From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #286 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, October 3 1999 Volume 02 : Number 286 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:58:23 -0700 From: boyd@seanet.com Subject: Re: Article forwarded to you from a friend (fwd) Ditto for Bellevue Wa (generally), the cops here are hogtied by departmental red tape (it's "policy" here to roll backup on traffic stops involving identified ccw holders) and still do a good respectful job. All of my training has been with active cops (Marty Hayes at Firearms Academy of Seattle and Ayoob), obviously all of them not only encourage CCW but fight for it when possible. Barring -evidence- of corrupt behaviour we need to be -careful- who we declare our political enemies, we have enough already. Boyd "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" wrote: > > The cops where I live (in my town) in New Hampshire are for the most part, > good guys. > > >From what I hear the chief signs Class 3 applications on the spot if the > person requesting has a NH pistol permit. One of the officers on the force > is one of John Farnham's instructor helpers when Farnham is in the area, > and they seem to be respectful of others and to support gun rights > generally. > > Maybe big city cops are as described, but there are a lot of cops in the > country who are good decent folk. (One of the Lieutenants in Salt Lake > City, when I lived there, even went to DC to testify in front of Congress > in favor of gun rights, much to his chief's unhappiness) > > Best > Chad > > --On Thursday, September 30, 1999, 11:28 AM -0700 "." > wrote: > > > I think you are living in the "good old days." I have never seen a police > > officer on the witness stand who did not lie through his teeth. I have > > never seen a police officer who thought that his first duty was to uphold > > the Constitution (or who had even READ the document since high school). I > > have never seen a police officer who was more concerned over my exercise > > of free speech than someone else's "being bothered" by it. > > As a friend of mine is wont to say, "If there were good cops, there would > > be no bad cops." > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Vance > > To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > > > > Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 9:00 AM > > Subject: Article forwarded to you from a friend (fwd) > > > > > >> I'll note that most Police are good folks, but their appointed leadership > >> and the National organizations they've created, are not allways our > > friends. > >> I haven't checked this site out yet, but it could have stuff from both > >> sorts, so be aware. > >> > >> On Sep 27, referred@apbonline.com wrote: > >> > >> [-------------------- text of forwarded message > > follows --------------------] > >> > >> fred connolly (assetnj@aol.com) has forwarded the following article to > >> you from APBnews.com. Click on the address below to view the article: > >> > >> http://www.apbnews.com/cjsystem/1999/09/24/shooter0924_01.html?stf.mail > >> > >> fred connolly also adds the following message: > >> Finally, a PRO gun story > >> > >> APBnews.com (http://www.apbnews.com) is the source for police and crime > >> news, information and entertainment. APB 911 E-mail Alert subscribers > >> can get up-to-the-minute details on the latest police and crime news and > >> developments. Sign up for APB 911 E-mail Alerts at > >> http://www.apbnews.com/email/index.html > >> > >> [------------------------- end of forwarded > > message ------------------------] > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> --- > > - > >> RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > > RKBA! > >> ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------------- > >> --- > > - > >> An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath > >> no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell > >> his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and > >> buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | > >> sword.--Jesus > > Christ > >> ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------------- > >> --- > > - > >> > >> - > >> > > > > > > - > > > > Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC > Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting > Chad Leigh > chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Oct 99 16:12:54 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [slickplus] Clinton: Rape Allegations (fwd) On Oct 1, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Finally, RICO Laws being used. Why didn't Ken Starr think of that? Rich Martin Editor of Slick http://www.judicialwatch.org/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,=20 Contact: Tom Fitton (202) 646-5172 Clinton: Rape Allegations Are =93Partisan Rant=94 President Belittles Juanita Broaddrick=92s Rape Charges Judicial Watch Seeks Quick Court Action to Preserve and Perpetuate Testimony of Threatened Women (Washington, July 28) President Clinton, through a legal brief filed in federal court on July 12 by his personal attorney David Kendall, called the accusations of rape against him by Juanita Broaddrick =93partisan rant.=94 The brief was filed in the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit brought by Dolly Kyle Browning against Bill Clinton and others. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that defendants Bill Clinton and Bruce Lindsey engaged in a pattern of threatening women in order to obtain and maintain hold on the office of the presidency. In addition to the threats and intimidation against Browning and Broaddrick, the suit alleges a RICO pattern of threats and intimidation against Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, and other women. (For instance, in its ongoing Filegate lawsuit, Judicial Watch uncovered that Bill Clinton and Bruce Lindsey conspired to destroy the reputation of Kathleen Willey through the illegal release of her Privacy Act-protected letters to the media.) Also named as defendants in the Browning lawsuit are Bob Bennett, Marsha Scott, Jane Mayer and The New Yorker magazine. Clinton=92s brief came in response to a motion filed recently by Judicial Watch to perpetuate the testimony of nine women who through sworn testimony, media interviews, and other means have alleged that President Clinton and his agents have threatened and intimidated them. The Judicial Watch brief, which is available on its Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org, seeks Court leave to depose quickly these nine women in order to preserve and perpetuate their testimony before they are further threatened, harmed, flee the Court=92s jurisdiction, or even worse. Clinton=92s brief refers to the allegations of Broaddrick and the other women as mere =93partisan rant.=94 Despite Bill Clinton=92s flippant dismissal of serious rape and other allegations, Dolly Kyle Browning intends to hold him and his agents accountable for the actions they took against her and other women. To join the Waco discussion group,=20 Click here ----> waco-group-subscribe@egroup= s.co m To join the Slick discussion group,=20 Click here ----> slick-d-subscribe@egroups.c= om - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To subscribe to the Slick e-zine, send e-mail to RichSlick@aol.com for deta= ils. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Oct 99 10:31:10 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Dr. Laura Schlessinger: Time for good Americans to get guns (fwd) On Oct 02, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!! Chris W. Stark - Director P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, Texas 77532-1924 Ph. (281) 787-4111 Fax (281) 328-7505 http://www.GOA-Texas.org email: Director@GOA-Texas.org 10/01/1999 -------- Dr. Laura Schlessinger: Time for good Americans to get guns _________________________ Copyright A9 1999 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. For those of you who do not know, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is on national radio, and covers a VERY large audience. She is beginning to see the importance of the 2nd amendment! She used to be quite anti-gun! But that is changing! She gives her snail mail address for people to write her in regards to her article below. It would be great if we could send her pro 2nd amendment books, articles and tapes, and just a personalized letter, for she can and will be VERY instrumental in reaching the masses, due to her national status. NOW IS OUR CHANCE FOR A POSITIVE LIGHT TO BE SHED ON THE 2nd AMENDMENT BY SOMEONE THAT CAN REACH THE MASSES! WRITE HER NOW! Please send correspondence to Dr. Laura in care of Universal Press Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111. 1999 DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER # # # # # # # # PUBLICATION: The Regina Leader-Post DATE: 99.09.08 SECTION: Lifestyles PAGE: C2 COLUMN: Dr. Laura BYLINE: Schlessinger, Laura Sadly, it's time for good Americans to get guns I'm right in the middle of a big change of attitude about a very important subject. And I know a lot of my readers and listeners to my radio program may be shocked. But people who have known me over time know that I'm someone who evolves in public. That is, when I start changing my mind about something or discover new information or some truth about my own life or life in general, I'm usually pretty straightforward about the process with my colleagues and my fans. The first event that caused me to rethink my position on this topic was the shootings in Atlanta, where a man went into two office buildings and gunned down total strangers, then killed himself in his car later that day. I thought about the difference it might have made - lives saved instead of lost - if someone in one of those offices had been armed. The murderer might well have been foiled in his reign of terror before so many innocent people died. That thought caused me to remember a time several years ago when I felt completely safe in my hometown of Los Angeles. It was after the major earthquake in 1994, and the National Guard was everywhere. There they were, it seemed, on every corner - uniformed, armed, ammunition slung across their chests, ready. As I recall, there was absolutely no crime in Los Angeles at that time - no break-ins, no holdups, no car-jackings. Nada. The bad guys obviously didn't want to risk getting shot. I went on the air then and said, "Gee, why can't these guys just stay here?", and everyone freaked out. Now, I knew then and know now that that's not what the National Guard is for, but it was nice to feel so secure for those few weeks. In thinking about the difference an armed civilian or security guard might have made in Atlanta, I thought back to my trip to Israel this summer and how many people walking around, especially on the West Bank, were armed out of a genuine and persistent need to protect themselves. No one was shooting. There was no display of firepower or anything like that. It was just taken for granted. I know that's a unique situation, because from its inception Israel has been under constant attack by neighboring countries as well as terrorists. So they have a demonstrable need for self-defense. We, on the other hand, are self- destructing. We don't need an external force. We are breeding our own evil here. Child killers, killer children, private militias, home-grown and imported terrorists, to say nothing of old-fashioned, garden variety psychopaths and criminals - all armed and dangerous and now encouraged, educated in evil and joined in unholy conspiracy on the World Wide Web. There are obviously lots and lots of reasons why our society - once so revered and respected around the world - is unraveling and degenerating. But one of them is the unbridled license of communication on the Internet. I hear from so many people about the shock and despair the Internet has brought into their homes. The Internet is the most recent and most powerful tool to be commandeered by the sick evildoers in our midst. It spreads the virus of hate and germs of pathology like wildfire around the world, infecting more and more people, especially our neglected and vulnerable youth. Many of the most recent horrendous crimes have been committed by jerks, scum, low-life's and dim bulbs who hang around the Internet because they have no life, fantasize about becoming heroes through hate, and are emboldened to act out by others in cyberspace who support them. Even before the horror of the most recent attack on children in a Los Angeles Jewish center near my home, I was in the process of making up my mind to find a nice police officer or sheriff to teach me how to responsibly fire a gun. I can hardly believe I'm saying this, because I have been opposed to the idea that everyone should be free to bear arms. But the unpredictability of where danger strikes next, coupled with the frequency with which it happens, has led me to think that we "good guys" need to have more of the mentality of the beleaguered Israelis. And, of course, we need to have their attitude as well. No one is gun-happy over there. They don't show off, do stupid things. I agree that everyone who carries a gun must be licensed and that the regulations should be very strict. In order to be allowed to carry a gun, I think we should have to pass a test to make sure we can take it apart, put it back together again, clean it, load it, unload it, etc. And we should have to pass a marksman's test to get the gun and periodic tests to be allowed to keep it. To be perfectly honest, I haven't thought this all the way through. It's just that I'm getting more and more concerned about the direction in which our society is moving, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we need protection from ourselves. I know this shocks a whole lot of you. And I'm sorry. Please send correspondence to Dr. Laura in care of Universal Press Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111. 1999 DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER _________________________________________________________________ Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Go to: http://www.goa-texas.org/members.htm _________________________________________________________________ Copyright A9 1999 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). 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 (GOA-Texas). We do not officially represent Gun Owners of America. Go to http://www.goa-texas.org/TXsig.htm for more information. _________________________________________________________________ TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@GOA-Texas.org ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". _________________________________________________________________ TO UN-SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: UN-subscribe@GOA-Texas.org ..and in the body of the message, type the word "UN-subscribe". _________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use Comment: 'None Genuine Without this Signature' iQA/AwUBN/WBpJI4g1SEP1asEQJsTQCeMAf0YdL1eLjLK7xdTfxlkqnHYzEAn0Os eqGlHzrapfk492YSNXQRd8ZA 3DJz9n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ******************************************************************* A couple of times a week, on average, I forward messages that I consider to be worthwhile. Occasionally I may be inspired to write a brief editorial. If you do not want to receive these messages, send me a message with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field. If you would like to begin receiving these messages, send me a message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject field. for Liberty (for all), Bill Utterback butterb@connecti.com - ----- "We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves." Thomas Jefferson "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442 - ----- World's Smallest Political Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ Fully Informed Jury Association http://www.fija.org/ Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.JPFO.org/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Oct 99 10:30:02 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: A Liberal Democrat's Lament (fwd) On Oct 2, liberty_mls@softhome.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] for those of you that might have missed this: A Liberal Democrat's Lament - Gun Control is Racist, Sexist, & Classist by Robert J. Cottrol from the September/October issue of The American Enterprise Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. - -Hubert Humphrey, 1960 My background is probably atypical for a somewhat high-profile supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am black and grew up in Manhattan's East Harlem, far removed from the great American gun culture of rural, white America. Although my voting patterns have become somewhat more conservative in recent years, I remain in my heart of hearts a 1960s Humphrey Democrat concerned with the plight of those most vulnerable in American society-minorities, the poor, the elderly, and single women-groups whose day-to-day realities are often overlooked in our public policy debates, people whose lives too often go unnoticed by our intellectually timid chattering classes. This is happening in the public debate over the right to bear arms. For the nation's elites, the Second Amendment has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights, constantly attacked by editorial writers, police chiefs seeking scapegoats, demagoging politicians, and most recently even by Rosie O'Donnell, no less. It is threatened by opportunistic legislative efforts, even when sponsors acknowledge their proposed legislation would have little impact on crime and violence. Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment's intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision. This anemic defense is all the more embarrassing because it occurs as mounting evidence severely undermines the three propositions that have been central to the anti-gun movement since its appearance on the national radar screen in the 1960s. The first proposition is that the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, poses no barrier to radical gun control, even total prohibition of private firearms. The second is that ordinary citizens with firearms are unlikely to defend themselves and are more likely to harm innocent parties with their guns. The final proposition is that the case for radical gun control is buttressed by comparing the United States to nations with more restrictive firearms policies. These propositions, now conventional wisdom, simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The proposition that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to gun prohibition-a claim largely unknown before the 1960s-has run up against stubborn, contrary historical facts. Increasingly, historians and legal scholars, including many who support stricter gun control, have examined the history of the Second Amendment, the development of the right to arms in English political thought, judicial commentaries on the right in antebellum America, and the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. The consensus among scholars who have actually looked at the evidence is that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were meant to protect the citizen's right to arms. (See, for example, historian Joyce Lee Malcolm's Harvard University Press book, To Keep and Bear Arms, or the historical documents assembled in the three Gun Control and the Constitution volumes I've edited.) Similarly, the criminological premises of the anti-gun movement have collapsed in the face of serious social science. For better than three decades the American public has been solemnly assured that peaceable citizens who possess guns for self-defense are disasters in waiting. "A gun in the home is more likely to kill a member of the family than to defend against an intruder," we hear. "Allowing citizens to carry firearms outside the home for self-protection will turn our streets into Dodge City and our parking lots into the O.K. Corral," the refrain goes. Yet the criminological literature provides little support for this caricature of gun owners. Instead, careful research has discovered an incredibly high amount of firearms' being responsibly used in self-defense. Research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck and others indicate between two and three million cases of self-defense per year. Overwhelmingly these incidents involve not firing the weapon at the attacker, but simply brandishing it and thereby causing the attacker's withdrawal. In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. The most thorough research, by John Lott of the University of Chicago, reveals that concealed-carry laws have had a substantial deterrent effect on crimes of violence. His work shows that women, especially, have benefitted, as substantial drops in rapes and attacks on women have occurred where the laws have been enacted. Lott also discovered dramatic benefits for the urban poor and minorities: "Not only do urban areas tend to gain in their fight against crime, but reductions in crime rates are greatest precisely in those urban areas that have the highest crime rates, largest and most dense populations, and greatest concentrations of minorities." The final proposition-that international comparisons prove the case for radical gun control-may be the most problematic of all. Certainly the simplistic conclusion that American homicide rates are higher than those in Western Europe and Japan because of the greater prevalence of firearms glosses over significant cultural and demographic differences between us and other advanced industrial nations. The American population is younger and more diverse. Unlike Western Europe and Japan, the United States has always had a large number of immigrants and internal migrants. We also have a history of racial exclusion and a struggle against that exclusion as old as the Republic and without real parallel in comparable nations. All of these have contributed to crime rates higher than those in other western nations. Indeed, when a number of the cultural and demographic variables are controlled for, much of the apparent difference between American and Western European homicide rates disappearsdespite the greater presence of firearms in American society. But international comparisons should raise deeper and more disturbing questions, questions too rarely asked in serious company. The central and usually unchallenged premise of the gun control movement is that society becomes more civilized when the citizen surrenders the means of self-defense, leaving the state a monopoly of force. That this premise goes largely unchallenged is the most remarkable feature of our gun control debate. We are ending a century that has repeatedly witnessed the consequences of unchecked state monopolies of force. University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, one of the leading students of democide (mass murder of civilian populations by governments), has estimated that nearly 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in our century. The familiar list of mass murderers- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot-only scratches the surface. The mass slaughter of helpless, unarmed civilian populations continues to this very day in Sudan, Rwanda, and parts of the former Yugoslavia. The reluctance of outside forces to intervene is well documented. And yet the obvious question is strangely absent: Would arms in the hands of average citizens have made a difference? Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked. Need Americans have such concerns? Well, we have been spared rule by dictators, but state tyranny can come in other forms. It can come when government refuses to protect unpopular groups-people who are disfavored because of their political or religious beliefs, or their ancestry, or the color of their skin. Our past has certainly not been free of this brand of state tyranny. In the Jim Crow South, for example, government failed and indeed refused to protect blacks from extra-legal violence. Given our history, it's stunning we fail to question those who would force upon us a total reliance on the state for defense. Nor should our discussion of freedom and the right to arms be limited to foreign or historical examples. The lives and freedoms of decent, law-abiding citizens throughout our nation, especially in our dangerous inner cities, are constantly threatened by criminal predators. This has devastated minority communities. And yet the effort to limit the right to armed self-defense has been most intense in such communities. Bans on firearms ownership in public housing, the constant effort to ban pistols poor people can afford-scornfully labeled "Saturday Night Specials" and more recently "junk guns"-are denying the means of self-defense to entire communities in a failed attempt to disarm criminal predators. In too many communities, particularly under-protected minority communities, citizens have simply been disarmed and left to the mercy of well-armed criminals. This has led to further curtailment of freedom. Consider initiatives in recent years to require tenants in public housing to allow their apartments to be searched: First, police failed for decades, for justifiable but also far too frequently unjustifiable reasons, to protect citizens in many of our most dangerous public housing projects. Next, as the situation became sufficiently desperate, tenants were prohibited from owning firearms for their own defense. Finally the demand came, "Surrender your right to privacy in your home." The message could not be clearer: A people incapable of protecting themselves will lose their rights as a free people, becoming either servile dependents of the state or of the criminal predators who are their de facto masters. All of this should force us to reconsider our debate over arms and rights. For too long, it has been framed as a question of the rights of sportsmen. It is far more serious: The Second Amendment has something critical to say about the relationship between the citizen and the state. For most of human history, in most of the nations in the world, the individual has all too often been a helpless dependent of the state, beholden to the state's benevolence and indeed competence for his physical survival. The notion of a right to arms bespeaks a very different relationship. It says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. Our serious thinkers have been absent from this debate for too long. The Second Amendment is simply too important to leave to the gun nuts. Robert J. Cottrol is professor of law and history and the Harold Paul Green Research Professor at the George Washington University. His most recent book is From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England. ========================================================== Mary Lou Seymour Liberty Activists http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797 Gulchers guide http://www.angelfire.com/biz/gulchers The Bill of rights For President Support L.Neil Smith http://www.lns2000.org [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 99 08:44:00 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #154 (1/2) (fwd) On Oct 02, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia October 3, 1999 #154 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm - --------------------------------------------------------------------- ANOTHER GOOD SCANDAL BREWING The liberal Washington press corps doesn't seem to want to give us much background on the political players in the current presidential campaigns, so this publication will have to identify those with the most interesting histories. The first is a man who raised many millions of dollars in "soft money" for the House Democratic Congressional Committee. This was soft money that would be illegal to donate directly to a Congressional campaign, so this guy used a trick in the campaign finance laws to set himself up as both the receiver of the soft money and the donator to specific Democratic Congressional campaigns. He skirted the law in other words. Most interesting was how he distributed the money. He actually carried around envelopes with one or two thousand dollars cash in each. If a Representative needed a little "incentive" to vote correctly on a bill before the House, he would pass them an envelope containing one or two thousand dollars. Or, if he wasn't sure exactly how the Representative would vote, he would wait until after the vote and then reward the Representative with an envelope for voting correctly. Remember now, this was cash money. It was intended, so they say with a wink and a nod, to be used as campaign funds. But, you know. . . . . This went on for years in the Democratic controlled House. It was the way things were done there. That is, until our friend got a little greedy and wanted some "personal" cash that he could take home. Then, he sort of got caught. As the story goes, he made a little sweetheart loan deal with an S&L executive to buy junk bonds from Drexel Burnham Lambert. Actually, it was a $100,000 loan deal that allowed him to purchase junk bonds from a friendly but going broke savings and loan, and he failed to include that little loan in his financial disclosure. Nor did he include the minor fact that he used insider information for the purchase or that he was using his position in Congress to benefit that trade. Furthermore, when the House Bank check kiting scandal broke, he was listed as one of the top check- bouncers with more than $300,000 in bad checks (interest free loans that never seemed to get paid back) outstanding. Then there was the matter of defending John Mack after it was revealed that Mack brutally assaulted and almost killed a woman. Mack was an aide to Democratic Majority Leader Jim Wright. Well, things finally caught up with this guy and he abruptly resigned his seat in the House -- just before the Ethics Committee sanctioned him and the FBI arrested him. Being a loyal Democrat helps, though, because the Clinton Justice Department finally dropped all charges. And, incidentally, Clinton used him to help raise money for the last presidential campaign. Influence peddling again. This guy crafted shake-downs, influence peddling and buying votes into an art form. Or, as Leonard Larsen wrote back in 1994 in a Scripps Howard News Service commentary, he is a "high profile reminder of what's wrong with the Democratic Party." But that was his game as Democratic Whip of the House. His name is Tony Coelho, and he is presently campaign chairman for Al Gore. Those old names from the Democratic controlled House of Representatives -- O'Neill, Minish, Wright, Coelho, Rostenkowski, St Germain, et al -- ran a legal version of the old protection racket in which they would trade billions of dollars in favors for millions of dollars in campaign funds. Of course, the Clinton & Gore campaign learned a few of those tricks, too. Their problem was that they also took millions from the communist Chinese in return for favors. Consequently, no one even looked at all of the other dirty money the Clinton campaign received. But, because people were starting to smell a rat in those campaign finance deals, Clinton called Tony Coelho there to advise him. It's no real surprise that Al Gore picked Tony Coelho to honcho his presidential campaign. In the campaign finance arena, Gore is just as dirty as Clinton, so there's a good fit there. All this tells us is that there will be plenty of interesting funny business to watch shortly. Because, Gore is losing and will need big cash really soon. [Note: Some of the above information, and a great deal more, can be found in a 1988 book about Tony Coelho by Brooks Jackson titled "Honest Graft."] WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL It seems to be business as usual in Washington. So much so, in fact, that there is much too much to report. For instance, the Lords and Ladies of Capitol Hill wanted to divvy up that supposed budget surplus, so they gave everyone in government a pay raise. The pay increase would amount to $2,856 for the typical white- collar government bureaucrat in Washington, which brings the annual average bureaucrat's salary up to $62,365. Of course, they also gave themselves a $4,600 annual cost of living increase -- which means that all judges and department heads get the same amount. The president however, gets a whopping $200,000 a year raise -- free travel, free room and board and $400,000 to spend on incidentals annually. Someone let Al Gore speak on CNN's "Larry King Live." Al stuck his foot in his mouth again, calling for a total ban on handguns. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde is not too far behind Gore. Hyde said that they were close to an agreement on yet more legislation to tighten gun control and safety laws. This time they want to bar minors from possessing "assault weapons," ban large scale ammunition clips and require background checks for gun show purchases -- all of which is unconstitutional. Bill Clinton requested a billion bucks to acquire more than 100 new parks in 40 states and territories. No matter about that little Constitutional provision requiring all federal land to be used for mundane things like office buildings and military bases, the federal government wants to gobble up as much land as possible and let it just sit there. Al Gore, with a devious assist by the Justice Department, called "Cyberstalking" the new challenge for law enforcement. It seems that the FBI is itching for an excuse to monitor our communications on the Internet, so they came up with a new supposed crime that would let them get their foot in the door. Then they pushed forward Al and had him say: "Cyberstalking is a very serious new problem confronting us in the information age. This [FBI] report demonstrates the need for stronger federal and state laws to combat the problem." Sure. Like kids belong on the Internet unsupervised. Uh huh. "As more and more Americans are going on- line -- particularly our children -- it is critical that they are protected from online stalking. Cybperspace should be a place for learning and exploration not a place for fear," babbled Gore the bore. And in another matter: Sixty-nine percent of the people of the District of Columbia voted in favor of medicinal marijuana. But, some on Capitol hill, lead in part by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), attacked the voter initiative, even though it would require a physician to authorize the use of marijuana -- and then mostly just for the relief of major symptoms in patients. Any kid can buy pot just about anywhere in the country, but those who are sick can not benefit by a prescription for marijuana of known quality. That's how idiotic the federal government has become. At one time it was thought that Sen. Fred Thompson would run for president. Word on the street now is that he's fed up with the idiocy in Washington and may not even run for the Senate again. Instead, he is expected to stay home and run for governor -- a job which would probably be his for the asking. All we can say about that is please do not let Al Gore run for that Senate seat again. Sen. John McCain tossed his hat into the presidential fracas, running as a Republican. Unfortunately, anyone can say they are a Republican nowadays. However, any real Republicans examining McCain's legislative record can be expected to reject him quickly. Not only is he all over the political spectrum, some of the bills he wanted to pass were positively obnoxious to our Constitutional form of government as well as to freedom. On the other hand, Clinton and Gore got elected. The liberal media elected Clinton and they are talking like they will start supporting McCain very soon. Washington politicians like reporters to behave and "repeat" rather than report. Reporters can go after Republicans all they wish, but most of them have learned to toe the party line with Democrats. So, when Paul Sperry, the Washington bureau chief of Investor's Business Daily, mentioned the lack of press conferences to Clinton at a function, Clinton asked "why." Sperry told him simply: "The American people have a lot of questions about illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal." Wrong answer. Clinton threw a ten minute temper tantrum and Sperry is now persona non grata at the White House. So much for the people's need to know. It's Washington as usual. A RACE TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE The socialists at the United Nations are still planning to tax us. First they wanted a tax on international money exchanges and telephone calls. They quickly got a few complaints. So, now they're going after the Internet. First, they said that "the Internet is an easy vehicle for trafficking in drugs, arms and women through nearly untraceable networks." Obviously, they do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about. That is, [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #286 *************************