ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n193

Internet Message Format | 2000-07-11 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #193
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Wednesday, July 12 2000     Volume 02 : Number 193




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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:22:40 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Derek Smith on Gun Control

Thank you for the clarification. I'm copying this as before
for list subscribers' information.

Scott Bergeson

- -----
Subject: Derek Smith on Gun Control
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:05:44 -0600
From: "Todd" <[e-mail]>
To: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>

I am an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment.  I believe the
Constitution is clear about the right to keep and bear arms.

I think the proposed ballot initiative to ban concealed weapons in churches
and schools was flawed, and would have opposed it.  First of all, it didnÆt
address the problem, doing nothing to deter criminal activity.  Rather, it
was aimed at lawful permit holders, when not a single permit holder has
committed a crime with a gun in a school or a church. Ever.  Also, churches
already have private property rights that protect their rights to prohibit
concealed weapons.

I would only support background checks at gun shows if they are
instantaneous, as they are at gun stores.  We shouldnÆt disadvantage gun
show merchants when we have the technology to make instant background
checks.  That's common sense.

And while I recommend trigger locks and gun safes, I oppose the government
dictating to gun owners what safety precautions are taken in the home.

Having been P.O.S.T. trained as a deputy sheriff, IÆve seen the problem with
violent crime firsthand.  From that background, I can tell you that more gun
laws are not the answer.  Rather, we should have strict and harsh sentencing
for violent crimes, and we should stop plea-bargaining away gun charges to
get a conviction on other charges.

In Congress, I will be a consistent and reliable defender of the 2nd
Amendment.  I can promise you that Jim Matheson won't.  I would appreciate
your support.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:08:19 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
writes:
> If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
> to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
> office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
> exercising your right to vote.

Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask:  Why
does the location of the polling place matter?  Unless you have a State
issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running
afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon
openly in plain sight and not "loaded."  I doubt very many people
consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be
shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you
actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion.  OTOH, if you do have a
State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere
else in the State.  I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah
law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in
polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over
from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost
anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission.

Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict
letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting?  Don't
you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district
AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make
it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote
absentee?

- ----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:49:32 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64

charles hardy wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> writes:
> > If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
> > to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
> > office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
> > exercising your right to vote.

> Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask:  Why
> does the location of the polling place matter?  Unless you have a State
> issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running
> afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon
> openly in plain sight and not "loaded."  I doubt very many people
> consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be
> shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you
> actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion.  OTOH, if you do have a
> State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere
> else in the State.  I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah
> law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in
> polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over
> from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost
> anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission.

> Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict
> letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting?  Don't
> you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district
> AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make
> it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote
> absentee?

I don't claim to have researched this exhaustively, and suspect a CCW
permit meets the requirements of section (2)(b) (but wouldn't want to
bet on it). However, seeing how the Granite School District (where
my assigned polling place is) police prosecute even CCW holders for
having a pocket knife, I don't want to be defenseless or have
potential assailants thinking I and other voters might be while
exercising my franchise. To the best of my knowledge, such restrictions
don't apply to voting absentee in the county clerk's office. You
are welcome to research this further and post your findings.

Scott

P.S. The RKBA supporters appear to have fared rather poorly
in the GOP Primary.

53A-3-502.   Dangerous materials in the public schools
- -- Class B misdemeanor -- Exceptions.

(1) A person who possesses a weapon, explosive, flammable material, or other
material dangerous to persons or property in a public or private elementary
or secondary school, on the grounds of the school, or in those parts of a
building, park, or stadium which are being used for an activity sponsored
by or through the school is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless a higher
penalty is prescribed in Title 76, Criminal Code, in which case the penalty
provisions of that title control.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply under the following circumstances:
     (a) possession is approved by the responsible school administrator; or
     (b) the item or material is present or to be used in connection with a
     lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control
     of the person responsible for its possession or use.

Enacted by Chapter 2, 1988 General Session

- -

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:56:01 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: WorldNetDaily.com article - guns in school

Of local interest.  There may yet be hope for our youth.  :)

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
South Jordan makes the big time!!!!!!

To view the entire article, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/20000628_xnbre_5th_grader.
sht
ml

Wednesday, June 28, 2000
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
5th-graders vote for guns in school
Mock trial's unanimous verdict: Kids safer with armed teachers
by David M. Bresnahan
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH JORDAN, Utah -- A group of fifth-grade students here held
a mock trial and delivered a unanimous decision -- that adults
with concealed firearm permits should be permitted to have guns
in schools.

Students at the South Jordan Elementary School have conducted
mock court trials for the past seven years. Teacher Laurie
Erickson explained that the students selected the topic from a
list of several presented to them. The students asked members
of the community to participate in the trial and to offer their
testimony on the subject of gun control in schools.

Students took part as attorneys, judge and bailiff, while the
rest of the class members served as the jury.

Erickson said the students spent the past two weeks preparing
arguments and contacting witnesses to testify on both sides of
the issue.

Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, was the star of the show. He told the
young jurors that he did not personally want teachers to have
firearms in school, but he also did not want to deny them their
right to carry a firearm if that is their choice and if they
have a concealed firearm permit.

Janalee Tobias, the founder of Women Against Gun Control, also
testified at the "trial." Tobias spoke as a mother, and said
she was concerned about violence in schools, telling the
students, "I want my kids to be protected."

She complained that gun-control advocates often use "their
children as props for gun control." She said she was happy the
students chose such an important topic and asked such good
questions on their own.

Three gun control advocates who want all guns banned from
schools testified. The students invited their own principal,
Richard Allred, to speak on behalf of banning guns in school.
Jeremy DeWall, a sophomore at Bingham High School, also
testified against allowing in-school firearm possession.

PTA President KaRynn Christensen, spoke in direct opposition to
the pro-gun Tobias. She told the students that as a mother, she
was concerned that a teacher with a gun might suddenly use it
on a student. She told them that she is also against using
violent means to stop a violent person.

In the end, the student jurors declared Cook and Tobias the
winners in a unanimous decision.

Court is still in session. Before the week is over the
fifth-graders will decide on whether to drain Lake Powell, and
whether to do chemical testing on animals.


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





________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:26:42 -0600
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: GOUtah! Alert #64

So, could I be considered a felon because I [may have been] armed while
voting?

Karl L. Pearson
[e-mail]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Scott
Bergeson
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 11:47 AM
To: Utah Firearms
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64


If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
exercising your right to vote. Also, Derek Smith has refused
to provide his position on RKBA both to GOUtah! and to me,
whereas Merrill Cook has affirmed his support for RKBA in
both his campaign literature and his response to GOUtah!'s
poll. For me this issue trumps all others in deciding how
to vote.

Scott

Great opening quote from Mencken!
___________________________

GOUtah! Alert #64 - 23 June 2000

Today=92s Voice of Liberty:

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is
nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense,
justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he
is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely.
Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It
is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable
minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a
special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty -
and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

- -- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun.

_________________________________

UTAH PRIMARY ELECTION UPON US! VOTE PRO-LIBERTY ON JUNE 27TH!

Please look on your voter registration card for the address
of your precinct=92s polling place, or look it up on the web at:

http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/Elections/elections.html

Please go to your polling place this Tuesday, June 27th,
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to vote in this very
important election.

While GOUtah! is not explicitly endorsing specific
candidates, we do think there is at least one obvious
=93no-brainer=94 in this primary election: Governor Mike Leavitt
must be defeated. His Republican opponent in the primary,
Glen Davis, is an ardent supporter of the right to keep and
bear arms, as is Davis=92 running mate, Greg Hawkins. Please
note that the turnout at primary elections is usually light,
so you and your pro-liberty friends, relatives, and neighbors
can actually make a difference by all showing up to vote.

Utah Gun Owners=92 Alliance (UTGOA), one of our allies in the
fight to protect liberty, has sent out surveys to candidates
who are running in this primary election, in an attempt to
ascertain their views on the right to keep and bear arms.
The candidates=92 responses (or non-responses, in some cases)
are posted on the UTGOA website at:

http://www.utgoa.org/pages/candsurvey.html


GOOD NEWS REGARDING NAC=92S POLICY ON GUN ADVERTISEMENTS IN SALT LAKE
NEWSPAPERS!

In our last Alert, we told you that the Newspaper Agency
Corporation (NAC), which handles all advertising business
for the Salt Lake Tribune and The Deseret News, was
considering a permanent ban on all gun advertisements in
both newspapers. This ban would have covered classified ads
and regular retail ads. The proposal was scheduled to be
considered at an NAC management meeting on Wednesday, June
21. We spoke on the telephone with Mr. Ed McCaffrey, the
director of advertising at NAC, on Friday, June 23, to find
out whether the proposed ban had been adopted. He told us
that it had been overwhelmingly rejected. Furthermore, he
informed us that the NAC will revert to its old policy of
allowing gun ads in the =93Thrifty=94 section of the classifieds,
provided that such ads meet the standard requirements set
forth for all advertisements submitted to the =93Thrifty=94
section. In recent weeks, NAC has not been allowing any gun
ads to be placed in the =93Thrifty=94 section. The change back
to the old policy is scheduled to occur next Wednesday,
June 27, assuming that the necessary reformatting and so
forth can be completed before then. If not, the change will
take place shortly after that, according to Mr. McCaffrey.
Mr. McCaffrey declined to send us a statement in writing,
so we will watch carefully to make sure the new policy is
implemented as outlined by him over the phone. If there is
any deviation from his verbal promises, we will alert you.

Some individuals who contacted the NAC in response to our
previous GOUtah! Alert were reportedly told that there was no
proposal to ban gun ads, and that no such proposal had been
submitted for consideration. However, Mr. McCaffrey reaffirmed
in our phone conversation on Friday that a complete ban on
gun ads was, in fact, one of the three proposals submitted for
consideration by NAC management, just as we reported previously.
The fact that it was rejected can be attributed, we believe,
to the efforts of all you activists out there who bombarded
the NAC with phone calls, faxes, letters, and e-mails. Thanks
for your work! Thanks also to Mr. James Johnston, who first
brought this to our attention.


GUN SALES BANNED IN BRAZIL

According to yesterday=92s edition of The Washington Post, the
President of Brazil has issued an executive decree which
immediately suspends the issuing of gun permits in that
country for a period of six months. Previously, firearms
could be legally purchased by civilians who obtained a
permit from the government. Since a separate permit had to
be issued for each purchase, the new policy essentially
prohibits future purchases of firearms by civilians,
although currently licensed owners can keep their old guns
for the time being. That might not last for long, however,
because a bill currently being considered by the Brazilian
Congress would simply ban most civilian gun ownership and
would require licensed owners to turn in their weapons.
Exceptions would be granted for members of shooting clubs,
people living in =93rural areas=94, and private security guards.

According to The Post, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso acted unilaterally without waiting for the Brazilian
Congress to pass its bill. "Society is demanding from all of
us a quicker response,=94 he is quoted as saying. "We could ask,
who among us has not suffered because of violence?" The article
states that the executive order =93also includes hiring 2,000
new federal agents, providing better training and equipment
for police forces and building new prisons.=94 Does any of this
sound familiar?

Brazilian officials estimate that of the approximately 8
million gun owned by civilians in Brazil, 6 million are
owned by criminals who purchased them on the black market
without a permit. Brazilian criminologists interviewed by
The Post expressed the opinion that the President=92s
executive order would not reduce Brazil=92s sky-high crime
rate, because nearly all of the violent crimes committed
with guns in that country are committed by criminals with
unlicensed guns. Only law-abiding people with gun permits
will be affected by the new policy, and, according to one
crime expert, this might actually cause the crime rate to
increase, because criminals will know for sure that their
intended victims are unarmed. No kidding.

Brazil=92s experience is consistent with what has happened and
is happening in other countries (Britain, Canada, Australia,
California, etc.) where licensing and registration are
mandatory. When people ask you why you don=92t support
licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, you
need merely point out that the =93slippery slope=94 is indeed
very slippery. A thing that can be licensed is a thing that
can be banned.
___________________________________________

GOUTAH! GUN RIGHTS INFORMATION OUTLETS

If you wish to receive GOUtah! Alerts via e-mail, you may
subscribe by sending a blank e-mail message to
[e-mail]. To unsubscribe, send a blank
message to [e-mail].

If you have a dedicated fax machine located in Salt Lake
County or Davis County and you wish to receive a fax version
of the GOUtah! Alerts, or if you are already receiving the
Alerts and wish to stop receiving them, you may fax your
request to [phone].

You may also be added to or taken off the GOUtah! Alerts list
by logging onto our website at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!
or at http://www.home.fiberia.com/goutah, or by submitting
your request via e-mail to [e-mail]. There are no
charges for receiving GOUtah! Alerts.

You may also telephone the GOUtah! Information Hotline at
(801) 296-GUNS for the very latest information on issues
surrounding your gun rights. The call is toll free in the
Salt Lake County/Davis County area, while normal long
distance charges apply for the rest of the state.

We strongly encourage you to forward, copy and share this
information with others, on the condition that you pass
along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that
GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the
material, unless otherwise noted.
_____________________________
This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert
#64 -23 June 2000.

We hope this information will be of assistance to you in
defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this
information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If
you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights,
and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash
with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal!

Copyright 2000 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.

- -


- -

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:12:03 -0600 (Mountain Daylight Time)
From: Karl Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: From: InfoBeat News - Afternoon Edition @  06/30/2000 (fwd)

Bad news in CA.

Karl Pearson

*** Calif. upholds assault weapons ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The state Supreme Court has upheld a key provision of
California's 1989 assault weapons ban, clearing the way for the attorney
general to expand the list of prohibited guns. The court Thursday
overturned a lower court ruling that a provision allowing the attorney
general to seek a judge's approval to add weapons improperly gave judges
legislative authority. Attorney General Bill Lockyer called the decision a
"major victory for gun safety and public safety in California." He said
120 additional weapons, including the "AK" series, will likely be added to
the list of outlawed guns as a result of the decision. The law bans the
sale, manufacture, distribution and, in most cases, possession of more
than 50 military-style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. See
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2567758783-eba



- -

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:33:00 -0600
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PoliHumor: How to be a good Democrat

I hope not to get flamed for posting an off topic email, and please don't
respond to the list regarding the following post.  Thanks, KLP


How to be a good Democrat

  1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal
funding.
  2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about morals and
sex.
  3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans,
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of
Chinese communists.
  4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
  5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by
yuppies driving SUVs.
  6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
  7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on
demand.
  8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
  9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.
 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.
 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee
or Thomas Edison.
 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.
 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.
 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in
charge.
 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but
a sex offender who lies belongs in the White House.
 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger
scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the
Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.


- -

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:40:52 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment

- -----
Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:16:39 -0400
From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:38 PM

July 6 Neal Knox Report -- Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) is
talking to members of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee
about preventing BATF from being involved in enforcing the
Smith & Wesson/Clinton Administration agreement.

The subcommittee hasn't yet completed action on the
Treasury Appropriations bill, and will probably hold a
committee markup next week, "as soon as Congress gets back."

On April 7 Rep. Hostettler and 61 other Congressmen wrote
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) asking that the
committee prevent BATF from participating in the "Oversight
Commission" created by the S&W agreement.

Similar restrictions, offered as amendments to the Justice
Department and Housing Urban Development funding bills,
failed last month, but would probably survive attacks by
the gun control crowd if incorporated in the committee bill.

NRA hasn't supported the earlier Hostettler amendments
arguing they wouldn't apply to later agreements with other
manufacturers. Rep. Hostettler submitted NRA's broader
language to the House parliamentarian, who said it would
be out of order because it would be legislating on an
appropriations bill, which is forbidden by House rules.

However, broader language might be possible if proposed in
the subcommittee bill, though that might require approval
of the Rules Committee.

The House sometimes winks at the rule against legislating
on appropriations bills, but not when the Speaker opposes
an amendment. The Wall Street Journal has reported NRA
has left Hostettler to fight alone in deference to Speaker
Hastert, who doesn't want any hard gun votes.

Other Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee members
are Republicans Frank Wolfe (Va.), Anne Northrup (Ky.), Jo
Anne Emerson (Mo.), John Sununu (N.H.) and John Peterson (Pa.).

Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Md.), Carrie Meek (Fla.), David
Price (N.C.) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.).

Gun rights stalwart Virgil Goode (Va.), an Independent, is
also a member and a signer of the letter to Chairman Kolbe.

*****************************************
Editor's Note by Weldon Clark û You need to contact your
Congressman NOW. You can call your Representative at
[phone] and your two Senators at [phone] at
the Capitol Switchboard. Here is the URL for Congressional
Telephone Directory:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/cdframe.htm
Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html
Write your CONGRESSMAN OR STATE LEGISLATORS can
now be accomplished at the speed of light, thanks to
WorldNetDaily's new Legislative Action Center.
http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/
*****************************
To begin receiving Neal Knox's bi-monthly newsletter, send a
contribution of $25 or more to The Firearms Coalition, 7771
Sudley Rd. No. 44, Manassas, VA 20109. For current news,
call 1-900-225-3006 (89 cents per minute) or visit
http://www.NealKnox.com (free).
************************************************************
What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia
Weapons see http://www.2ndamendment.net
For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"
***************************************************
from The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send:
E-Mail to [e-mail] with the following text in the
message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News

Feel free to forward our alerts.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:33:51 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds

Edited for legibility

- -----
Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:50:03 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Someone on an email list for antique firearms posed a question about
the suitability of "The Patriot" for viewing by his 10-year old son.
Of course the answers were all positive, with most suggesting he might
go see it himself first, and then decide for sure. Apparently, someone
forwarded his question to Vin Suprynowicz. Here's Vin's response.

Jim H
===================================================

Vin Suprynowicz comments:

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:54:54 -0800
From: Vin Suprynowicz <[e-mail]>

> ikipniss wrote:

>> My ten year old son would like to see the movie... He enjoys history
>> and historical fiction.
>> He is standing here as I type, because I don't believe it is
>> appropriate to let a ten year old see an R rated movie.

>> I would Love to take him but feel it is my duty to raise him properly,
>> and just because his friends are able to see doesn't mean it is
>> appropriate for his age group.

>> What are the opinions of you guys/gals who have seen it already....
>> would  you let your ten year old see this movie.

>> Thanks for your guidance

>> Ivan

Hi --

The more substantive response to ikipniss (if you'd be willing to forward
this -- you didn't include his address) would be to point out that the film
rating board ADMITS the only reason they rated this film "R" was because a
10-year-old boy is shown being instructed by his father to shoot and kill
British officers. The film has no frontal nudity or sex scenes or foul talk
or any of the stuff one might SUSPECT would be indicated by an "R" rating
... some of which stuff actually shows up pretty regularly in PG films,
these days.

Yes, there are a few "bloody" or "gory" combat scenes, but the camera
doesn't zoom in or linger long on any such images -- in fact, combat here
doesn't look nearly as realistically gruesome as in the first half-hour of
"Saving Private Ryan."

(One critic complained that, in a crucial scene, Gibson gratuitously goes
to work with a hatchet on a "British soldier who was already dead." I
reply: 1) Gibson's Benjamin Martin  had channeled his anger into direct,
purposeful action after seeing one of his own sons killed only a short time
before -- I think his character showed admirable restraint, and this kind
of letting-out of his anger was very understandable and in character, while
the critic shows an inexperienced person's common foolish misunderstanding
that someone in an adrenaline rush, fighting for his life, is likely to be
able to determine and use "only the measured amount of force necessary";
2) the camera never points down to show the body of the British soldier
sustaining the hatchet wounds; it's always discreetly off camera to spare
us the real gore; 3) the critic is nuts, and demonstrates that his
knowledge of life-and-death situations most likely comes from watching
Hopalong Cassidy, the Cisco Kid, or the Lone Ranger. If you throw a hatchet
at a fleeing soldier and it sticks in a man's shoulder muscles and he falls
down, you'd BETTER not assume he's "already dead;" you'd BETTER run up and
follow through with some really mortal blows, or that guy is going to sit
up, point his flintlock or his belt pistol at you, and show you just how
"dead" he really is.)

Obviously, each parent has to make a case-by-case judgment for each kid.
But I thought the "R' rating was very bizarre. Who is MORE open to (and
also in need of) an understanding of what our ancestors sacrificed -- what
patriotism really means -- than young teens, most of whom are about to be
subjected to four to six years of relentless feminist, pacifist, socialist
propaganda and chemical castration in the government high schools?

- -- V.

p.s. --  After the movie, of course, everyone in the family WILL want to go
out and buy a flintlock. I don't happen to think this is a bad thing, either.

Vin Suprynowicz, [e-mail]

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

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --
and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:20:22 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME

Attempts at victim disarmament indicate enmity of the public
servants towards the Citizenry. Respect and encourage the right
of the People to keep and bear arms to prevent handgun violence.

Scott

Vanguard of the Revolution
http://www.theVanguard.org

FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME
by Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000


Four years into the British and Australian gun bans, the verdict on gun
control is in: disaster.

Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning
guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even
by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun
control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials
at a loss to explain the debacle.

Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent
more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even
using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the
country╣s private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in
crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves.

The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things,
government cannot take care of you as well as you can.

In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent,
and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults
increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after
having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides
have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have
increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73
percent.

In Australia today, police can go house to house, enter your home without a
warrant, search for guns, copy your hard drive, seize your records, and take
you to jail. What they cannot do is protect you.

It╣s worse in Britain, where virtually all guns were banned in 1996
following the Dunblane massacre. Americans tend to believe Britain a
peaceful place with little crime. Post-confiscation, quite the opposite
proves true: the crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher
than in the United States. Indeed, it is higher than in every one of the 50
states.

As in Australia, British police are incapable of stopping this growing
anarchy. Despite having more policemen per capita than the U.S., despite
installing more electronic surveillance equipment than any other Western
country, robbery and sex crimes have shot ahead of U.S. numbers, property
crime is now twice as high, and assaults and muggings are now between twice
and three times as high as in America.

Perhaps the most telling statistic is the "hot burglary" rate; i.e., those
burglaries which are committed while the homeowner is present. In the
United States, these burglaries account for just over 10 percent of the
total: criminals fear getting shot. In post-gun-ban Britain, however, "hot
burglaries" account for more than half of the total, meaning that vastly
more Britons face an armed intruder each year, with absolutely no way to
defend themselves either from the burglary itself or from whatever other
assaults, rapes or murders the criminal may choose to commit.

The contrast between this horror story and the American experience is vast.
The U.S. crime rate has fallen precipitously throughout the 1990s, largely
driven downward by those states which have enacted concealed-carry laws. And
in fact, gun ownership has been shown in survey after survey to be one of
the single most important factors in preventing violent crime.

Of particular note, Janet Reno╣s Department of Justice commissioned a survey
in 1994 by the openly anti-gun Police Foundation. That exhaustive study,
"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,"
was completed in 1997, and its conclusion was clear: "Guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime."

In the year studied, 1.5 million Americans used guns to defend their homes,
families or property. In the words of the study, literally "millions of
attempted assaults, thefts and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens
during the 12-month period." And as the study itself admits, its conclusions
are "directly comparable" to other similar studies: the Police Foundation's
work was the fifteenth national survey to reach this same conclusion in the
past twenty-two years, every one of them having found results in the same
range.

The common sense of gun ownership is inescapable: a family, or a single
mother, alone at home, facing an armed intruder in the middle of the night,
does not have time to call 911. By the time the police arrive, no matter how
competent they are, no matter how quickly they respond, she and her children
will be dead. It's that simple. She can defend herself and her children, or
she can face her merciless predator, alone.

The fact is simple: guns save lives. Lots of lives. Every day. Criminals
would far rather prey on the weak than on someone who can fight back.
Private gun ownership means people can help protect their families and keep
the peace; it also makes certain that crime does not pay.

And if you don╣t believe it, just visit our British and Australian cousins.


Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000.


- -- Rod D. Martin is National Chairman of The Vanguard, an organization
dedicated to the promotion of conservative causes. He is a Fellow of
the Kuyper Institute for Political Studies, an elder of Covenant
Baptist Church, and an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:20:46 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Doctors promoting the anti-gun agenda?

My apologies to any who regularly read Dear Abbey and have already read
this article from today's Deseret News.  But for those who don't, there
is a tid-bit of information in this one that is worth seeing.

For the last couple of years I've seen varous internet/email reports
warning that medical groups were pushing for doctors to begin including
ownership/use of guns in their questions about family medical history and
offering advice against the private ownership of guns--especially in
homes with children.  The last sentence of this letter would seem to
confirm that this is actually happening, at least in some places.

In a letter encouraging a parent to take her teenage daughter, who has a
mustache, to the doctor to rule out serious medical problems that may
cause excess body hair, an MD writes (emphasis added):

"The visit also gives the pediatricians (or family practioners) an
opportunity to touch base with a population notorious for avoiding
doctors -- adolescents.  Not only are they underimmunized, they are also
the group most in need of anticipatory guidance on issues such as
abstinence, safe sex, birth control, STDs, drugs, alcohol, smoking,
__GUNS__, nutrition, school perfomance, sports, and safe driving."

Complete letter online at
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,175018713,00.html?>.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #193
***********************************