ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9806

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-30 | 507KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: CONGRESS ACTION: May 31, 1998
Date: 01 Jun 1998 18:34:00 -0700


CHAGRIN AT CNN: Once again the nation was assaulted by the news of
another out-of-control teenager taking off after his schoolmates with
guns. This time the carnage was in Oregon, and in the end the death
count was two, the wounded perhaps two dozen. The weapons consisted of a
.22 rifle and two semi-automatic handguns (Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady
take note -- not a "high powered" rifle, "assault rifle", high capacity
clip, laser sight, or bayonet lug to be found). Shamelessly, the media
wasted no time trying to use the tragedy to advance their own political
agenda. The New York Times demanded "...that congress rise above its
traditional allegiance to the contribution wielding gun lobby and enact
legislation...", and went on to report freshman Representative Carolyn
McCarthy's (D-NY) intention to introduce a bill to, among other things,
"...mandate that gun manufacturers produce safer and child-proof
weapons" (whatever that means).

The carnage at the Oregon school ended when several students tackled
the shooter and wrestled him to the ground, disarming him. Two of those
heroes were brothers Josh and Jake Ryker (the latter was wounded during
the shooting). Predictably, the media circus descended on the Rykers,
who held a news conference which was broadcast over FOX and CNN.
Typically in such situations, those involved in such an event espouse
the media/liberal-approved knee-jerk reaction: such events demonstrate
the "obvious" need for more gun control laws. The media should have
anticipated that the Rykers wouldn't fall into that typical pattern,
however, when Mr. Ryker appeared at the news conference wearing an
NRA-ILA cap. So eager were they to advance their political agenda,
however, that the reporters plowed ahead anyway. The following exchange
took place, no doubt to the growing horror of the news directors in the
control booths, watching as someone dared to contradict the approved
party line over their network, watching as some common sense managed to
emerge:

Reporter: Mr. Ryker, did you mean to make a statement wearing that NRA cap?
Mr. Ryker: No, I didn't.
Reporter: But I understand you to say this event has not prompted you
for any type of gun laws?
Mr. Ryker: No, not at all.
Mrs. Ryker: I would like to say something on behalf of my husband
because of his knowledge of guns, his support in the NRA. He has raised
my two boys very much aware of guns. They're not afraid of them. They
are knowledgeable of them. They know how to respect a gun. And I think
that all of that did lead to the fact that my boys did not panic when
they seen him, and they tried to assist and help.
Reporter: What if he hadn't had a gun? Some would say then he wouldn't be...
Mrs. Ryker: Jake took a knife off of him.
Josh Ryker: We pulled knives off of him, whatever munitions and weapons
he had in his backpack we did not see.
Mrs. Ryker: A weapon is a weapon.
Josh Ryker: A weapon is a weapon.
Mr. Ryker: It's already illegal for the kid to have those in school.
Passing any more laws, what's the difference? He's already broke those.
What's to stop the person from breaking any new laws you pass?
Reporter: So you don't think any new laws should come out of this?
Mr. Ryker: No.

The shooting in Oregon has had other unexpected fallout, which must
be driving Sarah Brady and the rest of the gun banners up a wall in
frustration. Some serious commentators are actually discussing the
possibility that teachers should be armed to help stop such attacks in
the future. In fact, several recent school shootings have been stopped
by private citizens bearing their own weapons. The national debate has
been pushed in this direction in part because of a recently published
book by John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law, University of Chicago, titled
"More Guns, Less Crime". The title sums up his analysis of 18 years of
FBI crime statistics. Based on that study, Lott concluded that "States
with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops
in violent crimes. ... Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for
two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because
criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves.
Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend
themselves." Douglas Weil, research director at the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence (affiliated with Handgun Control Inc., chaired by Sarah
Brady) called Lott's study a "...dangerous political agenda...", and
went on to draw the predictable conclusion that "...the United States
already has more guns in civilian hands than any other industrialized
nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the world's highest
rates of gun crime." Weil claimed that "...the American people and law
enforcement know better."

As to what "law enforcement knows", Executive Director of the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America (a nationwide organization which is
comprised of law enforcement officers, crime victims and concerned
citizens) Jim Fotis calls 'right-to-carry' legislation a "proven,
street-smart measure that will effectively impact on violent crime and
assist victims and police officers." Fotis describes the definition of
gun control according to the gun grabbers as "...restricting the rights
of, and disarming, peaceable citizens. And the answer to that idea is a
loud and clear, unambiguous "NO", at least from real cops. ... Law
Enforcement is not the enemy of private gun ownership." Surveys of law
enforcement officers bear out Fotis: several 1997 polls showed that rank
and file police support a private citizen's right to carry concealed
weapons (84.9%); believe that private ownership of firearms increases
public safety (87.1%); oppose a ban of semi-automatic rifles (96.8%);
that banning firearms with characteristics demonized by the gun banners
(laser sights, large capacity magazines, etc.) will not reduce crime
(94.7%); that further restrictions on gun ownership will not reduce
violent crime (92.1%); and most chiefs of police (89.6%) believe that
the Second Amendment protects a citizens right to buy firearms for self
defense or sport. Additionally, 87.6% of the chiefs of police do not
believe that the media are fair or balanced in reporting the news.

As to what the American people know, years of ignorance about the
Constitution and American history in general, disinformation about
firearms, and ongoing media hysteria, lies, and distortions, has
produced a very confused public. A recent poll of public attitudes about
guns showed that although people think the Second Amendment protects the
right to bear arms or own a gun (88.1%); a majority (59.9%) don't think
that gun regulations violate that right; think that private citizens
carrying concealed weapons would put the rest of us in danger (60.4%);
and most (61.1%) think that society tends to look at gun owners in a
negative way.

Incidentally, for all the blather from the media and liberals about
political contributions from the "gun lobby", in the interest of full
disclosure Congresswoman McCarthy would no doubt want people to know how
much in political contributions she has received from the "anti-gun
lobby". According to data from the Federal Election Commission, during
the 1995-96 election cycle (in addition to contributions from the usual
collection of liberal/democrat sources -- labor and teacher's unions,
environmentalists, Emily's List, etc), McCarthy received $7954 in cash
and in-kind contributions from the Handgun Control Voter Education Fund;
and in the current election cycle (for her upcoming 1998 congressional
race), McCarthy has received $2000 so far from the Handgun Control Voter
Education Fund.

Mr. Kim Weissman
[e-mail]
CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet:
http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/

Locate Bills (text and status):
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c105query.html

Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Framing The Terms.... 1/2
Date: 02 Jun 1998 06:56:00 -0700


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

Skip Wayland <[e-mail]>

                     Framing The Terms

Like  many  of you, I get vexed about how we  --  those  who
support our Nation's Constitution, and the ideas upon  which
it was founded -- constantly appear to be the recipients  of
slanderous  remarks  from  elitists who  believe  they  have
attained  Nirvana and further believe that we are  imbeciles
for not following their leadership.  Our ideas are  continu-
ally maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these
people.   They are very effective at using catchy labels  to
frame  our  position while we have simply tried  to  counter
their  wild, irresponsible accusations with  rational  argu-
ments leading to well-deliberated conclusions.

In  spite  of  our attempts to provide  rationality  to  the
issues we many times appear to be losing the battle for  the
hearts and minds of middle America because our opponents  --
with  media  support -- persist in using  sound  bites  that
provoke a visceral effect against our cause.  Our  opponents
don't  talk in terms of the academia or the judicatory  when
they  malign us to the public, but we sometimes  respond  in
that  manner in our own defense, and when we do we  are  not
understood by the vast majority of people in this nation who
have a problem reading the Sunday comics.  We find ourselves
attempting  to defend our position in an argument where  the
terms and definitions have been outlined by our opponents in
feeling, not logic.

Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because
we allow ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms
whose  definition has been delineated by our adversary.   We
end  up defending our doctrine against the terms defined  by
our  antagonists  rather than conveying our beliefs  on  the
argument  itself.  This happens over and over again and  yet
we  continue to allow ourselves to be brought  into  discus-
sions  wherein  the language used is terms  defined  by  the
opposition.  The following are some of the terms to which  I
refer:

*    Saturday Night Special
*    Cop Killer Bullets
*    Assault Weapons
*    Weapons Of Mass Destruction
*    Designed Only For Killing People
*    Sniper Rifle
*    High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems
*    Hair Trigger
*    Easily Accessible Firearms
*    Unregistered Firearm
*    Dum Dum Bullets
*    No Sporting Purpose
+    a bunch more that slip my mind at this point.

As  you read down that list it is very likely that  each  of
those  terms brought some image to your mind or evoked  some
gut  reaction  in  you  at  some  level.   Why??   Why   the
reaction??   Some  of those terms bring  forth  images  that
define a natural reaction against the item; like "Cop Killer
Bullets".   Other  terms that we may have used  in  everyday
language have been so skewed in their meaning over the years
by our opponents that they now have a different meaning than
they originally had, like "Saturday Night Special", which  I
always  thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer  and
pizza.

The  point is that we, as a group who support the  Constitu-
tion and firearms ownership as defined by our Founders, must
start defining the terms of the debate from our perspective.
We must take the battle to our adversaries using terms  that
we  define; terms that put them on the defensive.   We  must
start  paying attention to how we phrase things,  and  espe-
cially  make  efforts to define terms that bring  about  the
desired visceral effect in people who are open to impression
on  these  issues and get most of their  news  in  broadcast
media sound bites.

Not  only must we define these terms, we also must  come  up
with  some  mechanism to get these terms into  the  national
mainstream.   This is where our opponents do so well.   They
pick  up on these little catch phrases and pass them  around
among  themselves,  and then start getting them  into  media
sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using  their
terms - including us !!

This  situation  must be reversed.  We must all  strive,  by
whatever  means  we have available, to put those  who  would
deprive  us of our liberties into a defensive  posture  that
requires  them to explain their position with regard to  our
ideas  and  terms.  Yes, we must continue  to  offer  cogent
arguments  that support our position.  We have, thank  good-
ness, more and more very capable people who continue to join
our camp on these issues.  We must always continue to  bring
good,  dedicated people into this conflict on our side.   We
must, however, strive to get all of those who support us  to
not only continue in the vein they are currently in but also
to start thinking about the terms they use in framing  their
arguments.  If the terms we use can be sharpened to paint  a
mental  picture  that elicits a positive  portrayal  of  our
position,  or a negative portrayal of our  opponent's  posi-
tion,  then we can start to present arguments that not  only
hold  up  in  courts of law, but also the  court  of  public
opinion.  I, for one, think it is worth a try.

We  can make it work by passing around ideas.  There  are  a
lot  of  us who are very sharp people who  will,  hopefully,
start using our individual and collective wits to outwit the
opposition on a very basic and effective level.  But we need
some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative,  and
medical communities, the news media, and to pass this infor-
mation  around  the  Nation quickly so the  terms  that  are
introduced  can get wide spread dissemination.  The idea  is
to pass ideas, and not necessarily for anyone in  particular
to say that this idea is good and that one is bad.   Perhaps
a  consensus on some terms can be reached at some level.   I
don't  know.  This is just an idea I have.  I  hope  someone
out  there  in cyberspace agrees that it is a good  one  and
will pick up the ball and run with it.  Perhaps someone  out
there  is  willing to be the  repository,  collection,   and
dissemination point for this effort.  Organizations that are
experienced  in the battle for our rights have the  know-how
and the wherewithal to put this together on a national level
and  make  it work.  There is nothing wrong with  the  major
organizations  working to accomplish their  own  objectives,
BUT...  on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of  the
major, and minor, associates on our side of this debate must
achieve a unified front if this effort is to have any effect
what-so-ever.     The   NRA,   GOA,   LEAA,   LSAS,    JPFO,
etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort
and start talking with each other regarding the  terminology
we use.  We also need mechanisms to get it to those who  can
get  it into sound bites.  I'll be happy to act as the  ini-
tial point of contact to get it started but someone else  is
needed to sustain it.

I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfor-
tunately  I don't know who first coined many of  these.   If
some  of  these ideas sound sophomoric to you then  get  off
your duff and come up with some of your own.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Framing The Terms.... 2/2
Date: 02 Jun 1998 06:56:00 -0700


 1.  Always  refer  to a gun control advocate as  a  "Victim
     Disarmament Extremist" or "Predator Advocate"

 2.  We  should refer to ourselves as being  "ProChoice  AND
     ProLife" on the firearms issue.  Or take the sting  out
     of it and call yourself a: "Self Defense Advocate"

 3.  Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a  "CIVIL
     RIGHTS ISSUE" in addition to any other manner in  which
     it is addressed.

 4.  Firearms  registration or firearms  owner  registration
     touted by the "freedom hating left" should be viewed as
     "Pre-Confiscation Initiatives"

 5.  Inexpensive  handguns  (Saturday  Night  Specials)  are
     "Economically Viable Protection" or simply  "Affordable
     Protection".   Attempts to outlaw inexpensive  firearms
     for  defensive  use should be viewed as  an  effort  to
     deprive  the less fortunate or economically  challenged
     of their CIVIL RIGHTS because it deprives these  people
     of  the most effective means to defend  themselves  and
     their families against predators of all kinds.

 6.  Firearms training is "Life Assurance Training" or maybe
     "Family Self Defense Training"

 7.  Concealed carry license can be "Predator Neutralization
     License" or "Family Life Assurance License" or  "Victim
     Protection  Measures"  or "Threat  Reduction  Measures.
     While we're at it... why do we as a people even  toler-
     ate our government licensing us to carry the tool  that
     is  most  effective  in protecting  the  well-being  of
     ourselves and our families.  We should have a  Vermont-
     style  right  to carry and  protect  ourselves.   Isn't
     that, in fact, what our Founders intended???  Why do we
     keep  voting in representatives who  support  "Innocent
     Victim Disarmament".

 8.  Expand  upon  the GOA premise that "Guns  Save  Lives".
     They  do...   We know it...  Let's talk about it  -  IN
     PUBLIC!!   Every  pro-gun  organization  in   existence
     should be on this bandwagon!!!  GUNS SAVE LIVES !!!

 9.  Always refer to the bad guys as "Predators" along  with
     other  appropriate  pejorative  terms  like  "thieves",
     "rapists", etc.

10.  Firearms  owner  lists in  government  possession  are:
     "Round  Up Lists" or "Pre-Holocaust Victim  Identifica-
     tion Lists".

11.  Any  government-required  fee  for  firearms  licenses,
     Brady-type  checks,  etc. should be referred  to  as  a
     "Another Gun Tax", "Civil Rights Violations", "Firearms
     Infringement"

12.  Charlton  Heston  (of "Moses"  &  "people-shouldn't-be-
     able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons"  fame) FINALLY  got  it
     right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as
     the "Hanoi Jane" of the anti-gun movement.

13.  Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero.  Other  simi-
     lar  symbols for firearms safety or freedoms should  be
     developed  and/or expanded upon.  JPFO has a very  good
     series  that  should be brought  into  the  mainstream.
     This information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda
     Camps",  commonly  called public schools.   Every  pre-
     puberty kid in the Nation should know who these symbols
     are and the positive side of what they represent.   Our
     kids are this Nation's future and we continue to  allow
     the fanatical left, victim-disarmament teacher's unions
     to  indoctrinate our children into believing that  guns
     are bad and so are the people who own them.

14.  Those in the opposition should be referred to as screw-
     balls,  crackpots, extremists, etc.  Although  I  don't
     normally agree with calling anyone names but it may get
     mainstream  people  thinking that we do  have  a  valid
     point.   I, for one, certainly am of the  opinion  that
     many  of  the Hollywood elite, who donate  millions  to
     efforts  that would negate our Bill of Rights, can  and
     should be referred to as "crackpot elitist extremists".

15. Let's  face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a  tragedy.
     An  even larger tragedy is that Sara Brady  has  become
     quite wealthy from cynical exploitation of his  misfor-
     tune.   Additionally, her efforts have helped build  an
     empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were
     denied  access to defensive firearms because  of  Brady
     checks,  mandatory waiting periods, and the  defeat  of
     concealed  carry legislation that she has been  instru-
     mental  in  effecting.   As a  community  dedicated  to
     restoring and maintaining our liberties how can we give
     Sara Brady a free pass to continue her "Victim Disarma-
     ment" work without calling her to task for it at  every
     opportunity???  She is getting rich making speeches  to
     outlaw  our freedoms and yet we seldom see anything  in
     print  anywhere  that  says this  is  happening.   Why?
     (QUOTABLE  QUOTES:  "Our task of creating  a  socialist
     America can only succeed when those who would resist us
     have  been  totally disarmed."  Sara  Brady,  Chairman,
     Handgun  Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum,  "The  Na-
     tional  Educator,"  January 1994, Page  3.  (unverified
     information provided to me, recently)"

16.  Gun  control legislation is literally: "Job Safety  For
     Criminals"   or   "The  Safe  Streets   For   Criminals
     Act/Bill/Law/Regulation" We ALL need to get together on
     this  effort.   I'm sure that some of  the  descriptive
     phrases  we glean from this will be worth  the  effort,
     both to our cause and to our funny-bone.

Maybe  this  epistle will get the ball  rolling.   Hopefully
this  will  spark some interest in  getting  the  scoreboard
numbers up in our favor by establishing a system that offers
coordination  of "reasonable terms" that can be used  within
this debate.  If everyone takes a few minutes to think about
this  I'm sure we'll have some terms to use that  will  gain
the initiative and turn the tide.  Give this a shot...  what
have  you got to lose??  There is a whole lot to gain.   Let
me know.  And... will someone please step forward and volun-
teer  to be a coordination point for this effort  should  it
get off the ground.  Please feel free to pass this along  to
anyone  who  is  interested in regaining  our  freedoms  and
rights in a lawful, peaceful manner.

Peace,

Skip Wayland

"You  need  only reflect that one of the best  ways  to  get
yourself  a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days  is
to  go about repeating the very phrases which  our  founding
fathers used in the great struggle for independence."

Charles  Austin  Beard (1874-1948); American  historian  and
educator

                ------------  PEACE  -------------

                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                 *                               *
                *    SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM    *
                 *                               *
                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Politics Explained - Humor
Date: 02 Jun 1998 14:44:30 -0600

>----Forwarded Message(s)----
>
> #: 768915 S8/Humour/Jokes/Verse  [UKFORUM]
>     12-Mar-98  13:49:06
> Sb: Politics Explained
> Fm:  Juliete Cook 73500,441
> To: ALL
>
>If this does not explain it guys...LOLOL..well, there's no hope !!!!
>
>        ~Juliete Cook ~  (*)(*)
>
>
>
>THE WONDERS OF POLITICS, EXPLAINED BY A BLOKE WITH TWO COWS:
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>
>1. FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
>
>2. PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts
>them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the
>cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
>
>3. BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and
>puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by
>ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government
>took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as
>many eggs as the regulations say you should need.
>
>4. FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take
>care of them, and sells you the milk.
>
>5. PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You help to take care of them, and
>you all share the milk.
>
>6. RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but
>the government takes all the milk.
>
>7. DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots
>you.
>
>8. SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for
>keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.
>
>9. MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts
>you.
>
>10. PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the
>milk.
>
>11. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick
>someone to tell you who gets the milk.
>
>12. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you
>vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating
>in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate".
>
>13. BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and
>they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.
>
>14. COMMON MARKET BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government
>regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays
>you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other
>and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms
>accounting for the missing cows.
>
>15. ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair  price
>or your neighbours try to kill you and take the cows.
>
>16. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
>
>17. HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your
>publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your
>brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated
>general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for
>keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a
>Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the
>majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to
>the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight
>cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because
>the fung shui is bad.
>
>18. ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from
>milking or killing them.
>
>19. FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
>
>20. TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and
>denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
>
>21. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of
>"ownership" is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering, intolerant
>past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of
>non-specified gender.
>
>22. COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You
>got to have some of this milk.
>
>23. SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take
>harmonica lessons.
>
>
>
>
>----End Forwarded Message(s)----
>
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Write-thru, May 31]
Date: 02 Jun 1998 18:12:32 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    EDITORS: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR MONTHLY BONUS FEATURE
    (THIS VERSION IS A WRITE-THRU, INCLUDING JUNE 1 FIXES)
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns

    On May 21, all indications are that pencil-necked 15-year-old misfit
Kipland Kinkel, younger child (and the only one still living at home) of
well-to-do government schoolteacher parents, took a .22-caliber rifle, shot
his mother and father to death in their home, and then headed down to the
school cafeteria to wound 22 of his schoolmates, while killing two more.

  What were all the kids in the mill town of Springfield, Oregon doing in
the school cafeteria so early that morning? Being taught to expect a
government dole and subsidy even for breakfast, it now appears.

  At any rate, it was another shooting in the "gun-free zones" which the
"send-a-message" liberals have made of our mandatory youth propaganda camps
-- oops, "public schools." So needless to say, the Usual Suspects were
shortly heard from.

  Within days Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association -- America's
largest gun control outfit -- showed up on Katie Couric's smugly
hoplophobic NBC "Today" show, "debating" all-guns-to-the-state Congressman
Charles Schumer on a typically heads-they-win-tales-we-lose question:
whether it is federal or only local authorities who should "mandate" gun
locks.

  Needless to say, Mr. LaPierre never asked why they were debating locks
for handguns, when all the recent schoolyard shootings were done with long
guns. For that matter, the firearms used in these crimes were not full-auto
machine weapons (no innocent American civilians have been killed by such
legally-owned weapons in  years, except by government agents), nor the
"murderous" assault weapons which Messrs. Schumer and Clinton are busily
banning, with their "deadly" pistol grips, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs.
((start ital)That(end ital) kind of weapon, as it turns out, kills an
average of three Americans per year ... fewer than are killed by bowling
balls.)

  Since few to none of the recent school killings have been accomplished
with handguns (Master Kinkel, like his recent predecessors in Arkansas,
carried a handgun for backup, but preferred to do most of his shooting with
his more accurate rifle -- precisely the type of "sporting weapon" which
the gun-grabbers tell us is safer to have around), this opportunistic
political carrion-feeding on the young dead to promote bad laws already in
the hopper makes about as much sense as fighting highway fatalities by
requiring more life preservers on pleasure boats.

  Nor did Mr. LaPierre ever call the gun-banner's biggest bluff -- never
asking Schumer "So you're saying gun locks are enough? If you get this law
passed you'll never propose another gun control law? This isn't just one
more incremental step toward total prohibition?"

  After all, once the victim disarmament gang effectively outlawed machine
guns for most Americans, they didn't hesitate to ridicule the real reason
we own guns -- "a safeguard against tyranny," in the words of Hubert
Humphrey --  by simpering "Oh, you and your friends think you can stop the
82nd Airborne with your deer rifles?"

  Similarly, once every handgun in the country is required to be
double-padlocked inside a time-locked safe, do we think they'll hesitate to
argue, "Since you can no longer get the gun out on short notice, it's no
good to defend you against a rapist, so how can you argue you still need
it?"


Advice from the Germans

  Highest soprano among the braying state-power bedwetters, as usual, was
West Virginia's daily Charleston Gazette: "The slaughter of schoolchildren
is a price America pays for being a gun-polluted society. ... The recent
mass shooting at an Oregon school was the latest in a never-ending string
of horrors. This is what happens in a society saturated with 200 million
guns. Any child can obtain a weapon and use it in a moment of childish
rage. This is what happens in a society where the powerful 'right to bear
arms' lobby cows politicians, making them afraid to take any steps to
protect people from the gun danger. How long will America endure this
madness?" the coaldust daily ululated on May 22.

  The fanatical cries to disarm the victims even went international, with
Germany's newspaper "Bild" pontificating on May 25 (in the quaintly spastic
Associated Press translation): "A 15-year-old murdered his parents in
Oregon, shot and killed two schoolmates and wounded 22 others. Again the
affected will stand around the coffins, beseech God and bemoan the shameful
crime. Probably they will barbarically punish the 15-year-old barbarian.
Thereafter they will claim: continuous shooting in television -- only a
game. The unscrupulous weapons trade -- a successful business. And the
instructions to build bombs in the Internet had nothing to do with the
bloody reality. Really not? High Noon in school. Disarm finally!! Also in
television and the weapons closets at home. It's not a pistol that makes a
man. Playing with violence is instructions on how to kill."

  We don't really have to respond to our Teutonic critics, do we? Their
Jewish and Gypsy minorities took their advice to "Disarm finally!!" between
1928 and 1938 -- gun registration leading to confiscation, just as Mr.
Schumer and Mr. LaPierre's back-stabbing NRA plan for us here, and is now
underway again in both England and France.

  They claim European murder rates are lower than ours? Between 1928 and
1945, the German state murdered at least 8 million unarmed civilians from
their own and the captured territories (not counting the deaths of men in
uniform, though we probably should.) Counting famines created on purpose
for political reasons, Joe Stalin and his Communists during the same years
murdered civilians numbering at least 20 million. Even assuming not one
single murder has occurred in Europe since 1945 -- ignoring Bosnia and all
the rest --  that averages out to 400,000 murders per year since 1928,
caused by the citizenry being disarmed, while their governments stayed
armed -- exactly what's planned for us here.

  Or have the brave state socialists like Mr. Schumer or Sen. Feinstein
called for disarming the DEA, the ATF, and the FBI -- America's SS -- while
I wasn't listening?


The government dispensary

  Any death of a child is a tragedy. But if someone has to be callous
enough to inject a few facts into this debate, let's start here: Our murder
rates are way below the European rate reported above, not in spite of, but
(start ital)because(end ital) we are a well-armed nation, where the
government (up until the past decade, when they started testing the waters
with Waco and Ruby Ridge) never dared attempt such atrocities.

  (We'll have more now, of course, after federal judge Edward Lodge on May
14 -- one week prior to the Kinkel rampage -- dismissed all charges against
FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, ruling he was "just doing his job" back in 1992
when he shot away the lower jaw and carotid artery of an Idaho woman named
Vicki Weaver, wanted for no crime, who he found standing in the kitchen
doorway of her home, armed with a baby. Vicki Weaver screamed for 30
seconds as she lay dying, whereupon the FBI agents who had her family home
besieged named their encampment "Camp Vicky," and taunted her surviving
family members over their bullhorns, asking if "Mom" was going to cook them
blueberry pancakes. The fact that Gunner Horiuchi -- who has testified his
qualifications include accuracy within one-half-inch at the range from
which he shot Mrs. Weaver -- will not even face a manslaughter trial was by
far the most important gun-crime-related story of May, 1998 ... yet how
much play did it receive in your local newspaper or television station?)

  Actually, some excellent commentary has moved on the wires in the week
since the Springfield cafeteria shooting, though it will be interesting to
measure how much of this common sense made it through the nation's anti-gun
editorial filters.

  While "What caused this?" tends to be a rhetorical question, with the
inquirer standing ready to answer "guns," isn't it interesting that the day
before young Kip Kinkel had his bad day in Springfield, two teens were
arrested in Clearfield, Penn. for the 10-days-past murder of 15-year-old
Kimberly Jo Dotts, who was dragged into the woods by her teenage friends
with a rope around her neck when she threatened to "snitch" about their
plans to run away to Florida. There, they hanged young Kimberly Jo by her
neck from a tree, before bashing her head in with a rock.

  How do the gun-grabbers explain the role of the "easy availability of
guns" in causing (start ital)that(end ital) schoolgirl murder, in which no
firearms were involved? Easy. They just ignore it. In my newspaper, the
arrests in Kimberly Jo's death were buried on page 12, on the same day the
Kip Kinkel story broke on page one, with photos. And since it didn't fit
the anti-gun agenda, Kimberly Jo's horrendous murder was thereafter ignored
-- even as we heard day after day of anti-gun drum-beating follow-ups about
Kip Kinkel's rampage.

  But even in the Oregon case, there is a far more obvious suspect than
"guns," as Maureen Sielaff was quick to detail in the Vigo Examiner
(http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com):

  "Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a
prescription drug called Prozac," Ms. Sielaff reported early the next week.
"Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal
tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients.

  "Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the
book 'Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs,' by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D.,
the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations;
hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior;
hysteria; and suicidal thoughts."

  The drug's form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company (a
division of Eli Lilly) and last revised on June 12, 1997 -- the paperwork
included in each package of Prozac -- lists such other "frequent" symptoms
as "chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system,
nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability,
sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tinnitus."

  If this kid gets a good lawyer, look for a "Prozac defense." And if that
happens, my cheery thought for the day is that young Kipland could be
looking at as little as three-to-seven on the psychiatric farm.

  "Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to
this sudden increase in homicidal shootings," Ms. Sielaff continues, "these
events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm
ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is
compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very
disturbing pattern emerges. ..."

  In an apparently unrelated incident, I find the Cincinnati Inquirer
editorializing on May 14,  "Last month, when a classmate suffered a severe
asthma attack on a school bus in Mount Airy, Md.., Christine Rhodes, 12,
shared her  prescription inhaler with the stricken girl -- possibly saving
her life.

  "In a rational world, Christine would be hailed a hero. But 'rational' is
not a word that fits the world of education these days. Christine was
branded a 'drug trafficker' by school officials -- a black mark that will
remain on her record for three years. Makes you wonder what they were
inhaling."

  Two years before, and also in Ohio, the paper noted, "Two middle-school
girls were suspended for sharing a packet of Midol."

  It is not the dimmest, but the brightest of our young men who are bound
to go stir crazy as their government incarceration stretches to 13 years
and beyond ... as they are forced to spend 12 or 13 years having the sparks
of creativity and intellectual curiosity snuffed out, learning less than
their grandfathers learned in eight, merely to satisfy the labor unions'
economically misguided desire to keep them off the job market, bolstered by
the teachers' union full-court-press for full employment now dubbed
"dropout prevention."

  Meantime, as the religious zealots whoop it up, demonizing every
recreational drug of choice but their own, just as fast as they do "guns,"
does anyone really know how many of our schoolchildren (particularly boys)
are now doped up by school nurses with Prozac and Ritalin, relatively new
drugs whose long-term psychiatric effects are only now beginning to be
discovered?

  If you shut up enough animals in a small enough cage, they will
eventually start killing one another. Do the mass dopings of kids like Kip
Kinkel subdue their "escape" response, and if so are the effects actually
worse when they finally break through? Is anyone even tracking the (start
ital)growth rate(end ital) of these mass drug-dosings of our innocent young
men by their government wardens? And doesn't this mean our schools' "zero
tolerance" drug policies really only mean zero tolerance for (start
ital)competing(end ital) drug pushers?


The crime shortage

  On May 28, I published across the top of our own Op-ed page here in Las
Vegas a piece by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute,
pointing out that the New York Times ran the story of the Springfield, Ore.
shootings "for three straight days on the front page," while "President
Clinton used his Saturday radio address to decry the 'changing culture that
desensitizes our children to violence'."

  The only problem is, according to Mr. Glassman, "The truth about violence
in America is that it is falling, not rising. From 1993 to 1996, the number
of murders fell 20 percent, and just four days before the Oregon shootings,
the FBI announced preliminary figures for 1997 that found both murders and
robbery down another 9 percent and overall crime off for the sixth straight
year. Murders in New York City fell a stunning 22 percent in 1997; in Los
Angeles, 20 percent. ...

  "You have to wonder about the claims of pop psychologists and of the
president himself when he says, as he did Saturday, that the rising tide of
murders and mayhem on TV, in movies and on video games, is turning kids
into killers. U.S. News noted that 'juvenile murder arrests declined ... 14
percent from 1994 to 1995 and another 14 percent from 1995 to 1996'."

  But if violence is falling, why do these rare schoolyard incidents get so
much media play?

  "One answer may be a crime shortage," Mr. Glassman figures. "At a Harvard
symposium recently, one panelist pointed out that local TV news shows have
to import violent footage now that local criminals aren't turning out
enough product (there were only 43 murders in Boston last year, the fewest
since 1961). ...

  "So, what's the meaning of the schoolhouse slayings? Frankly, not much.
The meaning of the hysteria over them ... now, that's worth looking into."

  Writing for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service a few days later,
Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington,
D.C., concurred:

  "I have now been on television news following every one of the recent
school killings answering basically the same question: 'How do you explain
the trend of shootings by kids in rural schools?' My answer is always the
same: I cannot explain it, because no such trend exists. ...

  "In 1992, 55 killings occurred in America's schools -- a remarkably small
number. By 1997, that number dropped by more than half, to 25. By contrast,
88 people were killed by lightning in 1997.

  "The Los Angeles County School System, with about 600,000 students in it,
has not had a homicide since 1995. The District of Columbia, with about
600,000 citizens, has had about 600 homicides since that time.

  "Overall, between 1994 and 1996, there was a 30 percent drop in juvenile
homicides in America. Ninety kids were arrested in rural communities for
the crime of homicide in 1996, compared to 1,800 in cities. ...

  "Between 1992 and 1996, the homicide rate in America dropped by 20
percent. But the number of homicides reported on network news increased by
721 percent. ... Distorted coverage of ... these events has violated
recently victimized communities, frightened parents, fomented reactionary
legislation and misinformed the public. Worst of all, it may be creating an
environment where other troubled youths are copy-catting their
well-publicized peers."


Too many laws

  The NRA's standard cry, "Why don't we enforce the laws already on the
books?" can get to sound pretty lame through repetition. But in fact, I
remember interviewing Marion Hammer of Florida (since elected to head the
NRA in Washington) about one of the tourist murders in Florida five years
back, and having her point out that the culprit -- a young woman -- had
been arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of an illegal
concealed weapon while shoplifting -- as well as resisting arrest -- only
few days before. The authorities let her out due to a lack of jail space
(too many victimless dope smokers tying up the cells, presumably.)

  Similarly, Kip Kinkel was arrested and booked for storing a stolen gun at
school the day before his murder rampage ... but then promptly released
back into his helpless parents' custody. So, it turns out the NRA's
recurrent cry has some specific application: Why push for more gun laws,
when the cops aren't able enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books?
To outlaw everything has the same effect as to legalize everything, except
that the cops are thus empowered to harass anyone, any time they want.

  The Florida tourist-shooting epidemic is also relevant in another way. In
1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has
shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which
allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that
beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be
assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars
with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots
started removing those stickers, Florida's "tourist murder crime wave"
disappeared virtually overnight. Similarly, one of the last places a
criminal knows he can find unarmed victims in an increasingly well-armed
and peaceful America today ... is in the "gun free school zones" in which
the snivelliberals have locked up our children.


Hand out more guns

  In fact, it turns out that if a solution to schoolyard violence is
needed, experts with some mighty solid credentials propose that the
solution is not to ban guns, but to hand out more:

  Slated to appear Monday, June 1, I'm publishing in the Review-Journal an
excellent piece initially prepared for the Los Angeles Times by John R.
Lott, Jr., a fellow at University of Chicago School of Law, and author of
"More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 1998), under the
headline: "To stop mass shootings, hand out more guns: When Israel armed
teachers, the school shootings ended."

  In that essay, Professor Lott writes: "What might appear to be the most
obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed,
it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.
Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so
gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot
defend themselves.

  "Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years
ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine
guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded
concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary
people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no
longer engage in such public shootings.

  "The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further
illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot
to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called
Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Israelis had
'complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they
entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop
the shooting, several parents said.'

  "Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related
shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings
were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting
spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an
assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized
the shooter while waiting for the police."

  (That assistant principal had, fortunately for all, violated federal law
by bringing that firearm onto campus, even though he left it in the glove
compartment of his car.

  "More recently," Professor Lott continues, "the school-related shooting
in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a
bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his
gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes. Who knows how many
lives were saved by these prompt responses?"

  Dr. Lott's exhaustive studies of multiple-victim public shootings in the
United States from 1977 to 1995 reveal that "only one policy was found to
reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding
citizens to carry concealed handguns.

  "The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults
the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record
or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states
now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied,
the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84 percent.
Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, injuries by
82 percent. ...

  "Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided
coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting
receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times
each year that people use guns defensively -- including cases in which
public shootings are stopped before they happen -- are ignored. ... Without
permitting law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns, we risk leaving
victims as sitting ducks."

  Sitting ducks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad,
that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own
self-defense.

  The gun-grabbers will respond "a resident of the house is more likely to
be injured than an intruder." But only if they cleverly include suicides in
their statistics, of course. Besides, you can scare away 100 intruders
without ever wounding one, just by showing (or audibly cocking) your
weapon. Which makes the minuscule "injury" statistics a red herring.


Crediting Eddie Eagle

  All these statistics can get a little boggling, I know. So let's take a
specific example. The Elko Daily Free Press reports that on April 7 of this
year, an unnamed 15-year-old boy in that northern Nevada community tried to
stop an intruder from beating his mother, but found he was not strong
enough to do so. The lad therefore raced into his mother's bedroom,
retrieving a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the
magazine, inserted the magazine into the weapon, returned, and fired at the
assailant three times, hitting him twice and killing him.

 "He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and possibly the 3-year-old
child also present," the newspaper reports. "The mother suffered a broken
cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on her body, and a cut to her
forehead from the attack."

  "It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of self-defense," said
D.A.. Gary Woodbury, in which case "an inquest is not warranted."

  If Mr. Schumer's proposed federal "gun lock" bill had been in effect --
or even the non-federal version tacitly OK'd by Mr. LaPierre -- the Elko
teenager would have done better attempting to whack his mother's assailant
with a fireplace log.

  Following the successful Israeli example of arming teachers and parent
volunteers, Georgia state legislator Mitchell Kaye has now proposed one of
the few legislative initiatives likely to directly address the problem: He
wants to authorize and encourage Georgia teachers to carry concealed
weapons at school. "They know that all the adults in these school gun-free
zones are unarmed, and that's the problem,'' Kaye told CNN the day after
the Oregon shootings.

  In a carefully scripted line, the gun-grabbers reply that teachers "are
supposed to educate children, not execute them."

  But we don't give weapons to police officers in the hopes they'll
"execute" their suspects, do we? Guns are the great deterrent, preventing
crime by their very presence.

  The NRA does do (start ital)something(end ital) useful. The victim
disarmament gang whine that the group's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety and
training classes are nothing but "Joe Camel with feathers." But as it turns
out, the parents of the young wrestling team member who finally jumped and
subdued Kip Kinkel, 17-year-old Jacob Ryker, credit his firearms training
with the fact that he was able to detect when Kinkel's .22 rifle was empty,
timing his leap when the assailant had to change weapons.

  Linda Ryker also credited her son's familiarity with firearms for helping
Jacob deal with the crisis, keeping his wits about him even after he was
shot. With his son shot but recovering, Linda's husband Robert, a Navy
diver, proudly wore his National Rifle Association cap during the family's
press conference.


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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no
matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and
bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used
and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and
enforced.  But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee
against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which
now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be
always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota



----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rebuilt surplus military weapons hit streets
Date: 02 Jun 1998 18:24:00 -0700


    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns28.htm

Rebuilt surplus military weapons hit streets
December 28, 1997

Associated Press

CHICAGO -- Thousands of powerful,
rapid-fire military weapons are being
rebuilt and sold to gun dealers for
public distribution around the
country, the Chicago Tribune
reported.

More than a dozen gunmakers use
scraps from the United States
military and armies around the world
to rebuild battlefield firearms, the
Tribune reported in Sunday's
editions.

The sale of rebuilt military weapons
demonstrates the inability of the
nation's numerous gun laws to keep
some of the most deadly firearms off
the streets.

Surplus U.S. firearms that are not
used in the Civilian Marksmanship
Program, a government program to
teach marksmanship and gun safety,
are supposed to be destroyed or
rendered inoperable. But gunmakers
say the military does a poor job of
crushing the guns.

"If you cut a Chevrolet in half, you
may not be able to drive the car, but
that doesn't mean you can't use the
engine and other parts," said William
Dailey, attorney for Springfield
Armory Inc., a gun company based in
Geneseo, Ill.

Military officials say they do a
thorough job of cutting up the
weapons, and that the law does not
allow them to prevent gun dealers
from bidding on the scrap metal.

But Jack Friese, whose
Baltimore-based company Armscorp USA
makes semiautomatic M-14s powerful
enough to pierce lightly armored
cars, said he gets regular notices
from the military announcing sales
and inviting him to bid on the
scraps.

For the last 23 years, Friese has
used international contacts to
negotiate deals for millions of
foreign and U.S. military firearm
parts.

Dailey said that military rifles are
too cumbersome and bulky to be used
in crimes. But the Tribune traced one
military weapon -- the powerful M-1
carbine -- to more than a dozen
murders in the 1990s. In all of the
cases, the killers bought the weapons
at gun shops and gun shows.

Gun shows, one of the best markets
for secondhand weapons, are almost
totally free of state and federal
regulation despite a 1993 federal
investigation that found stolen
military weapons being routinely sold
at them.

More than 95 percent of the nation's
estimated 240 million guns are in
private hands, the Tribune reported.
For the most part, the resale of
these guns goes unregulated by
federal or local laws.

All content copyright 1997 Detroit Free Press
and may not be republished without permission.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Fratrum: Gun Control Bills before Congress (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 03 Jun 1998 09:49:56 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:30:57 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id CAA13641; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:29:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma012513; Tue Jun  2 02:25:23 1998
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

On Jun 01, Eugene W. Gross wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]

Hi Folks,

These are the bills before Congress on gun control. I don't know the
present status of the bills, but at least you know what we are facing at
the federal level.

En Agape,

Gene
========================================

1 . Yates Firearm Registration and Crime Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced
in the House)[H.R.1998.IH]
2 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain muzzle
loading firearms are to be treated as antique
firearms for purposes of the Federal firearms laws. (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.3140.IH]
3 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.922.IS]
4 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2359.IH]
5 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit gunsmiths to obtain a
Federal firearms license without having to
comply with State or local laws relating to zoning of firearms businesses.
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.2342.IH]
6 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in
regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a
State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State. (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.2722.IH]
7 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.723.IS]
8 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1570.IH]
9 . Consumer's Choice Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.2734.IH]
10 . Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.27.IH]
11 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
in accordance with which nonresidents of a
State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt...
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.339.IH]
12 . To prevent children from injuring themselves with firearms.
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.814.IH]
13 . Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.1147.IH]
14 . Personal Safety and Community Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in
the Senate)[S.816.IS]
15 . Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
Senate)[S.837.IS]
16 . Firearms Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.788.IH]
17 . Trigger Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2673.IH]
18 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the prospective
application of certain prohibitions relating to
firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.262.IS]
19 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a
domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not
apply to a government official engaged in official conduct while...
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.2255.IH]
20 . Child Firearm Access Prevention Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1917.IS]
21 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.658.IS]
22 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1264.IH]
23 . To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to ban the importation of
firearms that have been cosmetically altered to
avoid the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.2702.IH]
24 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms
prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic
violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred...
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.26.IH]
25 . To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the
maximum term of imprisonment for offenses
involving stolen firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.992.IS]
26 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a
domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not
apply to government entities. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.445.IH]
27 . Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act (Introduced in the
Senate)[S.133.IS]
28 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals
possessing firearms, and for other purposes.
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.424.IH]
29 . Stop Arming Felons (SAFe) Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1228.IH]
30 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.1044.IH]
31 . Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local governments
should be encouraged, and have the right, to
pass laws and ordinances designed to preserve and protect the safety...
(Introduced in the House)[H.CON.RES.70.IH]
32 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.1074.IH]
33 . Gun Safety Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.116.IH]
34 . To require the national instant criminal background check system to be
established and used in connection with firearms
transfers by November 28, 1997. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.102.IH]
35 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals
possessing firearms, and for other purposes.
(Reported in the House)[H.R.424.RH]
36 . Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.12.IH]
37 . Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.466.IS]
38 . Brady Voluntary Compliance Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2935.IH]
39 . To reform criminal procedure, and for other purposes. (Introduced in
the Senate)[S.168.IS]
40 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals
possessing firearms, and for other purposes.
(Passed by the House)[H.R.424.EH]
41 . Violent Crime Control Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.135.IS]
42 . Public Health and Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.787.IH]
43 . Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.136.IS]
44 . Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
Senate)[S.796.IS]
45 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1349.IH]
46 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.553.IS]
47 . Federal Gang Violence Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.54.IS]
48 . Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (Introduced in the
Senate)[S.2022.IS]
49 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Introduced in the House)[H.R.3532.IH]
50 . Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
Senate)[S.362.IS]

[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]

--
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FCO 6-3-98 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Jun 1998 10:13:39 -0700

Received: from lists1.best.com
    ([206.86.8.15])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 03 Jun 1998 02:40:57 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id AAA19972 for [e-mail]; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

========================================================================
                              Online Report
                                  to the
                   F I R E A R M S   C O A L I T I O N
                         7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44
                           Manassas, VA  20109
======================================================================
June 2, 1998             http://www.NealKnox.com         Vol. 5, No. 5
======================================================================
     See last page for subscription and administrative information.
======================================================================

In this issue:

    May 20 Shotgun News Column
                   An opportunity for offense

    Telephone Log
                   http://www.nealknox.com/phonelog/4_98-5_98.html

========================================================================
A Note from Chris

     If you haven't visited the Hard Corps Home Page recently, you might
want to stop by and take a look.  It isn't finished by any stretch (no
web site is ever really finished), but it has been given a little more
polished look and a search engine.  The latest change is the addition of
a separate page for the telephone logs (which I no longer inflict upon
your mailbox).  These scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative
Update line (1-900-225-3006 $0.89 per minute) are an as-it-happened
legislative history which amount to a diary of the Second Amendment
movement.

     Also, check out the new "News and Notes" section at
http://www.nealknox.com/news/.  This new section will feature items from
the Web and the general press.  The inaugural entry is a featur from the
Washington Post on a 25% drop in Maryland handgun sales.  Points that
Neal has made for years about the danger of crooks moving up the
violence scale to more-deadly weapons and the lack of impact of legal
gun sales on crime are borne out in the story, although those subtleties
seem to have escaped the reporter.  The story is included complete and
also has a link to the original Post story.

                           * * * * *

     This mailing contains only one Shotgun News Column, however I
wanted to get at least one bulletin out before the NRA Convention in
Philadelphia.  It promises to be unpleasant; the Second Amendment Action
slate was defeated pretty soundly in the face of ferocious negative
advertising. See http://www.nealknox.com/fc/nra98/election.html for
results.

     This meeting is an important one, nonetheless; for the first time
since the members assembled in Seattle in 1983 voted away their right to
elect the Executive Vice-President, the members meeting has substantive
business to transact.  There are several changes to the Corporate
Charter on the agenda.  Under New York Not-for-Profit Corporation law,
only the assembled members may amend the Corporate Charter.

     If you do attend, expect the room to be set up to make a floor
debate as uncomfortable and as difficult as possible.  At last year's
Seattle meeting the room was dark with the podium lit with spotlights
until a speaker pointed out that the meeting belonged to the assembled
members and that they were not an audience come to watch a floor show.
In previous years there have been as many as eight or more microphones
on the floor.  Last year had four.  I'll be surprised to see more than
two this year.  It will be difficult to be recognized and the gavel will
come down sharply on the opposition.

     I suspect that there will be a lull in the agenda sometime around
noon.  During that lull while people wander out for a bite to eat, watch
for a hurried motion to adjourn.  Whether the motion is technically out
of order or not, it will be ruled in order by the chair and the gavel
will crash.  The only way to avoid losing the meeting in that scenario
is to develop a very heavy backside.  Send someone out to get a steak
sandwich.

     The annual Secret Meeting[1] will occur the night before at 7:00
PM, Friday, June 5 at the Holiday Inn Select, Center City.  The meeting
is in a meeting room on the "meeting level" above the restaurant.

[1] Secret Meeting.  Prior to the 1977 Cincinnati meeting where the
membership took back their organization the NRA leadership was shocked,
yes, shocked, that the planners of the revolution met in secret.  The
loyal opposition's meeting before the meeting has come to be known as
The Secret Meeting.

========================================================================
   I wrote and am solely responsible for everything above this line.
                               Chris Knox
========================================================================

                     Opportunity For Offense
                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 20) -- A football team with an almost-
impenetrable defense, but no offense, will lose.

     The gun rights lobby has had such a near-perfect defense for
decades.

     Until the last dozen or so years, the only time we have lost
in Congress, or most state legislatures, was when some
particularly horrifying crime or series of crimes caused the
public to demand that legislators "DO something" -- even if that
law had no chance of preventing a repetition of the event that
repulsed the public.

     In football terms, the only time the anti-gunners could
score was with the "Long Bomb," a "Hail Mary Pass" that depended
upon a great deal of luck -- either good or bad.

     But in recent years, the anti-gun crowd has been able to
score by "moving the ball on the ground," pounding away with
consistent small gains -- "three yards in a cloud of dust."

     First was the long fight over the "armor-piercing bullet
ban," which started as a broad ammo law in 1979, but passed as a
neutered -- though symbolically important -- first-ever outright
Federal firearms ban in 1986, two years after NRA-ILA watered it
down and threw in the towel.

     Then came the slow march through committees and both houses
of the so-called "assault weapon" ban and Brady waiting period
(and its NRA-alternative "Instant Check" which is proving to be
worse).

     When Brady passed in late 1993, and the Feinstein semi-auto
and magazine ban was enacted in 1994, gun owners and the Second
Amendment took it on the chin.  But it loaded every chamber on
NRA's only continuing national offense -- organized political
action.

     As even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged in January 1995
to Cleveland Plain Dealer editors and in his State of the Union
speech, those gun law votes resulted in large numbers of anti-gun
Democrats being defeated, giving control of Congress to
Republicans for the first time in 40 years.

     In those heady days, both House Speaker Newt Gingrich and
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole promised votes to repeal the '94
ugly gun ban.  Gingrich delivered; the House voted to repeal.
Dole reneged, after assuring that gunowners stayed neutral in the
'96 Republican primaries.

     But Gingrich also said -- to NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre, ILA
Director Tanya Metaksa and me in a 1 1/2-hour meeting with the
Republican leadership -- that no anti-gun legislation would pass
on his watch.  He was mistaken.

     Every Republican Senator, and much of the House, voted in
late '96 to ban all firearms ownership forever for so-called
"domestic violence misdemeanors" -- which can be as insignificant
as a fistfight between two brothers 30 years before.

     No positive legislation has moved in this Congress, Clinton
will get away with his dictatorial ban on the importation of 59
"non-sporting" semi-autos, and the stage seems set for one or
more anti-gun amendments -- such as trigger locks, one gun-per-
month or a "safe storage" law -- to pass at least one house in
this election year.

     Even without any new anti-gun legislation, I doubt that
Republicans will hold their thin 11-seat House majority this
fall.  With anti-gun Democrats in command of key committees next
year (though all Democrats certainly aren't anti-gun), we would
almost certainly face even worse problems in Clinton's last two
years.

     Republican political strategists -- reading the same
misleading "opinion polls" that Clinton Democrats were reading in
'94, the ones that say the public likes Brady and dislikes
"assault weapons" -- are telling GOP candidates that gunowners
have nowhere else to go, so they should ignore the gun rights
issue.

     But those political handlers are forgetting the gun-owning,
mainly blue-collar union member Democrats who brought the
Republicans to power.  Those folks are disappointed and disgusted
with Republicans "who don't do what they promise to restore gun
rights," and even more will go back to their Democrat roots, as
so many did in 1996.

     Except for aborted attempts to overturn the 1994 "ugly gun"
ban, the only time the gun lobby has been on offense in Congress
- -- when we set the agenda, called the plays, and made the anti-
gunners defend against us -- was in 1978-82 when we challenged
the Gun Control Act of 1968 with the original McClure-Volkmer
bill, literally the Gun Decontrol Act until it was gutted by
"friends."

     We have a tremendous, never-repeatable opportunity to again
go on offense -- in a battle that we can win, that can bring more
allies (from both parties) than we have seen in years, and one
that will win elections for demonstrated pro-gunners this fall.

     I'm talking about a challenge to the permanent, second stage
of the Brady Act, with its costly "Instant Check" -- which may
take up to three days -- scheduled to go into effect on ALL guns
this November.

     Most hunters, plinkers and claybirders are completely
unaware that the Brady Act will affect long guns.  Most have
never been concerned about gun laws, because it has been 30 years
since new or proposed laws directly affected the only guns most
of them use.

     The anti-gun crowd has left those folks alone for a reason:
there are too many long gun users to mess with.

     And that's the same reason we need to make those hunters and
claybirders aware that their rights and pocketbooks will be
trampled along with handgunners.

     What will fire them up is the "$13-$16 Federal user fee"
which FBI spokesmen have said will be charged if the gun dealer
directly calls the FBI system, rather than a state system.
That's not much on an expensive shotgun, but it's a big tax on a
used .22 rifle.

     Strangely, if a state legislature has set up its own
"instant check" system -- as 19 have -- we're told the FBI
doesn't plan to charge the state for conducting the check.

     Why?  Obviously to get gun owners in 31 states to back a new
state gun law.

     Why?  Because there are Federal laws against the Feds using
sales information to create a national gun registration system,
but the states can create the Federally accessible gun
registration systems that the Clinton Administration wants.

     When the Feds also start taking advantage of the provision
of the Brady law that allows them a wait of up to three days on
all firearms purchases -- as they will -- what's the effect on
the guy who wants a new pump shotgun for opening day of quail
season?

     Between fees, waits and unjustified gun purchase denials, a
lot of fresh anger is going to be created come November.

     We need to do whatever we can to productively harness it --
against the politicians who don't keep it from happening, and
against the legislative packages that most gunowners have
previously ignored.

     Granted, I'd prefer to repeal the entire Brady Act, and the
Instant Check that rode in with it, but that's not going to
happen -- unless enough fire is stirred up by the long gunners to
give the handgunners some relief.


======================================================================

Copyright (c) 1998 by Neal Knox Associates
               7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44
               Manassas, VA  20109

Reproduction and non-commercial distribution of this bulletin by any
means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained.

======================================================================

        Do not put your credit card number in e-mail.

======================================================================

Dear Neal,

Enclosed is my retainer for your services as my Capitol Hill lobbyist:

$500 [  ]      $250 [  ]     $50 [  ]     $25 [  ]     Other:____ [  ]

                                                        Quarterly [  ]
      Bill my MasterCard [  ]          Visa [  ]          Monthly [  ]
                                                             Once [  ]

Card No. ________________________________________ Expiration Date _____

Mr. [  ]
Mrs.[  ]________________________________________________________________
Ms. [  ]
Signature_______________________________________________________________

Address__________________________________________ Phone ________________

City _____________________________________________State ____ Zip________

Email Address ______________________

Print and mail to:

               Firearms Coalition
               7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44
               Manassas, VA  20109

======================================================================

PGP users:  Remove the leading asterisks from the BEGIN and END lines
before using this key.

*-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQCNAy8Q4mIAAAEEALKdSCTF6BvTg4luk1IOYtiQyxPotnTjjijSawo9htwZeFS/
KU0WAPkeDuhgKSN3H5242irpkfUu8g84fAPBH6a6joaFN7OchRa49WXnz2dReT0V
iT9xeec9rPSASH04dz+lEONeDZ17yh/JGt+tjYq0CIenFZ9JMCGz4I2lBJDFAAUR
tCdDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBXYXJyZW4gS25veCA8Y2tub3hAY3JsLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAv
pxqvIbPgjaUEkMUBAS8BA/9PP4teu4vja6dTXkOMhVN8xgf1fl66VCc2V4A0/lli
uRdf75GS1uQd+pzPIZoIReU440uuLfNSMqAAjCLHDja9ViAUllTk7YIKJMe53+nZ
UnQndT2a6ikeQgh/kFxFM1z4NHgTBZ/KMg3td45WzEA3XpjWACrXWNAtYplaQ0hg
Iw==
=VDsh
*-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

=======================================================================

               "None genuine without this signature."



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNXUEGCGz4I2lBJDFAQF3wAQAon+juse6vlcUq6DIEkMMyudJgpiD3OER
badU47/KqktKZm9IO0cn540SfZsjG5pnAR61Ct/qgCA5sZlYWR2U/Lv139WcBAs8
a+hyBY28eosRrrleCEFA9yVKLqiwfBZhzGnHDBwJR26fWEDdm4S+k7hK1AEY1gF8
0Ek4dpiPXB0=
=fIHZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL -Forwarded
Date: 04 Jun 1998 08:31:02 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:50:51 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA05834; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma005711; Tue Jun  2 09:48:51 1998
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

>From the *liberal* Boston Globe, reposted as fair use for commentary on
current events and political discussions:


THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL

Author:  By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Staff


Page:  A23

Section:  Op-Ed Page

Some boys -- sorry, Father Flanagan -- are bad.  Some are downright
evil.  By all accounts, Kip Kinkel was one of them.  Reports on the
grisly shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., make
it clear that he was one vicious adolescent.  He was the kind of punk
who took pleasure in flinging rocks down on cars from overpasses and
torturing small animals with firecrackers.  He was obsessed with
bombs and had a furious temper.  Though his parents apparently did
their best to control and correct their son, their best wasn't good
enough.  Now they are dead, one Thurston 10th-grader is dead, and 23
other students are wounded.

And Thurston gets added to the grim roll of American schools where
students, in 1998 alone, have become murderers:

Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pa.  Westside Middle School,
Jonesboro, Ark.  Heath High School, West Paducah, Ky.  Pearl High
School, Pearl, Miss.  Bethel Regional High School, Bethel, Alaska.

And it isn't even June.

There have always been brutal, coldblooded kids.  But there haven't
always been brutal, cold-blooded kids pulling .22-caliber
semiautomatics from beneath their coats in the school cafeteria and
opening fire.  And there hasn't always been the dread, which deepens
with each new atrocity, that no community is immune from this teenage
mayhem, that the next child slaughtered by a schoolmate could be --
yours.

It didn't come out of the blue.  School hallways aren't running red
with blood for no reason.  Grief-stricken mourners who sob and ask
``Why?'' need our comfort and love.  But their question has answers.

>From Sunday's New York Times:  ``But he did not just tell friends in
private that his mind was full of violence.  Once day in a literature
class, when it was his turn to read his dreams from his journal, Kip
stook up and told the class that he wanted to kill.  But school
officials said such talk was not unusual among students, and was
often dismissed as just blowing off steam.''

Not unusual.  Often dismissed.  A teenager talks of yearning to
murder, and his elders respond with:  ho-hum.  And then they are
horrified when he turns to murder.  Is he deranged?  Or are they?

Kids -- the worst kids -- become homeroom hit men when they are
bombarded with messages telling them:  Do what you like.  No one will
judge you.  No one cares.  The public schools they attend, so utterly
transformed from the public schools their parents and grandparents
attended, shun the enforcement of standards.  Modern educational
theories are built up around the notions that wrong answers are as
good as right answers, that grades are oppressive, that ``truth'' is
a relative concept.  In countless schools, students are encouraged to
think that they can have what they like and do what they like,
because encouraging them to think otherwise would bruise their
self-esteem.  And nothing, but nothing, is more important than a
child's self-esteem.

Least of all self-control.  ``I want to have all the firepower I
can,'' Kip Kinkel reportedly said, ``so I can kill as many people as
I can.'' Once a kid who talked that way in school would have been
yanked by the collar and marched before a principal, who would have
taught him one of life's great lessons:  Shut up.  He would have
learned to control his mouth, which in turn would have helped him
control his thoughts.  If he was an unregenerate delinquent, he would
have been expelled.  He would not have been indulged or ignored in
the belief (or the hope) that he was just ``blowing off steam.''

Steep schoolchildren in the belief that they are entitled to much but
responsible for little, and you raise a crop of irresponsible and
demanding adolescents.  Train teachers and administrators to flee
from discipline, to retreat before student obstinacy, to abhor
authority -- moral and otherwise -- and you wind up with middle and
high schools that are little more than day care for teenagers.

In parochial and most other private schools, educators still manage
to convey to students the axiom that benefits must be earned and that
choices beget consequences.  Perhaps that is one reason these bloody
assaults have not been occurring in their cafeterias and classrooms.
In far too many public schools, by contrast, students learn one thing
early and well:  No matter what you do, there is no price to pay.
Don't do the homework and you'll pass anyway.  Cut classes and you
can still graduate.  Spray graffiti on the walls and you won't be
kicked out.  Curse out a teacher and it will be tolerated.

Old joke:  A rowdy kid, a troublemaking truant, is finally yanked out
of public school by his parents and enrolled in a Catholic school.
Quickly the complaints about him stop.  He attends class.  He does
his homework.  He stops mouthing off.  At semester's end, his report
card shows all As and Bs -- to his parents' delight.  ``So tell us,''
they finally ask him:  ``What got you to straighten up and fly
right?''

``Well,'' he says, ``on the first day I walked in and there on the
wall was a guy nailed to a cross.  I figured these nuns were
serious.''

When American public schools were serious, they weren't the scene of
monthly murder sprees.  But we have taken rigorous education, clear
values, and serious discipline out of the classroom.  Something else
was bound to fill the void.






-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 1/3
Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
<[e-mail]>

"ONE MAN WITH A GUN CAN CONTROL 100 WITHOUT ONE." - LENIN
"NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE." - P. HENRY
"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - T. JEFFERSON
"POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN" - MAO TSE-TUNG
"EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN." - P. HENRY

dear george and henry:
the info below is a bunch of quotes which you may find interesting
neal and melissa seaman
789-5357

NOW CONSIDER THE RESULTS OF GUN CONTROL:
* The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953,
  20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
  rounded up and exterminated.
* Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
  Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million
  Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized
  peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
  political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
  exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
  Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
  Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million
  "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
  exterminated.
* Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary
  citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
  - Heinrich Himmler
* Good News: Bill Clinton is building us a bridge to the future. Bad News:
  Ted Kennedy is driving us across. G. Gordon Liddy Show, 30 August 1996
* All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS,
  SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
  campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the
  above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his
  weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." - SA
  Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

ANNOY A GUN-GRABBER: RECITE FACTS!

"Before we can prepare for the future, we must first understand the past!"

20,000 GUN LAWS DON'T WORK!
"WITHOUT THE SWORD, THE LAW IS ONLY WORDS."
"SHAKE & BAKE", JANET RENO'S RECIPE A LA WACO.
1836: REMEMBER THE ALAMO. 1993: REMEMBER WACO!
"GUN CONTROL" IS A CRIME. REVOLUTION IS A BIRTH RIGHT!!
"FREE MEN HAVE ARMS; SLAVES DO NOT." - WM. BLACKSTONE
"ONE MAN WITH A GUN CAN CONTROL 100 WITHOUT ONE." - LENIN
"DEAR GOD, THEY HAVE WEAPONS!" - SS TROOPER, WARSAW, 1942
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." WHAT PART DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
2ND AMENDMENT: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICIANS AND RULERS!
"NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE."--P.HENRY
"...A CIVILIZED NATION HAS FULL GUN REGISTRATION." - ADOLPH HITLER
"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - JEFFERSON
"WHEN ONLY COPS AND THE MILITARY HAVE GUNS, IT'S A POLICE STATE!"
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO"........"REMEMBER IDAHO"........REMEMBER WACO!"
"POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN" - MAO TSE-TUNG
"EVERY MAN BE ARMED. EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN." - P.HENRY
"BAN IGNORANCE, NOT GUNS!
"HAPPINESS IS A BELT-FED WEAPON"
AN ARMED NATION IS A FREE NATION.
GET THE SHOTGUN. THAT'LL LEARN 'EM."
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY!
BATF: BAD ATTITUDE TOWARDS FREEDOM
67 MILLION GUN OWNERS CAN'T BE WRONG...
AN INALIENABLE RIGHT CANNOT BE LICENSED!
BATF: BRUTALIZING AMERICA THROUGH FORCE.
ADDRESS ALL FLAMES TO [e-mail]
ARMED WOMEN = POLITE MEN. - CHARLES CURLEY
BATF: BASTARDS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE FREEDOMS
BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6 !!
ALL WHO LOVE LIBERTY ARE ENEMIES OF THE STATE.
BATF MOTTO: ONE DOWN, NINE AMENDMENTS TO GO!
AND THE BATF WENT IN TO "PROTECT THE CHILDREN".
A WEAPON IN EVERY HAND, FREEDOM ON EVERY SIDE.
BATF = BASICALLY, ANOTHER TRUCKLOAD OF FASCISTS.
ALL THE GUN CONTROL WE NEED WAS ENACTED IN 1791!
BETTER TO "GUN-PROOF" KIDS THAN TO "KID-PROOF" GUNS
BETTER TO BE CAUGHT WITH IT THAN CAUGHT WITHOUT IT.
A GUN IN THE HAND IS BETTER THAN A COP ON THE PHONE.
A POLICE STATE IS GREAT, SO LONG AS YOU'RE THE POLICE.
ARMED WITH A FULLY-AUTOMATIC .357 ASSAULT REVOLVER...
ARMED WOMEN DETER RAPISTS OVER 400 TIMES EACH DAY.
A NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A CALL FOR GUN CONTROL.
A GUN IS LIKE A PARACHUTE. WHEN YOU NEED IT YOU NEED IT!
"THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS CRAZY." - HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.
A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT...TO BE ARMED... GEORGE WASHINGTON
BATF: BUREAU OF ASSASSINS, TERRORISTS AND FIRE STARTERS
A HANDGUN RESPONDS FASTER THAN 911 FOR CRIME PROBLEMS.
A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!
"A RIGHT DELAYED IS A RIGHT DENIED." - MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
"HELL,I DON'T WANT CLINTON AND SCHUMER HERE EITHER" - SATAN
"A GUN IS LIKE A SEATBELT; WHEN YOU NEED IT YOU NEED IT NOW!
DOUBLE TAP" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DRAFT BEER OR DANCING.
ARMED WITH A FULLY-AUTOMATIC .38 SPECIAL ASSAULT REVOLVER...
A GUN HOLSTERED TO MY HIP DETERS MORE CRIME THAN ANY LAW.
"YOUR KID MAY BE AN HONOR STUDENT BUT YOU'RE STILL AN IDIOT!"
A GOVERNMENT THAT OUTLAWS GUNS IS AN OUTLAW GOVERNMENT.
99% OF ALL GUNS HAVE KILLED FEWER PEOPLE THAN TED KENNEDY.
ANYONE COMING FOR MY GUNS BETTER BE PREPARED TO MEET GOD.
"BUT I DON'T WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF . . . " - BRADY LAW SUPPORTER.
BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED.
BATF - "CONSTITUTION, WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING CONSTITUTION!"
A GOVERNMENT CANNOT OPPRESS AN ARMED AND UNWILLING CITIZENRY.
AND LEAD US NOT INTO INTERPRETATION, BUT DELIVER THE CONSTITUTION...
"GUN REGISTRATION IS NOT ENOUGH." -ATT'Y GEN. JANET RENO, AP 12/10/93
BETTER TO HAVE A GUN & NOT NEED IT, THAN TO NEED A GUN & NOT HAVE IT.
"WE ALREADY *KNOW* WHO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY ARE." - AT&T AND ATF
A GOVERNMENT THAT IGNORES THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN IGNORE ANY LAW.
"NOBODY NEEDS A GUN LIKE THAT!" HE SAID, SURROUNDED BY BODY GUARDS.
AMAZING FACT: THE FEDERAL GOV'T IS EXEMPT FROM MOST LAWS THEY PASS.
A GUN IS INANIMATE, THEREFORE IT CAN NOT CAUSE CRIME. ONLY PEOPLE DO!
"GOVERNMENT'S A DISEASE MASQUERADING AS ITS OWN CURE." - L. NEIL SMITH
ANY GOVERNMENT THAT SPIES ON ITS HONEST CITIZENS,CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
AN UNARMED SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY THAT MUST LIVE IN FEAR OF GOVERNMENT!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 2/3
Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700


GO ARMED, GO SAFE.
DISARM? SORRY, I'M AN AMERICAN.
CHOOSE LIFE - CARRY A FIREARM!
GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL
EYES OPEN, MOUTH SHUT, SAFETY OFF.
FIREARMS ARE FOR HUNTING... TYRANTS.
GUN CONTROL IS A TIGHT PATTERN ( ( (::) ) )
GUN CONTROL - ALL CRIMINALS SUPPORT IT!!!
DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND ARM BEARS!
GIVE ME LIBERTY...OR EAT HOT LEAD, FASCIST!
BUY ONE GUN A MONTH AND PISS OFF A LIBERAL...
FOR REAL FEMININE PROTECTION, TRY A FIREARM.
GUN CONTROL - FEDERALLY SANCTIONED SUICIDE.
GUN CONTROL - UNILATERAL VICTIM DISARMAMENT!
CRIME SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY ARMED CITIZENS.
GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO HIT YOUR TARGET!
FREE MEN DO NOT ASK PERMISSION TO BEAR ARMS.
BILL CLINTON'S FAVORITE VEGETABLE: JAMES BRADY
FORGET GUN CONTROL, I WANT *CRIMINAL CONTROL*
GUN CONTROL CAN WORK! TO ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE...
ENSLAVEMENT IS LIKE OLD AGE, IT CREEPS UP ON YOU.
EVERY 12 SECONDS, SOMEONE PROVES SARAH WRONG!
FIREPOWER IS A FRAME OF MIND, AND A FULL MAGAZINE.
FREEDOM: BROUGHT TO YOU BY GOD, GUNS, AND GUTS!
CRIME CONTROL: FIRE A WARNING SHOT INTO HIS HEART!
FIRST THE SECOND; SECOND THE FIRST; THEN THE REST...
GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS; IT'S ABOUT CONTROL.
BLESSED BE THE PESSIMIST FOR HE CARRIES EXTRA AMMO.
DETERRENCE, NOT DISARMAMENT. ARMS ARE DETERRENTS.
CRIME: LAW DEFINES. POLICE ENFORCE. CITIZENS PREVENT!
BUY DON'T BUY THE LIE! GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL.
BURY YOUR GUNS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT DON'T GIVE THEM UP!
GANGS DON'T KILL PEOPLE WITH LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS.
DENY GOD CREATED MAN, COLONEL COLT MADE THEM EQUAL!
BUT IT'S NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON, IT'S A DEFENSE WEAPON!
EVER SEE AN ANTI WITH A "NO GUNS" STICKER ON HIS HOUSE?
ELIMINATE REPEAT OFFENDERS: DECLARE THEM GAME ANIMALS.
BY THE GUN WE SEEK PEACE, BUT PEACE ONLY UNDER LIBERTY.
GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO DROP A LIBERAL AT 500 YARDS!
GUN CONTROL IS DEAD WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO WIND UP DEAD.
BLACK FACE MASK, SUBMACHINE GUN, SILENCER, IT'S THE BATF!!!
CLINTON, IS GOOD AT GRABBING WOMEN, & GUNS...NOTHING ELSE.
GOVERNMENTS NEVER DISARM THEMSELVES, ONLY THEIR SLAVES.
CITIZENS OWNING GUNS ARE GOVERNED; ALL OTHERS ARE RULED.
BLACK TALON: WHEN YOU CARE ENOUGH TO SEND THE VERY BEST!
CRIMINALS LOVE GUN CONTROL, IT MAKES THEIR JOB MUCH EASIER.
FOUR BOXES KEEP US FREE: [1] SOAP [2] BALLOT [3] JURY [4] AMMO!
GIVE UP YOUR GUNS WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE GIVES UP THEIRS.
GUN CONTROL "PROTECTS" YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO SHOOT BACK.
DECLARE "OPEN SEASON" ON CONSTITUTION DECONSTRUCTIONISTS.
CRIME CAUSES GUN CONTROL LAWS, GUN CONTROL CAUSES CRIME.
EXCUSE ME MR. CRIMINAL WHILE I TAKE THIS $%#! LOCK OFF MY GUN!
DISARMED AND ILL-INFORMED? YOUR GOVERNMENT LIKES YOU THAT WAY.
CHARLES SCHUMER STILL ALIVE? PROOF THAT GUN OWNERS AREN'T VIOLENT.
DON'T TRY TO SCARE AN ARMED MAN. SUCCESS WILL GET YOU A TOMBSTONE.
CHARLES SCHUMER IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY SOME ANIMALS EAT THEIR YOUNG.
BLAMING THE GUN FOR MURDER IS LIKE BLAMING THE TYPEWRITER FOR LIBEL..
CRIMINALS AND LIBERALS WANT AN UNARMED POPULACE. COINCIDENCE OR NOT?
GUN BANS WORK! JUST LOOK HOW SAFE NEW YORK CITY AND WASHINGTON DC ARE!

HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN.
HUNT WITH YOUR KIDS, NOT FOR THEM.
I'LL CONTROL MY OWN GUNS, THANK YOU.
HCI STANDS FOR HELP CRIME INCREASE!
GUN CONTROL: A CRIMINAL'S BEST FRIEND.
GUNS IN THE RIGHT HANDS PREVENT DEATH.
HCI -- (H)ELP FOR THE (C)RIMINALLY (I)NSANE
GUN FREE ZONES ARE FREE FOR CRIME ZONES.
GUN CONTROL WORKS. ASK SCHINDLER'S JEWS.
I'M THE NRA, MILITIA, A VOTER, AND PISSED OFF!
GUN CONTROL: HITTING YOUR INTENDED TARGET.
GUN CONTROL LAWS PROTECT VIOLENT CRIMINALS.
I LOVE THE SMELL OF GUNPOWDER IN THE MORNING!
GUNS DIDN'T MAKE AMERICA UNSAFE - CONGRESS DID!
GUN NUT?? NOT ME! I'M JUST A FIREARMS ENTHUSIAST!
GUN CONTROL WORKS, ASK ANY COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
GUN CONTROL: A LAME EXCUSE FOR CRIMINAL CONTROL.
GUN CONTROL TREATS THE SYMPTOM, NOT THE DISEASE.
GUNS ONLY HAVE TWO ENEMIES: RUST AND POLITICIANS.
GUN OWNERS ARE CITIZENS. ALL OTHERS ARE SUBJECTS.
GUNSHOWS - THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND REAL PATRIOTS!
IF GUN CONTROL'S SO GOOD, WHY DO ITS ADVOCATES LIE?
GUN CONTROL: BREATHE, RELAX, AIM, SIGHT, AND SQUEEZE
GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
I'M A BURGLAR'S WORST NIGHTMARE -- AN ARMED CITIZEN!
GUNS DON'T MURDER PEOPLE, CRIMINALS MURDER PEOPLE.
GUN CONTROL WORKS... LOOK AT ALL THE CHALK OUTLINES!
GUNS CAUSE CRIME LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAUSES LIES.
I CARRY A PISTOL BECAUSE MY AK-47 WON'T FIT IN MY PURSE.
IF IT CAN'T OVERHEAT, IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FIREPOWER!
IF NOT FOR POLITICIANS, WE WOULDN'T NEED ASSAULT RIFLES!
I MAY BE PARANOID...BUT THEY STILL WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS!
GUN OWNERS ARE `SPECIAL', LIKE THE JEWS IN NAZI GERMANY!
I'LL GIVE UP MY GUNS WHEN THE POPE'S WIFE TAKES THE PILL!!
I'M WITH THE NRA, AND IF I CAN'T VOTE TWICE, I'LL SHOOT YOU.
GUNS = POWER AND THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS A MONOPOLY.
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, HOW WILL LIBERALS COLLECT TAXES?
I CARRY A PISTOL 'CAUSE MY SHOTGUN WON'T FIT THE HOLSTER.
GUN OWNERS ARE THE JEWS OF THE 90'S IN A FASCIST AMERICA.
GUN-GRABBER GUTS...THE RAREST SUBSTANCE IN THE UNIVERSE.
IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ME WITH A GUN WHY TRUST ME WITH A CAR?
IF RON OR NICOLE HAD A GUN, WOULD O.J. HAVE NEEDED A TRIAL?
GUN CONTROL: THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUNS HAVE THE CONTROL!
HITLER THOUGHT PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP WAS A PROBLEM TOO.
I WOULDN'T SPIT IN SCHUMER'S MOUTH IF HIS GUTS WERE ON FIRE.
IT DOESN'T SAY "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SPORTING GOODS!!
IF GUNS CAUSE CRIME THEN VIDEO CAMERAS CAUSE KIDDIE PORN!
GUNS EQUAL POWER. AND THE GOVERNMENT WANTS ALL THE GUNS.
GUN CONTROL PROTECTS CRIMINALS FROM WORK RELATED INJURIES.
I HOLD MY BREATH FOR NOUGHT, EXCEPT TO SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER...
IF THOMAS JEFFERSON WERE ALIVE TODAY, HE'D PUKE ON SARAH BRADY!!
IF WE LOSE THE SECOND, THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS ARE ACADEMIC.
I BELIEVE IN SANTA, THE EASTER BUNNY, TOOTH FAIRY AND GUN CONTROL....
HELP WIN "THE WAR ON DRUGS"! SHOOT FIRST, SPARE NO MERCY... RELOAD.
HORRID MISCHIEF WOULD OCCUR...DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF ARMS. - PAINE
IF A MAN WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, HE IS YOUR ENEMY. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE HONEST CITIZENS HELPLESS AND DEFENSELESS.
GUN REGISTRATION??! HOW ABOUT REGISTERING GANG MEMBERS INSTEAD!!
GUN CONTROL: GOVERNMENT DENTISTS PULLING YOUR "TEETH OF FREEDOM"!
IF G. WASHINGTON GRABBED GUNS LIKE CLINTON, WHERE WOULD WE BE NOW??!!
SELF CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL!
KEYSTONE KOPS + GESTAPO = BATF
SAFE SEX IS WEARING YOUR .45 TO BED.
SLAVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Classroom Culture that Spawned Kip Kinkel
Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:07:00 -0700


THE CLASSROOM CULTURE THAT SPAWNED KIP KINKEL
Author: By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Staff

Page: A23
Section: Op-Ed Page

Some boys-sorry, Father Flanagan-are bad. Some are downright evil.
By all accounts, Kip Kinkel was one of them. Reports on the grisly
shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., make it clear
that he was one vicious adolescent. He was the kind of punk who took
pleasure in flinging rocks down on cars from overpasses and torturing
small animals with firecrackers. He was obsessed with bombs and had a
furious temper.

Though his parents apparently did their best to control and correct
their son, their best wasn't good enough. Now they are dead, one
Thurston 10th-grader is dead, and 23 other students are wounded.

And Thurston gets added to the grim roll of American schools where
students, in 1998 alone, have become murderers:

Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pa. Westside Middle School, Jonesboro,
Ark. Heath High School, West Paducah, Ky. Pearl High School, Pearl, Miss.
Bethel Regional High School, Bethel, Alaska. And it isn't even June.

There have always been brutal, coldblooded kids. But there haven't
always been brutal, cold-blooded kids pulling .22-caliber semiautomatics
from beneath their coats in the school cafeteria and opening fire. And
there hasn't always been the dread, which deepens with each new atrocity,
that no community is immune from this teenage mayhem, that the next child
slaughtered by a schoolmate could be- yours.

It didn't come out of the blue. School hallways aren't running red
with blood for no reason. Grief-stricken mourners who sob and ask
"Why?" need our comfort and love. But their question has answers.

From Sunday's New York Times: "But he did not just tell friends in
private that his mind was full of violence. Once day in a literature
class, when it was his turn to read his dreams from his journal, Kip
stood up and told the class that he wanted to kill. But school officials
said such talk was not unusual among students, and was often dismissed
as just blowing off steam."

Not unusual. Often dismissed. A teenager talks of yearning to murder,
and his elders respond with: ho-hum. And then they are horrified when
he turns to murder. Is he deranged? Or are they?

Kids-the worst kids-become homeroom hit men when they are bombarded
with messages telling them: Do what you like. No one will judge you.
No one cares. The public schools they attend, so utterly transformed
from the public schools their parents and grandparents attended, shun
the enforcement of standards. Modern educational theories are built up
around the notions that wrong answers are as good as right answers,
that grades are oppressive, that "truth" is a relative concept. In
countless schools, students are encouraged to think that they can have
what they like and do what they like, because encouraging them to think
otherwise would bruise their self-esteem. And nothing, but nothing,
is more important than a child's self-esteem.

Least of all self-control. "I want to have all the firepower I can,"
Kip Kinkel reportedly said, "so I can kill as many people as I can."
Once a kid who talked that way in school would have been yanked by the
collar and marched before a principal, who would have taught him one
of life's great lessons: Shut up. He would have learned to control
his mouth, which in turn would have helped him control his thoughts.
If he was an unregenerate delinquent, he would have been expelled.
He would not have been indulged or ignored in the belief (or the hope)
that he was just "blowing off steam."

Steep schoolchildren in the belief that they are entitled to much
but responsible for little, and you raise a crop of irresponsible
and demanding adolescents. Train teachers and administrators to flee
from discipline, to retreat before student obstinacy, to abhor
authority-moral and otherwise-and you wind up with middle and high
schools that are little more than day care for teenagers.

In parochial and most other private schools, educators still manage
to convey to students the axiom that benefits must be earned and that
choices beget consequences.

Perhaps that is one reason these bloody assaults have not been occurring
in their cafeterias and classrooms. In far too many public schools, by
contrast, students learn one thing early and well: No matter what you do,
there is no price to pay. Don't do the homework and you'll pass anyway.
Cut classes and you can still graduate. Spray graffiti on the walls and
you won't be kicked out. Curse out a teacher and it will be tolerated.

Old joke: A rowdy kid, a troublemaking truant, is finally yanked out
of public school by his parents and enrolled in a Catholic school.
Quickly the complaints about him stop. He attends class. He does his
homework. He stops mouthing off. At semester's end, his report card
shows all As and Bs-to his parents' delight. "So tell us," they
finally ask him: "What got you to straighten up and fly right?"

"Well," he says, "on the first day I walked in and there on the wall
was a guy nailed to a cross. I figured these nuns were serious."

When American public schools were serious, they weren't the scene of
monthly murder sprees. But we have taken rigorous education, clear
values, and serious discipline out of the classroom. Something else
was bound to fill the void.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: quotes for the politically incorrect- 3/3
Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:53:00 -0700


IT'S THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE GUNS STUPID!
PRO-FREE SPEECH, PRO-GUN, PRO-FREEDOM!
LET'S WIN THE WAR ON CRIME, ARM VICTIMS!!!
LAWS DON'T STOP CRIME...ARMED CITIZENS DO.
NO GUNS, NO PEACE...KNOW GUNS, KNOW PEACE.
SARAH BRADY: THE WOMAN OF HITLER'S DREAMS.
IT DOESN'T SAY..."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, MUCH".
SO MANY LIBERALS... TOO FEW FLAME-THROWERS...
SEND SARAH BRADY FOR A RIDE WITH TED KENNEDY.
SWITCH BLADE LAWS STOP STABBINGS TOO...UH HUH...
SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT MAYBE THE FIRST DOMINO.....
IT'S NOT ONLY FOR THE GUNS. IT'S FOR THE FREEDOM!!!
PATRIOTIC, NOT PSYCHOTIC. *I* TRUST ME WITH MY GUN.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ARMS PATRIOTS, NOT SPORTSMEN!
TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME: ARM THE CITIZENS (VICTIMS)!
TECHNICALITY: A LIBERAL'S VIEW OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
KNOW GUNS AND BE SAFE.NO GUNS, AND NOBODY'S SAFE!
SARAH BRADY...BECAUSE SOMETIMES IPECAC ISN'T ENOUGH.
SAVE ME FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!
SECOND AMENDMENT RELATED "SPORTING USE": TYRANNICIDE.
MOST CRIMINALS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY ARMED CITIZENS!
SMITH & WESSON - THE ORIGINAL POINT-AND-CLICK INTERFACE!
RENO, NV RENAMED TO DOGPOOP, NV FOR BETTER REPUTATION.
OBVIOUSLY SOME UNNAMED AGENCY'S SICK SENSE OF HUMOR...
NO COMPROMISE - NO SURRENDER - NO FIREARMS PROHIBITION!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOESN'T SAY "...ONLY THESE FIREARMS..."!
KEEP CLOTHES & GUNS WHERE YOU CAN FIND THEM IN THE DARK.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT GUARENTEES ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS.
NEVER EVER VOLUNTEER TO GIVE UP YOUR PERSONAL FIREARMS!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT: IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM.
KNOCK KNOCK!! "BATF! OPEN UP OR WE'LL SHOOT YOUR CHILDREN!"
OF COURSE GUN CONTROL "WORKS." THE QUESTION IS FOR WHOM!
NO GUNS?? WHAT SHOULD I USE FOR DEFENSE, HARSH LANGUAGE?!
LUKE 22:36 "...HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, SELL HIS ROBE TO BUY ONE."
POISON GAS: INSTRUMENT OF DEATH - DACHAU, AUSCHWITZ, WACO...
RUBY RIDGE RULE #6: IT'S OKAY TO KILL THOSE AT SOCIETY'S FRINGE.
IT'S NOT A ASSAULT WEAPON, IT'S A SECURITY ENHANCEMENT DEVICE!
SPEAKING WITHOUT THINKING IS LIKE SHOOTING WITHOUT TAKING AIM.
LEXINGTON AND CONCORD WERE THE FIRST GUN CONTROL PROTESTS!.
LESS THAN 1/5TH OF 1% OF THE GUNS IN THE US ARE MISUSED IN CRIME.
MAY THE FLEAS OF A THOUSAND CAMELS INFEST JANET RENO'S CROTCH!
LIMITED INFRINGEMENT..LIKE BEING A LITTLE BIT PREGNANT.IT IS OR ISN'T!
JANET RENO DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A METER MAID.
SARAH MUST BE AN ONLY CHILD. NOBODY'S SO HORNY TO RISK HAVING TWO!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS IN CASE THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES THE OTHER 9!
SOME MEN ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL THEM!
THE 1ST COUNTRY HITLER CONQUERED ... WAS GERMANY WITH GUN CONTROL.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS TO ASSAULT AS THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS TO SLANDER.
PROOF THAT GUNOWNERS AREN'T VIOLENT...CHARLES SCHUMER IS STILL ALIVE.
SCHUMER'S SURGEON MUST BE GREAT! THE LOBOTOMY SCARS HARDLY SHOW...
IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. - D. KORESH
LIBERALS AND BANDITS BOTH WANT THE POPULATION UNARMED. COINCIDENCE?
THE DOCTORS SHOULD HAVE THROWN SCHUMER OUT AND KEPT THE AFTERBIRTH.
NEW GAME, NEW RULES. WE CHANGE THE LAW. YOU'RE OUTLAWS. - GOVERNMENT
LIBERALS ARE MORE COMFORTABLE SEEING 2 MEN FRENCH-KISSING THAN ARMED.
THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT. GUNS ENSURE IT.
TYRANTS LIKE AN UNARMED POPULOUS.
WACO WAS JUST ANOTHER INDIAN VILLAGE.
WIN THE WAR ON CRIME. ARM THE VICTIMS.
WACO - THE BATF'S REPLY TO PATRICK HENRY.
YEAH, I FIRED A WARNING SHOT...IN HIS CHEST.
THEY CAN HAVE MY GUNS...158 GRAINS AT A TIME!
WACO, TEXAS, THE TIANANMEN SQUARE OF AMERICA
THREE WORDS THAT QUELL RIOTS: "SHOOT TO KILL."
WANT MY GUNS? COME INTO RANGE AND GET THEM!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS LIMITED INFRINGEMENT.
YOU NEVER NEED A GUN UNTIL YOU NEED ONE BADLY.
WHEN THE 2ND GOES, THE REST ARE ONLY DOMINOES!
THE RIGHT TO BUY WEAPONS IS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE.
THE RIGHT TO ARMS IS FREEDOM'S INSURANCE POLICY.
WE'RE NOT HUNTING DUCKS... WE'RE HUNTING TYRANTS.
WELL, OF COURSE *ARMED* PEASANTS TEND TO BE UPPITY!
THE US IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY. ASK THE IRS OR THE BATF.
THIS IS AMERICA. THIS ISN'T A POLICE STATE - JUROR, WACO
WE'RE FED-UP!!! AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
VERMONT: STATE WITH LOWEST CRIME RATE & NO GUN LAWS.
WHEN OUTLAWS ARE OUTGUNNED THEN... NO MORE OUTLAWS!
WHAT'S OUR SECRET INGREDIENT? A FREE MAN AND HIS RIFLE.
WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THIS... **I'M NOT GIVING UP MY GUNS!**
THOSE WHO WOULD BE ENSLAVED, MUST FIRST BE DISARMED.
THEY WANT TO DISARM YOU - REFUSE TO BE DISARMED! - LIDDY
TRUST NO GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO DISARM ITS CITIZENS.
TO DETER CRIME, PLACE A GUN NUT BEHIND EVERY DEAD BOLT.
THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH GUNS!
VERMONT: LEAST GUN CONTROL AND CRIME. DC: THE OPPOSITE.
TRAVELLING UNARMED IS LIKE BOATING WITHOUT A LIFE JACKET.
THE MOST COMMON ELEMENT IN CRIME IS CRIMINALS. NOT GUNS.
YES, I'M PARANOID, AND THEY DO WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!
TRUST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WON'T TRUST ME WITH A FIREARM?
WHEN GOVERNMENTS FALL, PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE LINED UP & SHOT.
THEY'RE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS--THEY'RE CIVILIAN DEFENSE ARMS.
WHAT'S THE BEST DEFENSIVE GUN? THE ONE YOU HAVE WITH YOU!
WHEN THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS, GIVE THEM THE BULLETS FIRST.
THE PROBLEM ISN'T REPEATING RIFLES, IT'S REPEATING OFFENDERS.
WITHOUT A GUN, THE FLAG YOU'RE WAVING MAY AS WELL BE WHITE!
WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN THEY COME FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR'S GUNS?
THE FAMILY THAT SHOOTS TOGETHER -- SHOULDN'T BE MESSED WITH!
WANT MY AMMUNITION? YOU CAN HAVE IT ONE BULLET AT A TIME.
WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
WACO: AMERICA'S FIRST TIANANMEN SQUARE. WHERE'S THE NEXT ONE?
THE GOVERNMENT TOOK MY GUNS, I'M SAFER NOW, THANKS FUEHRER!
THUGS W/ GUNS ARE BAD, BUT THUGS W/ GUNS AND *BADGES*...UH OH!
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE GUNS!
WE WERE MEANT TO BE ARMED, THE LORD GAVE US A TRIGGER FINGER!
TO BURGLAR: STOP!!! PLEASE READ THIS HCI BROCHURE WHILE I CALL 911!
WARNING TO CRIMINALS: DON'T BOTHER RUNNING. YOU'LL ONLY DIE TIRED!
THEY CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS.
THE SWISS ARE ARMED. THE SWISS ARE FREE AND AT PEACE. THINK ABOUT IT.
THOUGHT CRIMES, POLITICAL CLEANSING AND GUN CONTROL GO HAND IN HAND...
WACO: THE FBI FORBADE THEM SURRENDER...THEN MASSACRED CHILDREN & ALL.
WE SHOULD FORGIVE OUR ENEMIES--AFTER THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND SHOT!
THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR GUNS INTO PLOWSHARES'LL PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DON'T.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Sly Sez: "Go Door-to-Door and Collect The Guns...."
Date: 04 Jun 1998 18:07:00 -0700


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

Availability of Guns is Not the Problem

"The first thing we would like to do is give Mr. Stallone an award for
hypocrisy at least of the week, if not the month or the year. Here's a
man that's making at least hundreds of millions of dollars off of
firearms, glorifying violence, if you will, the way he uses them. And
for him to turn around and say that other people's ought to be
confiscated is just a little bit much," said Larry Pratt, executive
director of Gun Owners of America on "Direct Line with Paul Weyrich,"
remarking with regard to a statement made by actor Sylvester Stallone
that we should go door to door and confiscate every gun as a result of
the recent school shootings. Pratt added, "The fact of the matter
is...there was a grisly murder of some teenagers involving a young lady,
a fellow student, that was going to snitch on them and they hung her and
beat her head with a rock. And that, it seemed to me, would have been
at least as worthy of the kind of coverage that we were being treated to
with the Jonesboro and other kinds of episodes. But it didn't happen
because there is an agenda - the media, most of the media -- certainly
shares the views of President Clinton and others that somehow guns are
just bad and need to be removed. And what we've been pointing out is
that there was a great deal more access to guns by young people within
our lifetime, people that are in our organization - Gun Owners of
America - even in New York City, [students] went to school with their
rifles because they had team practice. I've talked to teachers from
Pennsylvania schools that said, 'Oh yeah, the shooting range was right
underneath my feet when I taught.' So to say that somehow we've got to
get guns further away from Americans because kids have too much access,
ignores the fact that when guns were readily available, much more than
they are now to kids, we didn't have this kind of problem. The folks
that are responsible for the problem don't want us to talk about - 'you
can't put the Ten Commandments on the wall of a school, why the court
said a kid might be influenced by it.' Well, you'd hope so. Like,
'Thou shalt not kill.' That would be a good place to start."
Contact: Larry Pratt @ Gun Owners of America 703.321.8585



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Prozac & School Shootings
Date: 05 Jun 1998 16:49:07 -0700


Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting

        by MAUREEN SIELAFF
        [e-mail]
        The Terre Haute Vigo Examiner

SPRINGFIELD, OREGON - Before going on a wild shooting spree at his
Springfield Oregon high school that left 2 dead and 22 injured, Kip Kinkel
had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription
drug called Prozac.  This particular drug has factored in almost all wild
shooting sprees which have taken place in the last ten years.  Eli Lilly of
Indianapolis,
Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is
alleged to induce in patients.

Prozac is commonly given to youths as a treatment for depression.
In the book "Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs," by Lewis A.
Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for
Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid
reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts.

The following information is taken from form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by
Dista Products Company, a division of Eli Lilly and
Company of Indianapolis, Indiana.  It was last revised on June
12, 1997, and can be found in each package of Prozac:

Anxiety and Insomnia: In clinical trials for the depressed, held in the U.S.,
12% to 16% of those tested reported increased anxiety, nervousness,
or insomnia.  In similar trials for those diagnosed with
obsessive-compulsive disorders insomnia was reported in 28% of the
patients, and anxiety was reported in 14%.

Altered Appetite and Weight: In controlled U.S. clinics 11% of patients
treated with Prozac reported an anorexic appetite.
However, only rarely have patients discontinued treatment with
Prozac because of this symptom.  Those diagnosed with OCD, again,
came in at a higher rate of 17%.

Other symptoms: (considered to be frequent by Dista) chills, hemorrhage
and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting,
agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain,
taste perversion, and tinnitus.

The outcome classification (%) on the Clinical Global Impression
improvement scale based on two studies showed that of those who took
40mg of Prozac, 0% were reported to be no worse, 33% showed no
change, 28% were minimally improved, 27% much improved, and
12% very much improved.  Meaning that of those tested only 39%
showed any reasonable improvement from taking this drug.

Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to
this sudden increase in homicidal shootings, these events do not appear
to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership.  But when the
percentage of these killers that are on
Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on
Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges.  Though Prozac does indeed
help many people suffering from depression, it appears that it does
indeed also drive many into homicidal rages.

When Kip Kinkel's home was investigated, several bombs that he had
constructed were discovered.  With a ban on bombs already in place, he
nevertheless managed to have several in his possession that he might
well have taken to school instead of guns.  So the question arises, if
guns had been banned like bombs, would the danger have been
averted?  The unmistakable answer is that it would not.  And with the
shootings correlating far more closely with the psychiatric drug Prozac,
why is the public put in such great danger by its widespread use, while
efforts are directed instead toward something that shows no
correlation?

On Tuesday, May 19th, Kip Kinkel's father took away his rifle, after
finding that Kip was taking the gun out of the house on unsupervised
ventures into the woods.  The next day, Wednesday,
May 20th, 15 year old Kip Kinkel showed up at Thurston High
School with a dangerous attitude and a newly purchased stolen gun that
he had gotten from another student.  A security guard caught wind of
the arrangement and the two boys were arrested, booked, and then
released to their parents.

On Thursday, May 21st, Kip Kinkel walked out of his home after shooting
his parents with the rifle his dad had taken away from him and
proceeded to the high school.  He walked into the cafeteria and fired off
51 rounds of ammunition which resulted in the deaths of two of the
students and injuries of various degrees to 22 other students ages 14
through 18.  The onslaught ended when one of the wounded students, a
17 year old wrestler, tackled
Kip, and other students piled on top of Kip to help restrain him.

Those who have known Kip Kinkel present very differing portrayals of
his life and his demeanor on an everyday basis.  Gun control advocates
are outraged that "a gun" has again taken the lives of innocent citizens.
Others are saying that Kip Kinkel is just an average kid who went about
on a daily basis doing stunts that average kids do.  Still others paint a
depressing picture of a child and a family in crisis and at the end of their
ropes, and of a young boy who for years had displayed his
unhappiness, albeit apparently reasonless, by doing acts which should
have been considered highly questionable and certainly not normal.

A close family friend told reporters that Bill Kinkel had begun confiding in
him about four years ago about severe behavioral problems with his son.
 The friend stated that the boy's parents sought counseling and
attempted to maintain a very structured home life.  "As parents, they just
kept trying."

The day before the shooting spree Mr. Kinkel contacted the Oregon
National Guard to inquire about having his son enrolled in the
Guard's Youth Challenge Program.  An official with the Guard stated that
Mr. Kinkel seemed at the end of his rope, and that he wanted to get his
son "mainstreamed back into school."  The Guard
YCP takes in children who "are on the razor's edge, ready to fall on the
dark side."  Obviously Kip Kinkel was already over the edge.

His attitude regarding life and his subsequent behavior was irrationally
ignored by not only his closest friends but also the teachers, the school
nurse, school management, and police officials.  Most had the attitude
that he was just a kid, that no one needed to be concerned.  But how
could this be?

All were well aware of the boy's bizarre behavioral patterns.
Although they might say what a nice kid they thought he was, most can
follow up with one story or another of comments and actions that
definitely describe a boy that is anything but "average".

Apparently it is easier to drug our youth, to fill their bodies with drugs
that many times have worse side effects on their minds and spirits than
the problems they have.  You name the attitude and there is a drug to
supposedly help or cure it.

It may be time to take the War On Drugs to where it can really be
effective; getting these society cop-out drugs out of our children's lives.
It may be time we rise and help our children through productive activities
and quit drugging them senseless.


http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com/




-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prozac & School Shootings
Date: 06 Jun 1998 21:04:44 -0600

At 04:49 PM 6/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting
>
>        by MAUREEN SIELAFF
>        [e-mail]
>        The Terre Haute Vigo Examiner


Prozac doesn't cause crime any more than guns cause crime.  Many criminals
use guns.  Many criminals use drugs.  But neither drugs nor guns are
_causal_.  Only _people_ can commit crimes.

Sarah

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Heston snipes at President Clinton during NRA speech
Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700


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

Heston snipes at President Clinton during NRA speech
5.30 p.m. ET (2131 GMT) June 6, 1998

By Dinah Wisenberg Brin, Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Charlton Heston lashed out at President Clinton on
Saturday as he called on members of the National Rifle Association to unify
behind him.

Despite fierce opposition from a minority faction, Heston is expected
to be elected president of the NRA during the group's 127th convention,
which started Friday.

Heston criticized the media and politicians and took special aim at
Clinton:

"Mr. Clinton, sir, America did not trust you with our health care system.
America did not trust you with gays in the military. We did not trust you
with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with
our guns.''

More than 40,000 NRA members attended the convention, headlined "The
Second Amendment, America's First Freedom,'' which ends Wednesday.

The organization's board of directors is expected to select Heston as the
NRA's president on Monday.

"I came here to heal,'' the 73-year-old actor said, calling for an end to
quarreling within the NRA.

He noted the right of members to disagree, but then added: "Once the votes
are counted, the die is cast. Get together or get out of the way.''

Heston has been criticized by NRA board member Neal Knox, 62, who has
been quarreling with the leadership for more than 20 years. Last year,
Heston unseated him as first vice president.

Knox and other NRA members contend Heston has an uneven record on gun
rights, noting his appearances in support of the nation's first federal
gun-control law after Robert Kennedy's assassination 30 years ago.
They also did no like his comment on a radio program last year that
semiautomatic AK-47s were inappropriate for private use.

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre accused Knox "and his gang''
of damaging the organization and of turning the Internet "into a sewer
pipe of lies about the NRA and its membership.''

"To attack and malign Charlton Heston is unforgivable. This man has done
more for our cause in one appearance than you will do in a lifetime,''
LaPierre said.

The NRA, LaPierre said, is engaged in a more important "culture war''
against outside enemies--television anchors, Hollywood celebrities--who
attack the Second Amendment right to bear arms and treat gun owners as
second-class citizens.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fourth Check on Big Govt
Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700


The fourth check on big government
by Jerry D. Troyer

In 1787 the 13 new States refused to support the proposed Constitution
without a "Bill of Rights". This great country has a Republican form of
government. It is a government designed to prevent tyranny.

The sons of liberty joined to erect four fences around their government,
so it could not get out of bounds: The Executive, The Legislative, The
Judicial, and The Individual. Each was a check, or balance, on the other.

After God, the individual came first. A government with its powers nailed
down; fastened and confined to the proper defense of the individual---to
his pursuits of life, liberty, property and happiness, those inalienable
rights endowed by The Creator.(1)

In this Republic, a Citizen is not required to be a member of a majority
to have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
The "Bill of Rights" is the cornerstone in a wall guaranteeing citizen
rights. The power of citizens acts as a check on the tyranny of government
power It is impossible to hope that the power of government can be
balanced against the rights of the individual without the Second Amendment.

The individual's right to defend life and property predates the
Constitution. Also, this right is guaranteed by both the Second and Ninth
Amendments to the Constitution.

The roots to the right to bear arms can be traced back to the Fourteeth
Century. At that time, English weapons restrictions made an exception for
both self defense and defense of one's dweling.(2)

In the "new World" the roots to the "Right to Bear Arms" starts in 1623.
The following is a quote from that era.

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well
armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on
Sunday and "bring their pieces to church." In 1658, it required every
householder to have a functioning firearm within his home and in 1673
its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase
a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would
then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In
Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only
freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and, in 1644, it
imposed a stern 6 shilling fine on any citizen who was not armed.(3)

The above excerpt gives a solid foundation to the individual "Right to Bear
Arms" before the Constitution. The "Founding Fathers" fear of big
government is documented in their written record. Today people have said
that times have changed and there is no longer a need for arms in the hands
of citizens. These people say that the police or government can protect
citizens from threats to life and property.

To decide if citizens should be disarmed consider the responsiveness of
government to the needs of citizens in other areas. In addition, a threat
to your life is an immediate need requiring an immediate response. If the
government is slow to respond, the citizen loses his life and/or property.
The right to bear arms is so important it cannot be left in the hands of
government alone.

Constitutionally, the government exists or representatives hold office
through the consent of the governed. This is a basic concept which checks
government power. Consider the following two situations. Could an unarmed
government function if all its citizens were armed? Recent events suggest
that individual interest would dominate all the government's activities and
group interest would suffer. Could an unrestrained (armed) government keep
the Republican form with free but disarmed citizens? The actions of
various governments around the world show individual rights disappear to
be replaced by group interest (the people in control of the government).

Should our Government fear its Citizens? Is it necessary that our
representatives fear being voted out of office? And fear opposition by
force if certain individual rights, are taken from the people? In order
for the four checks and balances basic to a Republican form of government
to work, the power of the people must remain strong. The "Right to
Bear Arms" is critical to maintaining all the rights of the people. The
rights of an individual to remain free requires them to exercise their
check and blancing power as a part of their government. A people will not
long remain free if they expect the government to control itself.

Notes:
1. Walton, Rus. "One Nation Under God". The Rebirth of America. The
Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. 1986. P. 19.
2. Hardy, David T. "Armed Citizens, Citizens Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence
of the Second Amendment". 9 Harv. J. L. Pub. Pol'y 559,566-67 (1986)
3. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Report Of The Subcommittee On The
Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary, S. Doc. No. 2807, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess.3 (1982).

All Rights Reserved copywrited August 10, 1994


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fed Gun Registration To Begin Nov.30
Date: 07 Jun 1998 22:23:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail]

http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/federalup.htm#registration

Alan Korwin
For Publication
557 Words
One Time North American Serial Rights
[phone] FAX
[phone] Phone
May 26, 1998

The issue is no longer "if" or "whether" the federal government will
register gun owners nationally. It is their announced plans, and the
system is nearly completed. They'll tell you on the phone, they'll mail
you the brochure, you can read about it on their website (not any website,
their website). These are the highlights:

The name and full ID of every retail gun buyer in the country will be
recorded by the FBI, starting Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be
semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000, when they become mandatory. A tax
of up to $16 will apply to every purchase, unless your state's police
cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is waived); 19 such states
are "playing" as of this date. The FBI may lower its tax, working in
concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid acceptance
of registration. The official public comment period has ended.

FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from this business) claim
they have to do all this for security purposes. For audit purposes. They
claim they have to under the Brady law. They claim it's just an instant
check. None of these claims are supported. Gun owners will be kept online
for at least two years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year
revolving online registry will include between eight and fourteen million
people -- all the most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and
quasi-permanent backups are planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada
in June, if the interface specs are on time.

Compare these phrases: Instant check. Ongoing long-term storage. See?
They're not the same. Congress enacted an instant check. Ongoing long-term
storage is the FBI's idea. Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer
act, which unequivocally prohibits recording this information in a
government facility. The FBI is simply ignoring it. Claiming it doesn't
apply. The only glitch -- a minor one, apparently -- is the intent of
Congress: instant check, record nothing. I know, I know, you can argue
the validity of the instant check itself, but at least it's a law. The
rogue actions of the bureaucracies here are against the law. Prohibited
by law.

We don't need another law -- this is already illegal -- just enforce
the law against the government -- or forget the whole notion of "the
rule of law." Proposed legislation to require short time frames merely
has the horrendous effect of breaching the protection of McClure-Volkmer,
which now blanketly prohibits any recordation whatsoever.

Saving instant-check data is the opposite of the Brady law. Brady says
if the sale goes through the records shall be destroyed. Only a corrupt
reading of the phrase destroy all records ends up meaning save all records
and do whatever you want with them for as long as you deem proper. If
there's any question about Brady, check McClure-Volkmer, the law Charles
Schumer tries to repeal every year.

OK, so we've lost. Our own government plans to collect the name and
address of every innocent person who gets a gun after Nov. 30th. How
did we get into this mess anyway? Registration used to be the most feared
and staunchly resisted facet of government power grabs. Why haven't we
heard about this? The implications of that question are too chilling to
verbalize. I'll have more for you shortly.

-- Alan Korwin

* NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed under fair use without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 06/06/98  Time: 12:38:08
http://www.constitution.org/     mailto:[e-mail]
===================================================================


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The End of Activism
Date: 08 Jun 1998 00:52:53 -0600

This apparently didn't get processed the first time I sent it out.
Apologies if it shows up twice!
S.


This is to let you all know that effective June 4, 1998, I have resigned
from the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.  My
intention is to devote full time to my family, writing, and other interests.

Effective as soon as I get confirmation that this note has gone out, I will
also be unsubscribing from the utah-firearms list.  Those people who wish
to contact me privately can still do so at this address, but please don't
just send copies of every single post to me.  If I wanted to read them all,
I'd stay subscribed! <g>

Those interested in my general reasons for resigning are invited to read my
essay "The End of Activism" which can be found at
http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/sarah.htm or at
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/F_EndActivism.html.  It will be on
my Web page as soon as the new design is finished.

Best wishes to all of you,
Sarah







Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com (under construction!)

Subscribe to "The Righter", a weekly column focusing on
civil liberties and individual action.
To subscribe send a message to: [e-mail] with the
message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message.

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NRA's President God -Forwarded
Date: 08 Jun 1998 10:15:27 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 08 Jun 1998 10:00:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA01504; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:57:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma001289; Mon Jun  8 11:54:49 1998
Message-Id: <001501bd92ee$943ded00$180b81ce@bugbox>
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

This morning on the radio I heard Charlton Heston's defense of his
statements about AK-47s being "inappropriate" for private ownership. He says
he doesn't have to like all guns to defend the right to own them.

On the one hand, this is actually sound -- we have the right to expect our
government to regard guns, as well as speech and religion, in exactly this
way. And if he's sincere, Heston appears to be better for gun owners than,
say, Dan Lungren.

On the other hand, should Heston succeed in his quest to become NRA's
president, he'd better stick more closely to the script thereafter. If he
ever thought it was tough dealing with just one director on a movie set, he
may have serious difficulty with 2.8 million directors, many of whom are
just watching for an excuse to yell, "CUT!"

As president of the NRA, Charlton Heston will be expected to avoid
discussions of the merits of particular guns if there are any he doesn't
like. He'll have to limit his statements to legal and constitutional issues,
and the conclusions of the growing body of scientific research that supports
the individual right to keep and bear arms. He's already proven he's not
immune to the willingness of Big Media to twist words to fit a Big Media
political agenda. Where his opinion differs from that of the association's
grassroots membership, Heston will have to be a good soldier and keep his
personal opinions private.

Welcome to power, Chuck.

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

You have GOT to see http://www.llano.net/LCRP/page5.html



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Talking Points for Tienamen Square -Forwarded
Date: 08 Jun 1998 14:37:42 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA04208; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 03:46:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004067; Sat Jun  6 03:43:33 1998
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

     Some humor to lighten things up. Unfortunately,
it isn't really funny when you think about it.

Regards,
Dennis Baron
                   ----------------------------------------------
Talking Points for Tienamen Square
Commentary by Dennis Shea, a regular feature of MSNBC.

  The following is Draft No. 3 of a speech prepared for delivery
by President Bill Clinton during his upcoming visit to Tiananmen
Square in Beijing. It was recently subpoenaed by eager
prosecutors in the Office of Independent Counsel.
>
       More than 25 years ago, President Richard Nixon traveled to
your country and inaugurated a new era in U.S.-China relations.
Today, I stand before you, a proud and faithful bearer of the
Nixonian legacy: invoking executive privilege, stonewalling criminal
 investigations and pursuing the policy of constructive engagement.

      Constructive engagement has been one of the great success
stories of the 20th century. Whether it#s the network of slave-labor
camps throughout China; the aggressive saber-rattling of your
military in the South China Sea; the wholesale destruction of
Tibetan culture; the persecution of millions of Christians and other
religious minorities; the brutal suppression of political dissent; the
vending of Chinese nuclear technology to Pakistan and Iran; the
violation of American copyright laws by Chinese profiteers; and the
crushing of pro-democracy demonstrators here in Tiananmen
Square, it#s as clear as egg-drop soup that the People#s Republic is
working hard to take its rightful place as a responsible member of
the community of civilized nations.

      My friends, the policy of constructive engagement is working
and working well.

 (Pause for applause.)

       Yes, we#ve had some bumps in the road. In recent weeks, I ve
lost a lot of face trying to explain why I allowed one of my fat-cat
buddies to sell you critical missile-guidance technology. Some have
even accused me of proving Karl Marx right: We capitalists will
indeed provide the rope by which we will hang ourselves. But I
have patiently endured these indignities because the policy of
constructive engagement must prevail.

 (Pause for applause.)

       It is sheer folly to allow the presence of 13 Chinese
 nuclear-tipped missiles targeted at American cities to interfere with
the deep and abiding friendship between our two peoples.

 (Pause for applause.)

       And speaking of people, I want to take this opportunity to
express my most profound thanks to General Liu, his enterprising
daughter Chaoying, and the other valiant fighting men and women
of the People s Liberation Army for their generous contributions to
the Clinton-Gore campaign.

    Your financial support was the great wall that prevented those
running-dog Republicans from running away with the White House
in 1996. Imagine if arms dealers like Wang Jun and hustlers like
Johnny Chung had not visited me in the Oval Office. Our bilateral
relations would be very different today had those encounters not
taken place.

       You know, back home we ve been hearing a great deal these
days about so-called Asian values. The experts tell us these Asian
values are inimical to democracy. So, it is doubly gratifying to see
how the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party have proven the
experts wrong by so avidly embracing one one of the most basic
red-white-and-blue values.

      Your willingness to participate in the democratic process by
making cash contributions to my campaign means there s real hope
that true, American-style democracy can take root here, too.

       Your experience with soft-money schemes will prove invaluable
as you learn the art of bundling contributions to get more political
bang for the buck; use independent  expenditures and  issue ads
to evade campaign-spending limits; exploit tax-exempt organizations
to promote your own partisan agenda; and shake down potential
campaign donors in exchange for official actions.

       To assist you on the long march to American-style democracy,
I have asked my friend Harold Ickes to serve as my personal envoy
to the People s Liberation Army. There is no one in the United
States today better equipped to navigate the complex web of
campaign finance laws. If there is a loophole to be found, Harold
Ickes will bore right through it. And, besides, he s out of a job and
needs the work.

 (Point to Harold in audience. If appropriate, ask him to stand
up.)

       Yes, my friends, the future of democracy here in the Middle
Kingdom is as bright as the Hong Kong skyline. And, indeed, I look
forward to the day when the People s Liberation Army establishes
its own political action committee to dole out $5,000 contributions
to pliant politicians of every party.

       I would be remiss if I did not extend congratulations to those
unsung heroes, the nameless Chinese bureaucrats who have
stubbornly refused to turn over bank records to the imperialist
swine masquerading as congressional campaign-finance
 investigators. The ruthless efficiency with which your bureaucracy
has stonewalled the Thompson and Burton investigations in
Congress is a continuing source of inspiration for my own
 administration s initiative to reinvent government.

     So, President Li Peng, Premier Zhu Rongji, John Huang, Charlie
Trie and all our friends who have either pleaded the Fifth or fled the
country, as an expression of our deep appreciation, Vice President
Gore and I would like to make this commitment to you today. We
commit to invite you to every  donor maintenance event
sponsored by the Democratic National Committee during the next
election cycle. It s been our experience that Buddhist temples
provide a wonderful setting for these important  non-fundraising
opportunities.

 (Optional: But of course, we d have to fly you to Los Angeles,
since any Chinese citizen walking into a Buddhist temple here in
Beijing would likely be thrown in jail.)

 Today I stand before you, a man of limited means and unlimited
ambition.

 (Feign sincerity, squint eyes and bite lip.)

       I am reminded of the words of your late great leader Chairman
Mao, who sagely observed,  Water too pure breeds no fish.

       The same, of course, can be said for politics: Politics too pure
breeds no graft, no petty selfishness, no opportunities for
corruption. And, in the end, where would that get us? I d be back in
Little Rock and you#d have a bunch of defective rockets.

 (Pause, wait for applause.)




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The Supremes define "carry" -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jun 1998 08:53:01 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA06690; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006505; Tue Jun  9 10:36:18 1998
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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Call me paranoid, but considering how far reaching these types of decisions
can be, I think we have a whole new problem associated with this decision.
Though I'm not a lawyer, it seems that when a word is defined by the SC,
that definition can pass along to other laws.  For those of us in Denver who
can have a vehicle confiscated for carrying a firearm, this is particularly
worrisome.  For all the verbal assurances that a gun in the trunk won't be
considered a problem, I'd still advise avoiding travel through the city and
county of Denver if one has a firearm. The surrounding counties are a better
choice.

>  Gun Law
>
>  Splitting 5 to 4, the Justices traded dictionary definitions and
> literary references in interpreting a Federal law that imposes a
> five-year mandatory sentence on anyone who "uses or carries a firearm"
> in connection with a narcotics crime.
>
>  The question for the Court was whether traveling in a car with a gun in
> a locked glove compartment or trunk -- as opposed to carrying a gun on
> one's person -- met the law's definition of "carry." The narrow
> majority, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, held that it did.
>
>  Justice Breyer traced the word "carry" to the Latin words "carum," for
> car or cart, and "carricare," meaning "convey in a car." He said that
> modern journalistic usage, as well as works including the Bible,
> "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moby Dick," use the word carry in the sense of
> "convey in a vehicle." Congress intended the word in its ordinary,
> everyday meaning, he said, without the limitation that some lower courts
> have placed on the statute of requiring that the gun be "immediately
> accessible."
>
>  Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found the literary evidence
> "highly selective" and unpersuasive. She offered quotations of her own,
> from Rudyard Kipling to the television show "M.A.S.H." to Theodore
> Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" to show that "carry" is
> properly understood to mean "the gun at hand, ready for use as a
> weapon."
>
>  The decision, Muscarello v. United States, No. 96-1654, upheld rulings
> by Federal appeals courts in New Orleans and Boston. Justices John Paul
> Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas
> joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion. Chief Justice William H.
> Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter joined the
> dissent.



--------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U S WEST
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

First segment (long) is about extradition between states - the first
sentence pretty much says it all..  Last segment (short) is about the
definition of "carry".  That one could have some far reaching
consequences and it's interesting to see who voted which way on it.

   June 9, 1998
     SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP  Right of States to Extradite Fugitives Is
Upheld

    By LINDA GREENHOUSE

 WASHINGTON -- States have an unalterable duty to return other states'
fugitives, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a unanimous opinion that
gave the New Mexico Supreme Court no choice but to extradite an escaped
parolee whom the state court had deemed to be a "refugee from injustice"
in the Ohio prison system.

 Even accepting as "credible" the fugitive's testimony that he faced
serious threats of injury at the hands of prison officials if returned
to custody in Ohio, the Court said, "this is simply not the kind of
issue that may be tried in the asylum state."

 The unsigned, five-page opinion made no new law; Supreme Court
precedents dating to the 19th century have left states essentially no
discretion in extradition cases as long as proper procedures are
followed and the individual's identity and fugitive status are
confirmed.

 Nonetheless, this was not an ordinary case. By a 4-to-1 decision in
September, the New Mexico Supreme Court acknowledged the weight of
precedent but declared that it would not give those cases a "mechanical
reading" that would have the "intolerable result" of sending a fugitive
"back to face death or great bodily harm." The state court characterized
the case as "unique" and said its reading of the Federal and New Mexico
Constitutions obliged it to shelter the fugitive, Timothy Reed, from
Ohio's extradition demand.

 Reed is a Lakota Sioux who became an active advocate for Native
American religious rights while serving a 25-year prison sentence, for
theft and robbery in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility at
Lucasville. Under the name Little Rock Reed, his articles on Indian
affairs and prisoners' rights were published in national magazines and
circulated at academic conferences.

 After some delay, his parole was granted in 1992. Once freed, Reed
continued to write and speak critically of Ohio's prison system and was
ordered by parole officials to cancel speaking engagements.

 In March 1993, six weeks before his parole was to end, Reed was in a
minor traffic accident in a borrowed car and paid a $105 fine. He got
into an argument with the car owner's husband, who complained to parole
officials that Reed had threatened him. The incident led to a
misdemeanor charge of "terroristic threatening." His parole officer
ordered Reed to report to the parole office and told him that he would
be returned to the Lucasville prison without a hearing.

 According to the New Mexico Supreme Court opinion, Reed knew, as an
experienced jailhouse lawyer, that United States Supreme Court precedent
gave prisoners the right to a hearing before their paroles could be
revoked. He believed that Ohio prison officials planned to violate his
rights, and his sources among the inmates told him that his life would
be in danger if he returned. He fled to Taos, N.M., where he worked as a
paralegal and continued to speak out on prison issues until he was
arrested in response to Ohio's extradition request in October 1994.

 While New Mexico officials wanted to return Reed to Ohio, the New
Mexico trial court, in a decision affirmed by the State Supreme Court,
granted him a writ of habeas corpus and barred his extradition. The
state courts found that Reed was not a "fugitive from justice" but a
"refugee from injustice," in the State Supreme Court's words, because
"the uncontroverted evidence shows that he left Ohio under duress and
under a reasonable fear for his safety and his life."

 New Mexico appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that
its state court ruling threatened a "profound expansion" of the role of
states in extradition proceedings. Instead of automatically rendering
prisoners as demanded, New Mexico said, extradition would become "a
process by which asylum states audit the functioning of penal
institutions in their sister states." Ohio, which was not a party to the
case, filed a brief signed by 39 other states, including New York and
Connecticut, that urged the Justices to overturn the decision.

 The Court issued its ruling Monday, New Mexico v. Reed, No. 97-1217, on
the basis of the written briefs, without ever having accepted the case
for argument. Omitting nearly all the facts of the case, the unsigned
opinion quoted the Constitution's extradition clause, which requires
that a fugitive "shall on demand of the executive authority of the state
from which he fled be delivered up."

 As long ago as 1861, the Court said, "we held that the duty imposed by
the extradition clause on the asylum state was mandatory." The opinion
concluded that the Supreme Court of New Mexico "went beyond the
permissible inquiry in an extradition case."

 Within hours of Monday's ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court complied
by revoking its earlier decision. Kay Bird, a spokeswoman for the New
Mexico Attorney General's office, said that "the wheels are in motion"
to have Reed arrested and returned to Ohio. Reed's lawyer, Stevan D.
Looney, said he was trying to reach his client and would have no
immediate comment.

 In a telephone interview tonight, which Reed initiated from an
undisclosed location in New Mexico, he said he planned to turn himself
in to Ohio authorities "after I am confident that there will be enough
publicity that I will be treated fairly." He said he expected to present
evidence at a parole revocation hearing in Ohio that he was forced to
flee and that his flight should be regarded as a minor parole violation.

 Gun Law

 Splitting 5 to 4, the Justices traded dictionary definitions and
literary references in interpreting a Federal law that imposes a
five-year mandatory sentence on anyone who "uses or carries a firearm"
in connection with a narcotics crime.

 The question for the Court was whether traveling in a car with a gun in
a locked glove compartment or trunk -- as opposed to carrying a gun on
one's person -- met the law's definition of "carry." The narrow
majority, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, held that it did.

 Justice Breyer traced the word "carry" to the Latin words "carum," for
car or cart, and "carricare," meaning "convey in a car." He said that
modern journalistic usage, as well as works including the Bible,
"Robinson Crusoe" and "Moby Dick," use the word carry in the sense of
"convey in a vehicle." Congress intended the word in its ordinary,
everyday meaning, he said, without the limitation that some lower courts
have placed on the statute of requiring that the gun be "immediately
accessible."

 Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found the literary evidence
"highly selective" and unpersuasive. She offered quotations of her own,
from Rudyard Kipling to the television show "M.A.S.H." to Theodore
Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" to show that "carry" is
properly understood to mean "the gun at hand, ready for use as a
weapon."

 The decision, Muscarello v. United States, No. 96-1654, upheld rulings
by Federal appeals courts in New Orleans and Boston. Justices John Paul
Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas
joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion. Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter joined the
dissent.




--------------6C39F21D74DEC248F254E892--



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand]
Date: 09 Jun 1998 17:31:02 -0600


Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are
not.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban

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


ACTION:  Send the message at the bottom of this page to the
Representatives that are NOT listed below.  Or call 202-225-3121
and let your Rep. know that now is the time to cosponsor HR 1009!


(June 9, 1998) -- Gun Owners of America today put
Representatives on notice in Washington that the cosponsorship of
H.R. 1009 would be counted as a ratings vote in 1998.  Rep. Helen
Chenoweth (R-ID) is the chief sponsor of this very important bill
repealing the Lautenberg gun ban.

In a prepared statement, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt
told Congressmen that, "This unconstitutional law must be
repealed, and Congress owes it to the people to put Rep.
Chenoweth's bill to a vote.

"But if Congress doesn't, then Gun Owners of America will rate
the cosponsorship of her bill instead of a vote.  Those who
cosponsor H.R. 1009 will be listed as having cast a pro-gun
vote.  All the others will be ranked as having cast an anti-
gun vote and will have to answer to their constituents in
November."

The Lautenberg ban, passed in 1996, imposes a lifetime gun
ban on those who have committed minor infractions in the home--
"offenses" as slight as shoving a spouse or spanking a child.

"So far, only 37 Representatives have taken a stand for freedom
and cosponsored H.R. 1009," Pratt said.  "This is one of the
most important bills in the Congress, and Rep. Chenoweth
deserves a lot of thanks from the American people."


Current cosponsor list for H.R. 1009:

BATEMAN (R-VA)
BUNNING (R-KY)
CANNON (R-UT)
CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
CHENOWETH (R-ID) (sponsor)
COBURN (R-OK)
COMBEST (R-TX)
COOKSEY (R-LA)
CRAPO (R-ID)
CUBIN (R-WY)
DICKEY (R-AR)
DOOLITTLE (R-CA)
GIBBONS (R-NV)
GOODE (D-VA)
HALL (D-TX)
HASTINGS (R-WA)
HEFLEY (R-CO)
HERGER (R-CA)
HILL (R-MT)
HOSTETTLER (R-IN)
KIM (R-CA)
KOLBE (R-AZ)
LAHOOD (R-IL)
LEWIS, R (R-KY)
McINTOSH (R-IN)
PAUL (R-TX)
PICKETT (D-VA)
REDMOND (R-NM)
RIGGS (R-CA)
SKEEN (R-NM)
SMITH (R-MI)
SPENCE (R-SC)
STUMP (R-AZ)
THORNBERRY (R-TX)
TIAHRT (R-KS)
WATTS (R-OK)
WICKER (R-MS)
YOUNG, D (R-AK)


-- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for fax
numbers and e-mail addresses or call your Rep. and ask)


Dear Representative

Gun Owners of America has announced that cosponsorship of
H.R. 1009 will be considered a pro-gun vote on its upcoming
Candidate's Vote Rating.  Please become a cosponsor of H.R. 1009,
the bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban.

The Lautenberg law makes a mere misdemeanor grounds for denying
citizens, including police, the right to keep and bear arms.  It
is a grave infringement on the rights of Americans and must be
repealed.

The Chenoweth bill has the support of gun groups, women's groups,
civil rights groups and other organizations concerned with
constitutionally guaranteed liberties.  Please let me know how
you intend to act.

Sincerely,


***********************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of
getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider
joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service
is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume
is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week
indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward
this notice) to [e-mail] and include your
state of residence in either the subject line or the body.



----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"War to the hilt between capitalism and communism is inevitable. Today,
 of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20
 or 30 years. In order to win, we shall need the element of surprise. The
 bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching
 the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be
 electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist
 countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own
 destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as
 their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist." --
 Quoted by Dmitri Z. Manuisky, Lenin School of Political Warfare (1931).

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Posts Signs at Philadelphia Convention "NO GUNS" -- Here is full story.
Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Thought this might be of interest to Second Amendment Supporters--

My name is H Howard Lewis Bloom and I am the listowner of
[e-mail] .. Pennsylvania's only pro-gun mailing list. This
post concerns the NRA convention and the "no guns" signs at convention.

Here are the players:

NRA
James Land, NRA Secretary
Tanya Metaska, Director NRA/ILA
Tom Wyld, Director of Public Affairs and ILA Communication
Bill Powers, NRA Spokesperson .. works for Wyld

Convention Center
Kelly Lynch, In charge of entire convention

The Philadelphia Inquirer Article:
http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Jun/05/city/CARR05.htm

NRA Secretary Jim Land knew in February of this year of a new regulation
put forth by the convention center concerning the carrying of concealed
weapons on the property. The convention was booked 4 years ago, and
during the February meeting to go over logistics, Ms. Kelly Lynch told
Jim Land and his people about this so-called regulation.

Mr. Land had put together conventions in cities with laws against
carrying of firearms in public buildings. According to Mr. Land, "I
got so used to the laws, that I never checked whether it was a law
in Philadelphia."

Herein lies the problem: Mr. Land admitted to me, that he goofed big
time on the issue. I informed him that the convention center was
indeed public property, not private property and that there is no
prohibition against carrying a firearm concealed with a permit. None.

I asked Jim Land why he didn't use NRA/ILA and the lawyers on staff to
research this. He claimed no excuse. He did tell me that he would not
be fooled again and would take better care to find out all facets of
so called laws.

I thought he was sincere. If I opened his eyes and made him a bit more
careful, then it was worth the legwork by me on Friday afternoon.

I spoke to Kelly Lynch of the convention center about the signs.
According to Ms. Lynch, the signs were printed a month ago by NRA for
the convention. I asked her about this regulation concerning firearms
in the building. She claimed that the employee manual states very
clearly ... I reminded her that patrons to the building aren't on her
payroll. She then told me that patrons aren't allowed either. I wanted
her to fax me a copy of this document that states this, but to date
she has not faxed it.

The crux of the matter is that this is a public building. Lynch went on
about the board of directors and they could make rules ... blah blah blah
.. I reminded her that this building is owned by Pennsylvania and that
there are no laws concerning the carrying of concealed firearms.

Ms. Lynch admitted that there has never been an occasion to place a
sign in the convention center before the NRA came to town, and the
signs will come down as soon as NRA closes the doors on Sunday. Sound
like discrimination to you? You bet your a** it is.

I presented my concerns to Ms. Tanya Metaska on Saturday afternoon
during a lull in her book signing activities. Ms. Metaska is in charge
of NRA/ILA. She said she wasn't going to argue with me, that I was
always right, and she was finished speaking with me.

I was very courteous to Tanya, I introduced myself, shook her hand and
told her of my concern. She showed mild animosity and gave me the
impression that she didn't give a d*** about the entire concern. When
you look at the article above, remember, that the premise is that NRA
doesn't trust people with guns at its own convention. A black eye for
sure that we didn't need blackened. Something which could easily have
been avoided.

Major Questions:

Why did NRA choose anti-gun Philadelphia for their convention?
Will monies from convention be used for anti-gun purposes by Philadelphia?
Why didn't the organization properly get advance information?



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Schoolkids aren't using movie bullets
Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    PRJ <[e-mail]>, PIML <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>,
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>

Would all of you write this worthless "reporter"?
email him at: Mitch Albom <[e-mail]>

Keep it nice, give him facts, and don't call him names because it will
only reinforce his ideas of law-abiding gun owners.

http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/qmitch75.htm

Schoolkids aren't using movie bullets

June 7, 1998

What if someone fired a gun at Charlton Heston?

Someone who had a bad day at work.
Someone who broke up with his
girlfriend. Someone who was mad at
his parents. Or a 5-year-old kid who
watches too much TV.

Perhaps that would change Heston's
point of view. The actor has just
been chosen as president of the
National Rifle Association -- with a
personal goal of showing the public
who gun users really are. But here,
in turn-of-the-century America, this
is who gun users really are: the
angry worker, the jilted lover, the
unloved child and the schoolkid.

That's the fact, Jack -- er, Chuck.

Now as far as I know, Mr. Heston has
never been the victim of a random
shooting. He has never been sentenced
to a wheelchair by a bullet meant for
someone else. He has never lost a
child because the kid next door
decided to take the family arsenal to
school.

Yet he says limiting guns would be
terrible. He should at least have
some experience in what "terrible" is
all about.

Terrible isn't missing a hunting
trip, or canceling a visit to the
pistol club. Terrible is finding out
that your wife, a schoolteacher, is
in a body bag.

Heston and the NRA say they don't
condone such shootings. Then again,
Heston once wrote in Gun & Ammo
magazine: "Gun owners know enough to
keep children away from firearms."

Right. These would be the gun owners
whose kids just shot up the
schoolyard.

Real-life horror

Now let's be honest: Gun control is
an argument you can never win. This
is not the first time I've written
about it, and I am prepared for the
flood of angry letters that come
pouring in from people who half the
time don't even read the entire
column before they start writing.
Some of the letters are intelligent,
and I thank you for those. Most of
them, however, go like this: "You
communist liberal piece of trash!
Read your Constitution! Guns don't
kill people; people kill people! And
if we didn't have guns, all the (fill
in ethnic group) would just take
over! You jerk!"

OK. I lied a little. It's worse than
"jerk."

But I don't care. At some point in
life, you either take a stand, or you
do nothing and thereby take a stand
anyhow. Doing nothing is what the NRA
folks would like. (Actually, they
would like to repeal the few paltry
gun control laws we've managed to
pass.) But mostly, they want to make
sure no new laws get through.

That's why they've picked Heston to
battle what they perceive as a wave
of antigun publicity in the wake of
school shootings in Arkansas and
Oregon. But that should make you
suspicious right there. Those dead
children aren't a publicity campaign.
They're a real-life horror. Any group
that worries about public relations
in light of that tragedy should be
suspect.

Think about Heston. He's an image. A
handsome face. A movie actor. But
these are not movie bullets, folks.
And it's not Ben Hur you have to
worry about pulling a piece on your
9-year-old.

Don't throw gasoline on fire

Now, I am not naive. I know that
taking guns away does not
automatically solve our problems.
Until we slow down, value love, stop
chasing unsatisfying goals, until we
stop alienating youth and abandoning
children, until we stop desensitizing
ourselves to where we think killing
doesn't hurt, then our tango with
violence will not end.

But you don't throw gasoline on a
fire. Why make guns readily available
to an angry, tense, hair-trigger
society?

Yes, I know the rhetoric. "Take away
guns and only criminals will have
them." The NRA wants you to believe
in a massive futuristic black market,
where every evildoer automatically
knows where to shop.

Come on. Right now, they can just go
to the gun store. Meanwhile, people
involved in the most shocking
shootings today are often not
criminals at all. They're folks who
just snap, and who have access to
guns when they do. If the guns
weren't available, they wouldn't know
where to get them in the heat of the
moment any more than you or I would
know where to instantly buy a pound
of heroin.

And please don't quote me the Second
Amendment. I know all about the
Second Amendment. It was written in
1789. The idea of "right to bear
arms" was to keep the states free
from invasion -- not to shoot an
eighth-grader. Back in 1789, we
didn't have TV, movies or the
Internet to turn us violent. It's a
different world. How come people who
so smugly cite the Second Amendment
have no interest in going back to
using muskets?

Maybe we should ask Charlton Heston.
People always remember him as Moses
in "The Ten Commandments." I remember
him in "Planet of the Apes," at the
end, when he breaks into tears upon
discovering the destroyed Statue of
Liberty: "You finally did it!" he
wails. "You maniacs."

He is talking about killing one another.

Maybe he forgot that movie.

To leave a message for Mitch Albom,
call 1-313-223-4581.

All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press
and may not be republished without permission.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The NRA is worse than USELESS
Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail]

I'd like to know why the writer of the [preceding] post -below- was so
surprised that Ms. Metaska wasn't interested hearing about how gun
possession was prohibited at a gunowner's convention.

The NRA has a long, sorry history of never seeing a compromise it didn't
like and every time they compromise, we get screwed.

As far as I'm concerned, the leadership at the NRA is USELESS. Actually,
they're worse than USELESS because they lead well meaning but naive or
misinformed gunowners to believe that they actually give a fat rat's ass
about your gun rights.

The only thing the NRA leadership is concerned with is riding a fine line
between a wholesale sellout and raising just enough stink that those checks
and money orders keep coming in. If you think that's just too cynical and
"they wouldn't do that" - then the only other explanation is that they're
IDIOTS.

To put it as politely as I can, the people that think the NRA is doing
something for them are mistaken because the NRA leadership are COLLABORATORS.

The list of NRA SELLOUTS goes on forever but here's a couple of my personal
favorites:

The NRA leadership was the proximate cause for the setting of the precedent
that the federal government can ban the sales of fully-automatic firearms
to law abiding citizens in exchange for a worthless crumb.

The NRA leadership was the proximate cause for the setting of the precedent
that the federal government can require you to pay a tax for the privilege
of having your firearms federally registered and eventually confiscated by
way of the "Instant Screw" system.

If the NRA leadership really gave a <expletive deleted> about your gun
rights, they'd wake up out of their coma and realize that gunowners are
engaged in a streetfight, not a collegiate debating event, and the stakes
are our lives, not a plastic, $10 trophy. In a street fight, you pick up a
garbage can and bash it over your opponent's head. You break a bottle in
half and grind it into your opponents face. You do what the Army
recommends, which is to "continue to kick and stomp until victim is
subdued." The time for Wayne LaPierre and his Sunday coffee klatch
presentation is over. In otherwords, it's time to use techniques like
blackmail. I can't believe that there isn't enough dirt in D.C. to make
more than a few politicians uncomfortable. Why doesn't the NRA stop sending
out those stupid hats and start hiring some private investigators with long
lenses? Why don't they start going after every Congressrat that votes for
gun control and ruin a few marriages with a suggestion that there might be
more where that came from? Why don't they let it be known that they'll take
some of that hat money and post a "Dirt Bounty?" That shouldn't be hard to
do, but nooooooooooooooooooo, doing something effective might get results.
God forbid that should happen, they might actually have to stop schmoozing
with the pols and go get an honest job.

Of course, if "dirty" a.k.a. street fighting against the likes of a
tapeworm like Schumer is too much for the somnambulent NRA rank and file,
bringing up the subject of where the authority for Executive Orders comes
from might be a good start, but don't hold your breath for that to happen
(and if *you* don't know where that authority comes from, I would politely
suggest putting down your American Rifleman long enough to find out...)

Frankly, in my completely un-humble, obnoxious, pissed-off, and un-apologetic
opinion, if you're sending any money to those Vichy swine, you're helping
them screw this country and you'd be doing America a favor by sending your
money to ANYBODY else. Or, you can just keep doing what you've always done -
sending the NRA your money - and get what you always get - which is SCREWED.

>Major Questions:

>Why did NRA choose anti-gun Philadelphia for their convention?
>Will monies from convention be used for anti-gun purposes by Philadelphia?
>Why didn't the organization properly get advance information?

BECAUSE ALL THEY WANT IS YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAKE - UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<http://agitator.dynip.com>

[Also, telnet agitator.dynip.com]

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary,
too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
 - Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Schoolkids are using . . . movie themes
Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TO: Mr. Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press

Your article suggests more ignorance than malice, or else I would not be
writing to you. As a former Detroiter, now happily a Texan for many years,
I urge you to try and see the gun issue for what it really is. Don't be
afraid, go out and meet some of the fine people who own guns for lawful
purposes. Don't get all your information from Sarah Brady and Josh
Sugarman as you apparently are doing.

Schoolkids may not be using movie bullets, but they are using movie themes
in acting out their aggression. Neither the NRA, nor any other mainstream
organization that believes that the Second Amendment means what it says,
advocates that children have unsupervised access to firearms, period.
However, thinking adults realize that a good kid will not become a bad kid
because of a gun. To think otherwise is totemism that should be exorcised
from a modern society.

You attack Charleton Heston, but not Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis, et
cetera--those who glamorize the use of firearms for murder mayhem and
destruction. Don't you think there is a real connection between
Hollywood and gun violence? Heston has nver portrayed the misuse of
firearms. Yet you attack him instead of those who flagrantly undermine
standards of proper behavior regarding guns. That is illogical at best.
And it could be labeled in much less kind terms.

We have seen several decades of gun laws that impacted on law-abiding
citizens while they did little if anything to staunch the criminal use of
firearms--just as our drug laws have done nothing to curb drug use. In
fact, Federal Government statistics show a reluctance to prosecute those
criminals who can be prosecuted under existing laws, while bleating in
unison for still more laws that presumably will not be enforced either.

To paraphrase you, That's the fact, Jack -- er, Mitch!

When I lived in Michigan it was a felony to carry a concealed firearm
without a permit, and those were only issued to the polictically
well-connected. Is that law being enforced today, against those who are
not simply carrying out of legitimate concern for their safety on dangerous
streets, but rather against those who are committing other crimes? No?
Then why not?

Anthony F. Herbst, Ph.D.
El Paso, Texas



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA chief Heston confronts Clinton on gun laws
Date: 09 Jun 1998 18:11:00 -0700


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

NRA chief Heston confronts Clinton on gun laws
11.26 p.m. ET (326 GMT) June 8, 1998

PHILADELPHIA -- Actor Charlton Heston became president of the National
Rifle Association (NRA) on Monday and challenged the federal government
to enforce more strictly the gun laws it already has on the books, rather
than enact new ones.

Heston, the star of popular Hollywood epics who says he wants to bring the
NRA back into the "mainstream'' of American politics, said President Clinton
should choose a "model city'' where federal gun control laws would be fully
enforced.

"I promise never to say anything mean about President Clinton if he'll
give us one model city where the federal laws will be enforced ...
criminals will be prosecuted and punished,'' Heston told reporters.

Heston said he had no particular city in mind but ''Philadelphia would be
pretty good.''

"There are 20,000 gun laws on the books, but they don't do any good unless
we prosecute the ones who bust them,'' the Oscar-winning actor said.

The man who portrayed Moses in the classic "The Ten Commandments'' said the
U.S. Justice Department viewed the enforcement of gun laws as a nuisance and
that the federal judiciary thought the crimes were beneath them.

Heston said Philadelphia police officers told him during the NRA's 127th
annual convention in the city that they would like nothing more than to
have gun laws enforced so that criminals would be prosecuted and jailed.

Some 80 percent of the 425 homicides in Philadelphia last year were
committed with handguns, police report.

As Heston was being elected president at a raucous meeting, Philadelphia
Mayor Ed Rendell met with gunmakers to ask them to voluntarily implement
safety features like trigger locks. He also asked that they support pending
Pennsylvania state legislation limiting gun purchases to one a month.

Rendell has threatened to sue gunmakers the same way the attorneys general
in more than 40 states have sued the tobacco industry for the harm their
product cause.

Asked about Heston's model city suggestion, Rendell said he did not think it
would have much impact on crime. "We ought to do what Mr. Heston suggests,
but that will have a marginal impact,'' he said.

The NRA is hoping that the square-jawed action hero will be able to counter
images that the organization is filled with gun-loving extremists who are
out of touch.

"I think it's a question of restoring the image that the NRA has enjoyed
for...127 years,'' he told reporters.

On Saturday, he told NRA members: "Too many gun owners think we've wandered
to some fringe of American life and left them behind. We will win back
our rightful place in the mainstream of American political debate.''

A recent rash of shooting rampages at U.S. public schools has also put gun
advocates on the defensive. Heston said teen-agers who shoot at their
schoolmates are, in most cases, already hardened criminals.

"They're already career criminals, or trembling on the brink,'' he told
reporters.

In a convention speech, Heston blasted President Clinton for signing gun
control measures including a ban on the manufacture and importation of
assault weapons.

"Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems,
and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military, and we don't trust
you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you with our
guns,'' Heston told hundreds of cheering NRA members.

The White House shot back Sunday. "Mr. Heston is entitled to his opinion.
But he has once again proven that he is out of the mainstream in American
political thinking,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told USA Today.

Heston will serve a one-year term of the organization which claims some
3 million members. He can be elected to a second term next year, an NRA
spokesman said.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Right Wing Press Nuts
Date: 10 Jun 1998 08:11:00 -0700


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

The Scourge of the Free Press
by John Pittman Hey

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press."

That poorly punctuated, confusingly written 26-word section of the
Constitution is at the center of the heated debate over "freedom of
the press."

There is a great deal of disagreement over who or what "the press" is.
Most people mistakenly believe that the Constitution guarantees the
right to print whatever one pleases, without government interference.
Still others have noted that "the people" are not mentioned in the
"free" press clause. This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers
to protect the government's sole authority to print money and regulations.
The phrase "the press" refers to the Government Printing Office's press
in Washington. One historian claims that "the press" actually refers to
the wine press, which is why the Prohibition Amendment was passed to
remove the First Amendment right of the people to distill liquor.

We all know there is no such thing as a "free" press. Go ask any
printer in town, and he'll tell you he paid good money for his printing
press. Even Xerox machines aren't free.

Much closer to the truth is the old saw, "Freedom of the press is for
those who own one." Here we see the true motives of the "free press"
nuts, mostly newspaper publishers, who use the high-sounding words of
the First Amendment to justify what are merely commercial enterprises.
We hear a lot about "the people's right to know", but really it's all
about the publisher's right to make money. Newspapers never have room
for the real news; somehow it gets crowded out by all those paid
advertisements.

Some legal scholars still claim that the "free press" clause protects
the people's right to publish whatever they like. Nonsense! The courts
have repeatedly upheld restrictions on newspapers, including laws
against litter, fraud, and libel.

To properly interpret what the Founding Fathers meant by a "free press,"
we must at least place their ideas into the proper historical context.
The press was an essential tool of the colonists against King George 220
years ago. But it was a primitive instrument at best. Presses could only
print two pages a minute. The colonists never envisioned our modern
high-speed presses, much less the ready availability of xerox machines
and laser printers. Today's presses can reproduce lies, destructive
ideas, and hatred, at the rate of thousands of pages an hour. The
Founding Fathers never meant to permit the public to wield so
destructive an instrument.

The modern press is dangerous: it is widely known that the newspapers
were responsible for whipping up the Spanish-American war. How many
times have newspapers printed lies that destroyed the honor of innocent
people? The press prints all types of destructive literature; just think
of the children whose lives have been ruined by their finding printed
works of Marx, Sartre, Anthony Lewis, or Bill Minor, left lying about
by some thoughtless adult.

The press helps spread hate. If only the government had prohibited the
press from printing the news about Limbaugh, or Liddy, or David Duke,
or the Ku Klux Klan, no one would be attracted to those causes.

We must debunk the myth of the "free" press. The newspapers have
attracted many readers by spreading misinformation and fear. They have
perpetrated a lie, which many in the public swallow, that if the
government is allowed to regulate the press in any manner, confiscation
of all printing presses will soon follow.

Journalists have a formidable lobby. One such shadowy organization is
called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the RCFP.
Politicians and judges dare not cross the RCFP. In fact, they actively
court the press, because they want good coverage of their political
campaigns. The courts use presses themselves to print their opinions.
Supreme Court justices were recently caught taking favors from the West
Publishing Company. These conflicts of interest help explain the lack
of proper regulation of the "free" press.

But the Court and the Congress also fear the press. When gun
regulations are imposed, no gun nut has ever dared pull one on a
congressman or a judge in retaliation. But you let just one congressman
or judge attempt to reign in the free press, and every editorialist in
the country will scream "Stop the presses!" and then launch a full
attack against that brave soul.

Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. That is why we must begin
regulating the press immediately. The integrity of our public
institutions is compromised by the "free" press run amuck. The news is
too important to entrust to unregulated private enterprise. The public
has a right to know that what it reads is the truth. Only government
regulation can make that possible.

Many Americans take the middle ground on the issue of regulating the
press. They read the comic page in their home town newspaper, and have
no intention of confiscating printing presses. But they see no reason
why any ordinary citizen needs to own one.

Radical gun and "free" press nuts actually think it's up to them to
protect our freedom. Cooler heads realize it's the Government's job to
do that, since the Government is the source of all our liberty in the
first place. What we don't need are these "weekend warriors," guns
ablaze, presses awhirl, galloping across the political landscape, to
"protect" us from the government. We'd be better off trusting the
government to do that.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NEW BILL TARGETS GUN SHOW and MATCH TRANSFERS -Forwarded
Date: 10 Jun 1998 12:28:59 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA11540; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma011366; Tue Jun  9 19:25:20 1998
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

NEW BILL TARGETS GUN SHOW and MATCH TRANSFERS

 Firearms sales and trades at gun shows have always been a priority
 target ofthe anti-gunners. But a new bill that claims to regulate gun
 show transfers also targets sales between individuals at match events
 such as the National Matches at Camp Ferry, and seems to require
 licensing and reporting by the Amateur Trapshooting Association for
 its annual Grand American. The measure is HR-3833, authored by Rep.
 Rod Blagc?jevich (D-IL), which claims to better regulate the transfer
 of firearms at gun shows. Co-sponsors of HR-3833 include Reps.
 Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), John Conyers(D-MI). Danny Davis (D-IL), Zoe
 Lofgren (D-CA), James McGovern (D-M A), and J errold Nad Icr ( I)-N
 Y). The bill would require anyone holding a "gun show" to have a
 license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, meaning the Bureau
 of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), 30 days before an event,
 would be responsible for initiating background checks between any two
 nonFFL persons transferring a firearm, and supply the government with
 copies ofall documents collected during the show within 30 days of
 the closing of the event. The documents collected would include the
 names and addresses of both parties to the transfer, as well as the
 serial number, make and model of the firearm, and the date and
 location of the transaction. Ifthe total regulation of firearms
 transfers conducted at "gun shows" organized by collector
 organizations were not enough, HR-3833 defines "gun shows" to include
 any event, including competitions "or other sporting use of firearms
 in the community" at which 50 or more ffirearms-including handguns,
 long guns and muzzleloaders that employ modem primers for ignitionare
 present. The 50 guns need not be offered for sale. That definition
 would include just about every club competition in the country,
 meaning that if the measure passes, every such event would have to
 have a license issued by ATF, conduct background checks (in all
 likelihood "instant checks") through the Justice Department's NICS.
 and send all documentation to the government-or no such private sales
 between individuals could be transacted. The prospects for a
 straight-up vote on HR3833 may be slim, but it could be moved as an
 amendment to other legislation.
-
-
     UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
_____________________________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms,  disarm
only those who are incline to obey the law.
-


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: No Four Corners Militia
Date: 10 Jun 1998 18:14:00 -0700


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

Forwarded:

Dear MSNBC and Tom Brokaw:

I am the Liaison & Intelligence Officer with the Southern Oregon
Militia. I talk to IOs throughout the United States every day, sharing
and acquiring information. Our intelligence gathering capabilities
within this nation are quite well established, are overwhelmingly
reliable and reach all the way to the White House.

Last night your Mr. Brokaw stated on the NBC nightly news that the three
suspects wanted in the killing and wounding of police officers in the
Four Corners area of Colorado belonged to a group calling itself "The
Four Corners Militia". This was news to all of us in the Militias,
since we happen to know that no militia group exists in that area.

As usual, Mr. Brokaw relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center for his
information. When are you people going to finally put the SPLC to the
test and demand documentation and/or proof that their "information" is
reliable? Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that they refuse to
provide you with verifiable sources, or could you care less? The truth
is that the SPLC uses scare tactics at our expense in order to raise
more and more money for their own benefit.

The SPLC recently identified 19 Patriot/Militia groups in Oregon. They
included groups organized to reduce and control Oregon's high property
taxes, groups that assist parents who choose to home-school their
children, etc. Give me a break! Those aren't Patriot/Militia groups,
yet you people contoinue to use the SPLC to tell you what the Militias
are up to. The truth is, the SPLC doesn't really know anything about
us, and in this case it appears they manufactured a name for a
non-existent group just to continue to promote their lies. Wake up and
smell the coffee, Tom: You've been used!

Stop by the house some time. You want to see the "real" militia, don't you?

Carl F. Worden
Liaison & Intelligence Officer
Southern Oregon Militia


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Right Wing Press Nuts
Date: 10 Jun 1998 18:14:00 -0700


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

The Scourge of the Free Press
by John Pittman Hey

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press."

That poorly punctuated, confusingly written 26-word section of the
Constitution is at the center of the heated debate over "freedom of
the press."

There is a great deal of disagreement over who or what "the press" is.
Most people mistakenly believe that the Constitution guarantees the
right to print whatever one pleases, without government interference.
Still others have noted that "the people" are not mentioned in the
"free" press clause. This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers
to protect the government's sole authority to print money and regulations.
The phrase "the press" refers to the Government Printing Office's press
in Washington. One historian claims that "the press" actually refers to
the wine press, which is why the Prohibition Amendment was passed to
remove the First Amendment right of the people to distill liquor.

We all know there is no such thing as a "free" press. Go ask any
printer in town, and he'll tell you he paid good money for his printing
press. Even Xerox machines aren't free.

Much closer to the truth is the old saw, "Freedom of the press is for
those who own one." Here we see the true motives of the "free press"
nuts, mostly newspaper publishers, who use the high-sounding words of
the First Amendment to justify what are merely commercial enterprises.
We hear a lot about "the people's right to know", but really it's all
about the publisher's right to make money. Newspapers never have room
for the real news; somehow it gets crowded out by all those paid
advertisements.

Some legal scholars still claim that the "free press" clause protects
the people's right to publish whatever they like. Nonsense! The courts
have repeatedly upheld restrictions on newspapers, including laws
against litter, fraud, and libel.

To properly interpret what the Founding Fathers meant by a "free press,"
we must at least place their ideas into the proper historical context.
The press was an essential tool of the colonists against King George 220
years ago. But it was a primitive instrument at best. Presses could only
print two pages a minute. The colonists never envisioned our modern
high-speed presses, much less the ready availability of xerox machines
and laser printers. Today's presses can reproduce lies, destructive
ideas, and hatred, at the rate of thousands of pages an hour. The
Founding Fathers never meant to permit the public to wield so
destructive an instrument.

The modern press is dangerous: it is widely known that the newspapers
were responsible for whipping up the Spanish-American war. How many
times have newspapers printed lies that destroyed the honor of innocent
people? The press prints all types of destructive literature; just think
of the children whose lives have been ruined by their finding printed
works of Marx, Sartre, Anthony Lewis, or Bill Minor, left lying about
by some thoughtless adult.

The press helps spread hate. If only the government had prohibited the
press from printing the news about Limbaugh, or Liddy, or David Duke,
or the Ku Klux Klan, no one would be attracted to those causes.

We must debunk the myth of the "free" press. The newspapers have
attracted many readers by spreading misinformation and fear. They have
perpetrated a lie, which many in the public swallow, that if the
government is allowed to regulate the press in any manner, confiscation
of all printing presses will soon follow.

Journalists have a formidable lobby. One such shadowy organization is
called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the RCFP.
Politicians and judges dare not cross the RCFP. In fact, they actively
court the press, because they want good coverage of their political
campaigns. The courts use presses themselves to print their opinions.
Supreme Court justices were recently caught taking favors from the West
Publishing Company. These conflicts of interest help explain the lack
of proper regulation of the "free" press.

But the Court and the Congress also fear the press. When gun regulations
are imposed, no gun nut has ever dared pull one on a congressman or a
judge in retaliation. But you let just one congressman or judge attempt
to reign in the free press, and every editorialist in the country will
scream "Stop the presses!" and then launch a full attack against that
brave soul.

Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. That is why we must begin
regulating the press immediately. The integrity of our public institutions
is compromised by the "free" press run amuck. The news is too important
to entrust to unregulated private enterprise. The public has a right to
know that what it reads is the truth. Only government regulation can
make that possible.

Many Americans take the middle ground on the issue of regulating the
press. They read the comic page in their home town newspaper, and have
no intention of confiscating printing presses. But they see no reason
why any ordinary citizen needs to own one.

Radical gun and "free" press nuts actually think it's up to them to
protect our freedom. Cooler heads realize it's the Government's job to
do that, since the Government is the source of all our liberty in the
first place. What we don't need are these "weekend warriors," guns
ablaze, presses awhirl, galloping across the political landscape, to
"protect" us from the government. We'd be better off trusting the
Government to do that.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand
Date: 11 Jun 1998 08:17:00 -0700


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

In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes:

<< Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not.

 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

 Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >>

Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not
required) to avoid talking about gun control.

Scooter!


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand
Date: 11 Jun 1998 09:44:39 -0600

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:59:43 EDT
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand]
>
> In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes:
>
> << Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not.
>
>  ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>
>  Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >>
>
> Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not
> required) to avoid talking about gun control.
>
> Scooter!
>
> -
I wonder where "Scooter" gets his information?  Is he an officer
of the GOP?  A candidate who has been so instructed?  Or was this
information part of a GOP statement/press release?

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' -Forwarded
Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:37 -0700

Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:46:29 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America'

Copyright # 1998 Nando.net
Copyright # 1998 Reuters News Service

PHILADELPHIA (June 6, 1998 11:44 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott struck out Saturday at those who
would limit the right of Americans to bear arms, telling diners at the
National Rifle Association annual banquet "you are the mainstream of
America."

"The rights of the American people are not negotiable," Lott said. "The Bill
of Rights is a package deal...You don't get to pick and choose...you get
the whole deal," the Mississippi Republican assured the several hundred
NRA members who swapped their T-shirts for jacket and ties to the
dinner.

"You are the mainstream of America," he told the gathering, adding that
those who doubted it "just reveal how far out of the mainstream they
really are."

Lott warned that if the NRA lets Washington gut the Second Amendment
that guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms, "we might as
well fold up the flag and meltdown the Liberty Bell."

Earlier on Saturday, Academy Award winning actor Charlton Heston,
who portrayed Moses in the classic "Ten Commandments," told the
delegates that if elected president of the 3.5 million-member pro-gun
group, he would lead it back "to the mainstream."

Heston, who is expected to be inducted as president of the group on
Monday, said that in the future he would only support pro-gun
candidates.

Then in remarks directed at President Bill Clinton, who successfully
banned the manufacture and importation of several types of assault
weapons, Heston said:

"Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems
and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military and we don't
trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you
with our guns."

Most of the 50,000 NRA members attending the 127th national convention
looked as though they had travelled in from Main Street, America. There
were plenty of grandfatherly looking men with baseball caps and
potbellies and families strolling the aisles of the exhibition hall at the
Convention Centre in Philadelphia.

It could almost be a county fair, except for the rows of guns, rifles,
ammunition and accessories lining the walls.

Adolescents lined up at rifle maker Winchester's booth to pay $2 to play
"Total Recoil." The contestant holds an electronic rifle to shoot images of
birds and animals.

Their parents were busy looking over the new lines of rifles.

At the nearby Colt booth, enthusiasts could heft various types of
revolvers and semi-automatic pistols made by the company whose
weapons are credited with winning the American West.

"We're just a group of people who are willing to fight for our freedom.
Freedom to own a firearms for the purpose that the Founding Fathers
wrote into the Constitution," explained Teddy Jones, 69, of Torrance,
California, who was attending the convention with his wife of 22 years,
Judith. Both are NRA members, as are their son and 6-year-old
grandson.

Judith Reuhl, 56, of Cincinnati, Ohio, waited outside the hall surrounded
by packages as she waited for her husband, John, an NRA member.

"I'm not a member, but I do shoot skeet with him. My son and my
son-in-law and my brother-in-law are members," she said. One package
contained information from the NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program
for children.

"I'm bringing that back for my six-and-a-half year old grandson, Alex.
He's getting to that age," she added.

By LESLIE GEVIRTZ, Reuters



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation -Forwarded
Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:48 -0700

Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:50:38 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation

What an honor it is to address the Free Congress Foundation. At a
glance "Free" reads as a verb rather than an adjective. "Free Congress."
Not a bad directive for Mr. Clinton. Anyway.

I like it when the party of Lincoln honors our free heritage. This nation
has been blessed by the minds and mettle of many good people, and
indeed Abe was among the best. A man of great moral character#a trait
often lacking among our leaders. This is disturbing, but not without
remedy. One good election can correct such ills.

Above all, I hope those of us gathered here tonight have more in common
with Mr. Lincoln than just party affiliation. Better than we grasp a
common vision that simply wear the cloak. Even our President pretends
to be a conservative when it suits him. We must be more than that.

I know it#s not easy. Imagine being point man for the National Rifle
Association, preserving the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I
was elected, and now I serve#as a moving target for pundits who#ve
called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured,
senile and crazy old man."

Maybe that comes with the territory. But as I have stood in the
crosshairs of those who aim at Second Amendment freedom, I have
realized that guns are not the only issue, and I am not the only target. It is
much, much bigger than that # which is what I want to talk to you about
today.

I have come to realize that a cultural war raging across our land storming
our values, assaulting our freedoms, killing our self-confidence in who
we are a what we believe.

How many of you own a gun? A show of hands maybe?

How many own two or more guns?

Thank you. I wonder how many of you own guns but chose not to raise
your hand? How many of you considered revealing your conviction
about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it?

Then you are a victim of the cultural war.. You are a casualty of the
cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of
beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don#t care one way or the other about
owning a gun. But I could#ve asked for a show of hands of Pentecostal
Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or
school vouchers-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the
same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your
hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room with a film crew?

See? You have been assaulted and robbed of the courage of your
convictions. Your pride in who you are, and what you believe, has been
ridiculed, ransacked and plundered. It may be a war without bullet or
bloodshed, but with just as much liberty lost: You and your country are
less free.

And you are not inconsequential people! You in this room, whom many
would say are among the most powerful people on earth, you are
shamed into silence! Because you choose to own guns # affirmed by no
less than the Bill of Rights. But you embrace a view at odds with the
cultural warlords.. If that is the outcome of cultural war, and you are
victims, I can only ask the gravely obvious question: What#ll become of
the right itself? Or other rights not deemed acceptable by the thought
police? What other truth in your heart will you disavow with your hand?

I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis
forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So #
what color star will the pin on gun owners# chests? How ill the
self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every
street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive.

Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment of the
NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the warfare that#s going
on. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly
bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens.
After enough breakfast-table TV hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next
Rikki Lake, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid shows, enough
revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the
TV anchor who cocks her head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns
causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the
God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or even
worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or even worse
NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse male working
stiff, because not only don#t you count, you#re a downright obstacle to
social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you
hand them over, but your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your
opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and
frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something
about your new America#and until you do, would you mind shutting up?


That#s why you didn#t raise your hand. That#s how cultural war works.
And you are losing.

That#s what happens when a generation of media, educators,
entertainers and politicians, led by a willing president, decide the America
they were born into isn#t good enough any more. So they contrive to
change it through the cultural warfare of class distinction. Ask the
Romans if powerful nations have ever fallen as a result of cultural
division. There are ruins around the world that were once the smug
centers of small-minded, arrogant elitism. It appears that rather than
evaporate in the flash of a split atom, we may succumb to a divided
culture.

Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of
Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten
Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in
God#s almighty presence, I treasure both.

The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old
dead white guys who invented our country. Now some flinch when I say
that. Why? It#s true#they were white guys. So were most of the guys
that died in Lincoln#s name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should
I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a
good thing, while "white pride" conjures shaved heads and while hoods?
Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated as progress,
while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with
suspicion and ridicule? I#ll tell you why: Cultural warfare.

Now, Chuck Heston can get away with saying I#m proud of those wise
old dead white guys because Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan know
I fought in their cultural war. I was one of the first white soldiers in the
civil rights movement, long before it was fashionable. In 1963 I marched
on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King to uphold the Bill of Rights. As
vice-president of the NRA I am doing the same thing.

But you don#t see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this,
do you? It#s not because there aren#t any. It#s because they can#t afford
the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or
ATF or NBC or even W-J-C. It spas the strength of our country when the
personal price is simply too high to stand up for what you believe in.
Today, speaking with the courage of your conviction can be so costly,
the price of principle can be so high, that legislators won#t lead and
citizens can#t follow, and so there is no army to fight back. That#s cultural
warfare.

For instance: It#s plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding
citizens the right to own a firearm. But if I stand up and say so, why is
the media assault on me such a slashing, sinister brand of derision filled
with hate?

Because Bill Clinton#s cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of
firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame
and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That#s what is now
literally underway in England and Australia. Line of submissive citizens,
threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly surrendering family heirlooms,
guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact does not
unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the
cultural war.

You know that I stand first in line in defense for free speech. But those
who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much
due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural
diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear
apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society.

I#ve earned a fine and rewarding living in the motion picture industry, yet
increasingly I find myself embarrassed by the dearth of conscience that
drives the world#s most influential artform. And I am an example of what
a lonely undertaking it can be.

Nobody opposed the obscene rapper Ice-T until I stood at Time-Warner#s
stockholders meeting and was ridiculed by its president for wanting to
take the floor to read Ice-T#s lyrics. Since I held several hundred shares
of stock he had no choice, though the media were barred. I read those
lyrics to a stunned audience of average American people#shocked at
lyrics that advocating killing cops, sexually abusing women, and raping
the nieces of our Vice-President. The good guys won that time:
Time-Warner fired Ice-T.

The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many
homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives#also dear
friends. I don#t despise their lifestyle, though I don#t share it. As long as
gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as
the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It#s the right
thing to do.

On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton#s cultural
shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights
fundraisers#and then claim it#s time to place homosexual men in tents
with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian
relationships are somehow better served and more loved.

Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They#re about the
currency of cultural war # money and votes # and the Clinton camp will
let anyone in the tent if there#s a donkey on the hat, a check in the mail or
some yen in the fortune cookie.

Mainstream America is counting on you to draw your sword and fight for
them. These people have precious little time and resources to battle
misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual
coalition, the feminists who preach that it is a divine duty for women to
hat men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek
preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile
crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as
a means of adolescent merchandizing, violence as a form of
entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to
lord-knows-what. We have reached that point in time when our national
social policy originates on Oprah. I say it#s time to pull the plug.

Americans should not have to go to war every morning for their values.
They already go to war for their families. They fight to hold down a job,
raise responsible kids, make their payments, keep gas in the car, put
food on the table and clothes on their backs, and still save a little to live
their final days in dignity. They prefer the America they built # where you
could pray without feeling na#ve, love without being kinky, sing without
profanity, be white without feeling guilty, own a gun without shame, and
raise you hand without apology. They are the critical masses who find
themselves under siege and long for you to get some guts, stand on
principle and lead them to victory in this cultural war.

Now if this all sounds a little Mosaic, the punchline of my sermon is as
elementary as the Golden Rule: In a cultural war, triumph belongs to
those who arm themselves with pride in who they are and then do the
right thing. Not the most expedient thing, not what#ll sell, not the politically
correct thing, but the right thing.

And you know what? Everybody already knows what the right thing is.
You, and I, and President Clinton, even Ice-T, we all know. It#s easy. You
say wait a minute, you take a long look in the mirror, then into the eyes of
your kids or grandkids, and you#ll know what#s right.

Don#t run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you
are and what you believe, and then raise you hand, stand up, and speak
out. Don#t be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly
powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow,
steady process. And it#s in your hands.

Yes, we can have rules and still have rebels # that#s democracy. But as
leaders you must do as Lincoln would do, confronted with the stench of
cultural war: Do what#s right. As Mr. Lincoln said, "With firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are
in#and then we shall save our country."

Defeat the criminals and their apologists, oust the biased and bigoted,
endure the undisciplined and unprincipled, but disavow the
self-appointed social engineers whose relentless arrogance fuels this
vicious war against so much we hold so dear. Do not yield, do not divide,
do not call truce. Be fair, but fight back.

It#s the same blueprint our founding fathers left to guide us. Our enemies
see it as the senile prattle of an archaic society. I still honor it as the
United States Constitution, and that timeless document we call the Bill of
Rights.

Freedom is our fortune and honor is our saving grace.

Thank you.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand
Date: 11 Jun 1998 18:33:00 -0700


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

In a message dated 98-06-09 19:31:14 EDT, Charles Hardy writes:

<< Note that Cannon is listed as a co-sponsor but Cook and Hansen are not.

 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

 Time to Draw the Line on Repealing Lautenberg Gun Ban >>

Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not
required) to avoid talking about gun control.

Scooter!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Lautenberg: A Line In The Sand
Date: 11 Jun 1998 19:12:00 -0700


On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:44:39 -0600 Will Thompson asked:

>> Salt Lake County Republicans candidates have been instructed (but not
>> required) to avoid talking about gun control.

>> Scooter!

>I wonder where "Scooter" gets his information?  Is he an officer
>of the GOP?  A candidate who has been so instructed?  Or was this
>information part of a GOP statement/press release?

Scooter has a close relationship to a GOP candidate.
AFAIK there was no GOP press release to this effect.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Waco = Tiananmen Square!
Date: 12 Jun 1998 07:32:00 -0700


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

Thursday, June 11, 1998
http://www.usajournal.com/page20.htm

WACO IS OUR TIANENMAN SQUARE - By Jon E. Dougherty

JUNE 11 - I just finished viewing my press copy of "Waco: The Rules
of Engagement." Though I am jumping into the fray a little late, when
the "The government subject turns to Waco the rule is, 'Better late of
the United than never.'

First of all I want to say that I, like millions of other Americans,
watched the siege of Waco unfold on CNN. I watched throughout the weeks
when negotiations got nowhere; I watched as music was blasted into Mt.
Carmel; I watched as the FBI brought in combat helicopters, armored
personnel carriers, troops. And I watched as the Feds cut off power to
the village, deprived over 80 men, women and children of sleep, and spun
yarn after yarn on national television.

I listened to gung-ho idiots in the ATF blame the whole thing on David
Koresh; I heard numerous federal spokesmen laying on the propaganda so
thick you could hear it dripping from every syllable in their speech. I
listened to impotent congressmen wringing their hands in terror - scared
to death they might actually have to exert some leadership to bring the
situation under control [which they didn't do]. And, finally, I watched
as Mt. Carmel burned to the ground.

Then, for months afterward, I listened to dozens of witnesses appear
before dozens of inquiries into the Waco massacre. For every charge
eyewitnesses to the carnage made, there was the ATF, the FBI, and the
Justice Department, denying any and all culpability, and rabidly blaming
the 'cultist' Koresh for leading his "sheep" down the mass-suicide trail
to a burning oblivion. There were times when I had my doubts about some
of the Davidian claims -- which goes to show how strong government
propaganda can be.

But now - only now - do I know the real truth. The government of the
United States - this "bastion of freedom and respect for human rights"
killed the Branch Davidians as surely and as ruthlessly as a Third World
banana republic murders its citizens.

The truth, as I see it, will probably be lost in the plethora of outrage
already exhibited by a number of other people, congressmen and pundits.
But as far as I'm concerned, there can never - never - be enough outrage
expressed over Waco. As a Christian, I have to pity the liars and
co-conspirators who helped cover this up for the federal government. As
a fellow citizen who is truly concerned about their safety, my advice to
every ATF, FBI, Justice spokesman and government witness who contributed
to the slaughter and the ensuing cover-up is this: You people had better
pray to God, Almighty that the majority of your fellow American citizens
don't see this film. If they do, there is no telling what will happen to
each of you - if God doesn't judge you first.

In this twisted world of corruption, deceit, and arrogance of power, never
in my entire life have I seen such a display of US government ruthlessness
and duplicity. To make a timely comparison, Waco is our Tianenman Square;
Christ-loving believers in freedom and democracy were gunned down, burned
up and rolled over by tanks in exactly the same manner as the Chinese
government perpetrated against their own people in 1989. The difference is,
the Chinese government didn't care if it went public and our government -
in order to maintain a facade of righteousness and, most probably, control
of the masses, lied like dogs to keep the truth from getting out.

For every government assertion of "fact" the filmmakers in "Rules of
Engagement" countered them with truth - well documented, substantiated and
easily seen truth, not innuendo or rumor. Despite what the majority of
Americans have been told, for example, there is ample evidence that federal
agents [or someone acting on behalf of the government] did shoot Davidians
as they tried to escape the burning buildings; did roll over Davidians with
Bradley Fighting Vehicles [the "tanks" in the film footages and news clips];
did fire at Davidians from helicopters [FBI negotiators admitted as much in
the tapes made of the negotiations over the phone]; and did shoot first when
initiating the raid.

I want to admit something here. I am a veteran corpsman of the Navy and
Marine Corps; and I spent 15 years as a civilian paramedic. When it comes
to tragedy, blood, and guts, I've seen it all and I've done it all. I don't
wear my heart on my sleeve and I abhor whining people. Having said that,
what I saw documented in 'Rules of Engagement' was powerful enough to bring
even me to tears.

Maybe it was the thought of having to defend my own children some day.
Maybe it was the feeling of utter helplessness at knowing arrogant, federal
killers who posed with automatic rifles atop their tanks purposely burned
over 80 women and children to death. Maybe it was a realization that unless
people start to give a damn about their government and what the people
running it are doing to them [then laughing about it over a drink], we will
see more of this kind of senseless bloodshed. Maybe it was knowing that
even after staunchly compelling evidence was presented to them, our
lawmakers did absolutely nothing to punish those responsible for this
massacre. That would include President Bill Clinton, who bears full
responsibility for the actions of those government thugs employed under him.

I'll tell you, I have recommended dozens of books and other materials for
people to review. I have done so because of the content contained in each
of those works. But if I never recommend another book, thesis, or film
again, I would recommend that every American who can scrape together about
$25 bucks [pool your money with a neighbor, if you have to] get a copy of
this film. No, I'm not selling it, but plenty of people are.

Find them and buy a copy today. Only knowledge and the strongest possible
resolve by hordes of American people will prevent similar government abuses
in the future. I pray they don't ever do this to my wife and kids, and I
believe you will too, once you see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." ***

(c)1998 Covenant Syndicate.
WACO - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT/DOCUMENTARY(NOM FOR 1998 ACAD AWARD)
<http://www.waco93.com>

Forward via: [e-mail]
APFN WEB WHY WACO? http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm

Other Waco web pages:

WHY WACO?
http://www.esotericworldnews.com/whywaco.htm
EORONETH ON WACO
http://members.tripod.com/~Eoroneth/koresh.html
WACO - MOUNT CARMEL CENTER
http://www.flash.net/~wyla/
WACO LINKS
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-links.html
WACO - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT/DOCUMENTARY(NOM FOR 1998 ACAD AWARD)
http://www.waco93.com
WACO-INFORMATION FROM FREEDOM OF INFO ACT(FOIA)
http://www.indirect.com/http://www/dhardy/waco.html
WACO WHITE PAPERS
http://www.illusions.com/opf/wacoind.htm


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Third Glock from the Sun?
Date: 12 Jun 1998 07:32:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>

-----Original Message-----

Just forwarded to me in email. Funny! -- Neil

++++++++++++++++++++++

June 11, 1998

A Show That Says Yes to Firepower

By GARY KRIST

"In Hollywood . . . there are more gun
owners in the closet than homosexuals."

-- Charlton Heston, new president of the National Rifle Association.

In an announcement that took Hollywood insiders by surprise,
Helen LaCorcia, star of the hit ABC sitcom "Helen," admitted
today that she has for many years secretly been the owner of
a handgun.

"It's time to come clean," Ms. LaCorcia said, patting a holster
strapped stylishly under her left shoulder. "If Hollywood and
the rest of America can't accept me for what I am, it's their
problem, not mine."

Ms. LaCorcia, appearing at a hastily called press conference,
then drew her Sig Sauer 9-millimeter semiautomatic and brandished
it in front of the cameras. "And yes, it's loaded," she said.
"Deal with it."

Later, in an unscheduled appearance on "Oprah," Ms. LaCorcia
elaborated on her revelation. "Hollywood has been hypocritical
on this issue for years," she said. "Everyone knows that the
industry is full of weapons enthusiasts, but no one wants to
admit it. They're all afraid that nobody will cast them if word
gets around that they're packing heat."

Asked if her eponymous television character will also be coming
out as a gun owner, the gamine comedian said: "Absolutely. In
fact, we've already scripted an episode in which Helen meets
someone -- someone special -- who takes her to a firing range
and persuades her to fire off a couple practice rounds. She's
converted immediately."

Ms. LaCorcia then added, "We're hoping to get Quentin Tarantino
for the part."

Across the nation, gun industry analysts were quick to hail the
announcement as a milestone. "Sure, we've had plenty of sitcoms
with pistol-toting sidekicks and best friends," said Graydon
Menaker, media critic for Guns & Ammo magazine. "But this is
the first time we'll be seeing a fully armed major character
in a top-rated comedy series. It's historic."

Some television executives were more cautious. "The audience for
shows like 'Helen' tends to be a lot more pacifist than we realize,"
said Les Goreham, the vice president for product placement at CBS.
"Our friends at ABC are in uncharted waters here."

Lobbyists and representatives of gun-control organizations
responded to the announcement with derision. "These are supposed
to be family shows," complained Adelaide Tift of Americans Against
the Propagation of Firearms. "Next we'll have the Nanny toting
a .22-caliber Beretta. Or Frasier with an Uzi in his briefcase.
And where will it end? 'Third Glock From the Sun'?"

The real test of Ms. LaCorcia's decision, however, will come
from regular watchers of "Helen," and at least some of them
were cheering her courage. "I'm proud of her," said Malia, a
self-described munitions performance artist from New York.
"It's about time someone stood up and showed the world that
owning a handgun doesn't make us any different from anyone else.
I had actually lost interest in the show recently, but now I'll
be glued to my set every week."

But other longtime fans were less certain in their reactions.
"I guess I'll still watch it," said Jennifer, a Chicago
native who has been a devotee of the show since its premiere.
"As long as the writers don't get too trigger-happy, you know?
I watch 'Helen' to have a few laughs, not to be lectured at
about the social acceptability of possessing weapons."

Looking suddenly embarrassed, she quickly added,
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Gary Krist is the author of the novel "Bad Chemistry."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company

--
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF
FOUR

J. Neil Schulman /  Pulpless.Com
Voice & Fax:        (500) 44-JNEIL
Internet:           [e-mail]
Personal Web Page:  http://pulpless.com/jneil/

Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay
online with a credit card, then download books in HTML or Adobe
Acrobat format from the web at http://pulpless.com/

***********************************
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[e-mail] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[e-mail] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
For Discussion List:
mailto:[e-mail]
text in body: subscribe prj <[e-mail]>

**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html**
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
***********************************




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: A Letter to My Senator -Forwarded
Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:45:13 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA11534; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:20:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma011368; Fri Jun 12 13:20:04 1998
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

On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:41:53 -0400 (EDT), Kevin McGehee wrote:

>Larry Ball wrote:

>--------------E2932E63C3BB1A9177E21AC0
>Content-Type: application/msword; name="Hagel1.doc"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Hagel1.doc"
>
>0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAGAAAAAAA
>AAAAEAAAGwAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAABkAAAD/////////////////////////////////////

The "key" is the Content-X lines.  This was a MIME-encoded attachment in
Microsloth Word format.  The NOBAN server stripped enough of the header
that the "attachment" didn't come across as such.

It's quite possible to 'unpack' this using a command-line MIME unpacker
and then open the Hagel1.doc file in your word-processor.

Here's what you get:


June 12, 1998

Chuck Hagel
U.S. Senator
346 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2706


Dear Senator:

Thank you for your response to my postcard request that you remove your
name from cosponsorship of S.10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender
Act.  You state that the bill fundamentally reassesses the federal role
in fighting juvenile crime.

I object to your position regarding this bill from two vistas:

1.    Even though I wish to be tough on crime (probably tougher than
        most) I object to the increasing federal presence in this arena.
2.    The bill makes further incursions into infringement of the second
        amendment.

We do not need more federal law to combat crime.  We need rigorous
enforcement of existing law.  Recent federal legislation such as
R.I.C.O., Property Seizure, and the Ex Post Facto provisions of the
Lautenberg Act have set dangerous milestones in possible AND actual
deprivation of liberty.  If the Senate feels it must do something, figure
out how to get tough with the judges and other criminal justice bleeding
hearts.  Define for them that the issue at stake in the criminal justice
milieu is the vindication of the social covenant and NOT rehabilitation
of criminals who have never been "habilitated" in the first place.  We
need to concentrate on the possible and forget the impossible.

You agree that the bill has certain provisions that put new burdens on
legitimate gun owners and that these burdens will be removed as the bill
progresses through the legislative process.  Forgive me a little wheeze
that sounds like hooey.  I would prefer that you remove your name from
cosponsorship until at least these "burdens" are removed.  I have been
around for some years and do not trust the "legislative process" to
protect my rights.  This whole idea is almost and oxymoron.  This concern
should be clear when you consider the defacto gun tax, gun and gun owner
registration that is now in place under the "Insta-Check" law.  Please
remove your name from the S.10 list.

Again, thanks for your response.


Cordially,


Larry Ball





-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America' -Forwarded
Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:47:34 -0700

Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:46:29 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Lott says NRA is 'mainstream America'

Copyright # 1998 Nando.net
Copyright # 1998 Reuters News Service

PHILADELPHIA (June 6, 1998 11:44 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott struck out Saturday at those who
would limit the right of Americans to bear arms, telling diners at the
National Rifle Association annual banquet "you are the mainstream of
America."

"The rights of the American people are not negotiable," Lott said. "The Bill
of Rights is a package deal...You don't get to pick and choose...you get
the whole deal," the Mississippi Republican assured the several hundred
NRA members who swapped their T-shirts for jacket and ties to the
dinner.

"You are the mainstream of America," he told the gathering, adding that
those who doubted it "just reveal how far out of the mainstream they
really are."

Lott warned that if the NRA lets Washington gut the Second Amendment
that guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms, "we might as
well fold up the flag and meltdown the Liberty Bell."

Earlier on Saturday, Academy Award winning actor Charlton Heston,
who portrayed Moses in the classic "Ten Commandments," told the
delegates that if elected president of the 3.5 million-member pro-gun
group, he would lead it back "to the mainstream."

Heston, who is expected to be inducted as president of the group on
Monday, said that in the future he would only support pro-gun
candidates.

Then in remarks directed at President Bill Clinton, who successfully
banned the manufacture and importation of several types of assault
weapons, Heston said:

"Mr. Clinton, sir. Americans didn't trust you with our health care systems
and Americans didn't trust you with gays in the military and we don't
trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. We sure Lord don't trust you
with our guns."

Most of the 50,000 NRA members attending the 127th national convention
looked as though they had travelled in from Main Street, America. There
were plenty of grandfatherly looking men with baseball caps and
potbellies and families strolling the aisles of the exhibition hall at the
Convention Centre in Philadelphia.

It could almost be a county fair, except for the rows of guns, rifles,
ammunition and accessories lining the walls.

Adolescents lined up at rifle maker Winchester's booth to pay $2 to play
"Total Recoil." The contestant holds an electronic rifle to shoot images of
birds and animals.

Their parents were busy looking over the new lines of rifles.

At the nearby Colt booth, enthusiasts could heft various types of
revolvers and semi-automatic pistols made by the company whose
weapons are credited with winning the American West.

"We're just a group of people who are willing to fight for our freedom.
Freedom to own a firearms for the purpose that the Founding Fathers
wrote into the Constitution," explained Teddy Jones, 69, of Torrance,
California, who was attending the convention with his wife of 22 years,
Judith. Both are NRA members, as are their son and 6-year-old
grandson.

Judith Reuhl, 56, of Cincinnati, Ohio, waited outside the hall surrounded
by packages as she waited for her husband, John, an NRA member.

"I'm not a member, but I do shoot skeet with him. My son and my
son-in-law and my brother-in-law are members," she said. One package
contained information from the NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program
for children.

"I'm bringing that back for my six-and-a-half year old grandson, Alex.
He's getting to that age," she added.

By LESLIE GEVIRTZ, Reuters



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation -Forwarded
Date: 12 Jun 1998 13:47:43 -0700

Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:50:38 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Heston's Speech to Free Congress Foundation

What an honor it is to address the Free Congress Foundation. At a
glance "Free" reads as a verb rather than an adjective. "Free Congress."
Not a bad directive for Mr. Clinton. Anyway.

I like it when the party of Lincoln honors our free heritage. This nation
has been blessed by the minds and mettle of many good people, and
indeed Abe was among the best. A man of great moral character#a trait
often lacking among our leaders. This is disturbing, but not without
remedy. One good election can correct such ills.

Above all, I hope those of us gathered here tonight have more in common
with Mr. Lincoln than just party affiliation. Better than we grasp a
common vision that simply wear the cloak. Even our President pretends
to be a conservative when it suits him. We must be more than that.

I know it#s not easy. Imagine being point man for the National Rifle
Association, preserving the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I
was elected, and now I serve#as a moving target for pundits who#ve
called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured,
senile and crazy old man."

Maybe that comes with the territory. But as I have stood in the
crosshairs of those who aim at Second Amendment freedom, I have
realized that guns are not the only issue, and I am not the only target. It is
much, much bigger than that # which is what I want to talk to you about
today.

I have come to realize that a cultural war raging across our land storming
our values, assaulting our freedoms, killing our self-confidence in who
we are a what we believe.

How many of you own a gun? A show of hands maybe?

How many own two or more guns?

Thank you. I wonder how many of you own guns but chose not to raise
your hand? How many of you considered revealing your conviction
about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it?

Then you are a victim of the cultural war.. You are a casualty of the
cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of
beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don#t care one way or the other about
owning a gun. But I could#ve asked for a show of hands of Pentecostal
Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or
school vouchers-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the
same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your
hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room with a film crew?

See? You have been assaulted and robbed of the courage of your
convictions. Your pride in who you are, and what you believe, has been
ridiculed, ransacked and plundered. It may be a war without bullet or
bloodshed, but with just as much liberty lost: You and your country are
less free.

And you are not inconsequential people! You in this room, whom many
would say are among the most powerful people on earth, you are
shamed into silence! Because you choose to own guns # affirmed by no
less than the Bill of Rights. But you embrace a view at odds with the
cultural warlords.. If that is the outcome of cultural war, and you are
victims, I can only ask the gravely obvious question: What#ll become of
the right itself? Or other rights not deemed acceptable by the thought
police? What other truth in your heart will you disavow with your hand?

I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis
forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So #
what color star will the pin on gun owners# chests? How ill the
self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every
street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive.

Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment of the
NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the warfare that#s going
on. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly
bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens.
After enough breakfast-table TV hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next
Rikki Lake, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid shows, enough
revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the
TV anchor who cocks her head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns
causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the
God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or even
worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or even worse
NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse male working
stiff, because not only don#t you count, you#re a downright obstacle to
social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you
hand them over, but your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your
opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and
frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something
about your new America#and until you do, would you mind shutting up?


That#s why you didn#t raise your hand. That#s how cultural war works.
And you are losing.

That#s what happens when a generation of media, educators,
entertainers and politicians, led by a willing president, decide the America
they were born into isn#t good enough any more. So they contrive to
change it through the cultural warfare of class distinction. Ask the
Romans if powerful nations have ever fallen as a result of cultural
division. There are ruins around the world that were once the smug
centers of small-minded, arrogant elitism. It appears that rather than
evaporate in the flash of a split atom, we may succumb to a divided
culture.

Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of
Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten
Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in
God#s almighty presence, I treasure both.

The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old
dead white guys who invented our country. Now some flinch when I say
that. Why? It#s true#they were white guys. So were most of the guys
that died in Lincoln#s name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should
I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a
good thing, while "white pride" conjures shaved heads and while hoods?
Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated as progress,
while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with
suspicion and ridicule? I#ll tell you why: Cultural warfare.

Now, Chuck Heston can get away with saying I#m proud of those wise
old dead white guys because Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan know
I fought in their cultural war. I was one of the first white soldiers in the
civil rights movement, long before it was fashionable. In 1963 I marched
on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King to uphold the Bill of Rights. As
vice-president of the NRA I am doing the same thing.

But you don#t see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this,
do you? It#s not because there aren#t any. It#s because they can#t afford
the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or
ATF or NBC or even W-J-C. It spas the strength of our country when the
personal price is simply too high to stand up for what you believe in.
Today, speaking with the courage of your conviction can be so costly,
the price of principle can be so high, that legislators won#t lead and
citizens can#t follow, and so there is no army to fight back. That#s cultural
warfare.

For instance: It#s plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding
citizens the right to own a firearm. But if I stand up and say so, why is
the media assault on me such a slashing, sinister brand of derision filled
with hate?

Because Bill Clinton#s cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of
firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should genuflect in shame
and seek absolution by surrendering their guns. That#s what is now
literally underway in England and Australia. Line of submissive citizens,
threatened with imprisonment, are bitterly surrendering family heirlooms,
guns that won their freedom, to the blast furnace. If that fact does not
unsettle you, then you are already anesthetized, a ready victim of the
cultural war.

You know that I stand first in line in defense for free speech. But those
who speak against the perverted and profane should be given as much
due as those who profit by it. You also know I welcome cultural
diversity. But those who choose to live on the fringe should not tear
apart the seams that secure the fabric of our society.

I#ve earned a fine and rewarding living in the motion picture industry, yet
increasingly I find myself embarrassed by the dearth of conscience that
drives the world#s most influential artform. And I am an example of what
a lonely undertaking it can be.

Nobody opposed the obscene rapper Ice-T until I stood at Time-Warner#s
stockholders meeting and was ridiculed by its president for wanting to
take the floor to read Ice-T#s lyrics. Since I held several hundred shares
of stock he had no choice, though the media were barred. I read those
lyrics to a stunned audience of average American people#shocked at
lyrics that advocating killing cops, sexually abusing women, and raping
the nieces of our Vice-President. The good guys won that time:
Time-Warner fired Ice-T.

The gay and lesbian movement is another good example. Many
homosexuals are hugely talented artists and executives#also dear
friends. I don#t despise their lifestyle, though I don#t share it. As long as
gay and lesbian Americans are as productive, law-abiding and private as
the rest of us, I think America owes them absolute tolerance. It#s the right
thing to do.

On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton#s cultural
shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights
fundraisers#and then claim it#s time to place homosexual men in tents
with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian
relationships are somehow better served and more loved.

Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They#re about the
currency of cultural war # money and votes # and the Clinton camp will
let anyone in the tent if there#s a donkey on the hat, a check in the mail or
some yen in the fortune cookie.

Mainstream America is counting on you to draw your sword and fight for
them. These people have precious little time and resources to battle
misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual
coalition, the feminists who preach that it is a divine duty for women to
hat men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek
preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile
crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as
a means of adolescent merchandizing, violence as a form of
entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to
lord-knows-what. We have reached that point in time when our national
social policy originates on Oprah. I say it#s time to pull the plug.

Americans should not have to go to war every morning for their values.
They already go to war for their families. They fight to hold down a job,
raise responsible kids, make their payments, keep gas in the car, put
food on the table and clothes on their backs, and still save a little to live
their final days in dignity. They prefer the America they built # where you
could pray without feeling na#ve, love without being kinky, sing without
profanity, be white without feeling guilty, own a gun without shame, and
raise you hand without apology. They are the critical masses who find
themselves under siege and long for you to get some guts, stand on
principle and lead them to victory in this cultural war.

Now if this all sounds a little Mosaic, the punchline of my sermon is as
elementary as the Golden Rule: In a cultural war, triumph belongs to
those who arm themselves with pride in who they are and then do the
right thing. Not the most expedient thing, not what#ll sell, not the politically
correct thing, but the right thing.

And you know what? Everybody already knows what the right thing is.
You, and I, and President Clinton, even Ice-T, we all know. It#s easy. You
say wait a minute, you take a long look in the mirror, then into the eyes of
your kids or grandkids, and you#ll know what#s right.

Don#t run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you
are and what you believe, and then raise you hand, stand up, and speak
out. Don#t be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly
powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow,
steady process. And it#s in your hands.

Yes, we can have rules and still have rebels # that#s democracy. But as
leaders you must do as Lincoln would do, confronted with the stench of
cultural war: Do what#s right. As Mr. Lincoln said, "With firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are
in#and then we shall save our country."

Defeat the criminals and their apologists, oust the biased and bigoted,
endure the undisciplined and unprincipled, but disavow the
self-appointed social engineers whose relentless arrogance fuels this
vicious war against so much we hold so dear. Do not yield, do not divide,
do not call truce. Be fair, but fight back.

It#s the same blueprint our founding fathers left to guide us. Our enemies
see it as the senile prattle of an archaic society. I still honor it as the
United States Constitution, and that timeless document we call the Bill of
Rights.

Freedom is our fortune and honor is our saving grace.

Thank you.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Old Post, But A Harbinger of *DOOM*!!!
Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700


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

HOUSE TO STEP-UP ASSET FORFEITURE

HR1965 --- a new asset-forfeiture bill --- has passed out of the
U.S. House Judiciary Committee and may be headed on the fast track
through Congress. We have examined the bill, and it is a nasty
piece of work.

If you are in business, it allows the federal government to seize
your inventory and assets on the flimsiest of evidence. Even if the
original warrant is struck down by a court, the government would be
given additional time for "discovery" to examine business records
and build a case to continue holding the assets!

This bill masquerades under the guise of providing "a more just and
uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and other purposes."

As with the IRS, it puts the burden of proof on the defendant, puts
the burden of establishing what constitutes "excessive fines (8th
Amendment) on the defendant, provides for seizure without a warrant
by the Attorney General, Treasury (BATF), and Postal Service under
a variety of conditions. It allows seized assets to go to crime
victims --- and regulatory agencies. And it allows seizures by the
Food and Drug Administration for violations of regulatory bureaucracy!
Since agencies like the FDA write their own rules, almost anything
you can think of can become a "violation of regulatory" standards.

We suggest that you let others know about this --- and your elected
representatives --- while there is still time. The bill runs about
25 pages and may be obtained from the congressional website.
###
COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus, unless otherwise noted.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Stallone on Guns in America
Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS

MRC
6/12

The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate
every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor
Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo
films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal
of the 2nd amendment.

MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a
June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned
stations and syndicated to other markets.

Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the
time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this
is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think,
urban warfare."

Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London
a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun,
this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic.
It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there."

"Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have
in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview
with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It
has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain
dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets
are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the
rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'"

- Monte

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit."
               - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika"
 --------------------------------------------------------------------



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Stallone on Guns in America
Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS

MRC
6/12

The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate
every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor
Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo
films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal
of the 2nd amendment.

MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a
June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned
stations and syndicated to other markets.

Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the
time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this
is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think,
urban warfare."

Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London
a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun,
this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic.
It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there."

"Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have
in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview
with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It
has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain
dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets
are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the
rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'"

- Monte

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit."
               - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika"
 --------------------------------------------------------------------



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Oregon school yard shooting -Forwarded
Date: 12 Jun 1998 19:27:56 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA05588; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma005424; Fri Jun 12 20:47:06 1998
Message-Id: <v01530501b1a6fefc3ebf@[206.163.5.146]>
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

Purloined from another list;
-------------------

>From: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Oregon family: "Gun Control!" ... "screw that"
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Oregon family: "Gun Control!" ... "screw that"
>by Sun Tzu's Newswire Staff
>Sun Tzu's Newswire //STN98022//
>San Diego -- June 10, 1998 9:58 AM Pacific Time

>Apparently Handgun Control, Inc. and the Children of Hitler did not
>win many converts following the school shootings by Kip Kinkel in
>Oregon. News of this broke during the annual meeting of the U.S.
>National Rifle Association in Philadelphia, where actor Charlton
>Heston was elected president of the gun rights group.
>
>Washington Post reported on this development on Monday.
>
>The Post wrote; "There is no advertisement yet featuring
>Jacob Ryker, the 17-year-old wrestler at Thurston High School in
>Springfield, Ore., who was able to end the shooting rampage there
>by tackling teenage gunman Kip Kinkel even though he had been
>wounded in the chest and hand. But Ryker, his brother and parents,
>who belong to the NRA, were featured guests here all weekend.
>
>"The media expected these torn-up parents to cry, 'Gun control!' but
>screw that," said Rob Ryker, Jacob's father, a Navy deepsea diver.
>"Whoever thinks this was a gun issue alone, they don't have the big
>picture."
>
>Heston, similarly, pulled no punches in his first day as president.
>Referring to the Second Amendment, he said, "Those wise old dead white
>guys who invented this country knew what they were talking about."
>
>Of his loner status as a Hollywood gun enthusiast, he said: "I suspect
>there are as many gun users in the Hollywood closet as there are
>homosexuals."; the Washington Post reported.
>
>Hollywood insider Heston has made similar references while being heard
>on the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show. He told guest host Tony Snow that
>there are as many closet conservatives in Hollywood as there closet
>homosexuals.
>
>The "Children of Hitler" refers to the lobby imitating Nazi dictator
>Adolf Hitler whose government specifically outlawed firearms ownership
>by Jews and Gypsies, and extended the prohibition to the people of all
>occupied territories, including Germans not trusted by Nazi leaders.
>
>Reliable U.S. sources with military connections say it is too early to
>tell if the Clinton administration will try to silence Rob Ryker,
>because of his affiliation with the U.S. Navy.
>
>SOURCES:
>(1) "New Voice Of the NRA Sounds Familiar"
>By Dale Russakoff, Washington Post Staff Writer
>Tuesday, June 9, 1998; Page A06
>=A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
>(2) Rush Limbaugh radio show
>(3) "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny, 1992, Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman,
>available from Amazon.com
>
>---- @
>
>Sun Tzu's Newswire Online Index at URL:
>        http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn.htm
>
>    Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
>                   A. J. Liebling, The Wayward Press




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Stallone on Guns in America
Date: 13 Jun 1998 06:59:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS

MRC
6/12

The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate
every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor
Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo
films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal
of the 2nd amendment.

MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a
June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned
stations and syndicated to other markets.

Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the
time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this
is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think,
urban warfare."

Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London
a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun,
this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic.
It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there."

"Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have
in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview
with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It
has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain
dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets
are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the
rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'"

- Monte

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit."
               - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika"
 --------------------------------------------------------------------



-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: stalone
Date: 14 Jun 1998 11:16:29 -0600

type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to:
Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr.  Orlando, FL 32835  USA

Larry S. Larsen
http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/
_=_____________________________!
 <|------==(______)--------              |____|
  |/////_____________45 ACP___|___|
   \       /|(    )/
   /      /) ___|
  /     o/
 /       /
/o___/


-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Stallone on Guns in America
Date: 14 Jun 1998 11:17:07 -0600


-----Original Message-----


|type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to:
|Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr.  Orlando, FL 32835  USA
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: SCOTT BERGESON
|Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 12:05 AM
|Subject: Stallone on Guns in America
|
|
||
||---------- Forwarded message ----------
||Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:05:04 -0700
||From: Liberty or Death <[e-mail]>
||To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
||    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
||Subject: Stallone on Guns in America
||
||QUOTE BY SYLVESTER STALLONE ABOUT GUNS
||
||MRC
||6/12
||
||The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate
||every gun. Reacting to the shooting death of Phil Hartman, actor
||Sylvester Stallone who is best known for glamorizing in his Rambo
||films military weapons not even the NRA wants legal, urged the repeal
||of the 2nd amendment.
||
||MRC entertainment analyst Tom Johnson transcribed his ranting from a
||June 8 segment on Access Hollywood, the show carried by NBC-owned
||stations and syndicated to other markets.
||
||Stallone conceded, "I know we use guns in films," but insisted the
||time has come "to be a little more accountable and realize that this
||is an escalating problem that's eventually going to lead to, I think,
||urban warfare."
||
||Access Hollywood then showed a clip from a comment he made in London
||a few weeks ago: "Until America, door to door, takes every handgun,
||this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic.
||It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages over there."
||
||"Over there"? Yes, the man who wants to control what Americans have
||in their homes is now living in England. Back to Stallone's interview
||with the show, he demanded that the 2nd amendment be abandoned: "It
||has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain
||dauntless political figure, and say, `It's ending, it's over, all bets
||are off. It's not 200 years ago, we don't need this anymore, and the
||rest of the world doesn't have it. Why should we?'"
||
||- Monte
||
|| --------------------------------------------------------------------
||  "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit."
||               - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika"
|| --------------------------------------------------------------------
||
||
||
||-
||
||
|
|


-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: SLC/Ogden gun shows
Date: 14 Jun 1998 22:20:59 -0600

can't some of you northerners help this fellow?
larry
-----Original Message-----


|OK, Thanks anyway.
|Rick
|
|> ----------
|> From: larry larsen[SMTP:[e-mail]]
|> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:14 PM
|> To: 4414 ACS/B
|> Subject: Re: SLC/Ogden gun shows
|>
|> Rick,
|> Sorry I can't help you very much, I live in St. George, and am not up
|> on the
|> SLC gun shows.  But I forwarded your message and they can tell you
|> about it.
|> Larry
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: 4414 ACS/B <[e-mail]>
|> To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
|> Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 5:17 AM
|> Subject: SLC/Ogden gun shows
|>
|>
|> |Mr. Larsen:
|> |
|> |Hello. I'm writing you from overseas. I'm active duty USAF and reside
|> in
|> |Layton. I'll return to Utah around 4 July.  Can you tell me if there
|> are
|> |any upcoming gunshows in the SLC/Ogden areas (Jul-Aug timeframe)?  I
|> |have no other access to this info.  I ask for two reasons:
|> |
|> |1) I'm looking to purchase a Glock, and
|> |2) I'm looking to take the CCP class which I know is offered at some
|> gun
|> |shows.
|> |
|> |Would you happen to be the same person?
|> |
|> |Thanks,
|> |
|> |Rick Charles
|> |
|> |[e-mail]
|> |[phone]
|> |
|>
|


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  stalone -Forwarded
Date: 15 Jun 1998 13:53:45 -0700

Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0ylGME-0002XF-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:18 -0600
Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22]
    by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0ylGMB-0002Wl-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:15 -0600
Received: from (infowest.com) [204.17.177.10]
    by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
    id 0ylGMA-0001HE-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:14:14 -0600
Received: from default (dialup1-02.infowest.net [207.49.61.5])
    by infowest.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28078
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:13:12 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <01bd97b8$2b7b00e0$883d31cf@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

type Mr. Stalone a letter and send it to:
Fan Mail: 7685 Debeaubien Dr.  Orlando, FL 32835  USA

Larry S. Larsen
http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/
_=_____________________________!
 <|------==(______)--------              |____|
  |/////_____________45 ACP___|___|
   \       /|(    )/
   /      /) ___|
  /     o/
 /       /
/o___/


-



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Fwd: Fw: NRA - House Judiciary comm. June 10] -Forwarded
Date: 15 Jun 1998 15:35:25 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 06:17:32 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA04327; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004233; Mon Jun 15 08:13:56 1998
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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from unlinfo3.unl.edu (unlinfo3.unl.edu [129.93.1.18])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08185
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:26:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from THE-SPA.COM (ipad2.the-spa.com [204.97.227.3])
    by unlinfo3.unl.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA15624
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:18:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from CRL.crl.com ([168.75.122.5]) by THE-SPA.COM
    with SMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 5706700 ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:31:06 EST
X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10]
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by falcon.inetnebr.com id GAA15658

We need letters to Congress on this.


TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
ON H.R. 3949
THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998"=20

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
JUNE 11, 1998=20

Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting=20
me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by=20
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.=20

I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle=20
Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all=20
levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal=20
experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our=20
members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear=20
about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks=20
conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system.=20

They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less=20
than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by=20
law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it=20
will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for=20
state conservation programs.=20

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the=20
drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check=20
system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for=20
background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis=20
that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who=20
attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a=20
public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language=20
authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever=20
tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee.=20

Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the=20
Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment-=20
or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal=20
Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National=20
Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers=20
to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that=20
wasn't passed until two years later.=20

The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At=20
the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working=20
Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must=20
hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most=20
vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense=20
-- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to=20
the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun.=20

Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the=20
overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds=20
collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun=20
owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and=20
game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well=20
suffer from the imposition of this new tax.=20

Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and=20
jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority=20
to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the=20
imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged=20
today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI=20
has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected=20
-- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI=20
is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S.=20
Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it=20
should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes=20
from American gun owners.=20

As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have=20
brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter,=20
it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the=20
instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check=20
will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by=20
pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths.=20

The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a=20
firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership --=20
that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still=20
owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and=20
of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for=20
customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the=20
work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a=20
defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local=20
gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of=20
the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get=20
back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds=20
insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this=20
situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the=20
subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution.=20

I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's=20
bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks.=20
As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee=20
during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members=20
of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun=20
owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now.=20

For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a=20
firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all=20
records of the system with respect to the call (other than the=20
identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records=20
of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC =A7922(t)(2).=20

The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It=20
doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with=20
the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records.=20

This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the=20
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no=20
"rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be=20
maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such=20
records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or=20
controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof,=20
nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or=20
firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308,=20
May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456.=20

Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act=20
itself, which specifies that:


"No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may -=20

"(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system=20
established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a=20
facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State=20
or political subdivision thereof; or=20

"(2) use the system established under this section to establish any=20
system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm=20
transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited=20
by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law,=20
from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat.=20
1542 (Nov. 30, 1993).=20


We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their=20
proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions,=20
since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records=20
in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of=20
registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves.=20

The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous=20
step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second=20
Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun=20
owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by=20
the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail=20
policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know=20
it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as=20
'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles=20
Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement.=20
Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a=20
situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was=20
South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law=20
enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.=20

Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably=20
toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun=20
politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for=20
example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle=20
registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous=20
weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners=20
of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in=20
those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a=20
gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by=20
voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is=20
anathema to liberty.=20

Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years,=20
based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen=20
criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the=20
privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent=20
provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's=20
plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and=20
unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create an=20
intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely=20
strained our support.=20

In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief=20
Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to=20
destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power=20
to confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI=20
from violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those=20
areas and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was=20
intended.

[Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it=20
represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in=20
the current and preceding two fiscal years.]=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 06/14/98  Time: 20:24:06
http://www.constitution.org/     mailto:[e-mail]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


--------------14FD4C097BEC3BB07DC9BED1--



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: So much Due Process
Date: 15 Jun 1998 20:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>,
    Boris Tiraspols <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>

I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing.
Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S.
Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally
selected yes men, or should I say henchmen?

The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in
total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that
this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where
it belongs? What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the
Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional
seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they
would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what
they have been doing now for many years.

Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835
as soon as possible.

Mark Smith
__________________________________________________________________

                                        U.S. Department of Justice
 [U.S. DoJ Seal]
 [phone]                         United States Attorney
                                        Eastern District of Michigan
                                        211 W. Fort Street
                                        Suite 2001
                                        Detroit, Michigan 48226

                                        May 15, 1998

Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer:

At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John
Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly
curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal,
state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice
worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill
(H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary  Committee approved last summer.
This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be
accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects.

We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from
the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability
to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon
this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage
of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement
at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places
the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and
convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove
the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant
pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money
from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and
uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset
forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and
local law enforcement.

The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill
and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair.
You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you
oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        <signature>

                                        SAUL A. GREEN
                                        United States Attorney


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  "Crank Up the Enola Gay" -Forwarded
Date: 16 Jun 1998 08:39:27 -0700

    Duke,

    [...]
    " . . . Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, the brutalization
of prisoners (a lesson well-learned by the Vietnamese, but I digress)...
    [...]

    In every enterprise, no matter the size, it is the leadership which
sets the pace, the theme, the modus operandi, the limits of acceptability:
the code of conduct.

    Let us not fault another for his or her ability to learn and produce
something better than we, let us learn from out mistakes - and theirs -
and step forward with the confidence that we can still do what needs to
be done better than before. It is imperative that we understand where
that mindset of the Japanese comes from and in doing so, we will also
understand what drives them to be the way they are. Merely poking
insults at them may appease our own puerile desires to effect some sort
of temporary psychological relief, but we achieve nothing by it.

    Remember here, that the Japanese citizen is subject to the same
brand of idiotic and socialistic mind control as we Americans, only their's
is much more pervasive.
    Our cultures are so far divided, that we can not hope to effect a
change within their system in a reasonable period of time to show them
that liberty is a concept which knows no parallel to that of their own.

    Allow me this: If we gunnies know that by reaching out to our
non-gunnies and showing them that being one isn't a bad thing - and can
in fact be a _good_ thing - then let's do it likewise with those foreign
peoples. Heck, who knows, maybe one of them will inspire a whole
culture to change!

ET
. . . . Convinced that the republican is the only form of government which
is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind, my
prayers and efforts shall be cordially distributed to the support of that
we have so happily established. . .
Thomas Jefferson
    Now, if only we could reclaim our republic . . .
ET

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:28:56 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA18612; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018427; Sun Jun 14 21:25:54 1998
Message-Id: <v04011700b1aa0f375654@[204.182.72.70]>
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

    Duke,

    [...]
    " . . . Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking,
the brutalization of prisoners (a lesson well-learned by
the Vietnamese, but I digress)...
    [...]

    In every enterprise, no matter the size, it is
the leadership which sets the pace, the theme, the modus
operandi, the limits of acceptability: the code of conduct.
    While the very essence of the acts perpetrated
upon the Chinese peoples in the last great war was in fact
a signature of the mindset of those who conducted that
war, what happened at Nanjing was perhaps minor in its
extent when considering the other travesties conducted
against man by man, in still other epochs.

    In that matter of who would be building what
and where, I hasten to remind the writer that while we
Americans had the edge from approximately the middle
of WWII to its end, it was indeed the greedy capitalists
who decised to dump the edge in the name of more and
more money in the form of market share.
    Nothing against capitalism here, just that
when money is the only motive, it usually results in a
mindset that is the equivalent of rapacious avarice.
    I don't need to run the gamut of history which
immediately proceded WWII to provide you with the painful
examples of what happened to U.S. industry.
    The single most important factor which inspired
the Japanese was the thinking of a U.S. citizen in the name
of Edward Demming. Demming tried his darndest to get U.S.
industry, especially the automotive portion to adopt his
statistical process control. But it seems that what worked
darned well during the war wasn't on the minds of the
greedy bastards who were the captains of industry.
    If you could make it cheap - not inexpensive, but
cheap - enough to sell anywhere and reap a large profit,
then that is exactly what happened.
    Oh, and don't forget, the only other major player
who was able to produce a significant product immediately
following WWII was Australia, since its industry wasn't
destroyed by the war. But compared to the output of the
U.S., it was insignificant.

    Let us not fault another for his or her ability to
learn and produce something better than we, let us learn
from out mistakes - and theirs - and step forward with
the confidence that we can still do what needs to be
done better than before. It is imperative that we understand
where that mindset of the Japanese comes from and in
doing so, we will also understand what drives them to be
the way they are. Merely poking insults at them may appease
our own puerile desires to effect some sort of temporary
psychological relief, but we achieve nothing by it.

    Remember here, that the Japanese citizen is
subject to the same brand of idiotic and socialistic mind
control as we Americans, only their's is much more pervasive.
    Our cultures are so far divided, that we can not
hope to effect a change within their system in a reasonable
period of time to show them that liberty is a concept which
knows no parallel to that of their own.

    Allow me this: If we gunnies know that by reaching
out to our non-gunnies and showing them that being one isn't
a bad thing - and can in fact be a _good_ thing - then let's do
it likewise with those foreign peoples. Heck, who knows, maybe
one of them will inspire a whole culture to change!

ET
. . . . Convinced that the republican is the only form of
government which is not eternally at open or secret war
with the rights of mankind, my prayers and efforts shall be
cordially distributed to the support of that we have so
happily established. . .
Thomas Jefferson
    Now, if only we could reclaim our republic . . .
ET


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Clinton Wants Brady Extended
Date: 16 Jun 1998 08:47:59 -0700

Clinton Wants Brady Bill Extended

.c The Associated Press

 By JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The administration hopes to extend the Brady Act
five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, which is due to expire in
November, a senior White House official said Sunday.

``We think that's a priority because it has worked effectively,''
presidential adviser Rahm Emanuel said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

The 1993 Brady Act set up the waiting period and required the
establishment of a national system to perform instant checks on
would-be gun buyers. Under the act, the nationwide instant check
system replaces the waiting period on Nov.
30 this year.

The waiting period is designed to weed out convicted felons and others
who are barred from buying guns. It gives local law enforcement
agencies time to check criminal records before a gun permit is issued.
Backers say the waiting period can also head off crimes of passion by
imposing a cooling off period on legal gun buyers.

``There is good common sense to the five-day cooling-off period,''
Emanuel said. Twenty percent of guns used in murders are bought
within the week of the murder and ``we think the cooling off period is
very, very important'' in stopping crimes of passion, he said.

In 1996, police checked the backgrounds of 2.6 million would-be handgun
buyers, with 70,000 sales blocked because of felony records and other
reasons.

The new instant check system will use a network of computers
administered by the FBI to give on-the-spot approval to legal gun buyers
and flag unauthorized buyers. A gun dealer will be notified within three
days whether to reject any flagged sale or go ahead with it.

Tanya Metaksa, the main lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said
similar instant check systems are superior to waiting periods and are
already working in 19 states.

``Nobody to date has even suggested that we go and keep the five-day
wait,'' she said in an interview.

While supporting the instant background checks, the NRA is pushing
legislation to stop the FBI from imposing a gun tax to pay for the reviews.

``They plan also to charge like $30,'' NRA association president Charlton
Heston said on NBC. ``I don't approve of that.''

Attorney General Janet Reno last week urged states to administer the
background checks, using the FBI system, rather than relying on FBI
manpower.
The Justice Department said the FBI plans to charge $13 to $16 per
background check to states that don't do their own.

Reno said the check system, designed to handle up to 15,000 requests
an hour, is on track to go nationwide in November.

Emanuel said the administration's top gun control goal this year is
congressional passage of laws requiring child safety locks on all
handguns and extension of the Brady Act to juveniles. Emanuel said the
White House is also looking at legislation making parents responsible for
gun crimes committed by their children.

AP-NY-06-14-98 1344EDT



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Resource from the anti-gunners (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 16 Jun 1998 12:46:45 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id AAA14805; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 00:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma014677; Sun Jun 14 00:44:04 1998
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

On Jun 13, Bob Mueller wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]

Courtesy of Join-Together, we hear that---

"To assist you in your efforts, we have prepared this Sample Law section
outlining a handful of gun laws which are commonly introduced at the state
level. These laws are intended to provide you with sample legislation that
has been successfully enacted in various states. "

They also mention a brochure: Addressing Gun Violence Through Local
Ordinances: A Legal Resource Manual for California Cities and Counties  -
this from the Legal Community Against Violence in SF, CA.

It might be worthwhile to browse through some of the info there and use it
to be go ahead and get ready to block any of these proposals if/when they
are introduced in your area. Sorry I don't have a better URL, but they use
frames at JTO, so go to http://www1.jointogether.org/gv/ , and get to the
Strategy |Public Policy section.

______________________________________
Bob Mueller
Second Amendment Research Network -
http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html

D, 6/52 ADA Alumni Association Commander
http://www.gather.com/d652ada/

[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]

--
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Rambo the hypocrite
Date: 16 Jun 1998 21:06:48 -0600

Got this from another mailing list.
larry
-----Original Message-----


|Dear Gentlepeople,
|
|I find it rather ironic that Mr. Stallone would like to confiscate
|firearms back in the US. If one would run him in the state of California,
|he would come back with dozens and dozens of firearms under his name.
|Point of fact, he has a CCW and would always carry concealed. I know this
|for a fact because I have stopped him twice (vehicle stops) and been
|involved in the countless calls when his bodyguards would beat the shit
|out of someone when his ex, Brigdette, would start fights. Stallone would
|always appear and would tell the handling unit, out of courtesy, he was
|carrying. Of course his bodyguards, all off duty or ex cops, would also
|be carrying.
|
|Once again the elite and privileged mandate their hypocrisies on the
|masses.
|
|Regards,
|Sean Collinsworth
|www.voirdire.com
|
|


-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: more stallone
Date: 16 Jun 1998 21:09:08 -0600

. Interestingly, Stallone could not get a
concealed carry in L. A. County. So when ever he was filming in some
Podunc county in CA, he would show up, give a photo of himself to the
local chief of police and get another CCW for a different gun (one gun,
one CWW).

Larry S. Larsen
http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/
_=_____________________________!
 <|------==(______)--------              |____|
  |/////_____________45 ACP___|___|
   \       /|(    )/
   /      /) ___|
  /     o/
 /       /
/o___/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [American Spirit]
Date: 17 Jun 1998 11:38:16 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
A Frenchman, an Englishman, and a New Yorker were captured by a fierce
Amazon tribe. The chief comes to them and says, "The bad news is that
now that we've caught you, we're going to kill you, and then use your skins
to build a canoe.  The good news is that you get to choose how you die."

The Frenchman says, "I take 'ze poison." The chief gives him some
poison, the Frenchman says, "Vive la France!" and drinks it down.

The Englishman says, "A pistol for me, please." The chief gives him a
pistol, he points it at his head says, "God save the queen!" and
blows his brains out.

The New Yorker says, "Gimme a fork." The chief is puzzled, but he shrugs and
gives him a fork. The New Yorker takes the fork and starts jabbing himself
all over the stomach, the sides, the chest, everywhere.  There's blood
gushing out all over, it's horrible.

The chief is appalled, and screams, "What are you doing???"  The New
Yorker looks at the chief and says, "So much for your canoe, you savage!"


----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: WW on unjust laws
Date: 17 Jun 1998 11:41:12 -0600


From Today's Deseret News.


 Some lawmakers don't understand or respect meaning of Constitution

 Last updated 06/17/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
 By Walter Williams

       What's the standard battle cry and promise of the Republican
 Party? We've heard it: tax cuts, federalism and limited government.
 I'd really appreciate it if a Republican representative or senator
 could tell me under which of those categories Sen. John McCain's
 so-called tobacco bill falls. If passed, the measure would add about
 a dollar to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, forcing smokers to pay
 an estimated $516 billion more in federal taxes over a 25-year
 period and increasing federal power over our lives.
       Some Republican congressmen don't even understand or respect
 the meaning, purpose and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Then,
 there are naives who think that the Constitution's "general welfare"
 clause covers their activities.
       James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, warned: "With
 respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as
 qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them
 in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
 Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was
 not contemplated by its creators." The "detail of powers" to which
 Madison refers is the Constitution's Article I, Section 8.
       There are other Republicans who fully understand the limit of
 powers granted Congress by the Constitution but are afraid to voice
 it out of fear they will be misunderstood and labeled as big-tobacco
 supporters and anti-children. Their fear may be justified. Whether
 it's primary school, secondary school or college, very little is
 taught about the Constitution's meaning and spirit. Most Americans
 think that Congress has constitutional authority to do anything
 that's "wonderful" and sanctioned by a majority. Little do we
 realize that our constitutional ignorance has allowed us to fall
 easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.
       Today's Congress and White House have no more moral legitimacy
 than King George III and the British Parliament had in the 18th
 century. They should be held in the same contempt our founders held
 for King George and his Parliament. Oppressive taxation by the
 British Parliament such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Act and
 regulatory oppression through the Trade and Navigation acts
 energized the founders. Leading Americans, including signers of the
 Declaration of Independence like John Hancock, either engaged in
 smuggling or supported it to avoid oppressive taxation and
 regulation. Their open defiance led to Britain's Parliament passing
 the so-called Coercive Act (1774) and Restraining Act (1775) that
 led to our founders saying they had enough ù hence the Declaration
 of Independence.
       We should have the courage of our founders and let Congress
 know that we have a Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of Americans
 have shed their blood to defend it against foreign destruction; we
 should be just as willing to defend it against domestic aggression.
 We are far short of the point where we need to take up arms, but we
 have reached the point where we shouldn't sheepishly obey the
 illegitimate acts of Congress.
       "So what are you saying, Williams?" you ask. I'm saying that
 if a Republican Congress legislates oppressive taxes on cigarettes,
 we should adopt our founders' responses to Britain's oppressive
 acts.
       You say, "Williams, smuggling is against the law." I say not
 every law is deserving of obedience. History shows that considerable
 human suffering and government oppression could have been avoided
 simply by citizens asking whether a law is just before they obey it.
 Before I would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, Oriental
 Exclusion Act, apartheid laws, anti-miscegenation laws and alcohol
 prohibition, I would have asked: Is the law moral?





 Creators Syndicate Inc.











--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: So much Due Process
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>,
    Boris Tiraspols <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>

I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing.
Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S.
Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally
selected yes men, or should I say henchmen?

The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in
total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that
this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where
it belongs. What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the
Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional
seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they
would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what
they have been doing now for many years.

Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835
as soon as possible.

Mark Smith
__________________________________________________________________

                                        U.S. Department of Justice
 [U.S. DoJ Seal]
 [phone]                         United States Attorney
                                        Eastern District of Michigan
                                        211 W. Fort Street
                                        Suite 2001
                                        Detroit, Michigan 48226

                                        May 15, 1998

Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer:

At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John
Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly
curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal,
state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice
worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill
(H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary  Committee approved last summer.
This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be
accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects.

We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from
the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability
to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon
this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage
of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement
at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places
the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and
convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove
the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant
pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money
from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and
uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset
forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and
local law enforcement.

The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill
and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair.
You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you
oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        <signature>

                                        SAUL A. GREEN
                                        United States Attorney


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Action Requested....  1/2
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


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

We need letters to Congress on this.


TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
ON H.R. 3949
THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998"

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
JUNE 11, 1998

Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting
me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle
Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all
levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal
experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our
members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear
about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks
conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system.

They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less
than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by
law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it
will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for
state conservation programs.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the
drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check
system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for
background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis
that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who
attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a
public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language
authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever
tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee.

Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the
Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment-
or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal
Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National
Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers
to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that
wasn't passed until two years later.

The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At
the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working
Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must
hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most
vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense
-- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to
the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun.

Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the
overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds
collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun
owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and
game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well
suffer from the imposition of this new tax.

Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and
jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority
to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the
imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged
today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI
has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected
-- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI
is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S.
Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it
should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes
from American gun owners.

As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have
brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter,
it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the
instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check
will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by
pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths.

The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a
firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership --
that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still
owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and
of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for
customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the
work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a
defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local
gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of
the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get
back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds
insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this
situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the
subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Action Requested....  2/2
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's
bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks.
As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee
during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members
of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun
owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now.

For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a
firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all
records of the system with respect to the call (other than the
identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records
of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC º922(t)(2).

The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It
doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with
the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records.

This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no
"rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be
maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such
records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or
controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof,
nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or
firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308,
May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456.

Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act
itself, which specifies that:

"No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may -

"(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system
established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a
facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State
or political subdivision thereof; or

"(2) use the system established under this section to establish any
system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited
by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law,
from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat.
1542 (Nov. 30, 1993).

We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their
proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions,
since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records
in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of
registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves.

The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous
step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second
Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun
owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by
the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail
policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know
it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as
'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles
Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement.
Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a
situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was
South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law
enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.

Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably
toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun
politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for
example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle
registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous
weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners
of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in
those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a
gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by
voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is
anathema to liberty.

Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years,
based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen
criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the
privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent
provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's
plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and
unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create
an intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely
strained our support.

In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief
Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to
destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power to
confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI from
violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those areas
and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was intended.

[Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it
represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in
the current and preceding two fiscal years.]

===============================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM  Date: 06/14/98 Time: 20:24:06
http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 1/3
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Text & Letter from Constitution Society Jon Roland to Congressman

Letter from Jon Roland of Constitution Society--

Executive Order a Threat to Federalism

by
Jon Roland
Mon, 8 Jun

Dear Congressman:

This concerns three matters that require urgent action by Congress.
The first is an Executive Order signed by President Clinton in
Birmingham, UK, on May 14, 1998, entitled "Federalism", which is
attached. It was posted on the White House Web site without a number,
but other sources indicate its number is 13083. To the lay reader its
provisions seem harmless. It makes ritual recognitions of the principles
of federalism and compliance with the Constitution, but then, in Sec.
3(d), asserts elements which are not what they seem. I urge you to
initiate rescission of this Executive Order within the 30-day period
provided by statute.

One of the problems with the language of many statutes, regulations,
judicial opinions, and executive orders is the opening they provide
for bureaucrats determined to twist such language to expand federal
power into areas not authorized by the Constitution or intended by
the authors. It is the duty of Congress to be alert to the ways such
language can be abused to subvert the Constitution and, in this case,
the principles of federalism. Upon careful analysis of the language
of this executive order, I have concluded that it will be used by the
federal executive branch to assert administrative control over the
day-to-day operations of every function of state and local government,
by intimidating state and local officials into clearing almost every
decision they make with federal bureaucrats and agents.

My investigations have revealed the operation of a long-term program
by elements of the federal government to infiltrate and control state
and local government. This program involves the placement into key
positions of persons who take their orders not from their nominal
superiors, but from federal agencies. This is being done with state
and local law enforcement agencies, state and local prosecutor's
offices and courts, legislative staffs, and executive agencies of all
kinds. The aim appears to be to gain de facto control of state and
local government, and is being used to block action against high-level
wrongdoing, especially by federal agencies. Its apparent aim is nothing
less than to reduce state and local government to divisions of the
federal executive branch.

I further urge Congress to launch a general review of all executive
orders, and the recission of all those which assert powers not in
compliance with constitutional law.

The second matter concerns information I have received that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is to be in violation of statute concerning the
maintenance of data on firearm purchases. The name and full ID of every
retail gun buyer in the country will be recorded by the FBI, starting
Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000,
when they become mandatory. A tax of up to $16 will apply to every purchase,
unless a state's police cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is
waived); 19 states are cooperating as of this date. The FBI may lower its
tax, working in concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid
acceptance of registration. The official public comment period has ended.

FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from enforcement) claim
they have to do all this for security or audit purposes, pursuant to the
instant check provisions of the Brady Act. None of these claims are
compatible with statute. Gun owners will be kept online for at least two
years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year revolving online
registry will include between eight and fourteen million people -- all the
most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and quasi-permanent backups are
planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada in June, if the interface
specs are on time.

Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer act, which unequivocally
prohibits recording this information in a government facility. The FBI is
simply ignoring it, claiming it doesn't apply. Saving instant-check data
is contrary to the Brady Act, which provides that if the sale goes through
the records shall be destroyed.

The only data which might be properly stored, pursuant to the instant check
provisions of the Brady Act, would be a record of persons whose rights to
keep and bear arms have been disabled or restricted, in whole or in part,
by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. I urge you to initiate action
to terminate all such illegal actions by the FBI or any other agency or
private organization acting as a contractor of the federal government.

I further urge a third measure, legislation prohibiting the use of social
security numbers for any other purpose than the collection of income taxes
and the payment of refunds and social security benefits. There is an ongoing
effort by the federal government to gain control over the daily lives and
right to work of every person, by creating a national identification system
based on the social security number. This is a power that is already being
abused to suppress critics of governmental abuses. It is a power that the
national government must not be allowed to exercise under any pretext.

Jon Roland




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 2/3
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Birmingham, England)

For Immediate Release May 14, 1998

EXECUTIVE ORDER [13083]

- - - - - - -

FEDERALISM

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the
division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution,
between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the
Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments
and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is
hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

  (a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of
      America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to
      State governments, including units of local government and other
      political subdivisions established by the States.

  (b) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to Federal
      regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements
      or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States
      or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and
      responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States.

  (c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an
      "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered
      to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C.
      3502(5).

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and
        implementing policies that have federalism implications,
        agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental
        federalism principles:

  (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is
      premised upon a system of checks and balances.

  (b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but
      limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal
      Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless
      prohibited to the States by the Constitution.

  (c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the
      Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual
      liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance
      to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the
      supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power
      of the States.

  (d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the
      limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define
      the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

  (e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the
      public policies adopted by the people of the several States
      according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and
      local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the
      sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly.

  (f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition
      among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches
      to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy
      is often furthered when individual States and local governments are
      free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.
      Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit
      the creation of effective solutions to those problems.

  (g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility
      of -- and should encourage opportunities for -- States, local
      governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and
      individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic
      objectives through cooperative effort.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the
        fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this
        order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to
        the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies
        that have federalism implications:

  (a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles.
      Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory
      authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the
      policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and
      should carefully assess the necessity for such action.

  (b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local
      governments only after determining that there is constitutional and
      legal authority for the action.

  (c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by
      States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant

      States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion
      possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration
      should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion.

  (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of
      national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and
      matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify
      Federal action because individual States, acting individually or
      together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or
      multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety
      of circumstances, including:

      (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate
          as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries.

      (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State
          different from the State (or States) where a significant amount
          of the harm occurs.

      (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards.

      (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus
          imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.

      (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights
          and liberties.

      (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations
          because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate
          to other States.

      (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level
          would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands
          for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory
          matter beyond the resources of State authorities.

      (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or
          natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations.

      (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects
          Indian tribal governments.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 3/3
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:14:00 -0700


Sec. 4. Consultation.

  (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials
      and other representatives of State and local governments to provide
      meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
      that have federalism implications.

  (b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall
      promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has
      federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct
      compliance costs on States and local governments, unless:

      (1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or
          local government in complying with the regulation are provided by
          the Federal Government; or

      (2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

          (A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the
              regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register,
              provides to the Director of the Office of Management and
              Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior
              consultation with representatives of affected States and
              local governments, a summary of the nature of their
              concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need
              to issue the regulation; and

          (B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management
              and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency
              by States or local governments.

Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers.

  (a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local
      governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory
      requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.

  (b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,
      consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver
      of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program
      administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing
      opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State
      or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with
      applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

  (c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted
      by law, render a decision upon a complete application for
      a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by
      the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted,
      the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written
      notice of the decision and the reasons therefor.

  (d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements
      that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are
        encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

  (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management
      of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not,
      create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
      enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United
      States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or
      employees, or any other person.

  (b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements
      contained in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and
      Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and
      OMB Circular A-19.

  (c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order
      12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked.

  (d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of
      this order shall complement the Executive order entitled,
      "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,"
      being issued on this day.

  (e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gird Up Thy Loins
Date: 17 Jun 1998 23:55:00 -0700


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

<snip>

Hearthside, June 17, Gird Up Thy Loins!

God said, "Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of
thee, and answer thou me. (Job 38:3 Webster's)

With the usual "hurry up!s" and "would you please!s" we finally left
late for our Sunday morning breakfast on the way to church. It is the
single time in the week when we do not sit together for meals, and
every one of us look forward to it. The kids sit by themselves at the
lunch counter. Helen and I sit alone in a booth. We say two graces.

There was little time to scan the paper, but a quick glance at the
political cartoon in the op/ed section caught my eye. It was big. The
captain read, "Phrases you would not know if there were no guns in
America." It depicted a man standing in front of the liberty bell,
with names and phrases behind and around him: "Grassy knoll." "John
David Hinckley." "Sirhan Sirhan." "Ruby Ridge." "Waco."

You can guess the cartoonist's perspective.

The guns that rang out at Waco rang against the infants and children
at that farm by a tyrant gone mad. Many of those children had not yet
learned to say "gun," and few of them knew what it meant to "gird up
your loins" for battle... but we who survive may learn.

Some other phrases that would be suppressed if there were no guns in
America: "Freedom." "Liberty." "Independence." "Security." "Survival."
"Food." "Concord and Lexington."

Guns never made America free, of course.

Concord and Lexington; inseparable in the minds of free men, and
inseparable from free men's minds: "It was the act more than the
action. It meant resistance; it meant war and not peace --
independence, not submission. The minute-men at Lexington had stood in
silent protest; they dispersed when once they had asserted their
rights even in the face of death. The minute-men at Concord gave back
blow for blow; their guns were the first declaration of independence.
A skirmish? Yes. But a skirmish that was indeed a battle, more
eventful in the history of the world, so Bancroft asserts, than were
Agincourt and Blenheim." (Eldridge Brooks, _The Century Book of the
American Revolution_, 1897)

It is not the guns that made America free. Concord and Lexington
themselves went well for freedom, but it was not enough. Some may
discover it is never enough. It was that long march home...

When the 20 minute conflict in Concord was over, the British soldiers
who had come to "just follow orders" and suppress liberty by seizing
guns were "attacked in flank by the men of Concord and the neighboring
towns and driven under a hot fire to Charlestown." (from a monument at
Old North Bridge.)

None hotter! By the time they got back to Lexington, those men who
made their silent protest were no longer silent. At Fiske's Hill, they
sent the tyrant's soldiers running. It seemed to "rain rebels" for the
remainder of the day, according to one British soldier, and it opened
a 7 year fight.

For freedom.

"Well, all would not die. There were men good as new --
   From Rumford, from Saugus, from towns far away, --
Who filled quick and well, for each soldier that fell,
   And we drove them and drove them and drove them all day,
We knew, every one, it was war that begun,
   When that morning's march was only half done.
                   (Edward Everett Hale, from "Story of
                   Massachusetts")

Guns never made America free. Free men made America free. Thank God,
however, that free men have guns.

They always will. It is part of being free.

"Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all
that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound
thee before them." (Jeremiah 1:17 Webster's)

"Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it,
and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one. "(Luke 22:36)

Gird up your loins.

Dave and Helen Delany
---
   "Liberty Begins at Hearthside"
Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications
    PO Box 212  Conklin NY  13748
   http://www.hancock.net/~freedom
            * * * * *
              Free!
 ><>   To Subscribe (or unsubscribe)
 Send request to [e-mail]
    and ask about Hearth Tabs:
regular doses of historical perspective!
              Free!

Freedom implies slavery's existence, and freedom ain't free!
Without wax,

HHW><>



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  UPS & Theft
Date: 18 Jun 1998 08:22:22 -0700

    I received this in the mail. It contains pointers concerning the
shipment of firearms. I considered the information appropriate
to post to the list.

Regards,
Dennis Baron

Forwarded Mail

>>As a gun owner and an 11-year UPS driver, I get alot of questions
from
people
regarding the safest way to ship and insure firearms through UPS. Theft
of
firearms and other items by UPS employees, though rare, unfortunately
does
occur but there are a lot of surpisingly simple and inexpensive ways to
virtually
gurantee that you wont be a victim. Please pass this information along to
anyone
who may benefit from it.

   There are 2 ways that things get stolen from UPS...pilfering and
overlabeling.
Pilferers are mostly thieves of opportunity. Handguns, jewelry, cameras
and
prescription narcotics are their favorite targets because they are easily
identifiable
and can quickly be shoved into a pocket or inside of a shirt due to the
SMALL
SIZE of the packages they come in. The red and black "adult signiature
required"
(ASR) labels that are legally required to be on these package are often a
dead
giveaway.They are also called "steal me stickers" by thieves. Since most
UPS
facilities are fenced in and require employees belongings to be searched
upon
exiting, the size of the item is critical. The BEST way to protect your
handgun
is to simply put it in a big box. One gunsmith on my route "disguises" his
handguns by putting them in used Amway boxes!! This works VERY
well.
Look at the box you are shipping your handgun in...if you can stick it
inside
your pants or under your shirt easily, it is vulnerable.

   As far as the ASR labels go, you are required by law to have them on
firearms shipments. What many customers dont know, however, is that
they
can get a more "discreet" ASR label that is incorporated into the UPS
tracking
label. These are better because the words "adult signiature required" are
very
small and unnoticeable. More importantly, this barcode will electronically
"prompt" the driver at the other end to get a signiature...if he accidentally
tries
to "release" the package on the customers porch without getting a
signiature
he will be unable to do so since the DIAD (that electronic clipboard that
you
sign)
will read the barcode and will force him to get a signiature in order to
complete
the delivery. You can order these special tracking labels through your
Customer
Service rep, or you can print them yourself with the UPS shipping
software.

   Another more sophisticated method of theft is "overlabeling". This
involves
several conspirators who plan ahead and may get jobs at UPS for that
very
purpose. What they do is to print up a bunch of fake labels, with generic
barcodes and phony return addresses, that are all addressed to a
storage
unit or apartment that they have rented in advance. One or more
employees
who are sorting and processing these packages will then slap the phony

label over the authentic one, and the package will then proceed along its
merry way to the "destination" where an unsuspecting driver will deliver
it
to another accomplice who signs for it using a fake name. This will go on

for a week or so until the thieves move on to another address to avoid
suspicion. Since the original barcode is covered up, it is impossible to
even
trace these packages and they simply "vanish". The theives who do this
will
also target handguns and jewelry, but since they arent trying to sneak it
past
a guard they have the freedom to target larger packages such as rifles,
TV's
and computers.

    How do you avoid this? Its simple...put an address label on ALL 6
sides
of the box. A package so labeled will be passed up by a prospective
thief,
since he must now try to cover up 6 labels instead of only one. This is
too
risky,
since the areas where these packages are sorted are often under
electronic
surveillance.

    If you are a gunsmith or store owner who ships UPS, and the package
you
are shipping is worth over $1000, then inform the driver who picks it up
and
have
him initial the pickup record. These "high value" packages are
audited,segregated
from other packages, they are not sorted or run over conveyor belts,
and they
are subject to a chain-of-custody type procedure that will prevent their
being
stolen.

    I feel 100% safe in saying that a handgun that is shipped in a larger-
than-normal
box of good quality, with a discreet ASR barcode and address labels on
all 6
sides, will NEVER get stolen or lost. Its an unfortunate that a few of the
16
million pieces a day that we ship are in danger of being stolen, but if you
take
these simple precautions you wont be a victim. <<


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  COLT CAUGHT RED HANDED
Date: 18 Jun 1998 10:18:29 -0700

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
Richard Miller -Chairman
P.O Box 345  Holmdel, NJ 07733  Phone: [phone] OR 732-946-3908


***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
June 17, 1998


COLT'S CAUGHT RED HANDED DONATING
TO CHARLES SCHUMER'S CAMPAIGN FUND

At the National Rifle Association annual meeting the Coalition of New
Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS) distributed a flyer which lambasted Colt's
Manufacturing for it's "anti gun" lobbying activities.  CNJS leaders
were approached by outraged Colt's sales personnel who claimed we
were not accurate and they were attacked unfairly.  CNJS Legislative
Committee Chairman, Alan Rice received a telephone call from Colt's
lobbyist, Beth Lavach who complained loudly about the flyer.  Ms.
Lavach asserted that Colt's is not anti gun and supports individual rights.

It seems that our target, Colt's President Ron Stewart was correct,
based upon his remarks on ABC News Nightline and as published in
American Firearms Industry Magazine.  We can only surmise that Colt's
employees were upset because we published the truth!  If our first
publication about the truth behind Colt's upset their salesmen, they will be
very upset when they learn that CNJS researchers have discovered that
the owner of Colt's, investment bank Zilkha and Company and one of it's
principals, Donald Zilkha have donated at least $1500.00 to the notorious
gun prohibitionist and criminals best friend, Congressman Charles
Schumer.  CNJS researchers have also learned the Mr. Zilkha has
donated at least $10,000.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee.  This is the committee which provides funding to candidates
like Senators Frank Lautenberg, Daniel Moynihan, Diane Feinstein,
Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy!  This is an outrage! *

Mr. Zilkha and Charles Schumer are both hypocrites, Congressman
Schumer wants to ban all guns and has introduced legislation to do so;
Mr. Zilkha's company owns a firearms manufacturer.  His company's
civilian products would be outlawed if Mr. Schumer has his way.
Anyone who has purchased a Colt's product in the last few years has
helped Congressman Charles Schumer!

Firearms owners across America should know that Mr. Zilkha resides in
New York City, Charles Schumer's home town!  We can only assume
that his goal is to ruin America by making it as gun free as New York
City.  In New York City self defense against predatory criminals is
impossible.  We are reliably informed that Colt's is spending huge sums to
develope and market a so called "smart gun".  This gun will not fire
unless a special bracelt is worn.   Self defense will be impossible
without the special bracelet!

The actions of Colt's officials are detrimental to American style  freedoms
and liberties!

Firearms owners should beware, in our previous flyer we urged a
boycott of Colt's, our call for a boycott has taken on a new sense of
urgency.

Colt should also be called;  at their expense, 1-800-962-2658, express
your outrage and anger that a firearms company and it's principals would
donate to these notorious gun prohibitionists.  On Federal Election reports
Mr. Zilkha lists his employer as Colt's Manufacturing.

* SOURCE: Federal Election Commission Reports as collated by the
Center for Responsive Politics.

--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Interesting Advice
Date: 18 Jun 1998 10:31:08 -0700

larry ball <[e-mail]> writes:
>>I do not see my effort as destructive.  I see what the NRA is doing as
destructive.  Something has to change.  Can't you see this?<<

    OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the
last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER.
The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want.

     I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue
of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component

     I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious
toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life
and politics outside your own sphere of operation.

     I agree totally with your "Rights" concept as it applies to rights
in general and gun ownership in particular. Unfortunately, the
vast majority of American voters, and a goodly number of gun
owners have no idea of the concepts you are proposing. To use
the gun issue as a vehicle to promote the "inalienable right" concept
at this time, is, IMO, suicidal to our cause.

     You've got the cart before the horse. It is similar to asking people
who cannot do simple arithmetic, to accept the concepts of solid
geometry. When they don't understand, don't teach them arithmetic,
keep pushing the specialized concepts. While you attempting to undo
decades of liberal indoctrination, the gun grabbers are laughing at us,
and using emotion and practical political methods to fulfill their agenda.

      Here you are in 1998, attempting to compel your "rights agenda" on
a population that has been inculcated with just the opposite, from almost
all quarters, for the last 100 years, and you are using the gun issue to
do so. And you'll start by demanding that the NRA follow your lead.
The NRA is NOT working to convince YOU of  anything. They are
dealing with a public that cannot differentiate between an auto and
a semi-auto rifle, a press that reinforces the public#s misconceptions,
and politicians that depend on that public for their votes.

     The "N" in NRA stands for National; not Nebraska, not Neal, and
not New York City.

     One of Charlton Hestons original intentions was to use the NRA stage

as a mechanism to educate children on the true meaning of the Bill of
Rights,
especially the Second Amendment. Dammit, Larry some history books
used
in schools today, actually state the 2nd Amendment applies only to state
militias. Most newspaper editorial boards promote the same thing.

     To use your concepts, as a inviolable dogma for political activism
against
gun controllers, and expect an essentially ignorant public to support that
is unrealistic. You will be branded a lunatic and a 'right wing nut' and
relegated to the dungeons of ineffectiveness and rabble rousing. It is
certainly imperative to understand that what you propose is our ultimate
goal. Had Virginia, held out for "Vermont" carry or insisted on no instant
check, I would not be carrying a gun today. As it is, to get "shall issue
CCW"
the silly alcohol/restaurant ban (which does not and never did apply to
open
carry) was a bone thrown to some anti's to get their vote. I may be
carrying
with permission, but in New Jersey, I did not even have the opportunity
to
get that permission. WHILE I am carrying a gun, I will work to get the silly
ban repealed.

     We are about the same age Larry. We've come a long way in the last
30 years. It is my firm belief, that had the NRA not been there, and
in most cases, acted the way they did, we would be a disarmed nation
today, or at minimum in the same situation the Australians now find
themselves in.

     Let me give a personal analogy. Many things annoy me. I consider
spam and junk mail an invasion of my privacy, especially ones that
are duplicates. I get aggravated at people who post GOA alerts to this list
as if members of Noban don#t get them directly. Your recent long
forward
from #C-News# concerning ESCHELON and social security was SPAM
in my book. I subscribe to ROC. If I want C-news, I#ll get it.

   I get NOBAN in digest form. It averages about 45K of text. After I delete

all the duplication caused by people who do not crop the posts they are
responding to, the file size is usually about a third of the original.  I am
continuously deleting kilobytes of headers footers and entire previously
posted material because some folks just hit reply, write their comments
and send the whole damn thing back again. I am just as busy as
they are. So are the people who DO have the consideration to crop
what they send.

     I've got several choices here:

   I can send the all the offending stuff back to the originators, and annoy
them. That will probably get me put on a kill filter.

   I can cancel my subscription to Noban in disgust, and deprive myself
of even the information that is important.

   I can put up with it, cussing the inconsiderate, yet realizing that what
I get is preferable to nothing. I can hope, and on occasion drop hints
that it might be in everyone's best interest to be a bit more considerate
and
trim what they post to the list. Some may listen some never will, though
the
situation probably will improve.

    I can start a e-mail campaign to others to boycott NOBAN until the
situation changes to my satisfaction. Others are deprived of the input of
the boycotters, and the offenders have free rein to dominate the list.
This runs the very real risk of diminishing or negating the effectiveness
of the list. Along with this I can stop asking people to sign on to Noban
because it does not operate they way I want it to.

    I read about a dozen gun boards a day. I subscribe to several lists.
About half of what I read is pissing and moaning about the NRA.
For some folks, that is ALL they post. They complain that the support
they get is NOT the support they WANT, or they complain that they
do not get support on some personal political crusade or other.

I wonder how much better off we would be if those folks spent their time

calling Congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and working
campaigns.

    I took Bill Vance's advice and bought Heinleins book on taking back our

government. I am doing just what Heinlein said. I joined a party here and
am answering phones. We shall see.

    About a month ago, a fellow who writes for LSAS scheduled a free
2 hour seminar on the Second Amendment. He got a room at a local
library in the evening.. He advertised on local radio and cable TV. He
posted numerous notices on VA-RKBA, our state "hard core" gun rights
discussion list dominated by members of VCDL, the "take no prisoners
Second Amendment advocates". Flyers were available at gun shops.
Quite a few activists live in the Hampton Roads area. Ed gives a great
presentation  with slides transparencies, the whole nine yards. Sections
on media bias, dealing with politicians, history of the BOR etc.

    THREE PEOPLE SHOWED UP.

     Me, my wife and one gun owner from the community. All those
"hard core" activists were to damn busy bitching about the NRA
to come. They are all experts on the Second Amendment and political
activism anyway. They sure as hell know what#s wrong with the NRA
It's damn near all I've read on that list since it formed in February. One
person posts a message about what a creep Heston or Metaksa is and
six
others post #I agree# or #right on# The librarian on duty remarked to me
that not too many people seem to interested in the 2nd Amendment.
I didn't know what to say to her.

    I'm NOT accusing you of this Larry, I know better. I just agree with
Paul Watson and a few others. Your targets are wrong and your
priorities are screwed up. You can flame me till doomsday, but
I've damn near had it.

Regards,
Dennis Baron



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Advice
Date: 18 Jun 1998 17:06:00 -0600

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> larry ball <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>I do not see my effort as destructive.  I see what the NRA is doing as
> destructive.  Something has to change.  Can't you see this?<<
>
>     OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the
> last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER.
> The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want.
>
>      I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue
> of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component
>
>      I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious
> toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life
> and politics outside your own sphere of operation.
>
[snippage of the social utility of rights argument]
> Regards,
> Dennis Baron


As the world's largest gun control legislation writing organization,
I belive the NRA needs to be starved and brought to it's knees.

The argument that we have to "consider the realities of life" all
the while giving things away in order to be well liked is, IMNSHO,
bullpucky.

The following says it better than I could ever hope to.

Rights vs. Social Utility

(originally published in The Libertarian Enterprise
(http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html))

RIGHTS VS. SOCIAL UTILITY

By Sarah Thompson, M.D. <[e-mail]>

I recently received an e-mail from some gun rights advocates
which proposed the following:

1. The Constitution is the standard argument for the right
   to keep and bear arms.
2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention "Joseph and Janet
   Champagne", don't think the Constitution matters.
3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott have demonstrated
   that firearms ownership has social utility.
4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second Amendment as the
   basis of our arguments and attempt to persuade the public to
   accept gun ownership on emotional terms as having "social utility".

My response follows:

It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the
Constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't
either. But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want
to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is irrelevant, that
all that matters is "social utility"? Do you want to change the
rules of engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you do
so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost.

Rights are unchanging and immutable, because they are of nature,
or God, if you're so inclined. "Social utility" is so inconstant
and capricious as to be virtually meaningless. If, someday, someone
comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then
willingly turn in your firearms?

And who gets to define "social utility" anyway? It was of tremendous
social utility for the British to disarm the lawless and rebellious
colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler to disarm
Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. The current administration
thinks it is social utility to label any and all dissenters
"terrorists",
and then to deprive them of all rights, harass, disarm, and imprison
them. Is thatreally what you want?

Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly not about the relative
niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not
discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how
important it is. But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not
just the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person,
but the tyranny of any government, state, church or group that wishes
to inflict its will on any other individual or group by force.

There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's
excellent, but it's totally irrelevant to rights. Its utility is in
demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are
de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent
citizens. However, if you use social utility as your primary argument,
you are playing the enemy's game. But the enemy, and its ministry of
propaganda, the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and have
infinitely more resources, than the right to keep and bear arms
movement ever will. Never, ever agree to play by the enemy's rules!

While it's true, as was stated in the letter, that the law rarely
establishes norms but rather follows cultural norms, this is no
argument for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to influence
the polls. It's bad enough that Congress operates that way.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the goal of all this was to
create and preserve a culture where respect for the Constitution,
respect for individual rights and liberties is the norm! If, instead,
the goal is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore
our neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night,
maybe we all need to reevaluate what we're doing and why.

Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted openly that the
disarmament of British subjects had nothing to do with safety and
everything to do with eliminating the influence of the "American gun
culture". He was successful, and the vast majority of British "sheeple"
happily agreed to be disarmed, foolishly believing that they were
creating
a "safer society".

Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just
beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will
be attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared
"enemies of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as
disarming, or exterminating, gunowners and anyone else misguided
enough to take the Constitution literally. The reason we are being
"allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and
to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints
into databases.

Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution is all the "legislation"
we need. What we must do is to reclaim our rights regardless of what
Congress does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no law at
all. We do need to educate the people, but not to accept the social
utility of firearms. Those who would be citizens of a free state
must be educated to understand the concepts of individual rights,
responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is tyranny.
Any other path is doomed.

(c) 1997 Sarah Thompson, M.D.

To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to
[e-mail].  In the BODY of the message put "subscribe
righter-list" (without the "quotes").  Let me know if you have
problems.

Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as
long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this
message is left intact.  Re-publication, whether print or electronic,
requires the permission of the author.

⌐1998 Sarah Thompson, M.D.
[e-mail]
http://www.therighter.com

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Another Poll
Date: 18 Jun 1998 18:09:55 -0700


>>Forwarded message

At the New Jersey News:   http://www.nj.com/news/

..they are asking the question...

In a recent speech, new NRA president Charlton Heston asked, "I want
to
 know who's with me and who's against me?" What's your answer?

   O With him. I agree with the NRA's agenda
   O Against him. I disagree with the NRA's agenda

..why not let 'em know what you think?



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Volunteers Needed for Primaries
Date: 19 Jun 1998 13:26:58 -0700

There are a number of great people running in important primaries
Tuesday. If you have the time, they could sure use your help between
now and then. If you'd like to help, reply to me or call my voice
mail at 276-6123 (local from most of Utah) and we'll steer you toward
someone you can feel good about helping.


Mike

========
The Mavis Manool Ridgway Memorial



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack
Date: 20 Jun 1998 22:03:00 -0700


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

To all,

A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United
States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his
political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election.

Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to
harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election,
in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign?

David Parsons
Denver,CO

Information web sites:

Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html

No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term,
1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html

6/18/98

Press Release by Richard Mack

Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today,
6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant
at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual
consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI
and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for
Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle
have started to fall together.

These are the facts as I know them to be at this point.

1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred
at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff.

2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one
specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with
the company has been much less than the others.

3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which
means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined.

4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do
everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election.

5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County
Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account,
was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client.

6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion
that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have
alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them.

7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of
me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators
to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned
against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time.

8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have
been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is
the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker,
who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would
all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election.

9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was
running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search
warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to.

10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's
election committee.

In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do
not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing
of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah
County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political
corruption and governmental witch-hunts.

Richard Mack


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FBI & IRS raid Richard Mack
Date: 22 Jun 1998 09:07:03 -0700


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

To all,

A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United
States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his
political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election.

Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to
harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election,
in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign?

David Parsons
Denver,CO

Information web sites:

Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html

No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October
Term,
1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html

6/18/98

Press Release by Richard Mack

Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today,
6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search
warrant
at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual
consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI
and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for
Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle
have started to fall together.

These are the facts as I know them to be at this point.

1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have
occurred
at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff.

2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one
specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with
the company has been much less than the others.

3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which
means probable cause for this search cannot be independently
determined.

4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do
everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election.

5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County
Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account,
was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client.

6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion
that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have
alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them.

7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical
of
me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his
investigators
to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned
against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time.

8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy
have
been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One
is
the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean
Hawker,
who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that
would
all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election.

9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was
running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search
warrant could have been served after the primary election had they
chosen to.

10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's
election committee.

In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do
not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing
of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah
County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political
corruption and governmental witch-hunts.

Richard Mack


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Callahan
Date: 22 Jun 1998 11:18:24 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:11:00 -0600
Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA26736; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:00:41 -0600
Received: from [204.68.24.182] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id za686711; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:59:07 -0600
Received: (qmail 27823 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000
Received: from www01.netaddress.usa.net (204.68.24.21)
  by 204.68.24.180 with SMTP; 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 21056 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02 -0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

When Overson and Horiuchi were giving $10,000 of our money to Planned =
Parenthood, wasn't it Mary Callahan who said "No", and continued saying =
"No" until she prevailed?  A small thing, but she was anything but =
inneffective when it counted.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D1=



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Taken from another list...
Date: 22 Jun 1998 14:24:12 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:42:01 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA27067; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:30:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA17603; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma017538; Mon Jun 22 05:37:30 1998
Message-Id: <v01530506b1b354df47cf@[206.163.5.155]>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:19:10 -0400
>To: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
>From: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
>Subject: J. Neil Schulman's Proof that US Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber
> Gun Tragedies
>
>Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:33:15 GMT
>From: [e-mail] (J. Neil Schulman)
>Subject: Proof that Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber Gun Tragedies
>
>Do privately owned firearms result in more harm
>or more good? The World Wide Web Gun Defense
>Clock counts up a private defense using a firearm
>every 13 seconds in the United States, using a
>calculation derived from the National Self
>Defense Survey conducted by criminologists at
>Florida State University in 1994. Included on the
>site are references for the gun-defense statistics
>as well as comparisons to accidents and crimes
>involving guns. There is also an extensive quote
>from a prominent criminologist who is himself
>opposed to private ownership of guns who
>nonetheless finds the research on self defense
>with a privately held gun irrefutable. An eye
>opener for anyone whose only opinion on private
>ownership of guns is drawn from current political
>debates and news reports!
>
>Here's the text of the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock at
>http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html
>
>
>             The World Wide Web
>            GUN DEFENSE CLOCK
>
>                              Every 13 seconds
>                   an American gun owner uses a firearm
>                        in defense against a criminal.
>
>   Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year:
>
>             (Graphic Counter: Approximate count as
>                     of this time today: 01758190)
>
>                 WANT TO KNOW MORE?
>
>
> Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during
> The National Self  Defense Survey conducted by Florida State
>University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone
>"almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been
>used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once
>every 1.3  minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed
>someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in
>defense.)
>
>In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
>threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a
>gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
>
> In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound
>or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called
>"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In
>64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense,
>which means that the media could also find out and report on them if
>they chose to.
>
> In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger
>to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate
>were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept
>for defense will most likely be used against a family member or
>someone you love.
>
> In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing
>two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter
>of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial
>arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent
>chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
>
> In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable
>handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the
>defender's home.
>
>      Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of
>Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal
>of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law,
>Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
>
>      Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
>Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania,
>considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the
>country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control
>advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If
>I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all
>guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ...
>What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The
>reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut
>case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have
>theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
>against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for
>the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can
>it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a
>gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to
>believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not
>have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does
>not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart
>Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and
>Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and
>Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
>elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
>conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
>methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in
>advance and have done exceedingly well."
>
>       So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in
>this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and
>even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
>
>                              By Comparison:
>
>        A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United
>States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under,
>it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news
>media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.
>                           Source: National Safety Council
>
>     A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United
>States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities
>are not completely innocent victims but themselves have
>criminal records.
>        Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the
>Chicago Police Department
>
>       Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely
>causes the person seeking death to use another means. While
>gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban
>of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the
>gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types
>of suicide --  mostly jumping off bridges.
>      Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American
>Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990
>
>          Copyright =3DA9 1996 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
> Webmasters: Add A Link to The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock from
>your WWW page by adding this Icon to your page:
>
>(Icon says: Check the Count on the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock!)
>
>                  Simply copy the following HTML code to your page:
>
><A HREF=3D3D"http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html">
><IMG SRC=3D3D"http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock.gif"></A>
>
>
>**************************************************************************=

>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per =
week)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3D3DFA@coil.=
com
>**************************************************************************=





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Drown Moses]
Date: 22 Jun 1998 14:32:21 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:27:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id TAA26818; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:17:34 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA07642; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:25:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007601; Sun Jun 21 21:25:27 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Forwarded to promote more discussion

--------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA16568
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:24:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id UBABa04311
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 85

Larry, your publication of your friend's opposing view is noble.  =
Obviously,
however, he has missed the point (in fact, many points) of the disagreement=

with the NRA leadership that many members are expressing.  As another Life
Member who has not resigned his membership, and who did not vote for or
against either slate, let me respond to several of his statements lest he
thinks that you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Your friend writes: =20
<<You continually take the position that the right to keep and
bear arms is absolute and without restriction.  This is illogical in light =
of
the
other freedoms granted in the Constitution.>> =20

Actually, it is perfectly logical when taken in the context of the entire
document of the Bill of Rights and its companion, the Constitution.  Of =
all
the first ten amendments, the Second Amendment does not specify which =
entity
of government will be permitted to control firearms ownership.  It simply =
and
elegantly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.=
 =20
    The First Amendment said only that Congress shall pass no law =
restricting
First Amendment freedoms enumerated therein.  It did not prohibit the =
Courts
or the Executive or the State governments from doing so, although the
mechanism specifying what powers the federal establishment had were =
already
provided for in the Constitution, which did not say that the Executive or =
the
Courts could restrict those freedoms. The other amendments restrict the
ability of the governments and courts to quarter troops, violate due =
process,
seize property, etc., and finally limit the federal governments powers to
those not already reserved to the states or to the people.  Since the =
right of
the people to keep and bear arms had already been enumerated in the Second
Amendment, any action by the federal or state government to diminish or
restrict that right (infringe upon it) is illegal, hence the right IS
absolute.=20

<<Freedom of speech is certainly not without certain constraints. You are =
not
free to write or say things which are not true and damage others.>>

A Washington state supreme court ruling only this month said that the =
First
Amendment protects the right to lie.  In a false advertising case, it =
ruled
that the truth is out there if a person is willing to do the research.  =
Does
lying damage others?  Have not gun owners nationwide been damaged by the =
media
which associates law-abiding citizens with hate groups, criminals, =
traitors,
lunatics?  Is it damaging to blur the distinction between semi-automatic
weapons used by sportsmen and target shooters with full-automatic weapons =
used
by terrorists and the enemies of freedom? =20

<<No freedoms granted in the constitution can be assumed to be absolute
when they damage other people or infringe upon other freedoms>>

First, freedoms were not granted in the Constitution, they were enumerated =
in
the Bill of Rights.  Freedoms came from natural law, and the Creator.  =
Second,
how does my right to own the firearms of my choice for which I pay my =
hard-
earned money and for which I use for my lawful purposes damage or infringe
upon other peoples freedoms?

<<Logical people must assume that the Second Amendment is also not =
absolute.
Mr. Heston and the N.R.A. believe, logically, that the Second Amendment is =
not
absolute and we must accept certain restraints when they are necessary to
prevent damage to other people or their freedoms.>> =20

Logical people must assume no such thing--reference the above arguments.  =
If
the NRA believes that we must accept certain restraints, they have not =
implied
that belief in their editorials or their fund-raising letters.  Has the
leadership lied to us?=20

<<It is not appropriate to attack companies like Midway simply because you
didn't get your way within the N.R.A.>>

I don't believe that the proposal was to attack Midway.  My understanding =
was
that the proposal was to convince Midway to assist our cause by temporarily=

suspending their program.  If I can help convince them to aid our cause to =
get
the NRA leadership back on the right track, I shall.

Finally, like many others, I'm not at odds with the NRA leadership.  I was
supportive of Mr Heston's  position that the Second Amendment is the
cornerstone of all the other freedoms we enjoy.  But I think that enough
questions have been raised for which we haven't received satisfactory =
answers
or explanations that a moratorium on blind automatic support for every NRA
position can no longer be expected from the membership.  Am I an extremist?=
  I
don't think so.  But I think that the new FBI regulations are a direct
extension of the NRA's compromise on insta-check, and I think that the =
ONLY
reason that any government agency wants to keep records of gun purchases =
or
transfers or transactions is to facilitate the ultimate goal of disarming =
the
law-abiding public, which in turn will lead to the loss of the rest of the
freedoms that we haven't lost already.

Thanks for letting me add my two cents


--------------B6E28F78E8DD42473BE2783A--



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Clinton Supports Brady
Date: 22 Jun 1998 17:25:05 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:57:58 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA27635; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:47:40 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA03800; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003599; Mon Jun 22 18:52:38 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Even though I knew this was coming to pass, just to read of it sickens me. =
 Really it
does.  This was brought about by our own beloved NRA.  And just think, =
there are those
in the gun rights fraternity that will do nothing to bring them to heel.  =
"They are
the only thing between us and total deprivation," is their refrain.

Oh really?  REALLY!   The only thing!  Well folkses, I am 61 years old =
just this
month.  It is too young of an age.  I will bet my bottom dollar that I =
will live to
see not only continued rape of the 2nd Amendment, but the final mutulation =
killing of
it.  Wanna bet our politcal champion is right in there all they way =
championing the
cause of "reasonable" regulation of our rights?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

> Our dictator has again joined in the fight for gun prohibition...not to
> mention centralized registration via State and FBI collusion.  Plus more
> fees, restrictions and classes of prohibited categories to infringe upon
> the RKBA.
>
> Criminals, by definition (and by Supreme Court decree) do not have
> to comply.
>
> Anyone out there ever involved in a fist fight at some point of their
> youth?  Will, soon today's kids will forever become a felon WRT to
> firearms ownership for that reason.  Why not add running a stop sign
> to the list! (they will).
>
> I once heard that over half of the "blocked" sales were due to
> administrative errors on the governments part.  Gee did not see that
> statistic anywhere.
>
> And with ten million "block" would we expect to see at a least 5 million
> convictions for committing  a felony?  What's that you say,  the real
> number is less than a dozen?  Let me see, the conviction rate fo
> speeding tickets is several thousand times greater.
>
> Its obvious, the existing laws don't work; therefore, we must need more!
>
> HOPEFULLY, some of you on this list will start investigating Reno's
> "statistics" department, to find out what type of bald-faced lies they
> are conjuring up.  Try certified mail and cite the Freedom of Information=

> Act.  Same for the FBI's NICS.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bradylaw980622.html
>
> Clinton Calls for Expansion of  Federal Gun Law
>
> "By keeping guns out of the hands of criminals...we have helped cut the
> crime rate to its lowest point in a generation."
>
> -- President Clinton
>
> June 22 -The Brady law blocked some 69,000 handgun purchases in
> 1997--more than half of the them because the would-be gun owner was =
either a
> convicted or indicted felon.
>
> These rejections account for only 2.7 percent of the 2,574,000 applicatio=
ns
> nationwide for handgun sales during the year, the Justice Department's =
Bureau
> of Justice Statistics reported Sunday.
>
> Since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became law in February
> 1994, through Dec. 1997, the bureau estimates some 242,000 handgun
> purchases out of 10,356,000 applications have been blocked.
>
> The law was named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady,
> who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald
> Reagan.
>
> President Clinton hailed the success of the law in keeping guns out of =
the
> wrong hands, but called for an expansion of the law to bar violent =
juveniles
> from owning guns for life.
>
> "By keeping guns out of the hands of criminals-and putting more police
> in our  communities-we have helped cut the crime rate to its lowest =
point in
> a generation," Clinton said.
>
> Denying Criminals Firearms Felony convictions or indictments topped the =
list
> of reasons for rejections, and accounted for 61.7 percent of last year's =
handgun
> permit denials.  The second most frequent reason for denial was a record =
of
> domestic violence, which was responsible for 11.2 percent, including 9.1
> percent who had misdemeanor domestic violence convictions and 2.1 =
percent
> who were under court orders restraining them from harming or stalking an
> intimate partner or child.
>
> Another 5.9 percent of the denials were for buyers who turned out to be =
fugitives
> from justice.
>
> State law prohibitions accounted for 6.1 percent of the rejections, drug =
addiction
> for 1.6 percent, mental illness for 0.9 percent and local law prohibition=
s for 0.9
> percent.
>
> The remaining 11.7 percent of the denials came from all others barred =
from
> handgun purchases under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, including =
illegal
> aliens, juveniles, dishonorably discharged servicemen and people who =
have
> renounced U.S. citizenship.
>
> The estimates were based on a sampling of the chief law enforcement =
officers
> whose agencies conduct the background checks.
>
> New Guidelines for Gun Dealers Beginning this November, pre-purchase
> checks will be required for all firearms-not just handguns-bought from =
federally
>  licensed dealers. The dealers must checks through an automated system
> Justice Department officials promise will be operable by then.
>
> Unless a state has set up an approved permit system, the dealers will =
use
> computers or the telephone to contact the FBI's national criminal =
background
> check system directly or go through a state agency serving as an FBI =
contact
> point.
>
> Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno urged states to do their own =
criminal
> background checks, rather than leave them to the FBI. "No one knows more
> about state records than the states themselves," she said.
>
> About half the states have so far agreed to do their own checks.
>
> Gun dealers will likely pass on the cost of the check to customers. The
> Justice Department wants states to perform the background checks to
>  save money at the FBI and to prevent confusion over different state =
laws.
>
> The FBI plans to charge $13 to $16 per background check to states that =
will
> not do their own.
>
> The Associated Press contributed to this report.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=
=3D1





-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Major Anti-gun Hysteria on ABC
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


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

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/guns/guns_intro.html

ABC News.com: Armed in America

June 22, 1998
--
For noncommercial educational use only.
--

The gun won. He remains in critical condition.

On Thursday night, two men shot an 18-year-old youth to death on a street
corner in Las Vegas.

On Wednesday, 18-year-old Damon Damar Ingram was shot and killed as he
walked his dog on a street in the nation's capitol. His 17-year-old
assailant pumped 10 bullets into Ingram's body. Ingram's parents buried
their son in his cap and gown.

On Tuesday night in Idaho, a State Police officer was shot in the head
and killed. That same night in Baltimore, police found a 52-year-old
man dead in a vacant lot from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest.

Last Sunday, officers arrested 49-year-old Frances Boice in rural
South Dakota. Police say she shot and killed her 51-year-old husband
in upstate New York before fleeing to the heartland.

Welcome to a week in the United States, one of the world's most free
and violent countries. Where people carry guns to protect themselves
from the other people who own somewhere between 200 million and 250
million guns. A recent study found that Americans murder each other
with guns at a rate 19 times higher than any of the 25 richest nations
surveyed. There are plenty of theories why, but few real explanations.

After a particularly shocking killing, several countries have chosen to
ban handguns outright. But that hasn't happened in the United States,
which has a Constitutional protection for gun owners, and a lot of
scared people who want protection in a society that's starting to
mirror its movies. The death toll mounts.

Copyright (c)1998 ABCNEWS and "http://www.starwave.com" Starwave Corporation.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: When the Law Breaks In
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>

http://nebonet.com/headhome/dadmisc/lawbreak.htm

WHEN THE LAW BREAKS IN
Added June 17th, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Here are several examples of the jackbooted, gestapo tactics of the
police state in which we now live, as documented in 1995 by the
Washington Times. Read this and mourn for the loss of your freedoms.


From the Washington Times
Phone [phone]
National Weekly Edition
April 3-9, 1995

"WHEN THE LAW BREAKS IN..."
by Samuel Francis
(nationally-syndicated columnist)

Most Americans who keep up with the news today know about the atrocities
inflicted by the federal leviathan at Waco and on the family of Randy
Weaver in Idaho. In both cases, federal police deliberately provoked
innocent people in ways that led to the violent deaths of the innocent.
What few Americans know is that such horrors are far from rare.

In January 1994, several defenders of gun rights and civil liberties
wrote to President Clinton detailing some of these horror stories.
Whether he's bothered to reply I don't know, but what he has to say
about the matter is unimportant. What's important is that Americans
understand what is happening -- to them and their country.

On August 25, 1992, the California home of a law-abiding citizen named
Donald Carlson was invaded by agents of the Drug Enforcement
Administration shortly after midnight on the claim that they were
looking for illegal drugs. Mr. Carlson, asleep at the time, thought
robbers had broken in; he dialed 911 and reached for his hand gun. DEA
agents riddled him with bullets; After seven weeks in intensive care,
he survived -- sort of. No drugs were found.

In October the same year, the DEA paid a similar visit to Donald Scott,
also in California, this time bringing along the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department for extra protection against the dangerous Mr. Scott, also a
law-abiding citizen. Busting into the house while he was asleep, a deputy
sheriff shot Mr. Scott and killed him. Again, no illegal drugs were found.

A year earlier, in September, 1991, a small federal army composed of some
60 agents from the DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
the National Guard and the U.S. Forest Service (where, you have to wonder,
were the Boy Scouts and the Little League) arrived in the living rooms of
Mrs. Sina Brush and two neighbors in New Mexico just after dawn. Mrs.
Brush and her daughter were handcuffed in their underwear and forced to
kneel while the American gestapo searched the house for drugs. No drugs
were found.

These aren't the only instances of armed invasions and violent attacks by
federal police. There are other recent cases not mentioned in the letter
to Mr. Clinton.

Last summer, the ATF paid a visit to Harry and Theresa Lumplugh in
Pennsylvania. The ATF needed only 15 to 20 men, armed and masked, to
handle the couple, whom they forced to open safes and hand over private
papers while held at the point of a machine gun. One of America's finest
kicked the Lumplughs' pet cat to death. No charges were brought against
the Lumplughs.

Last year, four ATF agents raided the bedroom of Monique Montgomery at
four in the morning. She reached for a gun and was shot four times and
killed. Nothing illegal was found. In Ohio, the ATF raided the house of
businessman and part-time police officer Louie Katona III, pushing his
pregnant wife against a wall and causing her to miscarry. Nothing illegal
was found.

In almost all of these cases, the feds showed up in the middle of the
night, garbed like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his latest thriller and
proceeded to bully, beat, humiliate, intrude and sometimes wound or kill
the victims they'd selected. In none did any of the victims violate any
law; in several, the police had relied on intelligence known to be
unreliable. In the Scott case, the Ventura County District Attorney's
Office found that the raid was in part motivated by the desire of the
Sheriff's Office to seize Mr. Scott's ranch under federal
asset-forfeiture laws.

Last year, on a TV talk show discussing Waco, I listened to caller after
caller phone in to report mini-Wacos in their own areas that no one else
had ever heard of. Maybe some of them were cranks and made it up. But the
horrors I've just described have to make you wonder if we really live in
the United States anymore. In none of the cases I know about have any of
the federal agents been charged; few have been disciplined; almost none
made the national news.

What can be done about it? I guess "Write your congressman" doesn't quite
cut it, does it? What should be done about it is that the Congress should
forget its "Hundred Days," its "Contract with America," its constitutional
amendments and its happy talk about the "Third Wave." It should find out
who authorized these and similar raids and who committed these atrocities
against law- abiding citizens. It should abolish the agencies responsible,
and it should make certain that the tyrants and murderers in federal
uniform who planned, authorized or committed these crimes are brought to
justice.

"Give me Liberty or Give me Death" WEB SITE



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Critics Gain in Court
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/gunsb.htm

Gun critics make some headway in court

By TED GEST

For gunshot victims and family members trying to recoup their
losses, the $20-billion-plus-a-year American firearms industry
long has seemed a promising target. But over the years,
manufacturers have fended off the assault by arguing that they
can't be held liable under legal doctrines that normally are
invoked against defective products. "When guns fire and kill
someone, they are working perfectly," says law Prof. Andrew
McClurg of the University of Arkansas, who tracks
firearms-liability cases.

Now, gun critics are retooling their theories and scoring a few
victories. Most prominent is a federal lawsuit in Brooklyn, N.Y.,
against the entire firearms industry and its trade associations.
In May, a judge refused to toss out the case, in which 20 victims
or heirs charge that manufacturers are legally negligent by
selling products that they know will make their way into criminals'
hands. Those leading the case are Katina Johnstone, whose husband
was killed in San Francisco by a robber using a stolen Smith &
Wesson revolver, and Freddie Hamilton, whose son was murdered in
New York City with a never-recovered handgun. "It is possible,"
declared Judge Jack Weinstein, "that plaintiffs will be able to
show that a substantial cause for the killings that are at the
heart of this suit is the operation of a large-scale underground
market."

Just as whistleblowers have emerged to provide inside information
against tobacco manufacturers, an affidavit has emerged in the
Johnstone-Hamilton case from a former Smith & Wesson executive
who charges that the Massachusetts-based firm made marketing
decisions with the knowledge that some of its products would be
used in crime.

The other recent breakthrough occurred in a San Francisco case
filed by relatives of four persons killed in a 1993 office-building
massacre. A Nevada pawnshop that sold the gunman an assault pistol
used in the shooting agreed in April to a $150,000 settlement to
family members. The Washington-based Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence, calling the payment the first of its kind, now is pursuing
a claim against the gun's manufacturer, a firm called Intratec.
"This is just the first hole in the dike of the gun industry's
invincibility," says the center's Dennis Henigan. The group is
testing a legal theory akin to the Brooklyn case: that manufacturers
are negligent by producing guns that are attractive mainly to criminals.

Other victims are succeeding with traditional product-liability
arguments. The Georgia-based manufacturer of Glock pistols has
settled several lawsuits alleging that the guns discharged
unintentionally; critics, including police officers, maintain
that models requiring only five pounds of pressure on the trigger
go off far too easily. The handgun-violence center makes similar
charges in a suit pending in California against the Beretta
firearms firm. The group wants Beretta to provide safety devices
with pistols sold for self-defense.

For its part, the firearms industry is treating the lawsuit
barrage as more of an annoyance than a serious threat.
"Manufacturers lose control when their products reach
distributors, let alone retailers and consumers," says Richard
Feldman of the American Shooting Sports Council, an Atlanta-based
industry organization that was sued in the Brooklyn case.
Minimizing the ex-Smith & Wesson official's appearance, Feldman
says that "it isn't exactly a startling revelation" that criminals
use guns that initially may have changed hands legally. He notes
that judges routinely reject lawsuits involving guns, on the
ground that "any tool can be very dangerous when it is misused."

That kind of thinking doesn't faze gun-control advocates. They
believe that arms makers' immunity from liability is likely to
erode, even if it happens at the same, slow pace that has marked
litigation against tobacco manufactuers. "No other product
manufacturers get the luxury of complete immunity from legal
responsibility," says Arkansas Prof. McClurg, who believes that
"negligent marketing" claims have a clear shot at passing muster
in court.


Send comments to [e-mail]

Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Mayors seek solution for gun control
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>

Maybe the knife industry will be next, then scissors. BTW, it is illegal
in Britain for anyone under 21 to buy scissors. Are we far behind?

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns22.htm

Mayors seek solution for gun control

City leaders won't sue if industry will help

June 22, 1998

BY MELANIE EVERSLEY
Free Press Washington Staff

RENO, Nev. -- The U.S. Conference of Mayors said Sunday it would not sue
gun makers, as earlier hinted, opting instead to try working with the
firearms industry to pass tougher gun laws and end pro-gun advertising.

But Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer warned the gun industry that lawsuits
weren't out of the question.

"I can assure you," Archer told gun industry representatives at the
U.S. Conference of Mayors' annual meeting in Reno, Nev., "if there
is no relief, that you will hear from mayors."

Archer did not specifically say Detroit may file a lawsuit against
gun makers, but he hinted it might not be out of the question.

"I do think it's foreseeable to see individual cities filing lawsuits
because I'm not as optimistic as others might be that the dialogue
that may take place is going to bear any kind of realistic fruit,"
Archer said after the meeting.

Archer spoke after Mayor Edward Rendell of Philadelphia said the
mayors "agreed to hold in abeyance any thought of a lawsuit."
Rendell has taken the lead on the issue within the conference,
a powerful Washington-based lobby of 300 mayors. "If there is going
to be a lawsuit, it makes sense for hundreds of cities to join in
that lawsuit, but then again, let's see where we're going."

The gun issue has escalated nationally in recent weeks with word
that Philadelphia and Chicago, both frustrated in their efforts
to stop gun violence, particularly by and against children, were
considering filing lawsuits against the gun industry.

A lawsuit would mirror the aggressive stand many states have taken
against the tobacco industry to seek reimbursement for tobacco-related
health care costs.

Philadelphia's legal action would have sought financial repayment of
police overtime, health care and other costs associated with firearm
violence. Chicago's suit would have blocked the industry from
advertising that appeals to criminals, such as ads that praise a
weapon's ability to ward off fingerprints.

But instead of suing, the mayors' group will assemble a task force to
work with the gun industry.

The task force would operate for three years and would include mayors,
gun makers, and members of the American Shooting Sports Council, the
National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties,
Rendell said.

The mayors want the industry to:

* End advertising that convinces people they need guns for safety in the home.

* Support local legislation already passed in Maryland, Virginia and
South Carolina that prevents anyone from making mass purchases of guns.
Such guns are generally sold to young people. The legislation limits
gun purchases to one per month, blocking people from making mass gun
purchases and then selling those guns to minors.

* Help develop ways to make more affordable technology that prevents
anyone but the person fitted with a gun from using it.

The gun task force will issue its first report in January, Rendell said.

Richard Feldman, executive director of the sports council, who attended
the meeting, said while his group does not completely agree with the
mayors on various ways to curb the use of guns, there is common ground.

"Lawsuits cost million of dollars -- they cost millions of dollars for
the cities, if you decide to go that route, they cost millions of dollars
for our industry," he said. "That's millions of dollars that won't be
spent on child safety locks, that won't be spent on new technology."

Melanie Eversley can be reached at 1-202-383-6036.

All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished
without permission.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USNews: Sunset or new dawn: Taking gun makers to court 1/2
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/980622/22guns.htm

U.S. News 6/22/98

Childproofing guns
A novel legal strategy focusing on
safety poses a threat to
manufacturers

BY GORDON WITKIN

Before he died, Kenzo Dix wrote an
essay for his ninth-grade English
class that said, "When I pass away, I
want to leave something that people
will remember me by. A gift to the     National Rifle
future from me." Kenzo's mother, Lynn  Association: Its gun
Dix, hopes that gift will be a safer   safety rules include
gun "so there are no more victims."    advice on locking up
That's part of the reason she sued     guns. Other
Beretta U.S.A. Corp., the maker of     childproofing
the semiautomatic pistol that a        precautions are in
schoolmate, apparently unaware a       the Youth Hunter
single bullet remained in the          Safety Quiz.
chamber, used to accidentally kill
Kenzo.                                 Handgun Control Inc.
                                       and the Center to
It has been four years since Kenzo     Prevent Handgun
was killed in Berkeley, Calif., and    Violence: Safety
Lynn Dix is hoping that this week a    rules include
judge might finally clear the way for  instructions on
Beretta to stand trial in an Oakland   taking apart a
courtroom, perhaps as early as July.   handgun to prevent a
If that happens, the case will be      child from using it.
closely watched by all sides: It's     Information is also
rare that suits against gun companies  available on Child
ever get to trial, and Dix's lawyers   Access Prevention
intend to pursue an important new      laws and legal
legal theory--that the gun's design    action against the
is defective because it fails to       gun industry.
incorporate available safety features
that would prevent kids from firing    National Institute
it.                                    of Justice: This
                                       branch of the U.S.
There has been gun news recently that  Department of
seems, on the surface, more            Justice studies law
important. Show business icon          enforcement and
Charlton Heston took over the          public safety. For
presidency of the National Rifle       more on the need for
Association last week, pledging        new gun safety
moderation but telling President       features, read
Clinton, "America doesn't trust you    "Firearms and
with our 21-year-old daughters, and    Violence" or
we sure, Lord, don't trust you with    "Illegal Firearms:
our guns!" And Luke Woodham went on    Access and Use By
trial for killing two students last    Arrestees."
fall at a high school in Pearl, Miss.
But the Dix case--if allowed to go     Beretta U.S.A.
forward--could ultimately be more      Corp.: The venerable
consequential. For years the gun       gun manufacturer
debate has been about restrictions on  (founded in 1526) is
sales of firearms. In recent months,   being sued in an
though, the issue of gun design has    Oakland, Calif.,
moved to the forefront, confounding    court over the
past political alliances and changing  accidental death of
the tenor and substance of the gun     Kenzo Dix, shot by a
debate.                                friend playing with
                                       a Beretta
For gun control groups, the new        semiautomatic
argument--which they hope to showcase  pistol.
in the Dix case--is that gun
companies carry the same burden of     Colt Manufacturing
responsibility as car manufacturers,   Co.: As reported in
which have incorporated seat belts,    U.S. News this week,
air bags, locks, and keys in an        Colt is working with
effort to make their products safer,   the National
to prevent unauthorized use, and, not  Institute of Justice
coincidentally, to ward off lawsuits.  to create a "smart"
But instead, charges Dennis Henigan    gun that can only be
of the Center to Prevent Handgun       used by the owner.
Violence, most gun firms have          Colt's firearms
exhibited a "callous disregard for     safety guidelines
safety, and watched kids die year      compare unsecured
after year and done nothing about      guns to other
it," even though "some safety          household hazards
improvements would involve simple      such as bleach and
mechanical devices."                   charcoal lighter
                                       fluid.
The technology is available; a few
gun companies have added some of       Related U.S. News
those devices, like key-operated       Articles:
internal locks or "loaded-chamber
indicators," which show whether a gun  Again: In
is loaded through a color-coded        Springfield, Ore., a
display or a pop-up pin. Such          familiar school
features might have prevented 31       scene-bloody kids,
percent of the 1,501 accidental        grieving parents, a
shooting deaths in an earlier year,    teen accused of
according to a 1991 General            murder. (6/1/98)
Accounting Office report. Gun safety
advocates further argue that firearms  The children of
should be "personalized" so only       Jonesboro: Horrific
authorized users can operate them,     scenes of urban
through use of technology that         crime are often
permits the gun to fire solely when    attributed to ghetto
held by someone wearing a special      culture. Now, in the
transponder, or identifier.            aftermath of the
                                       ambush at Westside
Beretta's defense. Gun companies       Middle School in
counter that holding a manufacturer    Arkansas, a
responsible for misuse of a product    different question
that works exactly as intended would   is being asked: Is
stand the civil liability system on    there also a
its head. Beretta argues that          virulent culture of
responsibility in the Dix case
belongs with the father who left a     violence in the
loaded gun in a camera bag and the     rural South?
young shooter who ignored basic rules  (4/6/98)
of gun safety. The personalized gun    Prayer circle
technology wasn't available when the   murders: In Paducah,
Dix gun was produced in 1992, says     Ky., heroism,
Beretta, and the weapon in question    forgiveness, and the
actually had a loaded-chamber          search for a motive.
indicator.                             (12/15/97)
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USNews: Sunset or new dawn: Taking gun makers to court 2/2
Date: 22 Jun 1998 22:06:00 -0700


So far gun makers have won most of
the lawsuits alleging widespread       Handgun stealing
liability for injuries caused by       made real easy:
their products, and they still cling   Thousands of guns
to hope the Dix case might be          are stolen straight
dismissed this week. But the legal     from firearms
ground may be shifting along with the  makers, stores -
political ground. Eighty-six percent   even military bases.
of those questioned in a 1996 poll     (6/9/97)
favored legislation requiring new
handguns to be childproof, and recent  Weapons bazaar: How
schoolyard shootings have intensified  surplus American
interest in keeping guns from kids.    arms get into the
Gun control advocates believe that     wrong hands.
even unsuccessful lawsuits have        (12/9/96)
helped promote their cause, since
"the industry didn't invest any money  Can "smart" guns
in personalizing technology until      save many lives? The
lawsuits began to be filed," charges   newest idea for gun
Henigan. The cases are now arriving    control: "smart"
at a faster clip. In October, a trial  pistols that can be
is slated to begin in federal court    fired only by their
in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the case of      owners. (12/2/96)
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, in which nine
plaintiffs allege that gun
manufacturers produced too many of
their wares, with the result that
guns landed more easily in the hands
of juvenile criminals. Last week, a
spokesman for Chicago Mayor Richard
Daley said the city is considering an
unprecedented suit against gun
manufacturers, and Daley told a press
conference that "the key is to get a
lawsuit whereby the manufacturer is
held liable, just like the smoking
industry." The tobacco wars yield
lessons for the gun wars. One is that
the industry can win repeatedly in
court but end up damaged if just one
case with a compelling legal theory
is successful. "And I have no doubt,"
says Stephen Teret of the Johns
Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and
Research, "that at some point one of
these firearms liability suits is
going to be won by the plaintiffs."

The issue of gun design is arising on
other fronts as well. Late last year,
Massachusetts Attorney General Scott
Harshbarger issued rules requiring
guns sold there to include trigger
locks and load indicators. The rules
were to go into effect in stages this
year, but manufacturers sued in
January, arguing that Harshbarger had
exceeded his authority, and a hearing
on the matter is slated for next
week. And this week, Democratic Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was
fatally shot on a Long Island Rail
Road train in 1993, will introduce
legislation mandating new handgun
safety features, including safety
locks and child-resistant triggers.

While new NRA president Heston struck
familiar don't-tread-on-us themes at
last week's convention in
Philadelphia, some gun makers are
pushing to get on the pro-safety side
of the safety debate. Manufacturers
in 1989 formed the American Shooting
Sports Council to create a voice
separate from that of the NRA. The
group opened a Washington office last
year, and its executive director,
Richard Feldman, orchestrated a White
House event last fall in which
executives from 15 gun manufacturers
shared a podium with President
Clinton to announce they would
voluntarily ship trigger locks with
their firearms. The agreement drew
criticism from several sides. One gun
control group, the Violence Policy
Center, said the lack of federal
standards for the locks made the deal
virtually meaningless. Meanwhile, NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne
LaPierre wrote to gun makers, saying,
"You have helped Clinton to co-opt,
to steal yet another issue. And he
will use it to destroy you." Feldman
says the deal made sense in part
"because an accident prevented is a
lawsuit avoided."

Colt for cops. No one has gone
further--or proved more controversial
within the industry--than Colt's
Manufacturing Co., whose storied
history dates to the early 1800s.
Working with a $500,000 grant from
the National Institute of Justice,
Colt is about to complete work on its
second prototype of a personalized
gun, which uses radio signals that
allow the weapon to recognize and
respond to a transponder worn by the
authorized user. The weapon is
designed for use by police officers;
studies show that 16 percent of
murdered cops are slain with service
weapons wrested from them or a fellow
cop. Gun control groups hope the
technology will be available to
police officers in two to three years
and eventually to civilians.

Colt President Ron Stewart has argued
that gun makers must change their
basic outlook in order to survive.
Writing in last December's American
Firearms Industry, Stewart stated
that the industry's response to the
anti-gun lobby was "pathetically
inadequate" and said manufacturers
must "take the high ground and
pre-empt [the gun control advocates']
next strike," in part by creating a
research and development program to
improve gun safety. "If we can send a
motorized computer to Mars," wrote
Stewart, "then certainly we can
advance our technology to be more
childproof."

For sharply differing reasons then,
both gun control advocates and gun
makers appear at least momentarily to
be pointed in the same direction:
toward a safer gun.


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Sarah oh Sarah Sweet Sarah!!!
Date: 23 Jun 1998 08:23:56 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:37:37 -0600
Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA28082; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:27:12 -0600
Received: from [209.180.83.1] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta687225; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:46:41 -0600
Received: from [209.180.82.151] by mail.lgcy.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa550046 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:56:39 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is not new, but she said, and I quote:

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed
when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

             Sarah Brady, Chair, Handgun Control, Inc.

A SOCIALIST AMERICA ???---------Did I read that right?
 Yes I did, but the alarming thing is that there are those in
this valley that would have socialism.  They actually think
that life under the socialist system is just great, dandy and
wonderful.  I have been to socialist countries before and I
have seen that way of life.  Let me tell you that it was not
the way I want to live.  It has once been said that COMMUNISM
is SOCIALISM in a hurry.  What do you think light rail is?
Oh, isn't that a little bit socialistic folks?
It is really amazing that there are those in politics that
pledged that light rail would be a thing of the past if they
won their much coveted post.  When they finally won, they
turned around, broke their promises, and embraced that vehicle
that is a reality in the most socialist cities of the world.
I give up, may these people and their supporters rot in their
filth.  It is a fact that a lot of the former Soviet countries
are more free than this country.  It is a fact that our
education in America has fallen from # 1 to about # 35.
Are we proud of this?  The State of Utah has the highest rate
of child molestation in the U.S.A. today.  A large percentage
of the people at the State Prison System are there for sex
crimes.  A great man once said " By their fruits, Ye shall
know them."  Think about it!
...........................................................................=
...........Joe

http://www.jeffry.com/links.htm



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: www.abcnews.com poll
Date: 23 Jun 1998 10:55:18 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:15:07 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA28300; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:04:45 -0600
Received: (qmail 3773 invoked by uid 516); 23 Jun 1998 16:10:26 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 2948 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1998 16:09:17 -0000
Received: from mail13.digital.com (192.208.46.30)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 1998 16:09:16 -0000
Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92])
    by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0f) with ESMTP id MAA06094
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by SBUAMAZKO2AE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
    id <MZ1JX5CZ>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:09:17 -0400
Message-ID: <19789B47B8BAD111BC110000F8BCCCCF438D70@SCSWEXC1>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
I'm really starting to think "Why bother?" with these polls.  ABC news
seems to have dropped any semblance of objectivity, right down to the
phrasing of their question.

Note that the yes vote is phrased in a direct manner whereas they split
the no vote between two no answers (to reduce the % for either one) and
at the same time put in some biting sarcasm just for spite.

Josef Goebbels would be proud of today's media; he was a rank amateur by
comparison.

                    Roger

ABC news' question today:
                 =20
   Would you support a
     ban on certain
    classes of guns?

      Yes. Guns DO
      kill people.

      No. I'm too big a
      fan of the
      Second
      Amendment.

      Maybe, if a gun
      were held to my
      head.


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Primary Elections
Date: 23 Jun 1998 11:21:11 -0600


I'm sure most everyone on this list has already done so, but if not,
get out and vote today.  I stopped by the polling place about 10:00 am
and it was, and had been according to the election judges, a complete
ghosttown.  (I voted with ballot number 0011 in my precint and I've
got a feeling they are numbered sequencally.)



--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people
 always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
 use them..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal
 Farmer to the Republic", 1787-1788

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: pa-rkba-digest V1 #1060
Date: 23 Jun 1998 14:20:38 -0600

    =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>     - Felons have been prohibited from buying guns for a long time
>               (GCA 68)
>=20
>     - Dept. of Justice(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs(OJP),
> Marianne W. Zawitz, "Guns Used in Crime", Bureau of Justice
> Statistics(BJS) Selected Findings Number 5, July 1995, NCJ-148201.
> This report noted that;
>         + Over 40 Million handguns have been produced in the
>          US since 1973
>=20
>         + Most guns are NOT used to commit crime.
>=20
>         + Most crime is NOT committed with guns.
>=20
>         + Most gun crime IS committed with handguns.
>=20
>         + During 1993 there were 4.4 million murders, rapes,
>                   robberies, and aggravated assaults in the US. More
>                   than 1/4 of these  violent crimes involved the use
> of a
>                   gun. (Therefore, a little less than 3/4 were
> committed
>                          WITHOUT the use of a gun.)
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     - DOJ, OJP, BJS, "Survey of State Prison Inmates", March 1993,
> NCJ-136949.
>         + 73 percent of inmates who had ever possessed a
>                         handgun DID NOT purchase it from a licensed
                            dealer.



>     - US General Accounting Office, Report to the Committee on the
> Judiciary, US Senate and House of Rep., "Gun Control: Implementation
> of
> the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act", January 1996, GAO
> GGD-96-22.
>=20
>         + During the first year of "Brady" (Feb 28 '94 - Feb 28
>                         '95) there were 18570 applications for
> handguns
                      denied in the jurisdictions sampled.  The
reasons for
                      denial are as follows;

>         Category/Reason                         Number      %
>=20
>         Criminal History
>                  Felony                                8299
> 44.7
>             Misdemeanor                        452      2.4
>             Other                                    292
> 1.6
>=20
>         Other Brady Categories
>             Fugitives                               160
> 0.9
>             Drug Use                               357
> 1.9
>             Mental                                    38
> 0.2
>             Dishonorable Discharge          49       0.3
>             Illegal Alien                            149
> 0.8
>             Renounced Citizenship              0         0
>=20
>         1994 Crime Act                                    145
> 0.8
>=20
>         Traffic Offenses                                  1413
> 7.6
>=20
>         Administrative
>             Brady form sent to wrong       7012       37.8
>             agency                                  =20
>             Incomplete/Inaccurate form      138        0.8
>             Violation of state law                  33
> 0.2
>             Other                                        33
> 0.2
>=20
>         + The GAO did NOT try to determine if all the denials
>                          were valid; they just reported the numbers
> from
                         the sampled jurisdictions.

>         + GAO also stated "Policymakers recognize that even a
>          perfect felon identification system may not keep felons
>          from obtaining firearms and that Brady may not directly
>          result in measurable reductions of gun-related crime."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Waco:TROE Tonight!]
Date: 23 Jun 1998 16:41:02 -0600


Maybe of some interest...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be
on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd 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: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!]
Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:00:15 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Maybe of some interest...
>
> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>
> XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be
> on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight.
>
> ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----
>
> --
>
> Charles C. Hardy                | If my employer has an opinion on
> <[e-mail]>                 | these things I'm fairly certain
> 801.588.7200 (work)             | I'm not the one he'd 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
>
After looking at PBS/Frontline, my bet is that it's this one
that will be on

The home videocassette ($19.95 plus shipping and
                        handling) of FRONTLINE's "WACO-- The Inside
                        Story," can be purchased through WGBH
                        Educational Foundation at:
Mailing Address:
                             WGBH/WACO--The Inside Story
                             P.O. Box 2284
                             South Burlington,VT 05407-2284
                             Phone Number:
                             1-800-255-9424
Original Air Date: October 17, 1995

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!]
Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:01:40 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Maybe of some interest...
>
> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>
> XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be
> on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight.
>
> ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----
>

Yup,

From KUED's page....

  8:00 p.m.
             Frontline: Waco: The Inside Story.
             Frontline investigates the FBI siege of
             the Branch Davidian compound in
             Waco, Texas, and its fiery end. (CC)
             (S) (E)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [Waco:TROE Tonight!]
Date: 23 Jun 1998 17:12:58 -0600


Bummer!!

But thanks for the correction.

On Tue, 23 Jun 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Maybe of some interest...
>>
>> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>>
>> XXX XXXX called me to say that "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" will be
>> on "Frontline" on Ch. 7 at 8:00 PM tonight.
>>
>> ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----
>>
>
>Yup,
>
>From KUED's page....
>
>  8:00 p.m.
>             Frontline: Waco: The Inside Story.
>             Frontline investigates the FBI siege of
>             the Branch Davidian compound in
>             Waco, Texas, and its fiery end. (CC)
>             (S) (E)
>
>-
>
>


--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd 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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes
Date: 24 Jun 1998 08:45:33 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:59:58 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA28807; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:49:37 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id AAA24989; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:58:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024840; Wed Jun 24 00:56:11 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Forwarded from another list, sanitized to preserve anonymity.

-----
     Today in Baton Rouge, we attended, along with a few hundred FFL
dealers, a conference concerning the November 1998 Brady Law changes.  =
Some
of it was informative and ATF presented itself in a concerned manner. =20
     The focus was a demonstration of how the November 1998 Brady forms =
will
be handled.  To summerize the demo, there will be three ways to validate a
gun purchaser. =20
     First will be by phone.  The charge will be $13-$17.  This price is
subject to change.  You will be able to call 8 AM until 2 AM, seven days a
week except Thanksgiving and Christmas.  You will speak to an operator and
the only information given will be name, address, and general information
about the purchaser and whether the purchase is a long gun or a pistol or
both.  No other info is needed.
     Second will be by modem.  The package is not complete for this
transaction.  The demo works just like the phone verification but you key
all information in.  The charge will be less.  There was no range of =
charges
given. =20
     Third will be by key pad.  It was not demonstrated and not much
information was given. =20
     Concealed carry permits are exempt as are certain LE purchases. =20
     There will be a NTN (NICS tracking number) given for every transaction=
.
Upon approval, the NTN will go on your record book and 4473.  Upon
disapproval, the NTN will be given to the purchaser and s/he will be given
the right to appeal. =20
     The database that is checked basically checks the responses given on
the 4473.  Example:  John Doe lies about a domestic violance charge on the
4473.  The charge is in the data base and he is denied.  If he is clear,
no hits come up and he is approved.   The other option is a wait status.
This can be caused by lack of info such as John Smith on Main Street in
Erath, Louisiana, is just too general and multiple hits will inevitably =
come
up. =20
     Each firearms dealer will have to join the FBI/NICS group.  We do not
know if there is a charge for this. =20
     I actually felt good about ATF after this meeting.  I do not care for
the charge on my customers, but if all works as planned it should not be =
an
inconvience. =20



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Mother Jones- another gun poll
Date: 24 Jun 1998 15:30:54 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:10:11 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA29403; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:59:47 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA29007; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028697; Wed Jun 24 16:06:56 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


    These guys never learn.  We trounced them a few years ago...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
<<SNIP>>

S N A P  P O L L ___________________________________________________

THIS WEEK'S POLL: The mayors of Philadelphia, Chicago, and New Orleans are
threatening to sue gun manufacturers in an attempt to hold them responsible=

for gun violence in the cities.  Do you think gunmakers should be liable
for deaths and injuries caused by their products?

        Vote and discuss at:

        http://www.motherjones.com/

<<SNIIP>>

    So far the results are:
        22.19% say Yes=20
        77.81% say No=20
        311 have voted=20

    Vote early and vote often...


DVC

--

                Regards,
                >>Dick<<





-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colt Cries "Foul" Over Lies....
Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700


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

Colt will not stand by silently while the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
(CNJS) tells lies about our Company. We are preparing to take the
appropriate legal action against the individual parties responsible and
their sponsor for liable, slander, trade disparagement, tortious
interference with contractual relations and/or other causes of action. Our
company does not contribute to political campaigns or political parties.
Colt is proud to be the developer of advanced technology and looks forward
to bringing a new option to the firearm consumer. We do not now, nor have we
ever, supported a mandate for Smart Guns. Since 1836 Colt has proudly sold
firearms to millions of people. We continue to fight for and support an
individual's right to own a firearm.

Accusation

Colt supports a mandate of the Smart Gun

Truth

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported the week of the NRA show, "While
technology such as this should not be mandated," Stewart wrote, "it should
be an option for the consumer." In fact, CNJS was aware of this but
continued to make this false accusation.

Accusation

Colt is actively lobbying to mandate this gun.

Truth

Colt testified, in writing, at the New Jersey hearing opposing this
legislation to mandate a Smart Gun. These Bills were defeated through the
combined efforts of the NRA and Colt.

Colt has also had several conversations with their respective congressional
delegation opposing any activity in the United States Congress to mandate
the effort.

Accusation

Colt has been "Caught Red Handed Donating to Charles Schumer's Campaign
Fund". .

Truth

Colt does not have a Political Action Committee. Colt does not contribute to
any political campaigns or political candidates. Mr. Zilkha is not an
employee of this company but is a non-employee Chairman of the Board. He is
one of many owners and has other companies, including some in New York. He
has contributed to a number of Republicans including Speaker Newt Gingrich,
Bob Dole and George Bush.

Accusation

Mr. Stewart's mismanagement has placed Colt in dire financial condition.

Truth

To the contrary, Mr. Stewart and his management team have brought financial
stability to Colt. This is evidenced by the introduction of many new and
well-accepted products as well as the recently announced acquisition of Saco
Defense.

Accusation

Colt supports the mandate of trigger locks.

Truth

Colt was one of the only major manufacturers not present at the "Rose Garden
Ceremony". In fact, we are on record as opposing it because it presents a
false sense of security to the consumer.


Just as Colt will continue to protect your right to own a firearm, we will
be equally vigilant in protecting the truth.


The following letter was sent on June 18, 1998:

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

June 18, 1998
Mr. Richard Miller, Chairman
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
P.O. Box 345
Holmdel, NJ 07733

Mr. Alan Rice, Chairman
Legislative Committee
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
P.O. Box 345
Holmdel, NJ 07733

Re: Libel and Slander Against Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Ronald L. Stewart, Its President and CEO, and Donald E. Zilkha,
Its Chairman

Dear Mssrs. Miller and Rice:

Please be informed that the law firm of Gadsby & Hannah LLP represents
Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Colt's"), Mr. Ronald L. Stewart, its
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Donald E. Zilkha, its
Chairman, the latter two gentlemen of whom are private individuals.

Reference is made to the so-called "Public Service Message" of the Coalition
of New Jersey Sportsmen that was distributed at the NRA Show in Philadelphia
earlier this month and the message of June 17, 1998 released on the Internet
and appearing at the http://GunsSaveLives.com website. Our clients take
strong exception to the truth of your collectively outrageous statements. To
be blunt, your statements are transparent lies without substance or
foundation. We can only conclude that each of you made these statements with
actual malice, i.e., each of you had knowledge of the falsity of your
statements or recklessly disregarded the truth.

The result of your defamatory, slanderous and otherwise wrongful conduct,
including your call for a boycott against Colt's, is gross injury to the
reputation of Colt's and its business. Moreover, the reputation and trade
profession of Mssrs. Stewart and Zilkha personally have been irreparably
harmed. Enclosed is a copy of our rebuttal that was disseminated in an
attempt to stem further damages caused by each of you.

In view of the foregoing, we hereby demand that each of you and the
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen do all of the following:

       1. Immediately cease and desist from making any further slanderous or
          libelous statements against Colt's, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Zilkha, or
          any other directors, officers, employees or representatives of
          Colt's;
       2. Advise us in writing of the dates, times, places, forums,
          publications, Internet websites and audiences to whom the subject
          statements were published; and,
       3. Publicly retract the subject statements, end the boycott and issue
          a public apology to Colt's, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Zilkha in each of
          the venues you identified in item (2) above.

Please remit in writing to the undersigned, at our Washington, DC address,
the information requested no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 1998.

We hereby reserve all our rights and remedies that could be exercised by our
clients against you and the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen at this time.
If you fail to fully comply with this demand, you will leave us with no
other alternative but to seek all legal remedies, including, but not limited
to, damages for libel, slander, trade disparagement, tortious interference
with contractual relations and/or other causes of action, against you, the
Coalition of New Jersey Sportmen, together with any or all of its Board
Members, Sponsors, and Trustees, as individuals. Should a lawsuit be
commenced, we will not only seek damages but all of our attorneys' fees and
costs associated with such legal action.

                                         Very.truly.yours,


Michael_A._Hordell
Gadsby & Hannah LLP
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006

enclosure
cc: via first class mail
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Officers and Board Members
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Defender Sponsors
Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Trustees



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ABC GUN POLL (we are losing big) VOTE OFTEN!!!
Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700


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

Click here to vote.
http://www.abcnews.com/

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn'tspeak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by  that time no one was left
to speak up."--Pastor Niemoller

Sincerely,
David E. Parsons
Denver,CO

Home Page
http://members.tripod.com/~DAVIDPARSONS/index.html

ICQ# 7869261
ICQ - World's Largest Internet Online Communication Network
http://www.mirabilis.com/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Mayors won't aim at gun makers -- yet
Date: 24 Jun 1998 18:20:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/qarch23.htm

Mayors won't aim at gun makers -- yet

But Archer sees litigation as possible route

June 23, 1998

BY MELANIE EVERSLEY
Free Press Washington Staff

RENO, Nev. -- Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer on Monday became
the third big-city mayor to raise the possibility of legal
action against gun manufacturers.

Archer's comments at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Reno
came one day after the conference decided to not yet pursue
a joint lawsuit against the gun industry, which some mayors
say has a responsibility to help curb violence in America's
cities.

The group, a Washington-based lobby of 300 mayors, instead
opted to form a task force of mayors and gun makers that
would push for legislation and gun-safety technology. The
task force would make its first report to the mayors' group
in January.

Chicago and Philadelphia have contemplated suing the
industry, seeking either to change gun-related advertising
or to recoup the municipal costs of violence, but have not
yet taken official action. Detroit could follow those two
cities, Archer said.

"We will consider if the discussions that are to take place
this summer, with the results to be unveiled at our meeting
in January, do not prove to be fruitful," Archer said. "I
think it's important that our citizens are protected, to be
sure, but I also believe that there needs to be, if we can't
work it out, litigation."

Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell, who led Sunday's push at
the mayors' meeting for taking a more diplomatic approach
with the gun industry, suggested a joint lawsuit might still
be the better route for cities once the task force releases
its findings.

"As the first city really to contemplate a lawsuit, I'm not
ruling out a lawsuit. We'd certainly be strengthened if the
Detroits, Chicagos and Philadelphias and many other cities
banded together to form that lawsuit ...but I think we can
wait for the next four to six months to see what progress
we make with the gun manufacturers," Rendell said Monday.

"I'm encouraged by the fact that Mayor Archer feels as
strongly as he does on this -- let's see where we go," he said.

All content copyright 1998 Detroit Free Press and may not
be republished without permission.


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Sorry...I couldn't resist...
Date: 25 Jun 1998 08:02:27 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 04:07:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA29985; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:57:33 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA23861; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma023709; Thu Jun 25 06:03:26 1998
Message-Id: <v01530505b1b764a2148a@[206.163.5.173]>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Today's Quote:
>
>"There is no truth to the rumor that President Clinton's visit to
>Tiananmen Square is a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser,"
>
> "It is just a'donor-maintenance event.'"
>
> -- Terry Campo.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FW: GSL> U.S. State Department advising carry weapons for
Date: 25 Jun 1998 08:39:44 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:07:26 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA00123; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:57:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA04155; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004025; Thu Jun 25 10:04:09 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D2317@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

forwarded from GSL

>DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME
>
>Conditions had deteriorated rapidly in Algeria when, on May 2, the
>U.S. State Department warned against travel in that nation. "The
>department urged Americans who choose to ignore the travel warning to
>exercise caution," so reported the May 3 Lexington, Kentucky, Courier
>Journal, "and [to] take the same precautions that U.S. Embassy
>personnel and U.S. oil companies ... in Algeria take, including ...
>using armed guards at the airports and carrying weapons for
>protection." NRA member Robert Zoeller sent the clipping in with a
>note that read: "To me it seems ironic that United States citizens are
>being encouraged to ignore Algerian gun control laws while in that
>country, while at the same time the Clinton-Gore Administration is
>attempting to disarm the American public here at home." Couldn't have
>put it better ourselves.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: ALERT! Dangerous desiccant? (fwd)
Date: 25 Jun 1998 14:14:36 -0600

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Reply to ALERT! Dangerous desiccant?

I have worked with desiccants from several manufacturers, all MIL-spec, =
and have found no corrosion or compatibility problem with metals.  United =
Desiccants said that there is a possible concern with the brown Kraft =
paper bags on electronics, but desiccants are made to be stored with metal =
parts.

Mil-spec desiccants are corrosion tested on steel copper aluminum and =
brass.  United confirmed that there is no corrosion from either the Kraft =
paper or desiccant itself on any of the above metals.  This type of =
desiccant contains dry granulated clay, similar to kitty litter, and is =
made to be placed in containers with metal parts during shipping or =
storage.

I have done engineering tests myself where the Kraft paper bags, the only =
ones with the sulfur paper, were placed directly on steel and aluminum =
parts for a year.  The bags did not cause corrosion even on a type of =
steel that will rust in a few hours in a humid environment.

At my present employer there is a concern that the desiccant bags could =
break open and granular desiccant would contaminate chemicals.  To prevent =
the possible contamination of stored chemicals, the desiccant bags are =
placed inside cotton bags and the cotton bags are placed inside perforated =
plastic bottles.  They have used desiccant this way for over 30 years =
without a problem.

A similar application for a gun safe could be to put the desiccant inside =
an old sock (without holes) and hang it inside the safe.  If you want =
double protection you could make a lot of holes in a plastic bottle and =
put the desiccant-filled sock inside the plastic bottle.  The sock and =
bottle will prevent direct contact of the sulfur-containing paper with =
valuable metal.=20

United Desiccant's Quality Manager said that there is a very small amount =
of sulfur in the Kraft paper which can be leached if there is enough water =
available.  Excess water with sulfur could then drip on the electronic =
components.  Electronics are very sensitive due to very thin layers of =
copper and the circuits can be damaged by the slightest corrosion from =
sulfur.

Neil Sagers

--=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:47:40 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA29927; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:37:19 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA19277; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019159; Thu Jun 25 03:38:27 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jun 24, Jacques Tucker wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
-]

A WMSA member in the boonies of Missouri advises us that he ordered =
various
cartridges and surplus military ammo cans from the Cheaper Than Dirt
catalog.  CTD is a firm in Ft. Worth that apparently has a full page ad =
for
their catalog in the American Rifleman mag.

He says there was also desiccant listed in the catalog just under the ammo
cans, so he ordered a batch to help preserve the items he planned to =
store.

A cautious fellow, he called the desiccant manufacturer to verify it was
wise to use it with his ammo, etc.  "Oh," said the lady who answered,
"don't use that for metal.  It has sulphur in the paper and will destroy
any metal."

The manufacturer of the desiccant is United Desiccants, 127 Christine Dr.,
Belen, NM 67002.  Their toll free line is 800-989-3374.  The MilSpec on =
the
5.5 oz. packages is MIL-D-3464 Type I and II.

Our member called the NRA several times to alert them of the problem.  He
indicates they really don't care.  "It doesn't matter."  Advertising
revenue may be more important, I suppose?

He was able to get credit from the vendor, CDT, for just trashing this
stuff.  It costs more to ship than it's worth.

Let your gunner friends know of this potential disaster.

Jacq'
Jacques Tucker
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
-]

--
-
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-


--=_BAEE10DA.C8A9C5D3--

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: DesNews Pro-Brady Editorial
Date: 26 Jun 1998 17:27:50 -0600


From Today's DesNews:

Letters to the editor may be submitted via email at
<[e-mail]>.  Be sure to include s-mail address, phone
number, and name.







            Extend Brady law: It works

            Last updated 06/26/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
            Deseret News editorial
                  Four years ago, when Congress passed the Brady law, opponents
            said it was a naive misunderstanding of the criminal mind.
            Criminals, they said, don't buy guns at the store. They steal them
            or come about them some other way.
                  Well, never underestimate the stupidity of the criminal mind.
                  According to the latest estimates from the Justice Department,
            69,000 people were denied handguns in 1997 because of the Brady law.
            Of those, 61.7 percent were turned down because of prior felony
            convictions or indictments. Another 11.2 percent had a record of
            domestic violence. In four years, nearly a quarter of a million
            handgun purchases have been thwarted this way.
                  Turns out a lot of criminals, at least the ones who have a
            conviction somewhere in their past, aren't so smart after all.
            Aren't you glad the Brady law is in place? More to the point, aren't
            you glad Congress didn't bow to pressure from the gun lobby and
            reject Brady four years ago?
                  True, the 69,000 represented only 2.7 percent of the 2.6
            million applications for handguns last year. But our guess is 69,000
            unstable people could do a lot of damage if they were armed. The
            small percentage merely proves what researchers, criminologists and,
            yes, gun lobbyists have said all along ù that most gun owners are
            responsible and law abiding. The trick is to stop the handful most
            likely to cause mischief.
                  Brady imposes a five-day waiting period for all handgun
            purchases to allow for background checks and to keep people from
            buying guns in a fit of passion. The waiting period is set to expire
            in November when a nationwide instant background check system is
            expected to be in place. At that time, the law will be broadened to
            require background checks for all firearm purchases, not just
            handguns.
                  Not surprisingly, the battle lines are being drawn again.
            President Clinton wants to extend the five-day wait, while gun
            lobbies, including the National Rifle Association, want it to
            disappear.
                  Keeping track of rejected sales is easy. However, keeping
            track of deaths and injuries avoided through a five-day cooling off
            period is impossible. The cool down is nevertheless an important
            argument for making people wait.
                  Contrary to all the clamoring four years ago, no one has
            suffered a deprivation of constitutional rights through the Brady
            law. By some estimates more than 40 percent of American households
            today contain at least one gun. An extension of the Brady waiting
            period seems only prudent. It is no doubt a major contributor to the
            nation's steadily declining crime rate.











--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every
 time Congress meets." -- Will Rogers

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes
Date: 26 Jun 1998 22:01:00 -0700


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

This is exactly the type of mentality that we DON'T need.

At 07:03 AM 6/25/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:58:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Richard Hartman <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Meeting on 1998 Brady Changes

>Forwarded from another list, sanitized to preserve anonymity.

>-----
>Today in Baton Rouge, we attended, along with a few hundred FFL dealers,
>a conference concerning the November 1998 Brady Law changes. Some of it
>was informative and ATF presented itself in a concerned manner.

>The focus was a demonstration of how the November 1998 Brady forms will
>be handled. To summerize the demo, there will be three ways to validate
>a gun purchaser.

>First will be by phone. The charge will be $13-$17. This price is subject
>to change. You will be able to call 8 AM until 2 AM, seven days a week
>except Thanksgiving and Christmas. You will speak to an operator and the
>only information given will be name, address, and general information
>about the purchaser and whether the purchase is a long gun or a pistol
>or both. No other info is needed.

>Second will be by modem. The package is not complete for this transaction.
>The demo works just like the phone verification but you key all information
>in. The charge will be less. There was no range of charges given.

>Third will be by key pad. It was not demonstrated and not much
>information was given.

>Concealed carry permits are exempt as are certain LE purchases.

>There will be a NTN (NICS tracking number) given for every transaction.
>Upon approval, the NTN will go on your record book and 4473. Upon
>disapproval, the NTN will be given to the purchaser and s/he will be
>given the right to appeal.

>The database that is checked basically checks the responses given on
>the 4473. Example: John Doe lies about a domestic violance charge on the
>4473. The charge is in the data base and he is denied. If he is clear,
>no hits come up and he is approved. The other option is a wait status.
>This can be caused by lack of info such as John Smith on Main Street in
>Erath, Louisiana, is just too general and multiple hits will inevitably
>come up.

What this pleasant and informative gun dealer neglected to mention (and the
pleasant and informative Gestapo agent neglected to tell him) is that in
order to verify the identity of the purchaser, a government issued ID will
have to be presented. That ID will sooner than later be tied back to an SSN
(and the fingerprint or retina scan or some other biometric method of
identification that goes with it) and ALL of that data will be available to
any other government agent any time they want it.

"....<crackle>....271, that subject is a known gun-owner, approach with
caution...<crackle>...."

can't you just picture that Glock 21 coming out of the holster and staring
you in the face over an inspection sticker.....?

>Each firearms dealer will have to join the FBI/NICS group. We do not
>know if there is a charge for this.

>I actually felt good about ATF after this meeting. I do not care for
>the charge on my customers, but if all works as planned it should not
>be an inconvenience.

What an A**HOLE! He "actually felt good about ATF"??? Isn't it nice that
the friendly Gestapo agent told him how pleasant and convenient his trip to
the resettlement camp is going to be...

When the roundups of gunowners and their weapons start, we can thank the
sniveling, obsequious, traitorous rats at the NRA, and brain-dead dealers
like this.
_________________________________________

    <http://agitator.dynip.com>
_________________________________________

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary,
too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
 - Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Mother Jones- another gun poll
Date: 26 Jun 1998 22:01:00 -0700


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

At 07:04 AM 6/25/98 -0600, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "R. Lunn" <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Mother Jones- another gun poll

>These guys never learn. We trounced them a few years ago...

Mother Jones is still locked in the '60s....what do you expect from
counter-culture hippies?

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
><<SNIP>>

>SNAP POLL ___________________________________________________

>THIS WEEK'S POLL: The mayors of Philadelphia, Chicago, and New Orleans are
>threatening to sue gun manufacturers in an attempt to hold them responsible
>for gun violence in the cities. Do you think gunmakers should be liable
>for deaths and injuries caused by their products?

>Vote and discuss at:

>http://www.motherjones.com/

><<SNIIP>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------

>So far the results are:
>22.19% say Yes
>77.81% say No
>311 have voted

>Vote early and vote often...

>DVC

>--

>Regards,
>>>Dick<<



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control
Date: 27 Jun 1998 19:58:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded messages ----------

By Bill de Forest <mailto:[e-mail]>

Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

Read your stuff. Real good.

I am a management supervisor at Kaman Aerospace in Bloomfield,
Connecticut. I live in Granville, Massachusetts, a real small town
that only has grades pre-school through 8th.

In answer to the shooting sprees in schools across the U.S. our
chief of police, John B. Michnovez, thought it was time to start a
pistol shooting and handgun safety course in our elementary school.
Talk about bold. He approached the principal of Granville Elementary,
Bob Thompson who agreed it was essential, in the light of the recent
shootings, that children be taught pistol shooting by experts -- and
not the movies -- and sponsored a course in the school.

That's _bold_!

Letters were sent home to the parents who also thought it was a
good idea. The chief got an NRA Pistol Shooting instructor, Ms. Teryl
A. Deegan, who started off with a lecture on the Second Amendment and
started to explain calibers, stating that 9mm was a Communist round
and she would not talk about it.

Toy guns were used as the demo with a day two at an indoor pistol
range in Manchestern Conn. My 11 year-old Jerome shot 50 .22 rounds
and passed the written course with the mandatory 80.

This is what I call grass roots. A police chief and an elementary
school principal staked all on this one.

_You must keep up your work. It is making a difference_.

======================================================================
_The Libertarian Enterprise_ is delighted to have shared this letter
with our readers.
--
Libertarian Self Reliance In The Face Of Y2K
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/7731/



Ron provides:
>>The chief got an NRA Pistol Shooting instructor, Ms. Teryl
A. Deegan, who started off with a lecture on the Second Amendment and
started to explain calibers, stating that 9mm was a Communist round
and she would not talk about it.<<

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Everyone knows
the 9 mm parabellum is a Nazi round! :-)


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Really Good Gun News  1/2
Date: 28 Jun 1998 22:07:00 -0700


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

I don't know who wrote this, but I'd like to thank him for sharing his
viewpoint. -E.W.

To all true friends of liberty:

One of the most interesting things about news reports is the way that
the same basic information can be presented and yet tell very different
tales.

My all-time favorite has to be the Carter-era news release on the
standby gas rationing system that was then being implemented. In this
particular story, it was pointed out that the rationing system would be
triggered by a 20% shortfall in the nation's gas supplies. The system
was designed to ensure that every American would receive 70% of his
normal supply.

So what we had was a system that would automatically turn a 20%
shortfall into a 30% shortfall. By careful presentation of the facts,
however, it made it look like this was a good deal for the average joe.
Incidentally, all of the gas rationing coupons had the same picture of
George Washington as is found on the one-dollar bill. They could
therefore be exchanged, not just for 70% of your usual gallon of gas,
but also for four quarters from any bill changing machine. Thus
completely useless for their designed purpose, the coupons were stored
for many years at the Pueblo Army Depot in southern Colorado and
eventually destroyed by burning inside the ammunition igloos in which
they were kept.

The point of all this is that there is often a surprising amount of
good news to be found in what might otherwise be considered as
disastrous tidings. Take, for example, the recent Brady bill stories.
That the administration is interested in expanding Brady provisions to
rifles and shotguns is surely not welcome intelligence. That either
230,000 (according to some sources) or 17 (according to others)
convicted felons have been thwarted in their desire for a handgun is
really beside the point. Who cares how many have been denied a gun?
Let's look, instead, at the real story here. Slipped in to those
Clinton-sponsored stories about how many bad guys have been disarmed and
how the program should be expanded is some really, really encouraging
news.

Over 10,000,000 Brady checks have been performed in the past four
years. Imagine! Ten million handgun sales (minus somewhere between 17
and 230,000). Two and a half million a year! Nearly 7,000 a day,
including Sundays and holidays. By god, it makes you PROUD to be an
American, doesn't it? We're still number one at something and it's
something that's damned important, to boot.

Imagine equipping the United States Army with just one year's worth of
handgun sales. Every soldier would have five handguns strapped to his
waist. Imagine equipping them with all of the handguns sold since Bill
Clinton took office. You'd need a line of native bearers to carry those
28 handguns. A good-sized truck to carry each soldier's share of the
rifles and shotguns. A small convoy for his portion of the ammunition
and reloading components.

Let's not forget that these ten million Brady guns are just those sold
through FFL dealers. Think of the additional millions, perhaps tens of
millions, that changed hands between one private owner and another.
These are the statistics that really matter. Do you think Bill Clinton
really cares whether even one armed thug is gotten off the streets (I
mean someone other than Franciso Duran)? For the first time,
amalgamated statistics are landing on his desk and he can quantify just
how "successful" his effort at disarming America has been. At the same
time, he can blandly slip the real story (America's frantic rearmament)
past the inattentive patriots who are too busy moaning about the next
wave of evil NWO legislation.

I say: Thanks, Bill. You've done more to awaken America and cause
even the most zombie-like citizen to rush out and buy a gun than any
other living human being. Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Mark Koernke, John
Trochmann, et al ain't got nothing on you, baby. You are the merchants
of death's number one butt boy and the biggest spoke in the wheel of
your own utopia. Nice going, moron. Please don't come over to our side
because we want to win. Millions, I repeat: millions, of Americans who
would never have considered owning a gun now have a little bit of
insurance tucked underneath the bed. So don't give up on your fellow
citizens just yet. We're halfway home if you don't alienate them with
stupid human militia tricks.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Really Good Gun News  2/2
Date: 28 Jun 1998 22:07:00 -0700


I dare say that the percentage of Americans who own guns is at an
all-time high. The number of Americans who own a gun is certainly at an
all-time high. The number of guns owned by Americans is certainly at an
all-time high. The quality (and military usefulness) of guns owned by
Americans is at an all-time high. The stockpile of ammunition and
reloading components owned by Americans is at an earth-shattering, most
Third-world continents can't even come close, all-time high. Don't
whine about the Brady bill. After all, the primary proponent of this gun
control legislation is someone who is brain-damaged. Rational arguments
just aren't going to work on someone who's only running on half-a-lobe.
They don't make sense to most liberals and network correspondents
either. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Let's look at another interesting story-- the New Black Panther Party's
avowed defense against the Klan in Jasper, Texas. Why is this so
objectionable to so many patriots? It seems like capital news to me. Up
to now, the media has been able to portray the militia as some sort of
funky white suburban street gang. Having a highly-publicized appearance
of a new black militia is of tremendous value to those of us who are
dedicated to the restoration of constitutional liberty. I welcome any
and all who are willing to make their stand for freedom. I especially
welcome those whom the liberal media dare not portray as right-wing
lunatics.

These are not the branded "Uncle Tom" black conservatives but the real
McCoy radical activist left proclaiming themselves as a militia. See
how much ground we have gained. Even those who do not agree with us
politically now find advantage in using our methods and rhetoric. When
our opponents must fly our colors in order to garner popular support--
they have already lost. Whatever victory they attain will redound to
our credit and not to theirs. We should support these efforts to the
absolute limits of our abilities.

There is a line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic that goes: "I have
seen him in the watchfires of a hundred circling camps..." Someone
finally shows up to build a blaze next to ours and we want to turn them
in for playing with matches. Get real. Get your priorities straight.

There is a vast awakening in America. It would be even vaster if it
weren't for the legions of morons we have allowed to shelter under our
banners. They have to go if we are ever to make this thing work. So
often we make the mistake of going for numbers, numbers right now--
without realizing that for every Christian Identity or Republic of Texas
loser in our ranks, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of more
like-minded patriots who will never swell our ranks for fear of
contamination by these dangerous anti-American fanatics. People with
money. People with important connections. People whose help we
desperately need but aren't going to get. People who won't touch us
with a ten-foot-pole because of our hobnobbing with nazis.

Don't kid yourself. Look at deeds, not words. None of these Identity
swine love the United States. They all seek for a New World Order of
their own-- a successor state to be built on the ruins of a failed
America. The destruction of America is a crucial element of their
plans-- yet they have neither the numbers or the resources to make their
twisted dreams of a racial-religious empire a reality without the help
of those unwitting dupes in the militia. You wonder why the FBI and the
ATF are so interested in the militias? Well, wonder no more. If you
harbor traitors in your ranks, you yourself have earned a traitor's
wage.

This is a struggle in which only the most virtuous will prevail. It is
a struggle between love and hatred. If you do not love your fellow man.
if you do not love America, if you do not value the mighty deeds of
your forefathers, you are not going to win. To all of you who know that
America belongs to those who are willing to fight for her in her hour
of greatest need, I say: Let us go forward together.

The Union forever


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: gun poll (fwd)
Date: 29 Jun 1998 19:06:23 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:45:40 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA03544; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:35:15 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA29599; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029523; Mon Jun 29 20:43:29 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jun 29, Josh Amos wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
-]

 http://www.thirdage.com/polls/?lmenu

We are getting wiped on this one too.

Josh

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
-]

--
-
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today's Trib - Permissive Atmosphere
Date: 30 Jun 1998 08:30:02 -0600

Tuesday, June 30, 1998=20
Permissive Atmosphere
 =20

    Tom Metcalf's generalizations (``How Many Deaths,'' Forum, June 7) =
typify the liberal outlook on life. People cannot be trusted, they need to =
be watched at all times or they will hurt themselves or break something, =
and we are not smart enough to have firearms. Israel and Switzerland =
immediately come to mind. In both places, everyone is armed, everyone =
knows this, and most people are accordingly polite. Vermont has basically =
the same situation.=20
    Children in this country, at least those raised in a liberal, =
permissive atmosphere, know that they can get away with anything. Add =
Prozac, Ritalin, a defective personality trait or two and voila! Instant =
headline. Fifteen minutes of fame.=20
    KELLY C. PHELPS=20
    Monroe=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Time Magazine Poll
Date: 30 Jun 1998 12:39:29 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:53:29 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA04129; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:43:02 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA05379; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma005336; Tue Jun 30 13:50:45 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

There are five questions, just under 5000 responses so far, and the =
numbers
are in our favor. So are the comments on their bulletin board. Let's keep
them that way. Remember, politicians use modern Clinton "poll-itics" to =
pick
safe legislative targets. Let's make certain every such poll shows that =
more
anti-gun laws will be met with the same kind of response they heard in
November 1994.

http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: South Carolina News Pole
Date: 30 Jun 1998 15:30:18 -0600

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Like Chicago, vote early and vote often!

--=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:59:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA04285; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:49:28 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA16225; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma016052; Tue Jun 30 16:55:58 1998
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jun 30, Jeff Quinton wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
-]

http://www.palmettojournal.com

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
-]

--
-
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-


--=_7521D4E9.9AFB9784--

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: July 3 column - classic July 4th]
Date: 30 Jun 1998 20:40:48 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 3, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Most Americans should be ashamed to celebrate the Fourth

    NOTE: This "classic" column was originally published on July 3, 1997.


    What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July has become.

  So long as we stick to grilling hot dogs and hamburgs, hauling the kids
to the lake or the mountains, and winding up the day watching the fireworks
as the Boston Pops plays the 1812 -- written by a subject of the czar to
celebrate the defeat of our vital ally the French -- we can usually manage
to convince ourselves we still cling to the same values that made July 4,
1776, a date which still rings in history.

  Great Britain taxed the colonists at far lower rates than Americans
tolerate today -- and never dreamed of granting government agents the power
to search our private bank records to locate "unreported income." Nor did
the king's ministers ever attempt to stack our juries by disqualifying any
juror who refused to swear in advance to "leave your conscience outside
this courtroom and enforce the law as the judge explains it to you."

  The king's ministers insisted the colonists were represented by Members
of Parliament who had never set foot on these shores. Today, of course, our
interests are "represented" by one of two millionaire lawyers -- both
members of the incumbent Republicrat Party -- among whom we were privileged
to "choose" last election day, men who for the most part have lived in
mansions and sent their kids to private schools in the wealthy suburbs of
the imperial capital, for decades.

  Yet the colonists did rebel. It's hard to imagine, today, the faith and
courage of a few hundred frozen musketmen, setting off across the darkened
Delaware, gambling their lives and farms on the chance they could engage
and defeat the greatest land army in the history of the known world, armed
with only two palpable assets: one irreplaceable man to lead them, and some
flimsy newspaper reprints of a parchment declaring: "We hold these Truths
to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the
Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
abolish it. ..."

  Do we believe that, still?

  Recently, President Clinton's then-Drug Czar, Lee Brown, told me the role
of government is to protect the people from dangers, such as drugs. I
corrected him, saying, "No, the role of government is to protect our
liberties."

  "We'll just have to disagree on that," the president's appointee said.

  The War for American Independence began over unregistered, untaxed guns,
when British forces attempted to seize arsenals of rifles, powder and ball
from the hands of ill-organized Patriot militias in Lexington and Concord.
American civilians shot and killed scores of these government agents as
they marched back to Boston. Are those Minutemen still our heroes? Or do we
now consider them "dangerous terrorists" and "depraved government-haters"?

  In "The Federalist" No. 46, James Madison told us we need have no fear of
any federal tyranny ever taking away our rights, arguing that under his
proposed Constitution "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people
alone," and predicting that any usurpation of powers not specifically
delegated would lead to "plans of resistance" and "appeal to a trial of
force."

  Another prominent federalist, Noah Webster, wrote in 1787: "Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost
every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust
laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on
any pretence, raised in the United States."

  Is this still true today? Or -- as we all prepare for the new National
thumbprint ID Card, pre-screening by Washington before we can accept a new
job, and national firearms registration (including long guns) beginning
Dec. 1, 1998 -- are those who arm themselves and make contingency "plans of
resistance" against government usurpations instead branded "conspirators"
and "terrorists," and ridiculously associated with Timothy McVeigh?
(McVeigh was kicked out of the only militia meeting he is ever known to
have attended -- in Michigan. His actions surely reflect more directly on
the screening process of the outfit that gave him his training in munitions
-- the United States Army.)

  In Phoenix last week, an air conditioner repairman and former Military
Policeman named Chuck Knight was convicted by jurors -- some tearful -- who
said they "had no choice" under the judge's instructions, on a single
federal "conspiracy" count of associating with others who owned automatic
rifles on which they had failed to pay a $200 "transfer tax" -- after a
trial in which defense attorney Ivan Abrams says he was forbidden to bring
up the Second Amendment as a defense.

  Were the Viper Militia readying "plans of resistance," as recommended by
Mr. Madison? Would the Constitution ever have been ratified, had Mr.
Madison and his fellow federalists warned the citizens that such
non-violent preparations would get their weapons seized, and land them in
jail for decades?

  Happy Fourth of July.


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

***



Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."



----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
 nothing." -- Edmund Burke

-