wrong.  Given that the [FLIR] films have not been thoroughly analyzed,
publication of such speculations at this particular time can only serve to
inflame conspiracy theories."
                       A year ago, around the time of the last Waco
anniversary, the FBI was able to make this gunfire matter go away quietly.
CBS News's "60 Minutes" was asking about those strange flashes on the FLIR
tape. Its producers hired another expert who said he believed they were
gunfire.
                  Those are not gunshots, FBI officials insisted. They're
reflections of sunlight on broken glass and blowing debris. And besides,
there are no shooters visible on the tape, the FBI pointed out. You can't
have gunshots without shooters.  "60 Minutes" never ran a story. "I reached
the conclusion that this was inconclusive," says Rome Hartman, a "60
Minutes" producer.
                         The "Waco" documentary makers point to this as
proof of a continuing cover-up. FBI spokesmen point to the same fact as
confirming that the gunshot theory is nonsense.
                         It's all a matter of how you see things.

                         An FBI Screening

                         In the audiovisual lab in the basement of FBI
headquarters, a half-dozen Justice Department lawyers, FBI officials and
technicians gather to show portions of the original FLIR
-- this time to The Washington Post. The darkened room is filled with
glowing screens and a huge console. There is no FLIR expert on hand, but
John M. Hogan, Attorney General Janet Reno's chief of staff, says these
bright blips are benign glints of noonday sun. The image here is
dramatically better
than Allard's version of the tape and the video equipment is the best that
money can buy.
                         "When the film is this quality, you can see things
that are not producing heat," Hogan explains. The tape is slowed to points
where others have seen gunfire. "If there are men there, they would
be run over by the tank," he notes. "But there's no person there."
                      The shooters-on-the-ground theory simply defies
logic: "If you are a commander and you have tanks, why expose your people
to gunfire?" he asks, exasperated.  "At this point the FBI agents are
risking their lives, pulling people out of the fire. Not standing back
firing into the inferno."
                      The technician cues up another tape, this time to
show what people look like on FLIR. It's a sequence shot after the fire
ended that afternoon, when men are searching frantically in a storm
shelter for survivors. This part isn't in "Waco," the movie. The men's
bodies are clearly evident at some points, ghostlike at others, as the
temperatures of the backgrounds change.  But here's the main point: If the
FBI agents were trying to kill everyone, as the conspiracists argue, then
why search for survivors at all?
                      It's a convincing display. The government's lawyers
are smiling as the reporters exit into the darkness of Pennsylvania Avenue.
An FBI official says, "We don't want you to have any unanswered
questions."

                         Paranoia Runs Deep

                         Suspicion and conspiracy theories tend to arise
whenever the government clams up. The Kennedy assassination cottage
industry thrives on withheld documents. The alleged Roswell, N.M., "alien"
survives 50 years later because the government classified a report about a
weather balloon.
                         The FBI side of the story is scarcely represented
in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." The filmmakers say that's because the
bureau refused their requests to interview key personnel involved in the
standoff.


CONTINUED IN PART TWO


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

April 19 -
The Battles of Lexington and Concord
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Waco Inferno
The bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City
If you value freedom and liberty, REMEMBER!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waco: The Rules of Engagement II
Date: 19 Apr 1997 00:50:58 -0600

PART TWO OF TWO:
====================
>From the Washington Post:

       The FBI says an examination of the entire FLIR tape -- which runs
for several hours -- would provide context and further discredit the
gunfire theory. Yet the government has delayed releasing the entire tape to
attorneys who filed a Freedom of Information Act suit in Arizona. The
bureau also hasn't provided a full copy to The Washington Post, which first
requested one in December 1996.
                         Why the delay? "National security issues," says a
Justice Department spokesman.

                         Lessons Learned

                         Nine days after the debacle at Waco, Attorney
General Reno told a House Judiciary Committee hearing: "To the great credit
of the FBI, they received substantial fire from within the
compound . . .without returning any fire."
                         Under the operations plan approved by Reno - the
rules of engagement -- FBI snipers were allowed to respond with deadly
force to gunfire that endangered their lives. All have sworn they did
not. Snipers were interviewed and ammunition accounted for, according to
Richard Scruggs, who wrote the Justice Department's October 1993 report on
Waco.
                         So why don't some people believe it? Perhaps
because, in 1993, the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team -- its motto: "To
Save Lives" -- didn't enjoy a reputation for restraint. The 50-man squad of
sharpshooters and commandos was deployed to Waco seven months after its
engagement in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where an FBI sniper shot and killed a
woman holding a baby in her arms, a day after her teenage son and a U.S.
marshal were killed in a shootout.
                         The shooting of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, during
a standoff with her white-separatist husband, became the source of much
internal investigation and embarrassment for the FBI. The bottom
line is this: A high-ranking FBI official, E. Michael Kahoe, admitted
covering up the truth about Vicki Weaver's death.  He tried to rewrite
history by destroying documents.
                        Ruby Ridge and Waco had the same players, including
Larry Potts, who was instrumental in decision-making during both incidents,
and who has been suspended while officials probe his role at Ruby Ridge.
Kahoe, who briefed Reno during the Waco siege, last year pleaded guilty to
obstruction of justice in connection with Ruby Ridge.
                         The FBI learned its lesson. When confronted with a
group of militants in Montana a year ago, the Hostage Rescue Team brought
in outside negotiators and emphasized patience over
confrontation.
                         Maybe mistakes were made at Waco. Maybe secrets
are being kept. But that doesn't mean that anybody in the FBI acted
criminally there. It only means that people will keep asking questions.

                         Expert Opinions

                        Find enough FLIR experts, we figured, and maybe
this controversy could be settled. Or could it?  First, The Post mailed
copies of the FLIR tape -- those portions obtained from court filings -- to
people with infrared and weapons experience. After the FBI gave us a
one-hour excerpt (but not the whole tape), we showed that to local defense
contractors who specialize in interpreting FLIR. And we took the
tape to the military's top scientists. In all, 12 examiners offered opinions.
                         These days, infrared analysts are fairly easy to
find. Once an expensive military technology, FLIR is now widely used in
private industry and law enforcement -- especially in drug
cases where infrared cameras are used to locate indoor marijuana growers'
hot lamps and methamphetamine labs.
                         Four of the analysts contacted by The Post, who
have extensive military and weapons experience, were convinced that they
saw bursts on the tape indicative of gunfire going into the compound.  "The
gunfire signatures are real," said Joseph Horn, an El Paso, Tex.,
consultant on firearms evidence, who wrote a letter pointing out five
incidents that Allard had also deemed gunfire.
But where were the shooters?  "It bothered me that I wasn't able to see
their bodies," said Horn, a
former Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. "But the patterns of the firing
were there."
                         Ron Smith, who runs a business in Tempe, Ariz.,
supplying machine guns to law-enforcement and military agencies, said he
counted seven separate instances of automatic weapons
fire on the tape -- also directed at the buildings. He believes the alleged
shooters could have been wearing FLIR-resistant camouflage.
                         Both Smith and Horn admitted they are not
scientific experts on infrared technology, although they have worked with
it for years. "I don't care what kind of FLIR they used," Smith
says. "Gunfire looks like gunfire."
                      Tom Simpson is a computer imaging specialist in
Camarillo, Calif., who once trained military officials on how to read FLIR.
Here's his report on the Waco tape: "We observed no less than 60 of what
can only be explained as gunfire energy bursts . . . all directed at the
compound. We took great pains to explain these events in another fashion ..
. but were unable to find that explanation."
                         By this time, another expert, a PhD engineer named
Edward Friday, who works for Systems Planning Corp. in Arlington, had
gotten deep into the mystery. Last weekend he ran tests with a
FLIR system at a firing range. He wanted to see if automatic weapons fire
produced flashes and also establish whether FLIR would record sunlight
reflections.
                         Friday's results were inconclusive. "Flashes seen
on the FBI videotape could be attributed to sun reflections," he wrote.
"However, from our limited firearms experiments, it is not possible to
eliminate firearms as the cause of these flashes."

                         Second Opinions

                         Maybe those experts weren't good enough. Maybe
their equipment wasn't advanced enough. Next stop, the night vision lab at
Fort Belvoir. We wanted the best eyeballs in the country.
In that facility, the Army's brainiest scientists, engineers and physicists
do top-secret work building the type of surveillance devices that helped
defeat the Iraqi army during the Gulf War. We took a copy of the FBI's tape
to the lab, to have it evaluated by four night vision scientists. Theirs
would be only a visual review, they stressed -- no special equipment except
a video-projection system.  They watched intently for an hour, then voted
unanimously: "It looks like reflections to us," said John Palmer, the
senior scientist.  Nothing remotely resembling gunfire.
                         How could so many analysts come to such different
conclusions?  Reading FLIR, it turns out, is as much an art as it is a
science.  A serious review begins with equipment that slows the movement of
the tape to a frame-by-frame crawl, with each frame capturing a 30th of a
second. The next step is a
60th-of-a-second review, aided by sophisticated equipment.  Even with the
best gear, though, the surrounding context - the temperature, the position
of the sun, other corroborative evidence, the type of FLIR camera -- can
make a difference.  So do the preconceptions of the reviewer.
                         "I've always said that FLIR is one of the Army's
most dangerous weapons," Fred Zegel says. "Because you can read so much
into it."  Zegel is acknowledged to be one of the top FLIR readers in the
world. For more than two decades, he was the in-house expert at Fort
Belvoir. Any close calls, show the tape to Fred.
                        Zegel, 63, belongs in a novel by Tom Clancy. A
mountain of a man with wild gray hair and a gentle manner, he is retired
from the Army and working for Radian Inc., a defense contractor in
Alexandria.  Zegel knows and greatly respects Ed Allard, the scientist in
the documentary. They were once colleagues at the night vision lab.
                       Zegel watched the tape in two sessions, the first
time at regular speed, in his office.  "That was a reflection," he said,
staring at flashes that Allard and the others claimed were gunfire. At another
purported burst of bullets, Zegel said, "You are looking at exhaust there."
                     The second time, he agreed to watch the film in a
different setting-- at Allard's house, on Wednesday evening. Sitting in the
living room, the former colleagues went over the tape frame-by-frame for
four hours.  Zegel's position gradually changed. He didn't agree totally
with Allard, but he started to see things differently. He even saw things
that Allard hadn't seen.
                         "They look like men to me," Zegel said, indicating
dark spots behind a tank. It looked as if people were dropping out of the
tank, to assume firing positions: what Allard had called an infantry-tank
maneuver.  "In one instance, where the guys drop from tanks, that was
firing," Zegel said. "There was no reflection."
                         By the end of the night, Allard and Zegel had
found a couple instances to agree on. In four spots on the tape, they
disagreed.  Adding no certainty except this: Everyone sees things differently.
                      Like his old colleagues at the night vision lab and
several of the other consultants, Zegel cautions that he cannot be certain
without performing more complex tests -- a thermal scan, employing an
oscilloscope and computers to analyze every pixel.  Other experts suggest
reenactments. All of this would cost tens of thousands of dollars. That
might settle this question. Maybe. But even science can't remove all doubts.
                         Were three shots fired at President Kennedy - or
four? People still argue about the sounds recorded on a police Dictabelt
that captured the events of Nov. 22, 1963. Some play the Zapruder film and
find further "evidence" of another shooter besides Lee Harvey Oswald.
                         "The people who want to believe the conspiracy are
going to believe it no matter what," says Richard Scruggs, who investigated
Waco for the Justice Department. "It won't go away ever."
                       The Waco FLIR, like Dallas's grassy knoll, may be
with us always.

                         @CAPTION: "Right there, something terrible
happens": Infrared analyst Edward Allard describes what he says is evidence
the FBI was shooting at Branch Davidians as their Texas compound burned
during the 1993 raid that resulted in more than 70 deaths.

                         @CAPTION: Four years after the fatal siege of the
Branch Davidians, more questions than answers remain.

                         @CAPTION: Fred Zegel, one of the world's top FLIR
analysts, with an infrared imaging device.

                               (c) Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company

Reproduced for educational and research purposes only.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

April 19 -
The Battles of Lexington and Concord
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Waco Inferno
The bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City
If you value freedom and liberty, REMEMBER!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Roberti-Roos fallout]
Date: 21 Apr 1997 03:02:34 -0600

>Received the following from Dr. Edgar Suter, Californian and Nat'l Chair of
>Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research [DIPR].

>Russ Howard needs and _deserves_ our help. Read on and see why.
>TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS can be made to ICR and sent to:
>
>ICR c/o CAC
>1140 Highland Avenue, #119
>Manhattan Beach CA 90266
>            Please write "CAC Defense Fund" in the memo.
>            To donate legal aid, call 310-771-9299.
>
>GUN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS GET RECORD $808,000 POLITICAL FINANCE
>DISCLOSURE FINE IN RETRIBUTION FOR ROBERTI RECALL. BY RUSS HOWARD
>
>Constitutional activists will long remember how a sensationalist media teamed
>up with publicity-hungry politicians to turn 1989's Stockton schoolyard
>killings into nationwide anti-gun hysteria. When California Assembly Speaker
>Pro Tem Mike Roos and Senate President David Roberti enacted the landmark
>Roos-Roberti Assault Weapon Bill, it led to a wave of state and Federal bans.
>Roos and Roberti held press conferences to gloat about vanquishing the
>"once-powerful gun lobby". The future seemed bleak.
>
>Gun grabbers had learned from their failure to pass California's 1982 handgun
>ban, Prop 15. Adopting more maneuverable, incremental tactics, they waited
>like vultures to exploit a disaster like Stockton. Like Prop 15, Roos-Roberti
>was a statewide ban. But this time they divided and conquered, isolating
small
>numbers of "extremists" from "legitimate" owners of "sporting guns". And
>Roos-Roberti banned a style: military- style. Cleverly vague, the style
>concept facilitated arbitrary additions to the ban list. It was a fraud.
>Knowing people would confuse them with machine guns, it whipped up fear of
>semi-autos by mislabeling them assault weapons.
>
>But in their arrogance, Roos and Roberti poked the beehive too hard, and
>dozens of newly-hatched grass roots groups flew out to help defend it. Among
>them, Californians Against Corruption (CAC) worked to oust politicians who
>violate their oath to defend the Constitution. Led by Rick Carone, Jerry
Allen
>and Bill Dominguez, CAC's wildcat chain mail campaign precipitated Roos' 1990
>resignation by exposing a $50,000 payment resembling a bribe disguised as
>investment profits.
>
>Two years later, I helped organize several CAC campaigns to oust Roberti. In
>1992, we launched surprise chain mail attacks which Roberti barely survived
>only by spending $2,500,000. From 1993- 94, CAC led the coalition that
>qualified California's first legislative recall election since 1914. The
>coalition included the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Voters
>Alliance, Citizens for Law & Order, People's Advocate, Gun Owners Action
>Cmtte. and other gun rights, victims rights, good government and tax
>limitation groups. NRA and Gun Owners of Cal. made substantial independent
>expenditures. Roberti outspent us 10 to 1 ... 50 to 1 with the media's
>unofficial campaign. With that and the usual election fraud, we lost - but by
>only 9%. Nevertheless, Roberti announced that by exhausting his resources,
the
>recall had forced his early resignation as Senate President, and cost him the
>State Treasurer race: It had ended his political career.
>
>By ousting Roos and Roberti, CAC helped change the political landscape. As
>politicians shrank from becoming the next payback posterboy, the torrent of
>bills slowed to a trickle. And right- to-carry reform is moving! But Roos and
>Roberti were among California's top three legislators. Seeking revenge to
>deter new grass roots attacks on the political elite, they got the Fair
>Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to single us out for harassment.
>
>On November 2nd, 1995, the FPPC fined me $808,000, the largest individual
>political disclosure fine in U.S. History. Defying logic, FPPC acknowledged
>that I was the responsible party yet held CAC Asst. Treasurer Steve Cicero
>jointly liable. We were tried in the press, presumed guilty, denied jury
>trial, and convicted in absentia by bureaucrats. Our crimes? Expressing
>opinions, protecting privacy rights and defending political freedom.
>
>The Political Reform Act (PRA) established the FPPC to enforce campaign
>finance disclosure. Like other misguided reforms, PRA had unintended effects:
>Activists must navigate complex legal minefields, report donors to the state
>and detail activities on time-consuming forms. Before PRA, donors had privacy
>rights protecting them from incumbents. After PRA, incumbents could dry up
>opposition funding by implied threat of retribution. Far from leveling the
>playing field against special interests, PRA steepened it.
>
>As Senate President, Roberti had awesome power to influence legislation, the
>judiciary, police agencies, regulatory bodies like FPPC, and private firms
and
>employers. Donors were vulnerable to retribution. Some even feared ending up
>on lists of suspected Roos-Roberti violators. Ultimately, donors were
>harassed. Many got swastikas in the mail, and the Daily News began printing
>names. Suppose a newspaper printed YOUR NAME & ADDRESS as an "extremist"
donor
>and your family, friends, neighbors and boss read it.
>
>Though I consider FPPC unconstitutional, I disclosed name and donation to
show
>good faith. But to protect donor privacy rights, I withheld address,
>occupation and employer, filing these only after Roberti lost power. For
this,
>FPPC levied the maximum fine multiple times for each "infraction": $2,000 for
>the address, $2,000 for employer, $2,000 for occupation. The day they fined
>us, they also fined the San Francisco 49ers $60,000 for money laundering.
>Corporate special interests draw wrist slaps for fraud or huge secret
>donations, while we got record fines for protecting privacy.
>
>In 1982, Federal courts held that disclosure must be waived if there's
>reasonable fear of harassment. The FPPC knew harassment was likely, but never
>disclosed the waiver. If the FPPC had considered good faith, fairness, and
>reasonableness they would have exempted us, or at worst deemed it a late
>filing and fined us a few hundred dollars.
>
>The LA Times asked if I would claim "prosecutorial overkill" as my defense. I
>said, "That would imply I did something wrong. Where does the Constitution
>state that I can't exercise my 1st Amendment rights unless I hire an
attorney,
>rat out donors to the politicians they oppose, and collect lists of gun
>activists for the state?"
>
>The Institute for Constitutional Rights (ICR) is challenging the fine. We
need
>help! DONATIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE. We may even take the offensive. Making
>FPPC pay will make them think twice about harassing grass roots. But if they
>get away with it, others will suffer.
>
>The FPPC is a political pirate. The Barbary Pirates exacted tribute from
>European powers too busy fighting each other to crush them. It was tolerated
>until the fledgling USA sent out a tiny armada under Stephen Decatur. Sinking
>ships forced the pirate leaders to terms. Yet they sought to save face by
>demanding two bags of gunpowder as tribute. Decatur's reply: "If you want
>powder, you'll have to take our balls with it".
>
>As for me, I won't be paying the fine. I'd rather become a political prisoner
>than pay tribute for my political freedom.
>                                             Russ Howard
>----End Forwarded Message(s)----
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

April 19 -
The Battles of Lexington and Concord
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Waco Inferno
The bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City
If you value freedom and liberty, REMEMBER!!


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Re: Carrying openly...]
Date: 21 Apr 1997 16:31:23 -0600


A short exerience from Arizona on being asked to leave a gun outside
a business.  A good tactic to remember...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- At 11:24 AM 4/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I just noticed the other day that the [no guns allowed] signs have
>come down at the waterbed/furniture place in that strip mall @
>Speedway and Willmot too.

Long ago I was asked to leave that store (they asked me to "leave the gun
in the car, which to me is the same as asking me to leave), and proceeded
to their competitor's store at Broadway and Wilmot.  There I bought a bed
($400), and my friend who was shopping with me spent $1100 on an expensive
set.  We both wrote to the other store after the experience, and sent
photocopies of our receipts.

--
----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
 citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
 people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-
 244



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [FWD: Goodbye, good riddance]
Date: 21 Apr 1997 16:42:24 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
<excerpt>TO the delight of the White House, <bold>Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard</bold> is leaving Washington. Time and again his stories
on the Clintons and their abuses of power have been proved correct. He
leaves with a warning for Americans

</excerpt>

It was something of a compliment, I suppose, when the White House singled
me out for attack in their report on the media "food chain" assault
against the Clintons. Now, apparently, the President's men are relishing
the prospect of my departure after four years as Washington correspondent
for The Telegraph - the notorious London "tabloid", as they call it.


"That's another British invasion we're glad is over," the White House
told George magazine. "The guy was nothing but a pain in the ass."


Good. Let me state for the record that I was not sent to Washington as
part of a British government plot to destabilise the Clinton
Administration in revenge for US meddling in Ulster. Or at least, I don't
think I was. Contrary to assertions made in a Congressional hearing, I
have never worked for British military intelligence, or MI5, or MI6, or
for that matter MI7.5 - the fabled Welsh branch!


No, I found my own way into a spitting match with President Clinton. It
was the last thing I expected upon arriving in Washington, for I had
succumbed to the Clinton charm years before at a meeting of the
Democratic Leadership Council. As for Hillary, I was rather taken by her
image of flinty altruism.


Disappointment was swift, however. I was stunned when the new President -
barely installed in the White House - repudiated his campaign promise for
a tax cut. It was downhill from there.


The Clintons look good from a distance. As Yale Law School graduates they
have mastered the language and style of the mandarin class. It is only
when you walk through the looking glass into the Arkansas underworld they
came from that you begin to realise something is horribly wrong.


You learn that Bill Clinton grew up in the Dixie mafia stronghold of Hot
Springs, and that his brother, Roger, was a convicted drug dealer who was
once taped during under-cover surveillance saying "got to get some for my
brother, he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner". You learn about sworn
testimony that links Clinton to cocaine smuggling in the early 1980s. You
learn that Clinton's chief of security in Little Rock was gunned down in
1993 by assassins who seem to be enjoying immunity.


Oh, yes, and let us not forget the allegation that Bill and Hillary
helped empty a bank called Madison Guaranty - but I will leave that to
the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr.


Bill Clinton is not the first president with the skeletons of the mob in
his closet. Harry Truman, for instance, was a protege of the Pendergast
crime machine in Kansas City. All you have to know about Bill Clinton is
that he chose Patsy Thomasson - top lieutenant of convicted cocaine
dealer Dan Lasater - to be his White House chief of personnel.


Once that has sunk in, you can start to understand how seriously this
president has been compromised, and how much of a threat he could pose to
the democratic system if allowed to get away with incremental abuse at a
national level.


The Clintons wasted little time taking charge of the US Justice
Department. All US Attorneys were asked to hand in their resignations. It
was a move of breath-taking audacity, one that gave the Clintons control
over the prosecutorial machinery of the federal government in every
judicial district in the country.


They then set about eliminating the Director of the FBI, William
Sessions, who was known for his refusal to countenance White House
interference in the affairs of the Bureau. The post of FBI Director is
supposed to be a 10-year appointment that puts it above politics. But
Sessions was toppled in a Washington putsch, without a murmur of protest
from America's press, and replaced by the hapless errand boy Louis Freeh.
And I almost forgot, the Clintons installed their friend Webster Hubbell
as "shadow" Attorney General - until Hubbell was jailed for Arkansas
crimes.


When you are living through events day by day it is hard to know whether
you are witnessing a historic turning point, or just mistaking the usual
noise of politics for something meaningful. But there is no doubt that
strange things have been going on in America.


The Clinton era has spawned an armed militia movement involving tens of
thousands of people. The last time anything like this occurred was in the
1850s with the emergence of the southern gun clubs. It is easy to dismiss
the militia as Right-wing nuts: it is much harder to read the complex
sociology of civic revolt. At the very least the militias reveal the
hatred building up against the irksome yuppies who run the country.


It is under this president that domestic terrorism has become a feature
of life in America, culminating in the destruction of the Oklahama
federal building on April 19, 1995. What set the deadly spiral in motion
was the Waco assault two years before, and the cover-up that followed.


No official has ever lost a day's pay for precipitating the incineration
of 80 people, most of them women and children, in the worst abuse of
power since Wounded Knee a century ago. Instead of shame and
accountability, the Clinton administration accused the victims of setting
fire to themselves and their children, a posthumous smear that does not
bear serious scrutiny. It then compounded the injustice by pushing for a
malicious prosecution of the survivors.


Nothing does more to sap the life of a democracy than the abuse of power.
Public trust is dangerously low. According to polls, barely a quarter of
the American people now feel that they can count on the federal
government to do the right thing.


A majority refuse to accept that Vincent Foster committed suicide, and
they have good reason for their doubts. The paramedics and crime scene
witnesses in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, tell a story that flatly
contradicts the official findings. A police Polaroid shows a .22 calibre
bullet wound in Foster's neck that the autopsy somehow failed to note.
Are Americans to believe that Hillary Clinton's closest friend shot
himself twice, with two different guns?


The Washington press corps has chosen not to report on this sort of
thing, of course, because it always gives more weight to the utterings of
an "official" source, with a title, than it does to the testimony of a
common citizen. It has the matter backwards, in my opinion, because the
"official" usually has the greater interest in lying.


Even so, the truth is getting out. Unauthorised stories are reaching the
public through the samizdat links of the Internet and talk radio. From
there it disseminates by word of mouth, spreading a thick layer of
cynicism across the country.


Of all the bad things that Clinton has done to America, the worst is
turning the FBI into a federal replica of the Arkansas State Police.
Whether it is the persecution of dissident investigators in the air
disasters of Pan Am 103 and TWA 800, or allowing the White House to
peruse the secret files of political opponents, or the alledged
intimidation of key witnesses in the Foster case, the FBI is starting to
look like the enforcement arm of a police state.


The latest shocker is the decision to punish Frederic Whitehurst, the
whistle-blower who first came forward with tales of corruption at the FBI
crime labs. An internal inquiry has conceded that the lab tilted evidence
"to incriminate the defendants" and cooked up the theory that a
fertiliser bomb blew up the Oklahoma federal building after it found
fertiliser at the house of a suspect, Terry Nichols. But the Justice
Department seems more interested in denigrating Whitehurst, the lone hero
of this sorry tale, than flagellating itself.


 Look at the treatment of Carol Howe, the undercover informant who
tracked the early stages of what appears to be the Oklahoma bombing
conspiracy. The moment she surfaced as a threat to the "lone bomber" case
against Timothy McVeigh, this January, she was indicted on criminal
charges.


The FBI claims that she was dropped as an informant months before the
bombing, but debriefing reports show the Bureau continued to receive her
intelligence weeks after the blast. They also show that she named members
of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell who had cased the Oklahoma federal building
in December 1994 with the intention of bombing it. Yet the FBI did not
follow up her reports. It conducted 26,000 witness interviews, most of
them irrelevant, but could not find time to pursue the suspects who were
specifically named by a paid informant.


This leaves the nasty suspicion that the FBI is shielding this neo-Nazi
group in order to cover its own tracks. If it turns out that the bombing
was a bungled sting operation by the FBI, as some of the victims are now
alleging, the only fit response is to send bulldozers down Pennsylvania
Avenue to flatten the Hoover Building once and for all.


A monument should be raised on the rubble of the FBI headquarters that
reads Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who Shall Guard the Guards?) as a
warning to free-born Americans of the next millennium.


Is Bill Clinton to blame? Of course he is. Degradation spreads from the
top down. Four years were damaging enough. Another four, if Clinton
lasts, will do real harm to the institutions of the US federal
government.


Perhaps it is impolite for a London newspaper to say such things about a
president of the United States. Many people think so. Clinton is not so
bad, the argument goes. He is running a pretty good economy. The planes
are flying on time. But you could have said the same about Benito
Mussolini. A lot of people did, in fact, much to their regret later.


Critics tell me that I have invested too much emotion in my quarrel with
the Clintons. To that I plead guilty. It comes from befriending so many
of their victims. I am content to be blacklisted as the "mad scribbler" -
as the Washington Post called me this week - for I am confident that one
day historians are going to view Clinton as a the last great cad of the
20th century, or worse.


To the American people I bid a fond farewell. Guard your liberties. It is
the trust of each generation to pass a free republic to the next. And if
I know you right, you will rouse yourself from slumber to ensure exactly
that.


Posted for non-profit, educational and research purposes.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
 citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
 people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-
 244



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: "Our Freedom"]
Date: 22 Apr 1997 11:32:25 -0600


Thought this might be of some interest at this time of year...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
"Our Freedom"

Copyright (c) 1997, Michael Kielsky.  All Rights Reserved.

A true story, as handed down to me:

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

It was a time of increasing conflict.  The British were becoming more
oppressive, the searches for guns more frequent, imprisonment and even
hangings of those who were caught opposing British rule by force, more
regular.

One evening, Father was still out and Mother was otherwise occupied, I
found something I should not have.  Ever the curious and restless 17
year old, I looked in father's private chest, and was quite astonished!

Our family had come to this promised land only 13 years earlier.  Back
in the old country, Father had been a successful practicioner in the
law.  He was well suited for it, he was a stern and severe man.  And oh
so intelligent.  But, when he sensed that oppression was looming, and
bad times were ahead, he decided to take his wife and 4 year old child
(that was me) to join his brother who had made some success for himself
over here.

Father's sacrifice was great.  A new language, law quite unfamiliar to
him, a pioneer country for a man who's upbringing and education had not
quite prepared him for these challenges.  Instead of his beloved law, he
became a store clerk during the day, while at night he studied the
language, and this law new to him, so that someday he could once again
put his mind to the law.

What I discovered, what so surprised me, is that Father, so severe, so
upright, so stern, he had secretly a become a member of one of the
forbidden patriot groups!

Yes, I had a times fantasized about joining, to do what I could to help
our cause, to give us our freedom apart from Britain, to prepare for a
war we all feared might come!  But I would not dare join in with these
outlaws, what if Father had found out!  But now, when even this man of
the law has secretly taken up arms, now I could not keep still.

I asked a friend of mine, one who I believed was a member of this
patriot group, to see if I too could join up, and only a few days later,
my friend sent me to a school house, not too far from my home.  There, I
could possibly join.

I entered the school, and saw a few people already sitting there,
waiting.  I knew none of them.  I sat and waited.  One by one, the
others were called into another room, each returning after a while had
passed.

At last, it was my turn.  I entered the room, it was almost completely
dark, but for one small candle.  As best as I could make out, the other
figures in this room had their faces concealed by scarves or hoods.  I
was asked a series of questions, about my background, my family, my
motivations for wanting to join, was I clear about the dangers, would I
give up my comrades were I captured by the British?  The questions
finally ended, and I was told to go back out and wait.

That day, I was given my first assignment.  In the evenings, I was to go
to the house of a very religious family, a family sympathetic to our
cause, and a house that just happened to overlook a British
installation.  There I was to take careful notes of everything that I
observed, and provide regular and detailed reports to my contacts.  I
continued this assignment, on a regular rotation, for over two months.
I told Father nothing, and he appeared not to know.  When I would be out
all night, I would tell him that I was with friends, as they would tell
of being with me when they were on an assignment.

Another time, after completing this assignment, a number of us went to a
remote farm, and received some training in the use of guns, as most of
us had no experience.

At other training exercises, we were taught how to disassemble, clean,
and reassemble, and load guns, especially in darkness.

Father knew nothing of my activities, as I really knew nothing of his.

War came, and I fought along with the rest, now no longer an outlaw
organization, but reformed into a regular army!  Father and I, no longer
members in secret, once talked of our experiences.  Yes, he had
suspected all along.

Father fought too, and while I saw little battle, Father had one
terrible experience.  He came through alive and in once piece, but in
this battle, his friend shot dead right next to him, and under siege for
3 days until liberated by more troops, left him unable to join combat
again.

Our War of Independence was won!  Soon, most of us returned to our
lives, with pride for our new country, with sadness for the price paid.

Not many years later, Father died, perhaps worn out too young by the
challenges of a new world, a new language, and a war his sense of
justice required him to fight.

Eventually, I became a teacher.  I married, had three children, and to
them and their children, I pass on this small story.

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

Now for some details:

The war was Israel's War of Independence, 1947-49.

The story teller was my mother, and related to me (again) this evening,
after our Passover meal.  She even has some photographs of herself with
a variety of firearms.  Yes, my mother wore army boots (once only one
boot, but that's another story).

I thought this was rather appropriate, as Passover is the holiday of
freedom and liberty!

Happy Passover.

Michael

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

In March of 1916, Pancho Villa deliberately murdered 19 Americans in a
cross-border raid. This became the cause for Woodrow Wilson, a
president with a notoriously long fuse, to send Gen. Pershing 400
miles into Mexico at the head of an army of 15,000. The next time an
American plane is blown from the sky and the president of the United
States attends yet another funeral or displays his Churchillian
fortitude in begging for the power to tap telephones, think of that
different America with a braver and clearer sense of its place in the
world"
    -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [London Sunday Telegraph on OK City--mostly off topic]
Date: 22 Apr 1997 13:40:21 -0600


...But probably of some interest to some here.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    Bomb relatives sign up O J's lawyer
    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington

    MORE than 300 relatives of those killed in the Oklahoma bomb blast two
    years
    ago have signed up with O J Simpson's defence lawyer, Johnnie Cochran,
    in a
    lawsuit against the US government.

    The "wrongful death" petition was filed in the District Court of
    Oklahoma
    County at the end of last week to the consternation of the US Justice
    Department, which is already struggling to prevent the criminal trial of
    Tim
    McVeigh from degenerating into judicial farce.

    The blast killed 168 people on April 19 1995. Mr Cochran and his
    Oklahoma
    co-counsel John Merritt allege that the bombing was a bungled sting
    operation by the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    (ATF),
    and that numerous federal officials had "detailed prior knowledge of the
    planned bombing" yet "failed to prevent it from taking place".

    It is part of a scattershot series of lawsuits that also targets
    Britain's
    chemical company ICI on the grounds that its "agent", ICI Explosives
    USA,
    manufactured the fertilizer that might have been used in the bombing.
    The
    evident purpose of hounding any entity with "deep pockets", however
    tenuously linked to the explosion, is sure to provoke criticism that
    some
    families are coveting blood money.

    A claim filed in a US federal court last month by 50 families was
    clearly
    motivated by suspicions of an FBI cover-up, not by pecuniary gain.

    The case against ICI Explosives USA is unlikely to get very far since it
    was
    based on the original conclusions of the FBI that the lorry bomb was
    built
    with ammonium nitrate. A damning report by the Inspector General of the
    Justice Department has concluded that the fertilizer hypothesis was not
    based on forensic evidence from the crime scene. It was conjured out of
    thin
    air after ammonium nitrate fertilizer was found at the home of Tim
    McVeigh's
    co-defendant, Terry Nichols.

    The report noted that a dynamite wrapper was found at the bombing site,
    as
    was nitroglycerine, a major component of dynamite. And dynamite, as it
    happens, contains ammonium nitrate.

    But the Cochran suit against the FBI is a more serious matter. Documents
    provided to The Telegraph indicate that the Tulsa office of the ATF was
    about to arrest a group of neo-Nazis plotting to blow up Federal
    buildings
    in Oklahoma - based on the undercover surveillance of their informant
    Carol
    Howe - when the FBI intervened in February 1995 to stop the raid.

    It appears that the local ATF had stumbled on a bigger operation being
    run
    by the grown-ups at the Justice Department. Two months later the Murrah
    building was blown up.

    So the FBI has some explaining to do.


    Copyright 1997 London Sunday Telegraph

      "Freedom means the right to say that two plus two equals four. Once
    this
    is achieved, all else follows." - George Orwell, 1984

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

 The English nobleman came home early to find his wife with her lover.
 Angrily he reached for his shotgun and aimed at the interloper. Just
 then, his butler whispered in his ear, "You're a sportsman, sir; get him
 on the rise."



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: No more "A" ratings for gun grabbers
Date: 24 Apr 1997 11:16:19 -0600


Not much detail, but forwarded from another list FYI...


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
CH>>I'm to tired to think right now but if you remind me in a few days I'll
CH>>send you a bunch of stuff.  Including a viciously anti-gun Calif stste
CH>>senator that NRA gave $500 to.
CH>>
CH>>Russ

CH>I'd like to see that once you are rested up.
CH>Thanks.

In approximately 1993 the NRA contributed $500 to California State
Senator Bill Lockyer.  Lockyer has voted for every anti-gun bill that
has come before the Senate.  Details were published in a publication
called First Reading, published in Sacramento, California.

Russ
                          *** The Fire House Inn ***
                                 Come visit us
                               Telnet: fhouse.org
                                WWW:  fhouse.org
                                  ***********


----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--
Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
                                         THOMAS JEFFERSON



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sarah hits the airwaves again...
Date: 24 Apr 1997 22:33:55 -0600

Hi all!

I'll be appearing on the David Bresnahan show on Friday at roughly
11 AM MDT (10 AM PDT, 12 noon CDT, 1 PM EDT  You people in AZ are=20
on your own! <g>)

No specifics, but I'll be discussing the Women's Firearms Alliance and
other firearms-related issues.

Please listen, and CALL IN!  I'd love to put some voices to some names!

Info follows:

>Subject: The David Bresnahan Radio Talk Show

>> Bresnahan brings sanity back to radio
>>=20
>>      Tired of all the hype, Hollywood theatrics, doom and gloom, hate
>>      radio, and all the assorted junk going over the air waves? Well
>>      now you have a real alternative. David Bresnahan offers quality
>>      talk, with top national guests, plus the knowledge of topics and
>>      broadcasting experience to entertain as well as inform. He keeps
>>      listeners glued to their radios with information and discussion
>>      they will not find anywhere else, as well as parodies and bits
>>      that keep them smiling.
>>=20
>>      David Bresnahan is a former conservative Republican member of the
>>      Utah House of Representatives, giving him access to top
>>      news-makers and inside knowledge. He criticizes both Republicans
>>      and Democrats alike, and audiences love it. Detailed biography.
>>=20
>>      No boring book authors on this show! Bresnahan brings top
>>      national newsmakers to his listeners. Each show is stimulating
>>      and fun, because he keeps us laughing in spite of the crap that
>>      goes on. It's definitely not doom and gloom when Dave is on the
>>      air. Listeners go from tears to laughter every day with shows
>>      containing everything from parodies and bits, to interviews with
>>      crime victims that bring human drama and tragedy to life, and
>>      Dave's investigative reporting on hot issues will make you so
>>      angry you'll scream when you hear the truth.
>>                Monday - Friday, 1 to 3 p.m. Eastern Time
>>=20
>>                  Listener Call-in Line: 1-888-544-TALK
>>=20
>>  Available on satellite Galaxy 1, Transponder 17, wide band audio 8.1
>>=20
>>                     International Short Wave 9.955
>>=20
>> [Image]
>>                     100 vacations to be given away!
>>=20
>> That's right. David will give away one vacation per show. These are
>> great vacation certificates to exciting destinations. Get all the
>> details here. A great show with great prizes - every day! Provide your
>> e-mail address. You'll be given a free subscription to Bresnahan on
>> the Right Side. [Image]
       =20
Recent Guests and Topics
>>=20
>> * March 17 - National Star Party with Patrick Wiggins
>> * March 18 - Michael Haga, "Newt is destroying America - on purpose."
>> * March 19 - Dr. Michael Janson, physician converted to alternative
>> health
>> * March 20 - Dr. Hans Kugler, "The Clinton war on drugs is a failure."
>> * March 21 - Sam Cohen, inventor of neutron bomb, terrorists have
>> N-bomb
>> * March 21 - "Wing Nut of the Week Award" - Who would you nominate?
>> * March 24 - Cong. Chris Cannon (R-UT), national monument in Utah
>> * March 25 - Marie Gunther, NSSC activist, the Chinese at Long Beach
>> * March 26 - Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America
>> * March 27 - Daniel New, the UN and the latest on his son Michael
>> * March 28 - Gene GeRue, how to select the ideal country home
>> * March 28 - "Wing Nut of the Week Award" - Who would you nominate?
>> * March 31 - Rodney Stitch, dirty secrets of the CIA
>> * March 31 - Gil Davis, attorney for Paula Jones
>> * April 1 - Darrell Frank, "Dead Serious" pays $5,000 if you shoot a
>> bad guy
>> * April 1 - Harley Schlanger, Editor in Chief EIR, info on George Bush
>> * April 1 - Michael Haga, update on stock market impending crash
>> * April 2 - Richard Dubbins, "Screw the IRS"
>> * April 2 - John Goldhammer, authority on cults
>> * April 3 - Richard Muehlberg, the breakup of Canada and the U.S.
>> * April 4 - "Wing Nut" of the week award
>> * April 7 - Dick Gregory, CIA and drugs, media deceptions
>> * April 8 - Evita King, niece of Dr. King, her new crusade
>> * April 9 - Nancy West, psycholocists conspire to control our kids
>> * April 11 - Patrick Wiggins, solar flares, space news
>> * April 11 - South East Legal Foundation
>> * April 14 - Former ID Cong. George Hansen, remember - they put him in
>> prison
>> * April 14 - Charles Steel, how to not get ripped off in real estate
>> deals
>> * April 15 - Roosevelt Roby, money on the Internet, he'll give prizes!
>> * April 16 - Dr. Virgil Hulse, mad cow disease is in the U.S., gov't
>> covers up
>> * April 17 - Mike Rasmussen, what car dealers don't want you to know
>> * April 17 - Gary Schmidt, what airlines don't want you to know
>>=20
>> [Image] Future Guests
>>=20
>> * April 18 - Jerrold Jenkins, it's easier than ever to publish a book
>> * April 18 - Dr. Dan Woolman, the dozen men who already rule the world
>> * April 21 - Dr. Len Horowitz, AIDS & EBOLA, created on purpose, Gulf
>> War Syndrome
>> * WATCH - GREAT GUESTS ADDED DAILY
>>=20
>>=20
>>                   The David Bresnahan Radio Talk Show
>>=20
>>                P.O. Box 269, West Jordan, UT 84084-0269
>>             Voice Mail: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>>                            E-mail: [Image]
>>=20
>> [Image]
>>                  Changes last made on: Thu 17 Apr 1997
>>       This page hosted by [GeoCities] Get your own Free Home Page
>>=20
>>            =A9 1997 David M. Bresnahan. All rights reserved.
>

                                                               [Image]
>                           AFFILIATED STATIONS
>=20
>                          As of March 22, 1997
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> KDNO - FM 98.5, Delano, CA (ends soon, station sold)
>=20
> WKDI - AM 840, Denton, MD
>=20
> KGGM - FM 93.5, Monroe, LA
>=20
> WREN - AM 1250, Topeka, KS
>=20
> KSRX - AM 1350, El Dorado, KS
>=20
> WTBH - FM 91.5, Chiefland, FL
>=20
> WKWL - AM, Florabama, AL
>=20
> WASB - AM 1590, Hamlin, NY
>=20
> WTNN - AM 670, Knoxville, TN
>=20
> WDCZ - FM 102.7, Rochester, NY
>=20
> WVTJ - AM 610, Pensacola, FL
>=20
> WEBY - AM, Milton, FL
>=20
> WXLW - AM 950, Indianapolis, IN
>=20
> WRFP - AM 1570, Pensacola, FL (begins 6/7/97)
>=20
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!

"We are also mindful that every generation must discover freedom anew.
 Every generation must earn its claim to liberty.
 The struggle for freedom in Egypt and the challenge it represented for
 our forefathers is no less the challenge of our lives.
 It is an ever recurring theme of history."
                    Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch
                    The Concise Family Seder



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: (Fwd) CITIZEN SERVICE -- PLEASE DISTRIBUTE!!
Date: 26 Apr 1997 14:57:56 -0600


>Please forward this message as widely as possible.  In the wake of
>David Harriman's Op-Ed in USA TODAY, as well as Jason Crawford's
>CSPAN appearance and Andrew Lewis' Op-Ed in the 4/25 L.A. TIMES,
>there has been an increase in the number of visits to the
>"No_Servitude" web site -- as measured by the number of folks adding
>thier names to the petition.  In other words -- it's working!!!!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Duane L. Knight
>
>PARENTS: PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM SERVITUDE
>
>The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has launched a major campaign in
>opposition to the "Presidents' Summit for America's Future," which
>will take place in Philadelphia April 27-29.  President Clinton has
>called the summit the beginning of a mission to "spark a renewed
>national sense of obligation, a new sense of duty, a new season of
>service."
>
>Why should this "summit" be of concern to you and your children?
>Because the summit organizers' message of  "service" and "duty to
>others" has ominous implications for young people.  Consider
>Clinton's plans for your children _ as outlined in his April 5,
>1997, "weekly radio address":
>
>   I challenge schools and communities in every state to make
>   service a part of the curriculum in high school and even in
>   middle school.  There are many creative ways to do this _
>   including giving students credit, making service part of the
>   curriculum, OR EVEN REQUIRING IT, as Maryland does.  (Emphasis
>   supplied)
>
>In our judgment, children do not have a congenital obligation to
>others.
> They
>should be left free to pursue their own academic and career
>interests, their own goals and values _ not to be taught that their
>lives belong to others, to be lived for others in humble, dutiful
>servitude.  We hold that compelling children to perform "service to
>others" in order to graduate is morally repugnant _ conjuring up
>images of Soviet "Red Pioneers," or "Hitler Youth."  Put another
>way, should Thomas Edison have been left free to invent the light
>bulb _ or should he have been required to give out free candles to
>the indigent in order to earn a high-school diploma?
>
>The Ayn Rand Institute has long track record of involvement in the
>education of high school and college students.  Since 1985, more
>than 50,000 high-school students have participated in ARI-sponsored
>essay contests.  More than 80,000 teachers' guides to Ayn Rand's
>novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have been distributed in
>the schools.  And college clubs devoted to studying Ayn Rand's
>novels and philosophy are active on several dozen campuses.
>
>That's why we have established a nationwide "Campaign Against
>Servitude." Please visit our web site:
>
>http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude
>
>and sign our petition to protest the goals of the "citizen's
>service" summit. The petition will be forwarded to President Clinton
>on July 4, 1997 as part of our fight for your and your child's
>freedom.
>
>Please forward this E-mail message to as many individuals and
>organizations as you possibly can!  If you can alert ten, or twenty,
>or even fifty additional persons, firms, newsgroups, etc. about our
>campaign and petition, you will have provided invaluable help in
>combating the destructive ideas that will be advocated at the
>Presidents' Summit.
>
>Thank you in advance for whatever assistance you can provide in our
>efforts to reach the widest possible audience with this call for
>freedom.  Nothing less than the future of your children is at stake.
>
>Sincerely Yours,
>
>Michael S. Berliner
>Executive Director,
>The Ayn Rand Institute
>
>
>
>
>
>Judy or Antonio Nagy
>Casilla 5148 C.C.I.   Quito, Ecuador
>Phone [phone]) + 431-555 or 447-709
>Fax:  431-556  [e-mail]
>
>LIBERTAD Y PROSPERIDAD CON LA LIBRE EMPRESA !!
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)
http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!!
http://www.aros.net/~wfa


"We are also mindful that every generation must discover freedom anew.
 Every generation must earn its claim to liberty.
 The struggle for freedom in Egypt and the challenge it represented for
 our forefathers is no less the challenge of our lives.
 It is an ever recurring theme of history."
                    Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch
                    The Concise Family Seder



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Was Jefferson a terrorist?
Date: 26 Apr 1997 16:29:16 -0600

From USA Today -

Hartzler offered several tantalizing details not made public before. Among
them, he said, was what authorities found after
stopping McVeigh in Perry, Okla., 90 minutes after the blast.

     When arrested, McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a quote
from an 18th-century American revolutionary:
     "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants." Hartzler said, "The
     T-shirt he was wearing virtually broadcast his intentions."
     In an envelope filled with photocopied quotes was a slip of paper
saying, "When the government fears the people, there
     is liberty." Under that, Hartzler said, agents found a phrase written
in McVeigh's hand: "Maybe now there will be
     liberty."

I'd already figured out that owning a copy of "The Turner Diaries" was
"proof" that one was an anti-government terrorist conspirator. :(
But have we really descended to the depths where Jefferson is "an
18th century... revolutionary"?!  Is quoting our Founding Fathers
and/or a former president (incomparably superior to the one we've got!) now
a capital offense?

If Sarah Brady wouldn't use it as an excuse for more gun-grabbing, I
think I might just shoot myself now and get it over with!

(To the snoops reading this:  You should only WISH you could be so
 lucky!  Too bad I've taken an oath not to initiate violence!)

What is this country - and our legal system - coming to?

Sarah




Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!
http://www.aros.net/~wfa

Pass laws against us; we will not obey.
Regulate our activities; we will not comply.
Legislate our behavior; we will not consent.
We are free men; we will not be subjugated.
We have the guns to prove it. - The Resister



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Official NRA Election Results
Date: 27 Apr 1997 15:03:23 -0600

>Here are the NRA election results:
>
>ELECTED FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM ENDING IN 2000:
>
>Lt. Col. Rex Applegate;
>Robert G. Baer;
>Irv Benzion;
>LTC Robert K. Brown, USAR (Ret.);
>David I. Caplen, Ph.D.;
>Weldon H. Clark, Jr.;
>Jeff Cooper;
>Manuel Fernandez;
>Joe Foss;
>Cathy Gilronan;
>Steve Hornady;
>T.J. Johnston;
>D. Cynthia Julien;
>Neal Knox;
>William A. Miller, Jr.;
>Professor Joseph E. Olson;
>James D. Ramm;
>Edie P. Reynolds;
>Col. Wayne Anthoy Ross;
>Michael J. Slavonic, Jr.;
>Bruce E. Stern;
>Mile Ugarkovich, Jr;
>Robert J. Veazie;
>Robert L. Viden, Jr.;
>Phillip A. Willaims;
>
>ELLECTED FOR A ONE-YEAR TERM ENDING IN 1998:
>
>David C. Jones;
>Albert C. Ross;

My source is reliable, but confidential.

Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)
http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!!
http://www.aros.net/~wfa


"We are also mindful that every generation must discover freedom anew.
 Every generation must earn its claim to liberty.
 The struggle for freedom in Egypt and the challenge it represented for
 our forefathers is no less the challenge of our lives.
 It is an ever recurring theme of history."
                    Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch
                    The Concise Family Seder



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lautenberg Petition
Date: 28 Apr 1997 08:43:58 -0600

The Women's Firearms Alliance, Inc. is co-sponsoring a petition to
repeal the Lautenberg Amendment.  Now that Rep. Chenoweth has introduced
HR 1009 to repeal the amendment completely, it is even MORE important
that we show lots of support for her courageous support of our RKBA.

Our server is not set up to handle forms, so please fill out and e-mail
the form to me at [e-mail].  The URL is
http://www.aros.net/~wfa/petition.html.  The petition can be accessed
via the WFA Home page and my home page, both listed in my sig.

Feel free (in fact ENCOURAGED!) to link to this site,  but please
do not copy it without permission.

Check out both the Web pages below - they're both brand new.  If you'd
like to be linked, let me know.  If you ARE linked, reciprocity would
be appreciated.

Thanks a lot!

Sarah
for Women's Firearms Alliance, Inc.



Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)
http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!!
http://www.aros.net/~wfa


"We are also mindful that every generation must discover freedom anew.
 Every generation must earn its claim to liberty.
 The struggle for freedom in Egypt and the challenge it represented for
 our forefathers is no less the challenge of our lives.
 It is an ever recurring theme of history."
                    Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch
                    The Concise Family Seder



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [I can dream, can't I?]
Date: 28 Apr 1997 10:25:38 -0600


FYI, from AZRKBA.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Sender: Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Arizona <[e-mail]>

27 April 1997

John Milius
888 Linda Flora Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049

Dear Mr. Milius,

Several months ago, I and several other "shooters with computers" on the
"Arizona Right to Keep and Bear Arms" e-mail list were lamenting the
disrepute into which the Second Amendment has fallen among the general
population. We weren't talking about the "target shooters' Second Amendment"
or the "duck hunters' Second Amendment." We were discussing that enumerated,
awesome and terrible power of the sword, handed down by America's founders
and proclaimed to be the citizens' ultimate means of resisting tyrants and
plunderers.

Talk like that today will get one labeled an anti-government wacko, won't it?
Yet The Federalist Papers and many other of our nation's formative letters
are fairly bursting at the seams with "talk like that."

I don't think that any of us who soberly considers the intent behind the
right to bear arms wants to fire a single shot against "the king's troops."
Yet America must confront and come to grips with the fact that fighting the
king's troops was precisely why the right of the people to keep and bear arms
was prominently included in the Bill of Rights. We ought not - we must not! -
be shamed into pretending that that right is about some vague,
bureaucratically-contrived "legitimate sporting use" of firearms.

It was in this spirit that we on AZRKBA hatched the concept of Patriots Day:
a commemoration of the Battle of Lexington and Concord (19 April 1775), and a
grass-roots celebration of the Second Amendment by gun-owners nationwide.
(Please refer to the Patriots Day announcement that I've enclosed for more
details.) We thought the anniversary of Lexington and Concord would be the
ideal day to celebrate and call attention to the right to bear arms, since
the first shots fired in the Revolutionary War were brought on by a British
attempt at gun control.

In order to learn more about the Battle of Lexington and Concord, I recently
read The Minute Men by John R. Galvin (Washington, Brassey's, 1989, ISBN
1-57488-049-7). Mr. Galvin first describes the conditions in colonial America
which gave rise to the minute man concept. He then details the battles of 19
April 1775.

Mr. Milius, as I was reading The Minute Men, I found myself thinking time and
again what a wonderful movie the story of Lexington and Concord would make,
and what a relevant message such a movie would send to Americans. In the same
manner that Mel Gibson's Braveheart told the story of men who would rather
fight and die than be ruled by tyrants, a film telling the story behind the
first battle in our nation's fight for independence would make us reconsider
this nation's roots. Indeed, such a film might force Americans to confront
"the embarrassing Second Amendment."

Forgive my unsolicited opinion, but having seen many of your movies and read
"Meet the Father of Dirty Harry" in the April 1992 American Rifleman, I think
that if anyone in Hollywood was qualified to bring the story and message of
the "shot heard round the world" to the screen, it would be John Milius.

I can only imagine the time and effort involved in taking a film from concept
to release. But in the interest of renewing an understanding of (and a thirst
for) freedom in the hearts and minds of Americans, would you consider doing a
film on Lexington and Concord?

So many Americans today have a casual attitude toward the liberties won by
the sacrifices of generations past. Too many people are ready to surrender
these liberties for the illusion of security. But I'm sure you're aware what
Benjamin Franklin said of such people. Perhaps a film on the opening days of
the American Revolution could be the wake-up call that our nation needs.

Sincerely yours,


Frank Golubski

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
 citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
 people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-
 244



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Jury Nullification article
Date: 28 Apr 1997 17:23:01 -0600


Pretty good, though long article discussing Jury Nullification may be
seen at <http://nemo.as.arizona.edu/~swest/jurynull.html>.

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the
 active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base
 enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
 There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are
 forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is
 inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" -- Patrick
 Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Manitoba Ignores Gun Control Law]
Date: 29 Apr 1997 09:22:52 -0600


Oh that Utah had this kind of backbone...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>WINNIPEG, Manitoba, April 25 (UPI) -- The Manitoba government is
>refusing to enforce the federal government's controversial new gun
>control legislation, which has triggered widespread opposition in
>western Canada.
>       The province says it does not believe the mandatory registration of
>firearms will help reduce crime, and that the bill, which came into
>effect in January, invades the exclusive jurisdiction of each province.
>       ``How can one level of government assign to another level of
>government its responsibilities?'' said Manitoba Justice Minister Vic
>Toews.
>       ``Could you enforce that constitutionally? I don't think so.''

Posted with permission for non-profit research and educational purpose.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"In all history the only bright rays cutting the gloom of oppression
 have come from men who would rather get hurt than give in." -- Jeff
 Cooper; from "Pistols and the Law" in "Cooper on Handguns"



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Vin's Column, May 7]
Date: 30 Apr 1997 11:29:00 -0600


A must read...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    EDITORS: NOTE RACIAL EPITHET IN 16th PARAGRAPH
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 7, 1997
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    The 'Hunter's Auxiliary' of the Grand Old Party

    I received a solicitation for funds from the National Rifle Association
last week.

  NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre says he wants my help "to
make sure the Red Chinese agents that may have infiltrated the Clinton
Administration, and any Americans who gave them 'aid and comfort,' are
brought to justice!"

  Mr. LaPierre cites "the apparent use of campaign contributions to buy
White House access for Communist Chinese officials -- including a Chinese
arms dealer whose company tried to sell 'machine guns' to American street
gangs. ..."

  Seven more pages detail how the owner of a Little Rock Chinese restaurant
brought with him to the White House Wang Jun, the "Communist Chinese arms
dealer (who) ran Poly Technologies -- a front for the Chinese Red Army. His
company was caught trying to smuggle a shipload of fully automatic Chinese
AK-47s into the U.S. for direct sale to Los Angeles street gangs."

  Along with a "Here's my check" card, I'm supposed to sign and forward
postcards calling for an independent counsel, considerately pre-addressed
to my two U.S. senators and to "The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General
of the United States."

  (I'm trying to recall the last time I heard a gun-rights proponent refer
to the Baby-Killer of Waco as "The Honorable.")

  Let's be clear: If the Clinton White House knowingly allowed funds to be
collected from blood-stained Chinese Communists (I haven't forgotten Tibet,
let alone Tiananmen) hoping to influence our elections and our foreign
policy, then Bill Clinton should indeed be impeached by the House and -- if
convicted of treason by the Senate -- probably hanged.

  Even if the evidence does not reach that threshold, the sheer hypocrisy
of an administration accepting funds from "arms merchants" while busily
blathering about jailing peaceful civilians who dare try to defend
themselves with "any bullet that can slice through a bullet-proof vest"
(which is to say, all hunting ammunition,) is indeed hideous in its own
right, and none of these bunko steerers should ever again be allowed to eat
dinner in the front room of any decent American home.

  But, all that said, there would be something extremely weird about this
mailing, if we didn't already understand that the National Rifle
Association is in fact only the "hunters auxiliary" of the Republican
Party, and the largest gun control organization in America.

  Look at those recurring references to arms merchants "trying to smuggle"
weapons into this country.

  Under the wise Supreme Court precedent known as Marbury vs. Madison, we
know that any pretended statute which offends, insults, or violates the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights is null and void.

  Any attempt to restrict Americans from importing any weapon infringes my
right to keep and bear arms, by making such weapons less available and more
expensive. Therefore, no such laws can have any validity, and no judge who
cares about his or her immortal soul would dare enforce them.

  There can be no such crime as "smuggling arms into the United States,"
and anyone who pretends to defend the Second Amendment should be the first
to say so.

  Even worse is that added non sequitur about selling the guns "to street
gangs."

  This is the modern euphemism for selling weapons to young men of color --
"uppity negroes," as the more forthright racists of earlier generations
might have said.

  The hidden code language of gun control has always played on racist fears
of the armed African-American. Ever hear a gun-grabber sneer about "cheap
Saturday night specials?" Did you realize that term describes the
inexpensive weapons most favored by law-abiding black folk who live in
neighborhoods where "police protection" has been an oxymoron for decades --
and that the phrase derives from the racist term "Niggertown Saturday
Night"?

  What are such racist code-phrases doing in a letter from a fellow who
claims to champion the cause of our gun liberties? Does the "right to keep
and bear arms" apply only to middle-class white hunters and
target-shooters?

  Not in my book. I want to see every young black man in America armed with
a fully-automatic weapon, no stinking permit required.

  Then we'll arm the girls. And (start ital)then(end ital) we can start to
talk about "mutual respect between the races" in America.

  This NRA mailing, I submit, is nothing more than further proof that --
given a choice between the two -- the NRA will always promote a partisan
Republican agenda, over a straightforward Second Amendment agenda.

  When there's the whole package of proposed "Moynihan ammo bans" to
contend with, why divert the energies of the gun rights movement into a
Quixotic quest to replace Bill Clinton in the White House with Al Gore, or
even Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich? What good would that do? Does anyone
really believe any of these professional wafflers would close down the ATF
on his second day in office ... or on his 200th?

  In my next installment: state legislators who have been threatened by NRA
lobbyists for introducing "Vermont carry" laws -- the kind that would
authorize any law-abiding American to carry a concealed weapon without a
permit.

  Why? Because such conscientious lawmakers threaten unanimous support for
the NRA's "instant-check" gun registration plan ... the kind which has been
the precursor to gun confiscation by every genocidal dictatorship in modern
history.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking."

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most
 governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within
 the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to
 keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever,
 prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
 destruction." -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court
 and U.S. District Court of Virginia in, I Blackstone COMMENTARIES St.
 George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)