 |
  |
  |
|
    
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Ideas from our Visitors...
Mass Murder REQUIRES Unarmed Victims (From: Doug)
Support Your Gun Rights now: (877) 330-6964
(Support the NRA and defend your freedom)
"Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat."
Blaming guns for the deaths in the country is like blaming the gas chambers for the holocaust. (From: Lisa in Ohio)
To stop violence we need to jail criminals.
Think about this:
a. The number of physicians in the US is 750,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(US Dept. of Health & Human Services)Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.(sent by Gary & Phyllis)
* * *
After, deciding to purchase a gun for protection of myself and my family I decided to investigate the laws on guns, amazingly I found much I did not want to know. First, after reviewing the Constitution of The United States and the laws of my state I found that I was permitted indeed to purchase and possess a gun, but the I decided to read the newspapers and magazines on gun control and the following is not all but some of what I found out.
1. Gun Control is not Gun Control it is Citizen Control.=
2. Gun Control laws are not written to keep criminals from buying and possessing guns but to keep law abiding citizens from purchasing and possessing guns.
3. A law abiding Citizen driving in a car passing though a School Zone is punished more severely for that act than are criminals who commit armed robbery or other offenses with any weapon, ie: knifes, clubs, etc.
4. Any accident a law abiding citizen has with a gun are more publicized and punished than murders are by known criminals.
5. Criminals do not purchase guns in stores.
6. Only liberals, communist and socialist fear law abiding citizens who possess guns.
7. Punishment in the United States is more severe for a law abiding citizen defending his family in his home while being attacked by a criminal than for first degree murders.
Upon finding the above material which is statically supported, I determined that what we as a society should have in ours laws is not gun control but criminal control. Put some backbone to punishment of criminals who commit crimes with guns, then you won't have criminals committing crimes just to get three hots and a cot, or an education or away from debtors etc
Mike
* * * Both the Chinese Communists and Hillary want the U.S. guns locked up. The Chinese still can not explain their own bloody massacre of Chinese students protestors in Tienneman Square but believe they should be allowed the right to "thin out their own population" by locking up the American guns. After all their financial help in putting this administration in office, Egore and Bubba damn well better take heed and practice safe deployment of missiles. Unfortunately Clinton has never been very sensible about deployment of his own missile.
Hillary has read the polls, picked up the flag and now believes American parents should be united in locking up guns and thereby preventing their children from blowing the hell out of fellow students, teachers, parents and taxpayer funded facilities. At the same time her hubby Bubba continues to give orders to blow the hell out of the Yugoslavia, children, parents and facilities whose re-build will be U.S. taxpayer funded. Maybe the Chinese will foot the bill like they did for the Democratic campaign?
On the positive side, perhaps these incidents will instill the right to say prayers in school since it isn't happening at home. Perhaps Bubba and Egore will be under more scrutiny when they boldly demand foreign campaign funds and be less proactive in allowing nuclear secrets to pass into Chinese hands. Too bad Bubba experiences have been void of Vietnam military service, this experience would teach you what side the Chinese communists were on then and it hasn't changed. But what can you expect of a Rhoades scholar!
And Hillary, get a life, try having an original thought, stay off the Today show, and stop soliciting media opportunities. You are simply a "polyester thread" in the moral fabric my country.
Dave of Arizona
* * * Subject: Australia's Gun Laws
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down under. Perhaps we may learn from the mistakes of others. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (changed drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Bet you won't see this data on the evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
* * * 1998 Crime Statistics "Spin" And Puerto Rico
I've been a listener since '88. I'm in the military and presently stationed in Puerto Rico.
In PR in calendar year 98 there were 21 police officers shot (killed) in the line of duty. That is shot by bad guys. That number does not include accidents or domestic arguments that became violent. That is almost equal to the number in all 50 states! Where is CNN on this hot story. You ought to check on the number of civilians killed by criminals here.
The anti-gun folks are always quoting stats from countries that have stong laws prohibiting the possession of guns and how their crime rates are so low. PR is the best example I've seen to counter their arguments.
In PR you cannot keep a gun in your home. If you get permission to own a gun, it has to be kept at the local police station and you have to sign it out for the time you want to use it.
I am a gun collector and I had to leave my collection at my dad's home in the U.S. Guns are virtually illegal in PR yet death at the hands of gunmen is rampant. I am here to protect the rights of Americans and I can't exercise my constitutional rights to even have a gun in my home.
A question. Would the Democrates sacrifice the low crime stats in the U.S. to get some Democrate votes in the senate and the house?
Happy New Year Rush and Keep Up The Good Work,
Len
* * * I almost always enjoy your show, but yesterday's was outstanding. I joined the NRA about four years ago; never have I felt better about being a member! The real clencher was listening to the three officers talking about Clinton'srole in H. Rapp Brown's crime spree. Finally, people are getting the picture.
I avoided the urge to gag long enough to listen to Barney Frank and company chortling over Charlton Heston's comments about licensing weapons. Frank pointed out that cars are not confiscated, thus, he said, destroying the logic of Heston's position.
I beg to differ. Perhaps Mr. Frank has never had his car impounded. I have, and so have tens of thousands of others. In many cases, the police and other authorities impound cars when no crime has been committed (as in my case). Only a suspicion of a crime need exist for vehicles to be impounded. To make matters worse, regardless of your guilt or innocence, you must pay to get your vehicle back. Of course outright confiscation takes place as well, thanks to a body of poorly conceived legislation known collectively as the Rico Laws. This latter is especially important, since it represents an out and out violation ofother constitutional rights.
This raises another important point: the difference between a right and a license. A right, as the name implies, is a freedom so basic and necessary that it must be guaranteed for society to operate correctly. For example, the critical importance of the second amendment is that allows common citizens - referred to by the founding fathers as "the militia" - to guarantee our other nine (hence the reference to the security of a free State).
Disregarding penumbra effects, judicial fiat, and the loud lies of the left, our basic rights have been spelled out in the first ten amendments to our constitution. They are not just guarantees but also limits on the extent of governmental authority.
A license is a permission slip issued by a higher authority. Licenses spell out what is allowed and what isn't. Licenses can be revoked at any time. Generally, they must be purchased. Most important, the proper issuance of licenses depends upon the wisdom and character of that higher authority. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the NRA and other organizations centered on freedom feel so threatened by the current administration? Clinton has given "higher authority" a whole new meaning.
Any country - including the most restrictive or oppressive - can issue licenses. Only where freedom is important do people talk of rights. There is another sad aspect of the issue of licensing often forgotten: our constitution represents a license that we the people have issued to our government. While the conditions can be expanded or contracted, ifwe fail to hold our government to the terms, it could turn into a license to steal. Or kill.
Please keep up the good work.
Jim Colton
* * * Survey of Military Personnel
Rush, a couple of weeks ago you had Tony ? as a replacement while you were off. On that program a Marine called in regarding a survey that is being circulated in the Military, by the Govt. He said that the survey was asking questions like would you serve under the UN. The question that really stuck with me was "If US citizens were allowed a 30 day grace period to turn in their fire arms and refused to do it, would you fire on them if so ordered?"
About a week later I was down at the local sporting good store to get a Pheasant hunting license and mentioned it to the man behind the counter selling guns. Rush, I live in the Pacific NW. There are lots of military people here as you well know. This man told me that he had heard this from several military customers. He also went on to say that there are many off-shore troups stationed in the US for the purpose of enforcement that may become necessary that US troups may not be counted on to perform.
I haven't heard a word about this aledged "survey on your show since that day. What's up with this. Could there possible any truth to this?
Swany
* * *
Rush: I look at this as no issues. With crime, and gun control on top at 19%, a conservative aught to say 81% of the people feel like gun control is not an issue. Therefore: The gun control poll data is devided between folks for more control and folks who think enougn is enough. I think we are way over the top with control.
Rollie in Vt
* * * Another perversion of the English language! Real gun safety, as it is meant to convey, has always been a concern of the NRA as I understand it. Maybe you could contact your friend, Chuck, and suggest the following. NRA should start a national media campaign outlining how they have always supported gun safety through classes and training, really making guns safe to own and decreasing the number of accidental gun related injuries and deaths.
They should then express their wonder at why it has taken the democrats so long to be concerned with gun safety and welcome them into in issue started and continued by the NRA since its inception! And then request them to continue in the fight for gun safety and our constitutional rights. NRA can really make the claim for gun safety and civil rights without being hypocrites!
* * * The liberals have changed the "gun control" and "gun registration" issues to "gun safety". Neither title was correct in the first place. The liberal agenda has always been "gun owner control" and "gun owner registration".
Registering or controlling a gun is pointless if there isn't an owner's name on the registration. Whenever liberals bring up the "gun safety" label, conservatives should immediately challenge the label and call it what it is... a euphemism for "gun owner registration", which is one step away from a knock at the door and confiscation. Please make this point.
* * * Gun Control
Instead of making it illegal to possess a firearm and making more senseless laws that aren't enforced, is it possible to just restrict the manufacturing of semi-automatic firearms and/or make it illegal to possess/buy them?
* * * As I see it here in the NorthWest, our rights on firearms are being questioned. The radical anti hunting and feminists attacked hunting rights. Cougar and bear have been banned, to hunt with dogs. If our hunting privileges are lost, then the liberal side will ask us what we are using guns for. Our response will not be a good one. Personally I think anything dealing with firearms needs to be protected or we will loose are rights to bare arms. This is just one spin the liberals have. Their are many more, we are being attacked on every side. Please stand up and protect our rights.
George
* * * Gun Control
To Whom it may Concern,
I have watched for many years the situation south of me in the United States. I see a people with a constitutional right be trodden upon by lawmakers and judges, and a people to content with the situation to even take the time to join the NRA.I say to you people, look north to Canada if you want to see a situation which closely parallels the USA. While not as gun control happy as the UK, we are slowly heading in the same direction, and a national gun registry is the first step to us losing our rights as well.
I must comment here and say that gun control is not the only thing Americans can fear coming out of Canada. I am sure Bill Clinton is well aware of our socialist medicare, universal day care systems, overloaded welfare systems and 9% unemployment topped off with a fifty percent top tax rate make Canada a great place for socialist like Bill and Hillary to look to as an example to mold the USA into.
Don't let it happen down there. You are citizens of the greatest country in the world and I hope for you and your children you do all you can to protect it. Perhaps some day I will be lucky enough to find work in the USA and be able to enjoy all that you do,until then, I fight how I can, where I can and against whom I can in trying to preserve my freedoms.
Brent Hughes
Concerned Canadian
* * * Gun control is indeed population control.
The liberals do not want you to realize that what the 2nd Amendment affords is that Americans have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrranical government. They want you to forget this (or not to know it at all) A gun is a tool...an inanimate object that is a resource-the evil in the hearts of these whackos is what is killing. Dont be mentally lazy-think about the situation and dont simply answer "Its the guns". The liberals will not rest until the right to bear arms is totally revoked.
Steve
* * * Suing the Gun Makers
This is another liberal attempt to control guns by forcing the gun makers to pay a huge ransom to stay in business. If this suit is sucessful, watch out America. The next time someone hits you with their car you will be able to hold GM or Ford liabel. Product liability will have an all new meaning.
* * * Gun Control
If gun control worked then Washington D.C. would be the safest city in the world. because the American citizen living, in Washington D.C., cannot own a firearm of any kind. When in fact, it has the highest crime rate in the country. Two cities, in the mid 80's, enacted two different gun laws. Martin Grove, Il.,. enacted a city ordinance that no-one could own or possess a firearm within the city limits. Around the same time Kenneshaw, Ga, enacted a law that allowed for open carry on or about your person a firearm. Since these laws were passed, the crime rate in Il. has gone up 400 percent. Conversely, the crime rate in Ga. has gone down to less than one half of one percent.
thank you
nl kirby
* * * Raider of the Lost 2nd Amendment
It has occured to me that Bill's frightening enthusiasm for passing endless legislation without ever making a serious effort to actually enforce in a real way these gun laws could have a simple answer. Bill Clinton only intends to enforce laws that hit his political enemies, and not the predators that threaten society. If he never enforces in a rela way, the laws he passes, he gets a reoccuring demand from the gullible public to create more laws, and when he has completely neutralized the right to keep a gun, then he can go after the conservatives, since he will have a list of registered owners to go to, and provoke a violent confrontation, or just arrest them and put them in those work camps that he refers to in several of those nasty little executive orders which activate when a national emergancy is declared.
Thanks, Jon from OKC
* * * Gun Laws
I recently had a forum contact with a Washington DC social worker who was
ranting about the use of guns in her city. She said the only way to fix it
was a total ban on all guns.How intellectually lazy can you get!! They have disarmed the legal firearms
owners in DC, THATS the problem. Now the thugs can operate with impunity!
They have taken away the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves.
Yet pinheads like this social worker still don't get it. They think banning
firearms will in this country will create a Utopia. What they forget is the
2nd amendment garantees the existance of the others.
* * * Gun Control RE: To Mike
I totally agree with you on this issue. I was under the impression that The Constitution 2nd Ammendment was to protect the citizens from a tyrrannical government, via the Federalist Papers. The fact is the schools now do not teach what is proper for our future voters to make a wise choice. I also think they do not want us to think for ourselves.
The Right to bear arms was a God given right and it does not state" as long as it is not belt fed." How can we defend against a tyrrannical government , if we cannot have access to the weapons they terrorize US with?
Sandra
* * * I agree with you that the legislation of guns is not effective.
I heard a report the other night about a man that is suffering from Mad Cow Disease or CJC (C -something Jacobs C -something) here in the USA. The USDA officals were clear that this could not be result of meat eaten here in the US. The report went on to say that he was an occassional deer hunter and the deer meat could be the source of his disease.I am sure that it will only be a matter of time before this is held up as a gun control effort. Why do hunters need guns if the meat they are eating is a hazard? Even though this was stated, I have no idea how deer meat and Mad Cow Disease can be linked. Mad Cow Disease is the result of cows eating the "left overs" of other animals and deer are herbivores.
Just wanted to pass this on. Thanks for all the good work you do.
Carla
* * * Gun Laws
Rush,
No matter how many guns laws they have on the books, whether it be a 3 month, 6 month 1year or even 2 years guns will continued to be used in crimes. So what is really the answer ban all guns! How stupid. Then only the criminals will have guns.What has to happen is very simple:
1: If you have a gun during a crime then you have automatic 25 years in prison with no chance of parole.
2. If you fire that gun whether you hit somebody or not is life in prison with no chance of parole.
This is of course on top of the punishment they would receive for the crime. For
example: Harmed Robbery could get 20 years for the offense plus the 25 years. Therefore you must do the 25 years first then the harmed robbery sentence of 20 years which the person could receive a parole after so many years. However, this could never happen because congress don' t have the guts to pass such a law. The ACLU would be all over them for the criminal s rights. You have to put in place a major deterrent if you have or use a gun in a crime.Joe Beninato
Edison, NJ
* * * You may have already seen this, but when I found it on the web I wanted to be certain to get it to you.
The Parable of the Sheep
by Charles RiggsNot so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"
One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.
That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them, crying, "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out, "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried. "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"
"Baaaaaaad!" cried the flock, "the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!" So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return.
Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!"
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying, "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!" But the flock drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!"
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!"
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!" And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter.
It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!" But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaad! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaad!"
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
© 1997 Charles Riggs
Thanks,
Edward L Schuetzle
Amarillo, TexasPS I just e-mailed this to Rosie Odonell also!
* * * Infringement on the 2nd. AmendmentGun Control
Mike is correct. Gun control is Citizen Control as seen by the extreme Left. They have an agenda, and only one agenda. (That agenda being to outlaw the ownership of any type of gun by each and every citizen of this country. )
As an ex municipal police officer I had many instances in which I effected traffic stops on speeders, etc. and I was amazed at the number of good citizens who informed me (unasked by me) that they were carrying a legal, registered handgun and had a license for same. (our state has a 'right to carry' law). I never once felt that I was in any danger by these honest citizens and when I asked to see their permits they were very willing to oblige and I never once found an expired carry permit! Sadly, some of them had allowed their driver's licenses to expire, but that is not unusual.
What scared me (and other officers) was the traffic stop which involved a person/persons with an outstanding warrant for felony charges. THESE are the dangerous criminals who do not give a damn about gun laws and/or licensing or human lives. I often "greeted" these types with a Mossberg 12 ga. shotgun at the ready and the laser sight shining on the head of the criminal always gave them pause to think twice about arguing with me. It was not out of the norm to seize weapons and drugs from these types.
Further, I never once worked a crime scene where a licensed carrier ever perpetrated an armed robbery, home intrusion, carjacking, rape, or assault with a firearm.
I would expect the Liberals to poo-poo this, but then most Liberals would never plan to become a police officer to begin with. Those few Liberals that DO become cops quickly become Conservatives after a year or two on the job....reality sets in.
Mick
* * * You do a great public service in presenting the whole truth about events and issues that are important to maintaining our security, and ensuring our survival as a free people. We don't get such unbiased reporting from the liberal mainstream media. I strongly believe that today, there is no issue more important than the preservation of the 2nd. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No issue is more misunderstood than the issue of gun control because some are unable to distinguish between the issues of gun control, and crime control.
You have a national forum to inject some truth into this discussion, and I offer a few thoughts for your consideration/edification, and respectfully appeal to you to vigerously oppose any further infringement of the 2nd. Amendment. By definition, infringe means, 1) "To break or break down; destroy; frustrate; impair. 2) To commit a breach of; violate. 3) To encroach; to trespass upon." (To paraphrase, you can't touch it except as outlined in Article V.)
I am deeply concerned that Bill Clinton, along with certain insurgent cronies in Congress would bypass the requirements of Article V, thereby violating their oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution." Violating the 2nd. Amendment is in fact amending the Constitution. Article V is unmistakably clear on this question. Two thirds of both Houses of Congress may PROPOSE an Amendment to the Constitution which then must be ratified by three-forths of the States to become law. A President is not involved, he cannot veto it, and his approval is not required. This gives rise to a very serious question. Why would Bill Clinton try to pressure his cronies in the Congress to undermine/subvert our Constitution in clear violation of Article V? Traitor in my dictionary is defined as "One who betrays a confidence or trust; one who acts perfidiously or treacherously; spec., one who violates his allegiance and betrays his country."
Regardless of the slant that government, the liberal media, and certain politicians would put on it, the incident at Waco was about gun control. So too was the incident at Ruby Ridge about gun control. So too was the events of 19 April 1775, at Concord and Lexington Massachusetts about gun control. When King George III sent his army to collect their guns, the colonists committed to giving their all to securing the right to keep and bear arms, thereby breaking the bonds of tyranny under English rule, the event that gave birth to these United States.
The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights; a list of things that government shall not do. The phrase "the right of the people" is used in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, with similar wording in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Is it any mystery then that one of the authors, Samuel Adams said "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Grady L. Mullins / GA
* * * Gun Control
Dittos from south Georgia.
I heard a report on the T.V. the other night about a man suffering from Mad Cow Disease or CJC (C -something Jacobs C-something). The USDA was clear to say that his disease could not be due to US meat products. They did say that he was an occassional hunter and the disease could be due to deer meat he had eaten.
I feel that it is only a matter of time before this issue is used to argue for gun control. Why are guns needed to kill deer only to eat the tainted meat? I can not see the logic in deer meat causing CJC though as deer are herbivores. Thanks for all the good work you do. My husband and I are looking forward to starting a family soon and wish the USA to be the GOOD OL' USA!
Thanks, Carla Slabaugh
* * * When they give weaponry to China and thereby other rogues, and want to disarm the citizenry - Congress is in a poll driven frenzy it seems too - this has me worried. I've been to a gun show, they have you join Washington Arms Collectors and wear or carry a tag that already INCLUDES a background check to purchase or sell. I was not as enthusiastic about the Puyallup Fair Grounds gun show as the fellow who invited me... not so much my thing, but I am glad these types are armed to the teeth. I think we should allow HONEST CITIZENS, those who've commited no crime and will not... to have whatever they feel they want. What're a few armor piercing helicoptor gunship anti aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, and full auto rifles or even low level tactical nuclear devices among friends? Gee, we may need a lot to deal with an upcoming Chinese invasion on the left coast here.
* * * Reduce crime, increase education, strengthen our military and more with 1 bill.
To whom it may concern:
This is a letter I have just sent the NRA but I thing you may be willing to do more about it. Really I am trying to start a grass roots support and I dont know how to do it. I think our defence of the 2nd ammendment is all wrong. We should promote it. Please read on and then respond. (by the wat I will be joining your organization because I believe more in the way you promote the concept of the second ammendment then the NRA however because of the good fight they have put up over the years, I will also be rejoining them.)Please forward this up the ladder of the association.
I have a concept which I would like to share with you.
The NRA has been at the forefront of the defense for the right to keep and bare arms. While I realize that the NRA has been pro-active on more than one occasion, Every action the NRA takes is in a defense mode. Education, training, competition, putting criminals away, Lobbying to prevent restrictions, these are all examples of things the NRA is doing to fight the Anti-gun lobby. This defense is even more difficult when you have to fight against the media.We (The pro-gunners) have become a target and a target makes a poor impression. However the Anti-gun lobby is getting plenty of shooting practice and with practice they like any shooter get better at what they do. They are hitting their targets.
It is time to change the way America thinks. It is time to get the thugs off the street. It is time to improve our economy and education. It is time for people and the NRA to say enough. It is time for a solution. It is time to stop defending the constitution and start promoting it. What I am about to propose is at first sight a bit radical but with some contemplation, sound and sensible, so much so that most would support it.
The NRA spends money and resources fighting ridiculous bills. It is time for the NRA to propose bills which the Anti's have to spend time to fight. The following is the idea with its effects: 18 months of military service should be made mandatory for all people at the age of 18 or 19 (upon completion of highschool.)Drop outs will be required to serve their term beginning 1 year after the date of dropping out. They will be required to serve 3 full years. During which time they will also earn their GED.
An exemption will be allowed for those going directly to Colleges and Universities. Their service will be postponed until they choose to begin service or their education or is completed. During their time in college they will however be required to participate in the ROTC program. If they complete 2 years in the ROTC program then their term of service will be reduced to 1 year.
Upon completion of the military service each person would be issued a rifle of their choice. In addition each person would be required to purchase a handgun, half of the price of which would be subsidized by the government. A person would be required to present these arms if ever called up for duty.
For those who do not meet the age criteria upon the passing of this bill there should be a reorganized DCM. Those able bodies that fall between the age of 20 - 50 and all others that wish to volunteer, would have to take a series of courses and qualify for their firearms.
Something to this effect would change the mind set of America. Those that Are caught using firearms in an illegal undertaking would be given life sentences! Make Firearm ownership mandatory. Make firearm safety courses mandatory.
It is time to stop defending the constitution and start promoting it.If a bill such as the one I have mentioned above were proposed and passed it would do the following:
1) Get the thugs and gang bangers off the street give them a place to go, something to care about and teach them true respect. It would also give them an opportunity for a career and college education.
2) Force people to complete their education
3) Reduce Drop out rates
4) Encourage university attendance
5) Promote gun safety and true knowledge about firearms.
6) Promote gun ownership
7) Give the youth more insight, training and the opportunity for a career as well as increase the maturity level of common courtesy and respect.
8) Strengthen our military and provide a readily trained force if ever needed, with their own weapons. (A true militia.)
9) Increase gun sales which would create more jobs and improve the economy.
10) Increase the number of jobs in the military and military spending and which would create more jobs in and of itself. These in turn would help the economy.
11) Reduce crime because the population would be armed.
12) Reduce or eliminate crime involving firearms because of supreme penalties.If nothing else even if it were only one bill at a time it would force the anti-gunners to use their resources to defend rather than attack. To date there has been no bill presented by the pro-gunners that has threatened the position of the anti-gunners. It is time we stopped defending and losing ground. It is time that we become the attackers and force the antis to defend their position and thus loose ground.
Please reply
Sincerely
Jonathan K. Crockett
* * * Gun Control
The handwriting is on the wall, and citizens of this country want a quick fix--, concerning their lives.
2/10 of 1% commit these crimes of rampage. Most likely these same people have criminal records. After all, it is almost a badge of honor to have been in prison, like it is the thing to opt for--and then make everyone feel that they are victims of the system.
98% of those owning guns for home defense or hunting know how to handle their weapons, and would not use them illegally. These are stats--which the anti-gun forces ignore. The criminal element is being held to a lower standard of law that the law abiding-- I am law abiding, know how to use it, and would not break any laws concerning my firearm. I do not want to become a criminal or to be criminalized in the future by the anti-gunners, who want control of this counrty, along with the U.N.
The people who own guns should join the NRA, the only organization who will defend our constitution, and take action to prevent the socialist/communist forces at work in our nation todismantle our constitution.
NRA member and a Lady Veteran.
* * * Gun Manufacturers Throwing In The Towel
What about Colt and Glock informing us that there will be no more manufacture of repeating pistols, except for the military? Supposedly the NRA just released this information today. What shall we do about this? Big Brother's just outgrown his britches.
Curt Bolding
cpboldin@uiuc.edu
* * * Gun Ban Poll
Yo Rush,
Today (October 6th) the CNN website featured a link to about.com's poll of the day, which dealt with gun control.The question was "Should privately owned firearms be banned?"
Here are the results:
19% Yes that would reduce the rate of violence (25411 votes) 60% No, that accomplishes nothing and violates individual rights (78223 votes)
20% Impose tough restrictions, but don't ban them (26240 votes) 1% Don't know (658 votes)
If 60% of this substantial number of people feel that privately owned guns should not be banned at all, that means that even some liberals must have voted against the banning of guns. Isn't that interesting?
By the way here's what Robert Frost said about liberals:"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." Have fun with this and keep up the good work.
Mirco
Thunder Bay, Ontariop.s. I get my daily e.i.b. fix from 93.5FM out of Hancock, MI.
* * * Gun Control:
Martial Arts could become out of control if the Martial Arts Schools didn't teach respect and self-control!
If teaching respect and self-control works with the Martial Arts, then we should be teaching all High School students (gals & guys) how to clean and properly shoot all types of guns while we teach then respectand self-control in the use of guns!
Guns would not become a source of power but just a tool like a knife, hammer, screwdriver, etc...
Lets promote the teaching of all High School students respect andself-control when handling a gun! Maybe teaching respect and self-control could also be part of sex education!
* * * Subject: : Must have been the Guns
Paul Harvey read this on his radio show:
For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colo. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because of half our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time.
It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption.It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.
It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.
It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.
It couldn't have been because our nation is the world leader in developing a culture of death in which 20 million to 30 million babies have been killed by abortion. It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teen-agers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.
It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences.What the heck, the president gets away with it!
Nah, it must have been the guns.
* * * Gun Control
Give a free hand to the third world Terrorists to take over the U.S.Take away the Guns from the "Law abiding" citizen.Help the Criminals. " BILL CLINTON" should wake up and smell the Commies on his staff who are trying to sell out the Country. The NRA is going to do nothing to protect our Gun Right Laws, they are out to fill there pockets with our money by using scare tactacts. Its about time that the Law Suite Public stops putting the blame on the Gun Manufactures " Guns DON'T KILL" people kill, get smart America before its too late, unless you like living in a Commie/Police-run Government.
Mike.
* * * Gun Control
Sir: I have been listing to this problem the U.S. has been wanting to disarm the U.S. public so the only the bad people have guns and the police.
I been doing a little reading in history and found that during the WW2 , the U.S. was under attack here in the states was in Alaska. The people were the Japanese. But what stopped them was weather and the army - (that is how the Alaskan highway was built to supply the war up in alaska). Also I found that these soldiers say that they would have attacked the lower half of the US, but didn't because we had a standing army of people that are armed here in this county and has been this way for a long time.
Now we have a person at the top who wants to disarm this county like Hitler did so he could take over the county without having people to able to fight back.When this happens not only does your standing man army of ex-military people and hunters, target shooters,disappear you are open to attack from every bad county in the world.
Thank You
Edward
Fitzgerald
* * * Every see a trigger pull itself?
* * * Guns
If Clinton really wanted his pals in hollywood, to stop making violent movies, he could by executive order.
He would only have to tell A.T.F. to stop issuing permits for machine guns to the movie studios. In fact they have no rights under the secound ammendment. They don't even have the right to have a starter's pistol. Does clinton really care. NO!!!! The American public has been lied to again.
A TRUE clinton HATER
DAVE FROM PADon't worry about the criminals on the street, it's the criminals in Washington DC that want to overturn the secound ammendment and the Constitution.
* * * Gun Control Not Answer to School Violence
Gun Control is a great way to divert attention from abysmal fundingon education. Todays schools are literally falling apart due to lack of funding. Any psychologist will tell you that when you pack twice as many school kids into a building as it was originally designed to hold and don't have enough teachers to supervise, the rate of violence will increase. If violent kids can't get guns, they will just find another means to be violent. As one Senator said why is it that a bad senator gets paid more than a good teacher? If the democrats really want to try to prevent future Columbines, start giving education the money it needs.
Gib Bissell, Kalispell Montana
* * * "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
* * * reprint from stockton record
GUN CONTROL LAWS ONLY LEAD TO DEATH, MISERY
Gun laws don't work. They never have and they never will. The recent shootings that have left many wounded and dead were just what the government was looking for: An excuse to remove the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and own a gun. By removing all firearms from citizens, the government is then able to dictate anything it wants and not fear a possible uprising. For years, governments have either restricted or confiscated firearms. The relationship between gun confiscation or restriction and genocide that took place will never be forgotten. Here are some of the facts:
(1) The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, were exterminated.
(2) Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and and exterminated.
(3) China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976, 20 million anti-communists, Christians, political dissidents, and pro-reform groups were rounded up and exterminated.
(4) Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
(5) Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
(6) Uganda established gun control in 1970. From1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
(7) Cambodia established gun control in 1956.From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were executed.
If you were adding up the numbers, the amount would total more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments; governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating guns. Freedrom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than all the Eric Harrises and Dylan Kiebolds of the world. A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. On the other hand, an unarmed citizen has no chance against a tyrannical government.
Alvin of Stockton, Ca.
* * * 25 Dead Children, One Taken By Federal Bureaucracy
The thing that ties together the stories on Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Clinton cover-ups, deaths of those who could hurt the Clinton administration and the victimization of thousands of other innocent people with laws like project exile (as applied to solely gun laws) are a worship of power by federal bureaucrats and politicians. The key part of that puzzle is in place. That is the unwillingness ofmidlevel bureaucrats to blow the whistle on operations they know violate the rights of others, the lying of one agency to another and even the involvement of the federal judiciary and the media. Such a climate allows the Hitlers and Clintons ofthe world to operate.
This is why you must communicate to you Congressman and Senators NO MORE GUN CONTROL.
Call your CONGRESSMAN now. This can be accomplished at the speed of light, thanks to WorldNetDaily's new Legislative Action Center. http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/ You can call your two Senators at (202) 224-3121 and your Representative at (202) 225-3121 at the Capitol Switchboard. Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/me
mbers/cdframe.htm
Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html
* * * (Monday, June 26, 2000) -- The Hostettler amendment to gut the Smith & Wesson agreement is scheduled to be voted on tonight. Having said that, there is a threat looming on the horizon -- a threat that may materialize in the House as early as tomorrow. The House is expected to begin debating H.R 4717, the Archer-Houghton "Full and Fair Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000" -- a bill that turns out to be neither full nor fair. H.R. 4717 would force affected organizations (like GOA) to release many, if not all, of the names and addresses of their members to the IRS -- a requirement which is blatantly unconstitutional. Many years ago, the state of Alabama had tried to get the names of NAACP members, but its attempts were beaten back by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama (1958).
Despite this obvious precedent, this bill is now targeting so-called 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations -- groups like GOA and NRA-ILA -- which cannot receive tax-deductible contributions from the public. In contrast, there are many liberal foundations that are set up as 501(c)(3) organizations -- groups like the Million Mom March Foundation which are limited in the amount of direct lobbying that they can do. Even so, these foundations can still spend up to $1 million per year in direct lobbying and conduct voter education campaigns while still receiving tax-deductible contributions.
All this to say: H.R. 4717 applies to 501(c)(4) organizations but not to 501(c)(3) organizations. Thus, this bill regulates GOA and NRA, but not anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, the Million Mom March Foundation or HCI's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Unfair? You bet it is. But the bigger issue is the threat this bill poses to the Constitution. This bill, sponsored by retiring Representative Bill Archer (R-TX), will allow Republicans to claim they have "done something" about campaign finance reform. But in doing so, they're blowing holes in the Constitution. The Supreme Court correctly noted in the NAACP decision that forcing groups to disclose their members'
names to the government would "constitute a[n] effective restraint on freedom of association."It goes without saying that an activist who sends a check to GOA to help protect his Second Amendment rights doesn't want his name being registered with the IRS as a gun owner. And for that reason, GOA will fight this bill "tooth and nail." And if this bill were to become law, GOA would not comply. We would fight it in court, and exhaust every possible resource, because we are not going to turn over our members' names
to the IRS.This underscores why it is SO VERY IMPORTANT that we defeat this bill in the Congress! GOA would rather spend its members' dollars defending 2nd Amendment freedoms, as opposed to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting 1st Amendment battles in court.
* * * A Victory And A Narrow Defeat Clinton & Wesson
Grassroots Pressure Encourages Nine Congressmen to Switch Votes-- Gun owners enjoy terrific victory, narrow defeat
ATTENTION: Please make use of the draft letter below to contact your Representatives.
(June 29, 2000) -- First, gun owners came within an inch of gutting the Clinton & Wesson agreement on Monday night. (See report and action item below) Second, after getting bombarded by thousands of angry activists, Representatives in the House voted on Wednes-day morning to leave gun rights activists and groups like Gun Owners of America alone.
Three Votes Would Have Made the Difference on Hostettler Provision
Under increasing pressure from the grassroots, nine Congressmen switched their earlier positions and cast their votes with Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN). His amendment would have prevented the Justice Department from enforcing any part of the Clinton & Wesson agreement, thus effectively barring the Clinton-Gore administration from unilaterally imposing gun control upon gun makers, gun dealers and gun buyers. Unfortunately, the Hostettler amendment narrowly failed by a vote of 201-196, partly due to the fact that many pro-gun Congressmen were still out of town and not present for the vote. (Votes taken on Monday will typically see many Representatives absent from the House chambers.) The vote can be in the Congressional Gun Votes section under House (106-2). Despite the narrow loss, Hostettler's office has told GOA that the Congressman plans to offer his amendment again. The next vehicle will be the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill which will probably come to the floor after the July 4th recess.
ACTION: Please contact your Representative and ask him to support the Hostettler amendment to the Treasury-Postal bill (which still does not have a number). Your good work has already persuaded nine Reps. to switch their votes. Keep applying the pressure! You can contact your Rep. toll-free at 1-888-449-3511, or you can visit him over the holidays while he is back in the district. For faxing or emailing, see the Legislative Action Center.
Target List: Several Reps. Need to Feel More "Heat" There are slightly more than 50 Congressmen in particular that need to be taken to the woodshed for casting anti-gun votes. Most of the NO votes against Hostettler's amendment were anti-gun Democrats. But many NO votes were cast by compromising Republicans and supposedly pro-gun Democrats.
Partial target list that includes 53 (of the 201) Representatives who cast anti-gun votes AGAINST Hostettler on Monday. These Reps. especially need to hear from you:
Bereuter (NE) Houghton (NY) Pryce (OH)
Bilbray (CA) Hyde (IL) Quinn (NY)
Boehlert (NY) Isakson (GA) Ramstad (MN)
Castle (DE) Johnson (CT) Rogan (CA)
Davis (VA) Kelly (NY) Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
Diaz-Balart (FL) King (NY) Roukema (NJ)
Dunn (WA) Kuykendall (CA) Saxton (NJ)
Ehlers (MI) LaTourette (OH) Shaw (FL)
Foley (FL) Leach (IA) Shays (CT)
Fossella (NY) LoBiondo (NJ) Simpson (ID)
Franks (NJ) McHugh (NY) Smith (NJ)
Frelinghuysen (NJ) McInnis (CO) Stupak (MI)
Gallegly (CA) Miller (FL) Sweeney (NY)
Ganske (IA) Northup (KY) Tancredo (CO)
Gilchrest (MD) Oberstar (MN) Upton (MI)
Gilman (NY) Obey (WI) Walsh (NY)
Greenwood (PA) Oxley (OH) Weller (IL)
Horn (CA) Porter (IL)Target list (Continued)
Dishonorable mention goes to the Crime Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), who missed the Hostettler vote on Monday. Quite frankly, it was probably a good thing he missed it, since he voted against Hostettler last week, thus helping to kill his amendment. (That particular amendment sought to keep the Department of HUD from enforcing the Smith & Wesson agreement.)
To ensure Rep. McCollum does not continue voting anti-gun, GOA encourages ALL Florida gun owners to contact him over the holidays. Since Rep. McCollum is running for Senate, he would certainly appreciate hearing from ALL Florida gun owners at 202-225-2176.
House Retreats on Forcing Lobby Groups to Hand Over Activists' Names
On Wednesday morning, gun owners dodged a bullet when the House backed away from its plan to force lobby groups like GOA to disclose many, if not all, of its members' names. GOA alerted activists on Monday about the impending vote on H.R. 4717. Subsequently, House members and leaders came under intense grassroots pressure, and thus, formulated a substitute bill (H.R. 4762) that only covered so-called 527 organizations. Grassroots activists get the credit for shooting down the original bill. "We just couldn't get it [passed]," said Rep. Amo Houghton, a New York Republican who wrote the bill. "It had too many people with too many pieces that they hated."
Make no mistake. Even the substitute bill sacrifices constitutional freedoms on the altar of campaign finance reform. H.R. 4762 passed easily since it only covered those political organizations that are formed under Section 527 of the tax code. (There are relatively few 527s in existence.) The 527s are political organizations that primarily affect elections by running issue ads and making political expenditures without advocating the defeat or election of a particular
candidate.H.R. 4762 quickly moved to the Senate where it passed this morning on a 92-6 vote. The bill would force 527s to disclose any contributor who gives more than $200, and to report any expenditure of more than $500. Gun Owners of America will not be affected by the legislation as passed by the House and Senate.
Federal Alerts
Dear Representative:
I was disappointed to see that the Hostettler amendment to H.R. 4690 (the Commerce-Justice-State bill) failed on June 26. That amendment is desperately needed to rein in an executive department that is out of control. I understand that there will be at least one more opportunity to vote for this amendment since Rep. Hostettler plans to offer it to the Treasury-Postal funding bill.
The Hostettler amendment will prevent the Clinton-Gore administration from enforcing the recent Smith & Wesson agreement. That agreement is not just limited to S & W. This terrible agreement would also regulate and restrict the sales of guns made by Beretta, Browning, Ruger, etc.
Furthermore, the Clinton-Gore administration imposed this gun control upon dealers and gun buyers without the consent of Congress. Since when can the President act like a legislature?
The Clinton administration has no business imposing gun control upon the nation through agreements that are extorted from the gun industry. It is shameful that the administration uses the threat of lawsuits to implement far-reaching gun control agreements. I hope you will support the Hostettler amendment to the Treasury-Postal funding bill when it comes to the floor. Please let me know what you intend to do. Thank you.
Sincerely,
* * * I found these quotes recently and thought you'd like to see them, although I'm certain that none of them are new to you and your staff.
For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!
- Adolf Hitler, 1935Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
- Mahatma GandhiAn armed society is a polite society.
- Robert A. Heinlein
* * * Article II of the "Constitution of the United States"
I hear a lot about the 2nd amendment to the constitution "the right to keep and bear arms" and I fully agree that we as a free police state need the 2nd amendment for the purpose that it was intended for "To Keep Our Government in Check". How do we do that if we pose no real threat to the standing government? By what means de we have other than the pen to defeat them and what real threat is that.
I feel that the largest mistake the people have made to date was to be gulled into was the thought that we no longer needed an active draft. This in my eyes was the beginning of the end. At one time we had the largest trained standing civilian army.
With every year that passes the number of trained defenders of this land grows smaller and smaller until there will be no one left who has the skills to defend there family, property, or fellow country men.
I feel that all the laws and miss-leading information that is released by our news agencies on the behalf of our government or parts of it, is a shrewd means of abridging the second amendment to the constitution. Making small and large incidents seemly linked into some large movement that threatens the very fabric of this land. In my studies of the constitution I can not find a reference that gives our law enforcement the right to carry any weapon, firearm, or gun that any resident 21 years of age in this great land should have the right to keep, bear and most of all own.
I have lived all over this country and the places that I have found to have the lowest crime rates and the safest places to live and raise children are the states that have the right to carry.
I feel that if the pen has any chance of over turning the state we find our self's in you are the spear head of that movement.
Thank you for letting me pass my thoughts on to you.With great admiration and thanks for your work.
Glenn Frantz
Kalkaska, Michigan
* * * "It's The Bullets Stupid!"
The Constitution states there is "Right to Bare Arms;"fine, what about the bullets. In the good old days of founding fathers it took about a minute to load a black powder flintlock and shoot it. A double barrel shotgun was considered a hi-tech weapon affordable only to the very rich of those days. Uzi's and AK-47's and rapid-fire pistols were beyond their wildest version of science fiction. Bullets on the other hand weren't even mentioned in the Constitution.
We should treat bullets like drugs? Think of the gun as the syringe and bullets as the drug. Restrict and tax the hell out of bullets and bullet making machines and materials. This country has been at war against drug suppliers for thirty years because it is destroying our youth. Bullets seem to be running a close second. Let's declare war on the suppliers of bullets and stop the useless killings.
With our technology, it would be easy to put a serial number on every bullet and every casing before it is sold. It would then be possible to track bullets used in crimes back to the suppliers. We're spending billions on the drug war stopping the suppliers of drugs. Regulating bullets won't cost us a thing, we can make the manufactures put on the serial numbers and the dealers can record the sales! Why, we could even add a little tax on each one of those little bullets while we're at it. An added incentive to keep them honest and make a few bucks for Social Security; no pun intended. The NRA is so fond of stating, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's the Bullets Stupid! not the guns that kill people.
Sure there is the odd instance where some criminal beats they're victim to death with their gun because they ran out of bullets. But it's the bullet that usually does the damage. That's the part of the gun that comes out and kills and cripples the innocent victims we see so much of in the media today. Control the distribution of the bullets, their manufacturing supplies and equipment as well as require serial numbers on every bullet and casing sold. This is what it's going to take to change our gun-crazed life style. Put an identity and a responsibility on every bullet used. Like drugs, the gun is only a syringe for bullets. The only problem is the user is usually injecting hot lead into somebody else's body. In medicine syringes play an important role as long as there is control over their uses. Guns to have their place in society, as long as there is control over the distribution and responsibility for use of each and every bullet.
Why do people need to keep thousands of bullets any way? For target practice! If they can't hit the target with fifty bullets, they sure aren't going to do it with a thousand. Let the legitimate target ranges or the NRA provide bullets to the true sportsman. If those bullets were to be used during a crime they would be liable to the victims family for damages. If we create strict laws that control the distribution of bullets. Create a chain of product liability from the bullet back to the user and the manufacturer or supplying entity, similar to those laws that protect us from other lethal and dangerous products. That would allow victims families to sue the sources of the bullets that killed or maimed their loved ones. When manufacturers and dealers would be fined billions of dollars for letting bullets fall into the hands of criminals. You can bet there will be a lot fewer bullets in the hands of cooks and criminals. Like they say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "They" just don't get it; It's the Bullets Stupid! They kill the people.
Rob O'Neill
* * * "Gun Control"
The statistics have just come in -- in the year after Britain enacted its gun confiscation law (enacted in 1998), violent crime with the use of firearms has risen nationwide by 10%, despite the fact that the government told its subjects that gun confiscation would "reduce crime." This is exactly the same thing that happened in Australia -- in the year after the enaction of gun confiscation, gun-related violent crime rose 40% nationwide in Australia, and 300% in Victoria Province! Again, said gun confiscation was done in the name of "crime reduction." Sure. Right. Tell that to all the new crime victims who might not have been victimized if they'd had access to firearms for self defense...Scott from California
* * * Some simple common sense...
Recent spates of misguided knee-jerk liberalism here in Colorado have induced me to pen the following passage:
When anti-firearm reactionaries cry out for gun control in the wake of a media-inflated gun crime, what are they really asking for? Are they expecting society's salvation to magically happen with the words "gun control"? Unfortunately, most proponents of gun control have little grasp of the realities of guns in America.To take a credibly serious stance on this issue, it is important to understand the source of guns that are involved in crimes. The vastly overwhelming majority of illegally used firearms in this country are not obtained through routine channels. These weapons are not purchased from legitimate firearm dealers. They are neither registered with nor accounted for by any government agency. Many were on the streets years before the government began to enact any sort of control measures, their serial numbers never officially recorded by anyone other than their manufacturers.
Others are smuggled into our country by the thousands, most easily from Mexico. The most well-intentioned gun controls our legislators can author will never have any binding influence over the possession or use of any of these weapons. The federal, state, and local governments cannot control a gun that they can't individually track and monitor. Yet these are the very weapons which are used to commit over 99% of gun-related crimes.
This is not conjecture, but rather simple fact. Ask any member of the law-enforcement community; I have, and am not surprised to find that this statement is true. (Hotly contested issues such as this require at least a modicum of research, which sadly falls behind blunt, ignorant passion.) The only feasible target for any gun control legislation would be the relationship between an authorized dealer and the purchaser, and the ownership of a weapon in that purchaser's home.
What more can weapons dealers do, than they are already doing as required by existing laws? A firearm dealer doesn't blindly sell a gun over the counter without first obtaining authorization from the state government, based on a background check of the potential purchaser. Once the sale is OK'ed and the new gun owner leaves with his purchase, there is nothing a dealer can realistically be required to do to track the weapon; the onus of responsibility is now on the owner. While no supporter of the Second Amendment can deny that there are those legitimate buyers who use their guns in the committing of a crime, those crimes comprise an exceedingly tiny percentage of all gun-related offenses.
While most of these new owners are law-abiding citizens who would never dream of committing a crime, many are not familiar with the care and use of weapons. Sadly enough this is where accidental injury or death sometimes occurs, particularly in homes with young children. This is an area where gun laws would perhaps be useful by requiring certified, verifiable training in the responsible ownership and use of firearms.
Any other, more restrictive legislation would do nothing to stem the tide of gun-crime. Preventing decent, law-abiding citizens from owning firearms will have no effect on the gun-toting criminals who carry weapons unhampered and untouchable by shortsighted laws. Rather, the scales would tip farther in favor of those who cheat their way through life, at the expense of good folk bereft of the capacity to defend themselves, their homes, or their families.
I have a two-year-old daughter. I also own a handgun. She will never even know this weapon, which is locked away at all times, exists until she is old enough to attend handgun safety and training courses herself.
I am also a former Army Infantryman with twelve years of proud and honorable service. I have served nearly all of my time abroad, including a tour each in the Gulf War and Bosnia. The plight of those incapable of defending themselves has been my calling in recent years, and I have seen what happens to those who can't fight back. With our NATO allies, we've prevented the slaughter of countless more innocent Bosnians. But having defended a foreign people in their country, I'll be damned before I'll allow any stunted laws to prevent me from protecting my own family, on my own soil.
William R. Milligan, Colorado Springs
* * * The California Department of Justice has proposed new definitions and rules for firearms and accessories. Below is my reply to them.
If you wish to have a fax of what they sent me, please leave a message at (619) 466-5735.
The DOJ notice of May 10, 2000 regarding the "Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations" allows written comments until no later than 30 May 2000 at 5:00 PM.
I wish to restate that I am not a NRA member or a member of any local gun club. I am a peace officer under section 830 PC and a California Military Veteran..
I am appalled by the DOJ's new definitions. It is obvious to me that who ever wrote them is not familiar with firearms or wishes to include MORE FIREARMS THAN EVER BEFORE in these NEW DEFINITIONS.
I am beginning to believe that a total or practical gun banning is beginning here in California. I have been a supporter of "reasonable" gun laws and "get tough" on criminals but the NEW DEFINITIONS listed below PUNISH ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
As the DOJ notice indicated, I am addressing my comments regarding these NEW DEFINITIONS to the modifications of the text. See attached.
A Frustrated California Citizen,
John
An Example of the new definitions:
978.20 (a) The NEW DEFINITION presented by the California Department of Justice to describe a detachable magazine is: ""detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or the use of a tool."
The Dictionary definition per "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" By Barnes & Noble Books 1996 (ISBN 0-7607-0288-8) defines "magazine" as in "detachable magazine" as "4. a metal receptacle for a
number of cartridges, inserted into certain types of automatic weapons and when empty removed and replaced by a full receptacle in order to continue firing." Metal can be replaced with plastic without altering the definition.The Dictionary definition per "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" By Barnes & Noble Books 1996 (ISBN 0-7607-0288-8) defines "cartridge clip" as "a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine rifle or automatic pistol."
A REVOLVER has its reloader (a cartridge clip) now defined as a "detachable magazine" because it is an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. The reloader clip holds the end of the cartridges in a circle allowing easy reloading. The movement of the cylinder to unload empty cartridges and reload is like the opening the action of the rifle to reload. Some single action revolvers allow replacement of the entire cylinder in a similar manner.
BOLT ACTION weapons fit this new definition of a "detachable magazine" because most bolt action weapons can be fed with a stripper clip. A stripper clip is a piece of metal that holds the crimped part of the cartridge in line for easy reloading. The stripper clip is an ammunition feeding device now called a "detachable magazine."
WEAPONS NEVER CONSIDERED as having a "detachable magazine" before now fit the new definition of a "detachable magazine."
The new definition now defines as a "detachable magazine" a cartridge clip used on the fixed 8 shot M-1 Garand semi automatic rifle and similar models. Please note that the M1 Garand rife can be fed with a stripper clip also. The M1 cartridge clip is a three sided piece of metal that holds the cartridges that feeds the ammunition into the weapon.
Tubular magazines that are popular in semi automatic .22L (twenty two caliber long rifle) rifles and center fire lever action weapons also fit this definition since part of the tubular magazine comes apart without the use of a tool. Since part of the tubular magazine can be readily removed to empty or fill the magazine it is an ammunition feeding device now defined as a "detachable magazine."
Interestingly enough this new definition would also include feeder tubes for tubular magazines that are often seen with .22L semi automatic rifles. A feeder tube is is nothing more than a tube holding the exact number of rounds to be poured into a tubular magazine. Since this is an ammunition feeding device that can be attached and readily removed without disassembly of the firearm action it too is now a detachable magazine. Feeder tubes can also be used to some degree to load lever action center fire weapons and shotguns.
978.20 (d) You have now removed the definition of "permanentlyaltered" which now means that NO FIREARM CAN BE ALTERED in any way
either temporarily or permanently.978.30 I am not a dealer, but it is apparent that this seems to include private citizens. I fear that if any dealer or private citizen is not "liked" or "favored" in any manner that they can be "punished" by the California Department of Justice very easily. This by simply by not acting on any application or renewal or even claiming the paper work was not received during the most busy part of the United States Postal season. This leaves the dealer or private citizen unable to sell orposses. Their only option is to give the property up.
978.31 The time period of the "fee" is not defined for "Assault Weapon Registration." Is this a one time fee? It does not appear to be. I get the impression this is setting up citizens to have to register weapons on an annual basis. This seems to be "new fees" simply for possession and forcing the owner to reapply to keep the weapon time after time after time.
If the California Department of Justice fails to process the application (978.32) in a timely manner because of "ill will" or any any other reason the owner needs to appeal (additional hidden costs) and resubmit. I can see this cycle being repeated over and over until the honest citizen has spent a large amount of money for a weapon he can not sell, give away or will to anyone but the government. The government, Ibelieve, will be happy to take one of these nasty weapons off the street for free. Or will there be a new fee or a fine for this in the future?
* * * Million Mom's Failure
The following article appeared in my local newspaper, and I thought it summed up my thoughts on why government programs are so popular."To the "Million Mom" marching this weekend against guns: Ask yourselves why, several decades ago, when no background checks were required and anyone of any age could pick up a gun at a hardware store or get one through the mail, why, when guns were so much more available, were mass shootings and school shootings virtually unheard of?
I can think of one reason: You moms haven't been doing your job of raising your kids right. Having failed to pass moral values on to you children, you now look to the government to patch things up. Unfortunately, government efforts to "keep guns out of the hands of children" are proving no more effective than they are in covering up your other failures in child rearing.
Posting "Drug Free Zone" signs outside schools hasn't made up for your failure to teach you kids to reject drugs, and sex education classes taught by the Department of Education can't undo your failure to teach your kids the basics of morality.
Rather than face you own failures, it's easier to look for a scapegoat. But why blame the NRA for "gun violence?" The NRA stands for responsible gun use by responsible people."
Don
* * * Dear Katie and Producers:
I am a 35-year old mother and was appauled when I watched the Today Show this morning. While viewing Katie's interview with Wayne LaPierre of theNRA, I could not believe the expressions on Katie's face. It could not have been more obvious who's side she was on. I thought the press and reporters were supposed to be non-biased. Does that change once you start making the big bucks? Your job, Katie, is to bring us objective news reporting...nothing more than that.
The first question out of your mouth was "Why are you doing this?" Please feel free to view your incredibly angry face on the tape. If looks could kill, Mr. LaPierre would be out of your misery.
I would ask this of you and your producers. Katie, have you ever viewed an Eddie Eagle video. My husband and I purchased one recently and showed it to my son. No one in the media seems to be concerned about how our children find out about gun safety. We may put every criminal behind bars, require licensing and gun locks. However, that does not stop our children from
picking up a gun at another child's home and shooting it because they have never been told any differently.We cannot continue to sweep the cause of these problems under the rug. Parents have a responsibility to their children. Keeping their guns put away, and teaching their children how to be responsible by not touching them. Unless you just fell out of the sky, you may find this hard to believe, but many parents "DON'T" educate their children on anything anymore. They wait for the schools to do that for them...be it sex education, AIDS awareness or any other subject they don't feel comfortabletalking about.
If the people who chose to bring their children into this world refuse to take responsibility for teaching their children about safety, who will? You? I hope not. Because if your opinion was the only one that mattered, we would be run much like the home of Elian Gonzales. You are not my dictator, Katie. You are a simple reporter who has allowed fame to go to your head. If you want to have your opinion expressed on a show, the morning news is not the way to go. Even if you said nothing, your facial features spoke volumes.
I am not a member of the NRA, but my husband is. I reserved the right to decide on my own if it was an organization I wanted to be involved in. Well, thanks to you, Katie, and your cohorts and NBC, I will be contacting them as well to make my opinions known and to add my name to their membership roster.
I, like the mothers of the Million Mom March, want to protect my child from violence in the best way I know how. In America, we have a Second Amendment that allows us to have a gun for our own protection as well as the protection of our family. That is what this country was founded on.
Protecting ourselves from the violent offenders who keep getting set free so that they may kill again is not the answer, adding yet another law to the books is not the answer either. I believe gun locks are a wonderful idea, but I also believe we are dilusional if we think that they will solve all of the violence problems. Criminal minds will not change because we wiggle our noses and tell them to change. Criminal minds have been around since biblical times. We must protect ourselves, protect our children and protect our country.
By putting the criminals away, not for just a while, but for their full sentence would certainly make a criminal think about what they have done and make them not want to do it again.
Guns are out there and always will be. So will criminals. However, we can protect our children through education. Knowledge is power.
Diann Bayes
* * * The following article appeared in my local newspaper, and I thought it summed up my thoughts on why government programs are so popular.
"To the "Million Mom" marching this weekend against guns: Ask yourselves why, several decades ago, when no background checks were required and anyone of any age could pick up a gun at a hardware store or get one through the mail, why, when guns were so much more available, were mass shootings and school shootings virtually unheard of?
I can think of one reason: You moms haven't been doing your job of raising your kids right. Having failed to pass moral values on to you children, you now look to the government to patch things up. Unfortunately, governm