ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n104

Internet Message Format | 1998-10-07 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #104
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Thursday, October 8 1998     Volume 02 : Number 104




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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: License to be Stupid

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


- -

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More guns, less crime? 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:01:23 -0500
From: youareonetoo <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

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... ]



- -

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More guns, less crime? 2/2

[ ...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/



- -

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

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 08:13:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second Amendment

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:37:09 -0400
From: Leroy Crenshaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Second Amendment

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.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 98 06:35:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: I fear Greeks bearing gifts

Another mechanism for disarmament?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:50:43 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Edward A. Willey)

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?



- -

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

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 98 21:39:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Canada Gun Ruling

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/fpe/
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:22:56 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: [fpe] Canada Gun Ruling

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.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:13:00 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd:  Ron Paul

During election season we all receive a good deal of beg mail.  Last night =
I received one from Rep.  Ron Paul.  Appears he is being targeted by the =
left because of his conservative views and activism.

Many gun owners and conservatives believe that Ron Paul is one guy we =
really need to keep.  If you are interested in making a contribution, the =
address is:

Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul
837 W.  Plantation Dr.
Clute, TX 77531

1-800-RON PAUL
http://Ron.Paul.org/=20

Corporate contributions prohibited.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:40:17 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Oct. 7 column - John Ross]

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 7, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Now that's a Democrat of a different color

    I ran into John Ross at the Soldier of Fortune Expo in Las Vegas the
other day. John's masterful novel of the ongoing persecution of America's
gun culture, "Unintended Consequences," is now entering its fourth printing
at little Acuracy Press, having sold 30,000 copies despite a virtual cone
of silence lowered by the nation's libraries and mainstream book reviewers.

  The St. Louis investment adviser also managed to win the Democratic
primary this summer, and is now the official challenger to incumbent Jim
Talent in Missouri's Second Congressional District.

  With perhaps $75,000 to pit against the incumbent's $1 million -- in a
year when Bill Clinton's dalliances are widely expected to keep Democrats
home in droves -- Ross isn't bold enough to predict victory. Still, he's
gotten a lot further than he did in 1996, and he figures the Year 2000 may
be the charm.

  He's also a bit testy about Missouri media who refuse to talk to him
about anything but guns.

  "Everyone knows where I stand on that," says Ross, who want the people of
Missouri (one of the few states where a "civilian" can't carry a concealed
weapon under any circumstances) to have "the same firearms freedoms as
anyone else."

  Winding up an interview with a reporter for the weekly Riverfront Times
recently, "I asked the reporter, 'Aren't you going to ask me about anything
else?' and he said 'No, the editor says this is the story, a gun guy
running for Congress.' I made him write down my positions on some other
issues, but they relegated all of those to one little paragraph two inches
long. Then his readers gave the editor hell, saying they wanted to know
where this guy stood on the other issues."

  Why a Democrat? Ross explains his uncle was Harry Truman's press
secretary, that political afifliations run deep in his part of the country.

  Besides, he contends, his pro-choice views fit in with the Democrats'.
"The incumbent wants to make abortion a federal crime, but if you ban
RU-486, people are still going to get it. At that point, any woman who has
a miscarriage will be under suspicion of committing a federal felony. Can
you imagine how big a police force we'd need to enforce that?"

  The GOP has been a tremendous flop at giving us a smaller government that
interferes less in our lives, Ross argues. "With the Republican Congress
we're eliminated (start ital)no(end ital) federal programs or departments.
And the budget is (start ital)bigger(end ital) than it was in 1993. ...

  "The first thing I would do is disarm any tax or regulatory agencies. The
BATF should do what the FCC has done with HAM radio licenses -- they've
done things to encourage people to get licenses and pay their taxes. Let's
have them encourage people to engage in legitimate business. They don't
need guns to go see if Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris have paid their
taxes; it's the militarized nature of tax enforcement that is the problem.
...

 "I'd love to see federal funds spent on (shooting) range creation. In
Switzerland every city above a certain size has to have a public, 300-meter
rifle range; that would be a wonderful benefit to the populace. Having
Americans as a group be competent and safe and skilled in the use of
firearms would benefit the entire country. ...

  "On Social Security, after you've paid in for 20 years, I'd allow young
people to opt out. You'd never get any benefits, but you'd never have to
pay in again, either. That program is in no way shape or form based on
investment principles. The way it's set up puts it at the mercy of
birthrate and longevity."

  But what about the needy, people who get injured or fritter way their
earnings and simply have nothing left to live on?

  "We need to resist being swayed by socialist arguments that have proved
to be failures. What they should (start ital)not(end ital) be free to do is
put a gun to someone's head and force them to help this guy who lost his
leg."

  I told Ross he sounded like a Libertarian.

  "The Libertarian Party has removed itself from political reality, and has
become a debating society."

  Ross says he will have enough funds to air a TV ad this fall:

  I come on and ask, "Have you ever said 'I want more federal regulations,
more restrictions, higher taxes?' No? Well neither have I. I'm John Ross,
and I'm running for Congress."

  Contributions are welcome at Ross for Congress, 7912 Bonhomme, Suite 375,
Clayton, MO 63105.


    #   #  #

  It was also a pleasure to chat with Randy Weaver and his daughter Sara at
the Soldier of Fortune Expo (where the magazine's "Humanitarian" award this
year went to the richly-deserving retired Gen. Paul Tibbets, who one day in
1945 saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, with a single
mission of his B-29 Stratofortress, the "Enola Gay.")

  Sara Weaver is now a full-grown young lady of 23, who seems to have come
through the trauma best known to the nation as "Ruby Ridge" with a better
outlook than could reasonably be expected. Finishing high school in Iowa,
she found she missed the mountains, and reports she and her fiance, David
Cooper, have now relocated the remaining Weaver clan to Montana.

  Randy and Sara were in Las Vegas to promote their first-hand account of
the murders of Vicky and Sammy Weaver at the hands of federal marshals and
FBI snipers in Idaho in August of 1992. "The Federal Siege at Ruby Ridge,"
a modest 170-page paperback, sells for $16.95 -- $21.95 postpaid -- through
Bookmaster, P.O. Box 388, Ashland, Ohio 44805; tel. [phone].

  Those interested in this watershed event on America's path to becoming a
police state will want a copy of the book for the raw power of the events
as recalled in the victims' own words. (What? The Weavers weren't
"victims"? Is that why the federal government shelled out $3.1 million to
compensate them for the wrongful death of their wife and mother, son and
brother ... while a jury of 12 unanimously acquitted Randy and his friend,
Kevin Harris, of any wrongdoing in the events of August, 1992, including
the death of Marshal William Degan?)

  But it should be noted this book is a far cry from a comprehensive
history of those events of the summer of 1992. For that, Sara Weaver agrees
that readers would be well advised to pick up a copy of "Ambush at Ruby
Ridge," by Alan Bock of the Orange County Register.


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 evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

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.

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

- -

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 98 18:31:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: John Ross - Democrat?

.#200
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 7, 1998
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Now that's a Democrat of a different color

I ran into John Ross at the Soldier of Fortune Expo in Las Vegas the
other day. John's masterful novel of the ongoing persecution of America's
gun culture, "Unintended Consequences," is now entering its fourth printing
at little Acuracy Press, having sold 30,000 copies despite a virtual cone
of silence lowered by the nation's libraries and mainstream book reviewers.

The St. Louis investment adviser also managed to win the Democratic
primary this summer, and is now the official challenger to incumbent Jim
Talent in Missouri's Second Congressional District.

With perhaps $75,000 to pit against the incumbent's $1 million -- in a
year when Bill Clinton's dalliances are widely expected to keep Democrats
home in droves -- Ross isn't bold enough to predict victory. Still, he's
gotten a lot further than he did in 1996, and he figures the Year 2000 may
be the charm.

He's also a bit testy about Missouri media who refuse to talk to him
about anything but guns.

"Everyone knows where I stand on that," says Ross, who want the people of
Missouri (one of the few states where a "civilian" can't carry a concealed
weapon under any circumstances) to have "the same firearms freedoms as
anyone else."

Winding up an interview with a reporter for the weekly Riverfront Times
recently, "I asked the reporter, 'Aren't you going to ask me about anything
else?' and he said 'No, the editor says this is the story, a gun guy
running for Congress.' I made him write down my positions on some other
issues, but they relegated all of those to one little paragraph two inches
long. Then his readers gave the editor hell, saying they wanted to know
where this guy stood on the other issues."

Why a Democrat? Ross explains his uncle was Harry Truman's press
secretary, that political afifliations run deep in his part of the country.

Besides, he contends, his pro-choice views fit in with the Democrats'.
"The incumbent wants to make abortion a federal crime, but if you ban
RU-486, people are still going to get it. At that point, any woman who has
a miscarriage will be under suspicion of committing a federal felony. Can
you imagine how big a police force we'd need to enforce that?"

The GOP has been a tremendous flop at giving us a smaller government that
interferes less in our lives, Ross argues. "With the Republican Congress
we're eliminated (start ital)no(end ital) federal programs or departments.
And the budget is (start ital)bigger(end ital) than it was in 1993. ...

"The first thing I would do is disarm any tax or regulatory agencies. The
BATF should do what the FCC has done with HAM radio licenses -- they've
done things to encourage people to get licenses and pay their taxes. Let's
have them encourage people to engage in legitimate business. They don't
need guns to go see if Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris have paid their
taxes; it's the militarized nature of tax enforcement that is the problem.
...

"I'd love to see federal funds spent on (shooting) range creation. In
Switzerland every city above a certain size has to have a public, 300-meter
rifle range; that would be a wonderful benefit to the populace. Having
Americans as a group be competent and safe and skilled in the use of
firearms would benefit the entire country. ...

"On Social Security, after you've paid in for 20 years, I'd allow young
people to opt out. You'd never get any benefits, but you'd never have to
pay in again, either. That program is in no way shape or form based on
investment principles. The way it's set up puts it at the mercy of
birthrate and longevity."

But what about the needy, people who get injured or fritter way their
earnings and simply have nothing left to live on?

"We need to resist being swayed by socialist arguments that have proved
to be failures. What they should (start ital)not(end ital) be free to do
is put a gun to someone's head and force them to help this guy who lost
his leg."

I told Ross he sounded like a Libertarian.

"The Libertarian Party has removed itself from political reality, and has
become a debating society."

Ross says he will have enough funds to air a TV ad this fall:

I come on and ask, "Have you ever said 'I want more federal regulations,
more restrictions, higher taxes?' No? Well neither have I. I'm John Ross,
and I'm running for Congress."

Contributions are welcome at Ross for Congress, 7912 Bonhomme, Suite 375,
Clayton, MO 63105.

<snip>

Vin Suprynowicz, [e-mail]

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

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
- ---
 ■ SPEED 2.00 [NR] ■



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #104
***********************************