ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n066

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-01 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #66
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest       Tuesday, June 2 1998       Volume 02 : Number 066




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

Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:00:53 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns and Sin


  WEEKEND JOURNAL
  ---
  Taste -- Review & Outlook:
  Guns and Sin

The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones

  One of the most amazing quirks of the human psyche is the ability of our
most
intelligent and well-meaning citizens to believe preposterous things -- that
the
earth's crust is running out of hydrocarbons, for example, or that you can
pass
a law taking money out of politics. Among the most durable of these heady
notions is that violence is caused by guns.

  The notion is of course running especially strong just now, given the new
fad
among disturbed teens of shooting up your school. As best we can count, 19
people have been killed in school shootings at Bethel, Alaska (February 1997),
Pearl, Miss. (October 1997), West Paducah, Ky. (December 1997), Jonesboro,
Ark.
(March 24), Edinboro, Pa. (April 24), Pomono, Calif. (April 28), Fayetteville,
Tenn. (May 19), and most recently Springfield, Ore. (May 21). No one can doubt
that something ghastly is afoot, not only in urban slums but across the
American
heartland.

  These social epidemics are not easy to account for. Urban riots erupted in
the
"long hot summers" of the 1960s, for example, but then went away without any
dramatic improvements in the condition of ghettos or the end of the "two
societies" alleged by the high-minded Kerner Commission. In the school
shootings, common-sense remedies are no doubt appropriate -- an especially
watchful eye on troubled students, for example, or holding adults responsible
for the security of guns they own. But it would be mistaken to expect any
miracle cure, except perhaps the ancient wisdom, "this too shall pass away."

  The silver bullet of gun control was deflected somewhat by the comments of
Robert Ryker, father of the Jacob Ryker, the 17-year-old wrestler who was
wounded in the Oregon attack but managed to tackle and subdue the 15-year-old
gunman. "He heard a click, and he knew the rifle was out of ammo," the father
said, "and he knew it was time to get the gun away." Mr. Ryker, a navy diver
and
member of the National Rifle Association, added, "I don't know about this hero
business. All the boys did what they had to do to survive. They all did the
right thing. When they had a chance to jump in, they did."

  The actions of Jacob Ryker and the comments of his father remind us that the
heartland culture where guns are common also has powerful strengths.
Independence, a sense of duty, courage and the like are found everywhere, of
course, but are particularly strong in places open enough for shooting and
hunting to flourish. This is something for sophisticates to ponder.

  Then too, even if it were possible to eradicate guns, this would not remove
violence. Hong Kong, for example, is an enclave proud of its British heritage
of
tight gun laws. The weapon of choice in domestic violence is the chopper, or
oversized oriental meat cleaver. So you read -- in two stories from last year
- --
of a trial suspended because jury members are unable to face crime-scene
photos,
or a schizophrenic hacking off his mother's head, throwing it from a
fourth-floor balcony, and returning to the kitchen to wash the chopper as
police
arrive.

  As it happens, indeed, another society is just now experiencing a wave of
school violence. In February, Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto expressed
"grave
concern" after the Japanese cabinet met to consider a series of knife attacks
by
teenagers, including the death of a teacher and a five-year-old girl. The
"butterfly" knife, in which the blade snaps out from a double handle, was
featured last year in a TV series by pop star and actor Takuya Kimura; it
showed
macho characters stabbing a table between spread fingers. The knife
manufacturer's association felt it necessary to issue a statement saying, "It
would be too simplistic to try to transform a debate on educational problems
into a discussion of knives."

  In this media-drenched age, there may be something to the idea that
dangerous
fads are spread by TV dramas or door-to-door news coverage of tragedies. But
more profoundly, what we should learn, or remember, is that human nature has
the
capacity for both good and evil. Indeed, the tendency among sophisticates to
blame inanimate objects such as knives or guns is a kind of defense mechanism
against the principle of personal responsibility. The heartland culture
represented by Jacob and Robert Ryker, by contrast, better understands the
reality that theologians describe as Original Sin.

 WSJviaNewsEDGE
:PAGE: W9
:SUBJECT: INDD WSJ USA

Copyright (c) 1998 Dow Jones and Company, Inc.
Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 5/29/98 2:06 AM



- ----End Forwarded Message(s)----



- -

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 98 22:58:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Prosecutor Appeals Horiuchi Dismissal

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:01:22 -0700
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

(Since we're quick to voice our outrage at blundering and treachorous
politicians, we ought to voice our support to Denise Woodbury for trying
to get a small measure of justice. -E.W.)

BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A prosecutor (sic, should be 'prosecutrix')
said Thursday he (sic) is appealing the dismissal of an involuntary
manslaughter charge against the FBI sharpshooter who killed the wife
of white separatist Randy Weaver.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed state charges against Lon
Horiuchi on May 14.

He ruled that Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his federal
authority and was honestly discharging his duties when he fired the
shot that killed Vicki Weaver on Aug. 22, 1992, during the siege at
Ruby Ridge.

Lodge cited a constitutional clause that immunizes federal authorities
from liability when acting within the scope of their jobs.

Randy Weaver was acquitted of all charges in connection with the
11-day siege of his mountaintop cabin that also claimed the lives
of his 14-year-old son and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan.

Weaver urged Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury to seek
reinstatement of the state charge.

Woodbury accused Horiuchi of negligently firing the shot that killed
Mrs. Weaver as she stood inside the cabin holding her infant daughter
Elisheba on the second day of the standoff.

Lodge said evidence indicated Horiuchi did not see Mrs. Weaver behind
the door or in the doorway of the cabin when he fired at Weaver's
friend Kevin Harris, who was ducking into the cabin.

Harris was also cleared of all charges in connection with the standoff.

The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting Horiuchi
or any of his FBI superiors and reaffirmed the decision last year.

A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government
is pending. Weaver filed a similar lawsuit, which last year resulted
in a $3.1 million settlement.

AP-NY-05-28-98 2015EDT

- --
Nation In Distress
http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/

As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of
our society by those who refuse to see the consequences
of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to
accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions.




- -

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 98 08:08:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Get an early start on summer vacation!

On Fri, 29 May 1998 Charles Hardy <[e-mail]> replied to
Dr. Sarah Thompson:

>>Should a teacher who has an episode of serious depression that
>>requires involuntary hospitalization lose her job forever, even
>>if she's successfully treated?

>No one should lose their RKBA except while actually incarcerated or
>hospitalized.  If someone has not been rehabilited enough to be
>trusted with a gun, we should have imposed a longer sentence because
>the fact is once they are on the street, if they want a gun, they can
>get one.

Then I take it you disagree with the NRA's politically correct and
federally implemented position that a person who has a record of felony
conviction, or a psychiatric commitment, should be forever anathema and
defenseless in the world because she has supposedly forfeited her
"civil" rights? It does seem irresponsible to me to put someone out on
the street but forbid him to defend himself, or even have means to hunt
for meat. Of course the ex post facto "domestic violence" misdemeanor
gun ban edicts to which you implicitly refer merely exacerbate this
infringement on the unalienable right to life.



- -

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:10:59 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Election Results

Thanks to David Sagers for posting these results of the NRA elections.  I
checked with Arnold Gaunt, one of the unsuccessful candidates, and he has
confirmed that these results are accurate.

Not Relevant Anymore is now more appropriate than ever.

Sarah


Elected for a three-year term ending in 2001:

Mr Michael P Baker                           Ms Sue King
Ms M Carol Bambury                        Mr Michael Lee
Rep  Bob Barr                                   Mr John Milius
Rep Bill Brewster                               Mr Jim Nicholson
Mr David G. Coy                              Mr Oliver North
Sen Larry Craig                                 Mr Ted Nugent
Mr William Dailey                              Mr Lance Olson
Ms Sandra Froman                            Mr James Porter
Ms Marion P Hammer                       Mr Harold Schroeder
Mr Charlton Heston                           Mr Dwight Van Horn
Ms Susan Howard                             Rep Harold Volkmer
Mr Brian A Johnson                           Rep Don Young
Mr David C Jones

Elected for a one-year term ending in 1999:

Mr Alfred Ockenfels

Not elected:

Mr Sanford Abrams                         Mr Michael Kindberg
Mr Jerry Allen                                  Mr Jeffery Knox
Mr F E Bachhuber                            Mr John Krull
Mr Michael Beko                              Mr Clarence Lovell
Mr Ray Cahen                                   Mr John Millay
Mr James Church                               Mr Robley Moore
Mr Allen Dapp                                   Mr Larry Rankin
Mr William Dominguez                       Mr Albert Ross
Mr Howard Fezell                              Mr Al Rubega
Mr Dan Fiora                                    Mr Frank Sawberger
Mr Richard Gardiner                         Mr Thomas Seefeldt
Mr Arnold Gaunt                               Mr Robin Sharpless
Mr Fred Griisser                                Mr Bill Steg'Kemper
Mr Wesley Grogan                            Mr Bill Steigers
Mr David Gross                                 Mr Kim Stolfer
Mr John Guest                                   Mr John Thompson
Mr Fred Gustafson                              Mr John Trentes
Mr Don Henry                                    Mr Franklin Volk
Mr William Hunt                                 Mr Glen Voorhees
Mr Phillip Journey



- -



- -

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 98 18:42:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NJ Gun Seizure Update - 5-29-98

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:03:19 -0700
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Parents insist son poses no threat to teacher, students

Published in the Asbury Park Press 5/29/98
By AMY HUGHES and ARPIE NAKASHIAN
MANAHAWKIN BUREAU

LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP -- The 15-year-old boy charged with
threatening his English teacher is under court order not to go outside
without parental supervision, his parents said yesterday.

"One of his friends called to talk to him yesterday and it was like
somebody handed him a million dollars," said Denise Krawiec, the boy's
mother. "He is isolated."

The parents of Robert J. "R.J" Krawiec, the Pinelands Regional High
School freshman who police say handed his English teacher a drawing of
a person seen through the cross hairs of a rifle scope, said yesterday
that their son is not a threat to his classmates or teachers.

Authorities and the parents said the teacher was not depicted in the
drawing.

"This thing has been blown way out of proportion by what is going on in
the rest of the country," said Robert J. Krawiec Sr. "For a rural center
like this one, he ("RJ") is a normal boy pursuing normal interests like
hunting, fishing and sports."

Police charged the freshman with making terroristic threats and have
said the boy has behavioral problems at school.

Authorities said the seizure of his parents' 20 firearms and hundreds
of rounds of ammunition from their home on Lake Saint Claire Drive was a
precaution. The parents object to the seizure and the action against
their son.

"Other kids get 10-day suspensions and they are allowed to go back to
school," said Mrs. Krawiec, referring to juveniles here and in Stafford
Township who have returned to school after bringing live bullets to class.
"But R.J. draws a picture and he is made out to look like Charles Manson."

The English teacher, Sheila Sledden, informed guidance counselors
about the drawing shown to her last Friday and contacted the police on
her own, said Paul J. Carr, the attorney for the Pinelands Regional
Board of Education. The school did not initiate the police investigation
or the search of the boy's home, Carr said yesterday.

"He ("RJ") is a quiet kid and the only time he strikes out is when he
is pushed too hard," said the boy's mother. "Isn't everyone like that?"

While the Krawiecs said their son, who is on the football and wrestling
teams, has been involved in an "occasional fight" at school, he never
initiates fights.

"He is a big boy and people are picking on him," Denise Krawiec said.
"He is tired of getting picked on and he is doing the best he can not
to fight."

Officials at the high school have said the freshman, who has not been
at school since last Friday, has been disciplined appropriately.

But, citing educational statutes that prohibit them from discussing
pupil records and disciplinary actions, officials have declined to
specify if Krawiec has been suspended.

"In situations like this, where there is a threat or a perceived
threat, it is always prudent to remove the student," Carr continued.

Policy dictates that the student be referred to the child study team
for evaluation, he added.

Superintendent Clement A. Crea has the authority to suspend the student
for up to 10 days. The board can extend that time or expel, but must
first hold a hearing, Carr said.

A decision to schedule a hearing is pending the results of separate
investigations by the Ocean County prosecutor's office and the
district, Carr said.

"It is appropriate in situations like these that such a hearing take
place," Carr said. "Our primary concern is for the safety of the
students and staff within the district."

The Krawiecs, who teach hunter education as a team for the state
Division of Fish Game and Wildlife, legally own all the seized guns.

The Krawiecs, reacting to reports that AK-47s were among the items
seized, yesterday showed a police search warrant inventory listing what
authorities confiscated. It was mostly collectibles and hunting gear.

Weapons including, shotguns, rifles, handguns, BB guns, antiques, black
powder guns were stored in three locked gun safes in the home.

The collection also includes three old military rifles, a bolt-action
8mm Czech rifle and two SKS 7.62 rifles. One of the Russian-designed
rifles was made in China in 1945 and is a collector's item from the
Korean War.

Most of the ammunition was birdshot and buckshot used for hunting. That
ammunition was kept in a fourth safe.

"We didn't lock it (the gun collection) up to keep it away from the kids,
but, for everybody's safety," Denise Krawiec said. "I don't know who might
be coming to the house."

- ---
From:
Asbury Park Press
http://www.injersey.com/news/story/0,1210,80470,00.html?prev=0+

- --
Nation In Distress
http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/

As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of
our society by those who refuse to see the consequences
of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to
accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions.


- -

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 98 18:42:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Unarmed Dead

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:45:11 -0700
From: Liberty or Death <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Unarmed Dead

In light of all the anti-gun blather being bleated on Pravda the last
couple of weeks, here are some statistics which show what can, and
eventually does, happen when a government makes it illegal to own firearms:

The following 123 million ordinary human beings did NOT have guns:

The 20th century's top nine megamurderers, as estimated in the book
"Death by Government"

               unarmed dead
Joseph Stalin   42,672,000    1929-1936
Mao Tse-Tung    37,828,000    1923-1976
Adolph Hitler   20,946,000    1933-1945
Chiang Kai-shek 10,214,000    1921-1948
Vladimir Lenin   4,017,000    1917-1924
Hideki Tojo      3,990,000    1937-1945
Pol Pot          2,397,000    1968-1987
Yayha Khan       1,500,000    1971 (Pakistan)
Josip Tito       1,172,000    1941-1987 (Yugoslavia)

- - Monte

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

                         The Idaho Observer
                    http://proliberty.com/observer



- -

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:48:44 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Get an early start on summer vacation!

On Sat, 30 May 98 08:08:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>Then I take it you disagree with the NRA's politically correct and
>federally implemented position that a person who has a record of felony
>conviction, or a psychiatric commitment, should be forever anathema and
>defenseless in the world because she has supposedly forfeited her
>"civil" rights?

Yes I do.  The simple fact is if they are willing to obey the current
law and not obtain a gun, they probably don't pose any threat anyway.
Those who do pose a threat can and always will be able to easily buy,
steal, or make weapons.

- --

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

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
 of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
 the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
 general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
 inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
 appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered
 academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was
 offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States,
 by President Washington.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 98 18:34:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: CONGRESS ACTION: May 31, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


- -

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 98 06:56:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Framing The Terms.... 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 02:18:19 -0400
From: "John A. Quayle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Framing The Terms....

Skip Wayland <[e-mail]>

                     Framing The Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


- -

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jun 98 06:56:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Framing The Terms.... 2/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Skip Wayland

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

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

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

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


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #66
**********************************