ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n232

Internet Message Format | 2002-11-04 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #232
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Monday, November 4 2002     Volume 02 : Number 232




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

Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 09:38:51 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES)

Gun Owners Alliance Alert
WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES)

GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!!
Chris W. Stark - Director
P.O. Box 419
Woodland Park, CO 80866-0419
Ph. 1-719-687-8747
http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/
mailto:[e-mail]

06 August 2002

WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES)

Copyright ⌐ 2002 by Gun Owners Alliance.
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.

Another good look at the life of Texas Representative Suzanna Hupp.

You can also hear Suzanna Hupp's testimony with the help
of RealAudio at:

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-7.htm

...or go to...

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

This year, we won't have to do anything for Suzanna Hupp's
re-election campaign in Texas. For the first time, she
doesn't have an opponent. They finally gave up fighting
her re-election bid.

With Respect,

Gun Owners Alliance
Chris W. Stark - Director
***************************

With Apologies to Dickens
(A Tale of Two Cities)
Copyright by MAGGI BAUER
mailto:[e-mail]

The hyperattention being given to females (we have to
assume only moms, as opposed to singles, are parading in
various locations this day) to aid those who are bent on
eliminating the 2nd Amendment birth right of ALL Americans,
which includes men by the way, centers on two states, New
York, and Texas. It centers also, on two women.

In 1991, in Texas, a deranged man (note I said deranged)
shot and killed among others, the parents of a young woman
named Suzanna Hupp.

In 1993, in New York, a deranged man boarded a train on
Long Island, and shot and killed among others, the husband
of Carolyn McCarthy.

Each of these women became outraged, and rightly so,
following these incidents.

One, the young woman from Texas, had the means to defend
not only herself, and her parents as well. Unfortunately,
she couldn't, because she followed then current Texas State
law, and her means of defense was in her car, not in her
purse.

The other woman's husband (she was nowhere around) had no
means whereby to defend himself, although New York has had
since about 1938, I'll stand corrected if wrong, 63 different
gun violation laws under what is called the Sullivan Act.
SIXTY-THREE LAWS. Mr. McCarthy could have had a means of
defense. He chose not to, which was HIS right.

Each of these two woman took a course of action which
led them to where they stand, today.

I fully appreciate what each of these women must have gone
through in the days and weeks that followed these incidents.
And yet I must and indeed have to say that each has profited.
But in two very different ways, and for two very different
reasons. Thus, a Tale of Two States, a Tale of Two Women.

The one, Suzanna Hupp, because she was prohibited, by law,
from having with her the means, a handgun, and by her own
admission, the capability of using that .38 S&W, was denied
her parents future time with her. She has always been angry
at a state and government that denied her the probability
that she could have defended herself and her parents. She
went on to elected to the Texas Legislature using her
parents untimely deaths as her "cause", and to become a
champion for all the other women, and men, in Texas, that
should the day come, they too, might well have to do what
she was denied. Ultimately, Texas has a right to carry
concealed law. And Suzanna has, this day, spoken on behalf
of women and men everywhere that under that 2nd Amendment,
they too, should have the same right. Suzanna fully
understand what "shall NOT be infringed" means.

Now, we have the other woman, the one from New York,
Carolyn McCarthy. She, too, used her husband's death, to
profit. She ran for office and was elected to the House
of Representatives, using her husband's death as her
springboard. She, however, has used her office to at
very turn support the "infringement" of every part of
that 2nd Amendment. She is determined under the tutelage
of Bill Clinton and egged on by Chuck Schumer (N.Y. Sen.)
to force the national registration and fingerprinting of
every American whose rights under that Amendment "shall
not be infringed", and force registration and fingerprinting,
make no mistake about this, is a deliberate infringement.

You know that OXFORD book (the one from Clinton's college,
would that he'd read it ) to which I refer frequently?
The one for 49.95? Well, it has a rather good comment on
infringement. It says INFRINGEMENT: an encroachment or
trespass on a right or privilege.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It is a birthright.

Carolyn McCarthy is encroaching. She's also trespassing.
So are all the Clintons, Schumers, and Feinsteins and all
the rest who deem ad nauseum, that Americans will be,
shall be infringed upon, and they're gonna do their utmost
to see that fully law-abiding Americans are. They call
forced background checks, registration and fingerprinting
a minor inconvenience. I call it an encroachment and trespass.

Suzanna Hupp is doing her utmost to see that law-abiding
Americans are not encroached or trespassed upon. Of the
two women, which one is standing with the principals of
that birthright? Our Bill of Rights?

# # # #

Maggi Bauer is a retired Member of the New Hampshire General
Court, House of Representatives, elected in 1969, serving
until end of term in 1974, from District 5, Carroll County.
A staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment in her former
position as an elected official, today, she continues her
struggle to fight the victim disarmament crowd, and win
back our 2nd amendment rights.

Maggi Bauer may be contacted at mailto:[e-mail]
or you can join her in our gun rights discussion list. Read
more about the discussion list at:

http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/Email.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the above URL, to read about
the discussion list, or, to Join, send an e-mail to:

[e-mail]


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Suggested contributions?
As an opener, the price of a box of ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at:

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright ⌐ 2002 by Gun Owners Alliance. Republication permitted ONLY
if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. The views
herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual
or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance. For more information,
go to: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/sig.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONLY THE E-MAIL ADDRESS USED TO SEND US A SUBSCRIBE REQUEST, CAN BE
SUBSCRIBED. WE DO NOT SHARE, LEND, OR SELL OUR E-MAIL LIST FOR ANY
REASON. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL WITH US FOREVER.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
mailto:[e-mail]
No subject line or message necessary.

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GunOwnersAlliance.asc

- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 09:59:57 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun control as class warfare

Gun control as class warfare
- ----------
Totse
by Rosemary Fury
   A left-anarchist critique of gun control, which points out
   how guns benefit women, especially in domestic abuse
   situations. A rare defense of gun ownership from the
   left. (09/08/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/17650813.html

- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:58:59 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds

http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=3856

Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds

Ten Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold

1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a
year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event",
which necessarily complicates the Police investigation.
Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police
investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians
should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are
properly equipped to investigate following the crime's
completion.

2.) Some .004% (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime
each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.

3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses,
no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you
clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are
unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary
defenses.

4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law
Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high.
This high crime rate is caused by the migration of
criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration
is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed
householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal
migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in
no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned
everywhere.

5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and
drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically
restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun
crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug
War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying
guns to all law abiding people everywhere.

6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault
or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating
the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is
all the protection anyone really needs.

7.) Guns' owners are disrespectful of authority. Good
citizens should completely rely on the authorities.
A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper
and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely
and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is
excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.

8.) Guns' owners engaging in self-defense are taking the
law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police
and Criminals have the right to take the law into their
own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.

9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant
about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate
the fantasies created by violent video games and TV.
Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs
to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all
the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!

10.) Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and
Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights".
No person has the right to question authority. No person
should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is
fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to
establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:46:55 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Judges and Guns?!?!

So, as hard as it may be to believe, if this SLTrib article is correct,
conviction of a felony does not spell automtic disbarrment or dismissal
for a judge.  So it is conceivable that we could end up with a person
whom the Feds and the State consider too dangerous and/or of too feable
of judgement to buy, own, or carry a firearm for self defense, sitting in
judgement of someone else's life, liberty, or property.

If I can't trust someone with a gun, I sure don't want to trust them with
the authority that comes with being a Judge.

Charles

Full story at:

http://www.sltrib.com/09102002/utah/utah.htm

From the last paragraph of the article emphasis added:

   Colin Winchester, executive director of the Judicial Conduct
Commission -- a judicial watchdog agency -- said he was barred from
saying whether Harding was under investigation.
    But Winchester noted that being charged, or **even convicted, of a
felony** does **not** spell "automatic anything" for a judge. "Conviction
of a felony is one criteria for which a judge **can be** disciplined," he
said.

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:16:36 -0600
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <[e-mail]>
Subject: word from your sponsor about tomorrows gun show

Hi All

Most of you don't know this yet, but I moved back to Utah from New
Hampshire over Labor Day.  As such, I am pursuing my business as a
Dillon Precision dealer (with other other items like MPro7) as well here
in Utah and will be having a table tomorrow, Saturday the 21st, at the
Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Sandy/SLC.  We will not be there on
Sunday, as that is our Sabbath.


See you there!  Stop by and say HI!

utah-firearms maillist sponsor
Chad


- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:52:21 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun editorial in Sunday's Deseret News.

The following editorial appeared in Sunday's (September 29th) Deseret
News.  It calls for extending pre-purchase background checks on firearms
buyers to private sales at gun shows. It dismisses our legitimate
concerns as nothing more than black-helicopter conspirarcy theories.  I
encourage you to take a moment to pen a short letter to the deseret news'
editor.

A few obvious topics:

1-There is no such thing as an "unlicensed delaer."  ALL firearms dealers
must be licenese under federal law.  If a person is not a licensed
dealer, he is either a private citizen selling a private piece of
property within the limits of existing law, or else he is already
violating federal gun laws.

2-Registration of guns and gun owners is not some kind of paranoid
concern.
It HAS been used numerous times to
confiscate guns or otherwise infringe the rights of gun owners.
Registration preceeded confistaction in Nazi Germany.  New York City used
gun registration roles from the Sullivan Act to confiscate guns.
California State has used and continues to use registration of mis-called
"assault weapons" to enable confiscation of those guns there.

3-No mention is made of how many innocent persons have had their rights
delayed or denied due to various governmental errors.

4-Of the large number of people supposedly prevented from buying a gun,
how many were actually arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed?
Lacking this, a criminal intent on getting a gun is not prevented from
doing so, he is simply encouraged to look elsewhere.  When it comes to
claiming dangerous felons and wife beaters were prevented from buying
guns, only the number convicted really matters.

5-Many police departements in Utah are still not conducting background
checks on their officers to check for convictions of misdemeanor domestic
violence.  The Deseret News wants to make sure that private citizens with
such convictions cannot buy a gun at a gun show.  Yet a police officer
with such a conviction is likely to retain access to weapons that are not
available to the general public and to wield tremendous power so long as
these departments rely on an "honor system" of having officers report all
their past convictions--convictions which would likely mean and end to
their police careers as the Lautenburg gun ban provided no exemption for
police officers.

Letters can be emailed to:  [e-mail]

Be sure to provide a snail-mail address and phone number along with real
name.  Only name and city/State are published.  Shorter letters stand a
better chance of being published.

Here is the link and full article.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,410015440,00.html

Close gun show loophole
Deseret News editorial

      Federally-required background checks disqualified 1,830 people from
buying guns in Utah last year. Since the intended purpose of the law is
to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited from
possessing them, that's good news.

      However, the new U.S. Justice Department figures show that Utah's
rejection rate of 2.8 percent is much higher than the national average.
This means either Utah's background checks are more thorough or a greater
number of people prohibited from buying and possessing guns ù felons,
fugitives, illegal aliens or those with a history of mental illness or
family violence ù are attempting to obtain guns in Utah.
      Given that Utah allows private citizens and non-licensed dealers to
sell guns at gun shows without conducting background checks, one can
surmise that fewer background checks are conducted in Utah than in states
that have closed the gun show loophole. Among the known purchase
attempts, Utah's rejection rate is nearly double the national average.
      Yet, the Utah Legislature has been skittish about taking the next
step in regulating gun shows, requiring all vendors at gun shows to
require background checks. Given Utah's less than distinguished showing
in this new Department of Justice report, lawmakers should reconsider
this issue.
      More regulation will not, of course, prevent someone who really
wants a gun from buying it from a private citizen who takes out a
classified advertisement in a publication or, for that matter, stealing a
weapon. But when sellers gather under a promoter's business license,
there would seem to be a legitimate reason for government to establish
some baseline requirements.
      The gun-rights lobby frets that requiring an airtight background
check system could lead to the government keeping records on everyone who
owns a gun. This sounds like the stuff of black-helicopter conspiracies.
Of all groups, the gun lobby should be concerned about guns ending up in
the wrong hands. The actions of felons and scofflaws give legitimate,
law-abiding gun owners a bad, undeserved reputation.
      More than half of the rejections nationwide ù 58 percent ù were for
felony convictions or indictments, the Justice Department said. Another
14 percent of prospective gun buyers were rejected for a domestic
violence misdemeanor.
      Since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act took effect in
1994, guns have been kept from 840,000 people out of 37.91 million
background checks for gun purchases.
      The good news is the Brady bill is keeping guns out of the hands of
people who shouldn't have them. The law could be even more effective in
Utah if state lawmakers would close yet another venue where guns can be
purchased without background checks.

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:27:55 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: A column from Dimitri - PittsburghLIVE.com - 'A handgun is a girl's best  friend'

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: A column from Dimitri -- PittsburghLIVE.com - 'A handgun is a girl's best friend'
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:44:06 -0400
From: Timothy Crowley <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: LEEbernet <[e-mail]>

Subject: PittsburghLIVE.com - 'A handgun is a girl's best friend'

- -------------------------------------------
'A HANDGUN IS A GIRL'S BEST FRIEND'
Preventing rape is not funny. At least it shouldn't be.
Somebody should have mentioned that to the audience before
the recent first televised gubernatorial debate at Penn
State. Candidates were asked what they would do to encourage
rape victims to report the crime to authorities. One of the
four gave an answer few were expecting. The audience and the
other three thought he was joking.
- -------------------------------------------

To read the entire article, visit:
1. Click here:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/columnists/vassilaros/s_94655.html
2. Or visit http://www.pittsburghlive.com and type in NewsCode: 94655

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

For the most comprehensive coverage of local news and sports
in western Pennsylvania, visit http://www.pittsburghlive.com/

- -

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:58:34 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: National Ammo Day

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:49:50 -0400 Sunni Maravillosa
<[e-mail]> wrote:

Thanks to an LRT friend for bringing this to my attention:

National Ammo Day: Celebrate the Second Amendment by buying an extra
100 rounds of ammunition on November 19th. The goal is to put
ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and send a message
to anti-gun individuals and organizations. Reloaders can participate
too!

http://www.free-market.net/rd/649274736.html

Sunni

http://www.LibertyRoundTable.org/

- -

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:24:18 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Janalee on ABC 4 tomorrow

Subject: [wagc-ut] Tobias debates Gun Haters on T.V. Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:13:36 -0600
From: Janalee Tobias <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]

Greetings,

I've been asked to inform you when I'm debating someone about guns.

Tomorrow morning (Sunday, Oct. 20) at 9:30 MST on ABC Channel
4 (in case anyone has a Satellite dish for the WAGC members
worldwide) I'm part of a panel discussion debating gun control,
snipers, ballistic fingerprinting, and the U of U gun ban.

I'm not sure how I did, but I did get a bit fiesty.  I couldn't
help it!  When the gunhaters make up stories, I get upset.

I think the name of the show is "Politically Speaking," with
the host Chris Vanocur--the reporter who broke the Olympic
Games scandal.

I hope I represent gun owners well.

The other panel members are:

PRO GUN:
Mitch Vilos, Author and Lawyer
Janalee Tobias, Pres. WAGC and Piano Teacher :)

ANTI GUN:
Maura Carabello, Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center
Steve Gunn, Attorney, UGVPC

Best regards, Janalee Tobias

- -

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

Date: 24 Oct 2002 11:47:21 -0600
From: Karl Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2 Thoughts

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The
War On Terrorism:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two
small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife
comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming
obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.  What do
you do?

Liberal Answer:  Well, that's not enough information to answer the
question! You're looking for simple solutions to complex issues.

*  Does the man look poor or oppressed?
*  Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
*  Could we run away?
*  What does my wife think?
*  What about the kids?
*  Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife
   out of his hand?
*  What does the law say about this situation?
*  Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
*  Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content
   to wound me?
*  If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get
   away while he was stabbing me?

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a
few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:  Shoot the SOB! Then take your family to a baseball
game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem, go to
church and praise the Lord for one more day of freedom.

- - Author unknown

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

"Democrats raise taxes. It's their way of paying for programs that buy
votes from people who don't pay high taxes."

- - Detroit News columnist Pete Waldmeir



- -

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:19 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Gun Owners Alliance Alert] Where Is The Militia? LONG

From: [e-mail] (Chris W. Stark)

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

   PLEASE FORWARD THIS ALERT TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ENEMIES ALIKE!
               DO NOT LET THIS ALERT DIE - PASS IT ON!

                       GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE
                            !!ALERT!!
                    Chris W. Stark - Director
                          P.O. Box 1210
                      Divide, CO 80814-1210
                        Ph. 1-719-687-8747
                http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com
             e-mail: [e-mail]

                          21 October 2002
                        ++++++++++++++++++

                       Where Is The Militia?

               +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  (Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions at the bottom of this alert)
       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


by Larry Pratt

During World War II, governors of east and west coast states called
up the citizen-militia to deal with the threat of invasion by the
Germans and Japanese.

Following 9/11, the governors did nothing and the federal government
created a new bureaucracy in Washington to coordinate federal police
agencies.

Everybody knows that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, an act which was
followed by a congressional declaration of war in 1941. Many fewer
know that the Japanese made no plans to attack the American mainland
because of the militia, the armed populace.

Nationally renowned firearms trainer Massad Ayoob had a personal
conversation with a naval veteran. He reported (in Backwoods Home
Magazine earlier this year) that in the early 1960's, Bob Menard
was part of joint maneuvers with the Japanese, many of whom were
World War II veterans. At dinner, one of the Japanese officers
explained why the Japanese did not invade:

     The officer had replied that his country was well
     aware that there was a high density of armed citizenry
     in America, even state championships for private citizens
     in the use of military rifles, and that the Japanese
     were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.

The threat of Japanese attack was real enough at the time. The Japanese
did successfully occupy a couple of the Aleutian Islands in 1942, and it
cost 700 American lives to dislodge them.

Also in 1942, a Japanese sub fired shells at an oil refinery at Goleta,
California and later fired shells into the naval base at Fort Stevens,
Oregon.

In response, militia patrolled the west coast of the country during
those tense years.

In the east, a German submarine penetrated Long Island from a sub for
the purpose of blowing up bridges and water works. The saboteurs were
captured and executed. Civilian pilots and sailors patrolled the east
coast with their handguns and rifles at the ready.

Fifty years later, four gun-free zones flew right past the noses of the
professional police forces of the country. During the time the Muslim
mass murderers were preparing for 9/11, the FBI was investigating President
Clinton's bete noire, the vast right wing conspiracy. They did not have
even a clue as to the real threat to America.

In spite of the national police force's record of failure, even more
centralization of their power is being coordinated by Tom Ridge, the
director of Homeland Security.

The airplanes are still gun free, and we know from FAA inspectors that
they have been successful in slipping weapons through airport security
nearly fifty percent of the time. This is following the federalization
of airport security personnel.

The President and his subordinates have opposed even arming pilots.
(Would it have been a bad thing or a good thing if a passenger or two
had had a gun on the planes of 9/11?)

The Constitution provides for the militia. It gives the Congress power
to provision the militia and to select its officers.

Why are the citizen militia not being called up to guard bridges,
waterworks, nuclear plants, and airports? They have as much training
for this as the National Guard and other military units that have been
assigned for some of these duties -- none. Other than Military Police,
the training of the military is to search and destroy -- not exactly
the training needed for protecting nuclear power plants. Why was the
militia good enough for providing homeland security in the 1940's,
but not in 2002?

We should not stretch our Clinton-decimated military further than it is
now. We should be calling up and training citizen militias.

Perhaps the idea of using "civilians" violates the unconstitutional notion
that security can only be provided by a centralized, professionalized police
force. The people cannot be trusted, in this view, to participate in providing
their own protection.

This notion of a centralized police fits comfortably with the growing
acceptance that only the federal government can provide for all of life's
needs -- education, old age, unemployment, health, etc.

The growing preemption of American life by the federal government has no
room for individual responsibility. Rather than encourage the militia,
politicians are busily looking for ways to disarm more and more Americans.

It is an unconstitutional view. Those that hold it should not be trusted to
hold public office.

+++

Larry Pratt is executive director of Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit
lobbying organization based in Virginia.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Suggested contributions?
 As an opener, the price of a box of ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at:

            http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its
original state. The views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of
any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance. For more
information, go to: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/sig.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONLY THE E-MAIL ADDRESS USED TO SEND US A SUBSCRIBE REQUEST, CAN BE
SUBSCRIBED. WE DO NOT SHARE, LEND, OR SELL OUR E-MAIL LIST FOR ANY
REASON. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL WITH US FOREVER.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:

   [e-mail]

              No subject line or message necessary.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     TO UN-SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:

   [e-mail]

               No subject line or message necessary.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Key - http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GunOwnersAlliance.asc

iQEVAwUBPbQs0OCpzDgtVGC7AQEfEAgA4eXsVyoD38lTbffOxgXgSoP7oVLVkfEP
QajNg3KwTXvLgO141XM6FuJeIf9KYbNIviI+iFToe08Tz1mvtcUjJPvnZ1lzFJjj
Txm+UEiIJDEaOIHc60lGB5qfSWLAgh99Bgy0S6bVhnZy+1A5psEdaEYlS4wdDrJw
rTJJ4S1Q2dVsbYtQmLdJzzrz4+wNvfU55JQ3YOjciqemXcKLUFWyFFcMKUvJ08Qs
Lv+nCQ33/xYqZLsfzhsBFtL33UNUDEk+nL4ltzDEJAr+dB8XsaMD85S8DfoPnWV5
G8KY7ZtrKgkHqk60PgahWEf8ItGKeBEi1oVCrJpbtGFLVXBSb6OI7A==
=z87w
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:27:08 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun control's twisted outcome

Gun control's twisted outcome
 ----------
 Reason
 by Joyce Lee Malcolm
     "Restricting firearms has helped make England more
     crime-ridden than the U.S." (11/02)
 http://www.free-market.net/rd/402559309.html

Columbia feels heat from gun groups over Bancroft Prize
- ----------
Washington Times
    Gun-rights groups are calling for Columbia University to
    rescind the Bancroft Prize it gave to a historian after
    an investigation by Emory University found he "willingly
    misrepresented the evidence" in his work. (10/30/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/814328404.html

Bellesiles: The larger context
- ----------
LewRockwell.com
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell
    "People ask if there is any reason for libertarians to be
    confident. If you understand the sociology of ideas, it is easy
    to see that the statist project is running out of intellectual
    steam. It survives mainly due to the momentum it gathered during
    and after World War II. But it has no new source of strength ...
    and without intellectual life and vibrancy, it is profoundly
    vulnerable." (10/29/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/484971863.html

The sniper and the keystone cops
- ----------
LewRockwell.com
by William L. Anderson
    "If anything, the bumbling of the police in this whole
    sorry episode proves that individuals must be able to
    protect themselves -- precisely because the police will
    not and cannot protect us. Let us begin with the
    killings and how this puzzle was solved." (10/28/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/563771159.html

Do we need warning labels for lies in the libraries?
- ----------
Liberty For All
by Linda Gorman
    "In September 2000, publishing house Alfred A. Knopf handed
    professional librarians a knotty problem. It published
    'Arming America,' a book in which Emory University
    professor Michael Bellesiles outlined research
    supposedly showing that guns were rare in America from
    the Colonial period to the Civil War. ... As it turns
    out, 'Arming America' is a lie." (10/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/573331944.html

Democrats back off from gun control
- ----------
USA Today
    Those counting on the Democratic Party to aggressively
    promote authoritarian gun-control measures may be
    disappointed. Increasingly, Democratic candidates are
    advertising their pro-gun views. (10/28/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/75302792.html [obnoxious popup]

Anti-gun professor found to have misrepresented data
- ----------
Emory University News
    Michael Bellesiles, who was investigated for misuse of
    sources in his book "Arming America: The Origins of a
    National Gun Culture," in which he tried to show that
    the core historical argument behind the Second Amendment
    was a fraud, has resigned from his position as Professor
    of history at Emory University. (10/25/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/515191191.html

Australia considers new gun restrictions
- ----------
News.com.au
    A shooting at a university has giver Australia's Democrats
    and Greens an excuse to call for a ban on semi-automatic
    handguns. The crime rate has climbed since the last
    round of gun restrictions. (10/22/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/925820140.html [Looks horrid on NS 4.7]

- -

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

Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 18:47:23 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bipartisans on Right to Self-Defense

"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me
very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
- - Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) On MSNBC

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." - Sen. Joe Biden,
D-Del/ Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution
inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."
- - President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

The most effective means of fighting crime in the United
States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm
by the civilian populace." - Janet Reno, addressing a 1991
B'nai B'rith gathering in Ft. Lauderdale

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a
step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
- -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Senator Dianne Feinstein, February 5, 1995, CBS's 60 Minutes:
"If I could have gotten another 51 votes in the Senate
for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them, Mr. and
Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done that.
But I could not do that; the votes were not there."

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans
to feel safe." - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by
the Associated Press, November 18, 1993

My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the
turning in of all handguns." - U.S. Representative Major
Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought
of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an
abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation
at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and
requiring licenses for hunting rifles. - William Safire
(originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles
Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.

PATRICK KENNEDY (U.S. Congressman, R.I.) "Kennedy said
he favors an outright ban on handguns, but doubts its
palatability in the current political climate." (Providence
Journal, 4 Jan 99)

Sen. John Chafee: "I believe all handguns should be
abolished" The Associated Press, January 9, 1997

Rep. Charles Schumer: "We're going to hammer guns on the
anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat
guns into submission!" Press Conference, December 8, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
- - U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC,
November 30, 1993

- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:10:13 -0700
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian guy needs our help

Hi All

The following article, of which I have given the first bit and a link,
tells a lot about the stupidity of the US government.  Call your
Congressman and the President (I sent the pres an email, for all that
will do -- [e-mail] ) on behalf of this guy.  This is a
joke.

"
  BANGOR, Maine (Reuters) - A Canadian woodcutter arrested during a
routine trip across the U.S. border to buy gasoline has become the
victim of intensified security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, his
lawyer said on Friday.

Michel Jalbert drove from his hometown of Pohenegamook, Quebec to
Estcourt Station, Maine to fill up on cheap American gas before a
hunting trip. As he was leaving the station, U.S. border patrol agents
arrested him for illegally entering the country with a firearm.

.
.
.
"

The article goes on to say how the gas station seems to be in the
no-man's land after entering US soil but before you actually get to the
INS and Customs gates and stuff.   So Canadians routinely drive there,
fill up, and return to Canada without even going through the official
entrances.  US Officials have long looked the other way on this.

Complete article can be found at
<http://www.reuters.com/
news_article.jhtml?type=humannews&StoryID=1674738>

Chad


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #232
***********************************