ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n165

Internet Message Format | 1999-11-05 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #165
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Saturday, November 6 1999    Volume 02 : Number 165




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

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 99 22:24:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Metaska: Election loser: more gun control

Election loser: more gun control
by Tanya Metaska

On Saturday, Oct. 24, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster, a strong supporter of
right to carry firearms legislation, was reelected with 60% of the vote,
even though media pundits tried to make him look vulnerable. And in less
than a week, voters in the states of Virginia, Kentucky, New Jersey, as
well as countless towns and cities will go to the polls to elect state
legislators, mayors, school board members, and other local officials. But
you would hardly know it by reading the major newspapers or watching the
evening news. The nation's press is already singularly focused on Election
Day 2000.

The politics of next year's presidential election assaults us by way of
the evening news on television and the hourly news on the radio. It can
also be found almost daily on the front pages of every major newspaper.
The announced candidates, the would-be candidates, and the fallen
candidates are scrutinized, dissected, and demonized hourly. They are
hounded with the same line of questioning over and over again.

That kind of relentless questioning backfired on NBC sports announcer Jim
Gray. In a Sunday evening interview with Pete Rose -- the aggressive
Cincinnati Reds player/coach who has been banned from baseball for gambling
on the sport -- Jim Gray repeatedly asked Rose in a very aggressive manner
about his gambling. The NBC switchboard, their website, and even MasterCard,
the sponsor of the event, was overwhelmed by negative reactions to Gray's
interview. At first Gray was quoted as saying, "I'm not sorry for it, and I
don't apologize for it." As a result the entire Yankee team even went so far
as to boycott any interviews with Gray. Tuesday night's homerun hero, Chad
Curtis, refused to talk to Gray after he won the ball game. Bowing to
tremendous pressure from fans all over America, Gray was forced to apologize
on air. It seems NBC sports has discovered that American baseball fans do
not like "in your face" nasty interviews.

The same relentless bashing seems to be backfiring on the issue of gun
control as well. The major media keeps using every conceivable angle to push
for more and more gun control. A cursory examination of newspapers across
America shows that in the month of October the Editorial commentary is
slanted by a ratio of 9-1 in favor of expanding gun laws. Yet, the Oct. 24
Greensboro News and Record published an article by H. Sterling Burnett
entitled, "Will gun control be a vital issue in next year's presidential
elections? Issue won't be a priority."

Mr. Burnett's premise is that gun control may be an issue in congressional
contests, but will not really affect the presidential race. He states that
over the decade of the '90s those Americans favoring more gun control have
dropped from 78% to 62%. He goes on to state, "Polls also show that gun
control is not among the top five issues for probable voters in the
presidential elections and that only 15% of Americans vote for candidates
primarily based on their views on guns. Indeed, after the tragic school
shootings in Colorado and Georgia, the number of people who said they would
not consider gun control a major issue when voting actually increased from
19% to 21%!"

Burnett gives further credibility to the argument that the gun control issue
favors those candidates that oppose further restrictions on the individual
right to own firearms, by citing the primary race in the Democratic Party
for the 42nd California congressional district. In this race Marta Brown,
the widow of the longest-serving member in Congress, was defeated by
California State Senator Joe Baca. Marta Brown's defeat broke the string
of 35 consecutive congressional elections where widows succeeded their
husbands. Although she had more money, the backing of the White House, and
the support of the California Democratic party, Joe Baca won as a result
of the strong support of gun owners and NRA members in his district. Mrs.
Brown's tactic of sending out mailers and press releases attacking Baca as
the "radical gun lobby's favorite candidate" obviously backfired.

In the days before the primary the national media referred to this race as a
referendum on gun control -- a tactic similar to their characterization of
the 1997 gun prohibition referendum in Washington State. In both cases the
gun prohibitionists lost and the national media's silence was deafening. As
Mr. Burnett so aptly puts it, "If, as the national press claimed, Brown's
race was a referendum on gun control, then gun control lost."

The same can also be said for the September election in Australia, a country
in which almost all private ownership of firearms has been banned. In the
first election since the Australian gun ban, the Liberal National Coalition,
who strongly supported and promoted the "gun grab," lost its 20-seat
majority in the state of Victoria. They primarily lost support in rural and
semi-rural areas where the majority of gun owners reside. Yet the media
ignored those facts.

When those candidates who have supported the rights of law-abiding gun
owners are re-elected on Nov. 3, the gun control issue will never be cited
as the reason for their election. The media only mentions gun control when
a candidate who supports their point of view is elected. What they fail to
understand is that most Americans believe in fairness and are turned off by
the establishment media who keep trying to make the dead horse of more gun
control an election issue.


Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle
Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of "Safe,
Not Sorry," a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared
on numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show,
"Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour,"
among others.

1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.


- -

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 99 12:11:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: DN: Disarming citizens leaves them alarmingly defenseless

http://www.desnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,125011859,00.html

Deseret News, Sunday, October 31, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT

Disarming citizens leaves them alarmingly defenseless

By Terry L. Thompson

Utah has seen a dramatic increase in legislation regarding the 2002
Winter Olympics. It seems that anyone with a particular interest has
found some way to intertwine that interest with the pending Olympics
in hopes that the Winter Games will propel his or her agenda to a
desired conclusion.

Certainly this has been the case with attempts to restrict Utah's
law-abiding citizens from possession of adequate means of self-
preservation. We have seen misguided, misled, uneducated, political
and/or politically appointed pundits support restrictive gun-control
legislation attacking the very citizens that they purport to protect.

A prime example is the attempt to restrict lawful citizens carrying
concealed weapons into churches or schools. There have been no incidents
of lawful, permit-carrying citizens creating a threat to our children.
However, politically motivated individuals and groups have adopted a
popular lie which befits their socialist agenda. In a nutshell,
disarming "common people" creates a massive dependence on a gloating
government. The more dependence on government, the bigger the
bureaucracy, the more powerful, the more expansive, the more corrupt,
the more oppressive.

The individual right to self-preservation is eloquently protected in
the Second Amendment to the Constitution and is recognized as a basic
God-given right. This is as basic as the need for food, water, shelter
or clothing. What must be understood is that the Constitution did not
give us this right, it was recognized by our Founding Fathers as an
inalienable right God-given to every man.

Politicians at all levels, law enforcement administrators, academia
and popular groups in society have falsely claimed that their interest
in gun control is for the common good. Yet their banner is stained
with the blood of countless victims paying the price for their passive
nonjustice of societies' real criminals. The common thread is to find
blame with society, relinquishing personal responsibility for the pain
and suffering caused by predatory criminals.

But look out! Law-abiding citizens who wish to prepare to protect
themselves or their loved ones from the criminals that liberals coddle
and condone are hazardous to society. The height of arrogance is to
restrict our ability to protect ourselves and those we dearly care
for, knowing that our protection cannot be guaranteed.

In a free society, individuals must be allowed the option of "free
agency." Otherwise it is not a free society. There always has been and
always will be those who choose to abuse their free agency. With that
choice is an intent to cause pain, suffering and sorrow for victims of
the abuser. We have reasonable laws governing this abuse, and those
violating the law must be held personally accountable for their actions.
This is reasonable and sensible.

It's pathetic and embarrassing to realize that we fall so short of
applying proper justice in our criminal nonjustice system. We fail to
apply punishment to the very criminals that we create laws to effect
and in turn attack law abiding citizens. Politicians have the gall to
suggest that lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons are the problem.

Here is a clue for evaluating your representatives. When they support
legislation aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens, they have
discarded prior existing values and have been seduced by corruption in
the political system. Their continued time in political office will
contribute to the benefit of criminals and serve to decay our precious
constitutional protections.

With the "politically correct" pressure on our legislators, it is time
that law enforcement spoke up. We can no longer sit on the sidelines
and blindly hope that our representatives do the right thing. It is
time to lend our support not only as law-abiding citizens but as a
group of law-enforcement professionals. The vast majority of law
enforcement realizes that they cannot guarantee individual safety and
therefore fully support the ownership, possession and concealed carry
of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

Law enforcement: Please take it upon yourself to personally let your
representatives know that as a law-enforcement professional, you
oppose gun-control laws in all of their sheep wool and clever disguises.
Criminal control should be a priority, and we support legislation
holding criminals personally responsible for their actions.

Law enforcement: It is time to take a public stance against pending
legislation. This is increasingly critical, as other organizations are
pressuring Utah legislators to enact meaningless restrictions that
only affect you. Don't forget, you are a law-abiding citizen first and
a law-enforcement professional second. Our state representatives need
to know that law enforcement is supporting them. Thus far, the majority
of our legislators have shown incredible courage in the fight against
socialism. Let's help them as they prepare to do the right thing for
the political battles of the future.


Terry L. Thompson, a sergeant in the Weber County Sheriff's Office,
has worked in law enforcement for 12 years. He serves on the board of
directors of the Utah Peace Officers Association http://www.upoa.org.
Thompson's opinion is his own and does not necessarily reflect the
position of the Weber County Sheriff's Office.

Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 99 04:27:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Exciting National Radio Interview about Dial 911 and Die

- -----
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 03:54:39 -0700
From: Ron Amos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exciting National Radio Interview about Dial 911 and Die]

A two hour interview, when enough people realize
that govenment is under no positive obligation to
protect anyone, I suspect there will soon be less
government.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

October 31, 1999

Exciting National Radio Interview about Dial 911 and Die

National radio talk host Jeff Rense will interview JPFO's
Richard Stevens about Dial 911 and Die

Friday, November 5, 1999
7 P.M. Pacific  (8 P.M. Mountain)  (9 P.M. Central)
(10 P.M. Eastern)

You can also hear the program on the internet using
RealAudio.
Click on the website http://www.sightings.com/ and follow instructions.

The interview might be archived on that website also, so you
might be able to hear it at a later date.

If we can get a list of local radio stations, then we will send
that to you in a future alert.  (To sign up for JPFO alerts,
click on http://www.jpfo.org/ and follow the instructions.

Mr. Rense has indicated he will devote two hours to the interview.

Please pass this news on to all other web sites and forums
where people are interested in legal issues, personal and
family protection, firearms laws and individual rights.

Dial 911 and Die collects the law from all 50 states and
tells the stories that show how the government generally
owes no duty to protect individual citizens from crime or
criminal attack.  Every legal principle and story comes
from published legal authorities and case decisions (all
footnoted and referenced).  The book also contains 45
stories of successful personal self-defense against
aggressors, taken from news reports.

The book is only $11.95 postage paid.

The Liberty Crew at JPFO.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: [phone]
  Fax: [phone]
http://www.jpfo.org/

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

    [e-mail]

and respond to the confirmation message you will get back.


- -

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 99 04:27:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: African-Americans for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

- -----
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:31:37 -0600
From: "A.K. Pritchard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: African-Americans for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

FWD via:

Bill Utterback
[e-mail]

For further information, please contact:
Leonard Whitley, 95 B Stoney Hill Rd.
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Tel. [phone] email: [e-mail]

INTRODUCTION:

Speaking as an African-American, I depend upon our representatives in
government and the African-American leaders in our communities to keep
you and me informed of racism in all its forms. Because we live in
Orwellian times, racism is more subtle today and is often disguised.

Needless to say I was shocked when a co-worker (who is white by the way)
handed me an essay titled "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton E.
Cramer. This essay covers the long history of gun control in America,
and how it was originally used to keep African-Americans "in their place."
Originally, gun control laws were never intended for whites.

My question is: Why am I only learning of this now? How is it I never
learned this in school? Where is Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? NAACP?
Shouldn't they have brought this issue to light?

When I first started making copies of this essay and passing them out I
thought I would receive resistance from the Klan, Skin Heads, members
of the Aryan Nation, etc. But I never heard from them. However, I have
been contacted by representatives of the NAACP from several states
telling me to "back off" in my attempts to make these facts known. Each
call boils down to "...now is not the appropriate time..." Why not?

At the present time, the NAACP has a lawsuit against a number of firearms
manufacturers, claiming that they've flooded black communities with
firearms. (Fact of the matter is the manufacturers have no control over
where the firearms go -- that's determined by the dealers who order the
firearms.) Revealing the historical facts concerning how gun control
laws were racist in their beginnings would be counterproductive at this
time, I'm told.

If the NAACP goes through with their lawsuit at this time they can never,
I repeat, never, bring up the issue of how Blacks have been discriminated
against via racist gun laws in the future. How can the NAACP complain
that Blacks in America have been historically denied the protection of
the Second Amendment and at the same time sue firearms manufacturers for
selling guns to Blacks? They can't have it both ways. Besides, if the
NAACP does win the lawsuit, won't that make the cost of guns we need for
self-defense unaffordable for some poor people who might need them the
most?

To add insult to injury, it's almost as though the NAACP is saying that
none of us African-Americans can be trusted with firearms because the
criminal element misuses them. Are we really so irresponsible that we
let guns "flood" our neighborhoods, and then somehow let those guns jump
up and cause crime? Rather than make that argument, why doesn't the NAACP
go after the perpetrators of crime instead of gun manufacturers whose
product is absolutely necessary for defense against racists and criminals?

The purpose of this newsletter is to inform as many African-Americans
as possible about the true motives behind gun control.

"The Racist Roots of Gun Control" essay alerted me to the true nature of
gun control in America. Read it for yourself and decide if our leaders
and teachers have been keeping the truth from us. --Leonard Whitley

The essay: "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" may be found at:
http://gundebate.org/roots.htm

"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain
natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
- --Article 1, Section 1, New Jersey State Constitution

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

A couple of times a week, on average, I forward messages that I
consider to be worthwhile. Occasionally I may be inspired to
write a brief editorial.

If you would like to begin receiving these messages, send me a
message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject field.

for Liberty (for all),
Bill Utterback
[e-mail]

- -----

"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long
as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the
attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to
public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and
governors would all become wolves." Thomas Jefferson

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court in American
Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442

- -----

World's Smallest Political Quiz
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/

Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/

Gun Owners of America
http://www.gunowners.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.JPFO.org/

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

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

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

To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask!
[e-mail]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under
the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing
how it happened" -- Norman Thomas - Socialist Party Presidential
candidate Civil Liberties Union," Houghton Mifflin, 1976.


- -

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 99 06:51:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: He said it straight

- -----
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:47:22 -0600
Subject: FW: He said it straight
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>

A Speech by Lt. Harry Thomas,
Cincinnati Police Division FountainSquare, Cincinnati, Ohio
February 27, 1994

"Welcome to the People's Republic of Cincinnati! As usual, since
I am speaking publicly, I must make the following disclaimer: I
am not speaking to you as an official spokesman or representative
of the Cincinnati Police Division. If I don't say that, I'm
liable to have visitors waiting for me when I get back to work.

For the past 21 years, I have been a member of the Cincinnati
Police Division. On three occasions, I have sworn a solemn oath;
once when I was promoted from cadet to patrolman, once when I was
promoted from patrolman to sergeant, and yet again when I was
promoted from sergeant to lieutenant. That oath was to support
the Constitution of the United States of America.

I have buried almost a dozen of my fellow police officers who
died defending that oath. The last one died right before my eyes
in the major trauma room of University Hospital. I signed the
receipt for his body so that he could be transported to the
morgue. I think about those men often, and I think about what
they died for. And that is why I become furiously angry when I
see our Constitution, the most remarkable document ever written
in the course of human existence, being used as toilet paper at
every level of government.

The Brady Bill is now a reality. For the first time in the
history of our country, American citizens must request the
government's permission to exercise a constitutional right.
And if the government sees its way clear to grant permission,
we must wait 5 days to exercise that right.

But even this is not enough to please our keepers in
Sodom-by-the-Potomac. Gun laws are not being passed quickly
enough to suit our federal law enforcement agencies, so they have
formulated their own plan to discourage gun ownership.

In Ruby Ridge, Idaho, Sammy Weaver, age 14, the son of Randy
Weaver, a man who had taken his family to the mountains to
escape the tyranny of a government run amok, was hunting in the
forest near the Weaver cabin with his dog. He wasn't the only
person hunting in the forest that day. Sammy Weaver was ambushed
and fatally shot in the back by two United States Marshals. And
lest anyone accuse the U.S. Marshals of not being thorough in
the performance of their assigned tasks, I would point out that
they also shot the dog, also in the back.

Later, Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife and the mother of the Weaver
children, opened the door of the Weaver cabin to admit her husband,
who had been in a nearby shed to visit the body of his son. Vicki
Weaver was holding her 10 month old infant daughter in her arms.
That proved to be only a slight inconvenience to FBI sniper Lon
Horiuchi, as he shot Vicki Weaver through the head. She fell dead
to the floor, her skull exploded, still clutching her daughter in
her lifeless arms. It would appear that it is now a capital offense
to be the son, wife, or dog of a gun owner.

Waco. "Waco" is a word which, among American patriots, engenders
the same anguished feelings of outrage as the word "Alamo." Last
year at the NRA Convention in Nashville, my wife and I returned
to our hotel room and flipped on CNN to see the latest
developments in Waco. The Branch Davidian compound was burning.
My wife cried. She knew that there were many children in that
compound. She asked me why. Why are they burning the compound?
I told her the simple truth: They have to burn it. Has anyone
here seen and read the Waco search warrant affidavit? It's crap.
It didn't establish enough probable cause to even knock on the
Branch Davidian's door.

When the FBI took over from the BATF (which some people say
actually stands for Burn All Toddlers First), they knew that
they would find no illegal weapons in the Branch Davidian
compound. They were between a rock and a hard place. 4 ATF men
dead, an unknown number of Branch Davidians dead, the FBI had
only one choice: destroy the compound so that no one could ever
prove whether illegal weapons were present or not.

For hours, the FBI pumped supposedly non-lethal CS gas into the
compound. Those of us in law enforcement and the military know
differently. CS gas, in high concentrations in an enclosed area
is lethal. The first ones to be affected by vomiting, convulsions
unconsciousness and death, would be the children. The same
children that local Texas authorities found to be happy and
healthy under the care of the Branch Davidians.

The FBI did not pump CS gas into the Branch Davidian compound to
force its occupants to come out. They pumped gas in to make sure
the occupants couldn't come out. Dead gun owners, and dead gun
owner's children, tell no tales.

The time has come for us to openly discuss something that up to
this time we have mainly whispered about. The purpose of the 2nd
Amendment is to threaten the government. The framers of our
Constitution knew that government is a necessary evil, which, as
in the case of the British government, could easily become more
evil than necessary. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that
should that situation again come to pass, the American people
would have the capability to reclaim their country by force of
arms.

I believe that we are dangerously close to that day when we will
have to use the 2nd Amendment in exactly the manner that our
forefathers anticipated. When I was a boy, my father could buy
firearms through the mail. It was rightly believed at the time
that such a transaction was the business of the buyer, the gun
dealer and no one else. I lost that right with the passage of
the GCA in 1968. In my lifetime, I have been able to walk into
a gun store, select a handgun, and walk out of that store with
that gun in my hand. My children lost that right with the passage
of the Brady Bill. I'm not giving up any more rights.

I sincerely hope that a political solution to this problem is
still possible, and I will continue to work on the NRA Board of
Directors to try to find that solution. But if that solution
cannot be found, I say this to the megalomaniacs in Washington:

Pass your gun laws. I will not beg the government for a license
to continue to be a handgun owner. I will not submit to being
fingerprinted or photographed or interrogated like a criminal
for claiming my birthright as a free American. I will not
register a single gun that I own. I will not surrender a single
gun that I own. I will not apply for an "arsenal" license
because I own more than 20 guns or more than a thousand rounds
of ammunition. I will not attend mandatory safety training, nor
will I submit to a test to prove that I'm fit to be a gun owner.
And Miss Reno, I have this to say to you: If you send your
jack-booted, baby-burning bushwhackers to confiscate my guns,
pack them a lunch; it will be a damned long day. The Branch
Davidians were amateurs; I'm a professional.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:09:39 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Dr. Laura on Concealed Carry

Received: from slkcpop1.slkc.uswest.net
    ([206.81.128.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 20:54:33 -0700
Received: (qmail 27492 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 1999 03:49:27 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]@fixme
Received: (qmail 26658 invoked by uid 0); 4 Nov 1999 03:48:46 -0000
Received: from qdialup83.slkc.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (207.224.209.83)
  by slkcpop1.slkc.uswest.net with SMTP; 4 Nov 1999 03:48:46 -0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 20:47:51 -0800
From: Neil Sagers <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: David Sagers <[e-mail]>,
     Neil Sagers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dr. Laura on Concealed Carry
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

(Printed in Deseret News, Sunday October 10, 1999)
Responsible gun ownership might help reduce
violence
 Recent shooting sprees prompt an attitude change
By Dr. Laura Schlessinger

       I'm right in the middle of a big change of attitude about a very
important
subject. And I know a lot of my readers and listeners to my radio
program may be
shocked. But people who have known me over time know that I'm someone
who
evolves in public. That is, when I start changing my mind about
something or
discover new information or some truth about my own life or life in
general, I'm
usually pretty straightforward about the process with my colleagues and
my fans.
      The first event that caused me to rethink my position on this
topic was the
shootings in Atlanta, where a man went into two office buildings and
gunned down
total strangers, then killed himself in his car later that day. I
thought about the
difference it might have made * lives saved instead of lost * if someone
in one of
those offices had been armed. The murderer might well have been foiled
in his reign
of terror before so many innocent people died.
      That thought caused me to remember a time several years ago when I
felt
completely safe in my hometown of Los Angeles. It was after the major
earthquake
in 1994, and the National Guard was everywhere. There they were, it
seemed, on
every corner * uniformed, armed, ammunition slung across their chests,
ready. As
I recall, there was absolutely no crime in Los Angeles at that time * no
break-ins,
no holdups, no car-jackings. Nada. The bad guys obviously didn't want to
risk
getting shot.
      I went on the air then and said, "Gee, why can't these guys just
stay here?" and
everyone freaked out. Now, I knew then and know now that that's not what
the
National Guard is for, but it was nice to feel so secure for those few
weeks.
      In thinking about the difference an armed civilian or security
guard might have
made in Atlanta, I thought back to my trip to Israel this summer and how
many
people walking around, especially on the West Bank, were armed out of a
genuine
and persistent need to protect themselves. No one was shooting. There
was no
display of firepower or anything like that. It was just taken for
granted.
      I know that's a unique situation, because from its inception
Israel has been
under constant attack by neighboring countries, as well as terrorists.
So they have a
demonstrable need for self-defense.
      We, on the other hand, are self-destructing. We don't need an
external force.
We are breeding our own evil here. Child killers, killer children,
private militias,
home-grown and imported terrorists, to say nothing of old-fashioned,
garden variety
psychopaths and criminals * all armed and dangerous and now encouraged,
educated in evil and joined in unholy conspiracy on the World Wide Web.
      There are obviously lots and lots of reasons why our society *
once so
revered and respected around the world * is unraveling and degenerating.
But one
of them is the unbridled license of communication on the Internet. I
hear from so
many people about the shock and despair the Internet has brought into
their homes.
      The Internet is the most recent and most powerful tool to be
commandeered by
the sick evildoers in our midst. It spreads the virus of hate and germs
of pathology
like wildfire around the world, infecting more and more people,
especially our
neglected and vulnerable youths. Many of the most recent horrendous
crimes have
been committed by jerks, scum, low-lifes and dim bulbs who hang around
the
Internet because they have no life, fantasize about becoming heroes
through hate
and are emboldened to act out by others in cyberspace who support them.
      Even before the horror of the most recent attack on children in a
Los Angeles
Jewish center near my home, I was in the process of making up my mind to
find a
nice police officer or sheriff to teach me how to responsibly fire a
gun. I can hardly
believe I'm saying this, because I have been opposed to the idea that
everyone
should be free to bear arms. But the unpredictability of where danger
strikes next,
coupled with the frequency with which it happens, has led me to think
that we "good
guys" need to have more of the mentality of the beleaguered Israelis.
And, of
course, we need to have their attitude as well. No one is gun-happy over
there.
They don't show off, do stupid things.
      I agree that everyone who carries a gun must be licensed and that
the
regulations should be very strict. In order to be allowed to carry a
gun, I think we
should have to pass a test to make sure we can take it apart, put it
back together
again, clean it, load it, unload it, etc. And we should have to pass a
marksman's test
to get the gun and periodic tests to be allowed to keep it.
      To be perfectly honest, I haven't thought this all the way
through. It's just that
I'm getting more and more concerned about the direction in which our
society is
moving, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we need protection
from
ourselves.
      I know this shocks a whole lot of you. And I'm sorry.

Please send correspondence to Dr. Laura in care of Universal Press
Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111. Dr.
Laura Schlessinger Dist. by Universal Press Syndicate




- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:02:24 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Honolulu: My letter to the editor

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 04 Nov 1999 12:54:31 -0700
Received: by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26826;
    Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:51:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:47:51 -1000
From: Brian Baron <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Honolulu: My letter to the editor
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The following letter to the editors of both daily papers got published in
this morning's Honlulu Advertiser.=20
Brian  =20

                    CALLING 911 DIDN'T WORK =20


It is a fact that the seven murder victims of Byran Uyesugi were caught by
surprise and defenseless. It's also a fact that had one or more persons in
that building on that terrible day been armed, they may have been able to
stop the killing. But it's official government policy here that all
citizens, no matter how upright, must remain defenseless at all times
except in their homes. That's because Hawaii State law allowing a person =
to
carry a concealed firearm is weak. So weak in fact that it is believed =
that
only one civilian in Honolulu has one.  =20

It's also a fact that calling 911 didn't work in this case. In fact it
often doesn't work. Yet that is the advice the police give when asked what
we should do if we find ourselves in danger. It's obviously time to
question this policy.

Since we will never eliminate violence, doesn't it make sense to prepare
for it? Rigorous studies have shown that violent crime decreases where
there are fewer restrictions on carrying concealed guns. That's because
criminals prefer to attack the defenseless. Israel is a case in point.
Since the government encouraged private citizens to carry concealed
firearms, terrorism has been greatly  reduced. Bottom line: shootings by
deranged madmen will go down when people are permitted to protect =
themselves.=20

Ironically and tragically our unrealistic 'feel good' anti-gun laws are a
contributing cause of these senseless massacres. Our lawmakers should
reverse this policy immediately.   =20
=20

Brian Baron, Chair=20
Hawaii Citizens' Rights Political Action Committee




- -
To unsubscribe, send a message to [e-mail], and as the
body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following:
.
unsubscribe noban email-address
.
where email-address is the address under which you are subscribed.
Report problems to [e-mail]




- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 08:28:02 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Gun Ban Poll at www.vote.com, We're Losing! Vote Early; Vote

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 05 Nov 1999 04:40:45 -0700
Received: by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29372;
    Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:37:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:36:00 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Gun Ban Poll at www.vote.com, We're Losing! Vote Early; Vote
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_277E30A2.5E3F50B8"

- --=_277E30A2.5E3F50B8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

In a message dated 11/5/99 3:08:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, NJGunsRus =
writes:

<< http://www.vote.com/vote/1180/ >>


- --=_277E30A2.5E3F50B8
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-path: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Full-name: NJGunsRus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:08:09 EST
Subject: Gun Ban Poll at www.vote.com, We're Losing! Vote Early; Vote Often!
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

http://www.vote.com/vote/1180/


- --=_277E30A2.5E3F50B8--

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:01:54 -0800
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOUT RESOURCE SITE--CONSPIRACY THEORY HEAVEN!

Weekend coming up, rain forecast in the Northwest calls for indoor work
(if we're not out hunting random shooters).  People need something to
read and get them spun up.  A gander at the following web site should do
that!  Get yer colanders and aluminium foil out...




The following website offers a potpourri of military information put
together by Colonel Anthony A. Wood, USMC

Urban Warrior Conceptual Experimental Framework

MOUT: Technology - Weapons - Equipment
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/techa.html

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 99 16:33:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: SL Trib: Guns Deadlier Than Car Crashes

http://www.sltrib.com/11051999/utah/44292.htm

The Salt Lake Tribune -- Guns Deadlier Than Car Crashes

Friday, November 5, 1999

BY NORMA WAGNER
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Gunshot wounds last year in Salt Lake County occurred more frequently
than new cases of tuberculosis, AIDS and hepatitis A, and caused more
deaths than automobile accidents.

After several high-profile shootings in Utah and around the nation in
the past year, the Salt Lake City-County Board of Health asked the
health department's Family Health Services division to research the
circumstances surrounding shootings across the valley throughout 1998,
including the sex and average age of the victims, location and type of
firearm used.

Nothing the investigators found indicated Utah is any different
from other parts of the nation, particularly in the percentage of
shooting victims who died. But they plan to use the data to come up
with some possible interventions -- a project to be funded through
a $30,000 Harvard University grant during the study's second phase.

"We wanted to know what the situation in regards to shootings was in
our county because we know that legislators are going to take some
position on guns. We just don't know when," said health department
spokeswoman Jana Carlson-Kettering.

It is the Board of Health's policy to take a position on such issues,
and members said they would do so based on the information gathered
in the "gunshot wound surveillance data" report.

Investigators gathered information for their report from hospital
records, medical examiner reports and death certificates, then looked
at police reports for supplemental information.

They discovered that of the 201 people shot in 1998, 88 victims
died -- 44 percent.

"There's very little opportunity for intervention [in reducing that
death rate)," health department epidemiologist Catherine Steas told
Board of Health members during their Thursday meeting. "It doesn't
matter how good the emergency rooms or emergency medical technicians
are."

Most injuries (83 percent) occurred among males, putting them at more
than four times the risk of being gunshot victims than females. And
the majority of victims (78 percent) were between the ages of 15 to 39.

"But if you take into account the population of the age group, the
highest percent (of shooting victims) are between 15 and 19 years of
age," Steas said.

Children as young as six years of age were unintentionally shot,
and adults as old as 90 committed suicide.

More than 70 percent of the injuries were caused by a handgun, the
rest by a shotgun or rifle. The majority of shootings (64 percent)
occurred in a public place, including a public library, parks,
restaurant parking lots, roadways and places of business. None
occurred in a church or school.

On average, gunshot injuries occur once every two days in the
county, Steas said, and deaths from those injuries occur once every
four days. Suicide attempts peak between noon and 4 p.m.; assaults
peak between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m.

Eighty-six percent of firearm injuries were intentional, with
forty-four percent gang-related. Eleven percent were unintentional,
and the remaining 3 percent could not be explained.

Thirty percent of the victims who were killed had detectable
levels of alcohol in their blood,18 percent with drugs of abuse.

And the public pays, Steas said. Three-fourths of the shooting
victims lacked private insurance, and medical costs of treating
all 201 victims were estimated to exceed $1.3 million.

We learned a lot about what we can and cannot get from this
information," Steas said. "Firearm injuries are common, lethal
and costly to the public. From what I've seen of the national data,
(the county) is basically similar to what we see nationwide."

The researchers plan to continue collecting and expanding the data.
In the study's second phase, Steas said, they will try to discern if
the guns used were purchased for self protection. Board of Health
member and pediatrician Lucy Osborne also asked Steas to include
injuries from BB guns and pellet guns, which don't often result in
death, but can lead to debilitating injuries, such as blindness.

"My sense is this is a ground-breaking study, that we are again
leading the way," said Board of Health Chairman Jane Connard.
"This is very interesting, informative information."

Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #165
***********************************