Conference foundr::firearms

===============================================================================
===============================================================================
===============================================================================

The following transcript is verbatim, without alteration, and
includes misspellings.
-------------------------

VMS TRANSCRIPT
Video Monitoring Services of America, L.P.
720 Harrison Street, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415)543-3361
(415)543-6148
 

    DATE    May 6, 1997
    TIME    8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT)
 STATION    KGO-AM  (ABC)
LOCATION    San Francisco
 PROGRAM    Morning Drive Time



            Ted Wygant, anchor:

               Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as 
            we talk about it, at least.  Now let's say good morning 
            to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston.   
            Good morning, sir!

            Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good   
            morning to you, Mister Wygant.

            Wygant:  Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and 
            we appreciate your time because you have taken on a   
            task that I think a lot of folks might have backed    
            away with because a lot of concern about the National 
            Rifle Association.

            Heston:  Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it?

            Wygant:  Yeah, right.  What made you do it?  How come 
            you want to get in the middle of this?

            Heston:  Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in 
            the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector  
            causes.  I suppose starting back when I started       
            demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961.  Long    
            before it got fashionable in Hollywood.  And then the 
            Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The 
            Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and  
            then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and    
            Humanities.  And I've been a member of- of the National 
            Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more.  When 
            I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in 
            a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh,  
            a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and 
            fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds.      
            Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the 
            table.  But I was asked, as is true with all of the   
            jobs I've done.  Somebody asked me.

            Wygant:  Well, you've got quite a task.  And- and
            you've been named first vice president.  You- you're a
            member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just
            zipped right up.

            Heston:  I just was elected to the board on Saturday.

            Wygant:  Yeah.

            Heston:  It's the primary defender of the second
            amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, 
            a core document.  The Bill Of Rights is right at the
            basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white
            guys that made up the country knew what they were
            about.  And you- it is a mainstream issue.  Most
            Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's
            right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you
            suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on
            the board.  And we have, however, we- they elected- or
            re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected
            in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain
            Robinson is now second vice president.  We re-elected
            Marion Hammer as president.

            Wygant:  Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by
            here for just a moment?  We have to get to traffic, but
            I- I do want to continue talking with you.  Could you
            hang in for a minute?         

            Heston:  Yeah.

            Wygant:  Okay, good.  Thanks.

                        ****************

            Wygant:  Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton
            Heston talking to us from his home in Southern        
            California.  Let me ask you, you mentioned that there
            are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around
            the NRA.  Are you going to try to get them off the
            board and out of the picture?

            Heston:  That- that's certainly the intention, and I
            think it's highly doable.  Wayne LaPierre is- is a
            superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. 
            And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful
            support there.

            Wygant:  Now the image of- of the NRA has been an
            organization that supports the right of people to buy
            any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any
            gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are
            big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need
            for- for hunting or home protection.  Do you stand by-
            I mean, the image is...

            Heston:  AK-47's are inappropriate for private        
            ownership, of course.

            Wygant:  Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire
            power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a
            homeowner would need.  Why is it necessary to have
            those guns available anyway?

            Heston:  I just got through telling you.  The         
            possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely
            inappropriate.

            Wygant:  Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in
            a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire
            power there that doest's seem necessary and that people
            worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you
            know, potential criminals.

            Heston:  I'm not certain what you're point is- that
            there are guns available in gun stores?

            Wygant:  No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would
            need.  In other words, why does the NRA support guns
            that have overkill?  Let's put it that way.  Shouldn't
            there be some sort of limit?

            Heston:  Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are
            entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the-
            the problem, of course, is not guns held by private
            citizens, but guns held by criminals.  And where we
            have failed, where the government has failed is with
            entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is
            meaningless.  I'm not even- don't even think it should
            be repealed because it doesn't do anything.  and it's
            been in- on the books for more than two years.  In the
            course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people
            have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons
            with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.

            Wygant:  Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate
            talking with us.  It'll be interesting to see-        
            interesting to see how you handle the public image of
            the National Rifle Association and those in the far  
            right in the group.  And if you don't mind, we'd like
            to talk to you again.

            Heston:  I hope we can do that.
            Wygant:  Alright, thanks very much.

            Heston:  Mister Wygant.

            Wygant:  Thank you.  Charleton Heston from his home in
            Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is
            8:23.

                            #   #   #



-- 
    To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to
    listproc@mainstream.com containing in the message body:  
                    subscribe fco <Your Name>
               http://www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html

===============================================================================
===============================================================================
===============================================================================

> 
> FYI: Heston's clarification on his AK-47 statements.
> 
> Posted by rambo on May 13, 1997 at 15:36:03:
> 
> This came from a source inside Soldier of Fortune magazine.
> 
> rambo
> =========================================================================
> 
> #Dear Colonel Brown,
> #
> #Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an
> #interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was
> #talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully automatic, not a
> #semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge.
> #Namely, that federal law has striclty regulated the private ownership of
> #such fully automatic firearms for 63 years.
> #
> #I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States
> #Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been
> #used in a crime.
> #
> #Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not
> #understood thanks to distortions spread by the media and those who'd
> #destroy the Second Amendment.
> #
> #That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in
> #1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second
> #Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association.
> #
> #
> #Sincerely,
> #
> #ORIGINAL SIGNED
> #
> #Charlton Heston
> #


===============================================================================
===============================================================================
===============================================================================

>PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO
>"NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
>
>
>
>This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of
>the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with
>
>
>
>MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS 
>(202)885-4598 
>Sundays: (202)885-4200
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>NBC News 
>MEET THE PRESS 
>Sunday, May 18, 1997 
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GUESTS: CHARLTON HESTON Vice President, NRA 
>
>REP. BOB BARR (R-GA) House Judiciary Committe 
>
>
>
>
>REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) House Judiciary Committe 
>MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News ROUNDTABLE:William Safire - The
>New York Times 
>Albert Hunt - The Wall Street Journal 
>Elizabeth Drew - Author Whatever it Takes 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Welcome again to MEET THE PRESS. Our issue this Sunday
>morning: President Clinton proposes more restrictions for gun owners.
>(Videotape): PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: We protect aspirin bottles in this
>country better than we protect guns from accidents by children. (End
>videotape) 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Will the NRA say no? We'll talk to their new spokesman--from
>Moses to Ben Hur to the NRA, our guest, Charlton Heston. Then we'll turn to
>the debate over the Whitewater scandal and the Clinton White House. Is the
>first lady really in trouble? Is impeachment a real possibility? We'll hear
>from Republican Congressman Robert Barr, who's pressing the issue, and from
>Democrat Barney Frank, who sticks up for the Clintons. And in our political
>roundtable, New York Times columnist William Safire, author Elizabeth Drew
>and The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The very latest on Ken Starr; will
>the budget deal hold? And now Republicans taking foreign money; and
>abortion--are attitudes changing? Those topics and more on our political
>roundtable. But, first, joining us now in his first Sunday morning
>television interview, the newly elected vice president of the NRA, Charlton
>Heston. Welcome. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Russert. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: You have said that some of the other members on the NRA board
>are extremists and you're trying to moderate the image of the organization.
>Let me go back two years ago. George Bush, distinguished president of the
>United States, resigned from the NRA, and this is what he said--let me just
>show you a graphic on our screen there. He said, "I was outraged when, even
>in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne La Pierre, executive
>vice president of NRA," and a friend of yours and a man you supported,
>"defended his attack on federal agents as, `jack-booted thugs.' To attack
>Secret Service agents or ATF people or any government law enforcement
>people as, `wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms,'
>wanting to, `attack law-abiding citizens,' is a vicious slander on good
>people." Do you agree with President Bush? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: I do, indeed. I also am aware that Wayne's real mistake was one
>none of should never make: never sign something you didn't either write or
>read. And he did that--he apologized for it. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: But as long as you're associated with the NRA, you will never
>allow use of words like "jack-booted thugs" or "Nazi helmets" or "storm
>troopers"? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Nor would Wayne had he had read it. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: And that language is extreme and should not be used? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Oh, of course it is. Of course it is. We, unfortunately, have a
>few extremists in the organization. We're--that's one of the reasons I was
>asked to run for vice president. I did that, and we're going to deal with
>that, I promise you. Let me make, while I have--at the beginning sort of--a
>short opening blanket comment. There are no good guns. There are no bad
>guns. Any guns in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any guns in the
>hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody, except bad people. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: President Clinton, as you saw in our clip... 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: ...is now going to suggest, recommend, initiate law, which
>said that there should be child safety locks put on guns. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Trigger locks. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Will the NRA support or oppose the president? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: The manufacturer of those trigger locks, which is the correct
>term, has said the instructions sold with them, "do not put this trigger
>lock on a loaded gun because it might accidentally discharge." That's in
>the instructions. That means that no child is in danger from a trigger lock
>on an empty gun. A homeowner might be, as he sees the bad guys coming
>through his window, trying to get the trigger lock off the gun and find
>where the key is and get the bullets and the gun before they get in. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Fifteen kids a day are shot dead in the United States of
>America. Why shouldn't we put locks on those guns--those trigger locks on
>the guns? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Well, all right, we can create another bureaucracy, the
>trigger-lock police, which will go from house to house, because you got to
>check whether people are using those trigger locks, correct? And we can
>probably--while we're at it, we might authorize them to make certain we
>don't drink too much or eat too much and that we exercise properly. George
>Orwell's "1984" is closing in on us. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: The Brady Bill, the law which said there had to be a waiting
>period and a background check on anyone who wanted to buy a handgun. Thus
>far, statistics from the government indicate 186,000 people have been
>denied access to a handgun because of the Brady Bill. The NRA has been
>trying to strike down the Brady Bill in court. Will you continue that? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: In the first place, they're not trying to strike it down. It's
>null and void in another year. In the second place, that 186,000 figure is
>the most exaggerated statistic I have seen. There have been seven people
>prosecuted under the Brady Bill; three have gone to jail. For heaven's
>sake, the president's entertain more felons than that at a coffee in the
>White House in the campaign funding. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: But hundreds of thousands of people, you do not believe, who
>wanted handguns couldn't get them because their checks came up felon and
>you can't have a gun? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: I'm telling you that that statistic is grossly exaggerated. All
>they did was issue the statistic. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: What's wrong with a background check and a waiting period to
>have a handgun? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: It doesn't accomplish anything. See, gun laws, of themselves,
>don't do anything to stop crime. Good case in point: just up the continent,
>in New York City, until very recently, when Mayor Giuliani took office, it
>shared with Washington the worst murder record in America. Both cities have
>absolutely draconian prohibition of any--oh, never mind waiting periods,
>never mind that--that you cannot own a firearm in New York or Washington.
>Mayor Giuliani saw the light, though. And he changed his tact and started
>prosecuting criminals and throwing them in prison for long periods. And
>since he started doing that, the crime rate in New York has gone down. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: The NRA also opposed a ban on assault weapons. In 1994, you
>went out on television and criticized Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who
>came back with his own ad. Let me show our viewers that and ask you to
>respond, Mr. Heston. This was Bob Kerrey. (Videotape): Announcer: This is a
>message to Charlton Heston from Senator Bob Kerrey. SENATOR BOB KERREY: I'm
>a hunter. And I believe in the constitutional right to bear arms. When it's
>time to hunt birds, you need a good gun like this Ruger red label.
>Twenty-five years ago, in the war in Vietnam, people hunted me. They needed
>a good weapon, like this AK-47. But you don't need one of these to hunt
>birds. (End videotape) 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe private citizens should own... 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: I'm not about to criticize a man like Senator Kerrey, but
>there's a great difference, widely misunderstood, between an AK-47, fully
>automatic, such as the Soviet military rifle, and semiautomatics. It's not
>very widely understood. The semiautomatic is a hunting rifle. Teddy
>Roosevelt hunted, in the last century, with a semiautomatic rifle. Most
>deer rifles are semiautomatic. Since--in the past--64 years ago, the
>federal government imposed very draconian restrictions on the private
>ownership of a fully automatic weapon of any kind. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: A machine gun? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Yeah. Any fully automatic weapon. Since that time, there has
>been no legally owned fully automatic weapon that has been involved in any
>crime in America. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: The Supreme Court also upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns. Why
>couldn't the Supreme Court uphold a ban on semiautomatic weapons? Why would
>you use them for any reason? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: A semiautomatic weapon--then no one could hunt deer. The
>semiautomatic weapons-- there are all kinds of semiautomatic pistols. It's
>become a demonized phrase, and it's much mixed in with fully automatic. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: So the ban on assault weapons, passed by Congress last year,
>you continue to oppose? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Not on fully automatic. You see, the media distorts that and
>the general public ill understands it. The fact is, you could not and no
>one would attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons. Senator Kerrey was not
>talking about semiautomatic weapons. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: The point many people raise, however, is since that ban,
>enacted by Congress, assaults with those kinds of weapons is down 18
>percent. It appears the law has worked to reduce murder by those kinds of
>weapons all across the country. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Well, let me give you an example from a few weeks ago, speaking
>of fully automatic weapons. I was called by my grandson's school to go down
>and pick him up early because there were robbers trying to break into a
>bank less than a mile away and the police were having a shoot-out. They
>eliminated the police; my grandson remained very cool about the whole
>thing. They eliminated the criminals. There were no police killed, no
>bystanders killed. But a little more than a year before, these same two
>guys had been arrested at a traffic stop with a van load of fully
>automatic--not semiautomatic, fully automatic weapons, and Kevlar armor,
>homemade bombs, the whole shooting match. They were put in jail for less
>than 100 days. When they released them, they gave them the weapons back.
>The solution to gun crime, to violent crimes of all sorts, is what Mayor
>Giuliani realized. Put the bad guys away for a long time, then you will see
>a safer America, a violence-free America. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: There's also a proposal to say that anyone who's been
>convicted of domestic violence, beating up their wife, beating up their
>kid, whether it's a misdemeanor or felony, should not be allowed to have a
>gun. Would you support that? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Well, already police forces in Los Angeles--they've reversed
>some of that. Certainly domestic violence, abuse against women or children,
>is one of the most heinous of crimes. You could cut their hand off, too, I
>suppose. I think the solution is to put them in jail. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: But also deny them a gun when they get out of jail? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: If they're convicted of a felony, they can't buy a firearm
>anyway. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: But many states, wife abuse and child abuse is only a
>misdemeanor. And the government's saying anyone who engages in that kind of
>activity doesn't have a right to have a handgun. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Or any gun, you're saying? 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Well, the specific legislation is handgun. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Yeah. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Could you accept that? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. I think you have to talk to people in the military. And
>this would affect people in the military, one supposes. Huh? 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: In the armed services of the country? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Yeah. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Statutes don't affect the military. It would affect the people
>on police forces. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Well, that disturbs me, too. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: One other piece of legislation that's being introduced
>involving gun ownership is limiting to one handgun per month what people
>can buy. You have situations now where someone who can pass the Brady Bill
>background checks will go and buy a whole load of guns and then give them
>to a bad guy and have them distributed. So the government's saying, "Buy
>one a month. That's plenty of handguns per person." 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: You know, the Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the right
>to own and bear firearms. It doesn't say anything about how many, how much
>you can pay for them. That's in the Bill of Rights. That's a sacred
>document in our country. There's--no other country in the world has such a
>document. And you know what its purpose is? In every one of its amendments,
>to prevent the federal government from interfering with private citizens'
>rights. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: You know, there's a debate about this. Let me just show our
>audience the Second Amendment and read it to them, because there's an
>interesting debate going on. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to
>the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep
>arms, shall not be infringed." Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said it's
>a, "fraud," to suggest that means everyone has a right to have a gun. They
>were talking about a militia. But that's a big debate. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: No, it isn't a big debate. Tim, for whatever--former Chief
>Justice Burger said, if you will read what the Founding Fathers wrote when
>they were writing it--Jefferson, Mason, Madison, Patrick Henry, Tom
>Paine--every one of them wrote at great length that they were talking about
>the individual rights of individual citizens. Thomas Jefferson said, "No
>citizen may be denied the right to bear and keep arms." 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Thirty thousand people die from guns in the United States
>every year--15 kids a day, as I mentioned. Do you believe there are too
>many guns in America? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: That is a misstatement. The National Safety Council said that,
>last year, the number of fatal child accidents with a gun fell to 185.
>That's the lowest it's been since 1903. Obviously, the proper goal is zero.
>But you don't do that by passing gun laws. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: But when 30,000 people die across the country. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: That's obviously not true in a year. That's in a year. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: You don't think there are too many guns in America? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: No, I don't. No, I don't. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, the National... 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Before I go, I have one last statement that I'd... 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Well, the National Endowment for the Arts... 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: ...an organization that is now under fire by conservative
>Republicans on the Hill... 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Yeah, I know. They were under fire when I was on their council,
>too. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the federal government should support the NEA? 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: I went and lobbied on that. I think the NEA budget will still
>be further reduced, but I personally, as I testified two years ago in
>Congress, believe the NEA can perform a useful function. Before I say
>goodbye, may I say one more thing? 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Quickly, please. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Yes. We haven't agreed on very many things, but I think we can
>both agree on this, Tim, that we have to pass on to America in the 21st
>century the same Bill of Rights that those wise old dead white guys that
>invented this country passed on to us. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: My job is to take the other side, not to share my own
>viewpoint. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: OK. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: I appreciate you coming. 
>
>
>
>MR. HESTON: Fair enough. OK. 
>
>
>
>MR. RUSSERT: Charlton Heston, thanks for joining us. Coming next: How
>serious are the White House scandals? Should impeachment even be discussed?
>Republican Bob Barr, Democrat Barney Frank square right off, after this. 
>
>
>
>(announcements)
>
>
>

Either this guy has got to get educated regarding the appropriate reply to
the various assaults on the 2nd Amendment OR we got to get a different
spokesman...   Tanya, Marion or Wayne had better get this guy a script and
start the rehearsals ASAP...

    Even if he wants to take a slightly softer stance, he's can't go on like
this...  I'd like to think he's been thrown to the wolves without preparation,
but that was ridiculous.  I could have done better...

Al

    
    Charlton Heston was on Meet the Press either last Sunday or the week
    before.  I thought he stood up quite well under some rather harsh
    questioning.  Made the point that a full AK-47 is a full-auto weapon
    and has been licensed/controlled for many years along with all other
    full-auto weapons.  Also made clear distinction in "automatic" and
    "semi-automatic" weapons.

    One thing about C.H. is that many of the public feel that they "know"
    him,  which gives him more "credibility" with them than some other guy
    that they only thing they know about is what the main-stream press
    has told them.  
    
    Is he the _best_ man for the job?  probably not.  But I don't want
    to the do the anti-gunner's job for them just as the Republicans
    did the Democrats job for them in the Presidential primaries.

    fred();

    
    I'm pulling my memebership... I'm an extreemist...(in good company
    with the framers of the constitution) :)  It's time to send the message
    where it hurts. In the pocket book. I want my views represented.
    
    Heston has some of the right talk, but he said it.. "the extreemists
    element should go from the NRA"... I'm calling for my money back. As far
    as I've seen the "extreemists" have done a wonderful job, and only want 
    to protect lives, and country and the checks and balances provided in
    th US Constitution. And perhaps the main reason folks join militias in
    the first place is to protect their RKBA. Ever consider that, Charlton ??
    
    I think the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with DUCK HUNTING either.
    Shheessh.. Does the the phaze "checks and balances" mean anything?
    
    Heston supports Bush, Bush is an *ss.  Truth is Waco and Ruby were
    OVERkill, and the government WAS wrong. So what is that,?  A sacred
    taboo to use a little jouralistic liscence to illustrate that??? 
    (meaning the jack boot thug stuff...) (some POLICE ARE, not all) Let me
    point out that the government paid 3 million for the wrongful death
    at Ruby Ridge and then pinned a medal on the perp 6 months later! I
    call that heanous injustice.  You have to admit there is a problem,
    first if you want to fix it! Bush is in Geritol Denial.
    
    It's lop sided thinking if you can't take a few hits to the negative to 
    wake you up to a more balanced reality.
    
    
    AK-47 valid in today's society?
    The answer is YES, citizens should have that right in a FREE state.
    That is precisely what keeps it free. Words are meaningless unless
    you can back them up. 
    Fellons gave up that right when they commited a crime. 
    
    NRA should give FREE classes in gun safety too. It should be their 
    charter to EDUCATE starting at the lower grades. TO be an NRA member 
    should imply SERVICE. Not funding beaurucratic j*rks that are no better 
    than the politicians they are paid to SMOOZE. NRA is supposed to stand 
    for something, not sit down and take pay offs and pander to the
    socially ignorant and mis-informed. Ever talk FACTS toan ANTI ?? 
    They cover their ears and run away! That's disfunction, not rational
    thinking... Poor b*astards, I feel sorry for the lot...
    
    Tom  
    

    
    
    	Whoa there Tom. The NRA you're pulling your money from is the one
    that does all the training and education. The NRA-ILA (institute for
    legislative action) doesn't take money from the NRA...it survives soley
    from voluntary contributions. 
    
    	No matter what Heston has said, the NRA is still your best defense
    against the gun grabbers. By pulling your membership you are only
    defeating yourself. Now you can't even influence change from within.
    
    
    	jim

    
    
    Tom, I have to agree with you but what Jim said is true also.
    
     Before you pull your membership send this letter to the NRA and demand
    a response from them, if then you don't an answer you can live with
    pull your membership and send your money elsewhere, but you need to
    tell the NRA why your doing it, otherwise you'll never see a change.
    
    Dave

    I second the emotion.
    
    you need to explain *why* you are withdrawing financial support from
    the organization.
    
    secondarily (but just as importantly) you need to suggest:
    
    	- alternatives
    	- fixes
    	- suggestions to improve
    
    otherwise, it's like walking into the house one night and announcing "I
    wanna divorce" out of the clear blue. That helps nobody in defining and
    dealing with the problem(s).
    
    

    You can't just get your money back over the phone. When asked why I
    wanted to leave, I replied "You're 1st Vice president thinks I'm
    an extreemist.I know when I'm not wanted".  He gave me this address
    to request a refund.
    
    Attn: 	Kevin Naylor
                NRA Membership Services
    		11250 Waples Mill Rd.
    		Farfax, Va.
    				22030
    
    
    	I am exploring other organizations who care...
    
    	How about:
    
    	1. Natioanl Concealed Carry Inc.
    	2. Gun Owners of America   (the no-compomise gun lobby of America)
    	3. Seconad Amendment Foundation
    	4. National Firearms Association
    	5. GOAL
    
    	I can post the WEB pages if there is any interest.

Though I think the NRA has lost its way, I think it needs me, and people like
me, to get it back on track.

I'm sticking around, even thought I was *directly* attacked by the 1st VP (I'm a
class III owner).

                                 Roak

    
    	Yes, there are alternatives to the NRA. Unfortunately, non of those
    organizations have the political clout to handle the gun-grabbers on a
    national scale. I support almost all of them anyway, but most of my
    cash still goes to the NRA. YMMV....
    
    
    jim

    
     I didn't see Heston's TV interviews (Thanks for the transcript, BTW)
    but I must say that I find some of his comments a bit disturbing.
    
     Who are these "extremists" that need to be purged from NRA leadership
    .......Neal Knox ? .... others who have stood up unswervingly for the
    rights of free people to own the firearms of their choice ? Sounds 
    like Heston has been talking to board members like Wayne Anthony Ross
    a little too much. I'm a life member and I'm proud of my organization.
    I'd like to continue to be proud of it......compromise is *not* the 
    answer !!!
     Lest Heston forget, it was exactly the kind of people who wanted NRA 
    to have a more "moderate" image under Warren Cassidy that nearly 
    destroyed the NRA....it was those who said "enough" that revived it.
    
     Now, I'm not one to advocate making Kamakazi runs at a target just to
    make a point but I firmly believe that we must be continually working
    to 1) repeal unjust/unconstitutional laws, 2) see that no more are 
    passed.
    
     My 2 cents worth
    
     Ryan 

    ya know, (re .-few)
    
    youse folk are missing the point entirely.
    
    repeat after me:
    
    "It takes a village.... It takes a village.... It takes a village...."
    
    hmph. I suppose next you're gonna start advocating individual
    responsibility and choice.
    
    Man, you just don't get it do you...
    
    meanwhile: back at The Village...

    
     The Village....wasn't that the name of the island in "The Prisoner" ?
    
     RG

    History shows we took many villages in the South East Asia conflict.
    History also shows how successful that was.  Naturally the Clinton
    family does not know of that.  

    Clinton knows that the Women's vote is keeping himself and
    the Kennedy's afloat. He's pandering to the idealistic masses
    who want a grand social solution that someone else will pay for.
    
    Like government health care...
    
    It would eventually fail in the US , like gun control will too.
    Basically because no one wants to pay for it. (IE brady) 
    Not because of ethics. Government knows NO ETHICS, just cash cows.
    
    tom
    
                           

    I suppose your right Tom.
    
    The only person who knows Someone Else is Nobody, and I understand he
    isn't around much. :')
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

Ahhh Gi'day...

    Well, I would carefully consider the results of my actions before I
    withdrew support for the NRA. You may not 100% agree with everything
    that Heston says, but this is all about politics. You may not like the
    world running on politics, but that's the way it is...
    
    And given politics, you have to have some latitude for movement. You
    may call it compromise (and you're right, we shouldn't compromise), but
    you have to give somebody in the firing line some latitude to move in
    the heat of the moment.
    
    Just thing for a moment. 40% of the population already KNOWS that the
    NRA is full of baby killing extremists, and another 40% probably
    suspect it. You can say anything about the NRA in Australia, and people
    will believe it - here it's prob. 95%.
    
    Now, we will never win our rights or maintain our freedoms unless we
    educate this 40-80%. This "education" requires some latitude. Some of
    this would be to  identify some "strawman" extremists that can be
    "expunged" to build a new "user-friendly" NRA. Trying to educate people
    about an AK-47 is not going to be easy.
    
    In San Francisco, I'm sure that 98% of people think a full-auto AK-47
    *IS* inappropriate - there has been certainly a lot of propaganda
    against them (and Uzi's). You are setting yourself up to be DISMISSED
    out of hand by this 98% if you try and stridently defend this position.
    This is NOT to say you support a ban, but you cannot be King Canute.
    
    You must place the issues in ways that the people will understand.
    "When AK-47's are banned, then the most dangerous weapon on the street
    will be the Browning A-5 duck gun - what are they going to ban next?"
    or "Ban cheap handguns only allows the rich people to have guns" or "If
    you only allow 'sportsmen' to have guns, what about your poor old
    granny at home?"
    
    Heston should have just pushed the "They are already regulated, and
    contrary to popular media, they are never used in crimes" rather than
    try to say whether they are appropriate or not - weasel around the
    issue, and instead push your OWN message.
    
    There is a member of the "Shooters Party" in our state parliament. He
    used to be a Radio personality. He is completely impossible to upset in
    an interview - because he answers things in a disarming fashion. The
    interviewer will go in with a particular line of questioning, angled to
    get the person to dig themselves into a hole. He never answers the
    first question the way they expect, and after that, the interview is
    his - he sets the agenda. This is what Heston will learn.
    
    Now, Heston has the opportunity to put a more "friendly face" on the
    NRA, and some of those vast uninformed masses MAY just listen. They
    won't listen to people who start off with unreasonable tenets. If you
    have a drinking problem, you aren't going to go into a church if the
    preacher is on the front steps whipping the last person who has 1/2 a
    glass of wine for a birthday dinner.
    
    I implore you NOT to desert the NRA - because compared to all the other
    organisations, it's the only game in town. The rest can be easily
    marginalised by the media. You reckon they do bucket jobs on the NRA,
    you should see what they can do. They probably don't give the NRA all
    they could, because it *IS* powerful. You should see what the media
    says about moderate gun organizations here...
    
    We have ex-cabinet ministers here extoll the virtues of our compulsory
    voting system, blaming the NRA for corrupting the US voting system.
    The NRA is always the symbol of power, organisation, and committment.
    The green groups would LOVE to be as well organised.
    
    The world is full of products that have been better, but lost in the
    marketplace. McDonalds make lousy hamburgers. GM make average cars.
    Let's face it, NRA has *BLOODY GOOD* name recognition. Stay with it,
    and work within the system - we all lose by being fractured - don't
    desert the family - help take it forward.

    
     Re .17
    
     Well stated.....while being disappointed in Mr Heston's statements,
     I will not asking for my Life Membership $ back....
    
     Please, anyone who is insisting on not being an NRA member because
     of recent statements, please rethink your position.....
    
    

    re: -1
    
    > Please anyone who is insisting on not being an NRA member because
    > of recent statements, please rethink your position.....
    
    
    I heartily agree. Ol' Moses has never been an NRA officer before, I
    think (I HOPE!) that he's just made the mistake of opening his mouth
    before engaging his brain..
    
    Have patience, this flap like the Clintoons shall pass. I hope.

 It appears to me that Mr Heston is another of the `throw them a bone'
 crowd that gave up so much in 1968 to preserve the rest of our
 rights.  He will throw out the AK47 crowd this time, the AK47 
 looks-like crowd next time, then since no one should have to hunt
 rabbits, the shot-gunners get tossed next....

 He is an actor for God's sake, the parts he played in the movies
 are characters, not the actor.  Just because Moses did the right
 thing has no implication about the actors position whatever.  Where
 did these bozo voters come from?

 Be neither patient nor quiet...and do not give up!

 Bruce

    So Heston didn't throw a royal hissy fit every time the 'bait' was
    cast. Well, good for him. He's got presence in the public arena.
    Personally speaking, I think he's got a lot more b**** than the entire
    lot of non-NRA gun owners put together. He didn't have to take up the
    cause and take a lot of heat - from all sides - everytime he expresses
    his views.  
    
    If supported, Heston can do a lot of good for the NRA. He is a public
    well known figure who is puting it on the line for gun owners. We
    should be happy , he too, didn't pack up his toys and leave.
    
    /Ed

    
    I want to send a message as quickly and directly as possible. I 
    don't want to be complacent. And I think this is an effective way
    rather than writing a letter that may never get read. I suggest
    anyone who feels threatened by Heston's alarming trend need to
    call the NRA general membership number to say you want 
    to pull your membership because of what Heston said.
    
    Of course they CAN'T cancel it over the phone, but your call 
    could make a difference in a hurry if tons of members call
    to complain about being burned by Heston!
                                             
    We want HESTON to change his tune RIGHT !!?? Isn't that the goal?
    
    And for those who say "wait" ...Smell the coffee, it's last years
    and it's already burnt... Austrailia took one incident to put it
    over the top...
     
    This year we're under serious time constraints and serveral attacks
    from numerous bills. There is no time to wait for Someone to get the
    hint over several months. More is at stake here than Heston's job.
    The guy is likeable and has Charisma, but so does Clinton. 
    
    When is the Supreme court going to rule that our RKBA is being
    infringed from all angles???? 
    
    So why won't a 4 minute phone call help send the message? It's
    a FREE CALL 1-800-672-3888 . Don't panic, take action!
    
    -TOM
    

 I guess Ed and I differ on whether Heston has anything to put on the
 line.  What I see is Heston going down the middle of the road, giving
 the typical NRA member their hunting and giving the gun grabbers the
 `assault weapons'.  This approach is `reasonable' and will only upset
 those folks on the fringes.

 Heston could not do a `hissy' fit since he is the one that first offered
 that AK47s should not be owned in the interview.

 Stay in the NRA even though it may not be on the side of the 2nd 
 ammendment any more.  Maybe we can fix this problem next election.

 Bruce 

    The fight for guns will not be in the courts, it will be in the minds of
    the American people.  The antis are currently beating us there.
    
    One solution would be (and, YES, I have written the NRA on this) to
    have a television show which showed the self-defense true stories which
    are in each monthly NRA magazine.  Another would be to get a beloved
    spokesman.  We have one in Heston.  He may not say exactly what we
    want, but he will be heard.  The media will not dare tear into him like
    it does to most NRA spokespeople.  PersonallyI would have preferred
    Charles Bronson.
    
    CHeston may not be perfect, but he will be heard.
    

    Re: .24
    
    Well put. that is the point I was trying to make. Having witnessed the
    initial AW debate in the state house a year or two back, and then
    seeing the bill proceed full steam ahead , the fight is clearly for the
    minds/perception of the public. If it were merely data-driven, there
    wouldn't be an issue, period. 
    
    Everyone has probably had their fill of hokey-stats period. It'll come
    down to an emotional gut-reaction vote....and man we are behind in that
    department ...so I'm all for puting as many elogquent, respected
    speakers out in front of the public as we can possibly muster. 
    
    /Ed

    I don't know if anyone ever addressed the question:
    
    Is Heston shooting from the hip or is this NEW NRA dogma
    he is spouting. I'm speciffiaclly refering to:
    
    1. No fight to repeal BRADY or the AW BAN.
    
    2. AK-47 are inapproprate weapons
    	To paraphrase: If you can't hunt with it or defend you home
        with it , it is overkill and therefore unessesary. Forget
        Defense of your country type thinking. ie Military wepons.(2 amendment)
    
    3. Desire to purge the NRA of its Extreemist faction... that seems to
    	be anybody who supports Repeal of #1 and continued ownership of 
    	Military type weapons.
    
    Three big issues with me.... :(
    
    Tom

    
     Folks :: I know what you're saying.....but I'll add the following....
    
     I don't like the Brady law any more than anyone else who values
     liberty......it's a waste and an infringement on my  rights......
     I've purchased a handgun and went through the waiting period......
     from the time I picked out my purchase to the time I could take it 
     home was 12 days so I know what it's all about......however, it's 
     due to sunset out next year and the Supreme Court may rule the 
     mandatory background check unconstitutional very soon....so, I think
     this is a case of picking your battles...... you know the anti's will
     be screaming that the Brady law needs to be extended indefinitely
     because "it might save one life" or Instant Check can't be implemented
     yet" or a host of other reasons but NRA needs it's resources to fight
     those battles, not beat the Brady dead horse as it stands now. As for
     the Ugly Gun ban, I'm all for driving ahead on efforts to repeal it.
     If Heston can manage to make the average Joe to stop and think about
     what the UG ban really means by way of the fact that people will
     listen to him as opposed to dismissing him right away (like some
     pro-gun people are) then we may make some headway here. This is in 
     fact a battle for hearts and minds and while I still don't think
     Heston chose his words carefully enough, we may have an Ace here.
    
     BTW, I'm a contributing member of the NRA Second Amendment Task Force
     and I intend to address some concerns to them.
    
     In Closing........it may not be perfect, but stay with NRA.
    
     
      
     

    
    The time I saw Heston on Meet the Press, I thought he did a very good
    job explaining that the fight over the Brady Bill was a moot point
    _at_ _this_ _time_ since the Brady Bill will sunset in a year or to
    anyway.  (my comment) Drawing attention to the Brady Bill might not
    be what you want to do right now.

    C.H. also try as nicely as he could to point out Senator Kerry's
    commercial on "AK-47" and being shot at in Vietnam was a bit
    dishonest since the VC in Vietnam were using full-auto versions
    that have been illegal in the U.S. for years.  C.S stated quite 
    plainly that he supported the ban on the full-auto version but
    not on the semi-auto version.  One immersion that I got was that
    C.H. considers (Maybe incorrectly, which might be part of the 
    confusion) an "AK-47" to be the full-auto version of the rifle.

    However, I agree, he _is_ a spokesman that can get the message across 
    without being immediately branded a "nut" and immediately turned off.
    With the general sheeple that can be a big asset.

    fred();
    

    
    One message that may strike an accord with the general public is to
    join C.H. in the message that in order to be an "assault weapon" a
    rifle must be a full-auto and those have been banned (actually
    controlled) for years, and to expose the dishonesty of the 
    anti-gunners in calling the semi-auto rifles "assault weapons".

    fred();

    
    How did that saying go...?
    
    If we do not stand together we shall surely hang separatly.
    
    Patrick McHenery maybe??
    

    hmmmm.. >> If we do not stand together we shall surely hang separatly.
    
    
    and all this time I thought the saying was: "On the whole, I'd rather
    be in Philadelphia"..
    
    

    >If we do not stand together we shall surely hang separatly.
    
    Ben Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
    
    fred();

    Call me ignorant but I was under the impressian that an AK-47
    was full auto (as is an M-16). 
    
    The semi auto versions are MAK-90 and AR-15 respectively.
    
    
    Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
    -Tom

    
     Actually, there are pre-import ban (remember our pal George H. W.
    Bush) AK-47 clones. The Norinco Model 56S is one of them if I remember 
    correctly.
    
     RG

Ahhh Gi'day...

    No, the AR-15 is a machine gun. At least, that's what they called it on
    the "independant" news here last Friday. And they couldn't be wrong,
    could they?
    
    I think the Brady line isn't a bad one. Basically, he is saying, it's a
    complete waste of time, we don't care about it. This is a message to
    devalue the legislation in the eyes of the public - this is a good
    tactic (this is not to say that if the chance arrives you shouldn't
    drive a stake through its heart).
    
    I think one shouldn't mix up the POLITICS of the moment with the
    movement itself. I'm sure you would want to be rid of Brady. But
    sometimes the means aren't the most direct path to the ends. Why bash
    down a brick wall if there is a side door open?
    
    When CH talks about extremists, he's fairly sure what he's doing. It's
    not his problem, the problem is that the PERCEPTION is that the NRA is
    full of extremists. So you change the perception - you don't change the
    extremists - repeat a lie for long enough, and it becomes true. He beat
    Neil Knox, the media smell a blood feud, so you put the best light on
    it "The extremists no longer run the NRA" and more people will listen.
    
    Now, I'm on record here about self defense. I'll say it again. IF YOU
    DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, YOU DON'T HAVE A NEED FOR A GUN!!
    
    If it comes to weighing the rights of Bambi versus deer murderers,
    paper punchers versus Dunblane, fluffy ducks versus Elmer Fudds, then
    you will LOSE! 
    
    This is an emotional argument, it's all about perception, image, sound
    bites, street pantomime, little girlies in white dresses holding a
    candle with a sign saying "Why?" We MUST play that game or we die.

    re .-1
    
    amen.
    
    I *do* however have a partiality to little girlies in white dresses
    holding up signs that say "ME! ME!" (and of course these little girlies
    are, oh... 25 or so...)
    
    hmph. must be getting late...

It was Benjamin Franklin who said "Yes, we must all hang together, or most
assuredly we shall all hang separately".  The reply was to Hancocks comment
"We must be unanimous. There must be no pulling different ways; we must
 all hang together."

Funny fellow this Benjamin...

 Bruce

    
    
    	Playing the game will only end up in losing our rights. That's what
    is happening now. 
    
    	No more compromise.
    
    ed

    
>    Playing the game will only end up in losing our rights. That's what
>    is happening now. 

    We haven't even figured out what the game is yet.  Why do Democrats
    need to call Republicans extremists when the Republicans are calling
    Republicans extremists.  The Republicans tore George Bush apart
    with "Read My Lips" before Bill Clinton even got out of the starting
    blocks.  By the time Bob Dole got to the main election he was out
    of money from defending himself from other Republicans (of course
    he did his fair share to make Pat Bucanan look like a slobbering
    maniac, too).

    Extremism can have its place, but not against your own side.

    fred();

     
     Much to the detriment of society, issues are becoming increasingly
     defined by who plays better to the cameras.......
     We always win debates but lose in the PR game....Neal Knox is 
    certainly more in line with my own views but CH plays better on
     TV.......

    
    Re. 39
    
    
    I'm sorry but I'd rather go down swinging. I'm an extremist about my
    rights, not just RKBA. I will stay in the NRA because of all the good
    work it does. I found a video that CH did called "Eternal Vigilance"
    the other day in my gun club's office. I will have to view this. 
    
    	I will personally accept no more compromise on my rights. I will
    support no individual that is more worried about image than principle.
    
    	I believe the RKBA should not be infringed in any way, how can I
    compromise? I own guns, I will continue to own guns even if I become a
    criminal of new laws.
    
    ed

Re: <<< Note 6614.41 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Here's your sign" >>>

>>    	I will personally accept no more compromise on my rights. I will
>>    support no individual that is more worried about image than principle.

This is not what he's saying; if this was a fact-only war, there wouldn't be any
battles, because the facts ARE on our side.  We loose because the folks at HCI
can parade Brady around in his wheelchair and win the votes on emotion (PR). 
Until Heston arrived, we didn't have a personality that people recognized (and
would bother to listen to).  I see it as fighting fire with fire.

At this point in time I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting Heston, but if he uses
his image correctly, he can do one heck of a lot of good.  If he continues to
throw the full-autos to the wolves (among other things), he can do one heck of a
lot of bad, too.

I'm not willing to compromise either, but I don't think that's what the NRA is
trying to do.  I think the NRA is trying to soften its image.  That's OK with
me.  If they soften their GOALS, now that's something completely different, and
I'm absolutely and totally against it!

As I said, for me the jury is still out.  Heston is allowed a few mistakes until
he gets well-briefed by the NRA.  If he continues to make mistakes, then I'll
get upset and upset big time, because I won't consider them "mistakes" I'll
consider them flawed NRA policy.

                                  Roak

	Just a little political commentary....

	Can anyone tell me why the NRA, with all of it's millions (billions?) of dollars,
	can't get the best legal minds in the country together , and SUE
	either the individual states and/or the US government for "infringement" of the 2nd
	Amendment to the Constitution ? Using gun control act of '68, BRADY and
	Assault Wepons ban , etc, etc. I figure there's a clear cut case of HIGH TREASON! ;)
	Sounds far out ??

	Put it this way , if a senator was to give the russians the codes to disarm all
	of our deadly missles and leave us defensless, in the name of "safer world to live in", 
	what would the penalty  be ?? Off with the b*stards head I'd think..	

	In this "extreemist's" mind, the constitution calls for defensive weapons in the hands 
	of both the military AND the PEOPLE. heck I'm just reading what's in front of me
	in the constitution. It seems very straight forward to this simple citizen.

	I think the Congress on capital hill and Clinton are using the NRA to
	pit us against the antis. Their goal is to scare the hell out of both sides enough
	that we all must "dig deep" for payoffs and reaping the benifits for themselves. Hell, 
	what does a lobby like the NRA do for the 2ND amendment except mainly BUY-OFF congressmen?

	Does the NRA want Legal battles?? heck no, that might solve the problem once and for all. 
	That would mean the NRA would become a passive (non profit) group again.
	 All that BIG MONEY gone!

	Kinda like cops and crime, they don't want to stop it, just keep it at a manageble level.
	
-TOM

    
    re .42
    
>At this point in time I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting Heston, but if he uses
>his image correctly, he can do one heck of a lot of good.  If he continues to
>throw the full-autos to the wolves (among other things), he can do one heck of a
>lot of bad, too.
    
 	Great! If he changes his tune on full-autos now, he will look like
    a fool! He's already made the statments, doesn't he know what he
    believes in? I thinks he believes just what he said. No one has a need
    for these firearms. Well bull, need has nothing to do with it and I
    think the NRA will now have more work to do because of his statements.
    
    NO MORE GIVING!
    
    ed

    e .44

    So what _is_ the answer?  The more extreme we _appear_ to be in our
    stance the more we get rejected by the general public (read voters),
    and the more ammunition we give to the Brady Bunch to beat us up with.
    Remember "READ MY LIPS" was not invented by Bill Clinton.  He borrowed
    it (made a gift of it) from the Republican primaries.

    If we can't win the battle on the field of ideas, what then--Civil
    War?  I see a lot of guys talking tough, but war is not about being
    willing to fight.  It's about being willing to _die_.  As Thomas
    Jackson (aka Stonewall) said when the students at VMI asked him if
    they should go to war, "If you draw the saber, throw away the
    scabbard".  I think there are a lot of other things that can be done
    before we have to go that far.

    fred();

    What we really have to do to solve our problems depends on the real
    nature of our adversaries.  Some people do battle in the court of ideas
    and can be made to see other points of view through reason and facts. 
    Also, they respond to repeated opposition of a civil nature.
    
    Other adversaries realize that sticks and stone may break their bones
    but words will never hurt them.  We may all have had experiences in our
    lives with them.  People who are hostile by nature, preying on others
    as a general behavioral pattern don't respond to reason and the fact
    that they are imposing on others unjustly.
    
    People in the latter catagory are like those who repeatedly refuse to
    pay the rent while they ruin your apartment house and hold you, the
    landlord liable for as many of their debts as possible.  Talking with
    them always gets you no where.  When you finally have had enough, you
    call the courts or the cops, which is a really a socially acceptable 
    way to threaten them with life and limb.  The other effective
    alternative is to see to it that their legs will be broken or stuff a
    muzzle up their nose.
    
    Never the twain shall meet.  As a friend of mine is so fond of saying,
    
    	"Pick your poison"
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

    

    I know, I see them and deal with them every day.  There seem to be
    people who work on logic and reason and collect all the facts then
    use the facts to form their opinion.  Then there are the people who
    start with the premise that their particular philosophy is good and
    right (this includes people from both ends of the political spectrum),
    and anyone who disagrees with them is just plain bad.  Any facts that
    don't fit their conclusion are just plain irrelevant.  There are 
    some liberals that you are better off arguing the existence of God
    with a Southern Baptist preacher than to try to argue some subjects
    with them.  

    It doesn't take a prophet to figure out where this country is going,
    just a mathematician, and not a particularly good one at that.  The
    numbers aren't good.  Right now we pay $1/4 trillion/yr. that we get 
    nothing for.  That is just for the payment on the interest on the
    national debt--more than for defense.  Talk about welfare for the 
    rich!  And depending on who you talk to between 45 and 55 percent of
    our total income goes to the total tax bill of one form or another.
    How much more blood is there in the turnip?  What happens when the
    "baby boomers" hit Social Security and find that there's nothing
    but a great big pile of i.o.u.'s?

    Right now I seriously think that there will be another civil war in the
    U.S. in the next 50 years (probably more like 25).  After that the U.S.
    will not  survive in it's present form.  We will not be remembered as
    the "baby  boomer" generation,  we will be remembered as the "booming
    baby"  generation that squandered the greatest nation ever on the face
    of the  Earth.

    Sorry, but I'm in a pretty rotten mood today.  Thinking about this
    stuff will do that to you.

    fred();

    I long ago was exposed to the idea of SCIENTIFIC METHOD it is:
    Observe the facts.
    Logically make a hypothesis based upon the facts.
    Experiment based upon the facts, with an expected conclusion based upon
    the hypothesis.
    Observe the results.
    Modify the hypothesis and reexperiment - loop until you can reliably
    get results which were predicted by the hypothesis.
    Assume the hypothesis correct until the environment changes.
    
    Example:
    We have rising crime.
    HYOPTHESIS:  Crime is gun related and there is a direct correllation.
    Restrict guns (Washington DC) crime shold go down
    Crime rises dramatically
    Invert Hypothesis
    Require guns (Kennisaw Georgia)  crime should go down
    Crime drops dramatically
    HYOPTHESIS:  Crime is gun related and there is an inverse correllation.
    Believe the hypothesis
    
    What could be clearer and more scientific?

>    Right now I seriously think that there will be another civil war in the
>    U.S. in the next 50 years (probably more like 25).  After that the U.S.
>    will not  survive in it's present form.

Amazing that you should say this.  I just finished reading "The Fourth Turning"
by Howe and some other guy I forgot, and the authors came to a similar
conclusion, except their timeframe was about 20 or so years from now.

Basicly, history runs in 80 year cycles (they've got the data going back to
the 1600's or so.)  So, 80 years from 1940'ish is 2020.  Now, whether you
believe the statistics and their conclusions is up to you, but I found it
very interesting history/sociology reading.

>We will not be remembered as the "baby  boomer" generation,  we will be
>remembered as the "booming baby"  generation that squandered the greatest
>nation ever on the face of the  Earth.

Hey, who's we?  (I'm one of them slacker / young punk Generation X'ers 8-))
Rob

    What is the logical application of the Scientific Method to stopping
    the gun grabbers, or does it not apply?
    
    -  listen to latest proposition
    -  fight with legal process of checks and balences (maybe this should 
         be more specific there are a few options here)
    	  -  lose a little ground
    	 	-  try another legal means
                   -  lose a little ground
    		      -  repeat etc.
    -  TRY SOMETHING ELSE ?
    
    I don't know.
    
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
    

    re .01
    
    Lissen to yourself!
    
    ...logical application of the Scientific Method to stopping the gun
    grabbers...
    
    ?logical application? ?scientific method? 
    
    {snicker}