From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #104 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Thursday, October 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 104 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: License to be Stupid On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:02:09 -0600 "Chris Kierst" told the Libertarian Party of Utah listserver Re: License to be stupid -Reply How about requiring that recreationists be bonded to protect local government SAR organizations from financial abuse by subsidized recreationists on public lands? Both state and county bonds could be required prior to a recreational use permit being issued by both levels of government. Other fees may be necessary. I wonder if any SAR organizations have ever been sued for some kind of malpractice? Perhaps we need angler, mountain biker, hiker, whitewater, backcountry skier/snowshoer, alpinist, rockhound or ??? subsidized recreationist education programs modeled after hunter ed programs. I wonder if the earthshoe/treehugger groups who conduct hiking activities should be required to provide licensed guides for their organized activities on public lands? This is a small price to pay to ensure the survival of the resource for our children and the good of the environment. If Prop. 5 passes (since it is so well funded) and the decisions with respect to habitat and wildlife management are left in the hands of the professional game management scientists, these scientists should be required to file annual reports certifying the health of the environment resultant of sustaining a particular activity (good little Malthusian environmental scientists would recognize a carrying capacity and what with Growth such a problem and all!!!). Environments surrounding major population centers (such as Mill Creek Canyon) would be particularly stressed from overuse. We need mass transit to more remote trailheads to spread out the impacts. All recreationists should be carrying transponders so they can be easily located by SAR orgs. All of this (and much, much more) should be necessary because of the subsidy of outdoor recreation and greedy, profit-motivated (Isn't socialistspeak fun?), related industries and their patron govagencies. It isn't as though these are livelihoods for most of the practitioners but rather their hobbies. To which on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:32:33 PDT Richard Partridge replied: What's this business about "licensed" guides and "requiring" recreationists to be bonded? If people intentionally do something stupid that gets them in trouble, what's wrong with just billing them for the costs of rescue? A free market could provide liability insurance for those who desired to purchase it. If you travel in Mexico by automobile, it's highly recommended that you purchase Mexican liability insurance which is quite reasonable and can save you a great deal of grief. A special recreation policy for those who desired it might be a solution to covering search & rescue costs. (Think LIBERTARIAN!) On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:05:22 -0600 Chris Kierst explained: Dick goes ballistic ... My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote the piece Dick is responding to!!! I tried to share some of the socialist justifications I hear for such restrictive regulation and policy. These are the types of regulations and policies in place to control private industry operating on public lands. At the same time, I hear people scream about regulating recreational access and activity on public land for their particular hobby. As a Libertarian, I would prefer private SAR services, but then I also prefer that the land itself be private (and more discriminating) so as to limit the need for public services and expense. Recreation on public lands is subsidized. Government should not be in the entertainment/babysitter business. On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:02:56 PDT Richard Partridge continued: No offense intended, Chris. You did bring up some good points. I served in the Civil Air Patrol, off and on, for over 40 years and we worked closely with other SAR orgs. There was some worry about lawsuits but we, generally, shrugged it off (though the CAP did carry liability insurance paid for with our dues). We and other SAR volunteers served without monetary reward (finding somebody alive was priceless) and, largely at our own expense. The USAF (and occasionally a sheriff's dept.) us reimbursed for fuel and lubricants, telephone expenses, and (later) some aircraft maintenance expense. I think there were some cases where people had been forewarned not proceed, that they were billed. (I don't know if they paid.) As to Prop. 5, I'm convinced that it is a "back-door" attempt to further diminish our right to initiative petition as it is being pushed by the same people (NRA and USSC under "Darth Vadar" Bishop) who pushed to increase Utah requirements for petitioning with the justification that Washington State anti-gunners got an anti-gun prop. on the ballot. The voters shot it down but that doesn't matter to people who don't trust The People. Transponders have been carried by recreationists for some time and have caused fits for Air Rescue people as they are easily activated accidentally and are assumed to be downed aircraft. - -Dick - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: More guns, less crime? 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:01:23 -0500 From: youareonetoo To: Liberty-and-Justice@mailbox.by.net Recently heard John R. Lott, Jr. (Law Professor, University of Chicago) promoting his book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" (University of Chicago Press, 1998) on WABC 770 talk radio in the New York tri-state area. He was on during the morning show with Mike Gallagher and Libertarian "Lionel," and Lott apparently greatly impressed both of them with his information and his presentation, and he also greatly impressed me, so much so that I went to my local Barnes & Noble book store looking for the book, and when they did not have it in stock, I requested that they carry some copies of the book. I then came home and ordered the book from Amazon Books, the direct link to the book at Amazon books being http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636/ and upon receipt of the book have discovered that it is exactly as advertised. The book is an exhaustive professional research study on the statistics relating to gun control (extracted primarily from recent FBI reports), which produces the following conclusion; where there are more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there is less crime, because criminals know that any crime they attempt to commit, might be met with lethal force in the prevention of that crime. Furthermore, it is found that the most cost-effective method of fighting crime is through allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in the manner that they see fit for their own personal security, and in the prevention of crime. The people of the state of Arizona surely know exactly about that which Lott speaks, and that which is presented right here. This book will probably end up becoming the preeminent study on the matter of gun control, and combined with the work by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org) and with the material in JPFO's books "Lethal Laws" and "Gun Control; Gateway to Tyranny" at http://universalway.org/guncontroltable.html, make an irrefutable argument against gun control that must only leave people who have failed to do the research in its wake, along with those who have a certain agenda. This particular publication includes initial reaction to Lott's original research study, which was released last year in an industry journal. It is interesting to note Lott's numerous stories about the many people in opposition to his research who refused to even look at his study, but who criticized his study anyway without having read it first, and who continually announced with confidence that they could obtain publicity from the mainstream media for their gun control cause whenever they wanted; all of this might give people who read the book additional reason to ponder the entire issue of gun control. And I could also make the following argument from the above information; we know from many studies that the only people who benefit from gun control laws are criminals. Thus, it is to the benefit of criminals to support gun control. Thus, we should examine those who support gun control with the understanding that only criminals benefit from gun control, and with the understanding that criminals most probably know this also. Thus, anyone who supports gun control must be understood as supporting something that is to the benefit of criminals, and thus it follows, that those who support gun control, and those whom they themselves support, might fall into the realm of themselves being criminals, and upon investigation and research, might be found to be in the employ of criminal individuals or organizations who support gun control as a method for their madness. The real truth is, those who support gun control, are really trying to save their own lives. They have obviously sold out for money (employment/association/etc.) to certain people, and act as if they are under some sort of threat in the way they perform their jobs, in the manner in which they behave, and in light of the weight of the research information available. It would seem that their positions are held under duress, as might be concluded about people who hold such a poorly-researched position as that of pro-gun-control. At the same time, those gun control lackeys must surely know, that whenever one of them speaks out in public for their cause, there are a myriad of people throughout the nation who are accumulating the names and addresses of such anti-gun activists, and making notes in a some sort of book, about the nature of the positions held and the possibility of criminal behavior or association of such gun control supporters, and it is hoped that those people making such lists, will succumb to more level-headed calls for justice should things become difficult some time in the future, however, I do not believe such level-headed calls to justice will be heeded by most people who are so angry so as to be keeping such lists in the first place. Either way, those who have sold themselves out to support gun control, are in trouble from both sides of the ledger, and they would be wise to consider simply dropping the ball and getting out of the game, and go somewhere they can protect themselves from those who have such animosity towards them, from both sides. And please note; I am not one of those persons who holds such animosity, while at the same time, I understand clearly and undeniably that what goes around comes around. Time for everybody to reevaluate all of their positions, don't you think? Here's a recent article authored by the man, John R. Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime." THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS By John R. Lott Jr. America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 19:03:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: More guns, less crime? 2/2 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen. Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively. Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach. The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun. Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer. With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995, just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates. Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks. Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns. There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder. Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers. Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available). Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense. The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection. How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak. These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does. someone http://universalway.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 08:13:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second Amendment - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:37:09 -0400 From: Leroy Crenshaw Subject: Second Amendment Joyce Lee Malcolm During the first public discussion of articles that would become our bill of rights, the Philadelphia Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post explained to readers the intent of the future Second Amendment: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed...in their right to keep and bear their private arms."1 There was no doubt then, or for decades to come, that the Second Amendment protected private arms and embodied an individual right. It was a right that did double duty, however: the individual could protect himself and the liberties of his fellow-citizens. This had been one of the colonists' rights as Englishmen, and it was one that, as Americans, they would strengthen and broaden. Since medieval times ordinary Englishmen had been legally required to keep weapons for individual defence and to fulfill their peacekeeping duties. In the late seventeenth century this duty became a right. Englishmen had become thoroughly alarmed when Charles II and James II began to disarm their political opponents and to increase the size of their army. James's flight in 1688 provided an opportunity to shore up and expand popular rights before installing a new monarch. The resulting Bill of Rights included the guarantee that "the Subjects, which are Protestants, may have Armes for their defence Suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law." Although this language left room for restrictions to be imposed, legal experts and court decisions in the years that followed make it crystal clear that the typical Englishmen had a right to keep firearms. Writing just prior to the American Revolution, William Blackstone saw this as a right designed to "protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." In language the Philadelphia Federal Gazette was to echo, he also argued that their private weapons would enable the people "to restrain the violence of oppression." In 1780 London's legal adviser explained: The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable...And that right, which every Protestant most unquestionably possesses, individually, may, and in many cases must, be exercised collectively.... In 1819, Justice Bayley made the same point. "But are arms suitable to the condition of people in the ordinary class of life, and are they allowed by law?" he asked, and answered, "a man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business." Americans inherited an individual right to be armed, but it is possible that they chose to narrow, or waive, that right in the Bill of Rights. Examination of the drafting of the Second Amendment, however, makes Congress's intention to protect an individual right apparent. In keeping with colonial practice English restrictions based on religion were swept aside and no provision was included for what was "suitable" to a person's "condition" or "allowed by law." The American amendment, however, was prefaced by the assertion that "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." Was it meant, therefore, only to ensure the right of militia members to be armed? If so it is hard to understand why a House committee removed the stipulation that the militia be described as "well-armed" or why senators rejected a proposal to add to the words "to keep and bear arms" the phrase "for their common defence." Although militia service was expected of men of a certain age, and a militia was regarded as safer for a republic than a professional army, senators did not want to limit the possession of weapons to "common defence." English drafters had emphatically rejected the same phrase. It is the right of "the people" to be armed Congress sought to protect. It has also been argued that the amendment was meant to return some power over the militia to the states. If so it signally fails to do that. What does it do? It states that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." And it proclaims that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As William Rawle, George Washington's candidate for the nation's first attorney general saw it, the protection was a blanket one. "The prohibition," he wrote, "is general." No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. There is overwhelming evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. It is time to concede that truth. The alternative, to wilfully misread a constitutional guarantee one finds inconvenient, is an ominous precedent. It is a quicker means of change than amendment, but a tactic that endangers all our rights. As Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote: The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders. The members of this body are pledged to be among those defenders. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 98 06:35:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: I fear Greeks bearing gifts Another mechanism for disarmament? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: russlin@shaysnet.com Cc: leroy@ix.netcom.com, staff@largo.org, kramer@sria.com, pmcbride@capital.net, scott@websiteshere.com, rnf@null.net, eawilley1@juno.com Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:50:43 -0400 From: eawilley1@juno.com (Edward A. Willey) TIMEO DANAOS ET DONA FERENTES (I fear Greeks bearing gifts.) Edward A. Willey P. O. Box 27 Monroe Bridge, MA 413-424-7776 September 28, 1998 The Editor Greenfield Recorder Dear Sir: Well, The Franklin Regional Planning Board has finally done it! In its zeal to satisfy requests, to justify it's life and to make a name for itself as a civic minded body it has overstepped the bounds of sanity. It has given away the farm; the old homestead - our old homestead. The Planning Board's report to its members of its last meeting included a copy of a letter which it had authorized to be written and was written by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments. The letter begged the President of the United States to accept the Connecticut River basin as a "Heritage River". What the Board and the Council overlooked is what the classification of Heritage River entails - what the incurred cost to you and me will be. What most people do not know - nor were they intended to know - is that every U.S. National Park, "Heritage Park" and "Heritage River" is now owned by the United Nations. I have heard rumors for several years that the Parks have been transferred but had found no confirmation of it until this summer. It was confirmed when I visited the Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky. At the entrance to the cave which we toured was a sign, "This is a World Heritage Site under the "guidance" of the United Nations." Now! What does that mean? It means that The United States Government has become a Rogue Government. It means that that Government, without our authorization, has secretly given the United Nations a vested interest in United States territory. With the interest in the territory goes the right to protect and defend the territory. The United Nations now has U.S. Government authority to deploy UN troops in this Country to "defend the UN interest". The exercise of that authority can now be triggered by any "civil disturbance". The "civil disturbance" can even be instigated by Government itself and the United Nations Organization will assist the United States Government in the "quelling" of the disturbance. The United Nations Organization now, in effect, owns the Connecticut valley. The people of that valley now live on their homesteads only at the whim of the United Nations. The United States Government is now in the position to deny the right of all people to own property - - either real or personal. Paul Cellucc just enacted into law the most rigid "control" of guns yet; a law which is - and should be - unacceptable to a very large segment of the population of the Commonwealth. The reason for the law? The first reason, of course, is to disarm the people for the benefit of Governments - including the UN. The second reason is to spur the American people to rebellion and trigger martial law with its attendant deployment of United Nations troops onto American Soil. So, the cost to us of the Planning Board's action will be slavery to our own Government for all of us. Yep! They sold the farm right out from under us. At eighty I no longer need the farm but few of the Board members - or you - are that old!!!!!!!!!! With friends like our elected Governments and the Planning Board who needs enemies? - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 98 21:39:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Canada Gun Ruling - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/fpe/ From: MikePiet@aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:22:56 EDT To: kemp@sportsmen.net Cc: pi@involved.com, mam-submit@black-helicopter.psychetect.com, fpe@egroups.com, stadtmil@ccm.tds.net Subject: [fpe] Canada Gun Ruling To our Canadian neighbors - resist, refuse, do not register your weapons. When a law is not lawful it is your duty to refuse to obey it. Remember the Danes who hid Jews during the Nazi occupation, and the German resistance movement - The White Rose - were also disobeying "the law." Mike P Alberta appeals court rules gun law valid 4.58 p.m. ET (2059 GMT) September 29, 1998 EDMONTON, Alberta (AP) -- Alberta's highest court ruled Tuesday that the government has the right to enact gun control legislation, rebuffing a challenge by four provinces which argued it infringed on their powers. The Alberta Court of Appeal cleared the way in a 3-2 decision for a law that requires Canada's estimated 3 million gun owners to register their firearms and submit to a screening and licensing program. The law is set to take effect on Dec. 1. Justice Carole Conrad, one of the two dissenting judges, said the law was invalid because it infringes on provincial powers regarding property and civil rights. That was the argument used by Alberta and three other provinces, as well as Canada's two territories, when they challenged the legislation. Earlier this month, thousands of gun owners held a rally outside Parliament in Ottawa to protest the legislation. National polls indicate most Canadians support gun registration. The law is also supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It has been opposed by hunting organizations, shooting clubs and the right-wing Reform Party, the largest opposition faction in Parliament. © 1998 Associated Press. Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:13:00 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Ron Paul During election season we all receive a good deal of beg mail. Last night = I received one from Rep. Ron Paul. Appears he is being targeted by the = left because of his conservative views and activism. Many gun owners and conservatives believe that Ron Paul is one guy we = really need to keep. If you are interested in making a contribution, the = address is: Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul 837 W. Plantation Dr. Clute, TX 77531 1-800-RON PAUL http://Ron.Paul.org/=20 Corporate contributions prohibited. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:40:17 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Oct. 7 column - John Ross] - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 7, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Now that's a Democrat of a different color I ran into John Ross at the Soldier of Fortune Expo in Las Vegas the other day. John's masterful novel of the ongoing persecution of America's gun culture, "Unintended Consequences," is now entering its fourth printing at little Acuracy Press, having sold 30,000 copies despite a virtual cone of silence lowered by the nation's libraries and mainstream book reviewers. The St. Louis investment adviser also managed to win the Democratic primary this summer, and is now the official challenger to incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri's Second Congressional District. With perhaps $75,000 to pit against the incumbent's $1 million -- in a year when Bill Clinton's dalliances are widely expected to keep Democrats home in droves -- Ross isn't bold enough to predict victory. Still, he's gotten a lot further than he did in 1996, and he figures the Year 2000 may be the charm. He's also a bit testy about Missouri media who refuse to talk to him about anything but guns. "Everyone knows where I stand on that," says Ross, who want the people of Missouri (one of the few states where a "civilian" can't carry a concealed weapon under any circumstances) to have "the same firearms freedoms as anyone else." Winding up an interview with a reporter for the weekly Riverfront Times recently, "I asked the reporter, 'Aren't you going to ask me about anything else?' and he said 'No, the editor says this is the story, a gun guy running for Congress.' I made him write down my positions on some other issues, but they relegated all of those to one little paragraph two inches long. Then his readers gave the editor hell, saying they wanted to know where this guy stood on the other issues." Why a Democrat? Ross explains his uncle was Harry Truman's press secretary, that political afifliations run deep in his part of the country. Besides, he contends, his pro-choice views fit in with the Democrats'. "The incumbent wants to make abortion a federal crime, but if you ban RU-486, people are still going to get it. At that point, any woman who has a miscarriage will be under suspicion of committing a federal felony. Can you imagine how big a police force we'd need to enforce that?" The GOP has been a tremendous flop at giving us a smaller government that interferes less in our lives, Ross argues. "With the Republican Congress we're eliminated (start ital)no(end ital) federal programs or departments. And the budget is (start ital)bigger(end ital) than it was in 1993. ... "The first thing I would do is disarm any tax or regulatory agencies. The BATF should do what the FCC has done with HAM radio licenses -- they've done things to encourage people to get licenses and pay their taxes. Let's have them encourage people to engage in legitimate business. They don't need guns to go see if Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris have paid their taxes; it's the militarized nature of tax enforcement that is the problem. ... "I'd love to see federal funds spent on (shooting) range creation. In Switzerland every city above a certain size has to have a public, 300-meter rifle range; that would be a wonderful benefit to the populace. Having Americans as a group be competent and safe and skilled in the use of firearms would benefit the entire country. ... "On Social Security, after you've paid in for 20 years, I'd allow young people to opt out. You'd never get any benefits, but you'd never have to pay in again, either. That program is in no way shape or form based on investment principles. The way it's set up puts it at the mercy of birthrate and longevity." But what about the needy, people who get injured or fritter way their earnings and simply have nothing left to live on? "We need to resist being swayed by socialist arguments that have proved to be failures. What they should (start ital)not(end ital) be free to do is put a gun to someone's head and force them to help this guy who lost his leg." I told Ross he sounded like a Libertarian. "The Libertarian Party has removed itself from political reality, and has become a debating society." Ross says he will have enough funds to air a TV ad this fall: I come on and ask, "Have you ever said 'I want more federal regulations, more restrictions, higher taxes?' No? Well neither have I. I'm John Ross, and I'm running for Congress." Contributions are welcome at Ross for Congress, 7912 Bonhomme, Suite 375, Clayton, MO 63105. # # # It was also a pleasure to chat with Randy Weaver and his daughter Sara at the Soldier of Fortune Expo (where the magazine's "Humanitarian" award this year went to the richly-deserving retired Gen. Paul Tibbets, who one day in 1945 saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, with a single mission of his B-29 Stratofortress, the "Enola Gay.") Sara Weaver is now a full-grown young lady of 23, who seems to have come through the trauma best known to the nation as "Ruby Ridge" with a better outlook than could reasonably be expected. Finishing high school in Iowa, she found she missed the mountains, and reports she and her fiance, David Cooper, have now relocated the remaining Weaver clan to Montana. Randy and Sara were in Las Vegas to promote their first-hand account of the murders of Vicky and Sammy Weaver at the hands of federal marshals and FBI snipers in Idaho in August of 1992. "The Federal Siege at Ruby Ridge," a modest 170-page paperback, sells for $16.95 -- $21.95 postpaid -- through Bookmaster, P.O. Box 388, Ashland, Ohio 44805; tel. 800-266-5564. Those interested in this watershed event on America's path to becoming a police state will want a copy of the book for the raw power of the events as recalled in the victims' own words. (What? The Weavers weren't "victims"? Is that why the federal government shelled out $3.1 million to compensate them for the wrongful death of their wife and mother, son and brother ... while a jury of 12 unanimously acquitted Randy and his friend, Kevin Harris, of any wrongdoing in the events of August, 1992, including the death of Marshal William Degan?) But it should be noted this book is a far cry from a comprehensive history of those events of the summer of 1992. For that, Sara Weaver agrees that readers would be well advised to pick up a copy of "Ambush at Ruby Ridge," by Alan Bock of the Orange County Register. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * - ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price, Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 98 18:31:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: John Ross - Democrat? .#200 FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 7, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Now that's a Democrat of a different color I ran into John Ross at the Soldier of Fortune Expo in Las Vegas the other day. John's masterful novel of the ongoing persecution of America's gun culture, "Unintended Consequences," is now entering its fourth printing at little Acuracy Press, having sold 30,000 copies despite a virtual cone of silence lowered by the nation's libraries and mainstream book reviewers. The St. Louis investment adviser also managed to win the Democratic primary this summer, and is now the official challenger to incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri's Second Congressional District. With perhaps $75,000 to pit against the incumbent's $1 million -- in a year when Bill Clinton's dalliances are widely expected to keep Democrats home in droves -- Ross isn't bold enough to predict victory. Still, he's gotten a lot further than he did in 1996, and he figures the Year 2000 may be the charm. He's also a bit testy about Missouri media who refuse to talk to him about anything but guns. "Everyone knows where I stand on that," says Ross, who want the people of Missouri (one of the few states where a "civilian" can't carry a concealed weapon under any circumstances) to have "the same firearms freedoms as anyone else." Winding up an interview with a reporter for the weekly Riverfront Times recently, "I asked the reporter, 'Aren't you going to ask me about anything else?' and he said 'No, the editor says this is the story, a gun guy running for Congress.' I made him write down my positions on some other issues, but they relegated all of those to one little paragraph two inches long. Then his readers gave the editor hell, saying they wanted to know where this guy stood on the other issues." Why a Democrat? Ross explains his uncle was Harry Truman's press secretary, that political afifliations run deep in his part of the country. Besides, he contends, his pro-choice views fit in with the Democrats'. "The incumbent wants to make abortion a federal crime, but if you ban RU-486, people are still going to get it. At that point, any woman who has a miscarriage will be under suspicion of committing a federal felony. Can you imagine how big a police force we'd need to enforce that?" The GOP has been a tremendous flop at giving us a smaller government that interferes less in our lives, Ross argues. "With the Republican Congress we're eliminated (start ital)no(end ital) federal programs or departments. And the budget is (start ital)bigger(end ital) than it was in 1993. ... "The first thing I would do is disarm any tax or regulatory agencies. The BATF should do what the FCC has done with HAM radio licenses -- they've done things to encourage people to get licenses and pay their taxes. Let's have them encourage people to engage in legitimate business. They don't need guns to go see if Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris have paid their taxes; it's the militarized nature of tax enforcement that is the problem. ... "I'd love to see federal funds spent on (shooting) range creation. In Switzerland every city above a certain size has to have a public, 300-meter rifle range; that would be a wonderful benefit to the populace. Having Americans as a group be competent and safe and skilled in the use of firearms would benefit the entire country. ... "On Social Security, after you've paid in for 20 years, I'd allow young people to opt out. You'd never get any benefits, but you'd never have to pay in again, either. That program is in no way shape or form based on investment principles. The way it's set up puts it at the mercy of birthrate and longevity." But what about the needy, people who get injured or fritter way their earnings and simply have nothing left to live on? "We need to resist being swayed by socialist arguments that have proved to be failures. What they should (start ital)not(end ital) be free to do is put a gun to someone's head and force them to help this guy who lost his leg." I told Ross he sounded like a Libertarian. "The Libertarian Party has removed itself from political reality, and has become a debating society." Ross says he will have enough funds to air a TV ad this fall: I come on and ask, "Have you ever said 'I want more federal regulations, more restrictions, higher taxes?' No? Well neither have I. I'm John Ross, and I'm running for Congress." Contributions are welcome at Ross for Congress, 7912 Bonhomme, Suite 375, Clayton, MO 63105. Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 - --- þ SPEED 2.00 [NR] þ - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #104 ***********************************