Dial 911 and DIE !

Copyright 1992 by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership THE BAD NEWS: YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN Most Americans believe that their local police have a duty in Law to protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong. And some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by ignorant or dishonest politicians or police chiefs, who promise protection that they cannot give and have no legal duty to give. Some of these officials know they have no legal duty to protect the average person, and yet still support disarming law abiding people, the better "to protect" them from criminals! Front line police officers sometimes are verbally abused by victims of criminals who wrongly believe that police officers have a duty to protect the law abiding. These good citizens blame the police officer for not doing a job for which he/she has never been responsible: protecting the average person against criminals. THE POLICE: WE SERVE EVERYONE, BUT NO ONE IN PARTICULAR U.S. law is based on English Common Law. In English Common Law "the Sheriff" is a government employee whose main job is enforcement of government decisions: seizure of property, arrest of persons wanted by the authorities, collection of taxes, etc. Maintenance of public order, a secondary duty, was done to the extent resources allowed. POLICE PROTECTION = POLICE STATE It was obvious _ 500 years ago in England and in America now - that a sheriff could not be everywhere at once. It was - and is - equally clear that to protect every person would require an army of Sheriffs (or Sheriffs deputies) [or The Assize of Arms, 1181 A.D., the Early Militia Law] Maintaining an Army of police officers - in effect a police state - would nullify the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. Neither the Framers of the Constitution - nor their successors - wanted to avoid the risk of harm to some individual arising from criminals' activity by creating a police state that inevitably would harm every individual.

POLICE STATE OR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS? Instead, the Framers provided for a judicial system to deal with criminals, persons who abused the Freedoms provided by the Constitution. The Framers assumed that a law abiding person would largely be responsible for his/her own safety. As a matter of Law, that assumption still is valid.

THE GOOD NEWS:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESUMES INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF ARMS

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is based on individual ownership of arms. Generally, the Framers avoided stating the obvious. So, they did not word the amendment, "A well ... State, the right of every person ...infringed." That is, the Framers assumed that every person would look after his own security, and of necessity would be armed. They saw no need to state so obvious a truth.

THE MILITIA: ARMED PERSONS ASSEMBLED FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES

Rather, the Framers wanted to emphasize what they felt would be obvious: that armed individuals may lawfully assemble to use their Arms only to defend the State based on the U.S. Constitution (but not to overturn the Constitution). This is, perhaps, why the words Militia, State, and Arms are capitalized. When armed individuals gather for lawful purposes - e.g., defense of the Constitution - they are "the Militia." A 20th Century derivative of "the Militia" is the National Guard, which has existed since 1901. It is an arm of the Federal Government: "Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state Guard unit." [Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 89-542, (1990) L.Ed. 2d 312]. Thus, the National Guard exists to enforce government policy. It is not the "Militia", but a "Militia." U.S. Law states that a "State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States." [32 U.S.C. sec. 109(C)]. Nonetheless, few states now do so. If the Federal authorities used the Army or National Guard to change the Constitutional order - or a State governor so abused a state militia - a disarmed citizenry would be helpless. The Framers did not want this. Generations of their successors have agreed. As a result, the Framers wanted the wording of the Second Amendment to make it clear that armed individuals could gather together for specified lawful purposes, e. g., defense of the Constitution and the Liberties it proclaims.

UNCONTROLLED CRIMINALS SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION

The Framers felt no need to state that individuals would use arms to defend themselves against common criminals, protection against whom the government never promised to provide, and, indeed, never has had an obligation to provide. It is only the failure of the government to control criminals in recent decades that has called into question the validity of the individual right to own arms for the essential purpose of defending the Constitution. This is as much an individual duty as is personal self defense.

THE LAW: THE POLICE ARE NOT THERE FOR YOU

State and city governments - rather than the Federal authorities - are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)]. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:.. there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].

There are a few, very narrow exceptions. In 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that: "In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require the police to act on behalf of a particular individual. ... Liability is established, therefore, if police have specifically undertaken to protect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied upon the undertaking.... Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983)]. As a result, the government - specifically, police forces - has no legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril. The only exceptions are a person who:

 has helped the police force (e.g., as an informant or as a witness)

 can prove that he/she has specifically been promised protection and has, as a result, done things that he/she otherwise would not have done.

RELY ON THE POLICE: AND PAY HEAVILY

New York: Steady Threats from a Known Source Mean Nothing

Even someone repeatedly threatened by another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physically harmed.

In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend, who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." She repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail. Nothing was done to help her. When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City Police Department for help: "Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused." The next day, she was attacked: a "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her face, She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss had no right to protection. The Court refused to create such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. Only the legislature could create a right to protection:

"The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by a considered legislative executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection ... even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits."

Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victimized not only because she had relied upon the police to protect her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbid her to own a weapon. Judge Keating wrote: "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

California: An Imminent Death Threat Means Nothing

Even a person whose life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help. On 4 September 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming to her house to kill her. In the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made at least 20 calls and responses to Mrs. Bunnell's home ...allegedly related to complaints of violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters." Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California Court of Appeal held that any claim against the police department: "is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly section 845, which states: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection.'" [Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].

Washington, D.C.: Rape Is No Cause For Concern

If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March 1975: two intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female house mate. After calling the police, Warren and another house mate took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer. The police officers left without checking the back door.

Warren again called the police and was told they would respond. Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the house mate, thus revealing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up all three women. "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual; acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of (the intruders-ed.)." The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that: "the fundamental principle (is-ed.) that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.' ...The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." In an accompanying memorandum, the Court explained that the term "special relationship" did not mean an oral promise to respond to a call for help. Rather, it involved the provision of help to the police force. [Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].

Illinois: School Teachers Get No Help Either

On 20 April 1961, Josephine M. Keane, a teacher in the Chicago City Public Schools was assaulted and killed on school premises by a student enrolled in the school. Keane's family sued the City of Chicago, claiming that, "the City was negligent in failing to assign police protection to the school, although it knew or should have known that failure to provide this protection would result in harm to persons lawfully on the premises (because) it knew or should have known of the dangerous condition then existing at the school." The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Presiding Judge Burke of the Appeals Court held that, "Failure on the part of a municipality to exercise a government function does not, without more, expose the municipality to liability." Justice Burke went on to say that: "To hold that under the circumstances alleged in the complaint the City owed a special duty' to Mrs. Keane for the safety and well being of her person would impose an all but impossible burden upon the City, considering the numerous police, fire, housing and other laws, ordinances and regulations in force." [Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460 (1968)].

North Carolina: Helpless Children Don't Count

Even defenseless children merit no special care. On 3 June 1985 police tried to arrest a man and his "girlfriend," both of whom were wanted on multiple murder charges, and who were known to be heavily armed. The alleged murderers - along with the "girlfriend's two sons, aged nine and ten years - tried to flee in a car. As the police closed in after a running shoot out, the children were poisoned with cyanide and then shot in the head either by the mother or her "boy friend," one of whom then blew up the vehicle, killing both. The boy's father - who had filed for divorce - sued the law enforcement agencies and officers for "wrongful death" of his sons. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them (the children - ed.) any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death ...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect the individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special relationship of the type stated did not exist ...Plaintiff's argument that the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permitting dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured or killed would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." [Lynch v. N.C.Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E.2nd 247 (N.C.App. 1989)].

Virginia: Wrongful Release = Wrongful Death? Wrong!

Marvin Mundy murdered Jack Marshall in Virginia. Mundy - convicted for carrying a concealed pistol - was sent to jail by a judge who expressed concern that Mundy, "might kill himself of a member of the public." Mundy was mistakenly released from jail 8 days later. Nine days later he was re-arrested on an unrelated charge. Five hours later, the same jailer and sheriff released him, apparently without checking to see if that was proper. Three weeks later Mundy robbed and murdered Marshall. Marshall's widow sued, alleging negligence on the part of the sheriff and jailer, and asserting a violation of Jack Marshall's right to due process. The Court rejected the claim: ". . . a distinction must be drawn between a public duty owed by the official to the citizenry at large and a special duty owned to a specific identifiable person or class of persons. ... Only a violation of the latter duty will give rise to civil liability of the official. ... to hold a public official civilly liable for violating a duty owed to the public at large would subject the official to potential liability for every action he undertook and would not be in society's best interest." ... no special relationship existed that would create a common law duty on the defendants to protect the decedent (Marshall - ed.) from Mundy's criminal acts. Similarly, without a special relationship between the defendants and the decedent, no constitutional duty can arise under the Due Process Clause as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Therefore, plaintiff's (Mrs. Marshall - ed) due process claim also must fall." [Marshall v. Winstonm, 389 S.E.2nd 902 (Va. 1990)].

THE BOTTOM LINE: YOUR LIFE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS

These cases - and there are many others - show clearly that under U.S. law:

 no individual has a right to police protection, even when life is in clear and immediate peril.

 there is no right to police protection simply because there are not enough police resources available to enable every person who feels threatened to be protected;

 to make police officers answerable to individual citizens for a failure to provide protection would make police officers afraid to do anything for fear that an action - or inaction - would expose them to civil liability.

This is unavoidable:

 Life is risky

 the police cannot be everywhere at once

 it is impossible to hire enough police officers to protect every person who needs it or thinks he/she needs it

No one can or should rely on the local police force to defend him- or her-self, even against a specific threat coming from a known source. Each of us is responsible for ensuring his or her personal safety. Anyone who says, "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you," at best is mis-informed and at worst is simply lying. To offer such advice suggests that police have a duty to provide protection and usually will provide it. The police have no such duty. And, while the police may try hard to provide protection - and a failure to do so can be catastrophic - there is no legal recourse for person harmed by that failure.

WHAT WE NEED LEAST: GUN BANS AND WAITING PERIODS

"Gun control" is founded on a total misunderstanding of the role of the police in our society. "Gun control" advocates presuppose the police have a duty to protect every individual. But, as proved above, the police have never had this duty, and indeed, cannot have it so long as the Constitution remains in force. Therefore, bans on gun ownership - or imposition of a waiting period before a gun may be purchased - simply give an attacker a legally protected window of opportunity to do you harm. Moreover, "gun control" makes the law abiding person less able and willing to take responsibility for his/her own defense. We will never eliminate criminals. But we must do far more to curb them. That is what the Constitution requires. Many police forces are under strength. But it is quite clear that to enable the police to defend each and every one of us, would require us to set up here a police state that makes Joe Stalin's Russia look like a "love boat" cruise ship. That is not the lesser of two evils - i.e., better than letting criminals run free - it is the greater.

WHAT WE NEED MOST: NATION-WIDE CONCEALED CARRY

A law abiding person's security - as a matter of Law and a matter of Fact - is in his or her own hands. Even if we had effective criminal control - and we are far from that happy state of affairs - each law abiding person would still be responsible for his/her own safety. Any law abiding person should be able legally to carry firearms, concealed, as this is the best way to enable such persons to protect themselves. It is a potent deterrent: the criminal would not know who was, and who was not, armed. It would enable a person who had been threatened - and was not entitled to police protection - to have at hand the means to protect him- her-self.

THE FUTURE: NO MORE KILLEEN MASSACRES

Concealed carry is not a panacea. A criminal would always have the advantage of the first shot. But if the intended victim(s) were lawfully entitled to carry a concealed firearm, the criminal's first shot could be his/her last. If concealed carry of firearms were Federal Law, massacres such as occurred in Killeen Texas would almost certainly become a thing of the past. The criminal would be killed, quickly, by one of the intended victims. Licensing is not needed, simply because criminals now carry concealed weapons at will. Licensing would only affect the 99+ percent of Americans who own firearms, and who do not abuse them. What purpose is served by the costly building of huge files on law abiding people? Moreover, is not the presumption in U.S Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? It is better that we enact and strictly enforce harsh penalties for concealed carry by those legally debarred from firearms ownership - persons with criminal records of violence - the more so if commission of a crime were involved.

LIFE OR DEATH: IT'S UP TO YOU

Wise-up those who back "gun control" _ Federal, State, and local law-makers, law enforcement chiefs, prosecutors, and media personalities _ that the police have no duty to protect you. Let them know that their support for "gun control" puts your life at risk. Send them a copy of this Special Report. Urge them to ditch "gun control" and to lobby urgently for nation-wide concealed carry. Your life depends on it.

-- glockyglock (freeman@guns=free.com), May 15, 1999

Answers

"(The first American Police Force was not organized until 1845). As Don Kates points out, "Even then [in England and America] the police were forbidden arms, under the view that if these were needed they could call armed citizens to their aid. (Ironically, the only gun control in nineteenth century England was the policy of forbidding police to have arms while on duty.)"

Excerpted from...The Second Amendment Primer written by Les Adams, Palladium Press

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), May 15, 1999.

Your government has put us all in an untenable position: If we don't carry the means to protect ourselves, we are at risk from private thugs. If we do carry the means to protect ourselves, we are at risk from government thugs.

The solution is outlined in the novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Available from Loompanics (http://www.loompanics.com) or Amazon (http://www.Amazon.com). (Just copy and paste a URL into your browser "location" window, you don't need a fricking hot link.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 15, 1999.

This is MinnesotaSmith, author of the Y2K-preparatory website http://y2ksafeminnesota.hypermart.net. The article above is absolutely great. Thank you for posting it.

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 15, 1999.

I agree, the article is outstanding, and my thanks also for posting it. Folowing is a letter I sent to our Spineless Texas Senators this morning, I would urge each of you to send one of your own.

Senators Hutchinson and Gramm. I am deeply saddened, and frankly angered by the Republican majority caving in to the Socialist Democrats gun control plans this week. Anyone with even a passing aquaintence with the United states Constitution can tell you that the primary reason for the Second Amendment is to ensure that the People shall retain sufficient and capable weaponry to defend themselves against domestic government run amok, and against foreign invasion.

All attacks against So-Called assault weapons in this light are clearly Unconstitutional, and represent a clear and present danger to our Constitutionally Acknowledged God Given rights. Your support of said legislation is a clear violation of your Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution Of the United States.

We The People of the Great State of Texas have elected you as our Representative in this in our Republican form of Government. Your job, as our Representative, is not to bow to every opinion poll or political action committee, but to stand firm on Constitutional Issues. This is the entire reason we have a Republican form of government, to prevent democratic chaos and anarchy from rendering this into a nation without direction, guided only by the polls of the moment. Our Freedoms as Citizens of this once great nation are under constant assault by the NWO globalist and the Socialist Democrats who pursue their agenda and their money.

Please rejoin the ranks of Patriotic Americans who are fighting a last rearguard action against the destruction of our National Sovereignity, and of our Rights as American Citizens. We have seen the Treasonous actions of our President place this country in great peril from nuclear anihilation, and his Unconstitutional declaration of war against Serbia, which is further destabilizing an already intolerably dangerous situation. His destruction of the American Military coupled with the castration of our nuclear defenses and insane foreign policy have led us to a point of extreme vulnerability, and in fact invite an all out nuclear attack on this Nation and her People. I suspect that the Communist powers are planning such an attack even now, and are merely waiting for the GPS rollover and Y2K problems to initiate. We as American citizens will need all the firepower we can muster to stem a follow on invasion of this country if this comes to pass.

Irreguardless of the Communist threat, and the Treasonous actions of the fornicator in chief, these gun control laws will only lead to the creation of millions of felons in this country, and the disenfranchisement of the Most loyal and far sighted American citizens of their voting rights as we en masse refuse to obey these Unconstitutional Laws. The Federal Government is directly responsible for the growth of violence in our culture, through their ill advised welfare programs, the removal of school prayer, revolving door prison systems, totally mismanaged and overcrowded school systems, failure to secure the borders against immigration of machismo oriented Latinos who have spread this culture like a virus among the gangs, destruction of our industrial infrastructure and thereby job security, and a totally farcial war on drugs.

We The People of this once great nation demand that Government accept responsibility for its actions, or lack thereof, and cease and desist from violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We demand that the Federal Reserve be abolished, and the power of printing money be returned to the Federal Treasury instead of a private corporation, and that all frivolous debts to this corrupt and Unconstitutional band of robbers be declared null and void. We demand that the War Powers act, and the power of Presidential Orders be immediately repealed, and the legislative power be returned to the congress. We demand that the Supreme Court upholds its Oath to preserve and Defend the Constitution, and stop interpreting the said document to fit the needs of the moment. We demand that henceforth any Unconstitutional law offered for consideration before Congress result in the instant impeachment of the Authors and sponsors for violation of their Oath of office, and for TREASON.

We Republicans are neither blind, nor deaf. We see what is going on in Washington D.C., and are outraged by it. As Texans we have already seen first governor Bush, and now our Elected Senators turncoat on the gun control issue, and knuckle under to psuedo communist-socialist forces in our government. We implore you to do your duty, and remove us from this path which will ultimately result in either civil war or the destruction of this nation. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The founders of this country in their wisdom delivered to us the means to keep our freedom secure from Government infringements. As God is my witness, If the Government of this country cannot see clear to abstain from fits of drunken abuse of power and corruption by big money interest, this right will be exercised by the remnant of American Citizens who have the intelligence not to be blinded by media propoganda, and who have an understanding of just how corrupt our government has become. We will no longer tolerate our Freedom being bartered away as political chips.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 15, 1999.

On only a slight tangent, be aware that owning a gun and being skilled in its use are two very different things. You aren't really capable of defending yourself well if you just got your first gun any more than you are a pianist if you just bought a piano.

At the very least, take a safety class. Know exactly how your guns work, how to keep them serviceable, how to tell if they're loaded, and everything you can learn about shooting them, handling them, carrying them, and storing them. Be aware that an unloaded gun hidden in a closet or the attic won't protect you very well, and a loaded gun close at hand can be a tragic accident waiting to happen.

My wife and I have each spent several times the price of the best handguns you can buy taking classes and practicing at least two hours a week. This is more than shooting practice at the range, this is practice loading in the dark, practice knowing where we are in the dark so we don't alert an intruder to our location and don't shoot one another by accident either.

Gun ownership is a heavy responsibility as well as an inalienable right. If you aren't willing to commit the time it takes to become skilled, mere ownership probably won't help you when you need that help. Take it seriously.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 15, 1999.

Flint, I never thought I would say this, but I agree with ever word you have written in the above post. Great Job.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 15, 1999.

Flint,

Excellent advice and wisdom. Thank you for taking the time to post it. Back to the range for me....

pamela' ;)

-- pamela (pamela4@hotmail.com), May 15, 1999.

Pamela:

Range time is fun, and a great way to relieve tension. And also time well spent. As they say about calibers, size is fine but accuracy is final. However, the range targets hold still, and don't shoot back, and are well lit. These can be real limitations to effective learning.

So OK, it's 2 AM, you're in bed, home alone, and you hear a window being opened or broken. It's pitch dark. Do you know exactly what to do? If you wear glasses, will you need them? Where are they? You are scared, and adrenaline is pumping like mad. Do you know where the gun is? Do you need to load it? Is a round chambered? Is it DA or SA? Can you grab that gun within seconds, in your current terrified state, without firing it (and maybe, half asleep, shooting yourself?). What are the laws in your state about shooting intruders? Do you know? Should you shoot? (A footnote here: I read about a soldier who came home from his year in Vietnam and arrived at his house at about 2 AM. Not wanting to disturb his parents' sleep, he tried to sneak through a window. His father shot and killed him). And if you shoot and miss, where might that bullet go? If you're in an apartment, this becomes an important question.

There's a LOT more to self-defense than slinging lead downrange, enjoyable and important as it is. But enjoy your range time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 15, 1999.

Flint, me old pal,

I take back everything I ever said about you :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

I wonder if people realize that this thread represents one element of what the power mongers fear most - the fact that y2k is awakening a large segment of the American population to the need for and desirability of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and tools required to exercise their fundamental civil rights under the Second Ammendment.

Somebody said that rights are like muscles - they have to be exercised or they atrophy - and these rights desperately need exercise.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 15, 1999.

Arlin, when I said that I was told, (multiple expletives deleted) that what I looked on as responsibilities and priveledges which had to be exercised were God Given Rights and NOTHING could take them away. Short-sighted folks abound.

C

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 15, 1999.

ok, nikoli, i sent mine in.

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), May 16, 1999.

I read about cops in l.a. that have a doctor shhot them up with a bit of adrenalin to simulate stress fire.I don't know about public ranges,but it seems pretty cool to me to learn firearm control while jacked,we fight like we train....zoob

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Thanks Sarah.

Over on We The People website www.adriacins.com/cgi-bin/wtp.cgi/50 Oibl has taken my letter and rewritten and formatted it as a base for a nationwide mailing campaign and petition to our elected representatives. He is seeking input on further rewriting of the base letter and seeking to widen distribution through the Internet. If you drop over hit the refresh message display or see 50 newer messages button to load the current page. As an added bonus my true identity is revealed in my origional posting of the letter on that board. Ha Ha, prepare to be unimpressed. He did a really good job of taking my letter and constructing something coherent out of it, but still wants to broaden its scope, so any comments yall have to offer would be welcome. We may not be able to make the powers that be do their duty, but we can sure as hell tell em how we feel about it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 16, 1999.

Something wrong with Nik's URL, try this

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 16, 1999.

Thanks Blue, one of these days I'm going to realize I'm a lousy typist and start proofreading my post.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 16, 1999.

And Drifter's Original

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 16, 1999.

I have submitted the following quote for Oibl to include somewhere in the document package. It bears thinking about.

'Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.' --Winston Churchill.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 16, 1999.

A wrote: "Your government has put us all in an untenable position: If we don't carry the means to protect ourselves, we are at risk from private thugs. If we do carry the means to protect ourselves, we are at risk from government thugs."

You said it. A thug is a thug is a thug, and it doesn't matter if they're wearing gang colors or uniforms. The police lost their purpose and credibility years ago when they started referring to themselves as "law enforcement" officers, instead of the "peace" officers that they are sworn in to be in nearly every state.

Law enforcement officers will enforce a law, no matter how cruel or capricious it may be, while a peace officer is expected to act for the greater good instead of blind compliance. The vast majority of cops would not hesitate to nail an honest citizen for carrying concealed, even though he posed no threat. I can almost hear someone asking, how does the cop know if he's a threat or not? The answer is ITS NONE OF HIS DAMN BUSINESS. Until an overt act and breaching the peace is commited, as in shooting or threatening to shoot someone, the police have no right to arrest someone. Any arrests they make are under color of law. The upshot of all this is that the cops have absolutely no moral standing in persecuting someone who has taken steps to protect his or herself or family by carrying a weapon. A cop attempting to arrest someone for CCW is in the same league as a Nazi guard shoving someone into a cattle car - both are just "enforcing the (despicable) law", and neither should be afforded protection from their acts.

-- . (.@...), May 16, 1999.

There is no clearer statement in the "Bill of Rights". There is only one person that I have heard describe it correctly. This is Dr. Rufus Fears in his "History of Freedom" lecture series. When it comes to "who's who" in America AND in the world (Historian)he is listed in both. He was also teacher of the year 3 times between 1996 and 2000 (?) from Oklahoma University. His explanation is so simple it's stupid!! His clarification is inserted in the middle. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, This is an educatory statement that explains why the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Dr. Fears goes on to qualify that the founding fathers believed a "standing army" leads to tyranny. With that understood and the fact that we have to have a standing army today it should be mandatory for the people to bear arms!

-- (rymal@wwnet.net), March 08, 2002.