ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n143

Internet Message Format | 1999-06-22 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #143
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Wednesday, June 23 1999     Volume 02 : Number 143




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

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 19:02:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 2/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
In reality, the average man would load his musket and bring it to his
shoulder, but he could not bring himself to kill. He would be brave, he
would stand shoulder to shoulder, he would do what he was trained to do;
but at the moment of truth, he could not bring himself to pull the trigger.
And so he lowered the weapon and loaded it again. Of those who did fire,
only a tiny percentage fired to hit. The vast majority fired over the
enemy's head.

During World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall had a team of
researchers study what soldiers did in battle. For the first time in
history, they asked individual soldiers what they did in battle. They
discovered that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen could bring
themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier. That is the reality of
the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are able and willing
to participate. Men are willing to die. They are willing to sacrifice
themselves for their nation; but they are not willing to kill. It is a
phenomenal insight into human nature; but when the military became aware
of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this
"problem." From the military perspective, a 15% firing rate among riflemen
is like a 15% literacy rate among librarians. And fix it the military did.
By the Korean War, around 55% of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill.
And by Vietnam, the rate rose to over 90%.

The method to this madness -- desensitization.

How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is
instructive because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children.
The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning,
operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain each of these in
the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to
the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture. Brutalization and
desensitization are what happens at boot camp. From the moment you step off
the bus, you are physically and verbally abused -- countless push-ups,
endless hours at attention or running with heavy loads, while carefully
trained professionals take turns screaming at you. Your head is shaved; you
are herded together naked and dressed alike, losing all individuality. This
brutalization is designed to break down your existing mores and norms, and
force you to accept a new set of values that embraces destruction, violence,
and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to violence and
accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening
to our children thorugh violence in the media -- but instead of 18-year-olds,
it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what
is happening on television. At that age, a child can watch something happening
on television and mimic that action. But it isn't until children are six or
seven years old that the part of the brain kicks in that lets them understand
where information comes from. Even though young children have some
understanding of what it means to pretend, they are developmentally unable
to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality.

When young children see somebody shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded,
or murdered on TV, to them it is as though it were actually happening. To
have a child of three, four, or five watch a "splatter" movie, learning to
relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30
minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered,
is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a
friend, letting her play with that friend, and then butchering that friend
in front of your child's eyes. And this happens to our children hundreds
upon hundreds of times. Sure, they are told: "Hey, it's all for fun. Look,
this isnit real; it's just TV."

And they nod their little heads and say OK. But they can't tell the
difference. Can you remember a point in your life or in your childrens'
lives when dreams, reality, and television were all jumbled together?

That is what it is like to be at that level of psychological development.

That is what the media are doing to them. The Journal of the American
Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the
impact of TV violence. The research demonstrated what happened in numerous
nations after television made its appearance as compared to nations and
regions without TV. The two nations or regions being compared are
demographically and ethnically identical; only one variable is different
- -- the presence of television. In every nation, region, or city with
television, there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground,
and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years?

That is how long it takes for the brutalization of a three to five-year-old
to reach the "prime crime age." That is how long it takes for you to reap
what you have sown when you brutalize and desensitize a three-year-old.

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are
superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific
studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media. The
Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "the introduction
of television in the 1950s caused a subsequent doubling of the homocide rate,
i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a casual factor behind
approximately one half of the homocides committed in the United States, or
approximately 10,000 homocides annually." The article went on to say that
"if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there
would today be 10,000 fewer homocides each year in the United States,
70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (June 10, 1992).

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning is like the famous case of Pavlov's dogs they teach
in Psychology 101. The dogs learned to associate the ringing of the bell
with food, and once conditioned, the dogs could not hear the bell without
salivating. The Japanese were masters at using classical conditioning with
their soldiers. Early in World War II, Chinese prisoners were placed in a
ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind them. And one by one, a
select few Japanese soldiers would go into the ditch and bayonet "their"
prisoner to death. This is a horrific way to kill another human being. Up
on the bank, countless other young soldiers would cheer them on in their
violence. Comparatively few soldiers actually killed in these situations,
but by making the others watch and cheer, the Japanese were able to use
these kinds of atrocities to classically condition a very large audience to
associate pleasure with human death and suffering.

Immediately afterwards, the soldiers who had been spectators were treated to
sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls.
The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure.
The Japanese found these kinds of techniques to be extraordinarily effective
at quickly enabling very large numbers of soldiers to commit atrocities in
the years to come. Operant conditioning (which we will look at shortly)
teaches you to kill, but classical conditioning is a subtle but powerful
mechanism that teaches you to like it.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 19:02:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 3/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples
of it in modern U.S. military training, but there are some clear-cut examples
of it being done by the media to our children. What is happening to our
children is the reverse of the aversion therapy portrayed in the movie A
Clockwork Orange. In A Clockwork Orange, a brutal sociopath, a mass murderer,
is strapped to a chair and forced to watch violent movies while he is
injected with a drug that nauseates him. So he sits and gags and retches as
he watches the movies. After hundreds of repetitions of this, he associates
violence with nausea. And it limits his ability to be violent.

We are doing the exact opposite: Our children watch vivid pictures of human
suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft
drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume. After the Jonesboro
shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted
when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed,"
she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie
theatres when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and
keep right on eating popcorn and drink pop. We have raised a generation of
barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the
Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the
Colosseum. The result is a phenomenom that functions much like AIDS, a
phenomenom I call AVIDS: Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS
has never killed anybody. It destroys your immune system, and then other
diseases that shouldn't kill you become fatal. Television violence by itself
does not kill you. It destroys your violence immune system and conditions
you to derive pleasure from violence. And once you are at close range with
another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger, Acquired
Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome can destroy your midbrain resistance.

Operant Conditioning

The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a very powerful
repetitive procedure of stimulus-reponse, stimulus-response. A benign example
is the use of flight simulators to train pilots. An airline pilot in training
sits in front of a flight simulator for endless hours; when a particular
warning light goes on, he is taught to react in a certain way. When another
warning light goes on, a different reaction is required. Stimulus-response,
stimulus-response, stimulus-response. One day, the pilot is actually flying
a jumbo jet; the plane is going down, and 300 people are screaming behind
him. He is wetting his seat cushion and he is scared out of his wits; but
he does the right thing. Why? Because he has been conditioned to respond
reflexively to this particular crisis.

When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been
conditioned to do. In fire drills, children learn to file out of the school
in orderly fashion. One day there is a real fire, and they are frightened
out of their wits; but they do exactly what they have been conditioned to
do, and it saves their lives. The military and law enforcement community
have made killing a conditioned response. This has substantially raised the
firing rate on the modern battlefield. Whereas infantry training in World
War II used bull's-eye targets, now soldiers learn to fire at realistic,
man-shaped silhouettes that pop up into their field of view. That is the
stimulus. The trainees have only a split second to engage the target. The
conditioned response is to shoot the target, and then it drops.

Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response -- soldiers or police
officers experience hundreds of repetitions. Later, when soldiers are on the
battlefield or a police officer is walking a beat and somebody pops up with
a gun, they will shoot reflexively and shoot to kill. We know that 75 to 80%
of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of
stimulus-response training.

Now, if you're a little troubled by that, how much more should we be troubled
by the fact that every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot
video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor
skills? I was an expert witness in a murder case in South Carolina offering
mitigation for a kid who was facing the death penalty. I tried to explain to
the jury that interactive video games had conditioned him to shoot a gun to
kill. He had spent hundreds of dollars on video games learning to point and
shoot, point and shoot. One day he and his buddy decided it would be fun to
rob the local convenience store.

They walked in, and he pointed a sub-nosed .38 pistol at the clerk's head.
The clerk turned to look at him, and the defendant shot reflexively from
about six feet. The bullet hit the clerk right between the eyes -- which is a
pretty remarkable shot with that weapon at that range -- and killed this
father of two. Afterward, we asked the boy what happened and why he did it.

It clearly was not part of the plan to kill the guy -- it was being videotaped
from six different directions. He said, "I don't know. It was a mistake. It
wasn't supposed to happen." In the military and law-enforcement worlds, the
right option is often not to shoot. But you never, ever put your money in
that video machine with the intention of not shooting. There is always some
stimulus that sets you off.

And when he was excited, and his heart rate went up, and vascoconstriction
closed his forebrain down, this young man did exactly what he was conditioned
to do: he reflexively pulled the trigger, shooting accurately just like all
those times he played video games. This process is extraordinarily powerful
and frightening. The result is ever more "homemade" sociopaths who kill
reflexively. Our children are learning how to kill and learning to like the
idea of killing and then we have the audacity to say, "Oh my goodness, what
is wrong?"

One of the boys involved in the Jonesboro shootings (and they are just boys)
had a fair amount of experience shooting real guns. The other one, to the
best of our knowledge, had almost no experience shooting. Between them, those
two boys fired 27 shots from a range of over 100 yards, and they hit 15
people. That is pretty remarkable shooting. We run into these situations
often -- kids who have never picked up a gun in their lives pick up a real
gun and are incredibly accurate. Why? Video games. (continued next issue)


Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expert on the psychology of killing, retired
from the U.S. Army in February 1998. He now teaches psychology at Arkansas
State University, directs the Killology Research Group in Jonesboro, Arkansas,
and has written On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in
War and Society (Little, Brown and Co., 1996). This article was adapted from
a lecture he gave at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas in April 1998



- -

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 08:28:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: RKBA: An *Individual* Right

- -----
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:11:37 -0500 (CDT)
To: [e-mail]
From: David Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: RKBA: An *Individulal* Right

Lots of talk about RKBA being an *individual* right---as opposed to a
"collective" right, as espoused by some (even esteemed professors of
constitutional law). The following (posted to another RKBA list) might
prove enlightening:

- --------------
Well, the antis claim that no Court has ever held that RKBA, as referred
to in the Second Amendment, is an *individual* (versus a *collective*)
right and that no court has ever overturned a federal gun law on Second
Amendment grounds. This is not true.

The federal district court which heard the case of Miller and Layton for
violating the NFA of 1934 by carrying a short-barreled shotgun acquitted
the defendants, finding the NFA unconstitutional, effectively overturning
the NFA on Second Amendment grounds

The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court (it wasn't
necessary to go through the circuit appellate court in those days). By
issuing a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court agreed that Messrs.
Miller and Layton had "standing", which they most certainly would *not*
have had if the Second Amendment applied only to State governments
regarding the conduct of their individual militiae.

In short, the 1939 Supreme Court was all set to strike down the National
Firearms Act of 1934 by vindicating Jack Miller and Frank Layton---except
that their attorney was prevented from offering evidence to support their
Second Amendment defense because his clients (the stupid b*st*rds!) had
fled the country, rather than stand before a Supreme Court very ready to
exonerate them! (see *U.S. v. Miller* 307 U.S. 175-176 (1939).

So the case was decided against them by default, even though they would've
won if only they had appeared!
- ---------------

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:28:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999

- ----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network.
No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.

Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999

Regarding the Expansion of the Brady Background Check to Include Private
Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers, Mental Health Status and the Inclusion of
Misdemeanor Offenses to the List of Disqualifying Criteria for Firearms
Possession of Purchase by Adult Citizens.

Position: Strong Opposition

Private Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers at Gun Shows or Any Other Circumstance.

The provisions of the unfunded 1993 Federal Brady mandate never intended
and further specifically exempted private party transfers from the Brady
background check system. This was not a loophole in the law, but was
included in each of the legislative drafts of Brady from 1987 until its
passage in 1993. The Brady check initially covered only handguns, and as of
November 1998, covers all firearms purchased from any federally licensed
dealer regardless of time, location or circumstance.

Currently Utah is anticipated to check some 75,000 firearms transactions in
calendar 1999 under the DPS/BCI Instant Check System as was implemented to
comply with the unfunded Federal Brady mandate. Rejections for disqualified
individuals attempting to purchase under the Utah system currently run
slightly over 2% of all transactions. This means NEARLY 98% of those
purchasing firearms under Brady are being charged $7.50 in state fees per
transaction to prove their innocence to the state before being allowed to
exercise an enumerated Constitutional right. Criminals do not, will not and
never have obtained their firearms from legitimate sources, regulated or
not. In other words, Brady, as based on the actual numbers, is arguably a
98% failure in both concept and in execution. Expanding Brady to include
private party transfers at gun shows or at any other time, place or
circumstance, will yield similar dismal crime reduction results. Demanding
that before one citizen, a friend or a neighbor might sell a privately
owned firearm to another, or before a grandparent might give a grandchild
the a gift of a firearm on Christmas morning that a Brady check must be run
on all parties involved is not good public policy, and it is contemptible
that the idea should even be discussed with a straight face in a
legislative forum such as this.

According to recent discussions with Utah DPS/BCI personnel, of the more
than 3000 individuals who have been denied purchase of a firearm under
Brady in the last 5 years, a grand total of ZERO have been arrested on
the charge of attempting to purchase in violation of existing law by Utah
authorities. It follows that referrals to prosecution were also ZERO, as
were prosecutions, convictions, sentencing and incarcerations.

ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO = ZERO.

Currently a reported grand total of federal convictions for attempts to
purchase under Brady over the last 5 years throughout all 50 states stands at
SEVEN.  Out of the supposed tens and hundreds of thousands of disqualified
individuals denied under Brady, only SEVEN were convicted of violation of
Brady by Federal authorities over 5 years, and an impressive total of ONE
in the last three years.

It becomes abundantly clear that if arrest, prosecution and punishment of
those disqualified individuals attempting to purchase under Brady is not a
priority, what then is the underlying purpose of the Brady program? In our
opinion, it is two-fold.

First, the fees from Brady provide the administering agency with a most
attractive non-appropriated revenue stream. Based on 1999 projected checks,
Utah firearm purchasers will be charged by DPS/BCI a total of some $562,500
in Brady fees, and yet $549,000 of that amount WILL COME FROM THOSE WHO ARE
NOT PROHIBITED for purchase or possession.

Fee increase as proposed by DPS/BCI during the 1999 General Session would
double Brady fees, and new fee-setting authority given to DPS/BCI during
that session makes such fee increases both inevitable and in all
likelihood, abusive and punitive. Will we see improved user services
provided by DPS/BCI in exchange for these fee increases? No. For example,
BCI reportedly no longer conducts on-site Brady checks for FFL dealers at
gun shows. BCI reportedly has stopped sending out permit renewal notices to
Utah's 25,000 CCW holders as of March 1999. If a CCW renewal is more than
30 days late, the entire CCW application process with full application
fees, less the training class, must be repeated. It is doubtful any other
state license or permit renewal is handled in this manner. Clearly the
DPS/BCI policy direction is increased user fees and less service for Utah
gun owners and purchasers. That is why we strongly opposed the recent fee
setting authority moving from legislative oversight and justification to
administrative agency control.

Law abiding Utahns lawfully purchasing firearms are now being charged more
than ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR to prove they are law-abiding
citizens before they can exercise a Constitutional right. However, for this
ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS annually, Utah's firearms owners receive NO
DIRECT,, INDIRECT OR TANGIBLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. If any benefit, however
dubious, comes from the Brady check system, it is an alleged benefit to
society as a whole, not to firearms owners or purchasers as a group.
Therefore, as the supposed beneficiaries, society as a whole should fund
any such system in its entirety. As such, GOUtah! will be working on
legislation to place all Brady administrative costs under general state
funding, rather than user fee-based funding, for the duration of the Brady
program. We, as law-abiding citizens and as gun owners will not be taxed to
exercise a Constitutional right. We will not be forced by the state to pay
for the rope with which we'll be hung.

Secondly, the purchase and transaction records generated by the Brady
system, or any other firearms registration proposal, are now clearly
subject to abuse by the administrative agencies involved. The FBI is widely
reported as, and admits to retaining NICS records on the firearms purchases
by law abiding citizens, in direct and knowing violation of existing
federal law. This practice has resulted in lawsuits being filed against
the FBI by the National Rifle Association and by others. Rep. Chris Cannon
of Utah's 3rd District is currently developing legislation to force FBI
compliance with existing federal laws in this area. Further, BATF is widely
reported as scanning the many years worth of sales records of the hundreds
of thousands of federally-licensed firearms dealers forced out of business
by the current administration's anti-gun policies, again in violation of
existing federal laws prohibiting the creation or maintenance of any such
centralized database of firearms or firearms owners.

The purpose of any scheme or system to register firearms or firearms owners
has historically been to either tax such firearms ownership, or to provide
the information needed to implement confiscation of privately owned firearms,
or both. Make no mistake, and harbor no illusions. These existing and proposed
systems are not about crime prevention. They are about firearms registration,
taxation and/or confiscation. This pattern has been demonstrated repeatedly
throughout the world in this century and is being implemented in places
like New York City, Chicago and New Jersey even as we speak.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 09:28:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Po 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Mental Health Issues:

Current existing federal and state law prohibits those adjudicated by a court
as mentally incompetent to own, possess or purchase a firearm. In one recent
instance, an individual who may have been so adjudicated was able to purchase
a firearm used in violence at retail from a licensed dealer. In this instance,
it is reported that court records of commitment were not available to the
DPS/BCI information system. It is clear the problem is one of reasonable
information sharing and access, not expansion of the definition of mental
incompetence or criteria for denial of firearms ownership, purchase or
possession. Any such disqualification must be strictly limited and defined,
have competent legal and medical representation, a full measure of due
process and judicial review for the subject, and any individual so defined
should be in the physical custody of the state or other agency for
confinement for the duration of such treatment. If they are adjudicated as
too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they are also too dangerous to
be freely circulating in our communities.

Disqualification Based on Misdemeanor Offenses:

Our society and our legal system has always provided a clear and unambiguous
'line in the sand' regarding the criteria for a lifetime loss of the civil
rights held by its citizens. That line is a conviction in a court of law for
a felony crime. With such conviction comes the loss of the right to vote,
to hold office of public trust, engage in certain professions, possess
dangerous weapons or materials, move freely within our society and other
restrictions and prohibitions.

We are firmly opposed to any loss or restriction of any basic constitutional
and civil right, including the right to own, possess or purchase a firearm,
based on anything less than the lawful conviction of a felony level crime,
period.

It becomes clear that those whom we consider a threat to our society, based
on their violent criminal actions, are currently breaking numerous felony-
level laws already on the books. For example the theft of or possession of
a recently stolen firearm, like auto theft, is a second degree felony under
Utah law, and also a federal violation if the firearm has moved in interstate
commerce. Yet our prosecutors and courts constantly play 'let's make a deal'
with violent felony level crime in hopes of streamlining the process of
justice. Yet this criminal justice 'barter bazaar' plea bargaining system
is at the root of the problem. If an individual has broken the law, and it
can be proven in a court of law, then it should be properly tried, a verdict
rendered, and appropriate punishment swiftly administered. That's the way
the criminal justice system works, and that's the way it must work. Justice
'on the cheap' is not justice. It's institutionalized contempt for the very
core values and principles our justice system is sworn to uphold.

As a society we have collectively decided which violent crimes are serious
enough to warrant a lifetime loss of rights, and we call them felonies. We
need to administer our criminal justice system based only on that standard,
not based on 'how many beds are available at the gray bar hotel tonight' or
what our 'public indignation flavor of the month' might be. If Judicial and
Correctional resources are the limiting factor driving this public policy
equation, then you, as Legislators, must stop creating non-violent, victimless
crimes where none now exist, and you will soon find the resources are
available to punish violent crimes where they do exist. That's the proven
way to a safer and more tolerant society. To tamper with the civil rights
of any citizen, absent their lawful conviction of a felony level crime,
is both unfair and unacceptable.

Conclusion:

Utah's peaceable firearms owners are not the problem, Utah's current gun
laws are enough. They don't need to be fixed. The laws now in place need to
be enforced. The criminal justice system needs to get up off its knees and
administer effective justice. The public's safety needs to be protected,
and our citizens rights need to be preserved.

As peacable firearms owners, we will stand with you to help implement
meaningful improvements to our public institutions. We will also stand
squarely in the middle of this political debate, without apology and
without compromise, to delay, block, derail and otherwise prevent the rights
and interests of Utah's peaceable firearms owners from being trampled
or sacrificed on the altar of public hysteria or political expediency.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:13:27 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: ALERT! Leavitt's Mental Health Proposals Unveiled!

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

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

To All:

On June 23, 1999 (Wednesday) from 5pm to 6pm, on Tom Draschil's show
(KTALK
630 AM), Ruth Andrus will be exposing Fuehrer Leavitt's and Oberfuehrst
Robin Arnold-William's mental health proposals for the special session.
Ruth has acquired the tapes from the interim committee meeting last
Wednesday, as well as Leavitt's letter to Beattie and Stephens, and other
special papers.  Here's a couple highlights:

Under Leavitt's final solution, even non-violent misdemeanors can have
you
involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- where they _forcibly_
inject you with whatever wonderful drugs they deem neccessary to keep you
passive and controlled.  New mobile squads of state-funded thugs will
search the streets, looking for people (like you, you
ultra-right-wing-whackos!) to send directly to new "mental health
courts,"
where inconvenient constitutional rights will be jettisoned for the good
of
the Reich, and where they will make certain you are protected from your
own
self.

For you pro-second amendment folks, Leavitt's Auschwitz-type mental
health
proposals are far worse than simply removing guns from schools and
churches.  You'd better respond to this greater threat quickly!  I have
the
actual proposals in front of me -- it is Nazi Germany all over again.

Listen to the program, get the documentation you need, and call your
legislators!

- --------- End Forwarded message ----------


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:19:38 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Food for thought from the Chuck Wagon for 06/22/99

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:57:12 -0600
Received: from gulf1.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id FAA24346; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:37:27 -0600
Received: from gulf1.com [208.226.47.226] by gulf1.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-5.04) id A969B7D0106; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:54:17 CST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-EM-Version: 4, 5, 0, 0
X-EM-Registration: #30C3410514B417038530
From: "Chuck Baldwin Live" <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Food for thought from the Chuck Wagon for 06/22/99
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 6:46:53 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Must Witherspoon Apologize?

June 22, 1999

=20

I received a postcard yesterday from a Christian Brother telling me that I
cared nothing for souls, that I should resign my pulpit and that I was
wasting my time getting involved in "reformation" efforts. It is his
opinion that I should stick to preaching the gospel and do nothing else.
Doubtless, he finds my activism in civil liberty offensive. I=C6ve been =
told
this before.=20

I find the attitude of Christians and ministers such as this brother very
interesting and very disturbing. Must I do nothing but preach the gospel?
Am I "out of God=C6s will" when I engage the great cultural battles of our
day? Dr. John Witherspoon didn=C6t think so.

John Witherspoon was one of the most learned and powerful preachers of his
day. He was a direct descendant of the great reformer, John Knox. The son
of a minister, (No less than 12 of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were the sons or grandsons of ministers.) Dr. Witherspoon
graduated with honors from the University of Edinburgh and was ordained to
the ministry at age 22. His scholarship and pulpit skills were so highly
regarded that he was invited to become the president of New Jersey =
College,
later called Princeton University. He was inaugurated president of the
College on August 17, 1768.=20

As the sentiments of independence were building within the colonies, Dr.
Witherspoon preached with great knowledge and persuasion the Biblical
principles of freedom and self-government. So influential were
Witherspoon=C6s sermons that he was asked to assist in the formation of a =
new
constitution for New Jersey. Later, he was elected as a delegate to the
General Congress and on August 2, 1776 affixed his signature to the
Declaration of Independence.

Throughout John Witherspoon=C6s illustrious civic career he never stopped
preaching the gospel. He authored numerous theological works and even when
blind continued to preach until his death at age 72.

John Witherspoon was not the only preacher to be actively involved in the
fight for independence. Include in this list Episcopalian ministers Dr.
Samuel Provost, Dr. John Croes and Rev. Robert Smith. The Presbyterian
Church provided several notable preacher-patriots including Rev. James
Armstrong and Rev. James Caldwell. Baptist ministers, like Rev. Joab
Houghton and Pastor M=C6Clanahan enthusiastically joined the fight for
freedom and independence.=20

George Washington was so impressed with the contribution that numerous
Baptists had made to the Revolutionary War that he penned a letter to them
in which he said, "I recollect with satisfaction that the religious
societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America,
uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and
the persevering promoters of our glorious Revolution."

And, who can forget the preacher and patriot, the great Lutheran pastor,
John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg of Virginia? He led the men of his
congregation to join the revolutionary army in our fight for independence.=
=20

Now I ask you, will Witherspoon and Muhlenberg and Houghton and Caldwell
and the countless other ministers of Christ who preached, prayed and =
fought
for this country have to apologize for getting involved in the fight for
civil liberty? I wonder if my good brother bothers to vote? If he does, is
he wasting his time and outside his calling? I wonder if he personally
celebrates Independence Day? I wonder if he understands how the
significance of this day came about?=20

Desperate days call for desperate measures. The truth is, if all of my
preacher brethren were the salt that Christ told us to be a few of us
wouldn=C6t have to spend quite as much time trying to restore the =
fundamental
principles that have been stripped away from us.=20

And, without trying to sound heretical, evangelism is not enough to save a
nation! During the past four decades we have expanded the evangelistic
outreach of the church in ways never before known. We have recorded more
conversions, built more church buildings and raised more money for the
Lord=C6s work than at any time in history. (And, while desiring to do more =
in
this regard, the dear Lord has blessed us with the privilege of winning
hundreds of souls to Christ during the last two decades of ministry.) With
all this evangelism going on why is America facing such desperate days?

Our Lord warned us that if the salt lost its character it would be "good
for nothing" and would be "trodden under the foot of men." That is exactly
what is happening today. The salt has lost its character and the clanging
sounds of tyranny are beginning to be heard all over the land.

It takes character to live a pure life. It takes character to raise a =
godly
family. It takes character to build an honest business. It takes character
to engage cultural evils and impact society for good and for God. Anyone
can build a moat around their lives and pretend that they don=C6t have a
responsibility to the outside world. Anyone can pretend that it is not
their "calling" to dirty their hands with "politics."=20

Our Christian forefathers were as saved as we are. They loved God as much
as we do. They prayed. They worshipped. They preached. They won souls to
Christ. They sent missionaries. They started Christian schools, orphanages,=

hospitals, seminaries and universities. They believed the Bible as much as
we do and relied on the Holy Spirit as much as we say we do. They also
helped to give birth to this great land of freedom that we know as the
United States of America. Somehow, I don=C6t think that they are the ones =
who
are going to have to apologize.


NOTE:


Chuck's editorials are published weekdays on Gulf1.com and are sent via
email to anyone who requests them. Newspapers also carry his editorials.
Visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com for more
information.




- -

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:36:16 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FYI--Fw: Oldies & HCI

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "David A. Gdog G" <GdGdog Gg Gdog Gdog Gdog>

Just thought I'd let you know that the radio station "Oldies 94.1" is
running commercials from Handgun Control Inc. I can't  get through to
their
web site from work to protest and it is the only computer access I have.
I
thought maybe you could pass this info along to your E-Mail group. The
station's web site is www.oldies941.com. Maybe you could get through and

find an E-mail address and let us know.

Note from Dave:

I just called Tom Sly, who is the general manager of JACOR Broadcasting,
the
company that owns Oldies 94.1. He says that he defends the playing of
the
HCI ad in the name of freedom of speech. I pointed out to him that many
of
us who listen to 94.1 grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and that
these
ads leave a terrible taste in our mouths, since we believe that HCI is
attempting to subvert the Constitution, freedom, and the right to
self-defense. I explained that we listen to 94.1 for the nostaligia of
the
old times, and that when ads condemning firearms are run, it makes us
turn
off our radios. Since 94.1 is essentially a business, I believe that
their
are shooting themselves in the foot by running these ads. The email
address
of Oldies is

        [e-mail]

Tom Sly can be reached at 908-1300, and he does return calls. A few
calls might help him
avoid political hot potatoes?

The ads are ending as of June 22, 1999, says Tom.


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #143
***********************************