ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9706

Internet Message Format | 1997-06-29 | 102KB

From: [e-mail]
Subject: No more lists
Date: 04 Jun 1997 02:59:30 -0600

Dear Friends,

After much pain (and more than a few trips to the hospital!), I
I have concluded that I have to choose between my health and sanity,
and my political activities.  While I am quite willing to die for
what I believe, this does not seem to be either the time or the way
to go about it.

So, I am signing off all mail lists, and hope to take a sabbatical and lie
low, and work on some other projects.

Many of you have become friends, and I am keeping my e-mail account
open for  personal mail.  So feel free to write if you want.  But
PLEASE DO NOT forward me more political mail.  That would make the whole
idea rather pointless.

Yours in liberty,

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone] (voice mail & fax)

http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!!
http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS!

GO JAZZ!!  KARL MALONE - MVP!!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [GOA Alert-- Federal 06/04/97]
Date: 04 Jun 1997 15:42:15 -0600


FYI...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
News Flash!        Urgent Action Needed!        News Flash!

    Rep. Ron Paul Moving to Eliminate Gun Control Bureaucracy
      -- Amendment would remove U.S. from U.N. jurisdiction

                    by Gun Owners of America
      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
     [phone], fax: [phone], http://www.gunowners.org

     (Wednesday, June 4, 1997) -- Pro-gun Representative Ron Paul
(R-TX) is working to remove a tourniquet that is slowly being
drawn around gun owners' necks.  GOA has learned from his office
that Rep. Paul plans to introduce -- either today or tomorrow --
an amendment that will pull the U.S. out of the U.N.  His office
has asked GOA and its supporters to generate support for passing
this amendment.

     Among the many benefits of withdrawing from the world
government would be that the U.N. would no longer have any
authority to enforce its gun control agenda -- an agenda which
has been quietly gathering momentum in the past couple of years.
Here is a brief synopsis of the problem and what Rep. Paul is
planning to do:

 From the Horse's Mouth -- U.N. openly looking to register
                          private firearms globally

 *  The documents from the U.N.'s own webpage --
  http://www.un.org -- make it clear that they are very serious
  about disarming American civilians.  For example, on December
  22, 1995, the UN announced the launch of a study of small
  arms.  Among the countries involved in this study are the
  Japanese, Canadian and Russian governments.  (Also
  participating was Stewart Allen, Chief of the Intelligence
  Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.)

 *  A few months later, the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention
  and Criminal Justice met in Vienna (May, 1996) to discuss
  strategies for civilian disarmament among the member states.
  In announcing this summit, U.N. bureaucrats set forth what
  they perceived to be a major problem -- namely, that "small
  arms are spreading throughout society with little
  documentation, since they are frequently bought from private
  individuals."  Thus, one of the commission's objectives was to
  study gun control laws around the world for "the development
  of related strategies" among the member countries (like the
  U.S.).

 *  Since most countries register gun owners, one would
  undoubtedly expect that the "related strategies" would include
  registering all guns so that the U.N. and the subordinate
  governments (including the U.S.) will know where the guns are.
  No more anonymous gun sales with "little documentation."  No
  more passing a gun down from father to son.  No more selling a
  gun to a friend at the office.  Big Brother will track
  everything pertaining to guns.

 *  Gun control illustrates one of the dangers of the U.S.
  membership in the U.N.  In May of 1994, the Clinton
  administration agreed to participate in a discussion of ways
  for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and
  their sales to civilians.  This was over a year before all of
  the activities of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and
  Criminal Justice swung into motion with financial support from
  Japan and bureaucrats on loan from our neighbor, Canada.
  These other countries were not sneaking in the back door of
  U.S. sovereignty -- our own government was hiding behind the
  U.N. to carry out the civilian disarmament they did not think
  they could get away with by themselves.


ACTION:  Support Rep. Paul and the "American Sovereignty
         Restoration Amendment"!

 *  Call or fax your Representative and ask them to support what
  is known as either the "Paul Amendment" or the "American
  Sovereignty Restoration Amendment."  He plans to offer this
  amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization
  Act. In brief, Rep. Paul's amendment would get the U.S. out of
  the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.

 *  Phone numbers for Reps:  1-800-962-3524, 1-800-972-3524 and
    202-225-3121.

 *  If you wish to call, fax, or e-mail your Representatives'
    offices directly, contact info can be found at
    http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm on the GOA website.

*******************************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our
E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to
[e-mail] and include in the body of the message either
your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by
state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are
specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will
receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.
That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe.

----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.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
 the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
 resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. --
 Thomas Jefferson, June 1776



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOA Alert--Federal 06/04/97
Date: 04 Jun 1997 23:03:00 -0700



News Flash!        Urgent Action Needed!        News Flash!

Rep. Ron Paul Moving to Eliminate Gun Control Bureaucracy
  -- Amendment would remove U.S. from U.N. jurisdiction

               by Gun Owners of America
 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
[phone], fax: [phone], http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, June 4, 1997) -- Pro-gun Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
is working to remove a tourniquet that is slowly being drawn around
gun owners' necks. GOA has learned from his office that Rep. Paul
plans to introduce -- either today or tomorrow -- an amendment that
will pull the U.S. out of the U.N. His office has asked GOA and its
supporters to generate support for passing this amendment.

Among the many benefits of withdrawing from the world government
would be that the U.N. would no longer have any authority to enforce
its gun control agenda -- an agenda which has been quietly gathering
momentum in the past couple of years. Here is a brief synopsis of
the problem and what Rep. Paul is planning to do:

From the Horse's Mouth -- U.N. openly looking to register private
firearms globally

The documents from the U.N.'s own webpage -- http://www.un.org -- make
it clear that they are very serious about disarming American civilians.
For example, on December 22, 1995, the UN announced the launch of a
study of small arms. Among the countries involved in this study are
the Japanese, Canadian and Russian governments. (Also participating
was Stewart Allen, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.)

A few months later, the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice met in Vienna (May, 1996) to discuss strategies for civilian
disarmament among the member states. In announcing this summit, U.N.
bureaucrats set forth what they perceived to be a major problem --
namely, that "small arms are spreading throughout society with little
documentation, since they are frequently bought from private individuals."
Thus, one of the commission's objectives was to study gun control laws
around the world for "the development of related strategies" among the
member countries (like the U.S.).

Since most countries register gun owners, one would undoubtedly expect
that the "related strategies" would include registering all guns so that
the U.N. and the subordinate governments (including the U.S.) will know
where the guns are. No more anonymous gun sales with "little documentation."
No more passing a gun down from father to son. No more selling a gun to
a friend at the office. Big Brother will track everything pertaining
to guns.

Gun control illustrates one of the dangers of the U.S. membership in the
U.N. In May of 1994, the Clinton administration agreed to participate in
a discussion of ways for the United Nations to control the manufacture of
guns and their sales to civilians. This was over a year before all of the
activities of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
swung into motion with financial support from Japan and bureaucrats on
loan from our neighbor, Canada. These other countries were not sneaking in
the back door of U.S. sovereignty -- our own government was hiding behind
the U.N. to carry out the civilian disarmament they did not think they
could get away with by themselves.

ACTION:
Support Rep. Paul and the "American Sovereignty Restoration Amendment"!

Call or fax your Representative and ask them to support what is known
as either the "Paul Amendment" or the "American Sovereignty Restoration
Amendment." He plans to offer this amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act. In brief, Rep. Paul's amendment would get
the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.

Phone numbers for Reps: 1-800-962-3524, 1-800-972-3524 and 202-225-3121.

If you wish to call, fax, or e-mail your Representatives' offices
directly, contact info can be found at http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm
on the GOA website.

*******************************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail
Alert Network directly. Address your request to [e-mail]
and include in the body of the message either your state of residence
or the word "all". If you subscribe by state, you will receive every
federal alert plus alerts which are specific to your home state.
Requesting "all" means you will receive all alerts generated whether
federal or state in nature. That address should also be used if you
wish to unsubscribe.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [NH to sue feds over AW ban?]
Date: 06 Jun 1997 11:43:00 -0600


A heck of a good idea.  I hope it comes to fruition.  Anyone know any
legislators around here who may introduce something similar?

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

From the MASS GOP list


 AS INTRODUCED

                              (Internet Version)

           1997 SESSION HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 3

  requiring the attorney general to bring suit against the United
         States Government for violating the United States
  Constitution and the New Hampshire constitution by enacting
                         a military firearms ban.

 SPONSORS: Rep. Mirski, Graf 12; Rep. Varrell, Rock 9

 REFERRED TO: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

                                   ANALYSIS

 This joint resolution requires the attorney general to bring suit
against the United States Government for violating the United State
Constitution and the New Hampshire constitution by enacting the
assault weapons ban, which prevents United States citizens from owning
military firearms. The attorney general shall prepare a report for the
speaker of the house, the senate president, and the governor within 60
days of the effective date of this resolution, outlining the progress
of such lawsuit.

 Whereas, the general court finds that the assault weapons ban is
 unconstitutional for the following reasons:

 (1) The assault weapons ban is unconstitutional because it deprives
the people of their right of self-defense under the Ninth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. It does so by limiting the tools which
the people may use to protect themselves, their families, and their
communities from assault.  The assault weapons ban prevents the people
from responding to the threat of force in kind, relegating the
people's use of defensive weapons to weapons of lesser force than
those which might be used against them. The state cannot limit the
means for self-defense without abrogating the right of self-defense.

 (2) The assault weapons ban is unconstitutional because it deprives
the people of the means necessary for defense of their rights under
the Constitution.  The assault weapons ban nullifies the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution. The assault weapons ban
prevents the people from acquiring and owning the military firearms
necessary for the fielding of effective militias.

 The militia, as provided for in the Constitution, is the people's
army and exists for the purpose of defending the constitution. By
preventing the people from owning military firearms, the assault
weapons ban abrogates the constitutional purpose of the Second
Amendment and prevents the people from responding in kind to the
exertion of unwarranted military force by either federal or state
governments.

 (3) By nullifying the utility of militias, the assault weapons ban
renders null and void those provisions under Article I, Section 8 of
the U.S.  Constitution which provide for the organizing, arming, and
fielding of militias and makes moot the states' authority to appoint
officers and to train and discipline militias.

 (4) The assault weapons ban is unconstitutional under the Tenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution because the power to
regulate firearms, to the limited extent to which such powers may be
available under the U.S. Constitution, lies with the states, not with
the federal government.  Federal enactment of the assault weapons ban
has usurped the states' limited right to regulate firearms; and

 Whereas, every state office holder is obligated by his or her oath of
office to uphold and defend the constitutions of the state of New
Hampshire and the United States, the obligation exists regardless of
whether or not particular features of these documents enjoy uniformly
popular public support; and

 Whereas, when the state of New Hampshire ratified the federal
Constitution in 1788, it was with the clear understanding that the
people's right to bear arms would be preserved. The governor and
members of the New Hampshire house and senate have the solemn
obligation to correct the failure of the United States Congress and of
the President of the United States to act within the parameters of the
United States Constitution concerning the right of the people to
possess military armaments; and

 Whereas, the authors of the United States Constitution acted on
behalf of the disparate populations of the original 13
colonies. Following the revolution, each state constitution was
created upon the theme that whatever power government possessed was
derived from the people. That theme was carried into the
constitutional convention of 1787 through the representatives
appointed by the states. Power granted the federal government by the
states was narrowly defined in Article I, Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution. Upon completion, the proposed constitution was
submitted to the states for ratification.  Ratification was only
achieved with the understanding that a bill of rights would be
prepared and appended to the constitution to ensure that there would
be no misunderstanding with respect to the fundamental idea that the
power of the state is limited by inherent rights retained by the
people; and

 Whereas, the assault weapons ban denies the people of the right to
keep and bear the arms necessary for the defense of the constitution
guaranteed them under the Second Amendment. It makes moot all
constitutional references in Article I, Section 8 and in the Second
Amendment to the employment of the militia, because the assault
weapons ban effectively disarms the militia and places all military
force and the ability to employ it in the hands of the federal
government; and

 Whereas, the assault weapons ban qualifies each individual absolute
right of self-defense, guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment, by limiting
the rights of the people to defend themselves with tools appropriate
to the task. The "right of self-defense" ceases to exist if the state
is able to assert the power to limit the nature of the response which
an individual may make to a particular threat of force. Individuals
have the absolute right to respond to force in kind; and

 Whereas, Part I of the New Hampshire constitution is an extensive
enumeration of rights, which bill of rights was written in response to
the excesses of colonial governors in New Hampshire and Massachusetts
and when New Hampshire ratified the federal constitution, it was with
the firm and absolute understanding that none of the rights enumerated
in its own constitution would be abrogated by adopting the federal
constitution. The assault weapons ban interferes with and assumes
power over numerous provisions contained within part I of the New
Hampshire constitution and is therefore in violation of the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in its treading upon rights
retained by the state; and

 Whereas, the remedy to the enactment of the assault weapons ban
requires that the state of New Hampshire assert the right of the
people of New Hampshire to keep and bear those arms which could be
required to defend their constitutional rights from either state or
federal forces intent on suppressing them; now, therefore, be it

 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court
convened:

 That the attorney general be required to bring suit against the
United States Government for violations of the United States
Constitution and the New Hampshire constitution in enacting the
assault weapons ban, which prevents United States citizens from owning
military firearms. The attorney general shall submit a report to the
governor, the speaker of the house, and the senate president within 60
days of the effective date of this resolution, outlining the progress
of the lawsuit.



----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.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing,
 great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of
 honor and good sense." -- Winston Spencer Churchill Address at Harrow
 School, October 29, 1941



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [GOA Alert-- Federal 06/09/97]
Date: 09 Jun 1997 15:36:01 -0600


Looks all three of our State's reps lack the conviction to preserve
our rights....

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
            Does Your Rep. Want the U.S. to stay
              under an Anti-Gun U.N. Bureaucracy?

                   by Gun Owners of America
     8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151,
    [phone], fax: [phone], http://www.gunowners.org


     (Monday, June 9, 1997) -- Last Thursday, GOA alerted you to the
amendment introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  As you will remember,
his amendment would have pulled the United States out of the U.N.
Rep. Paul stood up for all of our rights, stating that, "Our
Constitution does not give us the authority to sell our sovereignty
to an international government body . . . [and] does not allow us,
for instance, to undermine the Bill of Rights."  Indeed, as
documented by our Thursday alert, the U.N. has been quietly pushing
a gun control agenda for the member states (like the U.S.).
Unfortunately, only 54 Representatives stood firm and supported the
Paul amendment, which would have withdrawn the U.S. from the United
Nations.

     Who voted AGAINST the Paul amendment?  Every Democrat voted
against the Paul amendment, except for Reps. Hall (TX) and Taylor
(MS) who voted for the provision; and Reps. Andrews, Berman, Farr,
Fattah, Goode, Jefferson and Lantos who missed the vote.  Thus, if
you have a Democratic Representative -- and he is not one of the
nine men listed above -- he voted against the Paul amendment.  The
self-avowed socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), also voted
against withdrawing from the U.N.

     Listed below are the Republicans who did not support Rep. Paul
and voted AGAINST the amendment:

Archer         Armey          Bachus         Baker

Ballenger      Barrett (NE)   Barton         Bass

Bateman        Bereuter       Bilbray        Bilirakis

Bliley         Blunt          Boehlert       Boehner

Bono           Brady          Bryant         Bunning

Burr           Callahan       Calvert        Camp

Campbell       Canady         Cannon         Castle

Chabot         Chambliss      Christensen    Coble

Collins        Cook           Cooksey        Cox

Davis (VA)     Deal           Diaz-Balart    Dreier

Dunn           Ehlers         Ehrlich        Emerson

English        Ewing          Fawell         Forbes

Fowler         Fox            Franks (NJ)    Frelinghuysen

Gallegly       Ganske         Gekas          Gilchrest

Gillmor        Gilman         Goodlatte      Goodling

Goss           Graham         Granger        Greenwood

Gutknecht      Hansen         Hastert        Hastings (WA)

Hayworth       Herger         Hill           Hilleary

Hobson         Hoekstra       Horn           Hostettler

Houghton       Hutchinson     Hyde           Inglis

Jenkins        Johnson (CT)   Kasich         Kelly

Kim            King (NY)      Klug           Knollenberg

Kolbe          LaHood         Latham         LaTourette

Lazio          Leach          Lewis (CA)     Lewis (KY)

Livingston     LoBiondo       McCollum       McCrery

McDade         McHugh         McInnis        McKeon

Metcalf        Mica           Miller (FL)    Molinari

Morella        Myrick         Neumann        Northup

Norwood        Nussle         Oxley          Packard

Pappas         Parker         Paxon          Pease

Peterson (PA)  Petri          Pitts          Porter

Portman        Pryce (OH)     Quinn          Radanovich

Ramstad        Redmond        Regula         Riggs

Rogan          Rogers         Roukema        Sanford

Saxton         Sensenbrenner  Shaw           Shays

Shimkus        Shuster        Skeen          Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)     Smith (OR)     Smith (TX)     Smith, Linda

Snowbarger     Souder         Spence         Stearns

Sununu         Talent         Tauzin         Taylor (NC)

Thomas         Thornberry     Thune          Tiahrt

Upton          Walsh          Watkins        Watts (OK)

Weldon (PA)    Weller         White          Whitfield

Wicker         Wolf           Young (FL)

*******************************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our
E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to
[e-mail] and include in the body of the message either
your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by
state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are
specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will
receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.
That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe.

----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.

"Three millions of People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
 such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force
 which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our
 battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of
 Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." --
 Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech,
 March, 1775



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  WACO: Rules of Engagement
Date: 10 Jun 1997 10:51:52 -0700

I just called the Tower Theater (328-1645) and they confirmed that on
June 20 they will start showing the movie WACO: Rules of Engagement.

The guy answering the phone doesn't have all the details because the
owner is out of town for a couple of more days.  But he gave me the
following information.

They are definitely going to show he movie.

The showing on the first night 6/20 will include a lecture.
  - Tickets for this showing might need to be purchased in advance.

He thinks the movie will show for a week, but isn't certain.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [PRO-ENCRYPTION BILL CLEARS SECOND CONGRESSIONAL HURDLE]
Date: 10 Jun 1997 17:08:45 -0600


Of interest to some here, I think.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
          ____                  _              _   _
         / ___|_ __ _   _ _ __ | |_ ___       | \ | | _____      _____
        | |   | '__| | | | '_ \| __/ _ \ _____|  \| |/ _ \ \ /\ / / __|
        | |___| |  | |_| | |_) | || (_) |_____| |\  |  __/\ V  V /\__ \
         \____|_|   \__, | .__/ \__\___/      |_| \_|\___| \_/\_/ |___/
                    |___/|_|


             PRO-ENCRYPTION BILL CLEARS SECOND CONGRESSIONAL HURDLE;
                     FACES TOUGHER TEST IN COMING WEEKS.

              CRYPTOGRAPHERS AND COMPUTER SECURITY EXPERTS ASSAIL
                       GOVERNMENT KEY RECOVERY PLANS

     Date: May 29, 1997                            Expires July 1, 1997

         URL:http://www.crypto.com/            [e-mail]
           Redistribution of crypto-news is allowed in its entirety.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
        Encryption battle heats up in the House
        Experts assail government key recovery plans
        What YOU CAN DO NOW!
        Background
        What's at stake
        How to start or stop receiving crypto-news
        Press contacts

_____________________________________________________________________________
ENCRYPTION BATTLE HEATS UP IN THE HOUSE

On May 14th, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill designed to
dramatically enhance the ability of Internet users to protect their privacy
and security online.

The bill now moves to the House International Relations Committee, where it
is expected to face tougher opposition from the FBI, NSA, and the Clinton
Administration.  The International Relations Committee is expected to
consider the bill soon.

The Security and Freedom through Encryption Act (SAFE - HR 695) will
prohibit the government from imposing mandatory law enforcement access to
private online communications inside the US, affirm the right of American
Citizens to use whatever from of encryption they choose, and relax current
export restrictions which prevent the development of strong, easy-to-use
encryption technologies.

The Clinton Administration, led by the FBI and the National Security
agency, opposes SAFE and is pushing for a policy of domestic restrictions
on the use of encryption, guaranteed law enforcement access to private
communications via government designed "key-recovery" systems, and
continued reliance on out-dated, cold-war era export controls.

For the first time in history, Congress is close to passing real encryption
policy reform legislation which will protect privacy, promote electronic
commerce, and recognizes the realities of the global Internet.  Pointers
to additional information on the SAFE bill and other efforts to reform
U.S. encryption policy are attached below.

Congress needs to hear from you!  If you value your privacy and care about
the future of the Net, please take a few moments to join the Adopt Your
Legislator campaign.  Instructions are attached below.

____________________________________________________________________________
____
CRYPTOGRAPHERS AND COMPUTER SECURITY EXPERTS ASSAIL GOV'T. KEY RECOVERY PLANS

On Wednesday May 21, a group of leading cryptographers and computer
scientists released a report which for the first time examines the
risks and implications of government-designed key-recovery systems.

The report cautions that "The deployment of a general key-recovery-based
encryption infrastructure to meet law enforcement's stated requirements
will result in substantial sacrifices in security and cost to the end user.
Building a secure infrastructure of the breathtaking scale and complexity
demanded by these requirements is far beyond the experience and current
competency of the field."

The report substantially changes the terms of the ongoing debate over US
encryption policy.  For more than four years, the Clinton Administration
has pushed for a policy of continued export restrictions on strong
encryption, and the development of global key escrow and key recovery
systems to address the concerns of law enforcement.  The study, the first
comprehensive analysis of the risks of key recovery and key escrow systems,
calls into question the viability of the Administration's approach.

The Report's authors, recognized leaders in the cryptography and computer
science field, include Hal Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven M. Bellovin, Josh
Benaloh,  Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Peter G. Neumann,
Ronald L. Rivest, Jeffery I. Schiller, and Bruce Schneier

The report is be available online at http://www.crypto.com/key_study/

____________________________________________________________________________
____
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW

1. Adopt Your Legislator

   Now is the time to increase our ranks and prepare for the fight that lies
   a head of us in Congress.

   Please take a few minutes to learn more about this important
   issue, and join the Adopt Your Legislator Campaign at
   http://www.crypto.com/adopt/

   This will produce a customized page, just for you with your own
   legislator's telephone number and address.

   In addition, you will receive the latest news and information on the
   issue, as well as targeted alerts informing you when your
   Representatives in Congress do something that could help or hinder
   the future of the Internet.

   Best of all, it's free.  Do your part, Work the Network!

   Visit http://www.crypto.com/adopt/ for details.

2. Spread the Word!

   Forward this Alert to your friends. Help educate the public about the
   importance of this issue.

   Please do not forward after July 1, 1997.

_____________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND

Complete background information, including:

* A down-to-earth explanation of why this debate is important to Internet
users
* Analysis and background on the issue
* Text of the Administration draft legislation
* Text of Congressional proposals to reform US encryption policy
* Audio transcripts and written testimony from recent Congressional Hearings
  on encryption policy reform
* And more!

Are all available at http://www.crypto.com/

________________________________________________________________________
WHAT'S AT STAKE

Encryption technologies are the locks and keys of the Information age
-- enabling individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information
as it is transmitted over the Internet. As more and more individuals
and businesses come online, the need for strong, reliable, easy-to-use
encryption technologies has become a critical issue to the health and
viability of the Net.

Current US encryption policy, which limits the strength of encryption
products US companies can sell abroad, also limits the availability of
strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies in the United States. US
hardware and software manufacturers who wish to sell their products on
the global market must either conform to US encryption export limits or
produce two separate versions of the same product, a costly and
complicated alternative.

The export controls, which the NSA and FBI argue help to keep strong
encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries, are having the
opposite effect. Strong encryption is available abroad, but because of
the export limits and the confusion created by nearly four years of
debate over US encryption policy, strong, easy-to-use privacy and
security technologies are not widely available off the shelf or "on the
net" here in the US.

A recently discovered flaw in the security of the new digital telephone
network exposed the worst aspects of the Administration's encryption
policy.  Because the designers needed to be able to export their
products, the system's security was "dumbed down".  Researchers subsequently
discovered that it is quite easy to break the security of the system and
intrude on what should be private conversations.

This incident underscores the larger policy problem: US companies are
at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace when competing
against companies that do not have such hindrances.  And now, for the first
time in history, the Clinton Administration has DOMESTIC RESTRICTIONS on the
ability of Americans to protect their privacy and security online.

All of us care about our national security, and no one wants to make it
any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we
must also recognize encryption technologies can aid law enforcement
and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial
espionage and foreign spying, promote electronic commerce and protecting
privacy.

What's at stake in this debate is nothing less than the future of
privacy and the fate of the Internet as a secure and trusted medium for
commerce, education, and political discourse.

____________________________________________________________________________
__
HOW TO START OR STOP RECEIVING CRYPTO-NEWS

To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com)
or send mail to [e-mail] with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body
of the message.  To unsubscribe, send a letter to [e-mail] with
"unsubscribe crypto-news" in the body.

Requests to unsubscribe that are sent to [e-mail] will be ignored.

_____________________________________________________________________________
PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION

Press inquiries on Crypto-News should be directed to
        Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at +1.718.596.2851 or [e-mail]
        Jonah Seiger (CDT) at +1.202.637.9800 or [e-mail]

_____________________________________________________________________________
End crypto-news
=============================================================================

----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.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...
 in private self-defense..." -- John Adams, A Defense of the
 Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hugh Downs on Guns
Date: 16 Jun 1997 09:26:00 -0700


GUNS
By: Hugh Downs
Aired: May 20, 1995

I realize that what I am about to say may alienate people who think
they know where I stand on issues. But I want to take a somewhat
different look at the gun issue:

Everyone seems to agree that we have a terrible problem with guns in
this country. There are headlines as well as statistics to prove this.
Few, however, agree on the causes of the problem, or what to do about it.

Among the theories about the origin of this mess is one that says our
frontier heritage cast into our culture a belief that because we got
out from under the tyranny of England's George III with a shooting
revolution, that implementing justice, redressing grievances, and
correcting wrongs of any kind are all best handled with guns. The good
guy--the guy on the proper side of the law--wins in a throw-down because
he is faster on the draw. This is demonstrated by every B Western movie
and a thousand pulp fiction novels. (And the genre of Western Fiction is
not a passing fad. It is our Iliad and Odyssey and it's here to stay.)
The theory is that deep in our collective psyche is the feeling that a
gun is a social tool and an indispensable prop of American Civilization.

Another theory cites a drug policy in this country that lacks sanity.

Because we have put a monster drug traffic outside the law--we have
outlawed drugs instead of regulating them--we have started with a
medical problem and managed to turn it into a crime problem--and so we
lost control of the situation, and the flow of guns into the streets
and even the schools is a result of this.

I subscribe to both these theories.

But whatever other causes may be operative, the problem has little to
do with the number of guns per capita. Israeli citizens are far more
heavily armed than we are and there is less street crime there than
in the US. In Switzerland, with its compulsory military service, every
home has a gun in it--often a machine pistol--and they can boast the
lowest gun-death rate of any industrialized country.

Gun aficionados are fond of saying "Guns don't kill people--people
kill people." Well, they are right.

A firearm is a potent weapon that can provide action-at-a-distance--
that can be lethal fairly far away from the person wielding it. There
is a very real question whether humans have progressed socially and
psychologically enough to deal, not just with atomic bombs, but with
small calibre firearms. But these things are here to stay. They are
with us, and we can't un-ring that bell. It might seem that it would
be nice if no such things existed--if there were no instruments to
send pellets of metal tearing through flesh--but when there were no
guns people impaled each other on spears and hacked each other to
pieces with swords, so the difficulty is not guns, but human nature.
And we aren't going to solve that problem with simple prohibitions.

Abolishing guns in not in the cards. [Sensible regulation is.] I
sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with
them. We have to be careful that in our zeal to abolish guns we don't
wind up pushing counter-productive legislation that will leave armed
only those people most likely to do harm with the weapons.

We have probably 200 million firearms in the United States, owned by
65 million Americans. About 25% of us are gun owners. (In Switzerland
it's closer to 100%). More than 98% of U.S. guns are never involved
in crimes. The headlines, of course go to those that are involved.

When the magnitude of the gun problem dawned on the American Public,
the reaction was two-fold: one faction sought to ban guns, or to put
in place controls so stringent as to be unworkable; and the other de-
cided to arm themselves individually. Both responses were in the main
inappropriate. Outright bans are counter-productive; and untrained
civilians carrying firearms are dangerous--to themselves and others.

I have reservations about mass arming of everyone--the potential for
increased incident of accident and crimes of passion looms as a great
worry. But here is where well-thought-out regulation can play a part.

Taking courses in the proper and safe use, transport and storage of
firearms can go a long way to keeping accidents, etc., down. Waiting
periods and qualifications for licensing for each type of weapon are
in order.

As for training in gun use and gun safety, the dreaded National Rifle
Association has actually been in the lead on safety and proper use of
firearms. Their image has been besmirched, probably unjustly, by zea-
lotry in the ranks (and in management), which gave the appearance at
times of wanting 9-year-olds to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy
armor-piercing bullets. This was nonsense, and the organization is not
as irresponsible as many think. (This statement is a little like George
Bernard Shaw's when he was a music critic and said "Wagner's music is
not as bad as it sounds."). But in fairness, the NRA has a point about
the inadvisability of simply taking guns away from the populace. If
that were possible, it would not disarm that small percentage of the
populace willing to break the law, and the social environment. It
would, in effect, disarm the honest bulk of the population.

A narrow 1986 study, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine
stated that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family
member than an intruder. A breakdown of that number is instructive:
First of all, 37 of those 43 deaths are suicides. And banning guns
does not ban suicide. When Canada enacted strict gun controls in 1976
psychiatrists noticed that jumping off bridges replaced suicides
previously committed with guns. In Japan, where they have tried to ban
all guns, the suicide rate is consistently and dramatically higher
than here in the U.S.

And home defense by force of arms is not simply a matter of shooting
intruders. There are cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded
or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm, and cases in
which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to
be armed.

By and large, burglars, robbers, and muggers use guns because they
assume their victims are unarmed and afraid of guns. They want control.
They do not seek to have a shoot-out with their victims. Training in
gun use deals with when to display a firearm and when to turn over
your cash and jewelry.

The total number of deaths attributed to firearms is between 25,000
and 30,000 a year. This includes suicides, homicides, the so-called
justifiable homicides (mostly self-defense) and accidents. Even at
the 30,000 figure it is far less than are killed by automobiles.
Would we be justified in seeking to ban automobiles? American adults
use many things that are dangerous, and we live with the risks.

Most of America's 65 million gun owners collect and use their firearms
responsibly. Punishing people who obey the law is backward thinking.

It's true that there are many armed crimes in this country, but our
collective delusion about firearms, obscures the real reason for almost
all of that crime. It is the so-called War on Drugs, recently again
called a failure by legislators who see the folly of our policy. Having
abandoned our jurisdiction by putting drug traffic outside the law--out-
lawing substances that can be abused--we have created a situation where
gang members and drug dealers buy guns on a black market where guns are
cheap, untraceable and require no waiting period, and then overflow onto
the streets and show up in the hands of school-children.

We need to get that straightened out. In the meantime, let's not commit
the folly of prohibition on yet another dangerous thing. We did it with
liquor, and things got better when we woke up and brought liquor under
the law and got rid of prohibition. We may yet display some common sense
in the drug problem by replacing prohibition with regulation, and we have
time to avoid the mistake with guns.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Just Plain Control!
Date: 16 Jun 1997 09:26:00 -0700



The Michigan Militia Corps'
WEEKLY UPDATE **Internet Edition**
Volume 4 Issue 19
Week of June 2, 1997

The Gun Control hounds are baying after the fox again (with Senate
bill S.10). And just who do you think the fox is? It's the gun-owning
public, again, or should I say, still!

After much careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that
these people are illogical, unscientific, anti-democratic blockheads
who are not only totally lacking in integrity, but WRONG!

Let's take this in logical order. First, we have a constitutionally
protected right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment clearly
states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." It doesn't say "the right of the states" or "the right
of the militias," it says "the right of the people." [Not to mention
the Michigan state constitution at article I section 6 says "Every
person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself
and the state.] Now, in spite of the ignorant statements of prejudiced
Supreme Court Justices to the contrary, this means you and me, folks!

That is the only interpretation that is consistent with American
history. James Madison wrote to a European that our country, unlike
those in Europe, was not afraid for its people to be armed. Thomas
Jefferson said, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
George Washington said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the
Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth
and the keystone under independence.... The rifle and the pistol are
equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and
everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor
with all that is good." Samual Adams said, "The Constitution shall
never be construed to authorize Congress to ...prevent the people of
the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own
arms." What all must realize is that you cannot have a government of
the people, by the people and for the people that is afraid of the
people and wants to disarm them.

The organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
has demonstrated that there is a strong association between a disarmed
population and genocide. In every totalitarian country in this century,
the first step of government murderers was to disarm the people. They
have proven that the 1968 Gun Control Act was patterned after a Nazi
gun control act.

As a prominent syndicated columnist, Charley Reese, says, "...even if
you personally have no desire to own a gun, you should fight to preserve
your right to own one. The Second Amendment is the canary of liberty.
When it dies, it will be time to get real nervous about your future
prospects as a free American." "What about crime?", he says. "Crime is
a people problem, not a hardware problem. The belief that an inanimate
object can cause animate objects to change drastically their behavior
is a silly superstition. Furthermore, it is flat stupid to propose laws
that only the law-abiding will obey as a crime-fighting measure.

"When guns were most available and virtually unregulated, when you
could buy them without question the way you buy a lawn mower, when
you could buy them through the mail or from catalogs, there was less
violent crime, not more.

"Sociologists say you can't prove a variable with a constant. The
constants in American history are guns and teen-agers. The variable is
the crime rate. As guns have become increasingly difficult to acquire,
and in some places actually banned, the crime rate has gone up. Obviously,
the causative factor is not guns." In Mr. Reese's opinion and in mine
there are two foundational reasons for the increasing crime rate. First
is the "drug war," and second is the deterioration of the family. "The
frequently heard claim," says Reese, "that people who keep a gun in their
home are 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a
criminal intruder, is a piece of garbage research. The guys who conducted
that research included suicides, which were 85 percent of gunshot victims
[that were] used in their study. Intruders [that were] frightened off or
deterred were not counted. No attempt was made to make sure the studied
groups were homogenous. The study, in effect, compares weeds and flowers.

"Don't forget, criminals, drug dealers, gang members and thugs also
have 'households' and guns. In fact, Chicago facts show that many murder
victims and most of their murderers have prior criminal records. Similar
results have been found in other cities." Now that fatal gun accidents
are at an all-time low, Clinton and his buddies want to mandate trigger
locks, which render a firearm unusable for self-defense. The best you
would be able to do with it, on short notice, is throw it at an intruder!

Don't be deceived! These people, including Clinton, who want firearms
out of the hands of you and I, could not care less about our safety and
well-being. Some are bitter individuals who have suffered tragedies in
their own lives, tragedies they were unable to prevent, and are now bound
and determined that all of America will pay for that failure. Some are so
egotistical that they believe the average American is not intelligent
enough to make their own decisions. Some are so out of touch with reality
that they believe that if only guns could be eliminated this world would
be the utopia they dream of. The rest (a small number) are megalomaniacs
who use the emotions, egos and dreams of the others to gain absolute
control over every man, woman and child in this nation for their own
profit. These last few are fully aware that this cannot be accomplished
while "We the People" still have the means to defend ourselves.

If they can deprive us of one, clearly stated, historically supported
individual right, the rest will soon follow. -9th Division Command

Jeff S.
Central Michigan Regional Militia,
15th Brigade - Kent county

If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from
your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please e-mail
it to [e-mail] and it will be evaluated for entrance. Thanks.

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia
Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message to [e-mail]
with the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly
Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at:
http://mmc.cns.net

Michigan Militia Corps Home Page: http://mmc.cns.net

"...Stage III...would proceed to a point where no state would have the
military power to challenge the progressively stregthened U.N. peace
force...The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited...All other
armaments would be destroyed..."
-Department of State publication number 7277




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Waco Film - Special Showing]
Date: 17 Jun 1997 13:55:42 -0600


FYI

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

The ACLU of Utah is sponsoring a showing of "WACO:  The Rules of
Engagement" at the Tower Theatre on June 23, 1997.  Tickets are $7.00
and are available in advance from Andy McCullough, telephone [phone].

The film will be followed by a panel discussion which will include  a
representative of the gun-owning community.  Please come.  It  promises to be
a "wild evening".


----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.

 LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the
 entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American
 Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle
 loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are
 fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden
 handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and
 barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest
 the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price,
 Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 09:58:53 -0600


Don't know that anything below will directly affect your interests,
but anytime someone wants to call a meeting with no notice given, I
get a little curious...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Topic: <bold>The Special Session is done, but another one is likely on
July 16th.

</bold>

Yesterday's Special Session adjourned at 8:30 p.m. last night after the
Legislature passed four bills. Information about the completed session,
including the text of the four bills is found from the page:



<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>http://www.code-co.com/utah/leg/special/971st/spec1st.htm

</color>

There were several issues that had been considered by Governor Leavitt
but which he did not put on the official list for action by the
legislature. At the conclusion of the session last night, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives reported to the House that the Governor
would call another Special Session for July 16, 1997 if bills on those
remaining issues could be crafted and agreed to before that date. The
Governor also warned that he would not send out a proclamation in advance
if such a session were to be held. He would just call it that very day if
there was legislative agreement on the issues. (More information about
the issues left unresolved last night is also available from the page
linked above.)


This is a very unusual process. There is no explicit provision in the
state Constitution for any length of time for a notice to call a Special
Session. I thought you would like a heads-up about the possibility of
such a no-notice session.


Hope you find this useful.


Byron Harward

Webmaster

Code-Co Law Publishers.

----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 first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- William
 Shakespeare; Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II, spoken by Dick the Butcher.



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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:03:23 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:08:24 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:12:28 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:37:44 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:41:45 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:45:49 -0600

I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.





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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Re:[Next Special Session (July)]
Date: 19 Jun 1997 10:49:50 -0600


On Thu, 19 Jun 1997,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>I'm out of the office on Thursday, Friday, and Monday June 19, 20, and 23.
>I'll return on Tuesday, June 24.   In my absense please contact Shannon
>Topham at 228-6034 or e-mail stopham.
>
>
>
>

Am I the only one getting multiple repeats of the above post?
Anyone in charge able to fix this?

--

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.

"We always hire Democratic Congressmen who promise to give us from the
 government all the things we want. And we always hire Republican
 Presidents to make sure we don't have to pay for it." -- T.J. Rodgers
 quoting in REASON



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Re:[Next Special Session (July)] -Reply
Date: 19 Jun 1997 12:18:57 -0700

Charles:

I have received the "out of office" messgaes too, 4 so far.




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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re:[Next Special Session (July)] -Reply
Date: 19 Jun 1997 12:31:42 -0600

>Charles:
>
>I have received the "out of office" messgaes too, 4 so far.


The offender has been removed from the list

There won't be any more

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: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: fwd {[e-mail]}
Date: 19 Jun 1997 13:57:20 -0600

For your dining and dancing pleasure.....

S. Thompson wrote:
>

> If this hasn't already appeared, would you post it to appropriate mail lists
> for me?
> Thanks!
>
> Sarah
>
> >June 16, 1997
> >
> >SUBJ:    FIX-IT
> >
> >Dear President Clinton:
> >
> >This letter is being sent to you to ask you WHY that you and your Vice
> >President,
> >Al Gore, continue to "demonize" American Citizens by comparing them with
> >criminals who violate the law.  These people are criminals and  yes we have a
> >lots
> >of them....too many.  But yet, the comparison is to a person's beliefs and
> >patriotism - and not to anything that they have done.  If you think like
> >McVeigh (for instance)
> >that there is something wrong with the federal government's operations, then
> >you
> >are a terrorist.   Excuse me?
> >
> >If you want to STOP hate crimes, then you are going to have to start with
> >your own Executive Office - The White House.
> >
> >The White Nazi Groups have been around for a long time (from the Sixties at
> >least) and with all of the FBI infiltrators in those organizations, it
> >doesn't seem that you should be spending federal money to Morris Dees'
> >organization and the ADL for
> >information that you should already have.
> >
> >It seems that the REAL hate and abuses are coming from the Government side of
> >the house - and YES people and organizations are FED UP with these abuses.
> > Some of those organizations are National Association of Criminal Defense
> >Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Rifle Association, the
> >Friends Service Committee, and various other organizations, who in 1994
> >called upon YOU, the President, to investigate and appoint a national
> >commission to review the policies and practices of all federal law
> >enforcement agencies and to make recommendations to ensure that such agencies
> >comply with the law. This review is necessitated by widespread  abuses of
> >civil liberties and human rights committed by these agencies and  their
> >failure to undertake meaningful reforms.
> >
> >Here is the LIST they asked YOU to investigate.
> >
> >     Improperly used deadly force;
> >     Physically and verbally abused suspects and innocent citizens;
> >     Conducted mistaken raids based on unverified, unreliable informant
> >"tips";
> >     Unnecessarily induced criminal activity as an investigative technique;
> >     Used "no-knock" entrances and paramilitary tactics without
> >justification;
> >     Inadequately investigated allegations of misconduct.
> >
> >Some of the more infamous instances of these and other abuses include the
> >following cases of official victimization.
> >
> >     Branch Davidians: Even official reviews of the tragic confrontation
> >between the Branch Davidians and federal agents in 1993, in Waco, Texas
> >(which resulted in
> >over 60 deaths) have found fault with the planning and execution of the
> >government's attack on the compound. But the official reviews nonetheless all
> >accepted the notion that armed confrontation was inevitable.  And they failed
> >completely to disclose the gross prosecutorial misconduct revealed through
> >the  House Investigatory Committee hearings -- that federal prosecutors had
> >shut
> >down routine shooting reviews and hidden exculpatory information, because the
> >agents' stories weren't "adding up," and turning over such information to the
> >
> >accused might hurt their ability to "win" convictions against surviving
> >Branch Davidians. Indeed, when finally revealed, the head of the
> >Administration's
> >Criminal Division issued a press release, read into the hearing record,
> >proclaiming this unconstitutional behavior mere "prosecution 101."  [Many
> >think that is WHY
> >the Murrah Building was blown up - to destroy this evidence.  Yes, perhaps
> >McVeigh played a role - and that MORE information is bound to come out
> >about what really happened].
> >
> >     The Weaver Family: Randy Weaver's wife and son were shot to death by
> >federal agents in a siege that should never have happened. A senior official
> >involved in both the Branch Davidian and the Weaver cases was promoted by FBI
> >Director Freeh in 1995, to the second-ranking position at the FBI. Donald
> >Scott: Donald Scott was shot to death by members of a multi-agency task force
> >when he confronted them in his living room after they burst into his home.
> >Although the shooting itself was ruled justifiable, the Ventura County
> >(California) District Attorney concluded that the raid was based on
> >fabricated information and motivated "at least in part" by a desire
> >to seize Scott's valuable ranch.  [These forfeiture RAIDS must stop!!]
> >
> >     Donald Carlson: California businessman Donald Carlson was shot several
> >times -- even when he lay wounded on the floor -- by federal agents who
> >wrongfully burst into his home after relying on completely erroneous
> >information from an "informant."   [Use of PAID informants MUST stop!!]
> >
> >     Sina Brush: Sina Brush and her daughter were wrongfully handcuffed and
> >forced to kneel on the floor, clad only in their underwear, as 60 federal
> >agents, brandishing automatic weapons, mistakenly conducted a "drug raid" on
> >their
> >New Mexico home.
> >
> >Since this January 1994 letter was sent to the President, one might have
> >expected a cut-back in federal military-style "strike forces" intended to use
> >against Americans.  But the opposite has happened.
> >
> >For example, the United States Marshals Service now has a 100-plus person
> >"Special Operations Group" (SOG), ready to go anywhere on a moment's notice.
> >In short, spurred by the "Drug War," law enforcement in the United States,
> >particularly federal law enforcement, has become increasingly militarized.
> >
> >Furthermore, federal police officers now comprise close to ten percent of the
> >
> >nation's total law enforcement force. And today, at least some 53 separate
> >federal agencies have the authority to carry firearms and make arrests. This
> >represents an enormous expansion of powers in recent years, in terms of
> >personnel, equipment, and jurisdiction.
> >
> >The Congressional and Senate Investigations of the Waco and Ruby Ridge
> >debacles have resulted in NO prosecutions or actions toward preventing
> >further abuses by the federal police forces.
> >
> >We are further outraged and disappointed by the passage of the short-sighted
> >"1996 AntiTerrorism Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act".  This
> >Act is
> >a set of prescriptions for the types of law enforcement abuses and a total
> >lack of independent accountability that we have already seen in Waco, Ruby
> >Ridge, and other cases that have enraged American citizens.
> >
> >In Tennessee, a State Law was passed last year that allows law enforcement to
> >confiscate the vehicles of those "charged" with DUI offenses.  The
> >"confiscations" take place at the scene of the arrest - and NOT after the
> >Court has found the DUI offender guilty of the offense.  These officers have
> >taken upon themselves to confiscate vehicles (on the spot) for other offenses
> >as well (i.e. expired licenses, overdue fines not paid, etc.).  These abuses
> >by local law enforcement is a "spill-down" if you will from federal police
> >officers who confiscate property - land, automobiles, money, computers,
> >airplanes, etc. etc. - also at the point of
> >"arrest" - no trial - and sometimes - no arrests are made at all - just
> >confiscations by federal police thugs.
> >
> >The MOST irate feelings that I have are that the federal police forces are
> >combining with local police forces (both county and city) into a 100-man Task
> >Force and violating citizens' rights by bursting into their homes or
> >neighborhoods (no search warrants) and terrorizing them.  These "task forces"
> >consists of not only the FBI, BATF, DEA, but the Dept. of  Agriculture,
> >Customs, Fish and Wildlife, TVA, and whatever federal agency forces are handy
> >at the time.
> >
> >THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE -  FIX IT.
> >
> >Dorothy H. Bibee
> >[Street Address Omitted]
> >[phone]
> >[e-mail]
> >
> >                                            \\\\|////
> >                                       ( o  o )
> >                           --oO0o------U------oO0o---
> >     "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  Thomas Jefferson
> >   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >      SAFAN %Dot Bibee  ([e-mail])  Ph/FAX [phone]
> >      SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net
> >   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >

> Sarah Thompson, M.D.
> The Righter
> PO Box 1185
> Sandy, UT 84091-1185
> http://www.therighter.com
>
> 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

--
Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe
is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element.  But my
theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is
more plentiful than hydrogen.
                                  -Frank Zappa



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  British Utopia
Date: 19 Jun 1997 16:33:58 -0700

-----------------fwd-msg--------------------
From [e-mail] Thu Jun 12 20:27:48 1997
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]


Now that the British govt has directed it's subjects to hand over their
means of defence in the hopes of building a Socialist Utopia, I say we
should assist them when ever possible.

1.  We should demand the immediate removal of ALL U.S. troops and
dependents from England.  The new Socialist govt may demand that our
personnel divest themselves of handguns.  This would eliminate their
ability to defend themselves.  OR they would grant them an "exemption"
and our troops could be considered "occupation forces".  Anyway, the
Socialists now believe that guns are a hinderance to their "civilized"
society and they obviously no longer need our money or troops to help
them  keep it.

2.  We should immediately inform ALL GANGS in the U.S. that England
now  outlaws the private possesion of guns for defence of self and
home.   Therefore they should refrain from going there and causing
trouble.   The  UNARMED law enforcement officers would not like it.

3.  The Congress should pass a LAW forever PROHIBITING the
exportation of  ANY ARMS to England for ANY REASON.  This will "do
our part" to ensure  the continuation of the Socialist Utopia.

When Hitler was washing his feet in the English Channel after Dunkirk,
England BEGGED the U.S. population for GUNS to defend themselves
with.   Most of their armaments had been lost in the retreat from France.
Ordinary U.S. citizens responded by sending tens of thousands of
hunting  rifles to England.  As a result, England was never invaded. A
few  years ago, the Socialist govt had to spend tens of thousands of
pounds  to round up these guns and destroy them. We must NEVER do
this again.

To introduce guns into this society again would undoubtedly cause
MASS  MURDER to happen on every street corner.

Now that England has ENDED CRIME and ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR
DEFENCE by  passing a LAW outlawing guns, we should do everything
in our power to  make sure they have every opportunity to roast in their
own juices.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "Waco" Tries to Place the Blame
Date: 18 Jun 1997 22:34:00 -0700


Starts Friday at the Tower
                     Austin American Statesman
                            May 5, 1997

                  "Waco" Tries to Place the Blame

"Waco: The Rules of Engagement" presents so much powerful evidence, in such
 a persuasive manner, that the wisest critical advice would seem to be to
 tell every interested party to see it, then break into discussion groups.

                          By Ann Hornaday
                  American-Statesman Film Critic

"Waco: The Rules of Engagement" presents so much powerful evidence,
in such a persuasive manner, that the wisest critical advice would
seem to be to tell every interested party to see it, then break into
discussion groups. Because audiences will have divergent takes on
this nearly 3-hour film, which traces the events that led up to the
fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993. But no one will
deny that the perspectives and facts it presents are crucial to a
fuller understanding of what may be one of the murkiest and most
disturbing chapters in American political history.

"Waco: The Rules of Engagement," which was directed by William Gazecki
and produced by Amy Sommer Gifford and Dan Gifford, goes about its
business with somber deliberation, building its case with workmanlike
steadiness and allowing the inherent drama of the Waco tragedy to
emerge of its own accord.

Using rare archival film of the first Branch Davidians, interviews with
attorneys and scholars, and C-SPAN video of the congressional hearings
that followed the siege's fiery end in 1993, "Waco" convincingly suggests
that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms manufactured
the raid on the Mount Carmel compound in order to get favorable publicity
before appropriations hearings; that the BATF and eventually the FBI
continually lied during negotiations with Branch Davidian leader David
Koresh and his lieutenants; and that the U.S. government never had
control of its forces in Texas -- forces that became more and more
unbalanced as time wore on and Koresh's resolve hardened.

As one Harvard psychologist puts it, he went to Waco in order to study
the people inside the compound, wondering what kind of cult would behave
in such self-destructive ways. When he arrived -- to the FBI blaring
Nancy Sinatra songs and the cries of dying rabbits from loudspeakers --
he began to think that the people outside were more worthy of inquiry.

Damning evidence

Using very little narration and a brooding, repetitive synthesizer
score, Gazecki has woven a daunting amount of material into a
thoroughly absorbing narrative. Especially interesting are the "home
movies" of the Davidians and the FBI; some damning audio tapes of
mendacious negotiators and a desperate call to 911 during the first
moments of the ATF raid. And, in clear-eyed, laconic counterpoint to
"Waco's" most disturbing material, there's some pretty convincing
remarks from the Waco chief of police, a Texas Ranger and a medical
examiner whose video records of the fire's aftermath mysteriously
disappeared while in FBI hands. (Presumably it went to the same place
the feds sent a metal door to the compound that held clues about who
fired the first shots.) By the film's grim last moments, it seems
startlingly clear that, as one former FBI special agent puts it, the
Branch Davidians weren't victims of a suicide; they were victims of
a homicide.

The centerpoint of "Waco's" argument is video taken by the FBI using
Forward InfraRed (FLIR) technology -- a heat-sensitive "night vision"
system that American audiences first saw during the Persian Gulf War.
With the help of FLIR expert Edward Allard, the filmmakers play -- and
replay and replay -- the grainy images of a tank entering the back of
the Davidian building, with bursts of light that seem to represent
machine-gun fire. Later, Allard concludes that government forces not
only fired on the Mount Carmel compound, they also deliberately ran
over a Branch Davidian member with a tank, then set the fatal fires
by shooting into a tear-gas filled house.

Of course, this is the most explosive material presented in "Waco,"
and it's all the more gripping because the back side of the building
was off-limits to the press, which was kept a mile away from the
compound by federal agents. It is also a problematic moment, when
viewers are being led through material that they cannot interpret on
their own. Even with such a convincing witness as Allard, the FLIR
material -- although admittedly compelling -- may not be as conclusive
as the filmmakers would like it to be.

Koresh as saint

Still, "Waco" doesn't have to be conclusive to make its point, which
is that there are still some tough questions about Waco that demand
attention.

The film pays short shrift to Koresh's responsibility for putting his
followers and their children in harm's way, and its treatment of the
two charges that ostensibly brought the government to Waco in the
first place -- child sexual abuse and weapons stockpiling -- is
superficial and contradictory. (Koresh is shown admitting that he's
hoarding guns because he believes he might need them to fight the
federal government, then a Davidian survivor dismisses the stockpile
as the collection of a hobbyist.)

The filmmakers' efforts to humanize Koresh and his followers are
understandable and even laudable. But it isn't necessary to portray
Koresh as a saint in order to lend credence to the theory that the
government -- and its agents who went "off the shelf" -- was responsible
for what happened at Waco, and blatantly covered up its culpability
to a credulous Congress.

The most chilling scene of "Waco" isn't in the FLIR tapes, nor the
sickening photographs of children who were burnt and bent beyond
recognition. It's when the first tank rams its way into the Davidian
compound, pumping the building with toxic gas. After all that's gone
before, it is impossible at that particular moment to remember what
the argument was originally about. And the nagging sensation one comes
away with from "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is that the men driving
the tanks -- and their bosses in Washington -- couldn't remember, either.

(c)1997, Cox Interactive Media, Inc.





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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: the waco flick
Date: 23 Jun 1997 13:14:41 -0600

Well,

So we went Friday night.  Didn't notice that they had thrown
any "weird" stuff in as Mike McNulty said they had.  Just noticed
that they had cut out some bits about the tanks using an old
VietNam manuever to mash tunnels and crush any people in them,
and some of the FBI moving around some of the "evidence".  Also
missing this time were the pix of the supposedly burned (yet
surprisingly un-charred) machine guns lining the wall.

On second viewing I was able to see the FBI shooters roll off
the tanks before firing into the gym and kitchen area.  Also
since I knew where to look I was able to see nearly all of the
prone shooters (who never fired a SINGLE ROUND) shooting into
the kitchen.  Still wonder where Schumer got "NO ONE who knows
anything about these things would EVER say that a FLASH BANG
device would hurt anyone...."  Good ole Orrin still shines like
a ruby in a goats a** when he proclaims that there was no evidence
of a coverup or political corruption...

Given the parrallels between the Davidians and the religion I
was raised with, it's surprising that I only saw possibly one
mormon there.  It should be shown in every seminary class in
the state....lest we forget the way _we_ were treated by the
Feds for our "wacky" religious practices.

Biggest surprise:
6 people in the audience.  Two of them had already seen the thing.
Another two were making jokes.  Outside the theater, some 200
people waiting to see the "sick and twisted animation festival"...
(can't imagine anything more sick and twisted than the fat BATF
pig whining before congress that anyone who would accuse the
BATF of doing wrong is nothing more than a big, mean bully.  I
thought the poor sociopath might start crying right then and there.)

So, in retrospect....
I guess it's true about this place we live....we've sold our souls
for "acceptance" and all that blather about "if only there was a
way to make the truth be known about the FBI and BATF...." is really
nothing more than just blather.  We can't even take the time to
watch a stupid movie...maybe help it be seen...maybe bring someone
else who could benefit...The work some of us did to get the stupid
movie shown here again was for nothing.

feh



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

From: andelain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: the waco flick
Date: 23 Jun 1997 13:16:47 -0600 (MDT)

Newsgroups: utah.general
References: <5nnig6$d12$[e-mail]> <5noqkb$[e-mail]> <5np5e1$rv2$[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961203]

YOW!!!!

In article <5np5e1$rv2$[e-mail]> you wrote:
> Corey:

> I am not disputing Mr.Rodman's right to free speech, I am condemning Mr.
> Rodman's words.  I am exercising, along with NAACP and the Anti-Defamation
> League , the right to free speech in condemning Mr. Rodman's comments.  I
> am ask the President to do the same, since it is consistent with his past
> actions.

> Free speech does not carry the requirement that I or anyone else listen to
> it or approve it's contents.  Any there are limits on free speech?  At the
> extreme would you allow Mr. McVey (spelling?) to claim free speech in the
> OKC bombing?  And there is always the old example of yelling fire in a
> crowded room.

> I have heard the type of speech Mr. Rodman used many time when I was young
> growing up in Georgia.  Except at that time the speakers were white and
> member of the KKK.  They used this type of speech in reference to Negroes (I
> did clean up the term), Catholics, Jews and  something called Mormons, it
> was a long while before I figured what the later was.

> I did not like it then, I do not like it now.  I will condemn such speech
> from what ever party and continue to ask others to condemn such speech.
> This is my right to free speech.  Free speech does not mean everything said
> should be said, it is time for civility to return to our every day speech
> through self control.

> Since I do not following basketball (I do love skiing and ice hockey), I
> know of Mr. Rodman from all of his off-court antics. (In fact, I maybe one
> of the few people in Utah that does not know who won last night.)  I do not
> feel Opray violated his right to free speech by refusing his visit to her
> show on the basis that his new book was just not appropriate for a public
> forum.

> John M. Schaeffer
> [e-mail]




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

From: andelain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: the waco flick
Date: 23 Jun 1997 13:16:47 -0600 (MDT)

Newsgroups: utah.general
References: <5nnig6$d12$[e-mail]> <5noqkb$[e-mail]> <5np5e1$rv2$[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961203]

YOW!!!!

In article <5np5e1$rv2$[e-mail]> you wrote:
> Corey:

> I am not disputing Mr.Rodman's right to free speech, I am condemning Mr.
> Rodman's words.  I am exercising, along with NAACP and the Anti-Defamation
> League , the right to free speech in condemning Mr. Rodman's comments.  I
> am ask the President to do the same, since it is consistent with his past
> actions.

> Free speech does not carry the requirement that I or anyone else listen to
> it or approve it's contents.  Any there are limits on free speech?  At the
> extreme would you allow Mr. McVey (spelling?) to claim free speech in the
> OKC bombing?  And there is always the old example of yelling fire in a
> crowded room.

> I have heard the type of speech Mr. Rodman used many time when I was young
> growing up in Georgia.  Except at that time the speakers were white and
> member of the KKK.  They used this type of speech in reference to Negroes (I
> did clean up the term), Catholics, Jews and  something called Mormons, it
> was a long while before I figured what the later was.

> I did not like it then, I do not like it now.  I will condemn such speech
> from what ever party and continue to ask others to condemn such speech.
> This is my right to free speech.  Free speech does not mean everything said
> should be said, it is time for civility to return to our every day speech
> through self control.

> Since I do not following basketball (I do love skiing and ice hockey), I
> know of Mr. Rodman from all of his off-court antics. (In fact, I maybe one
> of the few people in Utah that does not know who won last night.)  I do not
> feel Opray violated his right to free speech by refusing his visit to her
> show on the basis that his new book was just not appropriate for a public
> forum.

> John M. Schaeffer
> [e-mail]




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Bill Gates launches drive to register firearms
Date: 23 Jun 1997 20:29:00 -0700


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

Newsgroups: rec.guns
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science,
              Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <5ogp5m$[e-mail]>

As soon as one Microsoft billionaire apparently bought an election
to have Washington state taxpayers build him a new football stadium
Bill Gates has jumped into the "buy a law" bandwagon.

Last night, 6-19-97, it was announced on local news that Mr. Gates
has launched an initiative drive to register all handguns in the
state of Washington. He was reported to be concerned with the rising
incidence of firearm violence (I thought violent crime was down?).

Mr. Gates hopes to bypass the Republican controlled WA legislature
by gaining enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot.
If that happens, Washington residents can expect to be sold on the
idea with Gates' spending millions on local anti-gun ads, the same
as Paul Allen's media assault on the truth.

Mr. Gates appears to believe that the "Bill of Rights" is a buffet
of which we can pick whatever tastes good and reject that which is
distasteful. When the "Free Speech Online Blue Ribbon Campaign" was
begun to protest the Telecommunications Act Mr. Gates supported the
First Amendment and placed the Blue Ribbon Campaign logo on his
(Microsoft's) web pages. His step child (the internet) was under
attack by those that want to amend the meaning of free speech.

Two questions. How can a guy smart enough to become that rich be
that stupid? Also, if it passes here, will your state be the next
to suffer the wrath of his billions?

As a self employed computer specialist I am really ticked off. I
spend my life working on Microsoft/Intel based systems and can't
even boycott Gates' products as I did with Toshiba after they sold
the silent sub technology to the Soviets. I did sell my Microsoft
stock today but tomorrow I have to install and configure $8000 worth
of Microsoft software. I've been turned into a whore.

What's a country to do?

Take care,

James Hay





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  "A Total Ban" (satire) -Forwarded
Date: 24 Jun 1997 15:09:46 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA10709; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:26:21 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA19548; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019535; Sat Jun 21 23:30:26 1997
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

"A Total Ban"
(to the tune of "Monster Mash" -- apologies to the Beach Boys)

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

I was working at my desk late one night
When I heard something that gave me fright
Seems my clone Tony Blair had banned handguns
And got those Brit militias on the run

(He did a ban)
He did a total ban
(A total ban)
And now he's the man
(A total ban)
It's gotten out of hand
(He did a ban)
He did a total ban

I couldn't let Tony have all the fun
So now I've got to ban all U.S. guns
The wonks have all come to my borrowed abode
To plan how we'll set out down that road

(To our own ban)
To our own total ban
(A total ban)
Then I'll be the man
(A total ban)
The status quo won't stand
(We'll do a ban)
We'll do a total ban

Out from her coffin Hillary's voice did ring
Since she was troubled by just one thing
She opened the lid, threw a lamp
And shrieked, "Distract the media from that Paula Jones tramp!"

(We'll do a ban)
We'll do a total ban
(A total ban)
It'll be the law of the land
(A total ban)
We'll do it 'cause we can
(A total ban)
We'll do a total ban

(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
"Ban! Ahhh! Good!"
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
<CRASH!>
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
Hey Hillary, what'd you throw that lamp for?
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
"Total ban! Me LIKE!"
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
<CRASH!>
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
Head for the hills, boys, she's gonna blow!
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)
<SMASH!>
(Ah-oooooh! A total ban)

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

Kevin McGehee
North Pole, Alaska
[e-mail]
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/

The right to keep and bear arms is the
"canary in a coal mine" for all other freedoms.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Fwd: From an Israeli friend-] -Forwarded
Date: 24 Jun 1997 15:09:59 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA11368; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:15:44 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA19505; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019498; Sun Jun 22 20:19:36 1997
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mail.xmission.com by ICSI.Net (8.8.5/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA10061; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:09:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #2)
    id 0wfuql-00036U-00; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:11:11 -0600
Received: from sky.net [198.70.175.2] (root)
    by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #2)
    id 0wfuqi-00036G-00; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:11:08 -0600
Received: from mail.sky.net (1Cust45.Max1.Kansas-City.MO.MS.UU.NET [153.35.216.45])
    by sky.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01381
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:11:03 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer for OS/2 (Green Edition Ver 2.5)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Brad,

I just visited your home page and enjoyed it quite a bit.

I thought you might be interested in knowing the gun situation here in
Israel.  In theory, we have very tought control laws.  It takes quite a
bit of time to get a license.

BUT...every soldier is required to keep his gun with him, even while on
leave.  This means that every 19-21 year old girl and every 19-22 boy
has an automatic rifle, with a minimum of two full clips, at all times.

In addition, the same rules apply when you are in reserve duty.  All men
do 30 days a year reserves until they are 50, and they, too, carry
M-16s.

If you live in what is considered a dangerous area, like I do (along the
Lebanese border) you are issued a M-16 which you keep at home (with 5
full clips).  Some people, like myself, have special army duties that
require additional firepower.  I was deputy commander of an sniper unit
(reserves) and had an FN sniper rifle.

BUT -- despite all this, Israel has one of the lowest violent crime
rates in the world.  On the rare occasion that a weapon is misused it is
front page news.

Sort of casts doubt on the wisdom of keeping citizens unarmed, doesn't
it?

Dov











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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Anyone wanting to send Message to those Reps Refuseing  to Cosponsor HR 1009- Check this out!]
Date: 24 Jun 1997 18:19:39 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Check out:

http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html



Congressional Auto-Mailer

 This auto-mailer is currently configured to send a message in support
of Rep. Helen Chenoweth's (R-ID) H.R. 1009 (repeals the odious
Lautenberg Domestic Violence Gun Ban) to those Representatives who
have not yet cosponsored the repeal.  However, you can send whatever
message you wish to any member of Congress. Senators and
Representatives are displayed by State; your shift key will work when
selecting multiple Representatives or multiple Senators as long as
they are contiguous. (Not all members of Congress have e-mail
addresses.)
 A copy of your message will be sent to your e-mail address so that
you will know the program has successfully delivered your e-mail. You
must supply complete information, as the word we get from the Hill is
that e-mail without complete contact info is largely ignored. For
tracking purposes, your name and e-mail address will be appended to a
file viewable only by the GOA Webmaster; we will know that you sent a
message, but not the text of what you sent. Please inform us if any
mail is returned as undeliverable.

----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 God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."--Thomas
 Jefferson (1774)



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: How To Have Fun At Others' Expense
Date: 27 Jun 1997 21:01:00 -0700



This just in from Militia of Montana:

Ed Assner is running an anti Hand Gun program in California.

Ed Assner has an 800 number you can call to get a package of papers.
800 numbers cost money, and so does sending out literature. We are starting
a campaign to get as many people as possible to call and order the package.
Included in the package is a return envelope that we want to see people
enclose their opionions in and return it. The 800 number has an automated
system, and a manual system with an operator.

USE THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM IF POSSIBLE, IT EATS UP MORE TIME.

The 800 number is (800-222-6269) Call it, and get as many people as
you can to also call and order their package.

Major Victor Pirie RIO ACMN & SSA





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: High Court Trims Brady Law
Date: 27 Jun 1997 22:47:00 -0700


Posted by [e-mail] to [e-mail]
on Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:44:28 -0400 (EDT)

More from the newswires, this was the last case of the session....

REUTERS--The Supreme Court has invalidated a key portion of the Brady
gun-control law. On a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down a provision
requiring local sheriffs to check the backgrounds of prospective buyers for
records of crimes or other disqualifications. The court said it's
unconstitutional for the federal government to make such demands of state and
local law enforcement. President Clinton said he wants law enforcement
officials to know that even though the court ruled the federal government
could not require criminal background checks on gun purchasers, police could
still perform them. The court left intact another provision that requires a
five-day waiting period for purchasing a gun.





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Wash Post FLIR spin-COPS
Date: 30 Jun 1997 14:00:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    against constitutional terrorist <[e-mail]>,
    restore our constitution <[e-mail]>,
    Liberty-and-Justice <[e-mail]>
Cc: No Gun Bans <[e-mail]>, Mike McNulty <[e-mail]>
 the Washington Post on June 20, 1997

A Press Release From

The CITIZENS ORGANIZATION
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
1001-A East Harmony Rd. #353
Ft. Collins, Co. 80525

June 27, 1997 A disturbing "spin" from the Washington Post. In the June
20, 1997 edition of the Washington Post, Richard Leiby reports that
machine gun fire into the Branch Davidian complex on April 19, 1993,
"didn't happen", according to the Maryland Advanced Development Laboratory
in Greenbelt, Maryland. While we certainly hold an opposing view on this
issue, we are perplexed by the Posts' spin on this story. The real issue
centers on the Lab's attempt to compare one kind of infrared camera to a
totally different kind of infrared device, and then calling it an 'apples
to apples' comparison yielding "valid results." We would like to pose
several questions of our own to the Washington Post with real expectations
of their being answered.

1. Why didn't the Post report that, before the story was printed the
reporter attempted to get the correct information on the make and model
of the FLIR device used by the FBI, after being informed that the
original information supplied by the FBI representative was incorrect?
This was the primary data used by the Maryland Institute to model
computerized analysis of the "alleged" gun fire, and thereby critical
information. As the old saying goes, "Garbage in - Garbage out!" The
bad data skewed the test result to a false reading.

2. Why didn't the report contain the response of the FBI when Lieby asked
for the correct data on the device used at Waco? At first the FBI relied
on the old saw, "we can't give it to you because of 'National Security'
concerns." The FLIR technology used at Waco had been "declassified" two
years before the Waco incident.

3. Why didn't the report state that when pressed further for the correct
information by the Posts' stalwart reporter, the FBI shifted to the ploy
of "pending litigation prevents us from speaking to you further on this
subject."? It's interesting to note the FBI was falling all over itself
in cooperation with the Posts' first story on this subject (Washington
Post, 4-18-97), even though the aforementioned "litigation" was "pending"
even at that moment.

4. Why didn't the report give all the facts as to how the Post came to be
in contact with the Maryland Institute? The article leads the reader to
believe that the Post sought out the Institute. In fact, the president of
the institute contacted the reporter after reading the first story and
"volunteered" to conduct some very costly tests for the Post (at no costs to
the paper). The Maryland Institute as a "volunteer" becomes interesting when
we note that it holds a valuable government contract to develop an infrared
based counter-sniper detection system for the military. Additionally, the
report failed to mention the fact that the Maryland Advanced Development Lab
is part of the same operation (the University of Maryland) that provided the
government's analysis of the fires at Waco. The government presented the
findings of two "experts", Dr. James G. Quintiere and Dr. Fredrick Mower in
a document entitled "Fire Development Analysis Mount Carmel Branch Davidian
Compound, Waco Texas, April 19, 1993."

Dr. Quintieri presented those findings as a government witness for the
prosecution in the Branch Davidian criminal trial in 1994. In 1995 Quintiere
presented those findings to a Congressional committee investigating the
government's role at Waco. At that time, Quintiere offered the original
government hypothesis for the FLIR anomalies as "...flashes of sunlight
off of debris in the rubble." Dr. Quintiere is not a FLIR expert. His
expertise lies in the field of fire development and progression - he is
an arson investigation instructor at the University of Maryland.

 In the final analyses, the questions raised by our film on the gunfire
at the back of the Branch Davidian complex on April 19, 1993, still stand
unanswered. Hopefully, the Washington Post will see fit to answer our
questions about their reporting on June 20. Until then, we continue to
welcome all scientific inquiry into the subject of Federal gunfire at Waco
on April the 19th, 1993. To that end we have attached a copy of a letter to
the Editor of the Washington Post, written by our FLIR expert, Dr. Allard,
restating his position on the gunfire issues addressed in the Post's story
of June 20,1997.

Additionally, we feel compelled to observe a fact of comtemporary
journalistic life. It was best expressed by Texas journalist Dick Reavis
in a recent commentary on the media, "Reporters are like doctors that
work for HMOs - we ain't callin' the shots no more. Bean counters and
investors (Publishers) are." ("Nieman Fellow, Dick Reavis). While we are
disturbed by the Post's 'diagnosis', we appreciate the honest efforts of
"Doctor" Lieby.

We continue to have every confidence in the position taken by our expert,
those of CBS "60 Minutes", and others - the images in the FBI FLIR footage
are consistent with automatic weapons fire being directed at the Branch
Davidians from the back of the complex on the 19th of April, 1993.


Michael J. McNulty, Producer/ Researcher "Waco - the Rules of Engagement".
Director of Citizens Organization for Public Safety

William Gazecki, Producer/Director "Waco - the Rules of Engagement"

Please see Michael McNulty regarding questions

OFFICE [phone] FAX [phone]