| Volume 4, Issue No. 1 | A monthly newsletter | July 1998 |
America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of
what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on
only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were
avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions.
Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive
news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year
that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including
cases where public shootings are stopped before they happened.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's
safety.
Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from
defending themselves most effectively.
Myth #1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest
approach. The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization
Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack
is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women
resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: Offering no resistance is 1.4 times more
likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
Myth #2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth
is usually based on two claims:
1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or
acquaintances, and
2) anyone could be a murder victim.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the
FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as
knowing their killer.
However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder
primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers
killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang
members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.
Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of
acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995, just 17 percent of
murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or
roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90
percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an
adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who
have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore,
unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against black
and by blacks.
Myth #3: The United States has such a high murder rate
because Americans have so many guns.
There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New
Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in
1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower that Germany's,
and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden
have very different guns ownership rates, but very similar murder
rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a
murder rate 40 percent below Canada's.
When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is
usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun
ownership and murder.
Myth #4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed
handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic
accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.
Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and
some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet only one
permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun
after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense.
The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is
extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were
granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their
licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead
to permits being revoked involve firearms accidentally carried into
restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a
single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly
encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North
Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where
information is available).
Myth #5: The family gun is more likely to kill or injure someone
you know than to kill in self-defense.
The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to
whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a
gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot
to death while in the home, the gun in that household was blamed. In
fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by
guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun
deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that
most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions
about why they own guns in the first place and whether they had
sufficient protection.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the
public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate
question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives?
The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
The above quote is from Army Captain Arthur
Culter in the trial against Michael New. If Culter is correct, the
Allied Powers of World War II owe the Nuremberg
Trial defendants an
apology. All of them claimed they were
"just following orders."
New is charged with illegally refusing to comply with a lawful order
by not attaching a UN armband to his uniform. New said that he
"...did not agree to be in a foreign military under foreign
commanders."
Little Egg Harbor, N.J.--
"Skittish after a wave of school shootings, police arrested a
15-year-old boy and seized more than 20 guns legally owned by his
father after the boy showed a teacher a drawing of someone being
shot", reported the
AP May 28.
The drawing depicted someone in the crosshairs of a scope, yelling
"help."
A court in Ocean County charged the student with making
"terroristic threats."
The Asbury Park Press reported that,
"The 15-year-old boy charged with threatening his English
teacher [the teacher was not depicted in the drawing]
is under court order not to go outside without parental
supervision."
"Other kids get 10-day suspensions and they are allowed to go
back to school, but R.J. draws a picture and he is made out to look
like Charles Manson," said Mrs. Krawiec, the boy's mother.
Sheila Sledden, the teacher who felt threatened by R.J.s art work,
told guidance counselors about the drawing but they, apparently,
didn't believe it was serious and did nothing. Sledden then
contacted police on her own.
The boy's father has four gun safes in the house and keeps
everything locked up, including ammunition.
Over the Memorial Day weekend an estimated
750,000 bikers showed up in Washington, D.C., to bring attention to
the plight of veterans, POWs, MIAs and their families.
The rally, known as Rolling Thunder XI, had so many motorcycles
it closed 18 miles of highway.
Joyce Riley, one of the invited speakers, said,
"Where were the Senators? Congressmen? Pentagon officials?
Where were the military leaders and so-called Viet Nam War heroes who
claim to stand for their men? Where was the American Legion? The
VFW? The Veteran's Administration? How could this many people be
gathered for such a worthy cause and have the American media black
this out all over the country?"
"This gathering of real Americans is designed to send a message
to Washington that those that were willing to die for their country
will never be forgotten or forsaken, we are only getting stronger,
" said Rolling Thunder national chairman Art
Muller. Stronger may be an understatement--next Memorial Day they're
expecting one and a half million bikers to attend.
Rather than write about the New World Order, we'll just
let the elitists speak for themselves:
"This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan
which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately
leading toward the goal of 'one world government.' National
sovereignty is no longer a viable concept." --Zbigniew
Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter
* * * * *
The United States is one of the most successful communist nations in
history, says Butler D. Shaffer, who teaches law at Southwestern
University, Los Angeles.
"I am amused at all of my conservative friends who really think
that America is involved in a struggle with the forces of
communism," Shaffer declared in an opinion column in the
Santa Ana Register on
Dec. 18, 1983.
"In point of fact," he declared, "the struggle is
over. Communism won."
Any system ruled by political authority has answered both
questions: the State owns all life within its borders, and the
State has the ultimate decision-making authority over that life.
The State decides whether any given life shall be sacrificed to its
war games; the State decides how much of our life shall be spent
producing wealth for it; the State decides how we shall take care
of "our" bodies, whether by directing us to wear seatbelts
or prohibiting us from consuming what it considers harmful
substances; the State decides whether children shall go to school,
when they shall go, and where; the State decides what conduct of
ours shall be permitted ("legal") and what shall be
prohibited ("illegal").
...the struggle is over. COMMUNISM WON.
(A) I believe the IRS can and has gone too far. Our Founding Fathers
would roll over in their graves if they knew what has happened to our
country. The number of abuse cases from the IRS is staggering and
Congress better do something about it. 64% chose A.
(B) The IRS is just doing what it is told to do by other government
officials. They have to do something to lessen the government debt.
These guys are just doing their jobs. 4% chose B.
(C) I believe that Congress should put their foot down on IRS abuse.
It is not fair for elderly widowed women to suffer because their
dead husbands made a tax mistake. The government needs to take that
into consideration. 3% chose C.
(D) I believe that Congress should clear the slate on all citizens
and start over with a new record for everyone. They should implement
more laws protecting people. We all know that it is big business
that should have to help pay the tax debts. They are the ones that
are paying the officials to come after the little guys. 22%
chose D.
(E) None of these above reflects my opinion. 8% chose E.
--Source: ParaPoll
Once there Kaczynski was immediately stripped of his possessions,
including
notepads, pens and reading materials and placed into solitary
confinement in a windowless concrete room where he can be monitored
24 hours a day, U.S. marshals said. He will remain in solitary
until the prison's staff evaluates him and reconsiders his status.
At Florence, known as the nation's prison for terrorists, so tough
that civil rights groups have protested its conditions as inhumane,
Kaczynski, a techno-phobe who ranted against the dehumanizing
aspects of industrial society, finds himself in a high-tech
nightmare.
Designed by computers that recommended design, inmate management
and other security innovations based on various escape scenarios,
Florence houses offenders who require the highest security, said
prison spokesman Louis Winn.
Located 100 miles southwest of Denver and completed in 1995 for more
than $60 million, it has already been dubbed "The Big One"
by inmates.
"It will take Einstein's genius and more than a little luck to
get out of this baby," architect John Quest said.
Set on 37 acres high in the Rocky Mountains, laser beams, silent
pressure pads, dogs whose larynx have been removed so that they can
attack without warning, walls of razor ribbon and armed guard towers
provide strict "prisoner management" for each of the 490
convicts.
More than 10,000 computer-controlled electronic gates close
automatically in the event of an escape attempt. Cells are
sound-proofed to prevent prisoners from communicating with each
other. Librarians examine every page of every book touched by an
inmate to make sure no messages are inserted.
Florence's convicts spend 23 hours a day locked within a 12-by-7
foot cell designed so they cannot make eye contact with each other
or see anything except walls and sky--for those fortunate enough to
be in a cell with a window.
When they do leave their cells, prisoners' hands and legs are
shackled. Exercise time is minimal and outside contacts are
limited. A courtroom inside the prison ensures inmates never leave
the grounds.
"Mr. Speaker, Federal agents killed his dog, they killed his
14-year-old son, and they killed his wife. Federal agents said they
did not like his politics.
"Randy Weaver is a white separatist. My colleagues do not like
his politics, and I do not like Weaver's politics either, but that
is no reason for the government to gun down his family.
"Let me tell my colleagues something. This does not sound like
the FBI of Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. This sounds like the KGB of Joseph
Stalin.
"To make matters worse, a Federal judge dropped all charges
against the FBI agent who shot Vicky Weaver right between the eyes
while clutching her infant son. Shame, my colleagues. Congress, the
Justice Department investigates themselves and then they cover their
assets every time.
"We are a bunch of fools. It is time to put our government in
order. Support H.R. 692 and put an independent counsel on these
types of cases. Shame, Congress. No American family should be gunned
down." -- Congressional Record, May 20, 1998
The Supreme Court, in the vast majority of decisions concerning this
matter, has interpreted that ANY Treaty or Executive Agreement
(Executive Order etc) takes precedence over the Constitution, as
well as Federal, State and Local Law in the United States. Research
indicates that there are 11,344 treaties and executive (presidential)
agreements in place today. The implications of this are evident.
The United States is experiencing international meddling in our
internal affairs as never before. One need only look at many of
the 185 decisions made by the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA)
and the Global Accord on Tariff and Trade (GATT) tribunals to
recognize
the effect they are having on American jobs, businesses and
communities. Those decisions were made on the basis of Treaties,
not U.S. Constitutional law; adjudicated by United Nations
tribunals, not U.S. courts.
Recently the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, a
treaty that on the surface espouses noble intentions--the control
and destruction of all chemical devices of mass destruction. The
reality of the matter however could be quite different. The treaty
provides for unlimited inspection of any facility in any country
that subscribes to the agreement. This would permit UN inspectors
to conduct warrantless searches in direct violation of the Fourth
amendment which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.
Needless to say, treaties can pose major threats to the individual
guarantees of freedom, liberty and prosperity that have made us the
envy of the world and the bane of tyrants for more than 200 years.
This constitutional threat was first recognized in 1952 by Senator
John Bricker of Ohio, who tried to remedy the problem by means of a
constitutional amendment. The Bricker Amendment, as it came to be
called, provided an amendment to the treaty making powers by
preventing
"any treaty or executive agreement from undermining the
fundamental rights of the American people or from sacrificing
essential attributes of sovereignty." Specifically:
Section 1. A provision of a treaty, which conflicts with this
Constitution, shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the
United States only through legislation, which would be valid in the
absence of a treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have the power to regulate all executive
and other agreements with any foreign power or international
organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the
limitations imposed on treaties in this article.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.
As Frank Chodorov of
Human Events noted at the time, "The proposed amendment
arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by
invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements.
Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its
independence to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration
of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There
have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing
itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the
richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting
with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like this has
ever happened before."
The Bricker Amendment originally had 56 co-sponsors, but was
defeated in floor vote 42 to 50 with 4 not voting. A watered down
version known as the George proposal also lost...by one vote.
When the amendment was defeated Frank E. Holman, president of the
American Bar Association, wrote, "In the destiny of human
affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives
on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the
fight for an adequate constitutional amendment on treaties and other
international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the
history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all
other great issues and causes." Mr. Holman's prophecy has been
realized in Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth's reintroduction of the
amendment as HR 83 last fall.
In a time when we see UN Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage
designations taking place with neither the knowledge or consent of
local citizens, when we watch the shutdown and blackmail of mining,
logging, farming, ranching and other resource operations as a
result of international interference, it is time for Congress to put
American first. It is time for the Bricker Amendment.
Government by treaty and executive order is no less onerous than the
tyranny of George III. It is incumbent upon every citizen who
treasures the freedom that this country affords its citizens to take
back the reins of power by making every elected official responsive
to YOUR wishes. Demanding a written position on the Bricker
Amendment is a good place to start. --Liberty Matters, Winter 97-98
Dear Congressman Paul,
I wish to commence this correspondence with a big THANK YOU for all
that you have done. You are, sir, what America needs in Congress.
The purpose of this correspondence is as follows.
I had the opportunity to assist in the forming of an old but not
outdated idea, the New Jersey Committee of Safety in April of 1997.
The abuse which inspired this rebirth is found in the Pinelands of
N.J. It has been designated as a United Nations Biosphere and has a
commission that controls both very strictly and arrogantly the lives
of the inhabitants. We worked diligently to establish lawful and
educational resistance against this commission which is supported by
both the State (public servants), its agencies and Federal agencies.
What we were able to accomplish which others have failed was, more
press, not positive I might add, causing much concern not only for
this commission but for the various agencies and governor's office.
We also submitted a three set resolution to the commission which
was rejected by the commission and the attorney general's office.
To my opinion we made the Pinelands Commission look extremely
anti-American when they invited the communists of China to
tour the Pinelands. An aide from the governor's office was
sent to find a solution through a meeting with us which we
declined because they rejected the resolutions. And I might
add sir, from the very beginning of our involvement the
commission called in the New Jersey State Police. They came
with clubs at the ready while we were in shirt and tie in open
dialogue, at the so called public town meeting.
In my open dialog with this commission I stated that a way would be
found to bring this commission before a congressional hearing.
Therefore, allow me to present this question to you. Would there be
any possibility of a congressional hearing, and could it be brought
forth from outside the state? We will be glad to furnish any
information that you request concerning this matter. Thanking you
in advance.
For the New Jersey Committee and in the cause of freedom,
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your kind
and supportive words. It is reassuring and encouraging to hear from
those, such as yourself, who understand the issues and the positive
impact of a pro-freedom philosophy.
Continued participation in the political process by individuals such
as yourself is absolutely necessary to the preservation of liberty,
so highly esteemed by our nation's founders, as well as myself.
As I serve in the 105th Congress, rest assured that I shall continue
to take very seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution of limited
federal powers and work to make ours the freest, and hence most
prosperous and tranquil society in the history of mankind.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to communicate your
thoughts. I always appreciate hearing from those to whom power is
vested in our Constitution, "the People of the United
States."
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Dear [Elected Official],
According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, you
don't count!
Let us explain. As you may recall, President Clinton is soliciting
nominations for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program.
Unknown persons, none of them elected, have nominated the Delaware,
Passaic, Rahway and Raritan rivers in New Jersey.
But the Council on Environmental Quality says it will disregard
whatever you or any other elected state, county or municipal
official has to say about "opting out" of this federal
scheme. The Council has arrogantly decided that it will accept only
written communications from a congressman or congresswoman who
opposes the designation of a river within his or her district.
Therefore, you don't count.
But why would anyone disfavor the American Heritage Rivers program?
Some of the reasons are in the enclosures. Here are a few
more:
Federal top-down land use controls over not just river towns, but
(eventually) entire river counties and watersheds that feed the
river
Devaluation of private property as more regulations are
added
Breakdown of traditional political boundaries
Transfer of power from locally elected representatives to federally
appointed bureaucrats
When the states created the federal government, they granted it only
certain enumerated powers. The powers to lure [municipalities and
counties] into a federal web is not one of them. In that light we
have enclosed a resolution in opposition to the river scheme.
Perhaps you will consider the resolution favorably.
For the New Jersey Committee of Safety,
Editor's note: the letter and enclosures may be viewed at
http://www.committee.org/njcos
"In the beginning of change
the patriot is a scarce man, hated and scorned. When his cause
succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to
be a patriot."
--Mark Twain
Newsletter subscription - Donation $10.00 - Cash or Blank Money Order Only
Shaffer asks: Who is the owner of human life? Once that question
is answered we have the answer to his next question: Who decides
what will happen to the life of any given person?
by Bill Gannon,
Newark Star-Ledger
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Earl G. Dickey
14th District, Texas
Ida Anderson
N J M
P.O. Box 10176
Trenton, NJ 08650
NAME___________________________________________
ADDRESS________________________________________
CITY____________________________________________
PHONE (______)________________________
Back to Home Page