From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #136 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, May 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 136 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:10:32 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: CNN Poll on School Shooting in Oregon (fwd) > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > http://www.cnn.com > > As of 6:40pm EST > > Who or what is most responsible for school violence? And it's a "vote early and often" site, too. The gun numbers are worsening. Let's get some effort going. Brad - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:23:27 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS >Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:19:50 -0500 >From: "Chris W. Stark" >Reply-To: "Chris W. Stark" >To: email-subscribers@JPFO.org >Subject: PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS >X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > > ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** > > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > Aaron Zelman - Executive Director > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 > http://www.JPFO.org > Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > > 05/21/98 > -------- > > > ****URGENT!! CROSS POST FAR AND WIDE!!!**** > > >We apologize for the length of this e-mail. However, due to the >extreme severity of the problem we are now facing of more "gun >control", we feel strongly compelled to send this. Consider this >an emergency alert. > >Stand by for a media-driven panic. The recent murders committed by >a teenage boy at school in Oregon will stimulate more anti-firearms >rhetoric. There will be calls for more "gun control" and even >outright prohibition of all firearms. Defenders of liberty and the >Bill of Rights must be prepared to change the terms of the debate. > >JPFO members and other rights defenders should take the ideas >from this alert and send brief letters to their local newspapers >and legislators and governors. We need to beat the "gun >prohibitionists" to the punch ... if we don't, we can be sure >their lobbyists will be running unobstructed at full power. > >Understand.....we are moments away from seeing British & Canadian >style "gun control" be shoved down our throats. It always starts >with a crisis. Well, the gun prohibitionists crisis IS here. This >is now the 6th school shooting THIS YEAR ALONE. > >We either decide to become involved NOW, or prepare to see draconian >firearms laws, as we have never seen before in this land, this year. > >STAND UP AND BE COUNTED! IF YOUR NOT A MEMBER OF JPFO, THIS IS NOW >THE TIME TO BECOME A MEMBER. > >To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm >There you will see a printable member application, along with >info on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using >our on-line application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law >abiding citizens. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > PROVEN SOLUTIONS > > TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS > copyright (c) by > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership > > > > EDITOR'S NOTE: This exclusive interview, copyright (c) > by JPFO, puts to rest the ongoing debate of how to deal > with the ever increasing violence and bloodshed in > America's schools, by showing proven solutions (not just > theories) to the problem. Rest assured the answer is not > in more "gun control", as the gun prohibitionists would > want to brainwash America into believing. In fact, the > problem IS gun control. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >JPFO: Tell us about your background, and your involvement with >firearms, and the right to keep and bear arms. > >SCHILLER: The name is Dr. David Th. Schiller, currently residing >in the little town of Nassau, 70 km northwest of Frankfurt. I work >as editor-in-chief of VISIER, a 168-pages strong general interest >gun magazine which I started eleven years ago in Stuttgart and >which has now grown to be the most influential and best selling >gun magazine in all of Europe. Of course with a gun magazine >published in Germany, politics are at the forefront of our >editorial work, and we have an eye toward the past. NRA's Steve >Halbrook has been just over here and I was glad to help him with >his research on Jewish resistance during WW II. > >I was born in (West) Berlin in '52 in Germany, moved to Israel in >'72 and served in the Israel Defense Force's Airborne, which means >I am now a veteran of the '73 war, the Lebanese war, and a number >of border raids and actions in the occupied territories. Wounded in >1973 on Suez canal, I later studied political science at West >Berlin's Free University and mastered with a thesis on the origins >of the Civil War in Lebanon and a Ph.D. in '82 with a work on the >Palestinians' "love affair" with terrorism and paramilitary activity. >When I returned to Germany in '74-'75 for studies I was called upon >by the Berlin Police department to consult and teach their SWAT >team, which just came into being after the Munich massacre during >the Munich Olympics. Over the years this extended into a whole series >of work obligations with various police departments in Germany and >other places in the world. Due to my work in the Israel Defense >Force (IDF) as a drill instructor and weapons specialist and through >my academic interest, I had something to teach to these people. I >also worked some years for the terrorism research department of >Santa Monica's RAND Corporation, and have continued my academic >pursuits. > >Over the years I published a number of books on shooting, police, >terrorism, military history etc., most of these under the pseudonym >of "Jan Boger". You probably might find a photographic journal of >mine in English on the IDF, called "To Live in the Fire...", >published in 1977 by the John Olson Publishing Co. in New Jersey. > >As you can see, I experienced violence and gun control from both ends >of the barrel, one might say. And of course, I grew up to be a strong >believer in the personal right to self defense, especially as I spent >my childhood in the Berlin equivalent of the Bronx. > >JPFO: What kind of advice could you give the USA to combat the >recent school massacres that seemingly have become quite common upon >our soil? > >SCHILLER: Now for Jonesboro and the US gun control laws in regard to >schools: Way back in 1973 - '74 I lived in a Kibbutz in Northern >Israel, called Ramat Yochanan. During Passover week in '74 we in >Galilee experienced the first of a number of specific PLO attacks >targeting specifically schools and children houses, kindergartens, >school buses and the like. It started with an infiltration in Quiriat >Schmoneh on the Passover weekend, where the perpetrators found the >school empty and locked (of course during the holidays!) and took >over a nearby residential building, shooting people and in the end >blowing themselves up. A few weeks later the worst of this series >of incidents took place in Maalot on May 15th: Three PLO gunmen, >after making their way through the border fence, first shot up a >van load full of workers returning from a tobacco factory >(incidentally these people happened to be Galilee Arabs, not Jews), >then they entered the school compound of Maalot. First they murdered >the housekeeper, his wife and one of their kids, then they took a >whole group of nearly 100 kids and their teachers hostage. These >were staying overnight at the school, as they were on a hiking trip. >In the end, the deadline ran out, and the army's special unit >assaulted the building. During the rescue attempt, the gunmen blew >their explosive charges and sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. >25 people died, 66 wounded. > >After this a controversial debate erupted in Israel in regards to >guns, self defense etc. We heard of course the same dumb arguments >by some good people, you always hear on these occasions like " We >do not live in the Wild West here!" Or: "Guns don't solve problems!" >or similar silly things. > >JPFO: Were there any gun laws in Israel in those days? > >SCHILLER: Now, one has to remember, that Israel still had and has >most of the old and very strict gun laws dating back to the days of >the British Mandatory (1918-1948) on the books, and we in the >promised land have meanwhile grown our share of idiotic bureaucrats >and dumb politicians, too. But with the help of some smart people, >not the least the then Commander-in-Chief, Northern Command Paratroop >General Raful Eytan, all the reservists on the settlements were >issued their personal weapons, and whoever had a clean track record >could get a concealed weapons permit. I for instance had and still >have one. > >JPFO: What happened then? > >SCHILLER: Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry >guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding >them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip >without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary >civil guard project "Mishmar Esrachi", which even had its own sniper >teams. The Army's Youth Group program, "Gadna", trained 15 - 16 year >old kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high school >boys got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, >the "Herzliyah Bus massacre" (March '78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, >76 wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security >measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the resort >town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the police, >guarding schools kindergartens etc. > >No problems with gun safety there, as most kids in Israel grow up >used to seeing guns on the street (in the hands of army personnel >on leave -- every soldier takes his/her gun home when on leave!). >When the message got around to the PLO groups and a couple >infiltration attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased. >Too much of a risk here: Terrorists and other evildoers don't like >risks. > >But what does all that teach us? > >(A) schools/kindergartens make for very attractive targets for the >deranged gunman as well as for the profit-oriented hostage gangsters >or terrorist group, because: > >(1) everybody sane will cave in to the demands of the evildoers >(even somebody as hard-nosed as Golda Meir, may she rest in peace, >said during the Maalot incident, that one does not make politics >on the backs of one's children). Nobody wants to play the >principles-game when kids are involved. Kidnapping has thus often >resulted in the paying of ransom demands. > >(2) if you crave media attention, as for instance the PLO did in >the 70's, nothing will catch the headlines better than an attack >on a school-full of kids. > >(B) Now THAT is the underlying "reason" behind each and every >incident that involved killing sprees in schools... from Maalot >to Dunblane to Jonesboro. Only recently the French had a >hostage/barricade incident in a kindergarten: the guy wanted money, >and the French authorities solved that problem very neatly with a >stealth-type approach by one of their special teams and a .357 >bullet in the head of the perpetrator, when he refused to >surrender. No follow up imitations occurred in France. > >JPFO: Were there any similar incidents in Germany? > >SCHILLER: Germany has some of the strictest gun laws this side >of Britain and Japan And needless to say, they are a continuation >of the Nazi Gun Laws, even using the same wording. > >Still, we have a multitude of illegal guns on the streets. >Currently the police estimates that there a ten million legal, >licensed guns and 20 million illegal =97 in a total population of >less than 80 million people! And we had our school massacres, >too: In the early 60's one incident took place in Cologne >involving a deranged person who, not having access to guns, >built himself a flame-thrower. In another incident a few years >ago in the vicinity of Frankfurt, another crazy individual shot >his way through a school with two handguns, and later committed >suicide. > >Also, prior to the Lockerbie plane bombing (which was only one >item in a whole spree of planned and coordinated terror attacks >luckily foiled by the authorities), German security services >detected in September '88, that a Palestinian splinter group had >made plans for a raid on the Jewish kindergarten in Munich. We >found the photos, ground plans etc. Apparently the planning of >the attack was pretty far along. > >So you do not have to be a prophet to foresee, that we will see >more school-shooting incidents in the U.S. or other western >nations, where media attention is focused on these things and >where every incident is replayed second by second umpteen times >on the tube, thereby creating in the minds of certain viewers >examples to follow... > >Now, can we stop the media from playing out these scenarios in >full color and gruesome details for hours and hours, again and >again? Certainly not. We in the terrorism research field have >argued for decades that it was exactly the media coverage that >spurred more and each time more violent and extreme terrorist >incidents. Could we stop the media from advertising the terrorist >message? Certainly not. > >That is apparently one price we have to pay living in a worldwide >infotainment society. The airplane hijackings in the 70's and 80's >are a case in point. > >The only thing we can do is protect possible victims...And laws >written in some books will not achieve that. Never have, never will >...Enough said. I rest my case. > >JPFO: How can our readers and members contact you? > >SCHILLER: Our e-mail address is: visier@paulparey.de > >or my mailing address: > >Dr. David Th. Schiller >VISIER, P.O.Box 1363 >D-56373, Nassau, Germany > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm >There you will see a printable member application, along with >info on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using >our on-line application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law >abiding citizens. > > >**************************************************************** >Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) >Chris W. Stark - Director of Electronic Communications >2874 So. Wentworth Ave. >Milwaukee, WI 53207 >Ph. (414) 769-0760 >Fax (414) 483-8435 >Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > >Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org > >MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. > >"America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." >**************************************************************** >Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO >Republication permitted provided this article & attribution >is left intact in its original state. >**************************************************************** > > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > subscribe@JPFO.org > >...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". >**************************************************************** > > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:48:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: GDP down 1% for every 10% increase in government - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Economist uses theory to explain economy" (headline in Collinsville Herald-Journal, February 8). Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:09:29 -0600 From: Charles Hardy Subject: WW in DN When government grows, growth goes, academic researchers say Last updated 05/20/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT By Walter Williams James Gwartney and Randall Holcombe, economics professors at Florida State University, and Robert Lawson, an economics professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, have just completed a report for Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The title is "The Size and Function of Government and Economic Growth." The report points out, as just about every American knows, the expansion of the U.S. economy has now moved into its eighth year. It's been 15 years since a major recession. That's the good news. Despite this performance, the real rate of economic growth during the 1990s is less than half that achieved in the 1960s. In fact, our average rate of growth has fallen during each of the past three decades. Greater economic stability, but less rapid growth, has also been the pattern of other developed nations. Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson, using data from 60 nations, produce convincing evidence that there's a strong negative relationship between the size of government, increases in government expenditures and economic growth. In the case of our country, the authors conclude: If government expenditures, as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), had remained at their 1960 level, the 1996 GDP would have been $9.16 trillion instead of $7.64 trillion. That translates into $23,440 in additional income for the average family of four. The authors also compared developed countries with the smallest increases in the size of government between 1960 and 1996 to those with the largest increases and looked at their growth rates. In 1960, government spending as a percentage of GDP in the United States, Iceland, Ireland, United Kingdom and New Zealand averaged 28.9 percent. The growth rate for those countries in 1960 averaged 4.3 percent. In 1996, government spending in those countries rose, averaging 39.1 percent, and their growth rates fell, averaging 2.7 percent. Developed nations with the largest increases in government size between 1960 and 1996 were Portugal, Spain, Greece, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In 1960, those governments spent an average of 28.1 percent of their GDP, and their growth rates averaged 6.4 percent. In 1996, government spending averaged 54.5 percent of GDP, and their growth rates fell to an average of 1.2 percent. From their statistical estimates, Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson show that for each 10 percent increase in government spending, there's a 1 percent decrease in the rate of growth. The authors are not anarchists; they acknowledge a critical role for government, namely that of providing the legal and physical infrastructure for the operation of the market and a limited set of public goods to provide a framework conducive to economic growth. As governments move beyond these core functions, however, they adversely affect economic growth through the disincentive effects of taxation, diminishing returns as government takes on activities for which it is ill-suited and government interference with the wealth-creation process. Governments aren't as effective as markets in adjusting to changing circumstances and discovering innovative production methods. The Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson study understates government size because it doesn't take into account its regulatory burden. But even with this minor shortcoming, will the study's persuasive argument and evidence lead Congress to reduce government size? I doubt it. The reason is that it is impossible for any of us to know or appreciate how much wealthier we would have been had government expenditures remained where they were when John Kennedy was president. In other words, how can a family of four know that it is $23,440 poorer because of Washington and its state and local governments? Creators Syndicate Inc. - - -- 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. "What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms" - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:07:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Missing USA Rocket Chips stolen by Red Chinese Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:22:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Maher, Steve \(SD-MS\)" Subject: IP: THE MISSING LORAL CHIPS On May 21, 1998, 1:09 PM, Charles R. Smith (softwar@us.net) wrote: Let me make a few things clear about the missing cipher chips from the Loral Intelsat that crashed in China. First, according to Tony Snow, the Loral satellite crashed almost intact. It was only later, after the satellite was being dis-assembled by US technicians, that the chips inside were discovered to be missing. This rules out the possibility of the chips being lost in the crash and clearly indicates they were removed prior to the flight by someone. Second, these were not ordinary chips. There are already dozens of encryption chips on the market around the world but not this particular type. The Loral chips were designed to work in the harsh environment of space, blasted by radiation, intense heat, near absolute zero cold and vacuum. The engineering term is "hardened". Hardened chips are designed to function in space on a satellite. There is only one other environment which has similar characteristics of space. The environment inside an atomic blast. The Loral Intelsat chips are designed to work under the intense bombardment of gamma, x-ray and heavy particle radiation found inside the mushroom cloud of radioactive debris from a nuclear blast. There are some very obvious military uses for a "hardened" encrypted control chip. The "Self Destruct" is one feature controlled by code chips. Although, US ballistic missiles do not have a "self destruct" - feature the Russian and Chinese missiles reportedly do. The reason is simple. The Russians and Chinese do not trust their military. Another system that would make use of such secured control chips is known as FOBS (fractional orbiting bombing system). FOBS is simply a bus load of bombs parked in orbit. This bus is just like a school bus of children. Whenever the owner of the FOBS wants a bomb to unload and drop from orbit all that is needed is to issue the proper command codes. The FOBS system is actually deployed on the Russian SS-18 SATAN ballistic missile. For the SS-18 - "bus" is an accurate description of the warhead system. The orbiting platform is about the size of a school bus and it can dump as many as 8 thermonuclear warheads from low earth orbit. Yet one other feature is testing. Big missiles are expensive and sometimes known to fail. The Long March commercial satellite rocket has it's own evil twin which carries nuclear warheads for the Chinese 2nd Artillery Corps. The Long March also has a great history of spectacular failures. Tests to make sure the thing will work are mandatory. These test flights usually are equipped with sensors instead of a bomb. The sensors transmit the particulars of the test flight (e.g... load dynamics, g forces, control effects... etc.) as "telemetry". Ronald Regan once had an intense hissy fit with the Russians when they began to use encryption to scramble their missile test flight data. His argument was "trust but verify". Indeed, it is these words that should drive our high tech trade with China. We can trust if we can verify. The recent rejection by Chinese officials on the inspection of US built super computers sold to China is a denial of verification that they agreed to. The trade treaties which China signed with the US in order to obtain the computers in the first place, authorized such inspections. China agreed to the terms and signed. The communist Chinese denial of inspections are a clear violation of the signed trade agreements. We cannot verify that these super fast machines, so useful in missile and nuclear weapons design, are not being used for military purposes. The most amazing part is the Commerce Department went ahead and okayed the shipment of another super computer even though the Chinese government refused to allow a pre or post-sale inspection! In short, a reward for bad behavior and a broken agreement. Bill Clinton offers little to verify but exclaims we should trust him and the communist Chinese leaders. Clinton is to travel to Beijing shortly, to sign significant space and atomic energy deals. Bill Clinton has proven he gave China our advanced technology with no verification. Bill Clinton has proven that even Chinese violations of trade agreements are not enough to stop the sell, sell, sell juggernaut at the Commerce Dept. Bill Clinton has proven he will take Chinese money with no verification that it did not come from the People's Army. The question for all Americans now is can we trust President Clinton without verification? 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar softwar@us.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:41:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Framing the Terms Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:33:43 -0500 From: "Peter J. Celano" Subject: IP: Framing the Terms Skip Wayland Framing The Terms Like many of you, I get vexed about how we -- those who support our Nation1s Constitution, and the ideas upon which it was founded -- constantly appear to be the recipients of slanderous remarks from elitists who believe they have attained Nirvana and further believe that we are imbeciles for not following their leadership. Our ideas are continu- ally maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these people. They are very effective at using catchy labels to frame our position while we have simply tried to counter their wild, irresponsible accusations with rational argu- ments leading to well-deliberated conclusions. In spite of our attempts to provide rationality to the issues we many times appear to be losing the battle for the hearts and minds of middle America because our opponents -- with media support -- persist in using sound bites that provoke a visceral effect against our cause. Our opponents don1t talk in terms of the academia or the judicatory when they malign us to the public, but we sometimes respond in that manner in our own defense, and when we do we are not understood by the vast majority of people in this nation who have a problem reading the Sunday comics. We find ourselves attempting to defend our position in an argument where the terms and definitions have been outlined by our opponents in feeling, not logic. Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because we allow ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms whose definition has been delineated by our adversary. We end up defending our doctrine against the terms defined by our antagonists rather than conveying our beliefs on the argument itself. This happens over and over again and yet we continue to allow ourselves to be brought into discus- sions wherein the language used is terms defined by the opposition. The following are some of the terms to which I refer: * Saturday Night Special * Cop Killer Bullets * Assault Weapons * Weapons Of Mass Destruction * Designed Only For Killing People * Sniper Rifle * High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems * Hair Trigger * Easily Accessible Firearms * Unregistered Firearm * Dum Dum Bullets * No Sporting Purpose + a bunch more that slip my mind at this point. As you read down that list it is very likely that each of those terms brought some image to your mind or evoked some gut reaction in you at some level. Why?? Why the reaction?? Some of those terms bring forth images that define a natural reaction against the item; like 3Cop Killer Bullets2. Other terms that we may have used in everyday language have been so skewed in their meaning over the years by our opponents that they now have a different meaning than they originally had, like 3Saturday Night Special2, which I always thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer and pizza. The point is that we, as a group who support the Constitu- tion and firearms ownership as defined by our Founders, must start defining the terms of the debate from our perspective. We must take the battle to our adversaries using terms that we define; terms that put them on the defensive. We must start paying attention to how we phrase things, and espe- cially make efforts to define terms that bring about the desired visceral effect in people who are open to impression on these issues and get most of their news in broadcast media sound bites. Not only must we define these terms, we also must come up with some mechanism to get these terms into the national mainstream. This is where our opponents do so well. They pick up on these little catch phrases and pass them around among themselves, and then start getting them into media sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using their terms - including us !! This situation must be reversed. We must all strive, by whatever means we have available, to put those who would deprive us of our liberties into a defensive posture that requires them to explain their position with regard to our ideas and terms. Yes, we must continue to offer cogent arguments that support our position. We have, thank good- ness, more and more very capable people who continue to join our camp on these issues. We must always continue to bring good, dedicated people into this conflict on our side. We must, however, strive to get all of those who support us to not only continue in the vein they are currently in but also to start thinking about the terms they use in framing their arguments. If the terms we use can be sharpened to paint a mental picture that elicits a positive portrayal of our position, or a negative portrayal of our opponent1s posi- tion, then we can start to present arguments that not only hold up in courts of law, but also the court of public opinion. I, for one, think it is worth a try. We can make it work by passing around ideas. There are a lot of us who are very sharp people who will, hopefully, start using our individual and collective wits to outwit the opposition on a very basic and effective level. But we need some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative, and medical communities, the news media, and to pass this infor- mation around the Nation quickly so the terms that are introduced can get wide spread dissemination. The idea is to pass ideas, and not necessarily for anyone in particular to say that this idea is good and that one is bad. Perhaps a consensus on some terms can be reached at some level. I don1t know. This is just an idea I have. I hope someone out there in cyberspace agrees that it is a good one and will pick up the ball and run with it. Perhaps someone out there is willing to be the repository, collection, and dissemination point for this effort. Organizations that are experienced in the battle for our rights have the know-how and the wherewithal to put this together on a national level and make it work. There is nothing wrong with the major organizations working to accomplish their own objectives, BUT... on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of the major, and minor, associates on our side of this debate must achieve a unified front if this effort is to have any effect what-so-ever. The NRA, GOA, LEAA, LSAS, JPFO, etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort and start talking with each other regarding the terminology we use. We also need mechanisms to get it to those who can get it into sound bites. I1ll be happy to act as the ini- tial point of contact to get it started but someone else is needed to sustain it. I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfor- tunately I don1t know who first coined many of these. If some of these ideas sound sophomoric to you then get off your duff and come up with some of your own. 1. Always refer to a gun control advocate as a 3Victim Disarmament Extremist2 or 3Predator Advocate2 2. We should refer to ourselves as being 3ProChoice AND ProLife2 on the firearms issue. Or take the sting out of it and call yourself a: 3Self Defense Advocate2 3. Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a 3CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE2 in addition to any other manner in which it is addressed. 4. Firearms registration or firearms owner registration touted by the 3freedom hating left2 should be viewed as 3Pre-Confiscation Initiatives2 5. Inexpensive handguns (Saturday Night Specials) are 3Economically Viable Protection2 or simply 3Affordable Protection2. Attempts to outlaw inexpensive firearms for defensive use should be viewed as an effort to deprive the less fortunate or economically challenged of their CIVIL RIGHTS because it deprives these people of the most effective means to defend themselves and their families against predators of all kinds. 6. Firearms training is 3Life Assurance Training2 or maybe 3Family Self Defense Training2 7. Concealed carry license can be 3Predator Neutralization License2 or 3Family Life Assurance License2 or "Victim Protection Measures" or "Threat Reduction Measures. While we're at it... why do we as a people even toler- ate our government licensing us to carry the tool that is most effective in protecting the well-being of ourselves and our families. We should have a Vermont- style right to carry and protect ourselves. Isn't that, in fact, what our Founders intended??? Why do we keep voting in representatives who support "Innocent Victim Disarmament". 8. Expand upon the GOA premise that 3Guns Save Lives2. They do... We know it... Let1s talk about it - IN PUBLIC!! Every pro-gun organization in existence should be on this bandwagon!!! GUNS SAVE LIVES !!! 9. Always refer to the bad guys as 3Predators2 along with other appropriate pejorative terms like 3thieves2, 3rapists2, etc. 10. Firearms owner lists in government possession are: ORound Up Lists2 or "Pre-Holocaust Victim Identifica- tion Lists". 11. Any government-required fee for firearms licenses, Brady-type checks, etc. should be referred to as a 3Another Gun Tax2, 3Civil Rights Violations2, 3Firearms Infringement2 12. Charlton Heston (of 3Moses2 & 3people-shouldn1t-be- able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons2 fame) FINALLY got it right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as the 3Hanoi Jane2 of the anti-gun movement. 13. Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero. Other simi- lar symbols for firearms safety or freedoms should be developed and/or expanded upon. JPFO has a very good series that should be brought into the mainstream. This information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda Camps", commonly called public schools. Every pre- puberty kid in the Nation should know who these symbols are and the positive side of what they represent. Our kids are this Nation1s future and we continue to allow the fanatical left, victim-disarmament teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children into believing that guns are bad and so are the people who own them. 14. Those in the opposition should be referred to as screw- balls, crackpots, extremists, etc. Although I don1t normally agree with calling anyone names but it may get mainstream people thinking that we do have a valid point. I, for one, certainly am of the opinion that many of the Hollywood elite, who donate millions to efforts that would negate our Bill of Rights, can and should be referred to as 3crackpot elitist extremists2. 15. Let1s face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a tragedy. An even larger tragedy is that Sara Brady has become quite wealthy from cynical exploitation of his misfor- tune. Additionally, her efforts have helped build an empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were denied access to defensive firearms because of Brady checks, mandatory waiting periods, and the defeat of concealed carry legislation that she has been instru- mental in effecting. As a community dedicated to restoring and maintaining our liberties how can we give Sara Brady a free pass to continue her 3Victim Disarma- ment2 work without calling her to task for it at every opportunity??? She is getting rich making speeches to outlaw our freedoms and yet we seldom see anything in print anywhere that says this is happening. Why? (QUOTABLE QUOTES: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, "The Na- tional Educator," January 1994, Page 3. (unverified information provided to me, recently)" 16. Gun control legislation is literally: 3Job Safety For Criminals2 or 3The Safe Streets For Criminals Act/Bill/Law/Regulation2 We ALL need to get together on this effort. I'm sure that some of the descriptive phrases we glean from this will be worth the effort, both to our cause and to our funny-bone. Maybe this epistle will get the ball rolling. Hopefully this will spark some interest in getting the scoreboard numbers up in our favor by establishing a system that offers coordination of 3reasonable terms2 that can be used within this debate. If everyone takes a few minutes to think about this I1m sure we1ll have some terms to use that will gain the initiative and turn the tide. Give this a shot... what have you got to lose?? There is a whole lot to gain. Let me know. And... will someone please step forward and volun- teer to be a coordination point for this effort should it get off the ground. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone who is interested in regaining our freedoms and rights in a lawful, peaceful manner. Peace, Skip Wayland "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948); American historian and educator ------------ PEACE ------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #136 *************************