ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9809

Internet Message Format | 1998-09-29 | 228KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: No gun safe a felony in Massachusetts
Date: 31 Aug 1998 21:29:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-Originating-IP: [166.55.73.217]

Veterans, beware that you can no longer carry real firearms in parades.
The new Gun Ban that was recently voted on says that firearms cannot be
carried on public roadways. Gee I guess you can carry toy guns or maybe
they look too real and you might get arrested anyway. Maybe you can carry
them if you put them in a locked case. All violations in this new law
are going to be prposecuted as Felonys. I wonder why? Maybe it's so all
your guns can be confiscated. Don't take your children to the range or
take them hunting anymore, you can't. Supposedly children are adults
when they are eighteen, but not according to the new GUN BAN. You cannot
even get an FID until you are 21. If your house is searched and you
don't have a gun safe or gun locks, it is a felony.

There has been a real problem with disinterested cowards in Massachusetts.
When it came time to speak up about this GUN BAN you didn't well now do
you all think that you might have a reaction?

What do I tell my children? Oh you guys are criminals now if you shoot
guns, of course you have been shooting safely for several years now,
but that doesn't count.

This law is to go into effect October 23, 1998 or thereabouts. Where
are the lawyers to fight this injustice and unconstitutional act on
the part of the Massachusetts legislature?

Massachusetts is a state run by criminals and the governor took part
in this, of course, "for the children."

In California there is a report of the MJTF in operation searching a
young man's home threatening his wife and child and leaving a flyer on
the counter that begins with the title OPERATION PEACEKEEPER. Isn't
that a UN term? We are all told that the UN doesn't have designs on our
nation, but I don't think that could be farther from the truth. The
truth is constantly in our faces. Are there any men in Massachusetts
that will stand up to this tyranny or must a few of us fight for all the
sluggards that won't? Many of us here are disgusted and rightfully so!

Look at the recent situation in Michigan where people attending a classic
car show had to be managed like cattle by black suited statepolice and
camo covered local police with an APC (armored personnel carrier) nearby.
Read on the net how the people were treated like dogs after the show was
over! Children threatened with arrest and a pregnant woman pushed around!
This is another outrage against the American people. It has to stop!

Where's the NRA? Are they so busy rumpswabing their masters in Washington
District of Criminals so they won't loose their charter, that they
couldn't pool their vast resources, (I forgot they have to have pretty
buildings and expensive suits)that they couldn't stop this heinous GUN
BAN in Massachusetts? Wake up people. We are it!

unc


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: NRA backed SKS surrender in Kalifornia?]
Date: 01 Sep 1998 15:47:58 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 06:49:15 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA26516; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 06:37:39 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA07138; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006912; Sun Aug 30 08:44:24 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.
--------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Can anybody verify, is this true?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

--------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mailing-list.net (mailing-list.net [192.41.59.89])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA09919
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:34:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id =
VAA16386; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:34:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mailing-list.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Sat, 29 Aug 1998 =
21:34:14 -0600
Received: (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id VAA16371; Sat, =
29 Aug 1998 21:34:13 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from insync.net ([e-mail] [204.253.208.10]) by =
mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id VAA16355; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:34:11 -0600 =
(MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mailing-list.net: Host [e-mail] =
[204.253.208.10] claimed to be insync.net
Received: from 209-113-86-224.tnt1.houston.tx.insync.net (209-113-86-224.tn=
t1.houston.tx.insync.net [209.113.86.224]) by insync.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) =
with SMTP id WAA09018 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 29 Aug =
1998 22:34:18 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail] (schuetzen)
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:40:00 -0500, [e-mail] [e-mail]  =
at
[e-mail] wrote:

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


>From TPG.........again... Verification anyone?
************************************************

The NRA is backing a California bill to require all SKS owners to =
surrender
their rifles to police!   Mandatory state confiscation of legal rifles --
brought to you by the NRA! =20

AB 48 began as an effort to grant imunity to SKS owners because the CA
Attornegy General Lundgren said they were legal and then flip-flopped =
under
pressure from the anti-gunners.  That put gun owners at risk.

But the state NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Associatoin, published an
article in their newsletter "Firing Line" that they would support a
buy-back instead and the antis jumped on it.

Now the bill includes a MANDATORY state "buy-back."  Just like the
confiscation laws in Australia and England.  You have to turn your rifles
over to the police in return for a paltry $200, less than they are worth.
And the NRA is actualy lobbying FOR it.  Twisting arms of pro-2nd =
Amendment
legislators to vote for a gun confiscation measure.  Brought to you by the
"Winning Team" and "Charlaton" Heston.

Remember when "Charlaton" said on the radio that AK47s were not appropriate=

for law abiding citizens like us.  Well here it comes folks. =20

To make matters worse, while the NRA was lobbying hard to confiscate our
SKS rifles, the anti-gunners passed a broad new "assault" weapon ban and a
new ban on affordable handguns.

Who's in charge at NRA these days?????
 Dennis

--
Charles L Hamilton    Houston, TX   email: [e-mail]
X-No-Archive: Yes
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.


--------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA--



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deep down Hatch is a liberal??
Date: 01 Sep 1998 15:53:23 -0600

It's a long road to limelight for Hatch=20
Senator has taken many steps to powerful post since career began=20
August 30, 1998=20
By RALPH WAKLEY Standard Examiner staff=20
Sen. Orrin Hatch is back in the spotlight with President Clinton's =
troubles, but politicians say he's taken many steps from his conservative =
beginnings to get there.=20
When Hatch was first elected to the Senate in 1976, he took on the GOP =
fight against the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, government funding of =
abortions and labor unions and was the favorite new guy among conservatives=
.=20
But his work on child care block grants, the Orphan Drug Act, the Job =
Training Partnership Act, and help for AIDS victims and other similar =
issues have convinced many conservatives that he sold out along the =
way.=20
Former Salt Lake Mayor Ted Wilson ran against Hatch in 1982 and remembers =
him as a tough opponent.=20
"He was on the ball. He left no stone unturned. And he's intelligent and a =
tough de bater," said Wilson, who was mistakenly viewed as the organized =
labor's candidate because national unions were hoping to get rid of =
Hatch.=20
"He started out as the darling of the extreme right and he played that =
role for a while," Wilson said. "But now he's become a big enough guy that =
he can reach out, and at times he has a tough time being a conservative. I =
think under his deepest layer, he's a liberal."=20
Wilson said Hatch is among the half-dozen most powerful people in the =
Senate and the dozen most powerful in Congress.=20
"He may be the first Utahn to maybe have a shot at the presidency. =
(Democratic Govs.) Cal Rampton and Scott Matheson were favorite-son =
candidates but they were never serious candidates. However, being Mormon =
and being anti-abortion will not help Orrin on the national stage," the =
Democrat said.=20
As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and senior Republican on =
the Finance and Intelligence committees, Hatch is more and more in demand =
for national TV shows such as "Face the Nation."=20
"It's partly because I have all the tough issues right now, I'm in the =
middle of everything, and because I'm not afraid of them," Hatch said. =
"There was a time when most conservatives hated the media and wouldn't =
talk to them," and some of that has carried over.=20
Hatch said he also believes the television news hosts like his tell-it-like=
-I-see-it attitude "and that I'm not as dumb as I look. I can usually tell =
it in a way that's understandable for the listeners and I can justify my =
criticism."=20
Wilson left the mayor's office and now heads the U of U's Hinckley =
Institute of Politics, where Hatch is a regular speaker.=20
"We get along great because Orrin genuinely likes people. He always stops =
by my office when he's up here."=20
Hatch's friendly relationships with political opponents like the Rev. =
Jesse Jackson and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., angers GOP conservatives, =
said Spencer Stokes, ex ecutive director of the Utah Republican Party.=20
"Many people have said he's too close to Sen. Kennedy. They've been upset =
with that and with some of the compromise legislation he has sponsored," =
Stokes said.=20
But Stokes said Hatch is also practical. "He realized there are things =
that have to get done. He understands that and he's willing to take the =
heat from conservatives to get things done. That's the nature of a =
statesman."=20
Hatch grew up in poverty in Pennsylvania and worked his way through =
Brigham Young University and attended Pittsburgh Law School on scholarship.=
=20
"I feel very deeply about civil rights, about treating everyone fairly," =
he said.=20
Including the long-time civil rights leader, Jackson, who Hatch admits, =
"We go at each other all the time."=20
But Hatch would never turn his back on Jackson when he needs help.=20
Jackson's son, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and daughter-in-law, Sandi, =
were at Deer Valley earlier this month for a youth leadership conference =
when Sandi was rushed to the University of Utah Hospital due to complicatio=
ns from her pregnancy.=20
Two days later, on Aug. 22, her baby was delivered about three months =
prematurely and died a short time later.=20
The next day, Hatch and Jackson were both on the political issues show =
"Face the Nation." During the television program, Jackson privately phoned =
Hatch, who was participating from the Utah studios.=20
"He said, "My daughter-in-law just lost a baby,' and he asked if I would =
give them a call and encourage them," Hatch said.=20
Hatch did far more. He dropped everything he was doing, including =
organizing his annual Utah Charities Golf Challenge, to visit Sandi and =
Jesse Jr. in the hospital. He then picked up Rev. Jackson at the airport =
and drove him to the hospital, where they participated in a family =
prayer.=20
"Jesse is a great human being, a person of dimension and guts, so I never =
thought of calling on someone else. I do a lot of this myself. Sometimes =
you just have to," Hatch said. "And, you know, his son and daughter-in-law =
were the nicest kids you've ever seen."=20
"I've been working for Sen. Hatch for a long time now and I haven't =
figured him out yet," said Heather Barney, Hatch's Utah press secretary.=20=

When Hatch is back home during congressional breaks, Barney said Hatch =
often will read a newspaper story about someone who has been injured or is =
suffering from a critical health problem and will visit them in the =
hospital to wish them well.=20
"I do know he has this need to help people," Barney said.=20
When things are real hectic in the office, Barney said, Hatch will try to =
break the tension by calling everyone in while he plays the piano and =
tries to get them to sing along with him.=20
"He's got more energy than anybody I know," she said.=20
Hatch's fourth term ends in two years, and he doesn't sound like he's =
anywhere near retirement.=20
"I have really enjoyed being a senator," he said. "I've reached the point =
where I can get things done in the Senate, and I still feel young."=20
But on whether he would run for president or seek the vice presidency or a =
cabinet post, Hatch is noncommittal.=20
"I don't look for them, but I feel I still have a lot of service left," he =
said.=20


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Early American "Gun Control" 1/2
Date: 01 Sep 1998 22:51:00 -0700


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


Early American "Gun Control"
The following essay originally appeared in the April, 1997 issue of
AMERICAN SURVIVAL GUIDE

(used with permission of author)

By Howard J. Fezell, Esq.

We approach the 21st Century saddled with a federal government
that has evolved from an institution intended to protect its citizens'
lives and property into one whose primary function is redistributing
wealth via middle-class welfare programs. (To avoid embarrassing anyone
they are called "entitlements".) Statist politicians in both major
parties view the minority of people who actually produce wealth as
nothing more than a source of tax revenue. Promises of more and better
benefits for an increasingly dependent constituency is how statists
win reelection. Making good on those promises requires the federal
government, over time, to appropriate a greater percentage of whatever
wealth is produced in the private sector.

That the United States was born out of an armed rebellion fueled,
in large part, by resentment over excessive taxation is a bit of history
that makes statists extremely uncomfortable. It should, therefore, come
as no surprise that congressmen and senators who dream of an ever-
expanding welfare state consistently vote to restrict individual gun
ownership or even ban the production of certain classes of firearms.

Claims by extremist groups such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) that
"just one more" gun law is necessary to "fight crime" or "reduce the
level of violence" are simply a smoke screen. HCI is run by statists
whose objective is the total disarmament of ordinary people. They are
savvy political professionals with enormous patience who are willing
to disarm you in increments, if need be. However long it takes, to
HCI the best "gun control" is gun prohibition.

In the minds of people who promote the expansion of government power
at the expense of individual liberty, gun prohibition makes perfect
sense. In fact, it is essential. Middle class welfare programs (e.g.,
Medicare and Social Security) along with interest payments on the
national debt currently consume more than half of all federal
expenditures. It is only a matter of time, perhaps less than a decade,
until "discretionary" spending on defense, law enforcement, parks,
roads, etc. is relegated to less than one-third of the total. Sooner
or later something has got to give. Either the federal welfare apparatus
will have to shrink dramatically or taxes will have to go up. But what
would happen if 50,000,000 Americans "just say no" to forking over more
of their hard-earned money? Massive civil disobedience by ordinary
people who, if necessary, could defend themselves is a statist's worst
nightmare. On the other hand, the populace will be much easier to
intimidate if it has already been disarmed.

Disarmament of people kept (or to be kept) in servitude has historical
precedent dating back to ancient times. The history of "gun control"
in America shows that is has been used repeatedly as an authoritarian
and elitist device to favor the powerful and politically well-connected
and keep supposedly less worthy people "in their place."

Restrictions On Slaves, Freed Negroes & Roman Catholics

The State of Maryland (where I practice law) offers a good example of
how "gun control" has been used to keep people in their place. Maryland
was first settled by English colonists in 1631. Within a few decades,
numerous plantations had been established which required a substantial
amount of manpower. Much of the labor was provided by African slaves
who, doubtless, would have preferred to be free. A rebellion of armed
slaves could have laid waste to the plantation system, jeopardizing
the economic viability of the entire colony. This possibility was not
lost upon wealthy planters. To help keep slaves "in their place" the
colonial assembly (comprised largely of slave owners) passed Maryland's
very first gun control law. Chapter XLIV, Section XXXII of the Acts of
1715 provided:

That no negro or other slave within this province shall be permitted
to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's
land, without license from their said master; and if any negro or other
slave shall presume to do so, he shall be liable to be carried before
a justice of the peace, and be whipped, and his gun or other offensive
weapon shall be forfeited to him that shall seize the same and carry
such negro so offending before a justice of the peace.

During the French and Indian Wars, Roman Catholics (referred to
disparagingly as "Papists") were suspected of having sympathies with
the French. In 1756, the colonial government in Maryland ordered the
surrender of all arms or ammunition in their possession. 52 Maryland
Archives, 454. In 1806, Maryland passed a law making it unlawful for
"any negro or mulatto within this state to keep any dog, bitch or gun,
except he be a free negro or mulatto, and in that case he may be
permitted to keep one dog, provided that such free negro or mulatto
shall obtain a license from the justice of the peace for that purpose,
. . ." Acts of 1806, Chap. LXXXI. Although a "free negro or mulatto"
(as distinct from those held as slaves) could apparently possess
firearms, it became unlawful for them to "go at large with any gun,
or other offensive weapon". Id., Section II. It is interesting to note
that the keeping of dogs was also restricted. As any police K-9 unit
can demonstrate, a properly trained dog can be a formidable weapon.
Restrictions such as those imposed by the Acts of 1715 and 1806 were
part of widespread efforts in the South to limit the availability of
firearms to blacks, both slave and free. See Robert J. Cottrol &
Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward An Afro-Americanist
Reconsideration, Vol. 80 Georgetown Law Journal, 309, 335-338 (1991).


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Early American "Gun Control" 2/2
Date: 01 Sep 1998 22:51:00 -0700


Black Civil War Veterans

Victory of Union forces in the War Between The States and ratification
of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 brought an end to slavery in the
United States. The Union's victory was due, in no small part, to the
efforts of approximately 180,000 to 200,000 blacks who had served in
the Union Army and comprised about 10 percent of the grand total. Parish,
The American Civil War, 259. At least two-thirds of these troops had been
slaves at the beginning of the war. Id. They were now free and trained in
the use of arms. Needless to say, their former owners were not thrilled
at this development. Black soldiers, once mustered out of the Union Army,
were not well received by Southern whites, and were frequently the victims
of assaults. Glatthaar, Forged In Battle, The Civil War Alliance of Black
Soldiers and White Officers, 252-53. Many whites viewed these veterans as
"runaways" who had been fighting against their old masters and now returned
"full of the impudent notions of a freeman". Id. Southerners no longer
had a need to disarm slaves who otherwise might use force to secure their
freedom. However, the idea of former slaves bearing arms was cause for
considerable dismay among whites. Cottrol & Diamond, supra, at 342-46.
Southern whites also realized that it would be far easier to discourage
blacks from acting upon the "notions of a freeman" if they were unarmed
and had no effective means to resist intimidation by their former masters.
Not long after the War Between The States, Maryland adopted a new
constitution. During the constitutional convention of 1867 the right to
keep and bear arms was debated in the form of an amendment to what is now
Article 28 to Maryland Declaration of Rights. Many delegates to that
convention, who were either former slave owners or had served as officers
in the Confederate army, were not about to guarantee the right of freed
blacks to own guns. According to Debates of the Maryland Constitutional
Convention of 1867, 150-51:

Article 28 was read as follows: "That a well regulated militia is
the proper and natural defense of a free government."

Mr. Giddings moved to amend by adding after the word "government"
the words, "and every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense
of himself and the state."

Mr. Garey moved to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white"
after the word "every".

After some discussion, Mr. Giddings' amendment failed. White fear
over free blacks owning guns was the critical factor in defeating the
adoption of a right to keep and bear arms in Maryland's Constitution
of 1867. Maryland was not alone in seeking to prohibit blacks from
having access to firearms. During Reconstruction, "black codes" were
enacted in the former Confederate states to make it difficult for newly
freed slaves to possess firearms, vote, or own property. Halbrook,
That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 108.
As but one example, within six months of the war's end the State of
Mississippi passed an "Act to Regulate the relation of Master and
Apprentice Relative to Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes." This
made it unlawful for any "freeman, free negro or mulatto" who was
not in the U.S. military or licensed by the police to "keep or carry
fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition". Id. In 1865, however,
police in Mississippi were not about to issue firearms licenses to
anyone who was not white.

Immigrants

African slaves, freed blacks, and 18th century Roman Catholics were
by no means the only targets of "gun control", nor were such measures
limited to Southern states. In 1911 New York State enacted the Sullivan
Law, which required a license to possess a handgun. At the same time
the New York Tribune complained about the carrying of handguns by
"ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants of law-breaking propensities".
Kopel, The Samarui, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt
The Gun Controls of Other Democracies?, 342-43. Many of these
"quarrelsome" immigrants were nothing more than honest, hard-working,
Italian shopkeepers who refused to be shaken down by the New York City
Police, who were predominantly of Irish descent. Irish immigrants to
the United States had been on the receiving end of terrible
discrimination since their arrival in large numbers in the 1840 and
1850s. However, after 70 years in Americas they had become firmly
entrenched as part of New York's political establishment. It was their
turn. By denying handgun licenses to people from immigrant groups the
police deemed "quarrelsome," the Irish political machine made it easier
to impose its will on more recent arrivals, such as Italians and Eastern
European Jews. In the early 20th Centruy other states, notably, Oregon,
California, and Hawaii enacted restrictions on the purchase or possession
of handguns by immigrants. Kopel, supra, at 343. "Gun control" in America
has often meant gun prohibition for people who, because of their race,
religion, ethnic origin, or condition of servitude, were considered a
threat to those in power. As we enter the 21st Century, rates of taxation
have reached oppressive levels. To statists (who seek only to expand
government power), growing resentment on the part of people who work,
produce wealth, and pay oppressive taxes presents a serious threat.
Disarming ordinary Americans who will be called upon to pay ever higher
taxes is seen by them as necessary to minimize that threat.
⌐ 1997 Howard J. Fezell

[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By
The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]


A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/

"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."



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: [AR15-L] Best CA Gov. Wilson Contact Info
Date: 02 Sep 1998 17:02:30 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:59:47 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA29478; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:48:08 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA25695; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025513; Wed Sep  2 18:56:48 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 VERY BAD pair of laws. Remember, the 1994 ban started when
Feinstein got one passed in California. Next thing we knew, it passed at =
the
national level. We must stop these things before they start, because they
don't stop at state boundaries.

Why should CA care what someone living outside the state thinks? Because =
you
"visit CA often for business and/or pleasure". Or you "have family or
friends living there" (my family lives there, and they're your friends!!!
<grin>). Or that "you have been considering moving to CA (with your
desirable high-tech skills, perhaps?) but would not be able to if these =
laws
passed because they would impact your hobbies".

Please call immediately. It's sitting on Governor Brown's desk, waiting =
for
approval or veto, RIGHT NOW. There is no time to waste. Thank you.

RLH

>For all of you around the country trying to cut crazy assault
>weapons bans off at the pass, here's better contact info for
>California Governor Pete Wilson.
>
>We want him to veto bill AB2560, the "assault weapons ban".
>
>We also want him to veto SB1500 (bans DAO pistols, and non-drop-safe =
handguns).
>
>CALL NOW, CALL AROUND, CALL OFTEN!
>The rights you save may be your own.
>
>
>Here are the numbers:
>
>916-445-1455 Capitol office (real person)
>916-445-2841 Capitol office (answering machine)
>916-445-4633 FAX
>
>619-525-4641 San Diego office
>619-525-4640 FAX
>
>909-680-6860 Riverside office
>909-680-6863 FAX
>
>714-553-3566 Irvine office
>714-553-3571 FAX
>
>213-897-0322 Los Angeles office
>213-897-0319 FAX
>
>415-703-2218 San Francisco office
>415-703-2803 FAX
>
>Call early, call around, call often.
>
>
>Snail mail address:
>
>Gov. Pete Wilson
>First Floor State Capitol
>Sacramento CA 95814



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Can the NRA be reformed? Call for input re: unified
Date: 02 Sep 1998 17:20:45 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:57:52 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA28955; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:46:13 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA21372; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021151; Wed Sep  2 06:51:41 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

Hey guys:
Please allow me to add my signature to the letter to reform the NRA.
They are endorsing Roy Barnes a supporter of fingerprints on driver's
licenses (can't be pro gun) for governor of Georgia as well as Mark
Taylor a supporter of fingerprints on driver's licenses and SB 407 a
lock up your guns bill in Georgia's 1998 general assembly, for Lt. Gov.

To the many in Georgia who have called and e-mailed me questioning these
actions by the NRA, please understand that I do not support them in
these endorsements and help me get the word out.

Edwin

> Head's up all RKBA Defenders:
>
> Discussion list on PA-RKBA proposing a unified letter to the NRA Board
>
> of Directors to develop some spine in defense of the Second Amendment
> or
> face massive exodus to alternative organizations, such as GOA, JFPO,
> etc. Please note, even this aspect is not totally agreed upon, as
> there
> are those who wish to reform from within.  We are seeking input and
> support from all RKBA: do you wish to join us in this effort?  Please
> feel free to pass this letter on to other RKBA organizations
> /individuals not already listed below.
>
> Semper Fidelis,
>
> Rick V.
>
> -------------- back to PA-RKBA discussion list ----------------------
>
> Joe, Chip, Larry, and all you other steely-eyed, barrel-chested
> freedom
> fighters:
>
> Great idea on the give-the-NRA-a-kick-in-the-ass letter -- I'm in.
> Shall we also get some more numbers by contacting as many RKBA
> listserv's as our modems can reach?  For instance...
>
> GOA - [e-mail],
> JFPO - [e-mail],
> Guns Save Lives - [e-mail],
> Second Amendment Foundation - [e-mail],
> Paul Revere Network - [e-mail],
> Free Republic - Jim Robinson's webpage - [e-mail] (might even
> publish the Letter on his site),
> Val Finnell ("that's DOCTOR Evil...I didn't go through six years of
> evil
> medical school to be called MISTER.."), Pres. VCDL - [e-mail],
> Tom Walls - International Gun Rights Directory - [e-mail],
> Kaliber - Germany - [e-mail],
> [e-mail],
> Dr. Tavel - [e-mail],
> Citizen's Committee for RKBA - [e-mail],
> VA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> PA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> CA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> GA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> NJ RKBA - [e-mail],
> [e-mail],
>
> [updates, additions, deletions and corrections are welcome.]
>
> [Chip - you can post your letter on my site.  Just e-mail it to me and
>
> I'll upload it.]
>
> And just to let them know we mean business, we can cc: the letter to
> the
> Washington Times, Drudge, etc.  The Washington Com-Post might also
> give
> us some press, but likely only from the perspective that the mighty
> NRA
> monolith is showing cracks (nonsense... we haven't abandoned it... IT
> has abandoned US).
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Rick V.
>
> JOE P. wrote:
> >
> > I would offer a thought on the "Unified RKBA Advocates" letter
> > writing campaign.
> >
> > Rather than just writing to NRA Hq., which would only help line
> their
> > recylce paper bin, why not include a copy of the same letter to
> > members of th Board of Directors.  It may be possible to find a few
> > of them who actually have the ability (so far unknown to them I
> think)
> > to develop a backbone and ask some harder questions of the hired
> "help".
> >
> >
> > Thought anyone?
> >
> > Joe Pyrdek
>
> Alpha roster of RKBA organizations/individuals
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail],





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GTE to Gunowners "Up Yours"
Date: 02 Sep 1998 18:07:54 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:50:58 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA29508; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:39:20 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA29983; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029832; Wed Sep  2 19:48:17 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=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------302346714521
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RKBA Defenders,

You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
was now posting "no guns" on the doors of it's retail outlets.  In due
course I sent them a letter questioning whether this was true, and if
so, that I was highly insulted. =20

To further support my argument, I citied the Lott/Mustard/Kleck/Kates
figures showing that CCW holders were proven to be far safer than your
average citizen, that CCW saves lives and reduces crime and that guns
are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year.

This is GTE's response to us gunowners.  Essentially: "Up Yours." =20

I suggest we cut off our money supply to them and that we also send them
a note telling them that unless and until they respect our Second
Amendment rights, they will be getting cut off at the knees.

Here it is guys and gals.  Let 'em have it.

   [e-mail]

Rick V.

--------------302346714521
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from pooh.netops.gtefsd.com ([131.131.131.131])
          by mailprime.tidalwave.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.52)
           with ESMTP id 247 for <[e-mail]>;
          Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:19:45 -0400
Received: from crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (crs.unix.chnt.gsc.gte.com =
[131.131.222.248])
    by pooh.netops.gtefsd.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA11324
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:24:42 -0400
Received: by crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA17615; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text


Dear Mr. Vaughn:

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the GTE Website regarding the =
ban on weapons from GTE Wireless business premises. Your letter was well =
researched and informative and we do not dispute the statistics you =
provided to us regarding persons carrying concealed weapons with a permit. =
 GTE Wireless respects your right to carry a concealed weapon with a =
permit, however, for the protection of our employees and customers we have =
chosen to take a more cautious approach and ban weapons from our business =
premises, a decision which is allowed under state law. GTE Wireless is not =
alone in this decision, for it is my understanding that numerous businesses=
 have adopted such a policy. We certainly do not want you to interpret our =
policy as an attempt to infringe upon a person=C6s constitutional rights, =
for that was not our intent.  After careful consideration of the rights of =
all individuals, GTE Wireless concluded that this policy best protects the =
safety and well being of all concern!
!
ed.
 =20
Again, thank you for contacting the GTE Website and for sharing your =
beliefs in this forum.

Sincerely,
Sharon O'Haver
GTE Internet Response Team



=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
  >From: [e-mail]
  >Date: 1998-08-21
  >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon
  >
  >Dear GTE Wireless,

Today I received some disturbing news regarding your retail outlet =
policies.  The message stated in part that:

>GTE Wireless (formerly Cellular One) posts >its retail stores against CCW =
permit holders.

"CCW" refers to Concealed Carry of Weapons via state-issued permits.  If =
this is true, you should know that, for the reasons listed below, I find =
this highly offensive and unwarranted.=20

1) CCW holders have proven themselves to be more law-abiding than the =
average citizen.  Moreover, in order to receive a CCW permit, most states =
require a thorough criminal history check of the applicant;

2) CCW holders have a safety record that surpasses police on the order of =
a magnitude. You stand a far greater chance of being shot by a policeman =
than by a CCW permittee;

3) Smallarms in private hands are used to thwart murders, rapes and =
violent assaults 2,500,000 times each year.  In contrast, there have been =
an estimated 31,000 gun-related deaths last year, a majority attributable =
to intra-gang violence, suicide, and justifiable homicides [self-defense =
and police action];

4) All states that have enacted CCW-reform laws have seen violent crime =
drop sharply in every catagory of criminal statistics collected.  In =
contrast, of the top six cities for murder rates, five have had long-standi=
ng gun bans;

5) The right to self-defense, thus the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is an =
inalienable right recognized in U.S. Constitution as applied to the States =
via the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, =
in many state Constitutions;

6) By stating that no weapons are allowed into your stores, you are =
assuming strict liability for the safety of customers who would otherwise =
have been able to defend themselves;

As the message cited to above has shown, the word is going out nationwide. =
 Word of mouth natually goes along with this.  Rather than select GTE for =
local, cellular, long distance or internet service, I will opt for a =
telephone service provider that honors and respects what is a Constitutiona=
l right. =20

Unless and until you honor the Rights recognized by our Consitution, I =
will see to it that you will get no further income from myself or other =
like-minded individuals.  Please note that there are an estimated eighty =
million gun owners in America - many of whom regularly communicate via the =
internet.


Very truly yours,

Richard E. Vaughan, Esq.


--------------302346714521--



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Assault Dogs
Date: 03 Sep 1998 19:42:00 -0700


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

To the Editor
Arizona Republic
P.O. Box 2244
Phoenix, Arizona 85002
January 7th, 1998

Dear Editor,

I am gratified to read in this morning's paper that someone has
finally called attention to an urgent situation which I have known
about for a long time: annually 334,000 victims of savage dog bites,
most frequently children, average age 15, are taken to the nation's
emergency rooms. As the article states: "That's more ER visits
than injuries from skateboards, baby walkers and in-line skates
combined." Total annual cost of ER dog bites: $102.4 million.
Twenty or more people killed annually by dogs, almost all of them
children.

Because these dogs are so readily obtainable on the streets of our
nation, I implore all your readers to immediately deluge their
Congressmen with letters, phone calls, faxes and telegrams to
support the federal "Save the Widdle Childwen Fwom the Vicious
Dog-Bite Act of 1998", which would require the following:
mandatory muzzles fitted with muzzle-locks to be kept at all times
on all dogs, licensing and paw-printing of all dogs, fingerprinting
and house-monitoring of dog owners, including mandatory, federally-
monitored safe storage of dogs and an immediate 1,000% tax on
all dog food. This Act is sponsored by Canine Control Incorporated,
an organization dedicated to eliminating canine violence in America
by the year 2000. The Act also provides for the immediate banning
of all "assault dogs", the definition of which term will constantly
change according to the emotions of the board of C.C.I.

"Saturday Night Special" dogs, such as Chihuahuas and other
cheap, easily concealed ankle-biters, will also be banned. In
addition, the Act bans all sharp canine teeth, all canine teeth
longer than a federally-mandated length, all spiked collars and
sharp canine toenails. It also mandates that all dogs be transferred
only through federally licensed dog dealers, and provides for the
changing of the BATF to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Assault Dogs, or BATFAD.

I hope that the physicians' organizations who champion total handgun
banning will rally behind this urgent cause to save our nation's
children. Anyone who opposes this type of legislation obviously
hates children. We need this Act desperately - after all, if it saves
only one life, it is worth it. Not to mention the $102.4 million dollars
in ER charges!

My husband's face was horribly mauled at the age of four by a Pit
Bull; today he is the poster child for C.C.I. Now, when not being
used as a drooling doorstop or for first base, he is routinely
wheeled out at charity fund-raising events at which he repeatedly
mumbles, "Bad dogs! Ban dogs!"

We urgently need your help to get these vicious dogs off the streets
now! Please help end canine violence in America! Send donations to:
C.C.I., 1111 B.S. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.

Make the checks out to me.

Tina Terry

(c) 1998 by Tina Terry. This letter may be reprinted in its entirety,
as long as nothing in it is changed, credit is given the author, and
the following is included. Author's note: The author's husband's
face really was mauled at age 4 by a Pitt Bull, an incident in which
he almost lost an eye. He's not in a wheelchair, true, but he also
doesn't blame dogs in general for his early experience and he loves
and owns dogs to this day. He also has never tried to enlist the
author to run around the country trying to ban all dogs.
--
Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by sending a message
to: <[e-mail]> with the words "subscribe mom-l"
in the body of the message. If you have any problems please contact
me and I will do this for you.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Marines practicing...
Date: 03 Sep 1998 19:42:00 -0700


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

My apologies if y'all have already seen this; I've been gone
for a few days and haven't read all my email yet.  But I just
knew you'd want to know...

-------

Maryland Sheriff Opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House Confiscation Exercises

Republic Radio Network Intercept
Fax Report Sept. 1, 1998 Robert G. 'Bob' Wheaton

Message:

Ref: Shortwave Radio Intercept from Republic Radio Network, Intelligence
Report, with John Stadtmueller(?) on WWCR 5.070 MHS, 19:10 CDST, 9-01-98.

Subj: Maryland Sheriff opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House weapons
confiscation training set for Thursday, 3 Sept., at Hebron, Maryland.

Sheriff Nelms, of Wicomico County, Maryland, in conversation by phone
with Stadtmueller(?) today, expressed grave concerns over a planned
U.S.M.C. Training Op this coming Thursday, in which 50-58 Marines will
"invade" the small town of Hebron, Marland, for more "Anti-terrorist"
training, ostensibly a house-to-house weapons confiscation search and
seizure.

Sheriff Nelms has vowed to halt the military operation in his county
if it involves such a house-to-house weapons seizure operation --
training or real.

Hebron is a small town of approximately 665 residents, 10 miles N.W.
of Salisbury, the Wicomico County seat. It was reported Salisbury
city officials had rejected the U.S.M.C. plan for ops in their city.

However, Hebron has no police department and only a local mayor who
apparently succumbed to promised monitary asssistance for his
community and authorized the U.S.M.C.'s planned "Special Operations"
training in the belief it's a patriotic endeavor and necessary for
our safety in world hyped up over terrorism.

Pray for both Sehriff Nelms and Hebron's mayor. We need some divine
intervention for different reasons!

Posted by: Eastbound ([e-mail]) *
09/02/98 02:14:09 EDT


This is immensely disturbing! I am a Korean war jarhead vet who
spent 5 years in the Corps. I understand the degree to which the
Army and Navy have become worldwide jokes, but to think that even
the Commandant of The Corps has turned into one of those fascist-
supporting thugs nearly brings me to tears. Hearing about these
kinds of excersizes by the Corps in other states didn't really sink
in, but now that it is happening here in MD it surely does.

Until that treasonous fascist pig was elected into the WH, Marines
had one and only one job. That was to kill enemies of the U.S
efficiently. Not to act as clintonista brown-shirts in citizen-
suppression excersizes. We now know who the clintonistas think are
the enemies of the U.S.

If we (the Republic) have lost the Marine Corps, we have lost it all.
My Father and Grandfather, both ex-marines as well, must be turning
over in their graves.

God help us all!


- Monte

                 Let the sea roar and its fulness,
               The world and those who dwell in it.
                 Let the rivers clap their hands;
      Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord.
               For He is coming to judge the earth;
            He will judge the world with righteousness,
                   And the peoples with equity.
                           - Psalm 98



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Canadian Gun Control
Date: 05 Sep 1998 07:49:00 -0700


Jim didn't say where he got this.
Scott

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

Misc stuff. The Canadian approach to gun control (last item) was probably
written by the Clinton White House.

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

As part of a larger protest idea we are working on with regard to both
Canada and Mexico (that are giving U.S. gun owners problems, sometimes
arresting them and imprisoning them for long periods of time--not to mention
what they are doing to their own people!), we've come up with something
quick, easy, and immediate you can do to help preserve the human right to
self-defense everywhere: TELL the Canadian government know you oppose C-68,
and WILL NOT visit Canada if they pass this terrible victim-disarmament law.

Canadians are organizing to protest this draconian measure (see:
http://www.fedupcanada.org), and, even though most LRTers live in the U.S.,
LRT is an international organization--we should try to help. Also, this law
will affect people travelling to or through Canada.

Here are some measures contained within the new law (non-Canadians take
particular note of #5--and remember that those guys swap data with the U.S.
BATF and other agencies on a regular basis):

1-Enable the Justice Minister to pass further regulations pertaining to
firearms without Cabinet or Senate consultation.

2-Grant warrantless powers to search (euphemistically called inspections)
residences to police or persons designated under the Firearms Act. Who
these people are has not yet been identified.

3-Deny people the fundamental right to remain silent. Gun owners must
"give the police all reasonable assistance" and "provide police with any
information" in the execution of their powers "relevant to the enforcement
of this Act."

4-Deny people the fundamental right to freedom of association by prohibiting
them from owning firearms because they "cohabit with" or are "an associate
of" someone previously prohibited from owning firearms.

5-Create a national registry of ALL firearms. Handguns had been previously
registered in Canada since the 1930s with limited utility. The new
registry will include firearms of those visiting Canada to hunt or shoot
target matches.

6-Ban an entire class of firearms. Those being .25 and .32 caliber or any
handgun with a barrel less than 104mm (about 4 inches) in length.
According to the authors of the new law, these short barreled pistols are
"cheap, inaccurate and good only for self defense" ( taboo!) and "serve no
legitimate sporting or collecting purpose".  Many of the firearms issued
to Canadian police until recently fit this same definition. (Who knew the
SW model 10 was cheap and inaccurate ?)  Current owners of firearms in
this class are grand fathered for possession, purchase, and sale.

7-Tough "new" mandatory sentences of five years for crimes committed with
firearms. This in spite of the fact the tough old "mandatory" sentences
created in Canada's last round of gun control ( mid '80s) are rarely given,
but are instead routinely bargained away for guilty pleas.

So what can you do? You can write to their parliamentcritters and tell
them that you will cancel your plans to vacation (and spend lots of money)
in Canada if C-68, The Firearms Act, is made law. You can tell them that
you are a sportsman who will no longer hunt in Canada. Or just tell them
they are a bunch of weenies. (You may not have vacation plans in Canada, or
may go anyway--they won't know... The important thing is that many hunters
_will_ stop going there, where hunting is Big Business, so if we tell them
our reasons, they will understand the nature of their error when the results
become manifest.)

Fortunately, they've made it easy to send emails directly to the Canadian
Parliament via their bulk email server:

www.earth-net.net/pac/canada/federal/index/html


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A one-way ticket to Amchitka 1/2
Date: 05 Sep 1998 07:49:00 -0700


FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 11, 1998
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
A one-way ticket to Amchitka

In my Aug. 25 column, "In fact, real rights ARE pretty much absolute,"
I argued the constitutional right to bear arms is automatically restored
when a prisoner leaves prison, just as is his freedom of religion, his
right to a trial by jury, etc. In response, former policeman W.L. wrote in:

"An interesting and thought-provoking essay.

"I tend to find myself straddling the fence. I don't want 'violent felons'
to have legal access to guns. The 81-year-old non-violent 'felon' certainly
shoots down the conventional wisdom, at least for me.

"But what about the guy who was convicted of aggravated robbery at 17,
23, and 29? Okay, paroling him at the end of two years on each five-year
sentence is insanity. But suppose he served all five years each time, and
demonstrates that when he is free, the temptation to use force to take
whatever he wants is too great to resist? Do you favor three strikes and
you're out? Or one strike?

"As a former police officer, I can tell you that the barring of felons
from being armed was a pro-active tool. Granted, most of my experience was
in small towns. We knew who was trouble.

"And yeah, perhaps they did get stopped when someone else wouldn't. (The
reality is that few can drive a mile in city or town traffic without
violating some traffic law!) I am certain that you will admit that there
are some violent predators in our midst. I will grant that their existence
is often used as an excuse to violate the rights of others.

"When a felony was what most people think of as a felony (murder, aggravated
robbery, sexual assault, burglary, car theft (no longer a real felony in
Texas), aggravated assault, kidnapping, etc.), then laws banning felons from
possessing arms, makes sense to me. When felonies are defined as catching
the wrong kind of fish, shooting a predatory bird to protect you lambs,
or whatever the crime of the month is, then I agree with you.

"How do you balance it? Please don't tell me that the balance comes by
having everyone equally armed so they can resist on the street. I am a
handgun instructor (CHL type, not NRA). I run our local 'combat' matches.
There are very few licensed carriers (who have undergone licensing training)
that I would bet on in a crisis situation. I am not against a citizen
carrying a gun, but if push comes to shove, the mindset is the most
important factor. Regardless of the words that are used in a training
course (Have you made the decision that you could and would use a handgun
in an appropriate crisis situation?), the criminal who has decided to
strike has it all over a person caught flatfooted.

"Unless someone practices regularly and has had top end advance training
(Gunfight, Thunder Ranch, LFI, or something comparable), it is easy to be
a danger to self and others. The greatest advantage of CHL programs is
deterrence. For that reason, I support them. They put some criminals on
notice that anyone may be armed. But for actually using the gun, most
programs are woefully inadequate.

"I guess my bottom line is that I want some people disqualified from
exercising their Second Amendment rights. However, the criteria (felony
record) is most faulty. We will all soon be felons if they keep passing laws!

"But propose a workable solution that addresses the fears of those who know
that simply having a gun in their pocket is not an adequate solution. ...
That law enforcement has become abusive in many areas of life, I will not
argue. I fear a totalitarian state as much as you. At the same time, I am
not ready to give up on all corporate responses to the problem. Bad law
makes the situation worse, but all law is not ipso facto bad."

I replied:

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Perhaps the problem is the degree to which we have become accustomed to
"(young) ex-felons in our midst," so that we are now puzzling over how to
deal with this problem, instead of asking why we face such a problem.

 It seems we agree that far too many things are now called "felonies." If
we repealed 90 percent of the laws now on the books -- mostly the stuff
enacted since 1912 -- the whole issue would become much clearer. (Rape,
murder, and armed robbery were all illegal in every state by 1912. But why
should the same leniency standards apply to a convicted multiple armed
robber, as we apply to someone "caught in possession of the feathers of
a protected raptor," or "convicted of shifting fill dirt into a marsh" on
his own property, or "structuring his cash withdrawals to avoid the cash
transaction reporting requirement," etc.?)

Hand-in-hand with DE-criminalizing huge swatches of the federal register
and the state Revised Statutes (the smallest of the 34 volumes of the
Nevada Revised Statutes is titled "Criminal Laws," which always makes me
wonder, "What the heck are the OTHER 33 volumes for?"), we would indeed
need some kind of harsh new standards for repeat violent felons.

Judges and juries need the discretion to show mercy to some waist-high
kid who's just fallen into bad company, of course. Though I think getting
him out of his current urban environment and associations, by requiring
that he go live for two years on grandpa's farm, should be the minimum to
give such a kid a real chance to change his ways.

But once we're clear that we're NOT talking about folks who have merely
violated some bureaucratic edict, or engaged in some form of controlled
commerce without a federal license, etc., then I fear we need to get
reasonably tough:

1) Libertarians, in general, favor the death penalty. With freedom must
come REAL "responsibility for one's actions" - not the make-believe, free-
of-consequences variety cynically promoted by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I have a problem with capital punishment only because it seems to get
dissimilarly applied based on race and social class. Also, as currently
"enforced," it's little more than a vastly more expensive form of life
sentence.

However, at the very least we can and should certainly change the way we
treat officers and armed civilians who kill perpetrators IN THE ACT. I'm
thinking of medals, parades, and large cash rewards from the Chamber of
Commerce.

2) End parole and probation. Some statutory sentences would have to be
shortened to account for the fact that we now frequently sentence for 15
years, in hopes the jerk will serve four. But if judge and jury concur that
a crime is worth 30 years, that means we don't want to see this guy outside
again until his hair's white and his arthritis is too bad to allow him to
even THINK of pulling a second-story job.

3) Exile. The notion that a judge should ever have to deal with a defendant
back on a THIRD violent felony strikes me as an admission of systemic
impotence. The lenient sentence for the first offense, it should be made
clear, constitutes "society giving you one more chance to 'get it.' The
second time around, no such "benefit of the doubt" makes any sense. We do
own the Aleutian islands, don't we? Tattoo these guys "Rapist" (the real
thing -- don't give me "date rape") or "Murderer," or whatever, load them
up with a couple months worth of dehydrated food, a knife and a shovel,
and air drop them into a fogbound hell.

Escape? Tell them "We don't care if you escape, but there's a $20,000
reward (the cost of a mere eight months of keeping the loser locked up) for
anyone who ever finds you off this island and shoots you dead through that
tattooed bulls-eye on your forehead, no questions asked."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: And close with love
Date: 05 Sep 1998 07:49:00 -0700


FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 15, 1998
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
And close with love the way you do ...

G.B., well-meaning employee of a major aircraft manufacturing firm, writes:

"I just had the pleasure of reading your Aug 16 column" (on the harassment
of Miami's Joe's Stone Crab by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.)
"However, without providing/allowing a general public response to the people
that cause these things to happen, you're nothing more that a noisy gong;
you're preaching to the choir; flapping in the wind (like the rest of us).

"Would it be to much to ask for you to include a statement at the end of
each of your articles that reads something like:

" 'If this bothers you, write to: Appropriate Person, Street Address,
Somewhere, USA, and express your feelings (politely)'?"

I replied:

Although I will occasionally list an address to send funds, or ordering
info for a book, or contacts for a relevant and admirably principled
organization (The Fully-Informed Jury Association, Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights,
the Separation of School and State Alliance), I purposely do NOT do what
you suggest.

Your implication is that if a reader writes to some government
administrator, or his or her own congressman, it will do some good.

Let's stipulate that if they receive a thousand such letters they might
"pull" or delay passage of some measure until the heat dies down ... though
it'll be back under a different name, never fear.

But outweighing that, at least two BAD things can happen: 1) The letter
writer gets added to a list of "anti-government extremists," which will
bring a visit from two FBI "suits," or an IRS audit, or the first ATF
inspection in years of your FFL license.

This is not mere paranoia. Red Hafter, a champion Olympic pistol marksman
from Arizona, recently wrote to his senator, John McCain, to protest the
assault weapons ban. McCain promptly forwarded that letter to the BATF --
proudly informing the 73-year-old Mr. Hafter he had thus "taken care of the
matter." Within weeks, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms visited Red for the first audit in decades of his Federal Firearms
License. (Yes, those guilty of record-keeping errors have actually been
JAILED.)

2) But the even worse thing likely to happen, is that the letter-writer's
anger is thus ASSUAGED. He or feel she has "done something about that
problem." With the anger thus vented, he washes his hands of the matter.

The problem is that we have gone far past the point when letters will do
any good. You are merely providing the phrases they will test out in their
"focus groups" and feed back to you. All that will do any good now (short
of violent revolution or secession, which I do not yet endorse) is a much
more active and widespread application of the principles of civil
disobedience or resistance. For that to happen, people's anger and outrage
have to BUILD ... not be vented in fruitless mouthings, about as effective
as kicking your stalled car.

So, please don't write any letters. Instead, GET MAD. And then figure out
some way -- hopefully a way that will not put you, your family, or even the
evil bureaucrats and tyrants themselves in the way of any real bodily harm
(yet) -- to disobey, to monkey-wrench, to flout, to RESIST.

This can be as "minor" as figuring out ways to store your family's wealth
in gold (untracked and unsupervised by any government agency), rather than
subsidizing and patronizing the regulated banks which have become
government-agencies-by-extension, with accounts which the government can
track or seize at will. (Thumbprint required for check-cashing? Consider
marketing a flesh-colored plastic glue-on for people's thumbs, carefully
scribed with the authentic thumbprint of John Dillinger. As long as there's
no criminal intent ...)

The government tries to ban firearms? Make it your personal mission to
stockpile 10 times more firearms -- and 100 times more ammo -- than your
granddad ever did, and to teach five more citizens how to pick out and
shoot a militia-style "assault rifle."

The government wants to stack juries with pro-government stooges? Instead
of trying to get out of jury duty, shuffle down there in a bowling shirt,
play dumb, and get empaneled. If you're convinced the accused is actually
a violent predator who hurt a real, human victim, then of course you must
throw the book at the SOB. But if he's merely being railroaded for standing
up on principle against some bureaucratic edict, doing things that wouldn't
even have BEEN against the law 90 years ago, then argue to acquit, or (at
the very least) HANG THAT JURY, as is your right ... and the defendant's.

For a much longer list of suggestions, I suggest Claire Wolfe's "101
Things to Do Till the Revolution," from Loompanics Unlimited, P.O. Box
1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368, at $20.90 postpaid, volume discounts
available ([e-mail].)

But "polite letters"? Oh, please.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].

***

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."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A one-way ticket to Amchitka 2/2
Date: 05 Sep 1998 07:49:00 -0700


It would be very interesting to see what kind of society would develop on
that island (among those who aren't promptly murdered for their supplies by
the other inmates) after a couple of years. I suspect it would be one that
would make even those fellows yearn for their previous, soft life in the
lower 48 ... or even for the certainties of three squares and a dry bunk in
the Big Hotel.

Would they develop harpoons and kayaks and learn to hunt seal? How many
would die among the ice floes? I seem to recall that after our submarines
cut off their resupply ships, the Japanese we found still occupying a
couple of those islands in 1943 or '44 were little more than living
scarecrows, subsisting on mice, moss, and boiled boots.

The argument will be made that we've got a million people on prison, and
you can't drop a million people on the Rat Islands. But as we've been
discussing, the first half million go away when you legalize and pardon the
pot-smokers, alone. Keeping only those guilty of violating laws enacted
before 1912, you could open the doors of virtually all the /federal/ pens,
and start sending the guards their unemployment checks tomorrow. Even some
professional criminals might find a different line of work, once they
figure out there's no more revolving door.

How many recalcitrant feral retards do we have in this country, who just
plain need killing, and who we would thus be doing a favor if we instead
handed them a parachute, a book of matches, and 30 pounds of dried beans?

It may sound a little far-fetched, but what we've got now is not going to
stand, and if we don't do something a LITTLE more bold and effective, we're
going to see vigilantes lynching 20 at a time, which I do NOT favor, given
the likelihood of mistaken identity, the loss of any shred of due process,
etc.

Finally, I fear we must agree to disagree on Concealed Handgun Permits.
The government CANNOT convert a right into a privilege, available only by
permit or license, and then infringe the rights of the vast majority as
they furiously search for the occasional violator of their unenforceable
new "malum prohibitum." Governments have shown, again and again, that they
will NOT stop at what is "modest and reasonable."

The 1916 Harrison Narcotics Act was moderate and reasonable, as such laws go.
"We're not going to ban anything," the federals said, "because we have no
such constitutional authority. All we're asking is that those who manufacture,
sell, or prescribe opiates or marijuana sign up, get registered, get issued
a license. All perfectly routine -- no one will be turned down. This is NOT
a precursor to regulating this part of medical practice completely out of
existence; trust us. We just want to make sure we can guarantee purity,
safety, and accuracy in labeling."

Yeah, sure. It took just 18 years before they broke every one of those
promises, giving us a "Drug War" which has now been with us for 65 years.

Inner cities more peaceful now? Less crime and drug use? Ha! (And meantime,
dying cancer patients writhe in constant, unendurable pain until they beg
their families to kill them, because their M.D.s are afraid their "DEA
numbers" will be pulled if they write prescriptions for "too many"
painkillers.)

"We're not 'banning' the manufacture or sale of machine guns," Congress
said in 1934. "That would be unconstitutional. What are you Chicken Littles
squawking about? The National Firearms Act simply asks that machine gun
manufacturers and retailers sign up and get a little license, perfectly
routine, no one will be turned down. ..."

Write to the ATF today, tell them you're a law-abiding citizen who doesn't
mind undergoing a background check, and tell them you want to buy a license
to set up a little machine shop to mill receivers for Browning Automatic
Rifles in 30.06, on which you will then build up complete full-auto BARs
from imported spare parts kits, for sale to law-abiding CIVILIAN customers,
including members of the Unorganized Montana Militia, in keeping with the
intent of the Second Amendment and the 1934 National Firearms Act. Promise
to collect and remit their $200 "transfer tax" on each weapon you manufacture
and sell, and tell them your goal is to eventually produce and sell 10,000
new machine guns each year (militia-style, no "legitimate sporting use" that
you know of), to law-abiding American CIVILIANS, at a cost of $900 apiece.
See how far you get.

Barring a War of Western Secession -- which grows increasingly likely --
it'll be the same with handguns, within 10 years. Pretty soon they'll pull
your "firearms permit" for such crimes as trying to pay cash for medical
services to someone other than your "assigned health care provider."

And as for retaining ownership of any firearm NOT on your "concealed carry"
permit ... forget it. After all, no one can legitimately "need" more than
one or two, can they? And therefore we OBVIOUSLY have to do an annual
"courtesy home inspection" to make sure you don't have any extras, which
would only serve as a temptation to burglars ...

Are you ready to defend your freedom? You speak of mindset, of folks being
paralyzed because they really haven't considered the tough questions in
advance. Well: "Have you made the decision that you could and would use
a handgun to shoot and kill a uniformed government officer who was 'just
following orders,' attempting to deprive you or others of your/their Second
Amendment rights?" Would you aim for body mass, or for the bridge of the
nose? Let her lie wounded, or quickly close in to put another round in the
back of the head? Lift the hair, or shoot through it? And has it occurred
to you that when that day comes, the fellow guarding your 6 may be an
"armed former felon"?

The other side wants Total Victim Disarmament. Once we help them disarm
"just a few dangerous ex-felons," they're going to smile and start pushing
that wedge in, wider and wider. Ever been convicted of misdemeanor spouse
abuse? Ever agreed to go to a mental health care facility for 72 hours
observation to calm down a concerned loved one because you got depressed
and hit the bottle for a week after a close friend or relative died? Sorry,
no firearms for you.

Shooting ranges? All shut down due to noise and lead pollution. Ammo? That
box of 20 shells will be $220, thanks to the Moynihan thousand-percent ammo
tax ... but don't worry, the extra money goes to the medical care of gang
members ("little children") recovering in the hospital after being shot
while committing grand theft, while the officers who shot them face
million-dollar civil liability suits.

Pleasant Dreams,

-- V.S.

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
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."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 2nd amendment gone
Date: 07 Sep 1998 08:07:00 -0700


IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT GONE?

I received this email regarding content in school books. Just FYI, I need to
check my kids history books.   Chris

        "Discontent is the first step in the progress of men and nations."
          Visit Rebellion's Bunker at http://members.xoom.com/grizz/
       Mirror site at http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/kirkland/235/
                                     ===============================
-----Original Message-----

I just wanted to pass the word that the new history books in elementary
schools that have just been released have the "Bill of Rights". 2nd
amendment says "Not applicable". Organized Militia such as Police and
Military are the only ones to own guns. Please pass the word.

Thanks Wendi

CHECK YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL BOOKS VERY CAREFULLY!!!

CONNECT THE DOTS
Dot Bibee ([e-mail])
Knoxville, TN
Ph/FAX [phone]

JOIN THE CONSTITUTION COALITION TODAY!!



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UN MEETING RESULTS (Gun Control) 1/2
Date: 07 Sep 1998 08:07:00 -0700


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


Hi gang!
I just returned from Argentina late last night and my report 1 # is
ready to go ! Report 2 # will be ready for circulation in a few days.
Please feel free to contact me for further clarification on this report.
Donna Ferolie
================================================================
September 6, 1998

Report on the meeting of the open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc
committee on the elaboration of the comprehensive international
convention against organized crime (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Why should gun owners concern themselves with the United Nations? After
all, what jurisdiction do the U.N bureaucrats have for sticking their
noses into the Canadian, U.S.A, Brazil etc ....debate ? To answer this
question one has to ask themselves another question: why is Canada and
the U.S congress passing one bill after another to disarm, one step at a
time, the civilian populations of their countries ? The United Nations
has made it abundantly clear that it is serious about disarming American
civilians (as well as other countries around the world. Involvement by
the United Nations is actually quite convenient as long as voters do not
object. Here is an example of a statement released by the UN on December
22, 1995. The UN announced the launch of a study of small arms.

According to the UN, small arms "are increasingly associated with
crime, accidents and suicides, and form a major source of illicit
profits for transnational criminal networks.... while trade in major
weapons is on the decline, small arms is spreading".

The worldwide survey of firearms ownership is being financed by the
Japanese government. The Canadian government is supplying a number of
gun-control bureaucrats to assist in the UN project.

In other words the Canadian government as well as other member states
are trying to come through the back door in order to ram further
restrictive gun control legislation down the throats of the international
firearm community. Our own government is hiding behind the United
Nations to carry out the civilian disarmament they did not think they
could get away with by themselves. With the end of the cold war,
the United Nations has shifted it focus to gun control and fighting
drugs as a way of continuing to justify its existence.

According to my conversation with the International Centre for Criminal
Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (which is a neutral body within
the U.N), many government delegates are very aware of the fact that any
new international legislation will do absolutely nothing to fight crime,
because it is the governments themselves who are responsible for the
spread of military firearms. Governments including the U.S order large
quantities of firearms with the same serial number for training
purposes.

When civil unrest arises in other countries these firearms are sold. The
natural sequence of events leads to the trickling down of such firearms
to the civilian populations. Governments are aware of this fact, but the
hidden agenda is to control the civilian populations by targeting all
small firearms.

ATTENDANCE AT THE UNITED NATIONS MEETING IN BUENOS AIRES

Fifty representative states with 155 delegates were present at the UN
international convention concerning organized crime. This was a larger
turn out than expected. Sadly enough there were only three pro-firearm
organizations in attendance; they were the NRA, Sporting Shooters
Association of Australia and myself (from Canada).

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUENOS AIRES MEETING

The United States of America delegation proposed a recommendation for
future confidentiality thus not permitting NGO's to participate. The
chairman of the meeting allowed Tom Mason from the NRA to respond to
this. Mr. Mason strongly encouraged the entire delegation to allow
future NGO involvement considering that the United Nations is moving in
the direction of greater transparency. This motion was supported by the
chairman of the committee. This was a major feat considering the
recommendation, if carried, would have blocked any future involvement.

The Canadian delegation was shocked at my presence and as the days worn
on they tried to distance themselves. On the third day I was asked where
my NRA friend was seated, and there seemed to be an issue around me
taking another delegates seat. I had the opportunity to inform the
majority of delegates that the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department would
not approve my attendance at these meetings. Moreover, I had the
opportunity to lobby many delegates while at this convention. I gathered
information on their regional gun control legislation as well as what
they were proposing internationally.

Some of these conversations transpired during working hours and some
were after hours. For instance, lunch with a Japanese delegate and
supper with three delegates from Lebanon. I hope the Japanese delegation
appreciated my photos which were taken at this years Grand American Trap
Shoot in Ohio; they had no idea of the extenr of such clay target
shooting! Other lobbying efforts were made to such member states as
Brazil, South Africa, Netherlands, Finland, Argentina, Australia and
Poland. According to the NRA our presence alone plays a vital role which
can not be underestimated. In my opinion it was as though our physical
presence served as a constant reminder of millions of sports shooters
from around the world.

In the last year I have been communicating with many countries from
around the world that feel no different than we do. They are frightened
by what they see coming down the pipe at the U.N. level. Attending this
meeting allowed me the opportunity to speak on their behalf to their
state delegates.

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia ( S.S.A.A ) made a
submission to the committee to work with them throughout the process. To
draw upon their expertise and warned that the high costs associated with
registration would only serve to drive people out of the system and into
the black market. The S.S.A.A would draw upon the expertise of gun
collectors in order to establish a better tracing system. Keith Tidwell,
National Executive Director feels that it is better that we offer
something to the committee in order to ensure future cooperation at
these meetings.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UN MEETING RESULTS (Gun Control) 2/2
Date: 07 Sep 1998 08:07:00 -0700


CANADIAN DISCUSSION PAPER

The two Canadian delegates present at this meeting were; Keith M.
Morrill, Department of Foreign Affairs, and Jamie Deacon, Director
Anti-Organized Crime, Department of Solicitor General of Canada.

It was quite interesting that the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department
was ready to submit their discussion paper concerning firearms at this
meeting. It further reveals the Liberal government's unwavering
determination. A copy of the Canadian Discussion Paper CICP/CON/WP will
be submitted in its entirety within the next few days.

After reviewing the Canadian discussion paper concerning firearms, I had
the opportunity to query Mr. Morrill. I asked him if he was responsible
for writing the paper which he vehemently denied. Nevertheless I
continued to lambaste him with question upon question. For example, I
asked him to respond to the statement, "Agreement will be needed on
which firearms are to be the target of the protocol ie: those proven to
be of criminal interest." What the heck does this mean? What firearms
are of interest to criminals? Does this encompass any repeating
firearm? There was no explanation provided - simply a shoulder shrug.

Another statement from the paper was, "Canada also works closely with
industry, non-governmental organizations and other interested parties in
this area. Oh REALLY? What industry did Canada consult? What
non-governmental organizations were involved? Wendy Coukier and her
coalition? Again, Mr. Morrill was unable to respond. Will this
universal registry system price us out of existence? Mr. Morrill did
say that his government relays very little on NGO's feedback considering
they have all figures and facts at their finger tips. He also went on to
say that "the Canadian government knows what is best for Canada."
My response was "POOR CANADA!"

I also reminded the distingushed delegate that if his government relys
on government statisitics they must get very confused considering that
Statistics Canada reports on firearms and offences do not correspond
with the Justice Statistics and their statistics do not jive with the
RCMP statistics.

Other notes form the Canadian discussion paper included the following:

* States should adopt effective methods of firearms identification and
tracing.

* States must improve cooperation and exchange of information and data
for law enforcement purposes.

* States must pursue greater international cooperation through mutual
assistance regimes in prosecution relating to the illicit trafficking of
and manufacturing of firearms, their parts and components and
ammunition.

Mr. Morrill also indicated that his government is not likely to alter
from its course and the ONLY way to change their mission is by turfing
the Liberals at the next election. Needless to say, I will be
communicating with the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department within the
week. It was confirmed by other delegates that Canada is most definitely
leading the firearms control brigade!

The Switzerland delegation submitted a paper which requested the need
for global firearm registration. They also focused on three techniques
for marking weapons, ie: Laser marking within the material, stamp
marking or raws and marking of colours or synthetics with glass bubbles.

The U.K and Northern Ireland submitted a paper which emphasized the
marking of firearms for the purpose of commercial sale within the
importing country or permanent private importation, so that the source
of the firearms can be traced. They encourage the need for a universal
registry system. They encourage the adoption of appropriate measures
to prevent the reactivation of deactivated firearms, when such
reactivation is a crime under state's domestic laws. They are
encouraging support and cooperation of manufactures, dealers, importers,
exporters and commercial carriers of firearms to prevent and detect the
foregoing illegal activities.

A copy of the Canadian and UK proposal as well as Mexico, Switzerland
and Africa's responses is forthcoming.

GOALS: To work closely with the NRA, and the Sporting Shooters
Association of Australia in order to be a voice for millions of firearm
enthusiasts around the world. Our continual presence will help balance
the tables of justice so that both sides are equally presented at these
UN workshops.

OBJECTIVES:

* To follow up with the various delegates within the next two weeks.
This will further open the doors of communication but it will also foster
relationship building and in turn this will encourage future reciprocal
sharing of information.

* Share results of the U.N meetings with the firearm community around
the world. Otherwise the doors will remain closed to the general public.
Remember these United Nations meetings are forumulating public policy so
it is vitally important that we are aware of their proposals.

This was a prepatory meeting for what is to come in future. Basically
the delegation banged up there frame work and now they must fill it in.
Many meetings are scheduled for the next two years; all can not be
attended, but some kind of visable presence must be maintained. It is
the goal of this committee to have all recommendations implemented by
the year 2,000.

Please feel free to share this information with various web sites, news
groups and your local media.

Additional information regarding this meeting's discussions and
recommendations and the U.N initiative for global disarmament is
forthcoming.

Donna Ferolie
3043-20th Side Rd
Hilton Beach, Ontario
Canada POR 1GO

UN - Alabama Committee to get us out of the UN
http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com

GLOBAL GUN CONTROL
http://www.chambana.com/~CCG/ccun.htm

Watch the UN rag burn!
http://www.aloha.com/~nonperzon/animates/unburn.htm
*** UN - A Constitution for the united Nations of the World
http://www.universalway.org/globalgvt.html

+++ GUN CONTROL - 2ND AMENDMENT +++
*** The World Wide Web GUN DEFENSE CLOCK
http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html
*** FIREARMS & SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.tfs.net/~grizz/page5.html
*** CRIMINALS FOR THE PREVENTION OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP
http://members.tripod.com/~NoGuns4U/
GunsSaveLives
http://GunsSaveLives.com/
Dial 911 and DIE!
http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
http://www.gunowners.org
GUN - DISARM AMERICA STATE DEPT 7277
http://harvest-trust.org/7277.htm
*** GUN - MORE GUNS LESS CRIME
http://www.tsra.com/Lott.htm
*** Second Amendment Journals
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/
*** Dedicated to the proposition that the Second Amendment applies...
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/
*** PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/kleck.html
*** HOLLOW POINT DIRECTORY -Updated July 6th, 1998 with over 1,800 LINKS
*** AMERICAN FIREARMS INDUSTRY
http://www.amfire.com/
http://www.hollowpoint.com/

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO [e-mail]
APFN ONELIST: http://www.onelist/subscribe.cgi/apfn
http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/apfn/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hyperbole, schmerbole!
Date: 09 Sep 1998 07:21:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: GSL List <[e-mail]>

Just a quick note on last night's "festivities" at the
Tucson Rod & Gun Club...

I'm frequently accused of wearing my heart on my sleeve all
too often in my written communications. The accusations usually
come from some "Can't we all just get along?" individuals who
are downright insulted by my steady criticism of organizations
or individuals who I see as threats to our liberty.

That's fair enough, and the more constructive the criticisms I
receive usually get taken to heart and applied to my "internal"
system of checks and balances.

Tonight, though, I won't leave you with a rant or seemingly
incoherent tirade against the "machine and its minions" over
which I've been beat upon for my more "colorful" scoldings in
the past. Tonight, I leave you with a peek at some of the dialog
which greeted a few of "us" at the TR&GC's fundraiser, starring
the NRA's chief lobbyist and Executive Director of ILA (the
NRA's Institute for Legislative Action), Tanya Metaksa.

--

Early on in the evening (after Kolbe arrived and none-too-
skillfully attempted to act like I wasn't there... I was handing
out paperwork that shows the money trail of exactly why he's not
allowing the club's membership to interfere with his contributions
from the developers and realtors who want the Club to vanish) John
Zajac, a Libertarian U. S. Senatorial candidate, and I approached
Metaksa -- whom we both know from numerous face-to-face meetings
and lengthy discourse -- to ask a few questions about NRA-ILA
rating policy.

Abbreviated and from memory. John, Peter, Allen and Doug can
correct any small details, but this is how it went down:

After asking Tanya if she actually reads any of the candidate
responses from ILA's enormous questionnaires, John asked if
*any* Libertarians, John asked if Libertarians would be rated
by the NRA this year.

Tanya: "If we've got room," adding, "... if there's a race."

Period. End of story. She then got up and walked away.

A certain "newbie" who was standing with me (and directly in
front of Sandy Froman, NRA's current 2nd vice president and
future president) asked, "Who is this bitch?" (to which I
explained her as being ILA's top dog) and added, "That woman
is a bag of shit, ya know what I mean?"

Later in the evening, John and I (along with several other
curious onlookers) approached Metaksa once again, this time
with our game faces on.

I asked how ILA could reconcile their "A" rating for Kolbe
when the NRA's state affiliate, ASR&PA, rated him with a
"generous" "C" rating?

She absentmindedly responded, "It's a free country... freedom
of speech... they can do whatever they want."

I said, "That's not what I'm asking, Tanya. I just want to know
if you find a certain incongruous nature to the same organization
giving the same candidate two such disparate ratings."

No answer. Silence.

John breaks in to ask if he can get her his late questionnaire
and perhaps get her to look at it and rate him. He also wants to
know if he should send it to a different address just to make
sure she sees it. She begrudgingly stands up and fishes out a
business card for him and tersely tell him to send it there.

I break in and ask her if, when she addressed the Libertarian
Party's national convention this summer, she told the party
leadership that ILA would only rate candidates from the third
largest political party in the United States "if they had room."

She replied that she was invited there to speak on whatever
subject she chose -- but that she doesn't remember what topic
she spoke on -- and that she didn't speak to anyone about
candidate ratings.

I said that I only wanted to know because the party leadership
might find that statement very interesting, that and because I
have to work with them.

She said, "Well then, *you* go and deal with them."

John gets a few more words in, but she just sits there,
motionless, and refuses to say anything to him. I turn away,
stunned and incredulous at her rude and unwarranted behavior,
but Doug Gugler approaches her and asks for a business card,
too. She says...

"This is BS."

Doug, stunned, told her he was a member and supports the NRA,
and asks why she would say that to him.

She fishes out another card and says...

"This is complete BS... I don't have a violin."

End of story. End of all conversation.

--

No personal hyperbole. No ranting and begging for justice.
Just the facts.

This is how the NRA treats its dues-paying membership. Worse yet,
this is how the NRA treats one of its "own" (yours truly) who
they've twice sent to Capitol Hill to testify on their -- and
the American People's -- behalf. And if that weren't enough,
that's how the NRA treats two candidates who are legitimately
vying for the People's vote to represent them -- and the NRA --
in national office. This is how the NRA treats _YOU_.

Oh, just a quick update... ILA's Political Victory Fund is into
Kolbe for $3500 to date. The NRA's next president is now into
Kolbe for $1000 (that's a maximum individual contribution) going
into the primary election.

Like I said, no ranting or hyperbole-laden slams, just some
food for thought.

Sleep well,

Phil

                        Phil Murphy
            Libertarian for US Congress, AZ CD-5
           *************************************
                    MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
           3400 E. Speedway Blvd., Suite 118-338
                   Tucson, Arizona  85716
                    Phone [phone]
                     Fax [phone]
              E-mail: [e-mail]
            http://www.myblueheaven.com/murphy/
           *************************************
                     Obstes aut Servias
                      RESIST OR SERVE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Processed by WordSTAR for DOS 7.0 by Carl William Spitzer IV
               GOD save America from herself
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 2nd amendment gone
Date: 09 Sep 1998 07:21:00 -0700


On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:25:33 -0600 Chauna Pierce <[e-mail]>,
in a post to the Libertarian Party of Utah listserver, asks:

What is the title of the history book and who is the publisher?
Which schools is it in?  Details, not rumors.
Chauna

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

I just wanted to pass the word that the new history books in elementary
schools that have just been released have the "Bill of Rights". 2nd
amendment says "Not applicable". Organized Militia such as Police and
Military are the only ones to own guns. Please pass the word.

Thanks Wendi

CHECK YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL BOOKS VERY CAREFULLY!!!

CONNECT THE DOTS
Dot Bibee ([e-mail])
Knoxville, TN
Ph/FAX [phone]

JOIN THE CONSTITUTION COALITION TODAY!!

Copies to: [e-mail]
           [e-mail] (Chris)
           [e-mail]
           [e-mail] (Dot Bibee)




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: National ID
Date: 09 Sep 1998 07:21:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

To Whom It May Concern,

Via the federal Dept. of Transportation's office known as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Admin, certain agency regulations were proposed
in the middle of June, and the foundation for the "National ID" was put
into place. This DoT reg was promulgated on June 17 and the comment
period to object to this regulation was initially set for the first of
August. In response, I filed a letter which became the 4th objection so
received. Scott McDonald, webmaster of Fight the Fingerprint, has posted
my letter to his page at:

http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dot-becraft-reg-obj.html

Of course, the whole story of this proposed reg is explained on Scott's
page at:

http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

The reason I write now is because the comment period has, because of the
large number of comments, been extended to October 1. We need your help
with this effort to stop the National ID. All you have to do is either
copy my letter or adopt some of the sample letters Scott posted to his
webpage. It will only take you a few moments to "personalize" any of
these letters and send one in to the agency. Thus far, almost 2000
objections have been received. Each of these letters is also posted to
a specific DoT webpage, the URL of which may be provided by Scott.

If you want to stop the National ID, please take a few minutes and send
a letter of objection. It is just possible that this effort may stop
this program.

Larry Becraft


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The virtual president 1/2
Date: 09 Sep 1998 23:11:00 -0700


[From USA Journal On-Line:]

MONDAY SEPTEMBER 7, 1998

The virtual president

By Missy Kelly
Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com

"You know, by the time you become the leader of a country,
someone else makes all the decisions." -- Bill Clinton
September 4, 1998

Well, shut my mouth. The president of the United States
admits publicly that he is the puppet of larger powers --
that "someone else," in fact, "makes all the decisions."

Of course, those who understand how power really works in this
nation recognize the veracity of his statement immediately.
But for Bill to state it so openly is truly remarkable --
not just for its honesty, but for its recklessness.

In a glib and Freudian moment, it just slipped out.

It appears Bill is "getting it."

Clinton was reminded the week of Aug. 25 that The Agenda
Transcended the Man. He was given a heads-up that his removal
from office would have to happen. The New York Times intoned,
"But if there is no hope for the agenda, what need is there
for the man?" Garry Wills also called for his resignation,
writing, "[Clinton] would be saying that the goals he fought
for are more important than personal pride or prerogatives."
Other former sycophants in the press piped up using minor
variations of the same phraseology: Clinton should resign
because the "agenda" transcends the man. The Agenda is paramount.

Yet, Bill still didn't "get it" -- that in his pact with the
devil, the devil held the upper hand. In typical Bill psycho-
fashion, he thought he could once again charm his way out of
removal; and make a "show of force" to prove to his masters
that he still had the right stuff to salvage his career and
continue with the Agenda. To that end, his White House staff
-- a separate operation from the power brokers -- was told
by Bill to pull out all stops to save his presidency.

But suddenly there were leaks to the Washington Post that
there were more bimbos than just Monica in Bill's White House
closets. "I never had an affair with the President, but all
the others who have get to stay," Monica allegedly whined
to Clinton aide Marsha Scott while pleading to be returned
to a White House position.

More forcefully, the power brokers served Bill notice that
their demands for removal were to be taken seriously when
the Department of Justice, out of the blue, announced that
the President himself -- Bill Clinton -- was the subject of
a NEW 90-day investigation into campaign donation illegalities.
On three -- count 'em -- three separate prior occasions,
Attorney General Janet Reno had formally investigated such
charges and declared there was "nothing there." Publicly,
no new information had come to light, but suddenly there was
the alarming notion that there was a "there, there" and it
involved Bill Clinton himself.

The message: Bill, you will do what we tell you. We can do
this the easy way or the hard way. Start packing your bags.
Bill is "getting it," now.

Bill is resigning himself to his resignation.

The President has not yet identified for us who this "someone
else" is who really puppets the highest office of our land. So
for purposes of discussion, let's just give them an identifier.
Borrowing from John LeCarre's "The Night Manager," let's call
them "Flagship."

Flagship, of course, knows not only where all the bodies are
buried -- literally and figuratively -- but has the wherewithal
to pick through them all, choosing one misdeed after another,
exposing them one by one until Bill relents. It's blackmail.
And blackmail works unless you handle it in the manner Rep.
Dan Burton has in the past couple of days. Bill Clinton is
incapable -- truly incapable -- of doing what Burton did. Truly.

"You may find you can get away with virtual presidents,
virtual prime ministers, virtual everything." -- Bill Clinton,
September 4, 1998

This is another Freudian lament, verbalized by a Bill Clinton
who finally "gets it." He was and is the VIRTUAL PRESIDENT.
By his own admission, he was a front, with no power to make
decisions. By his own admission, they were made for him, by
"someone else." They were made by those whom Flagship had
placed in lower level, under-the-radar positions within the
cabinet. They didn't even have to ask Bill's permission. They
got their orders, and implemented them.

Bill's job was to pretend -- pretend he was the leader,
pretend he was in charge -- maintain the facade of a "virtual"
president in a "virtual" democracy where a "virtual" rule
of law exists. In fact, the levers of power were already
controlled -- controlled so precisely, in fact, as to make
the president irrelevant, controlled by people who have never
been elected to office, and whose names we do not even know.

Flagship cannot afford impeachment hearings. There is
an Agenda, and a timeline that must be maintained. It
is of utmost importance that the new leader be installed
immediately. Therefore, I would not be surprised if Bill
is gone within two weeks or less.

If you consider Bill's virtual presidency, you know the words
he spoke are true. He was so much a puppet that he even
dispensed with the appearance of business. He cut off daily
briefings, which every other president attended. He lengthened
the time between other regularly scheduled meetings. He hardly
ever meets -- or even talks -- to his cabinet members. Recall
Warren Christopher, the first Secretary of State, and William
Perry, the Secretary of Defense, expressing extreme frustration
that they could not get a meeting with the president, even in
times of crisis.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The virtual president 2/2
Date: 09 Sep 1998 23:11:00 -0700


Instead, poor, useless Bill was busy playing golf, jogging,
or on one of his many, many vacations. Having his weekly
dinners with his Arkie crowd, screening new movies, attending
fundraisers at the pace of 30 a month, playing host to a
legion of Lincoln bedroom guests, and having coffee with
drug smugglers, arms dealers, terrorists, communists and
crony capitalists. In between, he was juggling his many
women, coordinating their liaisons and cover stories.
Plus all that time he devoted to considering how he could
provide answers that were "legally correct" but "misleading"
in all of his many scandals. Phew, I am exhausted just
thinking about it.

How many times have we said during this presidency -- who
is really running this country when we have a president who
is missing in action? Time and again, it was apparent that
Bill Clinton was not on task doing presidential duties. But
for him to admit it, openly -- whoa! Surely he doesn't think
his scorched earth policy extends to his masters, does he?
Is he truly so arrogant that he thinks he can take them down,
too, in a child-like temper tantrum? If so, he is truly
playing with fire. But I suspect, no. Bill may have harbored
those thoughts last week, but is seeing the light, now. His
unguarded comments were purely Freudian meanderings of the mind.

Clinton made the reckless error of speaking his thoughts out
loud. As stupid as this was, it is not so surprising. It is
intimately a part of this man's sick psychology that he would
want to provide excuses for his problems outside of himself --
to explain that it really isn't his fault. After all, I don't
really have any power -- I am a virtual president. I am not
to blame. I am a victim -- I was just doing what I was told.

Bill has always been a victim of someone else, and never
responsible for his own actions. As we pull our love away
from him, it becomes ever so much more important to his
psyche that he win us over. He can't help himself. He must
explain, and win us back. Biographers have often noted that
Clinton would be in a room full of adoring fans, and one
person who wasn't enthralled. Clinton would devote all his
energy to charming that one person. There is pathology to
this man that is ingrained. Without reflected adoration,
there is no Bill Clinton. He ceases to exist.

But if he doesn't contain himself, and stop trying to make
public excuses that touch this close to the heart of power
in this nation, he's putting himself in extreme jeopardy.
Flagship must be assured that Clinton will never expose his
masters and the Agenda. And this is a real fear -- they,
too, understand the psyche of Bill Clinton.

When Bill resigns, he will have to go deeply off the radar
screen -- I mean no mention of him. Disappear. There can be
no distractions as the Agenda barges forward. But Bill's
psyche cannot tolerate this -- his must have sycophants
and lovers -- he is no one without the human mirror of his
success. I remind you of what happened to him after he lost
the governor's race in Arkansas 20 years ago. Study that
period. This was a pathetic man, deep in depression, who
approached perfect strangers and asked them why they hadn't
voted for him. It conjures up visions of a former President
calling up Larry King Live and blathering on that he's
lonely and misunderstood, ala O.J. Simpson.

Flagship cannot afford a Bill Clinton behaving this way,
and possibly exposing their Agenda. Therefore, I suspect
that not only will Bill Clinton be removed from office
-- i.e. forced to resign -- before the end of September,
but I also strongly fear that Bill will commit Arkancide
within the year.

Bill was always in "the game" for Bill. Hillary was always
in this for the Agenda. She has always believed that the
Agenda transcended the man, which is why she has always put
up with -- beyond rational endurance -- Bill's shenanigans.
She knew from the get-go that they were the chosen ones,
part of a select stable from whom the anointed, the
"someone else" Bill referred to, would choose to lead us
into convergence, the Third Way. This Third Way is part
of a long-term strategy that was developed 40 years ago.

Knowing this, Hillary stuck with Bill because her allegiance
-- above all else -- has always been to the Agenda. And
because this is still true, she cannot possibly stay with
Bill now that he has become a liability. To cheers and
salutations, she will divorce Bill Clinton shortly after
he resigns, and no one will blink an eye. She will divorce
him not because he's "done her wrong" but because he is
no longer useful. Then Hillary, in all her glory, will be
unleashed on this world. She will have her own, not reflected,
power most likely as Queen of the World through her new U.N.
position. Maybe things aren't looking so bad for Hillary,
after all.

Rahm Emanuel, in continuing his attacks against Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr, last week invoked the ghost of military
strategist Karl Von Clausewitz.

"Clausewitz [sic] said war is an extension of politics, by
other means." Odd. A former ballet dancer a student of Von
Clausewitz?

Would you agree that the Clintons and their supporters resort
to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions
and subterfuge to achieve their objectives? Would you?

Does the record of their actions comport with that statement? Hmmm?

Those are the exact words of Lenin, when he laid out his plans
for global communism.

Missy Kelly is a writer-researcher and political analyst.

⌐ 1998 Western Journalism Center

This page was last built 9/7/98; 1:50:59 PM. Site scripted with
UserLand Frontier. Direct corrections and technical inquiries
to [e-mail]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Our Hollow Republic
Date: 09 Sep 1998 23:11:00 -0700


[Courtesy of USA Journal:]

Our Hollow Republic - By Jon Dougherty

SEPTEMBER 8 -- Yesterday WorldNetDaily contributor and
investigative journalist Missy Kelly set the end of
September as the date she believes President Bill Clinton
will finally pass into history. I read her piece with
interest, as I read a similar piece a few weeks ago she
had written about the "shadow government" which really
pulls the strings in this world of ours -- including
the United States.

I don't know if she will prove to be correct, but her
analysis bears some fleshing out because Americans have,
for far too long, continued to believe that our career
politicians -- those depraved souls we keep sending to
Washington term after term -- are really responsible for
their own actions. I'd like to think they were at one
time but aren't any longer, and that assumption follows
Miss Kelly's conclusions.

First of all, to experienced politicos and Washington
Watchers, there can be no doubt that most -- if not all
-- legislation that gets passed inside the Beltway is
wholly illegal when you put each law to a constitutional
test. Granted, while many laws contain the color of
constitutionality in spirit, they don't measure up when
they are written into United States Code and put into
practice. The Drug War is a perfect example of this; I
cannot imagine US leaders a hundred years ago allowing
law enforcement agencies warrantless search and seizure
authority under any circumstances.

Today, however, those sorts of searches are accepted as
perfectly normal extensions of "legitimate" law enforcement
techniques, but not just for drug searches anymore [think
of a police roadblock to check for other things like
alcohol, guns, and out-of-date driver's licenses].

And there are many other examples. Gun laws which
blatantly violate the Second Amendment, government
seizure of private land for "environmental" reasons
without compensation to the landowner -- in violation
of the Fourth Amendment -- and so on.

Now, back to Miss Kelly's conclusions. How often have
millions of us publicly and privately asked our
legislators why they haven't done anything to either
prevent these overtly unconstitutional acts or, more
preferably, repeal the laws which don't measure up?

Maybe it's because Miss Kelly is right. Maybe it's
because they're not responsible for their own actions
anymore. Letting Bill Clinton slip by with obvious
infractions of numerous laws for six years ought to
prove this theory to any reasonable person.

Like Miss Kelly reported in her piece yesterday,
Clinton [while in Ireland] actually said that he
wasn't responsible for making decisions. He said
"decisions are made by somebody else," inferring
that there is some hidden, secretive power behind
not just the US government but most other western
governments around the globe as well.

So, if US presidents don't even have the ability to
govern on their own, then it's reasonable to assume
that congressmen don't have that luxury either. In
other words, perhaps all we have left is just a hollow
republic -- a facade, a "virtual" country, if you will
[thanks, Miss Kelly].

Why bring this up? Because I'm afraid, if Bill Clinton
is forced to step down from office in a couple weeks as
Miss Kelly asserts, people will be so relieved that they
will fail to see the big picture -- again.

Yes, I know that "rational" people don't believe such
things. Guys like Rush Limbaugh, for example, pooh-pooh
this kind of thinking as impossible, off-the-wall, and
reflective of an extremist. People like Larry King
would dismiss it as nothing but "right wing babble."

Indeed maybe it is. But if so, then I'd like these
"experts" to explain to me how it is that a president
who so overtly violates laws can get by with it? Or
how an attorney general can so flagrantly ignore the
law without punishment? While they're at it, perhaps
they'd care to explain why supposedly "independent"
congressmen [Republicans, pay attention] can hold a
majority in both Houses and still fail to punish a guy
like Clinton -- for six years?

Oh, I see -- it's because the opinion polls say the
American people don't want them too. Yes, that's
convenient, isn't it? Rush has said so himself -- how
can a poll of 800 or 900 people possibly reflect the
feelings of an entire nation of some 190 million
voting-age adults? No, that's too easy an out. In fact,
it's a cop-out.

These "experts" also never bother to explain that why,
regardless of the party which is in "control" of Congress,
this country has continued to follow a path towards
socialism for over 45 years? And why, despite who the
"ruling elite" happen to be, some things never change --
taxes always seem to go up not down as Americans endure
more gun control, more land seizures, increased federal
law enforcement abuses, fewer personal freedoms, more
domestic spying, and now -- after October, 1999, a
national ID card. Rush, Larry -- care to comment?

These are the trappings of a Republic? I think not;
these are the trappings of a group of "rulers" whose
strings are being pulled by somebody else. Somebody
"corporate." Somebody with lots of money [and money
controls countries].

The question is, what can Americans do about this
phenomenon? I'm not sure I have an answer for that.
Maybe there is nothing we can do except wait for it
all to come crashing down.

I'd like to think that voting can change things, but
then I think of how Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA] and Rep.
Lorna Sanchez [D-CA] came to power [via vote fraud]
and I wonder. There is always the recall election, but...

Some have suggested armed revolution. My question then
becomes, who has the guts to start it? And when? Under
what circumstances? And how to justify it? Who takes
the first step -- because there can be no turning back
once America has another "Fort Sumter?" No takers on
the horizon, as far as I can see.

Missy Kelly provided the answer, and perhaps she didn't
even know it.

Informing people that this "shadow elite" exists, and by
pointing to specific examples -- like Bill Clinton's own
words in Ireland last week -- that helps prove 'they' exist,
may just do the trick. If these elite hate one thing it
is the light of scrutiny. In that respect, they're like
cockroaches -- they scurry for cover in the light. ***



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: What I would like to see: total war
Date: 10 Sep 1998 16:52:49 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:49:10 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA09684; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:37:22 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA26542; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026021; Thu Sep 10 15:46:09 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

> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:15:41 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> Subject: CAS: Salon: "Stand by for total war"
>=20
> SALON | Sept. 10, 1998=20
>=20
>=20
> The embattled White House tries out a new strategy to fend off=20
> impeachment -- but if it doesn't work, stand by for total war.=20

I hope Clinton stays in until the bitter end. I hope all the dirty deeds
of all the players at the Federal level comes out. What we need is what
Thomas Jefferson talked about, War. So come on Clinton set up your War
room call out the Dogs of War, we the people are ready and waiting.
Not in arms and real blood but modern day war of words and truth
Here is Jefferson on the subject:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all
experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while
evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to
reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is
their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for
their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence,
1776. Papers, 1:429

"A first attempt to recover the right of self-government may fail, so may
a second, a third, etc. But as a younger and more instructed race comes
on, the sentiment becomes more and more intuitive, and a fourth, a fifth,
or some subsequent one of the ever renewed attempts will ultimately
succeed... To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and
years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood and
years of desolation. For what inheritance so valuable can man leave to his
posterity?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1823. ME 15:465

"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of
the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous
feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have
been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing
instruments in forging chains for themselves. But times and truth
dissipated the delusion, and opened their eyes." --Thomas Jefferson to
Thomas Lomax, 1799. ME 10:123

"It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and
steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same
agency alone we can be kept from falling back."=20
      --Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Campbell, 1797. ME 9:421

"Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect
institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of
principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on
the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept
off as long as possible." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME
15:325

"I have never dreamed that all opposition was to cease. The clergy, who
have missed their union with the State, the Anglomen, who have missed
their union with England, and the political adventurers, who have lost the
chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, will never
cease to bawl on the breaking up of their sanctuary."  --Thomas Jefferson
to Gideon Granger, 1801. ME 10:259

"[When] corruption.. has prevailed in those offices [of]... government and
[has] so familiarized itself as that men otherwise honest could look on it
without horror,... [then we must] be alive to the suppression of this
odious practice and... bring to punishment and brand with eternal disgrace
every man guilty of it, whatever be his station." --Thomas Jefferson to W.
C. C. Claiborne, 1804.=20
      (*)

"Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a
most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed,
and they now see for themselves."=20
      --Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801. ME 10:217

"Manfully maintain our good old principle of cherishing and fortifying the
rights and authorities of the people in opposition to those who fear them,
who wish to take all power from them and to transfer all to Washington."
--Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1826. FE 10:378

"Public opinion... [is] a censor before which the most exalted tremble for
their future as well as present fame." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams,
1816. ME 14:393

"The people cannot be all, and always, well-informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a
lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."  --Thomas
Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. Papers, 12:356.=20

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be
exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I
like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the
atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.=20

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson
to William Stephens Smith, 1787. Papers, 12:356.


=20






-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Here They Come-- Again
Date: 10 Sep 1998 18:34:00 -0700


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

The Senate Just Won't Quit
-- Look out for Free Speech Ban and Hatch's Horror Bill

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, 703-321-8585
http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, September 9, 1998)-- Well, the holidays are over and
Congress is back to work. And while you were at those weekend
barbecues enjoying your vacation, legislators in Congress were
scheming to rob you of your cherished rights.

Anti-gun legislation, that had previously been derailed thanks in
large part to your efforts, is back on track and could soon be voted on.

For example, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abruptly brought up
his Horror Bill for debate last week, but he could not get a Unanimous
Consent agreement that would have allowed a vote on the bill.

Gun owners should remind their Senators that they do NOT want Hatch's
anti-gun crime bill (S. 10). This bill still applies RICO (racketeering)
penalties to minor gun infractions and would increase penalties on gun
owners who take their kids handgun shooting without a written note of
permission.

In other news, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) promised
a vote on the Incumbent Protection Bill which would restrict the
free speech rights of citizens that organize together (like your
GOA) to influence legislative policy. While this legislation claims
to reform campaign finance laws, it would really prevent the ability
of groups like GOA to keep you informed on how your legislator is
voting. A vote on this bill is scheduled for tomorrow-- Thursday,
September 10.

HERE'S WHAT TO DO

* Urge your Senators to oppose Hatch's Horror Bill (S. 10) and the
  McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech (so-called "campaign
  finance reform"). Call 202-224-3121.

* Fax, email or mail the bottom "postcard" to pro-gun Sen. Bob
  Smith, asking him to object to any Unanimous Consent agreement
  that would allow a vote on S. 10.

  Here's the contact information for Sen. Smith:

  Phone: [phone]
  Email: [e-mail]
  Fax: [phone]
  Address: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510

-----clip-n-send-------

Dear Senator Smith:

I want to thank you for your bold leadership in opposing the Hatch
Horror Bill (S. 10). I understand that your "hold letter" has had a
tremendous effect in slowing down this legislation, and I commend
you for your efforts.

I have also learned that Senator Orrin Hatch tried to get a Unanimous
Consent agreement recently to debate this bill and vote on it. He was
unsuccessful. Regardless, I fear he may try again. If he does, I would
urge you to object to any Unanimous Consent agreement that would bring up
S. 10 for a vote.

Among the many problems in S. 10, this bill still applies RICO
penalties to minor gun infractions and would increase penalties on gun
owners who take their kids handgun shooting without a written note of
permission. Thank you for supporting my gun rights!

Sincerely,


Final note: Action on the Smith "Anti-Brady" amendment is expected
soon. We will of course keep you updated.


****************************************************************
Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting
up to date information, please consider subscribing directly to
the GOA E-Mail Alert Network. The service is totally free and
carries no obligation. Your e-mail address remains confidential,
and the volume is quite low, usually one or two messages per
week. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this
notice) to [e-mail] and indicate your state of
residence in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe,
reply to any alert and ask to be removed.


To which Richard L. Partridge responded:

Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Dear Senator Smith:

I want to thank you for exercising your bold leadership in opposing
the Hatch Horror Bill (S. 10). I understand that your "hold letter"
has been effective in slowing down this legislation, and I commend
you for your good work.

I have also learned that "my" Senator Hatch tried to get a Unanimous
Consent agreement recently to debate this bill and vote on it, and
was unsuccessful. However, I fear he may try again. If so, I strongly
urge you to object to any Unanimous Consent agreement that would
bring S. 10 up for a vote.

Among the many problems in S. 10, this bill still applies RICO
penalties to minor gun infractions and would increase penalties on gun
owners who take their kids handgun shooting without a written note of
permission. Thank you for supporting my gun rights!

Sincerely,

Richard L. Partridge
4480 N. Hwy 38
Brigham City, Utah 84302
435-734-2678
(PS. I find it most peculiar that I need to ask another senator
to stop the mischief of the senator who has been elected to serve me.)


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gunslinger Ad Takes Aim at Liberals
Date: 11 Sep 1998 08:14:00 -0700


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

I wish I lived in Maryland so I could vote for this guy. <g> Ed

Gunslinger Ad Takes Aim at Liberals

By DAVID DISHNEAU Associated Press Writer

FREDERICK, Md. (AP) -- Donned in gunfighter garb, Republican
Tim Brooks stares out from a campaign ad, a six-shooter on his
hip, a shotgun in one hand and a coiled rope in the other.

``Seen any liberals lately?'' the ad says.

Brooks, a 25-year-old candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates,
said Wednesday he thinks the ad is funny. His opponents disagree.

``How much more violence can that picture portray?'' Delegate
Louise Snodgrass complained.

Republican candidate Joseph Bartlett said the ad, which ran
in the Frederick News-Post, is silly and shows poor judgment.

And Delegate Sue Hecht, a Democrat from the same district,
said she was saddened by the ad in light of efforts to reduce
violence in schools.

``If this is supposed to be funny, I guess I'm not
sophisticated enough to recognize that,'' she said.

Brooks said his critics should lighten up.

``The whole purpose of that ad was to have people notice it, and
that's what happened,'' said the candidate, a mortgage marketing
executive and former Marine making his first run for public office.

Brooks is one of four Republicans seeking nomination for three seats
from Frederick and Washington counties. The primary is Tuesday.

Opponents said the ad was particularly insensitive given that Brooks
was charged with battery against his former wife in 1996. Prosecutors
later dropped the charges.

AP-NY-09-10-98 1601EDT




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: MA pols going after Federal CCW bill now
Date: 11 Sep 1998 08:14:00 -0700


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

For anybody who can't get to the page, this is the text:
Opponents Say Concealed Weapons Bill Jeopardizes Public Safety

By Melissa B. Robinson, Associated Press, 09/09/98 20:02

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Massachusetts Democrats have joined gun control
activists in an attempt to defeat legislation that would let gun owners
carry concealed weapons across state lines while also allowing off-duty
police to remain armed outside their home states.

``Giving private citizens greater latitude to carry concealed and loaded
firearms wherever they go means more illegal gun violence, more gun
accidents, more lives cut short too young, too soon,'' said Rep. Martin
Meehan, D-Mass., a member of the House Judiciary Committee that approved
the bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., last month.

The bill is scheduled for a House vote Monday under a procedure, usually
reserved for non-controversial measures, that does not allow any changes
on the House floor.

But the procedure, known as ``suspension of the rules,'' also requires a
two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority, for passage. Meehan,
a former state prosecutor, and Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., also a
Judiciary Committee member, said Wednesday they would lobby their
colleagues hard in the next few days to defeat the bill on the floor.

``This bill will not survive on the suspension calendar,'' said Delahunt,
a former district attorney.

As originally proposed by Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., the
legislation would have exempted off-duty law enforcement officers from
state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms.

But in the Judiciary Committee's crime subcommittee, McCollum succeeded
in changing the bill to also give civilians greater latitude in carrying
concealed weapons outside their states.

Under McCollum's version, at least 29 states that issue permits for
concealed weapons would be required to recognize concealed weapons
permits issued by other states.

Another 14 states that also issue permits, but with greater discretion,
could recognize out-of-state permits if their governors decide to do so.
That group includes Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

``This bill is an outrage to all of us who have fought so long and so hard
to set high standards'' for gun control, said state Rep. Michael Lawlor of
Connecticut, who attended the news conference.

Seven states, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and
Wisconsin, prohibit carrying concealed weapons and do not issue licenses.

``We cannot overstate the danger of this amendment,'' said Sarah Brady of
Handgun Control. Opponents also include some law enforcement officials,
including New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir.

Other law enforcement groups are strongly in favor, arguing that the
benefit of allowing off-duty police to defend themselves with concealed
guns outside their states outweighs any possible threats posed by extending
the right to other citizens.

Also, states already have the power to enter into compacts to recognize
each other's concealed weapons laws, they say.

``We don't think it's going to appreciably increase the amount of
individuals who are going to be carrying firearms,'' said Tim Richardson,
spokesman for the National Fraternal Order of Police, which supports the
bill and represents more than 277,000 officers.

Copyright 1998 The Boston Globe
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
-----------------------


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Darwin Award Runner-Up?
Date: 14 Sep 1998 21:47:00 -0700


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

How many needless deaths must we endure before the dangerous
practice of marshmellow roasting is finally banned? -Ed

Teen Dies in Campfire Accident

FOREST, Ind. (AP) -- A 15-year-old boy died when a metal roasting
stick lodged in his left temple as he and a group of friends roasted hot
dogs and marshmallows at a cookout.

Aaron J. Archibald was sitting around the campfire Saturday night at a
home in Forest, about 50 miles north of Indianapolis, when a friend
tried to put out a burning marshmallow.

``He was swinging the stick up in the air trying to put it out when the
metal part of the wiener stick came out from the wooden part, flew a
few feet and lodged in boy's left temple,'' Clinton County Sheriff Mike
Hensley said. ``It was just a freak accident.''

Archibald was taken to a Frankfort hospital before being taken to
Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, where he was pronounced dead.

AP-NY-09-13-98 2312EDT



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Will we finally be rid of Chucky?
Date: 15 Sep 1998 08:15:05 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 06:30:27 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05892;
    Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:32:25 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05889
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:32:21 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.14) id IAA27764
    for [e-mail]; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Today is the big day!  Will we finally be rid of Chucky Schumer or will we
have to wait until November?
Thought  you all might be interested in this campaign update from =
"Politics
1"
___________________________________________________________________________=

________
NEW YORK:

In the hotly contested Democratic primary for US Senate, ex-Congresswoman
Geraldine Ferraro and liberal Congressman Chuck Schumer appear in a dead
heat. New York City Public Advocate Mark Green is also running.  Ferraro
has seen her strong lead in the polls vanish in the face of Schumer's
unprecedented $8 million television blitz.  With over $13 million raised =
to
date, watch for Schumer to defeat Ferraro.  For Ferraro-who has raised =
less
than $3 million-this could be a devastating re-play of the 1992 primary
race for Senator that she narrowly lost in an upset.  For Green, the 1986
nominee against incumbent Al D'Amato (R/C), he's hoping for a low-turn
upset.  D'Amato appears a strong favorite to win re-election over any of
the three Democrats.  Schumer will also appear on the November ballot as
the Liberal Party nominee.  Schumer and Green are also competing in a
separate primary for the Independence Party nomination.  The Independence
Party is the New York affiliate of Ross Perot's Reform Party.  Conceivably,=

the possibility exists for Ferraro, Schumer and Green to all appear on the
November ballot-as, respectively, the Democratic, Liberal and Independence
nominees-and completely fragment the Democratic vote.  D'Amato is also
competing in the Right To Life Party primary against college professor Tom
Droleskey, who argues D'Amato is not sufficiently pro-life.  Although he
has no GOP primary opponent, D'Amato has already spent $11 million on
television ads.  This could end up becoming the most expensive US Senate
race in American history.  Five other third party candidates are also
running in the general election.  As an aside, Schumer is the only one of
the three Democrats who agreed to appear with President Clinton at a
Democratic Party fundraiser in the state today.


****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Chips                 1/2
Date: 15 Sep 1998 18:06:00 -0700


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

http://www.cyberhighway.net/~hushj/chips.html

"A Chip Behind Everyone's Ear"

Consider, for example, what Ronald Kane, vice president of Cubic
Corporation, a top maker of high tech control systems, had to say
recently about the profit potential of the implantable biochip.
"If we had our way," Kane remarked, "We'd implant a chip behind
everyone's ear in the maternity ward."

Today, the making of human cyberslaves is a highly profitable enterprise.
The business of creating humn cyberslaves translates into big, big money.
Trillions of dollars are at stake for able corporations supplying
government with computerized, smart I.D. cards, iris-scanning devices,
DNA blood analysis equipment, fingerprint digitization video displays,
and other forms of human control technology.

Stock market (Nasdaq) records indicate how very lucrative the making of
silicon cages can be. Recently, the stock of one tiny company, Comparator,
shot up an astounding 2,900 percent in just three days. This occurred after
the company's CEO announced that Comparator had invented an advanced type
of portable, biometric, fingerprint identification device.

Satan certainly seems to be inspiring the work and activities of the
world's largest, high tech corporations. As the Apostle Paul wisely
stated in the Scriptures, "For the love of money is the root of all evil"
(I Timothy 6:10). From the look of things, if enough money were to
exchange hands, most of America's giant, multinational corporations would,
today, eagerly compete to build better and more modern concentration
camps and more efficient guillotines. In other words, these greedy,
corporate chieftains have no scruples about making blood money.

Imagine a world in which every aspect of your life, past and present,
is encrypted on a personal ID card and stored on a nationwide data base.
Where virtually all communications media-soon to be 100% digital-are
automatically monitored by computerized phone taps and satellites from
control centers thousands of miles away. Where self-training neural net
and artificial intelligence data search systems scan for undesirable
lifestyles and target you for automatic monitoring.

Personal privacy was once considered the most sacred of our
constitutional rights; agencies were severely limited by law. All
that's about to change drastically thanks to a deadly combination of
extremely sophisticated surveillance technology, ubiquitous digital
information collection, and centralized interagency data exchange.

Until recently the "supersecret" National Reconnaissance Organization
did not exist-even though it has the largest budget of any intelligence
agency. They are responsible for the design, development and procurement
of all US reconnaissance satellites and their continued management once
in orbit. Recently photos have surfaced in the press of its huge new
complex being completed in Chantilly, Virginia. (Senator John Warner -
Liz Taylor's ex - has described the one million square foot complex as a
"Taj Mahal.") The NRO is eagerly implementing such technologies as
ultra-high storage capacity holographic films (allowing huge amounts of
personal information to be present on your ID card) and self-training
artificial intelligence software that tracks your personal data without
human intervention. A new era of ubiquitous surveillance is dawning.

A struggling military-industrial complex searching for new markets
for their technologies has merged forces with a government obsessed
with ever tighter control over the activities of the general public.
~
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan has proposed a "National Employment
Verification Card" that will be required for all employment in the U.S.
The card will, of course, have a magnetic data strip, and altering of
counterfeiting the card will be a federal felony offense.

There is a dedicated and aggressive effort underway to chart various
genetic features as part of one's personal information set. The feds'
goal is to have the ability to screen individuals for everything from
behavioral characteristics to sexual orientation, based on genetic
information embedded in your personal (and required) national ID card.

Biometric signature technologies have been developing apace. There is
even a technique available to translate human DNA into bar codes for
efficient digital transmission between agencies.

Are these science fiction story lines or the ravings of a paranoid
lunatic? I wish they were. As a former research engineer at Lawrence
Livermore Labs and other government labs, I watched some of these mad
schemes being hatched. This technology is on the street today or about
to leave the labs and believe me, it goes way beyond Orwell's worst
nightmares. Listen up and hunker down.

A fundamental shift in the legal definition of personal privacy is
occurring right now. A court-issued warrant used to be a universal
requirement for personal surveillance, such as phone tapping, observing
physical papers, and probing financial or medical records. Now, in this
new age of AI-driven monitoring and data tracking systems, there are no
pesky people in the loop. A computer doesn't need to seek a court warrant
to monitor every aspect of your private life. A self-training automated
surveillance system doesn't need permission to observe your movements
or communications.

Total data tracking is already commonplace for financial institutions and
private security operations. Tomorrow, it will be commonplace for all of
us. The technical elements of a massive surveillance engine are in place.
It's just a matter of turning the key to fire it up. Let's examine these
elements and why you should be concerned.

Universal Encryption Chip

Is sounds logical. The feds want to preserve privacy, so their story goes,
so they've announced that an encryption chip will go into all phones and
computers that they buy. But what do they really want in the long run?

How about a government-issue encryption chip in all personal
computers and communication devices? That way, the feds can deal
with drug smugglers, terrorists, kiddie porn merchants, and other
miscreants who use encoded messages.

Of course, they'd have to prevent tampering with the chip. In fact,
the technology to do just that has already been developed at Sandia
National Laboratory. Scientists there have developed an optical sensor
that uses a powdered silicon optical absorption layer in an optical
waveguide embedded in a chip. A micro photodetector detects even
the slightest intrusion into the chip package by measuring a slight change
in the photonic conduction through the waveguide. It can then send an
alert via modem to a central monitoring system to notify an interested
party that the device has been tampered with. Sandia is also developing
a microchemical intrusion detector that would be sensitive to the
chemical signature of human fingertips.

Is this all part of some master plan, or what?

In fact, in the near future, all encryption hardware and software will be
subject to federal registration/authorization. Possession of unauthorized
encryption/decryption capability will be punishable as a federal felony.
In other words, if it doesn't have a handy back door for NSA snoops, it
ain't legal.

We can further speculate that the feds will embed chips in all equipment
sold for use in data transmission, digital phone calls and all other
frequencies. Note: all new phone systems wired and wireless will be
digital in the next three years.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Chips                 2/2
Date: 15 Sep 1998 18:06:00 -0700


Intelligent Video

Nor would you know what's watching you. Security cameras are becoming
standard in corporate and government facilities. They may soon even
be required. Why? Ostensibly because they want to recover losses in
cases of theft, keep insurance premiums down, monitor petulant
employees and keep intruders out.

But the new genre of video cameras now coming out of the labs do a
lot more than that. They're intelligent. They can recognize faces,
motion, and other interesting characteristics. In fact, they behave
a lot like a human eye, with intelligent preprocessor abilities.

Intelligent cameras are needed because a security guard or cop can't
monitor the dozens or hundreds of video cameras in a large facility
(or dozens of satellite video surveillance channels). Intelligent
cameras use artificial intelligence-based object and motion recognition.
They scan for what a trained security guard looks for: certain motions,
clothing, faces; the presence of people in off-limits places. Instead
of watching 100 cameras, only a few at any time send pictures. A single
guard or a computer can deal with that.

In fact, a steady data stream from multiple intelligent cameras can be
uploaded to computerized monitoring facilities anywhere, coupled with
other automated observation systems.

The next big thing in intelligent cameras will be "content-addressable"
imagery. That means they'll automatically detect the content of
sophisticated patterns, like a specific person's face, by matching it
against a digital "wanted" poster, say. New software that can even run
on cheap personal computers makes that possible. MatchMaker from
Iterated Systems (Norcross, GA), for example, uses a fractal algorithm
that converts image data into mathematical form, automatically
recognizing and categorizing realtime "targets"-untouched by human
hands and tied into a centralized monitoring facility!

A related technology called focal plane array sensors (FPA) discriminates
objects at just about any distance. FPA makes it possible to use
neuromorphic sensors, modeled biologically on the human eye, which are
built into a camera to recognize a person or object by "associative
cognition."

Carver Mead at Cal Tech has designed a broad-spectrum "human-eye" sensor
using FPAs and 3D artificial neural network processors. To prove the
viability of such concepts, Raytheon, under contract with the Guided
Interceptor Branch of the Air Force at Elgin AFB, has developed "smart
eyes" using FPAs for recognizing objects in flight, thus relieving the
pilot of visual target recognition tasks while in a high-pressure combat
situation.

This technology is inexpensive, easily reproducible, and will be part
of standard equipment for fully automated, on-site visual and infrared
surveillance in the near future.

Langley Research Center (Hampton, VA) in conjunction with Telerobotics
International (Knoxville, TN) is taking a step further. They're developing
an advanced surveillance camera system that's even more intelligent: it
uses self-aiming and analyzes motion or other parameters. A fisheye
spherical lens views a very wide field of vision while a self-contained
image processing subsystem tracks several moving targets at once in
real time. Video for suspect targets can be transmitted in real time to
a security center.

These smart cameras are also getting incredibly tiny and low cost. The
Imputer from VLSI Vision Ltd. (Edinburgh, Scotland) is a credit card-
sized device that fits in the palm of your hand. It consists of a complete
CCD video camera mounted on a circuit board plus an on-board DSP
(digital signal processing) coprocessor for realtime image enhancement,
feature detection, correlation and convolution (for fast analysis on the
fly), and even an optional library of pre-stored feature data so that the
camera can independently recognize a specific face or other security-
oriented data. It can also download its captured visual data via
telephone line to a data collection and processing facility.

With everything on a few chips, intelligent cameras can now be mass-
manufactured like pocket radios. No need for security personnel-they
can be linked to a computer surveillance monitoring and data base
system.

This is where it gets really insidious. When the technology becomes
so cheap, tiny, and powerful, and no guards are needed, they can
sprinkle these things around like corn chips...secretly putting them
on every street corner, in every waiting room, office, wherever.

Keep smiling, because you'll never know when -
"You're on Candid Camera"
And Hey! Relax - they've just captured your surfaces.

Where it really starts to get hairy is when we enter the brave new
world of Biometrics. Biometrics is the process of gathering biological
information and converting it into data that can be uploaded into
automated systems for identifying you.

They can use your fingerprint (via automated fingerprint identification
systems), retinal scan, voice or other personal signatures. Miros of
Wellesley, MA has recently introduced a system called Face-to-Face,
using neural nets, that is particularly insidious. Unlike fingerprint
or palm recognition, it identifies your face "non-intrusively" (that's
technospeak for surreptitiously) with 99% recognition. It can even
identify your face when you add glasses or change your hairstyle.

There are biometric service bureaus like TRW that provide immediate
access to personal dossier information to prisons, banks, military bases,
research facilities, pharmaceutical companies, etc. The client simply
installs a retinal scanner or other device and transmits your image to
a service bureau, which sends back your complete dossier. This is big
business for these service bureaus. We're talking billions in government
and corporate contracts.

What's next? We can expect intelligent scanning systems will be installed
in supermarket checkout lines, lobbies, airports, stores, ATM sites, and
so on in the near future. Known shoplifters will be tracked from the time
they walk into the store. There'll be a cordon sanitaire around playgrounds
and day care centers.

What happens when the FBI ties its fingerprint verification system at
its National Criminal Information Center, with its library of over 250,000
fingerprints, into the national health care card system, employment ID
card, IRS, and just about everything else?

Resources

Who Owns Information? From Privacy to Public Access, Anne Wells
Branscomb, Basic Books, 1994.

Deep Black: Space Espionage and National Security, William E.
Burrows, Random House, New Yourk, 1986.

The Electronic Eye-The Rise of Surveillance Society, David Lyon,
University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Tuning In to Scanning-From Police to Satellite Bands, Bob Kay, TAB Books,
1994. (How to listen in on cordless telephones, military, FBI, Secret
Service, and NASA communications).

Undercover: Police Surveillance in America, Gary T. Marx, University
of California Press, 1988.

Privacy for Sale: How Computerization Has Made Everyone's Private
Life an Open Secret, Jeffrey Rothfeder, Simon and Schuster, 1992.

America's Secret Eyes in Space: The U.S. Keyhole Spy Satellite
Program, Jeffrey T. Richelson, Harper & Row, 1990

Hobbyist's Guide to COMINT Collection and Analysis, Tom Roach, 1330
Copper Peak Lane, San Jose, CA 95120-4271; DIY dirty NSA-style tricks.

Electronic Surveillance Manual, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division,
Office of Enforcement Operations, 1991.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fwd: OH PLEASE
Date: 17 Sep 1998 23:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Originating-IP: [208.194.215.188]

send replies to this guy at: [e-mail]


TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS WEBPAGE, YOU CLAIM THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE
KORESH GROUP WERE TORTURED BY THE US GOVERNMENT, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU
FROM. PART OF THE TRAINING I RECIEVED IN THE MILITARY WAS TO FIGHT
FIRES, I HAVE BEEN TO THE NAVAL FIREFIGHTERS SCHOOL AT TREASURE
ISLAND, CAL. AND I WATCHED THE FINAL DAY OF THE STANDOFF IN WACO. AND
AS PART OF A STUDY, IN A POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSE AT TEXAS TECH, I WILL
TELL YOU THAT UNLIKE YOUR PERSICUTION COMPLEX, DAVID KORSH HAD HIS
FOLLOWERS START THE FIRE IN THE BUILDING, THE SO-CALLED TANK WAS AT ON
END OF THE BUILDING,AND THE FIRE WAS STARTED AT THE OTHER END, ON THE
VIDEO TAPE THAT I RECORED STAIGHT FROM CNN AS IT WAS ON THE AIR, IT SHOW
A MAN WITH A TORCH RUNNING THROUGH THE COMPOUND. I ALSO HAVE NOT SHED
ONE TEAR FOR THE ADULTS THAT DIED AT WACO, THEY MADE THEIR DECISTION TO
DIED, WHEN THEY KILLED COPS, YES, THEY THE FOLLOWERS OF KORSH, WERE THE
CRIMINALS IN THE EYES OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.THEY KILLED NOT
ONLY MEN THAT WERE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, BUT MEN IN GENERAL, HEY
MILITIA PEOPLE MURDER IS ILLEGAL, THE CHILDREN OF THE COMPOUND DID NOT
HAVE TO DIE, BUT THEIR PARENTS KILLED THEM, NOT THE US GOVERNMENT. I DO
NOT LIKE SOME OF THE SLICK WILLI LAWS THAT ARE OUT TRERE, BUT IF YOU
FOLKS THINK THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE, MOVE SOME WHERE ELSE,
LEAVE MY COUNTRY ALONE, I HAVE BEEN TO COUNTRIES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE
ALREADY BEEN IN JAIL OR SHOT FOR YOUR STUPIDITY.

AS FAR AS YOU SENDING OUT MY E-MAIL TO ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. IF MAYBE
IT WILL BRING SOME TRUTH TO THEM SO BE IT. I SIR AM A REAL AMERICAN,
NOT AN IDIOT THAT JUST SCREAMS AND SHOUTS THAT BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.
RUN FOR CONGRESS AND CHANGE THE LAWS. DON'T BITCH.

                                    JEFF CORNING




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NICS applies on REPAIRS
Date: 18 Sep 1998 07:56:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Ignition Point <[e-mail]>,
    PIN <[e-mail]>, PRN <[e-mail]>

Talked with the owner of my friendly local gun shop yesterday:

1. NICS applies on repairs. Drop it off. Have a new scope and
rings mounted, bore-sight. Pick it up? No. You must pass
NICS first and pay the tax.

2. Data: NICS input includes your name, driver's lic no, social
security number, address and the make and serial number off your piece.
They need to run a check for stolen pieces.

Observation: Every piece that you have repaired will be entered
into their data base in addition to new pieces sold beginning 1DEC1998.
--
Note: If I were working for the enemy on this, I would apply this
to ammo also: To buy ammo I would require of you the make, model,
and s/n of the piece that the ammo would be for.
--
 North American Patriots Free Network
 www.net-link.net/~napfn/homepage.htm
"Righteousness through Communications"
    ~~~~~Pastor Mike Acker~~~~~



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Long Guns
Date: 18 Sep 1998 20:48:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <005c01bde36c$ec736300$ced7c2d0@pbcustomer>
        "Craig Mortz" <[e-mail]>,
        "Brett Bielawski" <[e-mail]>,
        "Rich Schneider" <[e-mail]>,
        "Don Taylor" <[e-mail]>, "Dan Feeney" <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
        "Chuck Buzzy" <[e-mail]>,
        "ISHOOTBACK" <[e-mail]>, "Jerry Bowman" <[e-mail]>

Anyone who has (or knows someone who has) been ticketed for leaning a
firearm against a vehicle, please contact me immediately or have them
contact me immediately.  This research is for legislative purposes and
is very important.

Phone: [phone] or
Email [e-mail]

Thanks,

BB Lenox Bowman


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Massachusetts' gun-records database. 1/2
Date: 18 Sep 1998 20:48:00 -0700


http://www.govtech.net/gtmag/1998/sept/jandt/jandt.shtm

September 98 - Gun Records in a Rat's Nest

Gun sale records move from the basement into CD storage.

By Raymond Dussault
Contributing Editor

SOLUTION SUMMARY

PROBLEM/SITUATION:
Inefficient system for storing and maintaining gun-license records.

SOLUTION:
Massachusetts' gun-records database.
JURISDICTION: Massachusetts Executive
Office of Public Safety, Framingham, Mass., Police Dept.
CONTACT: [e-mail] Charles E. McDonald,
communications director, Massachusetts Executive Office of Public
Safety, 617/727-7775 x507. Lt. Wayne McCarthy, Framingham, Mass.,
Police Dept., 508/620-4906. Kathleen O'Toole, Massachusetts secretary
of public safety, 617/727-7775 x522.

O'Toole Named to Important Commission

Kathleen O'Toole started her law enforcement career in 1979 as a uniformed
patrol officer working the streets for the Boston Police Department. In
less than two decades, O'Toole worked her way up to being Massachusetts'
secretary of public safety, responsible for the everyday management of
over 20 agencies, including the Massachusetts State Police, the Department
of Corrections and the Parole Board. She has been on the job since 1994
and, in that relatively short period, has built a reputation as a
forward-thinking administrator committed to using technology to make
police work easier and more efficient.

She has been the driving force behind Massachusetts' single-inquiry
system, which makes outstanding warrants, restraining orders, probation
records, sex-offender status and other data available to officers at
the touch of a computer key. As of January, 750,000 gun sale records
were added to the single-inquiry system.

Her success, it seems, has brought worldwide attention. After announcing,
in May, that she would leave the top cop's job to take over as head of
Boston College's (her alma mater) alumni association, she received one
of those offers that are tough to refuse. As part of the Good Friday
peace accords for Northern Ireland, the government is establishing an
independent Commission on Policing for the troubled region. On June 3,
Northern Ireland Secretary Marjorie Mowlam named O'Toole to the important
commission.

"Having begun her career in the Boston Police Department, O'Toole is
now secretary for public safety and has vast experience in the law
enforcement field. There is no questioning her knowledge of policing,"
Mowlam said in announcing the appointment.

Gun Records in a Rat's Nest

Massachusetts' gun sale records were once stacked in bursting cardboard
boxes. Rats and pigeons turned reams of data into nests while felons and
people who had slipped into psychosis held gun licenses issued years
before they stumbled off a mental edge or committed a crime. Now turn
the dial on the time machine and move out of the dark ages -- 750,000
gun sale records are out of the busted boxes and loaded on to compact
disks, retrievable at the touch of a computer key.

"The records, if you can believe it, really were out in the state
police headquarters in Boston, stacked floor to ceiling. They were
full of rodents, bugs, pigeon nests and asbestos," said Kathleen
O'Toole, Massachusetts secretary of public safety. "Before we could
scan the records, we had to have them cleaned." So that is what staff
did, putting in thousands of hours cleaning and scanning the records
to create an easily accessible gun-record database. It cost $700,000,
but the work has paid generous returns on the time and money invested.

Digital Dream

The system came online in January, and a paper nightmare has been turned
into a digital dream. "Before the disk, a single records search took 74
days and cost 5,600 dollars in staff time. Now we've trimmed that down
to seconds," explained O'Toole. "It's a big difference: less than 30
seconds and a cost of about 90 cents per search."

Even more important, though, is the law enforcement work the system has
made possible. Before the records were digitized, yanking a gun permit
was a case-by-case decision; today, felons and domestic-violence
perpetrators are being scooped up with greater ease, and their guns sold
off or confiscated by the thousands. Within days of going online, the
system had identified 17,546 individuals who had gun licenses but
shouldn't. Of that group, 2,862 of them were wanted on active felony
warrants; another 3,923 were identified as individuals with a history
of domestic violence and active restraining orders against them. The
word went out to law enforcement agencies across the commonwealth and,
so far, 5,200 firearms licenses have been revoked.

"Firearms identification (FID) cards are issued to be good for a lifetime;
other handgun carry permits are renewable every few years. In between, I
didn't really know what you were doing unless you happened to do it here
in town," explained Lt. Wayne McCarthy, with the Framingham, Mass., Police
Department. "Until the system came online you could commit a crime out of
town, and I would probably never know I needed to yank the license. If I
issued you an FID card at age 22, you could be a goddamned nut by the
time you're 42, and I wouldn't know. Now, we are getting criminal and
other pertinent information on a regular basis. Soon, we will be able
to access it instantly."

There are no dramatic stories to tell yet -- no lives that were saved
in the nick of time -- but, according to some, the proof of success may
be in the stories cops don't have to tell.

"It is hard to measure the success of the system in terms of crimes
prevented. If I don't pull a license, and the guy shoots someone, it
will be in all the papers," said McCarthy. "But if I take the gun,
nothing happens. That is how this system shows its success -- in the
stories that don't have to be told."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Massachusetts' gun-records database. 2/2
Date: 18 Sep 1998 20:48:00 -0700


Information Loophole

According to McCarthy, despite all of the benefits of the new database,
police are still feeling the inefficiencies of the old system. The FID
card allowed you to purchase as many guns as you wanted, but it didn't
track the number you purchased; the owner was registered, the guns were
not.

If a name pops up on McCarthy's computer screen as a current felon or
someone with a restraining order against them, he will start the process
of revoking their gun license. Usually, that means sending a registered
letter ordering the individual to come to the station and turn in their
guns. Surprisingly, most people respond, and the local departments will
even hold the weapons to facilitate a sale to a legitimate gun dealer.
If the individual doesn't come in on his own, the police execute a search
warrant to confiscate the guns. It's in these situations when the old
system's weakness is exposed: Cops just don't know how many guns that
individual owns.

"If they bring in a couple rifles and say, 'Here you go; here are my guns,'
I have no way of knowing if he has a whole arsenal still hiding in his
closet," McCarthy said. All the old records are in the system now, but
they have data gaps due to the nature of the original data. However, if
you purchase a gun in Massachusetts today, the information -- including
specific gun information -- is collected on a special, easily scanable
form. Within 24 hours the information is entered into the system, keeping
the data continuously updated and accessible to officers around the clock.
That, according to O'Toole, was Phase Two; Phase One was creating the
database, and now Phase Three is on the way.

"I want gun dealers to enter their information directly into a terminal at
the time of purchase. That way, they know right off if someone can even
purchase a gun, and police departments will know instantly if a local
resident has. The next step is flipping the switch to make the system
accessible from every police station and the laptop computers of officers
in the field. That way, if an officer is conducting a traffic stop, they
will know the gun ownership history of the car's registered owner,"
explained O'Toole. "Police work today is a far cry from what it was back
when I was on patrol. I spent 30 percent of my time in the station filling
out paperwork. My opinion is that officers should only have to return to
the station to drop off prisoners, and technology can help make that
possible. That means more actual police man-hours in the field, and that
means better service for the community."

Ray Dussault [e-mail] is a Sacramento, Calif.-based writer.

Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998. Government Technology.
All Rights Reserved. Questions or Comments? [e-mail]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: LORENA BOBBITT for White House Intern
Date: 22 Sep 1998 08:29:21 -0600

Bold Red White and Blue Bumper Stickers

Get yours today - only $3

$2.50 for each additional bumper sticker


SYNERGY
PO Box 901272
Sandy, Utah 84090-1272



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Exicite/Harris Poll
Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:42:38 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:13:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA19651; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:01:53 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA07417; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007217; Wed Sep 23 12:12:07 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

Results from Harris Online Poll - swing by and add a nail to Clinton's
coffin.

Do You Think Clinton Can Remain Effective if He Serves out His Term?

yes -- he's a strong leader, this scandal won't change that

                         38%  =3D>  2880 votes=20

no -- Starr's investigation has humiliated Clinton and has undermined
his authority and credibility

                         54%  =3D>  4090 votes=20

unsure -- it will take time to see if the scandal "sticks" to Clinton or
if it will fade from the people's minds

                         8%  =3D>  597 votes=20

                         Current Vote Tally: 7567
http://nt.excite.com/poll/
--=20

Vote for Lorean Bobbitt for White House Intern!


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:28:38 -0600

Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress

Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the West Gun =
Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the Salt Palace Convention =
Center.  One or two volunteers are needed for Saturday September 26 also.

This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives that gun =
owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need not be a resident =
of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you are interested, please =
call Darren Jones at 262-9324


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: CORRECTION  Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:51:26 -0600

Sorry for the confusion this has been re-sent with the correct telephone =
number.

The following was sent to [e-mail]=20


Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress

Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the West Gun =
Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the Salt Palace Convention =
Center.  One or two volunteers are needed for Saturday September 26 also.

This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives that gun =
owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need not be a resident =
of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you are interested, please =
call Darren Jones at 263-9324


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: CORRECTION  Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 14:06:49 -0600


I just called the Cook 98 office and asked them to send me a list of
pro-gun legislation Cook has sponsored or co-sponsored so I can make
an informed decision about whether or not to support him.

I told "Carolyn" that if Cook was really pro-gun I wanted to support
him.  If he isn't, maybe the gunshow isn't the best place to campaign.

She said he was "better than his opponent, but maybe not good enough
for you," and promised to fax over the list.  If it arrives, I'll pass
along whatever info I can.

I, for one, am tired of voting for the "evil of two lessers" and will
almost certainly vote for Libertarian Brian Swim this time around.


On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, "David Sagers" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Sorry for the confusion this has been re-sent with the correct telephone =
>number.
>
>The following was sent to [e-mail]=20
>
>
>Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
>Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the West Gun =
>Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the Salt Palace Convention =
>Center.  One or two volunteers are needed for Saturday September 26 also.
>
>This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives that gun =
>owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need not be a resident =
>of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you are interested, please =
>call Darren Jones at 263-9324
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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.

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: CORRECTION  Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 14:06:49 -0600


I just called the Cook 98 office and asked them to send me a list of
pro-gun legislation Cook has sponsored or co-sponsored so I can make
an informed decision about whether or not to support him.

I told "Carolyn" that if Cook was really pro-gun I wanted to support
him.  If he isn't, maybe the gunshow isn't the best place to campaign.

She said he was "better than his opponent, but maybe not good enough
for you," and promised to fax over the list.  If it arrives, I'll pass
along whatever info I can.

I, for one, am tired of voting for the "evil of two lessers" and will
almost certainly vote for Libertarian Brian Swim this time around.


On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, "David Sagers" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Sorry for the confusion this has been re-sent with the correct telephone =
>number.
>
>The following was sent to [e-mail]=20
>
>
>Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
>Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the West Gun =
>Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the Salt Palace Convention =
>Center.  One or two volunteers are needed for Saturday September 26 also.
>
>This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives that gun =
>owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need not be a resident =
>of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you are interested, please =
>call Darren Jones at 263-9324
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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.

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

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0600

>
> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
> for Saturday September 26 also.
>
> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>
> -
Hi

FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.

Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
disconnected, with no other information available.

I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.

Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.

Will

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0600

>
> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
> for Saturday September 26 also.
>
> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>
> -
Hi

FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.

Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
disconnected, with no other information available.

I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.

Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.

Will

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0600

>
> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
> for Saturday September 26 also.
>
> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>
> -
Hi

FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.

Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
disconnected, with no other information available.

I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.

Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.

Will

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0600

>
> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
> for Saturday September 26 also.
>
> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>
> -
Hi

FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.

Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
disconnected, with no other information available.

I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.

Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.

Will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:27:31 -0600


Well spoken Will.

Chad (just lost last name) and I went to talk to Merrill last year
about a very simple bill to require federal facilities to "check"
legally carried weapons so citizens would not be forced to leave them
in a car (or at home if they had walked or ridden mass transit) when
they had business with their government.

He wasn't real interested in sponsoring anything and if memory serves
has failed to even co-sponsor most pro-gun bills.

I won't vote for Lily.  But Merrill is not getting any help from me
until he starts acting like the gun vote matters to him.

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>>
>> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>>
>> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
>> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
>> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
>> for Saturday September 26 also.
>>
>> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
>> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
>> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
>> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>>
>> -
>Hi
>
>FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
>indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.
>
>Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
>disconnected, with no other information available.
>
>I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
>of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
>read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.
>
>Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
>"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
>"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
>devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
>backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.
>
>Will
>


--

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.

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good
government."  -- Thomas Jefferson

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:27:31 -0600


Well spoken Will.

Chad (just lost last name) and I went to talk to Merrill last year
about a very simple bill to require federal facilities to "check"
legally carried weapons so citizens would not be forced to leave them
in a car (or at home if they had walked or ridden mass transit) when
they had business with their government.

He wasn't real interested in sponsoring anything and if memory serves
has failed to even co-sponsor most pro-gun bills.

I won't vote for Lily.  But Merrill is not getting any help from me
until he starts acting like the gun vote matters to him.

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>>
>> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>>
>> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
>> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
>> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
>> for Saturday September 26 also.
>>
>> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
>> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
>> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
>> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>>
>> -
>Hi
>
>FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
>indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.
>
>Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
>disconnected, with no other information available.
>
>I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
>of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
>read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.
>
>Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
>"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
>"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
>devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
>backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.
>
>Will
>


--

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.

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good
government."  -- Thomas Jefferson

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Help Support a Second Amendment Congress!
Date: 23 Sep 1998 12:56:29 -0600

>
> Help is needed to support a pro-Second Amendment Congress
>
> Volunteers are needed to man a table at the Crossroads of the
> West Gun Show for Merrill Cook on Sunday September 27 at the
> Salt Palace Convention Center.  One or two volunteers are needed
> for Saturday September 26 also.
>
> This is one of the best ways to show our elected representatives
> that gun owners care about what happens in Washington.  You need
> not be a resident of Merrill Cooks district to volunteer.  If you
> are interested, please call Darren Jones at 262-9324
>
> -
Hi

FYI...I just called 262-9324 to ask Mr. Jones if Merrill Cook had
indeed 'suffered' a change of heart toward gun owners and the 2nd.

Much like Merrill's support for the 2nd, this number has been
disconnected, with no other information available.

I went to a town meeting where the "Honorable" Rep. Cook told those
of us present that we were/are extremists just because we don't
read the 2nd the same way that Sarah Brady reads it.

Lily would be a better known enemy than Merrill would be as an
"unknown traitor" in my book.  But then, I don't believe that the
"system' can produce an honest candidate and would rather know the
devil I'm dealing with rather than invest hope and effort in a
backstabbing punk.  Sorry if that offends anyone.

Will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Congressman Merrill Cook on Lautenberg]
Date: 24 Sep 1998 07:44:32 -0600


Forwarded by request of Sarah Thompson.

Wonder if CongCook favors revoking the right to worhsip, own property,
travel, or anything besides RKBA so long as notice is given?

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 2397

Hi Charles!

Would you be kind enough to post the following to utah-firearms?
Thanks!

Sarah


I received the following letter from freshman Congressman
Merrill Cook today.  Rep. Cook started out being mostly
anti-gun, so this IS progress for him.  However, it appears
that he still could use some education, particularly with
respect to the Constitution which he took an oath to
uphold.  Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

Sarah


Merrill Cook
2nd District, Utah
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

125 South State Street, Suite 2311
SLC, Ut. 84138
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
September 25, 1997



Ms. Sarah Thompson

Dear Ms. Thompson:

Thank you for contacting my office with your support to overturn
the Lautenberg Amendment.

I cannot support the Lautenberg Amendment as it was passed because
it is retroactive in its application.  I believe making new laws retroactive
is wrong and directly violates the Constitution.  I fully support the right
to own a gun, but only if it is used in a responsible and legal manner.  It
is
often unfortunately true that having a gun in a home where domestic
violence occurs increases the chances that the gun will be used, often with
tragic and preventable consequences.  People who believe violence is the
answer to family disputes deserve to be deprived of the means of inflicting
harm.  If a person receives prior notice that any future convictions for
misdemeanors related to domestic violence will result in his gun being taken,
and he nevertheless continues to commit acts of domestic violence, I believe
it is not unreasonable to take his guns away.  There is simply no excuse for
assaulting one's family members.  If a person does so even after having been
warned, then he has proven he cannot act responsibly, and the family should
be protected from the potential danger created by guns in the home.  I would
also hope that he would learn to solve his problems not by further violence
but by obtaining counseling from his church or a professional counselor.

I believe the right to bear arms is an important constitutional right.
Like all
freedoms and rights, however, it is not unlimited and must be used
responsibly.

Sincerely,

Merrill Cook
Member of Congress

MC/msm




----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.

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Sept. 30 column - mountain lions]
Date: 25 Sep 1998 11:10:39 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 30, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Out of balance

    In recent years, mountain lions have been padding into suburban back
yards in California, hauling off family pets, and terrifying the mothers of
small children.

  In a couple of cases, lone adult humans have actually been attacked and
killed by the highly efficient predators, in parks or recreation areas
where Californians are no longer allowed to carry firearms.

  Now, even wildlife biologists are worrying that predation by mountain
lions that suddenly overrun their established ranges may endanger the
dramatic and welcome comeback of another previously endangered species --
the bighorn sheep.

  What's going on?

  Often blamed for the increasing frequency of human-cat contact is
suburban sprawl. Of course that's a factor. But more importantly, a
misguided 1990 California ballot initiative banned all hunting of the
cougar in that state. It's now illegal to kill a mountain lion unless it
directly threatens people or livestock. Even then, you're likely to do more
time than O.J. Simpson.

  "They have no vision of conservation," complains biologist John Wehausen,
a cougar expert at the University of California's Mountain Research
Station, referring to those who promoted the 1990 initiative.

  "We are concerned with habitat preservation and maintaining rich
biodiversity, but they're concerned with the life of a particular animal in
a particular place," Mr. Wehausen continues. "They essentially reject
science."

  Precisely. No one wants to see either the big cats or the wild sheep
driven to extinction. They're both vital parts of our wild heritage.

  But they are just that -- wild. The idea that nature lovers can or should
walk peacefully, shoulder to shoulder with these deadly predators, is the
kind of fantasy that shouldn't even be taught to children.

  California wildlife officers lecture elementary school classes these days
on what the children should do if they encounter a lion: Don't run, which
will only draw a charge. Instead, stand tall, shout and wave your arms.

  Passable advice as a last resort, since no child is likely to outrun or
outclimb one of these cats.

  But how about starting with: "Don't go into cat country without an adult,
and make sure that adult is carrying at least a medium-bore firearm full of
soft-points. If you see a mountain lion stalking you or poised to spring,
shout, 'Daddy, Mommy, shoot the cat!' "

  Environmental absolutism is a far cry from a true understanding of the
science of ecology, and is bound to have bizarre and unintended
consequences.

  Ecology is the study of the way all the parts of a biological system fit
together. Though it may not make for fuzzy, heart-warming cartoon shows,
such systems inevitably include predation, and often a necessary culling
role for man the hunter (we keep forgetting that Nature put that creature
here, too) -- especially where such other top predators as the grizzly are
long gone.

  The solution is not to take away the power of the referendum, but rather
to better educate the discretion of the populace. The more detailed our
understanding of a complex ecosystem, the more we are likely to abandon the
hubris which ever led us to believe we could fine-tune every aspect of
nature to suit our romanticized wishes, "preserving" at a randomly-selected
moment in geologic time a biological status quo which Nature herself has
placed in a state of constant change.

  Leaving a place for wildlife is an estimable goal. Once we are rid of the
warping of land uses caused by the dual tyrannies of the property tax and
"government land ownership," there's no reason private entrepreneurs can't
buy up and preserve vast wilderness areas for the enjoyment of hikers,
hunters, birdwatchers ... anyone who will pay the freight.

  But (in the meantime) modest, sensible wildlife management is never
likely to succeed, so long as it is based on popular votes to determine
which animals look more cuddly.


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]

Education rears disciples, imitators, and routinists, not pioneers of
new ideas and creative geniuses.  The schools are not nurseries of
progress and improvement, but conservatories of tradition and unvarying
modes of thought. -- Ludwig von Mises

The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not
get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases
to discriminate between good and evil.  He becomes a slave in body and
soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt
against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943

* * *



----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.

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: License to be Stupid
Date: 25 Sep 1998 19:03:00 -0700


On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:02:09 -0600 "Chris Kierst"
<[e-mail]> told the Libertarian Party of Utah
listserver <[e-mail]> Re: License to be stupid -Reply

How about requiring that recreationists be bonded to protect local
government SAR organizations from financial abuse by subsidized
recreationists on public lands?  Both state and county bonds could
be required prior to a recreational use permit being issued by both
levels of government.

Other fees may be necessary.  I wonder if any SAR organizations have
ever been sued for some kind of malpractice?  Perhaps we need angler,
mountain biker, hiker, whitewater, backcountry skier/snowshoer,
alpinist, rockhound or ??? subsidized recreationist education programs
modeled after hunter ed programs.  I wonder if the earthshoe/treehugger
groups who conduct hiking activities should be required to provide
licensed guides for their organized activities on public lands?  This
is a small price to pay to ensure the survival of the resource for our
children and the good of the environment.  If Prop. 5 passes (since it
is so well funded) and the decisions with respect to habitat and
wildlife management are left in the hands of the professional game
management scientists, these scientists should be required to file
annual reports certifying the health of the environment resultant of
sustaining a particular activity (good little Malthusian environmental
scientists would recognize a carrying capacity and what with Growth
such a problem and all!!!).  Environments surrounding major population
centers (such as Mill Creek Canyon) would be particularly stressed
from overuse.  We need mass transit to more remote trailheads to
spread out the impacts.  All recreationists should be carrying
transponders so they can be easily located by SAR orgs.  All of this
(and much, much more) should be necessary because of the subsidy of
outdoor recreation and greedy, profit-motivated (Isn't socialistspeak
fun?), related industries and their patron govagencies.  It isn't as
though these are livelihoods for most of the practitioners but rather
their hobbies.

To which on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:32:33 PDT Richard Partridge
<[e-mail]> replied:

What's this business about "licensed" guides and "requiring"
recreationists to be bonded? If people intentionally do something stupid
that gets them in trouble, what's wrong with just billing them for the
costs of rescue? A free market could provide liability insurance for
those who desired to purchase it. If you travel in Mexico by automobile,
it's highly recommended that you purchase Mexican liability insurance
which is quite reasonable and can save you a great deal of grief. A
special recreation policy for those who desired it might be a solution
to covering search & rescue costs. (Think LIBERTARIAN!)


On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:05:22 -0600 Chris Kierst explained:

Dick goes ballistic ...

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote the piece Dick is
responding to!!!  I tried to share some of the socialist justifications
I hear for such restrictive regulation and policy.  These are the types
of regulations and policies in place to control private industry
operating on public lands.  At the same time, I hear people scream
about regulating recreational access and activity on public land for
their particular hobby.  As a Libertarian,  I would prefer private SAR
services, but then I also prefer that the land itself be private (and
more discriminating) so as to limit the need for public services and
expense.  Recreation on public lands is subsidized.  Government should
not be in the entertainment/babysitter business.


On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:02:56 PDT Richard Partridge continued:

No offense intended, Chris. You did bring up some good points. I served
in the Civil Air Patrol, off and on, for over 40 years and we worked
closely with other SAR orgs. There was some worry about lawsuits but we,
generally, shrugged it off (though the CAP did carry liability insurance
paid for with our dues). We and other SAR volunteers served without
monetary reward (finding somebody alive was priceless) and, largely at
our own expense. The USAF (and occasionally a sheriff's dept.) us
reimbursed for fuel and lubricants, telephone expenses, and (later) some
aircraft maintenance expense. I think there were some cases where people
had been forewarned not proceed, that they were billed. (I don't know if
they paid.)

As to Prop. 5, I'm convinced that it is a "back-door" attempt to further
diminish our right to initiative petition as it is being pushed by the
same people (NRA and USSC under "Darth Vadar" Bishop) who pushed to
increase Utah requirements for petitioning with the justification that
Washington State anti-gunners got an anti-gun prop. on the ballot. The
voters shot it down but that doesn't matter to people who don't trust
The People.

Transponders have been carried by recreationists for some time and
have caused fits for Air Rescue people as they are easily activated
accidentally and are assumed to be downed aircraft.
-Dick


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More guns, less crime? 1/2
Date: 25 Sep 1998 19:03:00 -0700


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

Recently heard John R. Lott, Jr. (Law Professor, University
of Chicago) promoting his book "More Guns, Less Crime:
Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and
Economics)" (University of Chicago Press, 1998) on WABC 770
talk radio in the New York tri-state area. He was on during
the morning show with Mike Gallagher and Libertarian "Lionel,"
and Lott apparently greatly impressed both of them with his
information and his presentation, and he also greatly
impressed me, so much so that I went to my local Barnes &
Noble book store looking for the book, and when they did not
have it in stock, I requested that they carry some copies of
the book. I then came home and ordered the book from Amazon
Books, the direct link to the book at Amazon books being
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636/ and upon receipt
of the book have discovered that it is exactly as advertised.

The book is an exhaustive professional research study on the
statistics relating to gun control (extracted primarily from
recent FBI reports), which produces the following conclusion;
where there are more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens,
there is less crime, because criminals know that any crime they
attempt to commit, might be met with lethal force in the prevention
of that crime. Furthermore, it is found that the most cost-effective
method of fighting crime is through allowing law-abiding citizens
to arm themselves in the manner that they see fit for their own
personal security, and in the prevention of crime. The people
of the state of Arizona surely know exactly about that which
Lott speaks, and that which is presented right here.

This book will probably end up becoming the preeminent study on
the matter of gun control, and combined with the work by Jews
for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org) and
with the material in JPFO's books "Lethal Laws" and "Gun Control;
Gateway to Tyranny" at http://universalway.org/guncontroltable.html,
make an irrefutable argument against gun control that must only
leave people who have failed to do the research in its wake,
along with those who have a certain agenda.

This particular publication includes initial reaction to
Lott's original research study, which was released last year
in an industry journal. It is interesting to note Lott's
numerous stories about the many people in opposition to his
research who refused to even look at his study, but who
criticized his study anyway without having read it first,
and who continually announced with confidence that they
could obtain publicity from the mainstream media for their
gun control cause whenever they wanted; all of this might
give people who read the book additional reason to ponder
the entire issue of gun control.

And I could also make the following argument from the above
information; we know from many studies that the only people
who benefit from gun control laws are criminals. Thus, it is
to the benefit of criminals to support gun control. Thus, we
should examine those who support gun control with the
understanding that only criminals benefit from gun control,
and with the understanding that criminals most probably know
this also. Thus, anyone who supports gun control must be
understood as supporting something that is to the benefit of
criminals, and thus it follows, that those who support gun
control, and those whom they themselves support, might fall
into the realm of themselves being criminals, and upon
investigation and research, might be found to be in the
employ of criminal individuals or organizations who support
gun control as a method for their madness.

The real truth is, those who support gun control, are really
trying to save their own lives. They have obviously sold out
for money (employment/association/etc.) to certain people,
and act as if they are under some sort of threat in the way
they perform their jobs, in the manner in which they behave,
and in light of the weight of the research information
available. It would seem that their positions are held under
duress, as might be concluded about people who hold such a
poorly-researched position as that of pro-gun-control. At
the same time, those gun control lackeys must surely know,
that whenever one of them speaks out in public for their
cause, there are a myriad of people throughout the nation
who are accumulating the names and addresses of such
anti-gun activists, and making notes in a some sort of book,
about the nature of the positions held and the possibility
of criminal behavior or association of such gun control
supporters, and it is hoped that those people making such
lists, will succumb to more level-headed calls for justice
should things become difficult some time in the future,
however, I do not believe such level-headed calls to justice
will be heeded by most people who are so angry so as to be
keeping such lists in the first place. Either way, those who
have sold themselves out to support gun control, are in
trouble from both sides of the ledger, and they would be
wise to consider simply dropping the ball and getting out of
the game, and go somewhere they can protect themselves from
those who have such animosity towards them, from both sides.
And please note; I am not one of those persons who holds
such animosity, while at the same time, I understand clearly
and undeniably that what goes around comes around.

Time for everybody to reevaluate all of their positions,
don't you think?

Here's a recent article authored by the man, John R. Lott
Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the
University of Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More
Guns, Less Crime."

THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

By John R. Lott Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what
passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on
only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were
avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More guns, less crime? 2/2
Date: 25 Sep 1998 19:03:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive
massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million
times each year that people use guns defensively are never
discussed--including cases where public shootings are
stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for
people's safety.

Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from
defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the
safest approach. The Department of Justice's National Crime
Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious
injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering
no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also
benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller:
offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result
in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely
killers. The myth is usually based on two claims:

1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives
or acquaintances and
2) anyone could be a murderer. With the broad definition
of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports,
most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer.

However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder
primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers
killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other
gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.

Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the
nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995, just
17 percent of murder victims were either family members,
friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example,
about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a
criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly
young males with low IQs and who have difficult times
getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately,
murder is disproportionately committed against blacks
and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate
because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The
Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently
as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate
40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one
lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very
different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder
rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the
U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's.

When one studies all countries rather than just a select
few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship
between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry
concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each
other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally
shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits,
and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years.
Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using
a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case
was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go
through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to
1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies
involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being
revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted
areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single
permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly
encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only
other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or
someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as
to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household
owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they
knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the
household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in
these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder.
No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed
to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were
killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why
they owned guns in the first place and whether they had
sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by
the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that
more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally,
unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults.
This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals
prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that
drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of
the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to
own guns save lives? The evidence strongly
indicates that it does.

someone
http://universalway.org/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second Amendment
Date: 26 Sep 1998 08:13:00 -0700


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

Joyce Lee Malcolm

During the first public discussion of articles that would become our bill
of rights, the Philadelphia Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post
explained to readers the intent of the future Second Amendment: "As civil
rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt
to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised
to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their
fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed...in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."1 There was no doubt then, or for decades to come, that
the Second Amendment protected private arms and embodied an individual
right. It was a right that did double duty, however: the individual could
protect himself and the liberties of his fellow-citizens. This had been one
of the colonists' rights as Englishmen, and it was one that, as Americans,
they would strengthen and broaden.

Since medieval times ordinary Englishmen had been legally required to keep
weapons for individual defence and to fulfill their peacekeeping duties.
In the late seventeenth century this duty became a right. Englishmen had
become thoroughly alarmed when Charles II and James II began to disarm
their political opponents and to increase the size of their army. James's
flight in 1688 provided an opportunity to shore up and expand popular
rights before installing a new monarch. The resulting Bill of Rights
included the guarantee that "the Subjects, which are Protestants, may have
Armes for their defence Suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law."
Although this language left room for restrictions to be imposed, legal
experts and court decisions in the years that followed make it crystal
clear that the typical Englishmen had a right to keep firearms. Writing
just prior to the American Revolution, William Blackstone saw this as a
right designed to "protect and maintain inviolate the three great and
primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private
property." In language the Philadelphia Federal Gazette was to echo, he
also argued that their private weapons would enable the people "to restrain
the violence of oppression." In 1780 London's legal adviser explained:

The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own
defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and
undeniable...And that right, which every Protestant most unquestionably
possesses, individually, may, and in many cases must, be exercised
collectively.... In 1819, Justice Bayley made the same point. "But are arms
suitable to the condition of people in the ordinary class of life, and are
they allowed by law?" he asked, and answered, "a man has a clear right to
arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect
himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he
is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business."

Americans inherited an individual right to be armed, but it is possible
that they chose to narrow, or waive, that right in the Bill of Rights.
Examination of the drafting of the Second Amendment, however, makes
Congress's intention to protect an individual right apparent. In keeping
with colonial practice English restrictions based on religion were swept
aside and no provision was included for what was "suitable" to a person's
"condition" or "allowed by law." The American amendment, however, was
prefaced by the assertion that "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary to
the security of a free State." Was it meant, therefore, only to ensure the
right of militia members to be armed? If so it is hard to understand why a
House committee removed the stipulation that the militia be described as
"well-armed" or why senators rejected a proposal to add to the words "to
keep and bear arms" the phrase "for their common defence." Although militia
service was expected of men of a certain age, and a militia was regarded as
safer for a republic than a professional army, senators did not want to
limit the possession of weapons to "common defence." English drafters had
emphatically rejected the same phrase. It is the right of "the people" to
be armed Congress sought to protect. It has also been argued that the
amendment was meant to return some power over the militia to the states. If
so it signally fails to do that. What does it do? It states that a militia
is "necessary to the security of a free State." And it proclaims that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As William Rawle, George Washington's candidate for the nation's first
attorney general saw it, the protection was a blanket one. "The
prohibition," he wrote, "is general."

No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be
conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious
attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state
legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should
attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
There is overwhelming evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to
protect an individual right. It is time to concede that truth. The
alternative, to wilfully misread a constitutional guarantee one finds
inconvenient, is an ominous precedent. It is a quicker means of change than
amendment, but a tactic that endangers all our rights. As Justice Benjamin
Cardozo wrote:

The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults
of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with
general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating
to the task of their protection a body of defenders. The members of this
body are pledged to be among those defenders.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: I fear Greeks bearing gifts
Date: 28 Sep 1998 06:35:00 -0700


Another mechanism for disarmament?

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

TIMEO DANAOS ET DONA FERENTES

(I fear Greeks bearing gifts.)

Edward A. Willey
P. O. Box 27
Monroe Bridge, MA
413-424-7776

September
28, 1998

The Editor
Greenfield Recorder

Dear Sir:

Well, The Franklin Regional Planning Board has finally done it! In its
zeal to satisfy requests, to justify it's life and to make a name for
itself as a civic minded body it has overstepped the bounds of sanity.
It has given away the farm; the old homestead - our old homestead.

The Planning Board's report to its members of its last meeting included
a copy of a letter which it had authorized to be written and was written
by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments. The letter begged the
President of the United States to accept the Connecticut River basin as
a "Heritage River". What the Board and the Council overlooked is what
the classification of Heritage River entails - what the incurred cost
to you and me will be.

What most people do not know - nor were they intended to know - is
that every U.S. National Park, "Heritage Park" and "Heritage River"
is now owned by the United Nations. I have heard rumors for several
years that the Parks have been transferred but had found no
confirmation of it until this summer. It was confirmed when I visited
the Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky. At the entrance to the cave
which we toured was a sign, "This is a World Heritage Site under the
"guidance" of the United Nations."

Now! What does that mean? It means that The United States Government
has become a Rogue Government. It means that that Government, without
our authorization, has secretly given the United Nations a vested
interest in United States territory. With the interest in the territory
goes the right to protect and defend the territory. The United Nations
now has U.S. Government authority to deploy UN troops in this Country
to "defend the UN interest". The exercise of that authority can now
be triggered by any "civil disturbance". The "civil disturbance"
can even be instigated by Government itself and the United Nations
Organization will assist the United States Government in the "quelling"
of the disturbance.

The United Nations Organization now, in effect, owns the Connecticut
valley. The people of that valley now live on their homesteads only
at the whim of the United Nations. The United States Government is
now in the position to deny the right of all people to own property
- either real or personal.

Paul Cellucc just enacted into law the most rigid "control" of guns
yet; a law which is - and should be - unacceptable to a very large
segment of the population of the Commonwealth. The reason for the
law? The first reason, of course, is to disarm the people for the
benefit of Governments - including the UN. The second reason is to
spur the American people to rebellion and trigger martial law with
its attendant deployment of United Nations troops onto American Soil.

So, the cost to us of the Planning Board's action will be slavery
to our own Government for all of us. Yep! They sold the farm right
out from under us. At eighty I no longer need the farm but few of
the Board members - or you - are that old!!!!!!!!!!

With friends like our elected Governments and the
Planning Board who needs enemies?



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Canada Gun Ruling
Date: 29 Sep 1998 21:39:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/fpe/
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail]

To our Canadian neighbors - resist, refuse, do not register your weapons.
When a law is not lawful it is your duty to refuse to obey it. Remember
the Danes who hid Jews during the Nazi occupation, and the German resistance
movement - The White Rose - were also disobeying "the law."
Mike P

Alberta appeals court rules gun law valid
4.58 p.m. ET (2059 GMT) September 29, 1998

EDMONTON, Alberta (AP) -- Alberta's highest court ruled Tuesday that the
government has the right to enact gun control legislation, rebuffing a
challenge by four provinces which argued it infringed on their powers.

The Alberta Court of Appeal cleared the way in a 3-2 decision for a law
that requires Canada's estimated 3 million gun owners to register their
firearms and submit to a screening and licensing program. The law is set
to take effect on Dec. 1.

Justice Carole Conrad, one of the two dissenting judges, said the law
was invalid because it infringes on provincial powers regarding property
and civil rights.

That was the argument used by Alberta and three other provinces, as
well as Canada's two territories, when they challenged the legislation.

Earlier this month, thousands of gun owners held a rally outside
Parliament in Ottawa to protest the legislation.

National polls indicate most Canadians support gun registration. The
law is also supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

It has been opposed by hunting organizations, shooting clubs and the
right-wing Reform Party, the largest opposition faction in Parliament.

⌐ 1998 Associated Press.

Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.


-