ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n129

Internet Message Format | 1999-03-04 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #129
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest       Friday, March 5 1999       Volume 02 : Number 129




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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 22:01:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: National police and disarmed citizens

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:00:20 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19970905_xcbtl_national_p.shtml

FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 05 1997

National police and disarmed citizens
Joseph Farah

As the federal government grabs citizens'
firearms and deploys a virtual standing army
of national cops, America's balance of power
is shifting from freedom to tyranny.

This could only happen in a country where
the people, thanks to a heavy dose of
disinformation spread by the government-
media complex and the government schools,
have forgotten their history and
constitutional heritage.

Talk to the average gun-control fanatic
and he or she will tell you the Second
Amendment was only intended to protect the
right to bear arms in the context of the
need for defense of the state and nation.
This argument could only be made by
someone with a complete disconnect from
reality -- someone who chooses willingly
and deliberately to ignore the massive
amount of documentation to the contrary.

What was the original intent of our
founders with regard to firearms? Here's a
sampling of their unambiguous opinions:

   * James Madison: "The right of the
     people to keep and bear Arms, shall
     not be infringed. A well-regulated
     Militia, composed of the people
     trained to arms, is the best and most
     natural defense of a free country."

   * Samuel Adams: "And that the said
     Constitution be never construed to
     authorize Congress to prevent the
     people of the United States, who are
     peaceable citizens, from keeping
     their own arms."

   * Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and
     keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
     and preserve order in the world as
     well as property ... horrid mischief
     would ensue were the law-abiding
     deprived of the use of them."

   * George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is
     the militia? It is the whole people,
     except for a few public officials."

   * George Washington: "Firearms are
     second only to the Constitution in
     importance; they are the people's
     liberty teeth. A free people ought to
     be armed. When firearms go, all goes.
     We need them every hour."

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

   * Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can
     hope for, concerning the people at
     large, is that they be properly armed."

Many of these great men warned with equal
passion against the government arming
itself by creating what they feared would
be a standing army or national police
force. Consider the following:

   * Elbridge Gerry: "What, Sir, is the use
     of a militia? It is to prevent the
     establishment of a standing army, the
     bane of liberty. Whenever Governments
     mean to invade the rights and liberties
     of the people, they always attempt to
     destroy the militia, in order to raise
     an army upon their ruins."

   * Noah Webster: "Before a standing army
     can rule, the people must be disarmed;
     as they are in almost every kingdom of
     Europe. The supreme power in America
     cannot enforce unjust laws by the
     sword; because the whole body of the
     people are armed, and constitute a
     force superior to any bands of regular
     troops than can be, on any pretense,
     raised in the United States."

   * Tench Coxe: "The power of the sword
     is in the hands of Congress? My
     friends and countrymen, it is not so;
     for the powers of the sword are in
     the hands of the yeomanry of America
     from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of
     these free commonwealths, entitled
     and accustomed to their arms, when
     compared with any possible army, must
     be tremendous and irresistible. Who
     are the Militia? Their swords, and
     every other terrible implement of the
     soldier, are the birthright 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."

When you consider the letter of our
Constitution, and then consider its spirit
through the words of the men responsible
for authoring it, there is no question
about the individual's right to bear arms.
But there is grave reason to doubt the
right of the federal government to
authorize wielding them for any reason
other than war.

Thanks to Jim Eason of KSFO Radio in San
Francisco for compiling these and many
other similar quotes.
                  -------

A daily radio broadcast adaptation of
Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard
at http://www.ktkz.com/

Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily.com and
executive director of the Western Journalism Center,
an independent group of investigative reporters.

1997 Western Journalism Center



- -

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:45:13 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UT: Fight Moves To House

The following alert was written byt Gun Owners of America.  Thanks!

Senate Passes "Improved" Olympic Gun Ban: Fight Moves To House

Gun Owners of America Email/Fax Alert
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org


Utah-- February 24, 1999

Action: Insist Representatives Vote Against SB 122 NO MATTER WHAT


SB 122, the Olympics Gun Ban, passed the Senate yesterday on a vote
of 21-4-4. A pair of floor amendments were added in yet another
attempt to buy the silence of gun owners and give cover to the
politicians.

That is unacceptable. As the bill now goes to the House-- where you
can bet the anti-gunners will try to ram it through as fast as
possible-- it is vital that you immediately contact your
Representative with one simple message:

VOTE AGAINST SB 122 NO MATTER WHAT.

One of the amendments states that landowners cannot deny tenants
their Second Amendment rights. This was necessary because new gun
control in the "substituted" SB 122, similar to the gun control you
beat back in last year's battle over SB 57, lets anyone post signs
to deny your right of self-defense.

The other amendment narrows the definition of Olympic venue
somewhat, meaning that it might be difficult to declare the entirety
of Salt Lake City a no-safety zone. But the "Olympic law enforcement
commander" would still be able to ban lawfully carried weapons at
all spectator-attended events if access is controlled in any way
(such as tickets or crowd-routing temporary fences) and at all
places open to media or athletes but not the public.

Somehow, proposing sweeping gun control and then scaling it back a
bit before final passage is supposed to make gun owners happy.

Bill text:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/bills/sbillamd/SB0122S2.htm

- --- Pre-written message: clip and send ---

Dear Representative:

I urge you to vote against SB 122 no matter what. There are no
possible amendments that would make this bill acceptable. My safety
and rights are simply too important.

Sincerely,

_______________

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

Utah House of Representatives Roster

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505

District information is available at:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/district.htm

Dis Name        Home phone    Office phone  Fax

01 Anderson     435-854-3760
   [e-mail]
02 Ferry        435-744-2997  435-744-2997  435-744-2999
   [e-mail]
03 Buttars      435-258-5015  435-258-2559  435-258-2559
   [e-mail]
04 Pace         435-753-615
   [e-mail]
05 Olsen        435-752-4304  435-752-4304
   [e-mail]
06 Stephens     801-731-5346  801-524-2626  801-594-8229
   [e-mail]
07 Gladwell     801-782-4130  801-737-9160
   [e-mail]
08 Murray       801-393-7062
   [e-mail]
09 Hansen       801-393-1514  801-629-8325  801-392-8011
   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
10 Shurtliff    801-479-0289
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
11 Saunders     801-476-1110  801-476-7070  801-476-7074
   [e-mail]
12 Adair        801-773-2125  801-773-9250  801-773-9927
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
13 Stephens     801-825-3792
   [e-mail]
14 Bush         801-825-3210
   [e-mail]
15 Chard        801-773-7474
   [e-mail] [e-mail]
16 Garn         801-544-3533  801-776-0232
   [e-mail]
17 Dillree      801-451-2773  801-560-4455  801-451-6116
   [e-mail]
18 Koehn        801-296-1761  801-444-5187
   [e-mail]
19 Allen        801-295-8576  801-444-5184
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
20 Siddoway     801-292-4185  801-538-7736  801-294-4135
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
21 Gowans       435-882-2120
   [e-mail]
22 Duckworth    801-250-0728  801-569-6523
   [e-mail]
23 Bourdeaux    801-596-8784  801-596-9081  801-322-4435
   [e-mail]
24 Becker       801-364-1656  801-355-8816  801-355-2090
   [e-mail]
25 Jones        801-582-8247
   [e-mail]
26 Fife         801-521-7383  801-972-3475  801-977-9454
   [e-mail]
27 Baca         801-487-2738  801-969-9904
   [e-mail]
28 Bradshaw     801-581-9646  801-581-9646  801-581-9646
   [e-mail]
29 Goodfellow   801-968-0626  801-957-3313
   [e-mail]
30 Biskupski    801-484-8369  801-296-5014
   [e-mail]
31 Carlson      801-485-8612
   [e-mail]
32 Bigelow      801-968-4188
   [e-mail]
33 Hendrickson  801-969-8920
   [e-mail]
34 Holdaway     801-964-6360  801-268-8553  801-964-6360
   [e-mail]
35 Buffmire     801-266-1862
   [e-mail]
36 Tyler        801-272-1218  801-581-6920  801-585-9291
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
37 Short        801-277-1372  801-278-0259
   [e-mail]
38 Cox          801-967-9760  801-569-5216
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
39 Zolman       801-967-6687
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
40 Walsh        801-561-5169  801-561-5169
   [e-mail]
41 Arent        801-272-1956  801-272-1956  801-272-4450
   [e-mail]
42 Buckner      801-964-8215                801-967-4333
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
43 Harper       801-566-5466  801-569-5121
   [e-mail]
44 Bennion      801-281-1607  801-264-2678  801-288-2144
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
45 Brown        801-255-0556  801-355-6079
   [e-mail]
46 Morgan       801-943-0067                801-943-9614
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
47 Holladay     801-280-6404  801-898-4456  801-282-4677
   [e-mail]
48 Beck         801-572-2325                801-572-9347
   [e-mail]
49 Curtis       801-943-3091  801-569-5141
   [e-mail]
50 Frandsen     801-254-4940  801-253-4409  801-253-4080
   [e-mail]
51 Swallow      801-572-8201  801-553-9805  801-571-6545
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
52 Hogue        801-254-1668  801-253-7586  801-253-7586
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
53 Ure          435-783-4650  435-783-2487
   [e-mail]
54 Snow         435-722-4162  435-722-9111
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
55 Seitz        435-789-0650  435-789-1552  435-789-1551
   [e-mail]
56 Cox          801-768-8759  801-768-7020  801-768-8759
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
57 Nelson       801-756-7558  801-756-2091
   [e-mail]
58 Snow         801-224-6163  801-486-7121  801-486-7125
   [e-mail]
59 Rowan        801-224-6141  801-224-6141  801-224-6141
   [e-mail]
60 Bryson       801-226-2061
   [e-mail]
61 Dayton       801-221-0623                801-375-0369
   [e-mail]
62 Alexander    801-375-1092  801-224-8666  801-224-0446
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
63 Tanner       801-373-6246  801-373-6246  801-373-6246
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
64 Lockhart     801-377-7428
   [e-mail]
65 Throckmorton 801-489-8342
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
66 Way          801-798-2295
   [e-mail]
67 Wright       801-667-3333  801-667-3333
   [e-mail]
68 Styler       435-864-3077  435-864-5660  435-864-5669
   [e-mail]
69 King         435-637-7955  435-637-2120  435-637-2433
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
70 Johnson      435-529-3227  435-529-7443  435-529-7444
   [e-mail]
71 Johnson      435-678-2077  435-678-2201  435-678-2220
   [e-mail]
72 Bowman       435-586-8174
   [e-mail]
73 Hatch        435-676-2214  435-676-8808  435-676-2421
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
74 Iverson      435-673-2936
   [e-mail]
75 Hickman      435-673-2671  435-674-5200
   [e-mail]

**************
Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail
Alert network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the
volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to
[e-mail] and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.






- -

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:31:03 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LAST CHANCE!  HB 237

HB 237, DPS fee increases has passed the House and received a favorable
report from the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee.  It now
goes to the full Senate for a final vote.

This is your last chance to stop fee increases and return oversight to the
legislature.

Contact Senators (especially your own) and urge them to OPPOSE HB 237!

General contact numbers:
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449


leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:38:22 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Warner Bros. & Snipers

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:25:44 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA13401; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:09:55 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10268;
    Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:19:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:19:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990224154520.0079fd60@dftsrv>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: RICHARD MOON <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Warner Bros. & Snipers
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

>    GySgt Carlos Hathcock died at 0545 hours, 23 Feb1999.=20
>He developed pneumomia while hospitalized for a urinary=20
>infection. Taps and a hand salute to a truly exceptional
>warrior and fighter till the end.




God bless Carlos Hathcock.
One of the most famous snipers to ever live.
He saved many American lives with what he did.
May he rest in peace.




- -

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:16:00 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Sun. 2-28 Waco-BATF Demo White House

Received: from smtp4.listserve.com ([206.55.18.125]) by mta1.mailsrvcs.net
          (InterMail v03.02.04 118 119) with ESMTP
          id <[e-mail]>
          for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:24:19 -0600
Received: from star.listserve.com (Star.ListServe.com [206.55.18.12])
    by smtp4.listserve.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA10188;
    Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:20:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:44:01 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Carol Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sun. 2-28 Waco-BATF Demo White House
To: Waco List From <[e-mail]>
Precedence: Bulk
Host: http://ListServe.com, a service of Whole Systems Design, Inc.
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It's the 6th anniversary of BATF attack on Davidians that killed
6 Davidians and 4 agents.  For the fifth year in a row members
of the Committee for Waco Justice will be demonstrating--this
year right on Bill Clinton's doorstep--on the White House sidewalk
south of Lafayette Park.

We'll be gathering at 2:00 pm, hanging out for an hour or
so, and then going for late lunch/early dinner nearby.
I've got lots of Waco signs, but bring your own if
you like.  Let's remind Clinton that we have not
forgotten the MAIN reason he SHOULD have been
impeached and removed. And let's chant loud for the
seven Davidian prisoners doing 238 years total!

(PS.  NBC Dateline will air an interview with
Juanita Broaddrick who makes credible allegations
Clinton raped her 20 years ago.  All America
will get a better idea of just what kind of evil
man we have in the White House. Sorry this
message late, my server down since last night.)

[e-mail]
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html



****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! ***************


- -

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 08:09:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: "Peace in our Time"

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:10:59 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <[e-mail]>
To: LPUtah Forum <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: "Peace in our Time"

We need more satire like this. :-)

- ----------

A rewrite of a portion of Leonard Wojcik's apologist statements regarding
the USSC's support of SB 122, with a Neville Chamberlain twist:

Yes we think we have a pretty good arrangement with Adolf Hitler and the
German government, all things considered. Some type of armed incursion is
going to happen. The German news media will keep pushing for it and
eventually the German public will demand it (even though it is irrational,
the public doesn't think, they just react to being alarmed).

It then will be used as a vehicle to push through numerous odorous offenses
such as were outlined in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Compare where responsibility
lies in Mein Kampf vs the current agreement. The current agreement requires
Nazi Germany to refrain from attacking certain countries, Mein Kampf
required genocide. The infractions are not even in the same ballpark. I
don't think that the Western Nations who are opposing the current proposal
have the political or military clout to hold off a German assault next
year. We run the very real risk of losing it all, with no gains at all.

As for next year: The British government totally opposes any incursions
by the Nazis. We have drawn the line at that point. We feel that this
year's agreement with Nazi Germany makes it much easier to defend our point
next year and in the following years. This agreement also sets a standard
that any future incursions will have to meet and it will be difficult.

Some may get a thrill out of confrontational politics.... the rancor of
bitterly fought presentations in world committees, the political muscle of
rallies on the steps of the British Parliament, rubbing the anti-fascist
nose in our political muscle. We prefer to work with reasonable people
like Adolf Hitler to try to solve the problems before we have to go
confrontational. The British government feels that with the inevitable
Nazi incursions, it is wise to deal with the problem now while we can get
some favorable concessions.

Read the agreement, understand what is happening, support the efforts of
a lot of people to preserve your rights. Contact your leaders and express
support for the Munich peace agreement as amended by Adolf Hitler and
Neville Chamberlain in 1938.


The portion of Leonard Wojcik's statements used above:

Yes we think we have a pretty good bill, all things considered. Some
type of olympic legislation is going to happen. The news media will keep
pushing for it and eventually the public will demand it (even though it is
irrational, the public doesn't think, they just react to being alarmed).
It then will be used as a vehicle to push through numerous odorous things
such as were in the Jones bill. Compare where responsibility lies in the
Jones bill vs the current bill. The current bill puts responsibility on the
property owner, the Jones bill required prior permission. The penalties are
not even in the same ballpark. I don't think that those who are opposing
the current bill have the political clout to hold off an assualt next year.
We run the very real risk of losing it all, with no gains at all.

As for next year: USSC totally oposes restrictions on concealed carry
in business and schools. We have drawn the line at that point. We feel
that this year's bill makes it much easier to defend our point next year
and in the following years. This bill also sets a standard that any future
temporary restrictions will have to meet and it will be difficult.

Some may get a thrill out of confrontational politics.... the rancor
of bitterly fought presentations in committees, the political muscle
of rallys on the capitol steps, rubbing the anti gunner's nose in our
political muscle. We prefer to work with reasonable people to try to
solve the problems before we have to go confrontational. The USSC board
feels that with the inevitable passage of some sort of bill, it is wise
to deal with the problem now while we can get some favorable language.

Read the bill, understand what is happening, support the efforts of a
lot of people to preserve your rights. Contact your senators and express
support for SB122 second substitute as amended by Senator Waddoups.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 20:51:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun vs NAACP

I'd let them skate if they add a statement of disaffiliation with
the NAACP to their Form 4473. :)

Scott

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:56:48 +0000
From: [e-mail] (J. J. Johnson)
Subject: Gun vs NAACP
To: [e-mail]

You folks heard that the NAACP is thinking about joining in with cities
and suing the gun makers. Here's how the gun manufactures should respond:

We, the Gun Manufacturers of America, have received word of possible
legal actions taken against us by the NAACP for the proliferation of
firearms in their communities. Their claim is that guns have cause
death and destruction their large constituency.

Therefore, in order to make the Black Community "feel more safe", and
to avoid any lawsuit by the NAACP, the Gun Manufacturers of America
have decided to no longer sell firearms to any Black Americans. We also
encourage the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to review all 4473
form for the "race" of the gun owner, and confiscating any firearm
currently owned by any Black American (including law enforcement and
military). After all, we wouldn't want the Black population hurting
themselves with our products.

Let's see if that doesn't tick some people off.
J.J. Johnson
______________________________________________
J.J. Johnson - [e-mail]

P.O. Box 3000 suite 204
Pahrump, Nevada 89041
702.727.6340 Office
888.779.3347 Pager



- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:20:13 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RIP: Carlos Hathcock - Decorated Marine Sniper

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:08:07 -0700
Received: from bronze.coil.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA15350; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:52:17 -0700
Received: from [198.4.94.178] (cmhd2.coil.com [198.4.94.210]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA06688; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:30:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v0401170eb2fbf30e9df8@[198.4.94.178]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:49:21 -0500
To: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
From: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: RIP: Gunny Carlos Hathcock
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

From: #jramm <[e-mail]>

On Tuesday 23 February 1999 at 0545 hrs America lost one of its Greatest
Vietnam era Heros.  Legendary United States Marine Sniper, GSgt. Carlos
Norman Hathcock II, passed away after a long bout with multiple sclerosis
and most recently a kidney infection which had caused him to be
hospitalized for a short time.

GSgt. Hathcock was the subject of MARINE SNIPER - 93 Confirmed Kills by
Charles Henderson.  Probably one of the most read Vietnam era books, it
covers some of the more colorful events which made him famous.  He was
awarded the Silver Star, although more than 25+ years after the fact, for
saving the lives of several Marines on 16 September 1969 when the amtrac
they were riding on ran over an anti-tank mine and was destroyed.
Despite his severe personal wounds which included 3rd degree burns over
almost every inch of his body, Hathcock jeopardized his own life and
pulled seven other Marines to safety before trying to save himself.
Despite a nation-wide effort to convince Washington to award the Medal of
Honor; Hatcock received the Silver Star as a reminder to all of the
political nature of Vietnam and what it's like to have a draft-dodger as
'so-called' President.

Despite life-threatening wounds, Hathcock recovered and began instructing
other Marine Snipers at the Scout Sniper School in Quantico, VA.  He also
trained hundreds of civilian law enforcement 'counter-snipers' as well.

Probably the best known sniper in American history GSgt. Carlos N.
Hathcock II will be sorely missed, but not forgotten.

A memorial web site, http://www.marinesniper.org, is in the process of
being set up.  It will contain stories and information about GSgt.
Hathcock as well as the ability to make donations to a memorial fund
which is being set up in his honor.

The following are the arrangements for U S Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant
Carlos Norman Hathcock II:

A viewing will be held at the Woodlawn Memorial Gardens Funeral Home,
6329 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 on Thursday
25 February 1999 from 6:00 - 8:00 pm.

A service will be held Friday 26 February 1999 at 12:00 noon at the
funeral home with burial following the service.

Memorials may be made to:

     Navy Marine Corps Relief Fund Society
     PO Box 415
     Quantico, VA 22134

Carlos is survived by his wife, Jo, and his son GySgt Carlos N. Hathcock
III.  Cards and letters of condolences may be sent to:

     Mrs. Carlos N. Hathcock II
     600 Raff Road
     Virginia Beach, VA 23462


Jim Ramm
Member, NRA Board of Directors

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per =
week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=[e-mail]=

**************************************************************************


- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "The Best Defense"

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:37:50 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: County action

THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999

Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
- -------------------------------------
By Robert Stacy McCain
- -------------------------------------
James Wayne Horne had a record of nearly 30 arrests, with three state
prison terms behind him, when he broke into Sammie Foust's Cape Coral,
Fla., home in 1996.

Horne was on crack cocaine. He wanted money. He had a knife. He cut and
beat the 49-year-old woman so badly that she required hospitalization.

Horne didn't go to the hospital. He went to the morgue, because Mrs.
Foust found her pistol and shot him dead.

The story of how a .25-caliber pistol saved Mrs. Foust's life is just
one of more than a dozen dramatic accounts of armed self-defense by
ordinary citizens in Robert A. Waters' new book, "The Best Defense:
True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm."

The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]

"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]

Mr. Waters, 55, said he chose the 14 accounts in "The Best Defense" from
among "several thousand cases" he had collected over the years. The Ocala,
Fla., resident said his interest in such stories began "about 10 years ago"
when he saw a story in the local newspaper about a man who shot an intruder.
"At that point, I started collecting clippings" about citizens defending
themselves with firearms, he said.

Among the violent encounters recounted in Mr. Waters' new book:

* With a .45-caliber pistol, Doug Stanton of Ashland, Ohio, ended the 1995
killing spree of Jerry Hessler, who had murdered four persons and wounded
two others in a psychotic revenge plan.

* Judy Davis of Orange County, Fla., was stalked by an obsessive man she
had once briefly dated. When he continued stalking her despite restraining
orders and two criminal convictions -- he was twice released on probation
- -- Miss Davis bought a .38 revolver that saved her life when the stalker
broke into her home and attacked her.

* On Dec. 2, 1994, the long criminal career of "Dixie Mafia" boss William
"Pappy" Head ended when he and an accomplice made the mistake of trying to
rob a jewelry store in Richmond whose owner, Gary B. Baker, made sure he
and his employees were always armed.

A retired counselor to the disabled, Mr. Waters is himself a gun owner --
but "not a collector or a real major gun enthusiast," he said. He hopes the
stories in "The Best Defense" will help counter media stereotypes of gun
owners. [What, that they won't take out their own trash, but dump it on
other people who may not be armed at the time?]

"Gun owners are portrayed as being militia types. ... A lot of people try
to portray gun owners as vigilantes, cowboys and wackos," Mr. Waters said,
explaining that the people he interviewed for the book "were nothing like
that. They were normal, everyday citizens who were going about their
everyday lives when they were brutally attacked. And because they had a
gun, they were able to survive the attack."

Mr. Waters noted that his home state of Florida is one of several states
that license citizens to carry concealed weapons.

"Since the law was passed in 1987, more than 300,000 permits have been
issued, and the murder rate has fallen 21 percent," he said. "Many
criminals will tell you that they do anything to avoid an armed citizen.
One reason, for instance, they don't rob 'mom and pop' stores, as opposed
to chain stores, is because in the 'mom and pop' stores, many times the
owners will keep a gun. Many [retail] chains have policies prohibiting
clerks from keeping guns."

Mr. Waters cited the research of University of Chicago professor John R.
Lott Jr., whose recent book "More Guns, Less Crime" demonstrated that
private gun ownership deters violent crime.

But such research is sometimes ignored, Mr. Waters said, and many media
accounts continue to promote legislation against gun ownership.

"I think it's based on emotion," Mr. Waters said of the current "mania"
for gun-control laws. "I think Dr. Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida
State University have proven that gun control makes minimal difference
in the murder rate. However, emotionally, it's a lot easier to blame a
firearm [for crime], rather than blaming the criminal."

Statistics and research are inadequate when gun-control advocates appeal
to such common emotions, Mr. Waters said.

"One of the reasons I wrote this book was to bring some emotional
presence to the pro-gun side of the debate," he said. "Any time a child
or a teen-ager is murdered with a gun, it's all over the national media.
And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of cases of people using guns
for self-defense and to defend others. But these stories are generally
local stories. They're not usually carried by the national media."

Mr. Waters added, "The pro-gun side needs to debate less about the
Second Amendment and more about issues that really matter to people,
such as self-defense."

Though he defends the Second Amendment guarantee of citizens' rights to
"keep and bear arms," Mr. Waters said, "I'm not totally opposed to all
forms of gun control." He supports the recently implemented instant
background check because "criminals should be stopped from getting
firearms as much as we can." [Yet they should be loosed on society!?]
However, he has concerns about efforts for federal gun registration laws
"because I think they will eventually lead to confiscation."

The recent efforts by several cities to sue gun manufacturers for the
actions of criminals is "absurd," Mr. Waters said. "It's almost like
suing a pencil manufacturer because a kid makes an F in class."

While gun ownership is unpopular in some places, Mr. Waters said
reaction to his book in Florida has been very positive. He was even
invited to address a gathering of retired teachers.

"Ocala is a very conservative town," he said.

One thing Mr. Waters learned in interviewing citizens who had used
their firearms in self-defense is that they had usually done everything
they could to avoid killing someone. [Letting a violent criminal go
allows him to kill others.]

"Most Americans have a healthy respect for human life," he said.

Not criminals, though. "I think a lot of them are sociopathic. In other
cases, their minds are so clouded with drugs, such as crack cocaine,
they go out to rob and steal to get these drugs, and it doesn't matter
who gets in their way."

Copyright 1999 News World Communications, Inc.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:53:01 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers

Dammit.
They just won't stop will they ?!

U.S. Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers
1.52 p.m. ET (1853 GMT) March 2, 1999

WASHINGTON -- A group of U.S. lawmakers offered legislation Tuesday that
would allow the government to regulate the manufacture, sale and
distribution of guns like it does other consumer products.

The bill, backed by New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, would make firearms subject to
government regulations in the same way as everyday products such as toys,
toasters and washing machines.

"It is outrageous that our government is powerless to regulate this
industry and is unable to warn consumers of the risks which guns may
pose,'' Kennedy told a news conference.

Under the bill, called the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act,
the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would
regulate the manufacture and sale of guns, develop safety standards and
evaluate product safety.

It would have the power to restrict guns that posed an unreasonable risk
of death or injury, and set a penalty of $500 for civil violations of the
act.

A host of proposals for restrictions on guns have died in Congress amid
fierce Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law
requiring federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from
a licensed gun dealer.

The bill was named after former White House spokesman James Brady, who
was shot and wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt on President
Ronald Reagan.

Kennedy said the new legislation would be a first step toward regulation
of the industry. Supporters said it could serve as a model for negotiated
settlements of lawsuits filed against the gun industry by mayors and
individuals.

A federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., earlier this month found gunmakers
liable for shootings with illegally obtained handguns because of negligent
marketing and distribution practices.

Several U.S. cities have filed lawsuits seeking to hold the gun industry
accountable for firearms violence.


[e-mail]



- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"

On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999
>
>Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
>-------------------------------------
>By Robert Stacy McCain
>-------------------------------------

[...]
>
>The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
>though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
>peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
>gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
>this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
>more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]
>
>"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
>a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
>Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
>not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]
[...]

You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.
The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is
that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to
other forms of self defense or combat.  Ask a cop how many hours of
training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many
hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order
to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook
or subjecting himself to grave harm.  Do you suggest that only those
able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?

A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
would-be carjacker and apprehend him.  The law, and I believe most
people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is
reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is
IMMEDIATELY threatened.  Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief,
rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally)
dangerous, and morally questionable.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.  Some
90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired
and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.  Your
thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
protects themselves witha gun.

Apply this same faulty logic to other situations.  I have an alarm
system on my car and house.  I drive an old, ugly car without a
stereo.  I have stickers and lights on both indicating to potential
criminals that alarms are present.  I have a large dog at home.  I am
also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my
keys with me.  Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and
home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm,
with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the
doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog?  By adding
alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt to even
identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him.  Gads, just
driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step to
avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and doors
unlocked is a much easier tarket.

Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public?  Did you ever
consider that by properly locking your bike you are encouraging
thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their bike?  Do you
feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional measures
to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you bike?

Does this make me "uncharitable"?  Of course not.  It means I've taken
responsibility for myself.  Others would be wise to do likewise.  But
their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to
take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or
kill a criminal.  That remains true whether we are talking about
locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we
are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it
begins.

And thank you for posting the article.

- --

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 most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
 subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
 have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
 downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #129
***********************************