From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #17 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 Sunday, February 1 1998 Volume 02 : Number 017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 20:35:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" "APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. The True Story of the birth of a nation. Revealed against the backdrop of the British attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775, are the lives and personalities of those who stood that April Morning. Tommy Lee Jones plays Moses Cooper, a father of 15-year old Adam, played by Chad Lowe. Cooper is frightened. The British have harrassed and intimidated the citizens in the area. Guns, powder and shot have been found hidden in merchandize moving between the towns and villages. Cooper knows that his leadership role in the Lexington Militia will soon be put to the test. Rip Torn plays Solomon Chandler, a merchant and war veteran who has fought against the French and the Indians. Chandler has been stopped and beaten by redcoats. His cargo has been broken into by British soldiers--guns have been found. The story begins on April 18. The events of that day in Lexington will bring about the decision for the Lexington Militia to stand as word comes that the British are coming. Young Adam Cooper is about to become a man. In one sensitive scene, Moses Cooper instructs his son how to prepare for shooting a man. "Don't count the pellets...feel the weight...you won't have time if they are shooting at you." Adams loves Ruth, played by Merideth Salanger. Their talk is about the future, hopeful and bright. The young lovers cannot know what is about to happen. The morning of April 19 dawns quietly and peaceful. The militia presents itself on the Lexington green as in the distance the sound of drums beat out march cadence. The rattle of armor and swords and the hoofbeats of horses near. Nervous and frightened the militia waits, but absent from the group is Solomon Chandler, the braggart who has spoken only of his war experience and who secretly wants to retaliate against the British for what he has suffered. Chandler hides behind a stone wall, within rifle distance of the British who have arrayed themselves in front of the militia. The British commander orders the militia to disperse.... tensions rise.... the British soldiers are nervous and frightened.... and then a shot rings out, a shot that will be heard around the world. April Morning is more than a movie. It is an echo from the past that finds its place in America in 1998. Any American who has wondered if parallels exist between our time and theirs must see April Morning. After viewing it, all doubts will be gone. Fathers and mothers need to view April Morning together. There can be no doubt that what is about to happen in America will plunge entire families into crisis. Review by Norman Olson, Commander, Northern Michigan Regional Militia and Pastor, Freedom Church *************************************************** But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to encourage their congregations to view it. I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this movie has been stopped. Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is something you'll want to do. Kind Regards, Norm Olson - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 20:35:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Fwd: Viva Vermont!! Printed in Investors Business Daily on 01/8/97. By MORGAN 0. REYNOLDS & H. STERLING BURNEFF Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they're winning the debate. That's because they have the facts on their side. Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons-up from just nine states in '86. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents warned? The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense. But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense. Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don't have to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds in the victim's favor. Research shows that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who don't. A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from 1977 to '92. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year. Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country. In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was 22% of the national average and its robbery rate was 15%. In 1996, Vermont's crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate. Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they'll boost impulse killings-fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of all homicides. In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents than off-duty police officers. Consider also: Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder injuring an innocent person. Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a right-to-carry law in '95. In that time, not one permit holder has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has dropped. Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in untrained hands and accidents will go up. But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms deaths annually - -a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on medical errors or car accidents. And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken killings as civilians. In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed right-to-carry laws. The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an all-time low of 185 in '94 -- down 64% since '75. Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate, gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law is sound public policy. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 20:35:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Behind the Gun Control Push 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:04:55 -0500 From: "Mark A. Smith" The gUN grabbers got them in Australia, the gUN grabbers them in England, and they are off to a good start in California. (Not that N.Y. & D.C weren't good starts either). http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn/news45.htm#Behind Behind the Gun Control Push On 24 August the Washington Times reported that a United Nations committee passed a resolution calling for member nations to adopt measures to limit the private ownership of firearms in an effort to consolidate central government monopolies of firearm ownership. As the Times reported: "In an effort to reduce firearm-related crime and violence worldwide, a U.N. commission is drafting recommendations it hopes will curb gun ownership and use.... The draft resolution, passed without objection last month by the 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Committee, encourages member states to consider adopting regulations dealing with illegal or unsafe use of firearms." Such UN promoted regulations would include (a) licensing of all firearms businesses, (b) amnesty programs for the surrender of privately owned illegal firearms, (c) mandatory gun safety training where ownership is legal, (d) standardised penalties for firearms violations, and (e) creating a universal serial-number system to keep track of all privately owned firearms. Any of these ring a bell? As most Australians now know, these measures are already being implemented in this country. The Port Arthur massacre prompted the Federal Government to crack down on guns and, at the same time, it was able to comply with UN regulations. Global gun control has been a long time goal of the United Nations and numerous anti-gun lobbies around the world. Any plan to rid the world of weapons is a noble one, but due consideration must be given to the 'fineprint' on the current plans being drawn up by the United Nations. Back in 1994 the UN Disarmament Commission adopted a working paper that proposed tighter controls on the global gun trade. On the surface the Commission appeared to be interested in controlling guns as a way of combating international arms trafficking. A closer look reveals that the Commission was very interested in civilian disarmament. The working paper proposed "harmonization" of gun-control standards around the world and recommended that "arms permitted for civilian use... should be subject to controls at all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the time they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain subject to monitoring and control." The paper also proposed strengthening government controls on the export and import of arms, stricter regulation of international arms dealers and establishment of a global computer database on missing and stolen arms. Luis Jamamillo of Columbia is quoted in the paper as suggesting: "[There is a need to ensure] the control and monitoring of arms allowed to civilians by means of a computerised national register listing all persons holding a permit to own or carry arms, as well as all relevant information on the individual, the arm permitted and the use of the individual intends to make of it." Australian politicians and bureaucrats involved in the push for gun control claim that it's got nothing to do with the United Nations. Lisa Gates, a policy advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, tells us that the "United Nations has played no role in Australia's new gun laws." The Premier of South Australia, John Olsen, said on 4 April that Australia's gun laws were not influenced by the United Nations. Barry Jones tried to calm fears on 26 February, 1996 when he said that the "UN resolution (to implement "national measures in order to check the illicit circulation of small arms") is not aimed at you." What they don't say (or don't even know) is that Australia has played a major role in formulating UN resolutions and recommendations calling for restrictions on civilian gun ownership. Technically speaking, the UN didn't influence Australia's gun laws - instead, we encouraged and assisted the UN to pass resolutions restricting gun ownership on the rest of the world. A 1990 report produced by the National Committee of Violence (NCV) is one of the first documents to be noted in the conference papers of the Ninth United Nations Congress On the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Cairo in 1995. The conference focused on methods of controlling firearms. The NCV report is praised as having "put forward a series of recommendations on the control of firearms which have influenced the policies of Australia and its constituent states" and "contributed to the discussion of this question, notably in the United States and Canada." - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 20:35:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Behind the Gun Control Push 2/2 Australia also fully supports the proposed "Universal Declaration of Principles on Firearms" to be adopted in late 1998. A UN document dated 16 April, 1996 confirms that: "Australia would support the preparation of an appropriate declaration of principles as a means of reducing the number of firearms in the community." One of the world's most vocal supporters of gun control is Japan. For reasons of its own - including domestic concerns over the increasing use of illegal handguns by gangs - Japan pumped over a quarter of a million dollars into the 1995 Cairo UN conference in an attempt to encourage strong action on guns. Japan tabled a draft resolution that included a call to adopt a "Declaration on the Control of Firearms". The proposed Declaration included the "urgent need to establish a common strategy for effective control of firearms at the global level." The Japanese proposal was substantially reworked and extended by member countries, including Australia. Accepted, it became the Resolution entitled "Firearms Regulations for the Purposes of Crime Prevention and Public Safety". More disturbing is the survey on firearms that member states were asked to complete by September 1996, in accordance with this Resolution. Information was requested on everything to do with firearms including criminal cases, suicides, illicit trafficking, legislation and relevant initiatives for regulation. The scope of the survey was to focus specifically on "regulation as it applies to civilians" (italics are theirs, the intent being that the police and military were not to be included.) Any real plan to control guns would focus on the world's military manufacturers, but here the debate is centred on disarming civilian populations. Right at this moment, in different parts of the globe, wars are being fought with guns and other weapons of mass destruction that were manufactured by multinational corporations. We are left to ask, 'Is the UN being used by powerful elites to disarm civilian populations, so they can keep all the power (and guns) to themselves?' Referring back to the Washington Times story of 24 August, UN officials offered reasons why global gun control is necessary: "In North America, for example, firearms might be closely linked with robbery and homicides." Ian Goddard, an "anti-authoritarian" activist, responds that "in Washington D.C., with one of the highest rates of homicide in the U.S., private gun ownership is 100% illegal, giving armed thugs free rein to exploit an unarmed population. Since firearms are the last defense of private property, armed thugs profit from gun control." Another UN reason for global gun control is that "in Africa and the Balkans... gun trafficking is tied to civil unrest." They don't mention that Western multinational corporations made most of the guns. Goddard says that this reason for gun control "is an example of the need for the traffic in firearms to people in areas where they are being targeted for extermination." This is also one of the major reasons behind the establishment of the U.S.-based group Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). JPFO's published research shows that "gun control" laws cleared the way for seven major genocides between 1915 and 1980, in which 56 million persons, including millions of children, were murdered. (J.E. Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan M. Rice, Lethal Laws; JPFO, Inc., Milwaukee, 1994) Is the global push for civilian gun control really about crime, suicides and domestic violence, or is there a more insidious reason? Who would benefit from total civilian disarmament? Chairman Mao said "All power comes out of the barrel of the gun". Governments know that, and by disarming the civilian population, they can tax in peace with the knowledge they can't be threatened by an angry populace. In the case of tyrannical government, a monopoly of gun ownership by the authorities would strengthen their position, making it virtually impossible for the people to fight back. Perhaps we should consider the following questionnaire that was administered to 300 U.S. Marines at the Twenty-nine Palms, California Marine Base on May 10, 1994. It read: "The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over these firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." Twenty seven percent answered affirmatively. (Source: Washington Times, 24 August; "United Nations Goes for Global Gun Control", Ian Williams Goddard; Associated Press, 23 May 1994; Australian Shooters Journal, September 1997; "1984 Revisited or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Micro-chip" by Meg Dixit and David Hoffman) - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 08:25:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Welfare for Criminals WELFARE FOR CRIMINALS: VICTIM DISARMAMENT By Louis James Recently there was a story in the news about a bus-load of young American women in Guatemala that were robbed at gun-point. Four of them were raped. The brief story left most of the details of the victims' helpless anguish in a faraway place to the imagination. However, it was clear that the perpetrators picked their targets carefully. This sort of thing never happens to a bus-load of military advisors, but students from St. Mary's College do not usually go as well armed. And that is really the point, is it not? Crime is a risky business, and no one stays in it long if they take too many chances. Interviews with convicted criminals and broad-based studies (Kleck, Lott & Mustard) show the same thing: criminals do not like it when there is even a chance that their victims might be armed. This is a major reason why places like New York City and Washington DC, which have some of the most restrictive "gun control" laws anywhere, are so famous for violent attacks: the criminals know that law-abiding citizens are disarmed. This is why there was a rash of attacks against tourists at interstate rest areas in Florida after that state implemented its liberalized "concealed carry" gun law. The concealed carry permitees did not commit the crimes, but criminals knew that more Floridians would be armed, so they attacked the people most unlikely to be armed: tourists. On April 28th, 1996, a man with "a history of mental problems" and a rifle killed 32 people in Tasmania. The remarkable thing about it was that he did not shoot them all at once with a machine gun, but drove up to a pub and shot several people, drove to another pub and did it again, and then drove to a historic prison and did it again. At the prison there were 500 people, who all tried to flee. The killer was just one man, not wearing body armor and not a highly trained commando. He was just an insane man with a gun among defenseless people. He simply kept going to new places and killing more and more people until a team of 200 law enforcement officials finally showed up and arrested him. If just one person had been armed at the time and place of any such famous massacre, whether it be tourists in Tasmania, Lubby's Restaurant patrons shot in Texas, or school children in Stockton, California, things might have gone very differently. An observant coed with a pistol in her backpack could have stopped the tragedy in Tasmania, possibly even before anyone was killed. So might the teacher in Stockton. Or Suzanna Hupp-Gratia, whose parents died at the Lubby's restaurant in Texas; the killer had to stop several times to reload, but her gun sat useless in her car because it was illegal for her to take it into the restaurant. And it isn't necessary for everyone to walk around armed to the teeth for people to be safe. All it takes is for enough people to do it that it becomes too risky--too unprofitable--for criminals to attack people. This may not affect so-called "crimes of passion" or more deliberate homicides, and it might cause some muggers to change careers, but is not every attack prevented important? Having your purse or stereo stolen from your car is bad, but is not being raped worse? In spite of this very simple logic, legislators in Utah are contemplating ways to place spotlights on disarmed potential victims. Think of it as welfare for criminals--a list of places where they can attack profitably, knowing that their victims will be unable to fight back. Preposterous? Twisting the facts? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Whatever they call their bills, however they describe their actions, legislators will in fact be delivering a list of places where victims will be disarmed if they pass laws that prohibit guns from those places. Intentions are irrelevant. The president of the University of Utah (a *public* institution) may honestly believe and persuade the legislature that no one--besides the police, whom criminals well know how to avoid--should carry guns on campus. Sincerity would not change the fact that, should this come to pass, the campus will essentially appear to criminals to be lit up with Las Vegas style neon signs that say: "Predators welcome! Victims have been disarmed!" It may seem like a radical slogan for militia members, but it is really simple logic. "Gun control" *is* victim disarmament and "gun-free zones" are defenseless victim zones. Utah's concealed carry law has worked well and has caused no problems; it should be left alone. - ----------------------------------------------------- Louis James The Sutherland Institute Policy Analyst Independence Square ljames@utah-inter.net 111 East 5600 South, Suite 208 (801) 281-2081 Murray, UT 84107 - ----------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:41:05 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Welfare for Criminals -Reply Scott: Do you know if WELFARE FOR CRIMINALS: VICTIM DISARMAMENT, by Louis James has been submitted to the Tribune or D-news? They likely will not print it on the front page, but the citizens section or editorial section might include it some time. Thanks for everything you post on this list David Sagers - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:14 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" At 08:35 PM 1/29/98 -0700, you wrote: > >"APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production >released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. ******************** >But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the >authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number >of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some >unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain >why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and >historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. > >Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home >Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. >Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to >encourage their congregations to view it. > >I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this >movie has been stopped. > >Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government >does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is >something you'll want to do. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson OK, April Morning sounds like a good film and something I'd like to see - although to be honest, I can't imagine Hallmark making a controversial film, much less a politically dangerous one. But would someone please explain to me on what grounds I may DEMAND that it be released? Presumably, Hallmark made and owns the film. It's private property. I don't have the right to demand Hallmark's private property, anymore than I have a right to demand that my neighbor give me his VCR so I can watch it! It's also likely that the film was funded by one or more of Hallmark's usual big corporate sponsors, and they have rights too. Maybe they're angry that they'll never get the advertising they paid for. Or maybe they don't want their names linked to such a "politically dangerous" film. And while it's entirely possible that the government is behind the suppression of the film, I don't see any evidence. (It kind of reminds me of all the screaming about a government attempt to suppress Waco:TROE, when in fact the problem was a lawsuit between the producers.) Hallmark wants to make money. If enough people politely request that the film be made available, it might happen. No one wants a multi-million dollar video sitting in a storage facility. But DEMAND? No. If we Constitutionalist/Patriot people can't get it right, can't understand private property rights, then we can't very well expect that anyone else will either. If anyone has Norm Olson's e-mail address, let me know and I'll tell him myself. RANT mode OFF. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:07:44 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" -Forwarded Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xyOz5-0005IZ-00; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:27 -0700 Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xyOz1-0005Hp-00; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:23 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-18.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.163]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA18566 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:30:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980130153214.00d54bc0@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:14 -0700 To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" In-Reply-To: <8E844D3.01F5007A02.uuout@ucs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com At 08:35 PM 1/29/98 -0700, you wrote: > >"APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production >released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. ******************** >But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the >authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number >of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some >unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain >why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and >historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. > >Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home >Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. >Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to >encourage their congregations to view it. > >I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this >movie has been stopped. > >Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government >does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is >something you'll want to do. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson OK, April Morning sounds like a good film and something I'd like to see - although to be honest, I can't imagine Hallmark making a controversial film, much less a politically dangerous one. But would someone please explain to me on what grounds I may DEMAND that it be released? Presumably, Hallmark made and owns the film. It's private property. I don't have the right to demand Hallmark's private property, anymore than I have a right to demand that my neighbor give me his VCR so I can watch it! It's also likely that the film was funded by one or more of Hallmark's usual big corporate sponsors, and they have rights too. Maybe they're angry that they'll never get the advertising they paid for. Or maybe they don't want their names linked to such a "politically dangerous" film. And while it's entirely possible that the government is behind the suppression of the film, I don't see any evidence. (It kind of reminds me of all the screaming about a government attempt to suppress Waco:TROE, when in fact the problem was a lawsuit between the producers.) Hallmark wants to make money. If enough people politely request that the film be made available, it might happen. No one wants a multi-million dollar video sitting in a storage facility. But DEMAND? No. If we Constitutionalist/Patriot people can't get it right, can't understand private property rights, then we can't very well expect that anyone else will either. If anyone has Norm Olson's e-mail address, let me know and I'll tell him myself. RANT mode OFF. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:49:23 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: JPFO: RKBA and Civil Rights -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA05875; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:37:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005851; Fri Jan 30 14:36:29 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980130173104.008cc228@inet.skillnet.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: recon@inet.skillnet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: Richard L Hartman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: JPFO: RKBA and Civil Rights X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT: Yes, Virginia, We Can Win; but First We Must Define the Question, and Then, We must Hold Hands and Work Together. By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. Speech to Gun Rights Conference, Denver, Colorado, September 28, 1997 There is story about Sol, the Jewish tailor-haberdasher, who won a trip to Italy. Included in the trip was a tour of Rome and an audience with the Pope. Sol was a religious man, so he considered it an honor to meet with the leader of another great religion. When he returned home Sol's partner, Al, asked him, "So what about the Pope?" Sol's reply, "About a 38-portly." The lesson, of course, is that we all tend to see things in ways that relate to what we know. So what do I know, and what does that have to do with the Second Amendment movement? I'm an attorney and have worked for a big-deal law firm trying big-deal lawsuits, but my first love is management. For the last dozen years, far more of my work has been as a management consultant; specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. In plain English, that means helping CEO's and their companies define who they are, where they want to be in 5 or 10 years; and then helping them develop clear, written plans with specific measurable goals for getting there. I also help them implement - by training them in team-building and productivity. This allows companies to achieve Win-Win-Win results; a win for the customers, a win for the employees, and a win for the companies who put their wealth at risk to create value for the economy. Sometimes this includes what businessmen call turnarounds; starting with a company that is in trouble - sometimes near bank-ruptcy - and helping it become efficient and productive. While this can require the use of sophisticated tools, most of it isn t rocket science. It's pretty fundamental stuff. What is required includes the ability to: a. Face reality as it is, not as we wish it to be, b. Admit our mistakes, and learn from them, c. Step back to question the fundamental assumptions that had been taken for granted, and d. Make and implement hard decisions. In short, I know leadership when I see it. I know good strategy when I see it. For members of the Second Amendment movement I recommend Al Dunlap's book, MEAN BUSINESS: How I Save Bad Companies, and Made Good Companies Great, as an example of good strategy. You will find many parallels - both good and bad. The bad news includes some of the same self-defeating practices we are commonly guilty of. (You may be reminded of Pogo's, "We have met the enemy, and they is us.") But there is also good news. You'll see Dunlap execute business, organizational, marketing, and financial strategies - in a manner that any competent manager could adapt to Second Amendment goals. So what is meant by "New Paradigms in the Civil-Rights Movement? A paradigm is how one defines the question, or more accurately, the unstated assumptions in a question. For example, early astrologers struggled to create a calendar which could accurately predict the movement of the heavenly bodies around the Earth. Notice how the question was defined. Until Copernicus with his theory, and Galilao, with the data gathered from his telescope, taught us that heavenly bodies do not move around the earth, it was impossible to create an accurate calendar because of how the question was asked. The answer was in finding a better way to state the question. In business, new paradigms - new ways of defining the question - or new ways of thinking out of the box include: 1. Sam Walton - rather than competing head-to-head against larger, more powerful retailers in high-priced malls - opened his first warehouse-discount store in the giant megalopolis of Bentonville, Arkansas - - where the leading occupation had been jury duty. 2. Domino's Pizza - rather than competing against strong, established chains and restaurants to fill their stores with customers - instead took their stores to the customer - with a revolutionary delivery system. 3. Hospitals - in an industry with 50% of their beds empty, and an industry-average-net-profit of $0 - reversed the question of how to fill their beds with sick people, and developed the concept of wellness centers, which have succeeded in generating much higher occupancy with much higher profit-margins. It is very likely that the United States wouldn't exist in the form we know it if the Founders hadn't re-defined the question. They began petitioning for rights of Englishmen. Ultimately, they fought for and won rights of Americans - rooted in English rights - but taking several steps beyond; not the least of which is - Englishmen were (and still are) subjects of the sovereign - while Americans are citizens who own the sovereign. That s pretty fundamental. Reality as it is, not as we wish it? We in the Second Amendment movement are losing because (a) we confuse symptoms with problems and fail to accurately define the real problem, and (b) we fail to develop a real long-term strategy to take the initiative and win. 1. For example, do you think we have a PR problem? Or that the media aren't fair? Or that politicians who claim to support the Second Amendment turn on us by voting for anti-gun bills? Those aren't problems. Those are symptoms of a (much) larger problem. 2. Do you think we are winning because there are now 31 states with concealed-carry laws? If you think so, you may wish to reconsider. As Dan Polsby said in the March 24th issue of the National Review, we are kidding ourselves, because in the national debate we are losing, and losing badly. How can this be when the scholarly data is on our side? Perception is reality. - All politicians can count. Polsby didn't provide answers, but he correctly stated the problem. In a democracy, public policy is tailored to what the people believe, no matter what the facts might be. For weapons policy the point is not the connection between guns and violence - but how people see the connection. In the current atmosphere, cheerleading for gun rights will look mighty like cheering for murder and suicide and opposing common decency. The larger message - if people don't believe in each of the specifics in the Bill of Rights, sooner or later all those rights will be footnotes in history - by popular vote. The anti-civil rights forces have their own long-term strategic plans to whittle-down the Bill of Rights to nothing.(Some argue that 8 of 10 of the Bill of Rights are already gutted.) Henry Kissinger said, "You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you." We are in a war of information, and they are out to get us. Their Marxis-styled war of deceit is well-documented - most recently in Radical Son, by David Horowitz. Until we face these realities, and adequately define the question - the real question - we have little hope of success. What are the New Paradigms? Our battle is not for the Second Amendment - it is for the Bill of Rights. Our targets are not shooters or politicians - but opinion leaders and the voting public. Our goal - is to win over the hearts and minds of the American public. This is our new paradigm. This is our turnaround. Sound grandiose? Maybe not. David Kopel has said the Bill of Rights isn't for conservatives to protect their property or guns, or for liberals to protect filthy speech or rights of accused. Those rights were meant to hang together. To the extent any of the rights are abridged, all are at risk. Or as Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." Our priority may be the Second Amendment, but our perspective must be civil rights. Charlton Heston s 3-year campaign to save the Second Amendment is wonderful, and very much needed. But that campaign is to our long-term goals as the original 13 Colonies were to the United States. But first we must define who we are, and where we are going. As Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." So who are we? There is nothing inherently wrong with being, say, a small group of target or bird shooters - anymore than being a membership-organization of 20-million. But given the political and societal realities, unless we figure out a way to make allies of people who have no interest in picking up a gun we could end up in the same fix as in Great Britain or Australia. As my friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said, The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting. We need allies. Alone, we can't win hearts and minds here - any more than we could in Vietnam. We need conservatives, liberals, and agnostics - who may or may not have an interest in guns - but with whom we can forge common bonds in the Bill of Rights and the values that made this country. 1. Do you really want to face reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be? Politicians don't turn on us. Politicians vote anti-Second Amendment, anti-Civil rights, because it gives them power. If it had been necessary for him to gain the Presidency, even Bill Clinton would have been pro-gun. Perception is reality. All politicians can count. 2. So we need the people from A.C.L.U. - as they need us. We need the environmentalists. We need the libertarians, the churches, the unions, the doctors, the sociologists, and the teachers. We need the children. Most of all we need the voting public. If we have them, the media and politicians will follow. (So how do we do this?) Action Plans Like a well-run business with competitors trying to put it our of business, we must have clear, written, long-term strategic plans. This can help us with many things, including: First: A clear definition who we are and what we stand for - not against. Second: Clearly-defined and measurable goals, enabling us to take the initiative. Politics is almost inherently short-term oriented, so in the absence of clear, long-term plans it is almost impossible not to get pulled into defensiveness by reacting to the opposition's initiatives. With long-term goals, it is easier to make incremental, short-term gains toward our objectives. By taking and maintaining the initiative, it is easier to manage the public debate, frame the issues and get good press. Our tests have proven that. Third: Finding a Ronald Reagan leader - or several of them - who are good T.V. communicators, friendly, welcoming, inclusive, bringing more people into the efforts; but absolutely reliable and unwavering on principles and fundamental values. There can be more than one, and they should include women. Rebecca John Wyatt and Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp are good examples. Both are warm, articulate, and effective communicators. Rebecca is as good with the data as anyone. Suzanna is the only person I know who successfully got Representative Charles Schumer to shut up! Fourth: No compromising on principles! We can pick our battles, and it can be appropriate to compromise to achieve an advance-ment toward our goals. We should never compromise our principles. We should never compromise with the people who are out to get us. Compromising with the devil is a losing strategy! Winston Churchill strongly condemned Neville Chamberlain s treaty with Hitler as appeasement. An appeaser, according to Churchill, is someone who throws his children to the crocodile, in hopes the Crocodile will eat him last! Examples? 1. How often have we been maneuvered into campaigning for our gun control bills (and it's not the gun that is being controlled - it's the civil-rights of the law-abiding) because our anti-rights bill curbs rights of the law-abiding less than their anti-rights bill? Often, both are bad bills, exhibiting our failure to have taken the initiative to frame the issues correctly. 2. To that end, how could we support any but Representative Helen Chenoweth's bill to totally repeal the Lautenberg amendment? The Lautenberg law is totally bad, of questionable Constitutionality, and questionable ancestry. ( Question-able ancestry is lawyer-talk for S.O.B.) We screwed up when we allowed it to be passed in the first place. It needs to be totally repealed! In the real world, compromise happens. But compromise on principle should never be tolerated. In facing reality as it is - not as we wish it to be - we should recall Churchill's promise, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears." We are facing exciting opportunities - if we know how to manage them. Like the Soviet Union in its final years, the anti-civil rights forces in the United States are big, scary, dangerous - and from outward appearances - well-funded and nearly invulnerable. But behind the facade is little depth and staying-power. It was Ronald Reagan who was willing to stand firm on principles, develop the plan, and expend the resources to deter aggression. He knew where he was going, and he never wavered. In the face of such resolve, an already weakened Soviet Union folded. Arming to deter aggression ultimately served non-violence. History can repeat itself, but it will take our leadership, effort, and resolve: The anti-civil rights forces in this country will continue to advance if we let them. But their flaws are more apparent. It's not for nothing that Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire. The absurdity of the opposition is their Achilles heel. The credible scholarly data is on our side, and they know it. Much like the N.A.A.C.P. during the first half of this century, we are many people, with many different interests, doing many different things, but all for common civil rights goals. It is in our interest to pull as many people into the effort as we can. Our plan must be long-term in orientation, large-scale in perspective, and inclusive in its execution. We must bring as many allies as possible into the effort. Most important, it must clearly state what we are for - not against - to help us gain the initiative. Then we must implement - with an ongoing policy of always seeking the initiative. The job isn't easy - but it is simple if we keep our heads and work together. If we do, there is reason for optimism. Despite the day-to-day media trash, there is an underlying wisdom, goodness, and strength among the people of this country. They are ready to hear our message. It is our job - our responsibility - to manage and deliver it effectively. Civil rights, at a minimum, includes the right to defend your life - and the lives of your babies. If it saves one life, it's worth it! - so - Let's do it for the children-! - ----- Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management and law, and a member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. He is a former trial lawyer, and now a business attorney and management consultant, specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. - ---------------------------------------------------------- JPFO would like to thank its membership for their loyal support. For without our membership, alerts as this would not be possible. Please consider joining JPFO today. Membership information is available on our web site. - ---------------------------------------------------------- ************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." ************************************************************** 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". ************************************************************** - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #17 **********************************